HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 10/7/2002
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
'.
AGENDA ITEM
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSIONI
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
suJ3EC E IVEQreeting Date:
October 7, 2002
Regular Session
Development Services
Sarah Summers s...s
X4611 i'~
20 minutes v \
ID~;{-DL
By: A1? tv CG
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
~taff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
'Drinkin~ Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002). Jo. No. 02-04-119
Conduct a public hearing and adopt the following resolution: A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE SPRINGFIELD DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PLAN
ADDENDUM (2002).
The City of Springfield adopted a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Plan in 1999
that addressed only groundwater. At that time, Springfield took all of its drinking
water from wells. Since then, the Willamette well field was deternlined to be under
the direct influence of surface water, and Springfield Utility Board (SUB) will soon
be using water taken from the Middle Fork Willamette. The proposed DWP Plan
Addendum (2002) incorporates a surface water management area as required by
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). A smface water element of the DWP
Plan is ,also required by Depmiment of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) Goal 5 protection requirement and Metro Plan Periodic Review Work
Task.
Attaclmlent 1: Planning Commission Recommendation and Minutes
Attachment 2: Resolution with Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan Update
Attaclmlent 3: Letter from Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council
The DWP Plan sets City policies for the protection of its drinking water. The
proposed Addendum does not make any changes to the original DWP Plan which
stands as adopted, but adds surface water protection as required by DEQ and
DLCD. All certified plans are evaluated by DEQ at approximate 5-year intervals.
Recertification of the DWP Plan by DEQ will be based on an evaluation of the
progress made toward risk reduction and an evaluation of any new elements added
to the Plan. Since the Willamette well field has been determined to be under direct
influence of surface water and SUB will be taking water directly from the Middle
Fork Willamette, Springfield is required by DEQ, DLCD and the Metro Plan
Periodic Review Work Task to add surface water protection as part of the overall
DWP Plan.
The Addendum is a policy document that follows the format of the Plan. It has
, been written based on the results from a Potential Contaminant Source Inventory
done by SUB which meets the Oregon Health Division COHO) requirement to
assess major potential contaminant sources that could impact public drinking water.
OHO requires treatment for organisms over and above the requirements for
groundwater sources. SUB has constructed a slow sand filter system within the
Willamette well field which will filter both groundwater and surface water intake
from the Middle Fork Willamette. The Addendum includes a delineated
management area per DEQ for surface water of the Middle Fork Willamette
Watershed. The area is 1,000 feet from the waterline of the Middle Fork and its
perennial trjbutaries for a distance of approximately 28 miles upstream (8 hours)
from the SUB intake at the Willamette well field. All of the management area is
outside the boundary of Springfield's UGB, and will be a co-operative effort
betweel1 SUB, Lane County, the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council and
other organizations and governments. 111ere will be no impact or financial cost to
the City. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 2. The
Commission recommends adoption of the Addendum.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF-THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
"
REQUEST FOR DRINKING
WATER PROTECTION PLAN
ADDENDUM (2002)
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
+
+
+.
JO. NO. 02.04.119
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND FINAL ORDER
Drinking Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002).
1. In May; 1999, the Springfield City Council adopted the Drinking Water Protection
(DWP) Plan which addresses groundwater protection.
. 2. In November, 1999, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
acknowledged the delineated well fields as significant Goal 5 resourees, and
. approved the DWP Plan as meeting the city's. periodic review task #5 and
complying with Statewide Planning' Goal 5. .
3. .' In November, 1999, the Oregon Department of Human Resources (ODHR).
determined that Springfield Utility Board's (SUB) Willamette well fields are under
direct influence of surface water. ODHR requires treatment for organisms in. .
. surface 'water over and above the requirements for groundwater sources.
. 4. SUB is constructing a system which will take water directly from lhe Middle Fork
Willamette River near the Willamette wellheads.
5. The DWP Addendum adds a surface water element to the DWP Plan as required .
by DEQ, ODHR and DLCD. . . .'
6. The draft DWP Addendum (2002) was presented to the City Council at a work
session on June 10, 2002. Staff was instructed to continue with the public .
hearing process. ,
7. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of
the Springfield Development Code, has been provided.
8. On July 2, 2002 a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the request
to approve the DWP Addendum 2002 was .held before the Planning Commission.
The Development Services Department recommendation together with the
. testimony and submittals of the persons testifYing at the hearing have been
.' considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. .
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the requested DWP Addendum (2002) conforms with the
requirements of state-mandated' Periodic Review, including state agency review and
. approval, and Oregon Administrative Rules.
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that the DWP
. Addendum (2002) be approved by the Springfield City Council.
ATTACHMENT
1-:-1
/
This RECOMMENDATION was presented to and approved by the Planning
Commission on July 2, 2002.
ATTEST
AYES: 6
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
ABSTAIN: 0
H
_1--=-:.--:::;z..r~/ ~...---
Planning CommissionChairperson
MINUTES
'Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission, 9/17/2002
,
Springfield Planning Corrunission
Springfield City Hall
. 225 Fifth Street, Springfield
July 2, 2002
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Tim Malloy, Chair; Lee Beyer, Jim Burford, William Carpenter, Steve Moe, Sean Wilson, Members; Mel
Oberst, City Staff; Joe Leahy, City Attorney's Office.
ABSENT:
Marilyn Phillips
Co'mmissioner Malloy called clle Springfield Planning Corrunission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present recited the pledge of allegiance.
. 2. APPROVALOFMINUTES
Commissioner Carpenter corrected the minutes of June 4, 2002 on page 4; the motion should read Commissioner
. Carpenter moved.:.
,;
Commissioner Carpenter Dloved, seconded by Comnllssioner Beyer"to approve the minutes of ]un,e ~
2002 andJune 18, 2002 as amended.' The motion passed 5,0 with. one abstention and one commissioner
. absen t.
3. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
Commissioner Wilson reported that the City Council had approved the recommendation to annex the Arlie
property. City Attorney Leahy stated that the planning staff would hold a meeting withdle Peace Health staff and
the Arlie staff to begin coordinating the transportation and public infrastructure that would be needed. Mr. Oberst
said that the City Council was pleased with the Planning Corrunission's recommendation reg~rding Water quality
setbacks, The City C~uncil closed the public hearing but kept the record open until July 10d, or 11"'. He said the
City Council would take final action,on July 15, 2002.
. 4. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Art Paz, 86950 Cedar Flat Rd., Springfield introduced himself and said that he had the following comments on the
residential land study that the City has been conducting:
.
Proposed that dle next topic to look at would be the mixeguse and the LDR zone to create densities that would
provide.additional affordable housing as well as address environmental issues.
.
Presel1cly the only non-owner occupied unit that can fit in the LDR is a duplex and traditionally they have been
located 011 corners.
MINUTES- Springfield Planning Commission
July 2, 2002
Page 1
1-3
. Suggesnhat there are od1er unit types that are much larger, as large as six-plex.
. Wanted to get his suggestion before the commission before summer break-to consider when it reconvenes. He
referred to his memo dlat was submitted and dated July 2, 2002 for the specifics 'of his proposal.
Commissioner Beyer asked Mr. Paz if he thought the cluster housing would work. He said the cluster housing
ordinance that was recendy approved was creative but had an Achilles heal. He d1inks d1at his proposal would help
address some of d1ese weaknesses.
Tim Campbell, 2844, Tomahawk Ct., Eugene said he represented Campbell Commercial Real Estate.. Mr.
Campbell said he would like to address a single tenant building that was being proposed on International Way on the
CasCade Fabrication:lot. He explained that the zoning of the land parcel is Campus [ndusttial and that the city staff
had forewamed his company 'that the proposed use will most likely be rejected by the city. He opined that d1e
proposed Eugene Moving and Storage's use fits in directly with the intent of theC[ zoning, section 21,040. Primary
Uses. Mr. Campbell referred to his memo to d1e Springfield Planning Commission listing the reason why d1e use is
consistent with the C[ zoning. He askedfor the commissioners' help in gaining aa:eptance for the proposal.
Mr. Leahy pointed out that the oh[y questions that ';ere appropriate of Mr. Campbell were regarding timetables
because the commissioners could be hearing tl.,is proposal upon appeal nom the applicant or someone else, .
Commissioner Carpenter explained that the Commission is not involved in d1e projects that are submitted to d1e
City unless there is a dispute between the Planning Department and the applicant. He added. that it was imponant
that tl1e Commission not learn too much about one side of the project before hearing a dispute.
The other scheduled speakers on this topic withdrew their request to speak.
5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING.
a. Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Addendum 2002
Staff Reuort
Sarah Summers,'Planner ll, entered into the record a memo nom the Watershed Council d;ted June 27,
2002. She explained that the memo was in support to the proposed "ddendum to d1e Drinking Water
Protection (DWP) Plan. 'Ms. Summers gave the following overview,
. [n 1999, Springfield passed a Drinking Water Protection Plan that covered the ground water of
Springfield's drinJdng water. This covered all the wells in Springfield
. [n [999, the Oregon Hea[th Division determined that there was a conjunctive relationship between:
. the middle fork of the Willamette and the Willamette well fields.
. SUB has started construction of a slow sand filter system. . The filter system will be filtering both the
water coming nom the wells and the Willamette River itself. [n order to have tl1e filter system, it is
necessary to delineate the surface water that. is affecting the Willamette well heads and the surface
water that will be taken nom.the river.
M[NUTES- Springfield Planning Commission
July 2, 2002
1-4
Page. 2
. The addendum is.,a policy document that sets a management area that is 1,000 feet on either side of
the middle fork of the Willamette for a distance of eight hours or approximately 28 miles upstream.
That should be enough time'to counteract any kind of spill or contamination.
. All of the management area is outside of Springfield's urban growth boundary so it wilt be a
cooperative effort between SUB, Lane County, the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council and
other municipalities! organizations that are ,within the distance of eight hours.
. Ms..Summers introduced Nancy Marina from SUB. Ms. Summer referted to maps in the packet that
clarified the location. Commissioner Mae said that the well field had been in existence since 1940 and he
always knew that his family ,was getting filtered water from river. He said it now looked like the drinking
water could be taken directly from the river, Ms. Summer said the addendum was a requhement by DEQ
and Goal Five and was necessary for DLCD to recertify Springfield's Drinking Water Protection Plan.'
Commissioner Carpenter comm~nted about the science regarding ground water. He said that it used io be
felt that ihere were no organic contaminants in ground water and that was no longer true. Commissioner
Malloy asked what impact the 1,000 foot zone would have on tl,e hind. Ms. Summer said that there would
. be no c;;,ment impact; it is only a delineated management area until other involved entities implement
procedures. Ms. Marina said tl,at 1;000 feet represents the area that is most likely to have a risk from the
river.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if other municipalities tl,at are surface water depelldent had 'similar plans.
Ms. Marino said that the delineation for surface water is mandated by the state. She was not aware of
specific plans but did know that Salem had a very large slow, sand filter system.
. .
Ms. Summers clarified tl,at staff was asking that the Commission ~ecommend approvai of the addendum to
the City Council.
There was no testimony in support of the addendum..
Testimonv in O~oositioI!
Dena Newman, 3019 south "M" St., Springfield. Oregon.. Ms. Newman had the following points to make,
. Attended all the citizen task work meetings for the Wellhead Protection Plan.
. More of a socia-political environmental activist plan rhan a priority of what might actually
contaminate the well fields:
. Citizens visited all wells except the Willamette well fields.
. .
. Most critical information shared w~sdone outside where no one could take notes.
. One of the important pieces of information relayed was that the actual delineation of the
underground flows was off by one eighth to one fourtl, section. That was a lot of land to a property
owner. Ultimately the addendum wilhesult in an overlay and will affect people's property.
. Need to look at site specific data rather than generalized data,
MINUTES-. Springfield Planning Commission
July 2, 2002
1-5
Page 3
.
One of the largest potential contaminant sites would be the old municipal city dump and that was
not listed as a potential contamination site.
.
The hydrology data is not correct.
.
Indicated that wdl fields were vulnerable to sabotage and that the only guardians would be the
neighb,!rs and the neighbors are at odds widl the ciry.
.
Voiced various concerns regarding trespassing and repo:-ting of issues to the city.
.
Indicated concern that dle adde'ndum would allow the City to acquire her property for low price.
.
Opined d,at public duty and public trust are missing.
,
. Showed pictures 'of Gory Creek.
Commissioner Moe asked if the impact on Gory Creek was caused by not opening the inlet structure. Ms.
Newman indicated that was true in part and also because of a hydraulic dam. Commissioner Moe asked Ms.
Newman if she really fdt there was a conspiracy to put her.out of business and take her property. Ms. .
Newman responded in the affirmative: Commissioner Moe commented that he mIll' did not bdieve that
was the case. .
Ther~ was no staff summary.
. . .
. .. .
Commissioner Beye'r asked if the adoption of the DWP addendum really had to be by d,e county. Ms.
Summer clarified that the DWP was a Springfield document. 'She added that Springfidd is required by
DEQ to delineate the surface water areas dlat affect the water that the City uses, but can't actually
implement any procedures without Lane County.
Hearing no further testimony, Commissioner Malloy closed.the public hearing.
Commissioner Carpenter moved, seconded by Commissioner Burford to recommend adoption of
the addendum'fothe City Council. The motion p";sed unanimously 6:0 with one commissioner
, '.
absen t.
b. Bicycle Plan Map Amendment
Staff Reoort
Colin Stephens, Planner ll, commented that most of the report had been given during the work session. He
gave a brief summary including the following information:
.
Amendment to the bicycle plan to add a three quarter mile .multi-use path on the west side of 42nd
street between Olympic street and the Weyerhaeuser entrance at the railroad tracks:
.
The d;;;tributed staff report shows findings that the amendment complies with the criteria of Arti~le
8.
MINUTES- SpringfiddPlanning Commission
July 2, 2002
1-6
Page 4
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the affirmative recommendation to the
City Council.
Commissioner Malloy stated tha, there was no public testimony and closed the hearing.
Commissioner Carpellter ask~d if there were any bicycle traffic c;unts on 42"d street Mr. Stephens
indicated that he did not Commissioner Carpenter asked about the development of bike paths in the
Oxbow landing area. Mr. Stephens explained in more detail the projected bicycle path network. After
furrher discussion the following motion was made:
Commissioner Burford moved, seconded by Commissioner 1VJ'1mn to accept the amendment and to
forward to.d,e City Council for recommended approval. The motion passed unanimously 6:0 with
OIle commissioner absent.'
6. BUSlli'ESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioller Carpenter distributed a notice on the nodal development in the Crescent area of Eugene. City
Attomey Leahy suggested dlaf the Commission ask for a tour of the treatment plant in one of the early fall sessions
since it will be dealing with water issues. Commissioner Beyer also suggested revisiting the Campus Industrial Code
pernaps revising some of dle code to meet current needs. Mr. Oberst said staff would put it on their work program.
7. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
. Mr. Oberst pointed out that dle next Planning Commission meeting would .be September 17, 2002. Commissioner
Wilson asked about Potato Hill. Mr. Oberst responded that the window was closing quickly because the city has a
wet season cutoff dlat starts on October 15, 2002. The most important restriction with the cutoff is no public street
. . .
building. The storm water capacity in Main. Street is not there. He explained that ODOT mayaHow temporary use
until the capacity issue can be' resolved. .
Commissioner Beyer asked.how the housing permit activity looked and how many lots were available.... Mr. Oberst
said there were a large number of permits being issued and he thought approximately.200 to 250 lots were available.
, . .
Commissioner Malloy adjourned dle meeting at 8: 12 p.m.
(Recorded by Sue Jordan)
R: \2002\Ciry of Sprinld1dd\Planning Commission \opc020702.upd
,
MINUTES-, Springfield Planning Corrimission
July 2, 2002
1-7
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO.
,
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SPRINGFIELD DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PLAN
ADDENDUM (2002)
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield adopted a Drinking Water Protection Plan: which is
designed to protect the groundwater aquifers beneath the metropolitan Springfield area used
for its public water supply, and
WHEREAS, the Willamette Well Field has been determined to be under the direct influence of
surface water by the Oregon Department of Human Services, and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Utility Board will be using water taken directly from the Middle
Fork Willamette River for public water supply, and
"-
WHEREAS, Policy 21 on page III-C-10 of the Eugene"Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan requires positive steps to be taken to protect the Springfield groundwater supplies, and
, WHEREAS, Policy 22 on page III-C-10 of 'the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan requires'local governments to monitor, plan for and enforce applicable water quality
standards and cooperate' in meeting applicable federal, state, and local water quality
standards, and
WHEREAS, a surface water,element of the Drinking Water Protection Plan is required by the
Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Land Conservation and
Development and the Metro Plan Periodic Work Task, and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted ,8 public hearing ori the Plan on
July 2, 2002 and forwarded the Plan Addendum to the City. Council with a recommendation
for adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002) was reviewed
in public meetings,
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
The Common Council of the City of Springfield does he'reby adopt the Springfield Drinking
Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002) as more particularly. described and set forth in
. . .
Attachment A.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this
day of October
2002, by a vote of _ for .and _against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _ day of October, 2002.
. Mayor
I
ATTACHMENT
2-1
REVIEWED & APPROVED
P'~t~~..~~M .\ L~
DATE: Qfl'3j'20C.2..'
CFi':ICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
.\
Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002)
. .
Prepared for
City of Springfield
Planning and Development Department
. Prepared, by
City of Springfield. .
And
Springfield Utility Board. .
. JUNE 2002
2-2
(
Abstract
Both groundwater and surface water are critical natural resources for drinking water as
well as for industrial and agricultural uses. It is in every community's interest to develop
a program that protects these vital resources against contamination. . .
In 1999, the Oregon Health Department (OHD) determined that some of Springfield's
public drinking water wells are under the influence of surface water. To help meet
additional requirements, SUB constructed a slow sand filter system within the Willamette
. .
Wellfield. This facility is designed to treat both groundwater from affected wells and
surface water drawn from the Middle Fork Willamette River. . Adding surface water.
creates source variability and increases the volume of water available to the public
drinking water supply. '.'
This Plan Addendum (2002) for surface water protection supplements an existing
Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan (Plan) that contains the strategy for
protecting groundwater used as the primary public drinking water source in Springfield,
Oregon, a metropolitan area with a popula,tion of approximately 60,000. The management
strategies, together with a contingency plan and plan for future water system needs, form
the existing Springfield Drinking Water Protection Pllm.
Wherever applicable, the Plan Addendum (2002) extends these principals to the
protection of surface water and adds a strong emphasis to the development and
cooperation between the city of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board (SUB), and other
partners in protecting the surface water component of Springfield's drinking water
supply.
2-3
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction ."
Background ......,.... ...... ..'................... .................,.,.... ..................... ............"",...,.. ..............,..... ....,.......... .....:. I
. Purpose ......" ...... ........ ..........................,. .:. .........:...,.................................... ............,.................. .............. ...... 2
Area Sketch ..., ..............,.......................,... ..... ...............,.......... ................ ...... .......,..,....,.. ............. ................. 2
Natural Environment...........,.. ....:. ................. ...................."..., .................... ...................... ...:........ ................' 3
Chapter 2: Participation . . .
Representation of Interests .................."..... .........................,..., ............. .....:. .................... ........, .............. .::... 6
Community Involvement......".. ................... ........................,...................... .............,....... ......."., .................... 6
Chapter 3: D~lineation of Surface Water Component - Drinking Water Protection Areas
Local Surface Water Characteristics ....................,..............,...............,..............................................,.......... 8
Surface Water Use .................. ..................... ........... ....... .......... ..........,.. ........ ............................. .......... ..... ...... 9
Delineation Projects......... .................... ...:....... ............... ........., .................. ............,....."... ....... ............... ....:.. II
Delineation Process ......................................................................,................................................................ 11
Chapter 4: Surface. Water Component of Drinking Water Protection Area Inventory
Methodology......, ....... ..... .................... .......... ............. .:....... :.....:.... ............. ..........,......,....... ..... ....... ...... ....... . 14
Results ......" .......... ............ .................... .......... ............... ..........:........,.....:... ..................:............ ............. ........ 15
Chapter 5: Management of Potential Sources of Contamination
Goals and Related Management Strategies for Surface Water Component of Drinking Water Protection
Plan..............,.......................................;..................,...................................,.................................................. 17
Chapter 6: Contingency Plan
Potential Threats to the Drinking Water Supply...........~................................................................................. 23
Protocols for Incident Resp'onse ..............:...............................,....................,................................................. 25
Prioritization of Water Usage ..:..............................,....................,.........................................."............,....... 30
Key Personnel (Notification Roster) ........................................................"............................,...................... 30
Short-Term and Long-TermReplaceme~t of Water Supply ...._.__....:,.................._..................,...................... 33
Short-Term and Long-Term Conservation Measures.................:.................................................................. 34
Pla.ll Testing, Review, and Update ..........................................................:................................................,.... 36.
Personnel Training.. .......... .........,..,........ .......... ............................ ..... ............... .....:..................'" ...,..........,.... 36
Provisions for Public Education .....................................................:............................"".............................. 36
Logistical and Financial Resources ..........................................,.........................................,.......................... 37
Chapter 7: New WelI Site Analysis 37
References
..........................................................................................................................................................
38
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Springfield Utility Board, POliintial Contaminant.Source InventOlY (Sanitmy Survey), 2001 .
2-4
Acknowledgements
The Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002) is based on guidelines
provided for public drinking water systems from surface water sources (DEQ-OHS
Oregon Source Water Assessment Plan and Addendum, 1999) and produced through the
combined efforts oflocal officials and public agency staff. This project was staffed by an
inter-agency team from the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board, and Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality.
The City of Springfield and Springfield Utility Board recognize and'appreciate the role of
the Oregon DEQ, Springfield City Council and Planning Commission in providing policy
direction during the course of this plan addendum development and the contributions of
the Technical Advisory Group for providing guidance and technical assistance.
Springfield Planning Commission
Springfield City Council
Tim Malloy, Chair
Sean Wilson, Vice Chair
Lee Beyer
William Carpenter, Jr.
James Burford
SteVe Moe
Marylyn Phillips
Sid Leiken, Mayor
Christine Lundberg
Tammy Fitch
Anne Ballew'
Dave Ralston
Fred Simmons
. Lyle Hatfield
. .
Technical.Advisory Group
Nancy Moreno,
Wellhead Protection Inspector'
Springfield Utility Board
Chuck Davis,
Water Quality Manager
Springfield Utility Board.
. Sarah Summers,
Planner
City of Springfield
Joe Leahy
City Attorney
Susie Smith,
Environmental SerVices/MWMC Manager
City of Springfield .
2-5
Chuck Gottfried,
Water Resources Program Coordinator
City of Springfield
Leonard Goodwin,
Technical Services Manager
City of Springfield
Andrea Ball,
GIS Services'
City of Springfield
Ed Black,
Mairitenance Manager, Public Works
City of Springfield
Rachael Burr,
Water Quality Protection Specialist
DEQ' .
Rick Cooper,'
Hydro-geologist
Oregon Water Resources
William Sage,
Associaie Planner'
Lane County.
Ross Penhallegon,
Extension Agent
osO Lane County Extension Service
Wayne Honneycut,
ForestTechnologist.
. U.S. Forest Service'
David Mattson,
Engineer
BLM"': McKenzie Resource Area
Tim Wright,
Dexter Hatchery. .
oregon DepartriJent ofFish & Wildlife
2-6
Doug Crispin, .
Oregon State Parks Service
SvenAnderson
Oregon State Parks Service
. Chuck Harmon .
Sanitary Sewer Division
DEQ
Kenneth Dimcan
US Army Corps of Engineers
Willie Hartweg,
Director of Public Works
City of Lowell
Sunny Washburn, Q
Storm Water Division
City of Springfield'
Ken Sandusky,
Landfills
Lane County
2-7
Chapter 1: Introduction
Springfield's existing Drinking WaterProtecti~n Plan 'was adopted by Springfield Utility
Board (SUB) and Rainbow Water District (RWD) on May 15, 1999 and by the City.of
Springfield on May 17, 1999. This Plan Addendum (2002) maintains all aspects of the
existing Drinking Water Protection Plan, extending the boundaries of protection to
include surface water of the MiddJe' Fork Willamette River (Middle Fork) Watershed. As
required by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)/Oregon Health Department.
(OHD), Drinking Water Protection Guidance Document, the management area for the
Middle Fork encompasses a 1,000 feet setback adjacent to the river and its perennial
tributaries for a travel distance of eight hours upstreani from the Springfield Utility
Board's (SUB) Willamette Wellfield.
Background
. Springfield Utility Board has historically drawn all of its public water from wells located
thIoughout the city. To help preserve this vita1.groundwater resource, aDrinking Water
Protection Plan was adopted by the City of Springfield in May 1999. The existing Plan
covers an area that extends to the Springfield urban growth boundary and incorporates a
set of specific goals established by a Citizen Task Force.
This same year, OHD determined that some of Springfield's public drinking water wells
are directly under the influence of surface water. Public drinking water wells under the
influence of surface water require treatment for organisms over and above thatfor
groundwater alorie.
. .
To help meet this requirement, SUB conducted research and pilot studies to help
determine.a method of treatment that was both acceptable to regulatory agencies and .
cost-effective to construct and operate, . Based on the results, SUB constructed a slow
sand filter system within the Willamette Wellfield. This facility treats groundwater from
affected wells and surface water drawn from the Middle Fork. The treatment facility is
expected to go on-line in October, 2002.
SUB is also taking advantage of existing water rights on the Middle Fork by
supplementing groundwater with surrace water drawn from an intake on the river. This
surface water source adds to the volume of water available to the public drinking water
supply. Both groundwater from the affected wells and surface water from the river are
treated by slow sand filtration. Additional treatment for water filtered through the slow
sand filter system includes ultra violet (UV) light and chlorination as approved by
Oregon Department of Human Resources (ODHR).,.. Drinking Water Program (formerly
OHD).
"
2-8
-1-
~
Purpose
Springfield's existing Drinking Water Protection Plan covers only groundwater sources
within the Urban Growth Boundary of Springfield. This Plan Addendum (2002) e?Ctends
the gOi'fls established by the Citizen Task Force to include surface water protection and
expands the protection area to include the entire Middle Fork Watershed as the zone of
contribution. However, the surface water management area.is limited to a I,OOO-foot
setback along the Middle Fork and its perennial tributaries for a distance of
approximately 28 miles upstream from the intake. This fulfills the requirements ofDEQ's
Source Water Assessment Guidelines for public drinking water systems supplied from
conjunctive and surface water resources. .
Drawing surface water from the Middle Fork will supplement existing groundwater
resources supplied to the city 0"[ Springfield by'SUB. This additional volume is
especially important during periods of high water, use, such as in the summer months.
The surface water proteCtion area is entirely outside the Urban Growth Boundary of
Springfield; primarily within the jurisdiction of Lane County and the incorporated city of
Lowell. This makes inter-agency cooperative agreements with partner agencies and
organizations essential to provide public education, monitoring, and other protection
stJ:ategies for this surface water resource.
. Established and/or potential partners in this effort are Lane County, the 'City of Lowell;
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and others who routinely use or effect.
water from the Middle Fork. Partnerships with the Oregon DEQ and the Middle Fork
Willamette Watershed Council (MFWWC) to protect and restore the watershed have
already been established.
Area Sketch
The entire Middle Fork Watershed upstream from SUB 's Willamett~ Wellfield
contributes runoff to the Middle Fork. The waiershed is approximately 1,364 square
miles.ofland located in Lane County, Oregon. Some 47 square miles of the watershed lie
. within the surface water protection management area. This management'area stretches an
estimated eight-hour time-of-travel upstream (- 28 miles) to approximately the east end.
of Lookout Point Reservoir (Travel Rates of Water for Selected Streams in the Willamette
River Basin, Oregon by David Harris, USGS - Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, HA273,
1968) and ip.ch.ides a I,OOO-foot setback on either side of the Middle Fork and its
perennial tributaries.
Incorporated citi~s within the management area of the Middle Fork Watershed or that are
relevant to thi~ Plan Addendum (2002), include Springfield (population 53,700), and
Lowell (population 1,105). Rural communities include Pengra, Dexter, Jasper, arid Fall
Creek (Barry Edmonston, Director, Population Research Center- Portland State
University, Pressrelease, Oregon's Population Increases by More Than One-half Million
in the 1990s, December 13,2000).
2
2~9
The population of Lane County and Springfield has grown significantly over the last
decade. Lane County census figures for the year 2000 indicate a population growth of
. 12.44 percent (282,912 to 318,100) for the decade between 1990 and 2000. The
population of Springfield grew by 20.23 percent (44,664 to 53;700) during this same
period (Bariy Edmonston, Director, Population Research Center - Portland State
University, Press release, Oregon's Population Increases by More Than One-half Million
in the I990s, December 13,2000).
Portions of Highway 58, Jasper-Lowell Highway, West Boundary Road, Pengra Road,
Fall Creek Road and several smaller roads are located close to and/or cross the Middle
Fork or its perennial tributaries within the management area.
Union Pacific Railroad lines are located within 1,000 feet of the Middle Fork, cross the
river at Jasper, and continue south, southeast; crossing Rattlesnake Creek and Lost Creek
. before swinging. east, parallel to the south shore of Dexter and Lookout Point Reservoirs.
Natural Environment
The Middle Fork Watershed is located primarily in the eastern portion of Lane County,
Oregon. Boundaries of the area of contribution are the Cascade Mountains to the east;
'. McKenzie Watershed to the north, Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed to the south'
. and the mainstem Willamette River to the west.
Climate
The Middle.Fork Watershed experiences wet winters and dry summers: Precipitation
generally increases with elevation, ranging from an average of 40 to 50 inches per year.
on the valley floor to 80 inches at the headwaters of Little Fall Creek (University of
Oregon Department of Geography, Atlas of Lane County, 1999).
Surface Water fJrainage
The Middle Fork has its source in the Cascade Mountains and flows northwest down a
steep gradient to the Willamette Valley. Both rainwater and s'nowmelt contribute to
surface water supplies. The Cascades store water in the form of snow that is released
during the summer. This snowmelt helps' keep 'the flow relatively consistent in the
Middle Fork (-2,000cfs - year round) and Fall Creek (800 -3,000 cfs - rainy season)
(University of Oregon- Department of Geography, Atlas of Lane County, 1999).
Perennial tributaries within the eight-hour time oftravel to the Willamette Well field
include Pudding Creek, Lost Creek, Alder Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek that enter the
Middle Fork from the south. Wallace Creek, Hills Creek, Fall Creek, and an unnamed
creek enter.the Middle Fork from the north. Little Fall Creek joins Fall Creek below Fall
Creek Dam. Winberry Creek discharges to Fail Creek Reservoir and Goodman Creek,
Schweitzer Creek, MinnOW Creek, and Duval Creek discharge to Lookout Point
I
3
2-10
Reservoir. Several unidentified smaller creeks depicted on USGS topographical maps
also discharge to the Middle Fork.and the reservoirs within the eight-hour time-of-travel.
Springfield Mill Race is a man-I1?ade diversion channel from the Middle Fork that'
historically provided access to mill ponds on the south side of Springfield. It is currently
used to discharge storm water from south Springfield, Gory Creek connects to the Mill .
Race and flows through the WiIlamette Wellfield providing recharge to the aquifer.
These water-bodies are not perennial streams and no surface water setback has been
identified for them. However, portions of the Mill Race and Gory Creek do fall within the
delineated wellhead protection area as defined within the existing Springfield Drinking
Water Protection Plan. . . .
Damslreservoirs within the eight-hour time-of-travel upstream from SUB's intake at the
Willamette Wellfield which contribute flows to the Middle Fork are Dexter Reservoir and
Lookout Point Reservoir on the Middle Fork and Fall Creek Reservoir on Fall Creek.
Waldo Lake, Fall Creek Reservoir and Dam, and several additional creeks, contribute to
the flow of the Middle Fork, but are outside the designated surface water management
area.
:!iIL~Average)~~1!Elowl(cfs)~\ll':lB%:yerage'Su~~~flEI~11Cfs)if?:~'lm'R"erngeJ1W~~~lEl~2lcfs)I1li1!!!:
Table 1.
, .
Average annual, summer; and winter fIo';'s in' cubic feet per second (cfs) for the'
Middle Fork at Jasper (U.S. Geolo~ical Survey, 2000)
Hydrogeology
'Soils in the Cascades are primarily ofvo1canic origin. Most are moderately deep, well-
drained loams and clay loams derived from igneous and sedimentary rock. Soils in the
lowlands oftheWiIlametteValley are a mixture of alluvium, or materials deposited by
rivers and their tributaries. Alluvium materials include sapds, gravels, and silts
transported from the Cascade Mountains. Depending on their coinposition, soils in
bottomlands and terraces range from excessively drained gravelly sandy loam to poorly
drained silty clay loam and silty clay(Patching, R. 1987, Soil Survey of Lane County,
Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.).
Groundwater is 'most plentiful in areas with alluvial deposits and porous lava materials. .
Alluvial deposits from the mouth of the Middle Fork upstream to Dexter Dam store large
quantities of groundwater.
SUB currently has 32 wells located throughout the city of SpringfieJd. Prior to adding a
surface water source, these wells provided 100 percent of the public drinking water
supply for the city from the Springfield aquifer. SUB will continue to use groundwater as
the primary drinking water resource. However, it is anticipated that the Middle Fork will
contribute about 10% of the total water consumed.
,2-11
4
Sensitive Areas
Sensitive areas within the watershed include locations with a high potential to impact the
streams primarily due to their proximity or vulnerability. Evaluations for high soil .
erosion potential, high permiability soils, and high runoffpotential within these areas are
based on info1'JTIation Iistedin the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Lane
County, Oregon, 1987. They can also be calculated using the 1:24,000 SSURGO (Soil
Survey Geographic Database) data sets from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Setbacks
A setback of 1,000 feet distance from' the centeriine of the intake'stream and all perennial
. .
tributaries has been suggested by the DEQ to identifY those areas where there are higher
risks of contamination from spills and other releases due to their proximity to streams.
Soil Erosion Potential
High soil erosion potential is based on the effects of slope and soil erodibility (K-factor).
Soils classified as high are on >30% slopes and have K-factors >0.25. Though small.
areas of soil meeting these paranieters were noted throughout the management area, they
. are more often found in the upper regions of the watershed.
Hil!h Permiabilitv Soils .' '. '.
Areas within thernanagement area identified as having high pern1iability soils are of
Recent Alluvial Deposits and have a high potential for groundwater recharge adjacent to
'streams. These soils are more often found on the valley floor.
Hil!h Runoff Potential
Areas with a high runoff potential are typically clays, with high water tables, or where an
impervious layer occurs at a shallow depth. These Class D soils have very slow
. infiltration rates and are often found in wetland areas.
5
2-12
! .
Chapter 2: Participation
Public participation in the development of the Springfie/d Drinking Water Protection
Plan (plan), included the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Citizen Task Force
(Citizen Task Force), materials and notices sent to the Interested Parties Mailing List,
Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings. Public participation in
~evelopment o[activities and policies for the Middle Fork Watershed will be based on
agencylorganization specific processes as determined by public process. These will
include Lane County, ODA, and DEQ information meetings and public hearings and
. MFWWC meetings. >
Representation of Interests
The area that contributes surface water to Springfield's drinking water supply is entirely
outside the political boundaries of Springfield. The following interests were either
represented by the MFWWC or were kept infonned and participated in the study through
other public involvement or actions.
/
Industries;
Commercial interests;
Coltnty residents;
Farmers;
Lane County agency staff;
State ~gency starf;
Federal agency staff;
Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council.
Commupity Involvement
The MFWWC is the primary vehicle for community involvement in development of
outreach and education ofresidents within the management area. The MFWWC
represents diverse interests related to conservation, preservation, and protection of the
Middle Fork (see Acknowledgements). All meetings of the MFWWC are advertised and
open to thejJUblic. Meeting agendas are mailed to persons listed as Interested Parties and
many citizens attend these meetings. In addition, MFWVYC-Outreach and Education
Committee strives to provide opportunities for informing residents,and commercial.
. .
interests about uses and strategies for improvements and protection of surface and
groundwater within the management area. .
As part of a basin-wide project, the MFWWC prepared a Watershed Assessment for the
lower Middle Fork. This assessment was compiled by an outside consultant and based on
water sampling conducted specifically for this project. It also incorporates data for other
physical parameters conducted by outside sources. A recommended action that came
from the assessment was to collect baseline data for. a variety of physical parameters. A
Sampling Plan for designated sites in the lower watershed has been prepared to gather
information on bacteria, pH, conductivity, and other parameters. This information will be
2-13
6
,
used in determining source water protection. strategies and contingencies for the Middle
Fork Willamette Watershed and this Plan Addendum (2002).
The assessment will also add to information being collected by the DEQ for use in
determining Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Middle Fork. TMDLs
identitY the maximum amount (load) of each pollutant the river can absorb per day and
still meet state water quality standards.
,
7
2-14 .
Chapter 3: Delineation of Surface Water Component - Drinking Water
, Protection Areas
DEQ requires a Drinking Water ProteCtion Plan to be developed and drinking water
protection areas to be delineated for surface water sources used as a public drinking water
supply, Setbacks of approximately 1,000 feet (or greater) from the center of the river and
its perennial tributaries for a distance equivalent to eight hours 'upstream from the intake
have heen suggested for this purpose. '
For surface water'sources, the drinking water protection (management) area delineation
process began by identifYing the watershed boundaries of the Middle Fork. The surface
water delineation for the zone of contribution includes the entire watershed area upstream
of the SUB's public water system intake on the Middle Fork. This base delineation was
provided to the City of Springfield by DEQ.
To narrow the 'management area covered by the surface water component of Springfield's
Drinking Water P'rotection Plan Addendum (2002), it.was first determined how far
upstream to include in the setback. The intake at the WiIlamette Wellfield that supplies
surface water to the slow sand filter system is located at approximately the river mile 189 '
marker on the Middle Fork. Based on the average high flow rate of 7,000 cubic feet per
, second provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), water in the. Middle Fork travels
3.5 miles per hour over this reach. This places the maximum estimated eight-hour time
of travel upstream from the intake at about river mile 217 (-28 miles), or approximately
the east end of Lookout Point Reservoir (Travel Rates of Water for Selected Streams in"
the Willamette River Basin, Oregon by David Harris, USGS - Hydrologic Investigations,
, . Atlas, HA273, 1968) (see maps, Appendix A).
Peremllal tributaries were detennined from USGS Topographic Maps for the area and the
1,000-foot setback was placed on the Middle Fork Watershed map by the City of
Springfield as a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer. Other GIS layers included
sensitive soils, transportation systems (railroads, highways, roads, land use zoning) and
other potential.sources.of contamination., '
Local Surface Water Characteristics
Both rainwater and snowmelt contribute to surface water supplies. The Cascade
Mountains store water in the form of snow that is-released as melt-water during the
summer,
Water stored in reservoirs behind dams located on the Middle Fork and Fall Creek help
regulate flow rates in the,river. Perennial tributaries contribute flow to the river year
, round.
Surface water in the Middle Fork leaves the drinking water protection area at the
downstream boundary of the WiIlamette Wellfield and is joined by the Coast Fork,
approximately one mile west of the wellfield to form the mainstem Willamette River.
8
2-15
Surface Water Uses
Consumptive uses of water in the watershed include irrigation, agriculture, industrial, and
municipal use. Irrigation is the primary consumptive use for which water rights are
-issued. Non-consumptive uses include fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and power
generation. Table 2 Summarizes water allocations at the mouth of the Middle Fork.
, These figures represent water allocated for use, not actual use.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Irrigation
Domestic
. Agriculture (other)
IndustriallManufacturing
Municipal
, Totals
26.67
.15.72
3.48
35.04
243
323.9
1,505
952
210
2,104
14,660
19,431
Table 2.
Annual allegations for consumptive water use in the Middle Fork Willamelte River
'(Oregon Water Resources Department, 2002)
Dams/Reservoirs
Dams provide power generation and flood control in winter, mid flow-augmentation in
summer. Water stored in reservoirs behind dams influences seasonal water availability
and flow patterns in the Middle Fork.
Reservoirs that contribute flows are Dexter Reservoir and Lookout Point Reservoir on the,
Middle Fork and Fall Creek Reservoir on Fall Creek. Table 3 summarizes the uses of
each dam and reservoir. Hilis Creek Reservoir and Dam are located upstream from and
outside the designated, management area.
Lookout Point Flood control FuIl4~5,800, 1st 97,000
Hydroelectric 3 Gen. Summer 324,200
Recreation
Dexter Flood control N/A N/A 321,000
Hydroelectric I Gen.
Recreation
Fall Creek Recreation Full 125,000 5th 269,000
Summer 108,200
Table 3.
Dam & Reservoir Uses (US ACE and OWRD, The Willamette Basin Reservoir Study,
1999)
9
2-16
F orestlY and Agriculture
The predominant land use in the upper reaches of the Middle Fork is forestry. Most
forestlands are in the Cascade Mountains and extend down the eastern side of the
Willamette Valley. The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
private owners are major forest landholders. Forest Service lands start approximately 3
miles east of Lookout Point Dam (Wayne Honneycut- Forest Technologist - U.S. Forest
Service). The BLM has no holdings within the I,OOO-foot setback for the stretch of the
Middle Fork between the intake at the Willamette Wellfield and the east end of Lookout
Point Reservoir (David Mattson, Engineer- McKenzie Resource Area, BLM).
, Most agriculture in the Middle Fork Watershed is located in the Willamette Valley.
There is very little land in agricultural use above Dexter Reservoir., The dominant
agricultural land use is pasture and hayland. Some row-crops are found near Jasper,
Lowell, and Pleasant Hill. There,are also some nurseries, Christmas tree farms and
orchards in that area (Ross Penhallegon, OSU - Lane County Extension Service).
Livestock
Small numbers oflivestockgrazing, cow/calfoperations, ridinglboarding stables, and
rural residential development with livestock for private use are found within the I ,OOO~
foot setback of the Middle Fork. No dairy fanns are located within these sensitive areas'
(Ross Penhallegon - OSU - Lane County Extension Service).
Wildlife! Hatcheries
Wildlife in and adjacent to the Middle Fork inciudes steelhead, bull trout, and salmon in
the river. Western pond turtle, deer, small game and both migratory and resident birds use
the riparian areas as habitat and gather food in or adjacent to the river. '
Dexter Dam Fish Hatchery is part of the Willamette Hatchery Project that raises Chinook
salmon and summer steelhead. This hatchery is located on the north shore of Dexter
Reservoir. Adul t fish are caught at Dexter Dam and transported via tanker truck to the
Willamette Hatchery at Oakridge where eggs are incubated and raised to fingerling size,
then transported back to Dexter Dam Hatchery for release to the Middle Fork (Tim
Wright, Dexter Hatchery, Oregon Department ofFisj1 & Wildlife).
Recreation
Recre'ation in the Middle Fork area relates closely to the scenic landscape. Lane County
. and Oregon State.parks located at or near Dexter, Fall Creek, and Lookout Point
Reservoirs provide recreational opportunities in the summer months. Camping, hiking,
fishing, hunting, and boating draw over 685,000 visitors to the area every year '
(Willamette Basin Reservoir Summaries, Oregon Water Resources). Boat ramps are
located on the shore of Fall Creek, Dexter, and Lookout Point Reservoirs. Boat ramps are
also located along the main stream of the Middle Fork at Jasper, Clearwater, .and at
Pengra Ac~ess opposite the mouth of Lost Creek (USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Maps).
2-17
10
Delineation Projects
Between 1992 and 1999 delineations of groundwater flow based on time-of-travel, were'
developed in association with SUB's groundwater wells located throughout the City of
Springfield. GIS mapping ofthe groundwater delineations and potential contaminant
sources was completed by the City of Springfield in 1999.
Under the Administrative Rules that apply to Oregon 's Source Water Assessment Plan
(Oregon's Drinking Water Protection Program), the Oregon Department of Human
Services (ODHS - formerly the OHD) has responsibility for certifying groundwater-
derived drinking water protection areas in the state (DEQ and OHD, Source Water
Assessment Plan). The delineations for all of Springfield's wells met state requirements
and were certified by OHD in April 1997. Future and new well delineations were
certified in March 1999 (Certification #0002R).
Because ODHS has detennined that groundwater drawnfrom the Willamette Well field is
under the influence of surface water (conjunctive system), additional treatment is
required for use as public drinking water. As part of the requirement in constructing a '
treatment plant, a sanitary survey (potential pollution source inventory) was conducted in
2000 to help identify any significant risks to the Middle Fork. Guidelines provided by
Oregon's Source Water Assessment Plan,- Addendum, June 1999, were used in
performing this survey.
In January, 2001, delineation of the Middle Fork Watershed was calculated by DEQ and
provided to the City of Springfield as a base map and zone of contribution to the Middle .
Fork upstream of SUB's surface water intake. Mapping of the I,OOO-foot setback from .'
the Middle Fork and its perennial tributaries within an eight-hour time-of-travel; and a
. base inventory of potential contaminant sources was plotted on a GIS layer by the City of
Springfield in May 2001. Information gathered for this GIS layer was compiled by DEQ
and SUB. .
A Sanitary Survey (Risk Assessment), including a table of potential pollution sources and
aillap of the watershed was submitted to the ODHS in June, 2001 as part of a
- construction permit application package for the slow-sand filter system.
DEQ has responsibility for reviewing surface water-derived drinking water protection
areas in the State. DEQ has reviewed the delineations and risk assessment for the Middle
Fork management area and found them to be both adequate and complete. However, no .
formal approval or certification is available for drinking water systems installed after
June 1999 that use surface water as a resource.
Delineation Process
'The area of contribution to the Middle Fork Willamette River encompasses the entire
Middle Fork Willamette Watershed. The following activities were perfonned to
complete the delineations and risk assessment (Sanitary Survey):
2-18
II
. Preparation of Middle Fork Willamette Watershed map.
· Calculation of surface water travel time of eight hours upstream from SUB's surface
water intake on the Middle Fork was determined from USGS calculations based on
the average annual high water flow rate at Jasper.
· Sanitary Survey (inventory) of potential contaminant'sources within the drinking
water protection management area of the Middle Fork Watershed based on
recommendations within Oregon's Source Water Assessment Plan - Addendum, June
1999.
. Preparation of a map showing the drinking water protection (management) area
within the Middle Fork Watershed and potential sources of contamination within the
'delineated management area. "
The resulting management area provided affected agencies and organizations with
defined areas in which to focus management strategies to protect surface water. To
, further the analysis of potential contamination risks to surface water, the next step was to
map land use and develop a potential contaminant source'inventory within the drinking
water protection management area. This proce'ss and the results are presented in the
following chapter. The Sanitmy Survey also forms the base for the DWPP Addendum
(2002).
,.ro.';::'
. ~,
12
2-19
~
I
Chapter 4: Surface Water Component of Drinking Water Protection Area
Inventory
The primary intent of the Sanitary SUrvey (inventory) was to identify and locate
significant potential sources of contamination (contaminants of concern) within the
drinking water protection (management) area of the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed.
Significant potential source of contamination can,be defined as:
Any facility or activity that stores, uses, or produces contaminants of concern and has
sufficient likelihood of releasing such contaminants to the environment at levels that
could contribute significantly to the concentration of these contaminants in the source
waters of the public water supply (Oregon DEQ, Source Water Assessment Plan,
Draft, November 17, 1998).
Contaminants can reach a water body (groundwater, rivers, lakes, etc.) from activities
occurring on the land surface or below it. Potential sources of surface water
contaminants from Oregon's Short List ofPCSsfor Swface Water Component ofGWUDI
Systems (DEQDrinking Water Protection Potential Contaminant Sources and DEQ
Codes - Rev. 3/1/01) provides a useful overView of potential sources of contamination.
The List was used as a guideline for understanding the types of chemicals likely found at
different facilities and the level of contamination risk these facilities pose for surface
water.
The inventory was cOI)ducted by SUB with assistance from Oregon DEQ, between March
and June 2001.
The completed inventory served several important purposes:
. Provided an effective base for informing/educating the MFWWC, staff, and the.
public about potential risks;
. Provided information on the locations of many potential contaminant sources,
especially those that present the great<;st risks to surface water;
. Provided information on the extent and volume of hazardous' chemical use within'the
Middle Fork management area; and
. Provided a reliable basis for developing management strategies to reduce the risks to
surface water that contribute to Springfield's drinking water supply.
Based on EP A national guidance, DEQ recommends an inventory for surface water
sources be completed within an area that includes a minimum setback of 1,000 feet or
greater from the, center of streams. Springfield's inventory of potential surface water.
contaminant sources was carried out within a setback of 1,000 feet frqm the edge of
streams and reservoirs to identify those areas where there are higher risks of
13
2-20
contamination ftomspills or otlier releases, simply due to their proximity to the water
body.
The stream boundaries for the potential pollution source inventory were essentially from
river mile 189 located at the Willamette Wellfield to the east end of Lookout Point
Reservoir (approximately 28 miles) on the Middle Fork and an equivalent distance
upstream f?r perennial tributaries. .
Thjs basic inventory was used to direct the focus of management strategies to address
risks posed by hazardous chemicals and biologic contaminants across alllimd use zones
within the drinking water protection management areas that lie outside the Urban Growth
Boundary of Springfield. '
, Methodology
Past, current, and future hazardous chemical uses were identified through a variety of
methods. The inventory process did not include an inspection of sites for individual
potential contamination sources or chemical inventories. Inspection of all sites within the
drinking water protection management area for chemical inventory and storage is
recommended. However, it was determined that the inventory goal could be
accomplished by other means such as using the State Fire Marshal's inventory of
hazardous materials submitted by businesses and the DEQ and EP A source lists. Using
,the Short List of PCSs fOr Surface Water Component of GWUDI Systems as provided in
the DEQ Drinking Water Protection Potential Contaminant Sources and DEQ Codes,
Rev. 3illOl) and Table 5-2: Potential Sources of Drinking Water Contaminants,
,assumptions were made about typical chemicals associated with different land uses and
the risks these types and volumes of chemicals pose to surface water.
The inventory was completed in several phases. , The first phase was a limited inventory
of potential contaminant sources listed in databases maintained by the state. The second
phase consisted of visual observations of properties made by driving the drinking water .
protection management area adjacent to the Middle Fork. The third phase was contacting
local, state, and federal agencies and asking them to provide information_on facilities
within their jurisdiction for these same areas., The process for completing the inventory is
summarized as follows:
· DEQ developed a digital-base map for the entire Middle Fork Watershed;
· City of Springfield delineated the drinking water protection management areas
(I,OOO-foot setback within the eight-hour time-of-travel along the Middle Fork and its
, perennial tributaries upstream from the intake) as an overlay on the base map;
· SUB completed an inveritory of potential contaminant sources within the drinking
water protection management area of the Middle ForkWatershed;
14
2-21
. SUB developed a list of registered water wells within or close to the drinking water
protection areas; and
. City of Springfield plotted information from local, state, and federal agency databases
that represented potentially significant sources of contamination to the surface water
component of Springfield's drinking water supply source. Plotted data includes:
DEQ
I. Underground storage tanks (UST)
2. Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST)
3. Underground Injection Control (UIC)
4. ,Registered hazardous waste generators (HWIMSY)
5. Environmental clean-up site inventory (ECSI)
6. Solid waste facilities
/
State Fire Marshal
7. Hazardous materials handlers
8. Hazardous materials incidents
,
EPA,
9. Superfund sites
, 10. Toxic release Iqcations
II. Waste water discharging facilities - Source Information System (SIS)
, . ,
, '
No Concentrated Animal Feeding Operatio~s(CAFOs) were reported on state'lists or
noted by the OSU - Lane County Extension Agent for the management area.
Results
Results of the inventory and mapping are shown on the map series attached at the end of
this document. The GIS base map can bedisPlayed at any scale and will be updated bi-
annually to reflect any changes in the status of potential contaminant sources inventoried.
The mapped drinking water delineations will be shared through Lane County Council of
, Governments' (LCOG) common mapping system, the City of Springfield for this Plan
Addendum 2002, University of Oregon Info-Graphics Library, and others.
, "
I~ addition to being used by the City of Springfield for this Plan Addendum (2002), the
map will be made available for public education projects aqd informational purposes. It
may also be used by consultants working for private industry in developing their business
. plans and by the Oregon ODA, DEQ, Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife, Lane County and' Oregon State Parks Divisions, and the MFWWC in
performing projects designed to protect surfa'ce water for all beneficial uses.'
The total inventory covered an area of approximately forty-seven (47) square miles inside
the zone of contribution (ZOC) of 1,364 square miles that comprises the entire Middle
15
2-22
,
Fork WilIamette River Watershed. This is a substahtial area that has numerous and
complex issues.
TabJe'4 displays an inventory of tax lots inside the surface water component of the
drinking water protection management area (map, tax lot inventory within the I,OOO-foot
setback, Lane County of Government (LCOG)). There are 3,668 tax lots within this area
with 49 of the lots zoned commercial/industrial.
Residential lands 31.92 2.531.22
I ParkslPublic lands 1.44 763.82 I
I Forest lands 24.86 22.866.17 I
I Agriculture 7.28 3,046.05 I
I Cornrnerciallands 0.65 19.95 I
I Industrial lands 0.68 111.79 I
I Mining/Sand & 0.57 568.53 I
Gravel
I Water 1195 32.58 155.41 0.52 0.24 I
I Totals 3,668 I 99.98% 30,062.94 100% 46.97 I
Table 4.
Land use within the drinking water protection management area for surface water
/
16
2-23
Chapter 5: Management of Potential S'ources of Contamination'
In this chapter, potential sources of contamination are addressed by goals and related
management strategies. Goals are broad vision statements that" describe desired
conditions or activities in the future and provide direction for the development of
management strategies. The management strategies for' each goal more specifically
describe a course of action. '
Goals for protection of groundwater were developed by the Citizen Task Force (Citizen ,
Task Force). These are found in the existing Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan
adopted by the City of Springfield on May 15, 1999 and are listed below in order of
priority. The Citizen Task Force prioritized these goals without information on their
relative costs and benefits. It is important to emphasize the first two goals (Public
Education and Overlay Zone) received a score in the prioritization significantly higher
than the remaining recommendations.
Where applicable, these goals carry over to the Plan Addendum (2002) developed for the
protection of surface water that contributes to the City of Spring field 's drinking water
supply.
I., Implement a Public Education Program
2. Adopt a Drinking Water Protection Overlay Zone
3. Develop and Implement a surface Water Monitoring Program
4. , Enhance the Existing Hazardous Waste Collection Program '
5. Develop and Implement a Septic System Upgrade/Maintenance Program
. 6. Use and Enhance Existing Spill Response Plan
7. Form Public-Private Partnerships
'8. Impiement a Water Conservation Program
9. Use Property Purchase and Donation to Provide Protection Areas
During the prioritization process, the Citizen Task Force offered the following additional
recommendations for which there was general consensus of support, although they were
not ranked with the others as separate alternatives. These, additional recommendations
are discussed at the end of this chapter.
. Intergovernmental coordination
. Storm water management
· Abandoned wells
Goals and Related Management Strategies for Surface Water Component of
Drinking Water Protection Plan
Goal]: Implement A Public Education Program.
The Citizen Task Force's highest priority was to develop and implement a public
education program that would include the following four components, in order of
.priority.
2-24
17
1. Comprehensive public education program .
2. Notification '
3. Technical assistance
4. Signs
These programs as adopted by the DWP Plan are expanded to include surface water
aspects of drinking water protection. Springfield and SUB will work closely with
drinking water protection partners (Lane County, Army Corps of Engineers, ODA, DEQ,
City of Lowell, MFWWC, and others) in coordinating public education efforts within the
surface water protection management areas of the Middle Fork. SUB will work with the
MFWWC in sending a message to new and 'existing businesses and property owners
about which activities pose a risk to surface water resources.
Goal 2: Adopt a Drinking Water Protection Overlay Zone.
The Citizen Task Force's other highest priority was for the City of Springfield to adopt a.
Drinking Water Protection Overlay District for the combined zone of contribution and to
refer the overlay district to the City of Eugene and Lane County for adoption and
application to areas that are within their jurisdictions.
The Citizen Task Force generally agreed that the overlay district would contain the
following five components, in order of priority.
1. Prohibitions,
2. Standards
3. Inspections
4. Monitoring
5. Transport
An overlay district that covers the delineated areas inside the Springfield City limits and
urban growth boundary (UGB) was included as part of the City of Springfield Land Use
Development Code, Article 17, adopted by the Springfield City Council onMay 17,
2000.' ,
This Drinking Water Protection Plan Addendum (2002) covers surface'water protection
areas that lie entirely outside political boundaries of the City Of Springfield, Therefore,
the City has no jurisdiction over these areas. Instead, the City will work with Lane '
County'and other agencies to recognize the entire Middle Fork Watershed as the zone of
contribution to the surface water component of Springfield's drinking water resource.
The City of Springfield will refer the extended zone of contribution and management area
to state and federal agencies, Lane County, and incorporated cities in the watershed for
adoption of measures to protect those portions of the management area that lie within, .
their jurisdictions.
18
2-25
The City of Springfield and SUB will encourage and support the prohibition of high-risk
(DNAPL) chemical uses within the surface water management areas upstream of the
Willamette Wellfield drinking water supply intake on the Middle Fork. SUB and the
City will also support and encourage proper storage and containment of hazardous
chemicals that pose a risk of contamination to the drinking water supply,
Goal 3: Develop and Implement a Surface Water Monitoring Program.
.The Citizen Task Force recommended a monitoring program that includes all drinking
,-water protection area delineations inside the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District'
and possibly individual potential sources of contamination. The mOlutoring program
includes the following three components, in order of priority.
I. Establish a comprehensive monitoring program
2. Sample during investigation
3. Sample during clean up
The Plan Addendum (2002) will extend this goal to include the Middle Fork Watershed
management area.
1. Establish a comprehensive monitoring program.
The MFWWC has developed a water quality monitoring program for temperature, pH,
turbidity, conductivity, and other perameters as a component of the Source Water'
Assessment required under federal regulation of all watersheds'that contribute to a public
drinking water supply (Oregon DEQ, Sub-Basin Target Datesfor Completion ofTMDL 's
for Waters Listed in the 1998 303(d)List). This assessment is scheduled for completion
by 2003 and'will establish base conditions for the Middle Fork and its tributaries. .
Future monitoring will primarily be performed by DEQ andMFWWC-with assistance
from trained voluntee!s. In addition, SUB will conduct water quality testing at 1he point
of intake and assist the MFWWC in their monitoring efforts within the surface water
management areas. The frequency of testing will be determined based on evaluation of
, ,the Middle Fork Watershed Assessment.
2. Sample chemicals of concern during siteinvestigation.
. Require that samples for chemicals of concern be collected during site
investigation. Whenever samples are collected during a site investigation or
cleanup and follow-up monitoring, results of this sampling must be provided
atno additional cost to the Drinking Water Protection Program or appropriate
agency/organization. '
3. Sample during cleanup.
19
2-26
o .Require businesses conducting cleanup activities to provide sample results of
all analysis to the monitoring pro'gram at no additional cost to the program or
appropriate agency/organization. '
Goal 4: Enhance the Existing Waste Collection Program
The Citizen Task Force recommended the following four enhancements to' Lane County's
hazardous waste collection program, in order of priority:
I. Increase frequency and flexibility
2: Demand management
3, Evaluation '
4, Increase program funding
Lane County's hazardous waste program extends to all areas of the Middle Fork
Watershed. Therefore, no changes or additions to Goal 4 are needed orrecommended
within this Plan Addendum (2002) for protection. of surface water. It is recommended
that this goal continue to be supported.
Goal 5: Develop and implement a septic system upgrades/maintenance program.
, The Citizen Task Force forwarded the following two recommendations in this category,
in order ofpnority. .
I. Inspections and maintenance requirements'
2. Septic tank regulations
No changes or additions to Goal 5 are recommended within this Plan Addendum (2002)
for protection of surface water.
Goal 6: Use and enhance existing spill response plan
The Citizen Task Force supported the following aspects of spill response, in order of
priority:
1. Existing plan
2. Spill diversion and containment
3. Mapping
4. Hotline
. ....)
Lane County's spill'response program extends to all, areas of the Middle Fork Watershed.
Therefore, no changes or additions to Goal 6 are recommended within this Plan
Addendum (2002) for protection of surface water.
2-27
20
Goal 7: Form Public-Private Partnerships
The Citizen Task Force forwarded the following three recommendations, in order of
priority:
I. Public Education by private sector
2. Public-coordinated partnerships
3. Business recognition program
Public-private partnerships are especially important within the Middle Fork management
areas that are most vulnerable to potential pollution. '
Public partners will be encouraged to provide information and education for the purpose
of raising public awareness to the risk of surface water pollution from everyday activities
and provide education on ways to,reduce that risk.
Goal8: Implement a water conservation program
The Citizen Task Force forwarded the following recommendations, in order of priority:
I. . Water demand management
2. Rate structure changes
3. Piping loss reductions
4. Rebate program
Recommendations oHhe Springfield CitiZen Task Force on water demand management
are extended to include,water drawn from the Middle Fork Willamette River.
Goal9: Use property purchase/donation to provide protection areas
The Citizen Task Force forwarded the following recommendations, in order of priority:
1. New wells
,2. Land-set asides
3. Conservation easements
4. Voluntary deed restrictions
The recommendation for item 1 (new wells) is not applicable to surface water.
Recommendations adopted by the Plan are extended by this Plan Addendum (2002) for
items 2, 3, and 4 are to include the surface water management area of the Middle Fork.
Goal 10: Consider additional recommendations
The Citizen Task Force forwarded the following recommendations regarding:
1. Intergovernmental coordination,
21
2-28
2. Storm water management,
3. Abandoned wells, and
4. Evaluation of new well sites.
The Citizen Task Force considered these recommendations to be very important,
although they were not included as separate options in the initial list of alternatives to be
prioritized.
The basis of a networkof public partnerships io prevent contaminants entering the
Middle Fork has been established. Surface water protection will greatly depend on
coordinated efforts between these intergovernmental partnerships formed by SUB, Lane
County, Anny Corp of Engineers, Cities of Springfield, and Lowell, and others.
Recommendations adopted by the Plan are extended by this Plan Addendum (2002) to
include the surface water management area of the Middle Fork with the addition of the
following for #3, Abandoned Wells:
o There are over 1,500 wells identified in the existing drinking water protection study
area. Additional wells are located within the surface water management area of the
Middle Fork. Wells that are no longer in use pose a significant risk to aquifer
contamination. it is recommended to identify and decommission these abandoned,
wells.
22
2-29
Chapter 6: Contingency Plan
Goals and management strategies presented in the previous chapter focus on proactive
efforts that are intended to protect the drinking water supply from contamination. In the
event a drinking water contamination problem should occur, Springfield also needs to be
prepared to react to the contamination with a contingency plan. A contingency plan is
designed response to the contamination or disruption of Springfield's current water
supply. The contingen'cy plan focuses on:
. Identification of the primary potential threats to the water supply; and
. Developing procedures that will be followed should threats materialize.
Springfield's Contingency Plan addresses ten elements required by the Oregon Source
Water Protection Program, including:
I. Potential threats to the drinkiI,1g water supply;
2. Protocols for incident response; .
3. Prioritization of water usage;
4. Key personnel and development of a notification roster;
5. 'Short-term al}d long-term replacement of water supplies;
6. Short-term and long~term conservation measures;
7. Plan testing, review, and update;
8. ' Personnel training; ,
9. Provisions for public education; and
, 10. Logistical and financial resources
Additional details for emergency response situations can be found in' Springfield .
Utility Board's (SUB) 1998 Integrated Contingency Plan, which describes SUB's
emergency organization and provides for clear authority, direction, and' .
communication during emergencies. Additions to theContin!!encv Plan aoolv onlv to '
the surface water comoonent of the drinking water suoolv.
1. Potential threats to the drinking water supply
Due to the complexity ofthe SUB and Rainbow Water District's water supply
system, potential threats are dependent on the location of the problem. The
corrununity water system is currently supplied by 33 wells in seven well fields located
. the area as shownin Map #1. The supply system is divided into separate pressure and
operational areas. They are: ' '.
SUB/Rainbow North System is primarily located north ofI-1 05 and east ofI-5
and served by the Rainbow 1-5, SUB Sports Way, Rainbow "Q" Street, Rainbow
Chase wellfields, and SUB/Rainbow jointly owned WEYCO well field. Water
pressure ranges between 80 and 105 pounds per square inch (PSI).
SUB West System is bounded by 1-105 on the north, the city limits on the west
and south; and 28th Street on the east: It is served by water from the Willamette
23
2-30
Wellfield plus water through inter"ties from SUB/Rainbow North System and
SUB East System. Water pressure in this system is maintained at 50 to 55 PSI,
which is substantially lower than the other systems and only allows for bringing
water into the system.
SUB East System is essentially east of2Sth Street and bounded "by the city limits
on the north, south, and east. Water for the East System comes from the Thrust
and SP/Mia Wellfields in addition to the SUBlRainbow jointly owned EYCO
Wellfield. Water pressure ranges between 70 and 90 PSI.
The Thurston, WEYCO, Chase, and Willamette Wellfields are located near the
McKenzie or Middle Fork Willamette Rivers and have the potential to be impacted by .
flooding and spills in the rivers.
The 1-5, Sports Way, "Q" Street, and SP/Maia Wellfields are less subject to flooding.
They are closer t6 conimeJ:cial/industrial areas and are next to the'l-5 and 1-105
highways, which major transportation corridors.
Primary threats to Springfield's drinking water system are related to an interruption of
water delivery or contamination of the aquifer used for the drinking water supply. Nine
types of events have been identified that could cause an interruption in delivery and/or
contamination of the water supply.
A. Electrical/mechanical problems: power outage, broken pipeline, pump failure
B. Flooding
C. Detection of contamination at a wellhead
D. Contamination from a leaking underground storage tank or chemical spill at a
nearby business.
E. Railroad or highway spills ,
F. Spill in the McKenzie River, Willamette River, Springfield Millrace or the storm
waste systems' that discharge to the rivers or millrace
G. Stonn water contamination resulting in well water contamination
H. Sabotage
1. Earthquake and volcanic activities
The most likely threats to the drinking water supply are electrical/mechanical failure;
detection of contamination at or near a wellhead; a chemical release within the drinking
water protection area; railroad or highway spills; a spill in the McKenzie River;
Willamette River;orthe Springfield millrace; and the storm water systems that discharge
to the rivers and millrace. Procedures to deal with these threats are outlined in Element 2
below.
. Surface water contamination issues are divided into two areas of concern:
. Hazardous materials spills that are short term duration and are transported past
the drinking water'intake over the course of a few hours or a fe\V days. An
example would be a tanker truck spill,
24
2~31
r
'.
. Contaminants that are persistent and are found on the river during most of the
year. These contaminants may vary by current rate but are constantly present
and need to be removed in order for the water to meet drinking" water standards.
. An example would be turbidity that is a result of a mudslide in the watershed,
runoff from roads, or construction activities.
There are many potential causes for water quality problems identified in the Middle Fork
watershed. These include discharges frOll\ waste water treatment plants, legal and illegal
waste dump sites, runoff from forest, agricultural, and private lands, failing septic
systems, seasonal flow reductions, recreation, hatcheries, transportation of hazardous
materials, management oftransportation and utility corridors, and historic activities such
as mining and removal or degradation of ripariar vegetation.
Erosion from riparian areas (stream banks), rerouting of rtinoff via road building,
construction, and land surfacing such as parking areas can lead to excessive erosion or
p.ollutant transport. Increased heat input due to removal of vegetation, reduction in flow
(seasonal), changes in channel shape, and floodplain alteration are also potential sources
of water quality impainnent. Due to the vastness of the surface water supply area, risk to
the drinking water from potential threats is dependent on the location of the problem.
Of the nine types of events listed in the existing Drinking Water Protection Plan nearly
all are applicable to surface water. The intake for surface water from the Middle Fork is
located in the Willamette,Wellfield.
2. Protocols for incident response
, This element details the appropriate response for the most likely potential threats above.
A. B. ElectricaIlMechanical and Flooding Related Interruptions.
Springfield primarily relies on a redundancy of groundwater source rather than
reservoir capacity to meet water demands. Most well field power supplies have
the capacity to be fed from more than one power substation, which reduces the
potential for long-term outages. Experience has shown that no wellfield has been
, out of service for more than one hour due to an electric supply failure, Froman
electrical reliability standpoint, the risk of more than oqe wellfield being down
because of an electrical outage is remote. Four wellfields are located in flood
plains and subject to potential flooding effects. Flooding may not inipact all wells
within these well fields.
Responses to these events include:
. Rely on water source capacity and power system redundancy to the
extent possible. During the summer peak demand times there is no
excess source capacity. During the remainder ofthe year sources can
be activated that are not affected by the interruption.
25
2-32
. In theshort-tenn (less than one-half day in summer and about one day
in winter) rely on water tank storage,
. Apply conservation measures (Element 6). '
. ' Institute adopted four-stage water curtailment plans in both the SUB
and Rainbow Water District service areas based on the system's ability
to maintain reservoir levels for fIre protection (original DWPP -
Appendix E)
C. Detection of Contamination at a Well
The required response to the detection of contami~ation at a wellhead depends on
whether the contamination is less than or exceeds the maximum contamination
level (MCL). The MCL is considered to be the maximum allowed concentration
, 'of contaminant iri drinking water without posing a significant health risk. The.
community has applied a much higher standard in responding to man-made
chemicals', like D"ense Non-AqueousPhaseLiquids (DNAPL), and other volatile,
semi-volatile, and synthetic organic chemicals. Every effort will be made to
eliminate any detectable amounts of the man-made substances from the drinkirig
water supply. '
. Notify the Oregon Department of Human Services - Drinking Water Division
(fonnerly Oregon Health Division, OHD) (1-503-731-4381) and Departnlent
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (see originalDWPP - Appendix H) of any ,
confirmed detection.
If,the c~ntaminant exceeds the MCL:
. Send news release to local media.
. Notify local elected officials.
,. SUB staff will notify Board members.
. Rainbow staff will notify Board members.
. Springfield City manager's office will notify City Councilors.
. Follow OHS-DWD Public Notice requirements identifIed in Oregon
Administrative Rules 333-061-0042.
. Shut down the affected well(s). If an emergency exists and permission to use
the well(s) is granted by ODHS-DWD and DEQ, water will be mixed with
water from other wells to reduce the contaminant in the distribution sy~tem to
below the MCL, minimizing the concentration of the contaminant to the
greatest extent possible.
. Flush affected system and reservoirs.
26 '
2-33
. Implement curtailment or conservation plan as needed.
. Work with Water Resources Division to notify other nearbywell owners and
minimize contaminant movement. Water master, Michael Mattick, 756-1856.
. Expand cooperation with agencies in investigation the contamination.
If the contaminant level is below the MCL:
. A minimum of quarterly monitoring will occur to track changes in'
contaminant levels over time to verify that cOlltaminant levels remain below
the MCL.
. If contamination is detected at WEYCO Wellfield, initiate SUB, Rainbow
Water District, and Weyerhaeuser Memorandum of Understanding that details
the responses required and which may include turning on the carbon treatment
system.
. Turn offwell ifnot absolutely needed (non-critical demand periods). Ifan
emergency exists, water will be mixed with water from other wells to reduce
the contaminant in the distribution system to below the MCL, minimizing,the
concentration of the contaminant to the greatest extent possible.
, '
.' Modify well operation to last on, first offduring critical demand periods.
. Run only in conjunction with other wells.
. Notify local elected officials.
. SUB staff will notify Board members.
. Rainhow staff will notify Board members.
. Springfield City manager's office will notify City Councilors.
. Send news release to local media.
. Implement first stage conservation measures (Section 6 in this chapter and
Appendix E Water Curtailment Plan).
. Work with RWD to notify other nearby well owners and minimize
contaminant movement: Water master, Michael Mattick, 746-1856.
. Cooperate with agencies investigating the contamination. '
D.E. Contamination from a Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank or
Chemical Spill at a Nearby Business and Railroad or Highway Spills:
27
2-34
The release of a contaminant from spills afid leaking underground fuel storage
tanks is primarily addressed through the proactive management strategies
~ intended to reduce the likelihood of this risk. Standard operating procedure
between Springfield Fire Department and SUB, Rainbow, and Eugene Water &
Electric Board treatment plant is for notification of all releases .in Springfield and
upstream on the McKenzie and Willamette rivers from the Fire Department to
water suppliers. The water suppliers coordinate their responses based on risk of
drinking water contamination.
In the event of a, contaminant release from underground fuel storage tanks or
spills in the drinking water protection area adjoining surface waters, the following
protocol applies:
Within a Zero to S-Year TOTZ
The entire management area for surface water protection is within 1,000 feet of
the' Middle ForkWillamette River. Therefore, any spills or leaks within the
management 'area would be considered within a Zero - 5 year TOTZ and treated
accordingly.
o Inventory and rank chemicals used in the drinking water protection area
(Chapter 4) and prepare related responses. This work is under way and will '
be completed in the near future. It is intended that the inventory and
responses will be complete priofto being needed. DNAPL chemicals are an
. extreme risk in this aquifer setting, and immediate clean up and removal is
necessary.
o Contact Springfield Fire & Life Safety (9-1-1) when immediate response is
needed. . '
o Contact Springfield Fire Marshal (726-3737), Oregon State Fire Marshal (1-
503-378-3473), and CHEMTREC (1-800-424-9300) to determine spilled
chemical characteristics and cleanup recommendations. '
o Notify all responders that a release is within the drinking water protection
area.
o Shut off nearby public water wells and/or surface water intakes as an
immediate precaution. .
o Detennine short-, medium-, and long-term well operation.
. Follow communication and notification procedures contained in Element 4 in
this Chapter.
28
2-35 .
o Work to facilitate an expedited cleanup, but leave cleanup to the responsible
party.
. Coordinate with responsible party's contingency plan.
o Implement conservation or curtailment plan as appropriate.
. NotifY local elected officials.
o SUB staff will notifY Board members.
o Rainbow staff will notifY Board members.
. Springfield City manager's office will notifY City Councilors.
. Send news release to local media.
. Work with RWD to notifY other'nearby well owners and minimize contaminant
movement. Water master, Michael Mattick, 746~1856.
,0 Cooperate with DEQ and other responsible agencies to facilitate cleanup and any
remedial action. '
F. Spill in the McKenzie River, WilIamette River, Springfield Millrace, or the
, Storm Water Systems that Discharge to the Rivers or Millrace: '
. Contact Springfield Fire & Life Safety (9-1-1) when immediate HAlMA T
response is needed. .
o A contaminant release to surface waters may impact surface water entering SUB's
intake on the ri ver and the drinking water wells, notifY all responders that the
release is within the drinking water protection are'!.
. Contact Springfield Fire Marshal, Oregon DOT, Union Pacific Railroad, DEQ, or .
other appropriate agency , Oregon State Fire Marshal, and CHEMTREC to
determine spilled chemical characteristics and cleanup recommendations: .
o F91l0w communication and notification procedures contained in Element 4 of this
plan.
o Shut ~t'fnearby-public water supply sources as an immediate precaution.
. Determine short-, medium, and long-term well and river intake operation
. Monitor outflows to receiving drainage ways for contaminants. The fire and
public works departments should take extra precautions to prevent contaminant
runoff. ' . ,
2-36
29
. Work to facilitate. an expedited cleanup, but leave cleanup to the responsible
party.
. Implement conservation or curtailment plan as appropriate.
. Send news release to'local media.
. Cooperate with DEQ (see original plan, Appendix H) and otherresponsible
agencies to facilitate cleanup and any remedial action.
Remo'val of biological contaminants is part of the on-going treatment. Response to spills
is different for surface water because the contaminant will be moved down stream by
river flow. Surface water travels great distances -within a short time. Any detected
contamination within the surface water management area, the Middle Fork or its
perennial tributaries is considered a high risk to Springfield's drinking water supply and,
will be handled accordingly. SUB's emergency response' would be to shut off the river
intake during the time the contaminant was present.
Because surface water is a relatively minor component of Springfield's total drinking
, waterresource, primary threats to Springfield's drinking water system remain'as stated in
the existing Plan. These are related to an intemiption of water delivery or contamination
of the aquifer used for the primary drinking water supply. However, contamination of
surface water could also result in groundwater contamination.
3. Prioritization of water usage
This element prioritizes community needs in case the water supply is interrupted and/or a ,
replacement supply is necessary. Prioritization of water use from highest to lpwest is
established in the adopted Water Curtailment Plans and as dev~loped in the Springfield
Drinking Water Citizen Task Force mock exercise as.follows:
. Fire protection
. Hospitals
. Emergency evacuation shelters
. Nursing homes
. Schools
. Residents
. Industrial/commercial
. Public parks
. All other
4. Key personnel and development of a notification roster
In the event of an emergency situation threatening the water supply, key people must be
notified and respon~e procedures coordinated among SUB, the City of Springfield, City
2-37
30
of Eugene, Rainbow Water District, Lane County, State of Oregon, and other appropriate
jurisdictional personnel.
If a call is received by the 9-1-1 center, the fire department and police department are to
, be dispatched to the event of an emergency spill. The nature and location of the incident
detennines who is dispatched. If the incident involves a vehicle accident, the police
department is often the first to be notified. If the event is non-vehicle related and a spill
is reported, the appropriate fire department is nonnally the first to be notified by the 9-1-1
dispatch center. Both fire and police will be notified if a contaminant is known to be
present. The incident coffimander will notify dispatch of the need for Regional
HAZMAT Response Team. With all spill reports in the Springfield area, the Dispatch
Center notifies EWEB Hayden Bridge Treatment Plant. The plant operator on duty
'notifies SUB and Rainbow Water District and relays all information available.
During an emergency spill event"an incident command center is established to safely
control the situation. The incident command system is dynamic, meaning that as events
unfold, roles and responsibilities of personnel may change as the situation progresses.
The person in charge may also change depending on which agency responds first. For
example, police may be first on the scene and in control until the rue department arrives.
If a spill occurs within the drinking water protection area, SUB, Rainbow, and
Springfield Pl!blic Works Department (Pwb) should be notified immediately. The
police, Rainbow, and PWD personnel are responsible for aiding the fire chief in adequate,
appropriate, and safe actions.
Key personnel and their roles are as listed below:
Springfield Police (Emergency 9-1-1, Administrative 726-3714),
Police personnel are often the first to be dispatched and respond to an emergency
event. Police are in charge of public safety until fire department personnel arrive,
then the incident command contro1"is relinquished to fire department personnel. At
the direction of the fire department incident commander, the police are responsible
for keeping the area secured and providing support help. .
Springfield Fire, Chief (Emergency 9-1-1, Administrative Dennis Murphy, 726-
3737)
The fire chief or other designated fire personnel will be responsible for determining if
local personnel can adequately and safely respond to a spill event. The incident
commander will contact Oregon Emergency Response System and request a Regional
HAZMAT Response Team if the situation and/or contaminant is beyond local
equipment and personnel capabilities. If it is determined that local response is
adequate, thejncident commander determines and directs what ids needed from
police, SUB, Rainbow, and City personnel through a unified incident command
system.
31
2-38
Springfield Utility Board Water Department Director (Ken Cerotsky, Work and
after hours emergencies 746-8451). After hours notice is routed to Water
Production call out list.
This person coordinates necessary actions, making any decisions regarding the
operation of the SUB water system. In the event the department director is not
available, the SUB Integrated Contingency Plan will be initiated. This plan
establishes that the most responsible SUB personnel 'contacted is the responsible
person for the Utility, until such time as they are replaced in accordance with the
plan. SUB Water Department director provides technical assistance and backup
support as directed by the incident commander. It is this person's responsibility to,
infonn the incident commander of the spill location within the drinking water
protection area and suggest any additional precautionary measures that need to be
considered. Operational situations that may affect Rainbow or other public water
suppliers will be coordinated directly with the responsible representative for the
appropriate supplier as soon as possible. The Oregon, Department of Human
Resources - Drinking Water Program (formerly Oregon Health Division) will be
immediately notified. In the event of any drinking water contamination, SUB Water
Department director will designate a media relations person who will prepare a press
release and handle all media for SUB.
Rainbow Water District Superintendent (J. Timothy Hanley; work and after
hours emergencies, 746-1676). After hours notice is routed to the on-call person.
This person coordinates necessary actions, ,making any decisions regarding the
operation of the Rainbow water system. Rainbow Water District superintendent
provides technical assistance and backup support as directed by the incident
commander. It is this person's responsibility to inform the incident commander of the
spill location within the drinking water protection area and suggest" any additional
precautionary measures that need to be considered. Operational situations that may
affect SUB Rainbow or other public water suppliers will be coordinated directly with
the responsible representative for the appropriate supplier as soon as possible. The
Oregon Department of Human Resources - Drinking Water Program (fonnerly ,
Oregon Health Division) will be immediately ,notified in the event of any drinking
water contamination. Rainbow Water District superintendent will designate a media
relations person who will prepare a press release and handle all media contacts for
Rainbow.
Lane County Sheriff's Office, Emergency Response Coordinator
(Ike Jenson, 682-4160)
The Lane County emergency coordinator should be notified and will inform the Lane
County Public Health Department and the Oregon Emergency Response System, who
in turn notifies other appropriate state agencies. Usually, the fire chief notifies the
county coordinator ifthe event requires county resources for response. However, if
the county coordinator is notified first, he will notifY SUB, Rainbow, and/or the
appropriate water supplier when a spill, emergency occurs within the drinking water
protection or surface water management area. '
32
2-39
,Other.local officials to be notified include:
Springfield,City Manager (Mike Kelly, 726-3700),
Sptingfield Mayor (Sidney Leiken 726-3700)
Other state and federal contact numbers include:
Oregon Department of Human Resources, Tom Charbonneau, Regional
Engineer, 1-503-0731-4381
Oregon DEQ, Western Region Phone list, Appendix H
Oregon Resources Division, Michael Mattick, Water master, 746-1856
Oregon State Fire Marshall, 1-503-378-3473
Chemtrec, 1-800- 424-9300
Call this 24-hour Emergency Notification number to report transportation related
spills'and to get MSDS sheets and related clean-up information on chemicals that
have been spilled. Internet address: www.cmaha.com
No additional changes are anticipated to existing procedures within Springfield's
Drinking Water Protection Plan for inclusion ofthe surface water management area of
the Middle Fork.
5. Short-term and long-term replacement of water supplies.
In the event of an emergency, the minimum water needs of the community must be met
with water that meets applicable health standards. Short-tertn options are those where the
alternative supply is needed for a few hours or days. Long-term options are considered
for a permanent replacement supply.
. '
Changes included within the Plan Addendum (2002) are not applicable to the City of
Springfield's primary drinking water supply (well water). Short and Long-term options
for water supplied from wells remains as laid out in Springfield's existing Drinking
Water Protection Plan. '
Q
Potential short-term drinking water:
o Implement curtailment plan existing Drinking Water Protection Plan-
Appendix E) and conservation practices.
o Purchase water ,from EWEB.
o Bottled water.
33
2-40
. Deliver potable water from non-affected wells with private tanker trucks
and/or notice to insure public health. '
o Make water available for only a short duration each day and issue a Boil.
Water notice to insure public health.
Intermediate-term
Recommendations within theexisting Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan are
extended to include drinking water from surface water sources.
. Same as short-term.
Long-term
. .Develop new well(s).
,
. Construct well treatment facilities.
. Expand capacity or treatment capabilities of water treatment (slowsand filter)
plant (capacity limited to existing water rights on the Middle Fork Willamette
. River).
'0 Purchase-water from EWEB
6. Short-term and long-term conservation measures
Conservation of water use will lesson demands on Springfield's public water supply
system in the event of an emergency situatioh. This element identifies short-term and
long-term conservation practices that could be implemented as a function of user needs
identified in Element 3, Priori!ization of Water Usage. The extent of
conservation/curtailment measures necessary will depend upon the nature and extent of
the emergency. Generalized conservation Icurtailment practices that can be applied
across land uses are identified below and are extended to covet surface water drawn from
the Middle Fork.
. Encourage conservation implementation in all uses prior to an emergency.
. . Prohibit outdoor water use.
. Provid~ water for drinking water purposes only.
o Administer.fines to violators of water misuse or overuse in'the event of a
water shortage emergency.
.. Make water available for a short dUration every day.
34
2-41
. Drop water pressure so that overuse is unlikely.
. Review individual commercial/industrial use on a case-by-case basis to
determine critical need.'
. Educate people about the emergency and necessary actions.
Willamalane Parks and City of Springfield: Park and City irrigated turf areas ,
will not be irrigated from the SUB or RWD public water supply systems during a
water emergency. Some parks have auxiliary surface water sources and wells. In
most instances these auxiliary supplies will not be affected by these curtailment
measures unless they compromise the public system. Street flushing and sweeping
,
with' water will be.curtailed.
CommerciallIndustriaVAgricultural auxiliary water supply wells: SUB and
R WD should seek cooperation from owners of wells whose operation might affect,
water availability to the,SUB and R WD public water supply wells. Auxiliary
wells in the vicinity of.the public water supply wells may also influence the flow
of contamination by drawing water more quickly toward the public wells. Well
owners should be notified in the event of an emergency that their cooperation in
reduced water use might be requested.
Emergency Evacuation Shelters and.Schools: Schools can reduce water use
primarily by eliminating grounds irrigation. In a temporary emergency, tankers,
for drinking water and other essential' functions should be stationed at the school
or emergency shelter to keep, them in operation.
McKenzie Willamette Hospital: The hospital is encouraged to develop a water
contingency and conservation plan. In a temporary emergency, tankers for
drinking water and other essential functions should be stationed at the hospital to
keep them in operation, For auxiliary potable water supply the hospital's
irrigation well can be treated with a portable treatment system from the National
Guard or treatment equipment supplier.
Industry/Commercial: Many businesses already have a contingency plan in
place that identifies water conservation practices in the event of a water shortage.
Businesses should be informed that in the event of a water emergency, their water
use may be curtailed and it is in their best interest to develop a conservation plan,
if they do not already have one.
Resident: Common conservation measures for residential use include limiting
practices such as lawn irrigation, car washing, laundry use; and installing
conservation devices such as low-flow shower heads. SUB publishes a variety of
information on water use reduction and conservation practices. Additionally,
Oregon Water Resource Department, DEQ, and the American Water Works
Association also publish infonnation on water conservation. SUB and RWD
35
2-42
should educate customers on water conservation practices prior to a water
, emergency. These educational efforts are,described in Element 9.
Fire Department; In the event of a fire during a water supply emergency, the fire
department has top priority for water usage. The Springfield Fire & Life Safety
Department must be notified when an emergency water conservation or
curtailment plan is going into effect. The notification shall include specific
operational details such as low pressure areas and isolated zones in the water
distribution system in order for fire personnel to make informed decisions about
fire suppression. Communication between the fire chief and stand-by personnel is
critical Additionally, the fire department should identifY alternative sources of
water for fire response services to insure fire protection,
7. Plan Testing, review, and update
This 'contingency plan will be evaluated, reviewed,. and updated using an annual review
and periodic mock exercise. SUB al}d Rainbow will review any personnel or substantial
changes and make adjustments to the Plan annually. A copy of this Contingency Plan is
included in SUB's Water Production Emergency Procedure Manual. The Emergency
Procedure Manual is reviewed and updated quarterly with 'corrections or modifications to
the plan taking place during the process. In addition, a simulated emergency (mock
exercise) will allow emergency responders to make necessary adjustments to the plan.
Mockexercises will also serve as, an educational tool for local citizens, reminding the
'community of the importance ofprotectihg their drinking water supply and of the
curtailment measures that might be imposed in the event ofan emergency.
8: Personnel training
To be effective, contingency plans must rely on properly trained personnel operating
within a well_organized and effective system with up-to-date information. County and
state emergency responders have been professionally trained to deal with HAMA T .
responses. Local personnel should also be trained in initial HAZMAT responses since
, they could be the first to arrive on site. Police officers receive HAZMA T awareness level
training as part of their officer-training prograJl1. Currently, all fire personnel receive
HAZMA T operations level training. With this level training, local personnel are able to
adequately identifY and contain many hazardous materials.
9. Provisions ~or public education
Public notification and.education information builds and maintains support for the plan.
, It further encourages assistance and understanding when an emergency arises and the
plan is put into effect. Management strategies for theSpringfield Drinking Water
Protection Plan have a strong educational imperative that satisfies this component ofthe
contingency plan. However, before aD emergency occurs residents and businesses must
be informed about the conservation an.d curtailment measures they will be expected to
36
2-43
apply. This information' should be prepared and distributed prior to a contamination or
, supply interruption.
SUB provides water only to residences and businesses within.the city of Springfield.
Therefore conservation and curtailment of services would apply only to those areas.
However, surface water that supplements existing groundwater sources is located entirely
outside the city. Therefore, education to inform the public about protecting this resource
will be based on the impact contaminants will have on the community and how Iiinited
surface water resources could affect them. Public education outside the city of
Springfield will be coordinated through the MFWWC.
10. Logistical and financial resources
The City, SUB, and Rainbow Water District should participate in aD. emergency response
situation only to the extent of providing assistance and information regarding the water
system and the particular needs of the community. The City, SUB, and Rainbow should,
not attempt any clean up on their own, although contaimnent may be appropriate. The
responsible party is legally obligated" to report and dean up chemical releases. Ifno
responsible party is found, the community may need to finance clean up or treatment.
Potential funding sources include:,
o State emergency funds
. Federal emergency funds
. A bond measure for replacement, treatment, or clean up needs
Chapter 7: New Well Site Analysis
This section deals with development of new wells to meet the drinking water demand of
an increasing population and is not applicable to surface water resources.
2-44
37
References
Barry Edmonston, Director, Population Research Center - Portland State University, Press
release, Oregon's Population Increases by More Than One:half Million in.the I990s, December
13, 2000. '
David Harris, Travel Rates of Water for Selected Streams in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon,
USGS - Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, HA273, 1968.
Patching, R., USDA-Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D,C., Soil Survey of lane County,
qregon, 1987.
Wayne Honneycut - Forest Technologist - U.S. Forest Service. May 200 I, personal
communication. Information on forestlands and facilities.
David Mattson, Engineer - McKenzie Resource Area, BLM. May 2001, personal communication.
Ross Penhallegon, OSU - Lane County Extension Service. March 200'I,personal
communication.
Tim Wright, Dexter Hatchery, Oregon Department ofFish & Wildlife, Personal communication
on March 21, 2001. Information on Dexter Fish Hatchery.
Barry Edmonston, Director, Population Research Center - Portland State University, Press
release, Oregon's Population Increases by More Than One-half Million in the I990s, December
13,2000. '
Rick Cooper, Hydro-geologist, Oregon Water Resources. Personal communication on June 10,
2002. Information on allocated water use.
Curtis Cude, DEQ Laboratory Division, Water QualityMonitoring, Oregon Water Quality Index
Report for Upper Willamette Basin - Water Years 1986'1995, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
Doug Crispin, Oregon State Parks Service. Person~il communication, March 21, 2001.
Information on Lowell State Park adjacentto Dexter Dam.
Sven Ariderson, Oregon State Parks Service. Personal communication; March 22, 200 I.
Information on state park facilities.
Randall Trox, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - Water Quality Division.' Personal
communication, March 26, 200 I. List of reported septic systems in the upper Middle Fork area.
Chuck Harmon, Oregon Department of Enyironment Quality -:Sanitary Sewer Division.
Personal communication, March 26, 200 I. Information'on large septic systems in public parks.
Kernieth Duncan, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Personal communication, March 21, 200 I.
Infortnation on dam facilities and Dexter Lake Service Buildings and Grounds map.
38
2-45
Willie Hartweg, City of Lowell Department of Public Works. Personal communication, May 14,
2001. Infonnation on City of Lowell facilities.
Frederique Chateau-Gruener, Lane County Pennits Division. Personal communication, May
2001. New construction. .
Sunny Washburn, City of Springfield - Stonn Water Division. City of Springfield Storm System
and Willamette Well Area map.
William Sage,' Lane County Land Management Division, Lane 'County Zoning Maps identifying
land use codes, March 2001. '
Ken Sandusky, Lane County Landfills. Personal communication, March 29, 2001. Infonnation
on historic landfills in Lane County, Oregon.
Michael Mattick, Oregon Well Master, District 2. Personal communication, May 29,2001.
Water well ii1fonnation.
'.,
Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan, Adopted May 17, 1999.
Oregon Assessment Plan Draft, November 17,1998.
Oregon Assessment Plan Addendum, DEQ and OHD, June 1999.
. '
Oregon DEQ, Sub-basin Target Datesfor Completion ofTMDLs for Wate~s Listed in the J 998
303(d) List.
Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Atlas of Lane County, 1999. Infonnation on
, precipitation, stream flow, ecoregions, wildlife habitat, transportation, and recreation.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000. Average summer and winter flows in the Middle Fork Willamette
River at Jasper gauge.
USACE and OWRD, The Willamette Basin Reservoir Study, 1999.
Oregon Water Resources Department, web-site Dam Information.
Oregon Department. of Agriculture, Southern Willamette Valley 303)d) List and Decision Matrix
- 1998.
SWLAC, Southern Willamette Valley Agricultural Water Quality Management Draft Plan
(303d), April, 2001.
SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic Database) data,sets from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
USGS, J :24,000 Topographic Maps of Eastern Lane County (Townships -18S, 19S, 20S, 21E I
Ranges -IE, 1W, 2W),,1986 and 1967 - revised 1986.
State of Oregon-Lane County on-line Well Log Report, May 2001.
39
2-46
Rachael Burr, Oregon DEQ, Water Quality Protection Specialist, database infomiation listed
below: .'
Oregon Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database, March 2001.
. Oregon Hazardous Waste Management System (HWYMSI) database of hazardous waste
handlers, March 200 I,
Oregon Underground Storage Tank (UST) database, March 2001.
Oregon State Fire Marshal's (SFM) List of Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities
database, March 2001.
State of Oregon Department of Environmen\al QuaJ.ity Underground Irijection Control
(UlC) database, March 200 1.
Oregon SourcelnfOlmation System (S1S) database of Wastewater Discharge Permits,
March 2001.
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Site Inventory (ECSI) database, March 2001.
2-47
40
... .
, .
Middle Fork Wi ITa niette '
, . - .
" '
,
.
WATERSH~D'
,CO>lJN;>C,1 , t.
June 27 2002: ,'.x'," "
..' -..;"., .'.;"- ..... ' -'
'.co''''
'f'",
. . ',-'.: : :........
'Sarah s~nie:rs:'" ",
'Cityof Spri,~gfield' '
DevelopmentPlanning' ,
225 Fifth Street. .
Springfield, OR~7477 ,,','.,,'
SUBJECT: ;". ' DWPP ADDENI?UM (2002) " "
, '
Dear Sarah, ,,'
'. .5
Springfield's])rinkingWat~r Protection Plan Ad<lendum(2002)has been presented to the Middle Fork
. ,Willamette W~tershed Council (MFWWC). From thisweseritation we underst,!nd that surface water,
. within the Middle ForkWillametteWatershedneeds to be managed not only for ecological integrity . ','.
andecoriomicviability, but forl1seasdrinking v{at~r as well.. " ,'.' ,.,'
.' This plan als~i~dicates that theentlre rnapagerp.erit area lies outside tile urban gr~Wthboundary for. the.
'Cityof SpringfieJd. Tl1erefore, the successofthisplan wiUdepend heavily on partnerships with: "
" volunteer Orgaruzatiorissuch as theMFW\VCand agencies thathavejmisdiction within the proposed ' ,,'.
'managemehtar~a:'-..' .,.' ,,;','- ", '..'
',' Th~ MFWWC~ndcithe;' stakeholder~ wOhldbecalled on todeyelop educationai pr()grams, condud :,'
, outreach to arearesidents and businesses,and participate inactivitie~ designed to protect and ie:itore ,.'
the riv~r aiidripai'iaifareas>, ", <" . '. .,,;".. ". ,,', ',' '.',.', ',':', . ",', ,:" , .,,' ,'. ..",
Tb.eMFWWC'firidsthis IJropo~edpartnership t6 becon~i~tent withihe goals, rllis~ion, and purpOse set' , ,
: forth in our charter: In fact, a partnership.alr.eadyexists between the,MFWWC and Springfield Utility
'Board (SUB).Represeritatjv~so-f SDl.l sit()n the Steering and OutieachlEducation Cominittees for the
MFWWC' ahd contribute research arid,\Vaterquality data, tiIlle, arid sei-vic,es to the council. .., ,,'
. We look forward to expanding our partnership with SUB and the City of Springfield in helping to
protect the Middle Fork Willamette River for aU beneficial uses, including drinking water.
. ,
S incerei y, '
'~/?1-~---;,/, .'
Rick Movsky '4' , ','
MFWWC, Steering COmmittee Chair
P.O. Box 2"7
, Lowell, OR 97452 .
'. Phone: '541-937"9800
Fax: 541-937-9811
, mfWwc@efn.org
. ATTACHMENT
3-1