1 Oregon Public Water Systems ater Resource Guide Surface W For Drinking Water Source Protection Febr uary 2018 Version 1.0 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Solutions Division Watershed Management Oregon Health Auth ority Center for Health Protection Drinking Water Services

2 A Call to Action - A Recommitment to Assessing and Protecting Sources of Drinking Water “Our vision...Federal, state, and local actions reflect the high value of safe drinking water: high value of drinking water is widely recognized at all levels of government and the among the general public...” Appendix 1, Source Water Collaborative, 2014) ( T his report was prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Environme ntal Solutions Watershed Management Section 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite 600 - 4100 Portland, OR 97232 - 800 - 1 - 4011 452 NOTE: This document is “Version 1.0” and dated February 2018 . It will be made av ailable on DEQ’s Drinking Water Protection website in . DEQ anticipates there will be frequent February 2018 revisions and updates on this document. Please feel free to make suggestions for improvements so that we can make the document more valuable to the public water systems in Oregon. Drinking Water Protection contact emails: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

3 Surface Water Resource Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE PROJECT Why is there a need for a “Surface Water Resource Guide”? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... ... 10 1 .0 DRINKING WATER REGULATORY OVERVIEW ... ... ... ... Safe Drinking Water Act 10 ... ... ... 11 Clean Water Act ... ... CLIMATE CHANGE ... ... 2 12 .0 .0 3 WATER CHARACTERIZATION AND RISKS ... .. 14 SURFACE Geologic Framework ... ... ... ... 15 ater Susceptibility ... ... ... .. 16 Surface W ... ... ... 19 Oregon Public Water Systems Source Water Assessments ... ... ... 20 Upd ted Source Water Assessments ... ... ... 21 a Using Oregon Data to Identify Pr iorities ... ... ... 22 Bacteria Data and Susceptibility ... ... ... 30 ... Turbidity Products Data and Susceptibility - ... 32 and Disinfection By Pesticide Data and Susceptibility ... ... ... 39 Water Treatment ... ... ... 43 Technologies 4 .0 PARTNERS, RESOURCES , AND FUNDS ... ... 45 Technical Assistance - Partner Organizat ions by County ... ... 45 Resources and Funds ... ... ... 50 ... ... - BASED PLANNING FOR SOURCE WATER 5 ... 75 .0 PLACE Pl anning Process for Protection ... ... ... 77 Data Available to Support ater Prote ction Efforts ... ... 80 Surface W 6 .0 POLLUTANT REDUCTION TOOLS ... ... 82

4 Land Cover Maps ... ... ... 83 ... ... ... ... 86 High Soil Erosion Potential ... ... ... ... 87 Landslide Risks ... ... ... ... 87 Urban Homeowners and Pes ticides - Pesticide Associations ... ... ... 88 Common Crop ... ... ... ... 97 Conservation Practices ... ... ... ... 98 Nutrient Management Potential Goals and Outcomes for Using Tools ... ... 100 ... 7 ... ... 100 .0 LAND USES AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES ggregate & Mine ... ... ... 101 A ral Mining / Extraction Wells ... ... Agricultural Lands ... 102 ... Co ... ... ... 103 mmercial and Industrial Lands ... ... ... ... 104 Federal Lands Forest Lands ... ... ... ... 104 O nsite Septic Systems ... ... ... ... 105 ... ... ... 106 Pesticide Regulations ... ... ... ... 109 Water Quality Permits ... .0 RELATED WATER QUAL ITY ISSUES/PROJECTS 8 ... 111 ... Total Maximum Daily Loads ... ... ... 1 11 (TMDLs) Statewide Toxics Monitoring and Assessment ... ... ... 111 Harmful Algae Blooms ... ... ... ... 112 Tillamook Estuary Program ... ... ... 114 ... Basin Assessments ... ... ... ... 114 Turbidity and TMDLs ... ... ... ... 115 Nonpoint Source ... ... ... ... 115 9 .0 REFERENCES ... ... ... 117

5 TABLES d Surface Water Vulnera g Pesticide Transport an ... 42 bility Table 1. Factors Influencin 85 ... Table 2. Example Land Characteristics and Cover Identified through Imagery Table 3 - Pesticide Associations in Oregon ... ... 90 . Common Crop FIGURES Drinking Water Source Areas: Public Wate r Systems Using Surfac e Water Figure 1. 17 ... Figure 2. Approximate Percentage of Land Uses withi ... 24 n Drinking Water Source Areas for Bacteria in Surface Water ... ... ... 31 Figure 3. Oregon Data s in Surface Water ... Figure 4. Oregon Data for Turbidity and DBP 34 ... Figure 5. Predicted Susceptibility to Ero sion fro m Moderate Ground Disturbance ... 35 Figure 6. NRCS Erosion Hazard Ratings – Off - Road/Off - Trail ... ... 37 Figure 7. Statewide Erosion Vulnerability Index Ratings ... 38 ... . Percentage of Pesticide Active Ingredient by Land Use/Activity ... 40 Figure 8 ... 9 . Process Diagram Figure nking Water Source Protection ... ... 78 for Dri APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 . Source Water Col labo rative -- Call to Action APPENDIX . Pollutant Reduction Strategies for Land Uses / Activities 2 APPENDIX 3 . Categorical Crop - to - Pesticide Table APPENDIX 4 Riparian Management Widths: Forestry & Agriculture . APPENDIX 5 . Drinki ng Water Protection Websites

6 PROJECT PURPOSE ater Resource Gui y is there a need for a “Surface W Wh de”? Oregon faces many challenges with water quantity, water quality, and ecosystem needs. food , to supply livestock, to build Oregon’s people rely upon water to drink, to irrigate and grow ter is e ssential to Oregon’s products, to move goods, to recreate, to produce energy. Clean wa environmental health — for the trees, native plants, wetlands, aquatic life , and human health . Oregon’s economy is also highly dependent upon a healthy environment and clean , reliable sources of water. As Oregon’s population gr ows, the importance of high quality drinking water sources to meet the demands of that population will increase. Ensuring high quality sources of water is essential for nesses, providing clean drinking water to agricultural growers/ranchers, rural homeowners, busi and urban communities of all sizes. Today, and historically , the public is concerned about the safety of its drinking water . This project --- developing a “Resource Guide” for public water sy stems --- was initiated after several community concerns about multi - agency meeting s during 2013 - 14 regarding how to address drinking water quality. Oregon DEQ developed the Resource Guides in response to these meetings. that needed more information local government and community citizens It was clear to unde rstand the various authorities associated with water quality in their source area, and : a) b) learn about the various tools and assistance available to reduce the risk of contamination of their drinking water. While the risk of intentional contamination is sm all, drinking water sources can become contaminated by a variety of human activities and natural causes . Most water resource work to date has focused on identifying pollutant impacts, then reducing the levels of pollutants and d waters. While we will continue to do this as resources allow, it is restoring impaired or pollute . not depend on also important to prevent problems from occurring es do Pollution prevent ion , but an understanding of factors that pose a risk of data showing there is an existing problem pollution. If there is already a pollution problem, it is too late to prevent it. With Pollution prevention is fundamentally different from pollutant removal or treatment. regard to safe drinking water, m any studies have shown that it is more cost - effec tive to prevent pollution than to remove it through treatment or implement restoration . Reducing or eliminating off - site releases of pollutants through protection and prevention activities can surface term viability of long - effectively lower treatment and maintenance costs, and improve water drinking water sources (Freeman et al 2008). Reducing pollutant loading source water to can reduce the need for equipment replacement or upgrades, as well as reduce risks associated accumulative) - s known to be toxic, persistent, and/or bio with many contaminants (including one where regulatory standards and/or monitoring requirements may be lacking. Long term - ary 2018 6 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

7 assurances of a safe and adequate drinking water supply also helps to protect property values and preserve the loc al and regional economic potential for the area. This Resource Guide provides the basic information necessary for Oregon’s public water system based planning to prevent pollutant - officials and community partners to implement local place d affect their drinking water quality. Pollution prevention can help protect impacts that coul public health, enhance public confidence in their drinking water, and reduce the need for expensive treatment in both surface water and groundwater. There have been many studies effectiveness of source water protection. One of - showing the cost Nature Conservancy's Global Water Program. the most recent comprehensive studies is from the The program just released a report titled "Beyond the Source: The environmental, economic, and c ommunity benefits of source water protection", which is paired with a companion decision tool mapping website. The report analyzes the source watersheds of more than 4000 large cities d implemented to worldwide, and highlights how nature - based solutions can be scaled up an make a difference in biodiversity conservation, resilience, and public health. For example, the analysis shows that 4 out of 5 of the ~4000 cities studied could meaningfully reduce sediment and nutrient pollution in water they use through 3 source water protection activities: reforestation, forest protection, and planting cover crops. It also dedicates significant discussion saving repercussions of source water protection efforts. The report can be - to potential cost accessed here: source? - the - ary 2018 7 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY currently 240 active intakes tapping into individual In Oregon, there are surface water for 163 Section 1453 of the public water systems 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (PL . federal - 182) required states to develop “Source Water Assessments” for all public water supplies 104 in their state. Source Water Ass essments identif y watershed or aquifer conditions and with , and also prioritize areas for future protection. T he Oregon Health potential sources of pollutants Authority (OHA) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) completed Oregon’s assessment reports in 2005 . More advanced data and GIS capabilities are currently available, so the state agencies are now completing “Updated Source Water Assessments” for public water systems in Oregon. USWAs provide more detailed technical i nformation on their inking water source area. This S urface Water Resource Guide is a “toolbox” for using the dr Updated Source Water Assessment information on the source areas to support local drinking water source protection. Drinking water sources, whether from a watershed o r aquifer recharge area, are subject to a variety of potential point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Improving or maintaining the source water quality is a vital component of providing safe and clean drinking water to the public. This document will prov ide information to better understand existing protections for drinking water, provide guidance for overcoming barriers to protection, and provide a consistent framework for developing and implementing effective drinking water source protection projects. DEQ recognizes the need to stabilize and create ecological and social resilience in municipal watersheds; this need will continue to increase as climate change brings more intense storms. It is clear that weather patterns are shifting, and Oregon communiti es are feeling more impacts of it is clear severe storms and intense rainfall events. Based on evaluation of drinking water data, t increase in an impact turbidity that to watersheds is he most significant direct of intense storms c Elevated – that is, an in re ase i n materials in the water that decrease water clarity. evels l turbidit y often results in increased maintenance for drinking water treatment and costs to residents . Pollutants such as fuels or pesticides a d sorbed to the surface of entrained particles in dissolved and/or turbid water can also increase public health risks. Regardless of the source, high and can fine particulate , organic matter in streams often requires more chemicals to treat water of disinfection byproducts , a catego ry of regulated carcinogenic compounds . increase the levels Other impacts of climate chan ge include an increase in temperatures of streams and lake s during the warmer summers, contributing to an increase in harmful algal blooms driven by higher levels . feeding into surface water of nitrates and phosphor us in stormwater and groundwater The State of Oregon adopted an “Integrated Water Resources Strategy (IWRS)” in 2012 to serve as a blueprint for addressing statewide water resource challenges. The Water Resources led the effort in consultation with Oregon DEQ, Oregon Department of Fish and Department Wildlife, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Within Goals 1 and 2 of the IWRS, the strategy seeks to improve information about local water resources and help communities u based integrated planning to improve resiliency and any public health - ndertake place ary 2018 8 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

9 challenges associated with water quantity and water quality. Meeting Oregon’s water resource needs under the strategy includes “ensuring the safety of Oregon’s drinking wa ter”, and “reducing the use of and exposure to toxics and other pollutants” (IWRS 2012, Recommended See WRD website for the 2012 IWRS, as well as a Draft 2017 IWRS: Actions 1C, 9A, 12A, and 12B). The primary purpose of the Resource Guide is to assist public water systems to prevent or reduce vities within their drinking water source area. The approach for contamination from acti developing and implementing prevention plans will follow the IWRS model and recommendations. Public water system officials/staff can rarely develop and implement strategic plans for pollutant reduction without assistance from partner organizations. To increase the opportunities for finding assistance, this document provides detailed information on potential partner organizations, resources available, and funding sources. To increase the likelihood that voluntary pollution reduction strategies will be successfully implemented, in - depth information is provided on various water quality protection tools and how to develop effective place - based plans through collaborative partnerships. As a first step in preventing pollution, DEQ ’s Drinking Water Protection program collects and disseminates information, provides financial and technical assistance where possible, and implements other activities with other water quality programs to prevent pollution. All public water systems are required to perform monitoring tests that meet the Safe Drinking Water Act these tests are requirements, but in order to keep costs reasonable for the public water systems, or more tested for. Thi are , and not all pollutants intervals s is an important performed at 3 ( year ) reason to work collaboratively on pollution prevention in the drinking water source areas. Community place - based planning for drinking water protection allows citizens to take an active role and work together in protecting public health and reducing the costs of providing clean drinking water. In preparation of this Surface Water Resource Guide, DEQ collaborated with a number of state, federal, and university partners to develop tools that are designed to help public water systems preve nt or reduce contamination from sources within their watershed. Oregon state agencies’ shared responsibilities for protecting water quality means that expertise representing a wide variety of land uses and activities help to develop screening tools and ide ntify practices that could potentially affect source waters. The goal of having detailed information on the drinking water watershed characteristics is to promote a greater level of communication with upstream landowners quality. The Resource Guide also includes several who water could potentially affect loads . tools that can be used for developing strategies to reduce pollutant This document provide data and information to encourage action on priority areas s , mapping of links to natural features, susceptibility an alysis, and identifying potential sources of pollutants ; non profit organizations that may be able to assist and information for how to improve - ; source improve protect and collaboration with upstream partners and landowners to water quality. ary 2018 9 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

10 DRINKING WATER REGULATORY OVERVIEW 1.0 It is important to understand the regulatory context of water quality as it relates to drinking water source protection. We all depend on clean water. This section will highlight the federal regulations related directly to public drinking water. Many agencies administer different aspects of water quality regulations that are intended to protect public health and water resources in Oregon. An Interagency Agreement between the OHA and DEQ provides a framework to ensure protection the responsibilities and tasks for DEQ associated with the drinking water aspects of public water systems are clearly articulated. Safe Drinking Water Act The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is the state agency responsible for the implementation of th e federal Safe Drinking Water Act in Oregon. ORS 338.277 authorizes OHA to administer the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in Oregon as the Primacy Agency in agreement with the federal government. ORS 448.131 further authorizes the adoption of standards nec essary to protect public health through insuring safe drinking water within a water system. Oregon Administrative 061 include requirements for systems to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act - Rules OAR 333 spections, and meet enforcement maximum contaminant levels (MCL), submit to periodic in requirements as administered by OHA. As the primacy agency, OHA also approves drinking water treatment plans and sets construction er. In standards, operator certification standards, and enforces rules to ensure safe drinking wat order to assist systems in complying with standards, OHA also provides technical assistance and oversight of grants and loans for public water system operation and improvements. The OHA website has extensive information on all drinking water regu latory requirements: The federal Safe Drinking Water Act currently regulates the 91 most commonly occurring ). n the United States (USEPA, 2018 pollutants in drinking water i many pollutants not There are including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and regulated in treated drinking water — pesticides used in Oregon. For example, Community public water systems (places where many ter systems (places where people work transient Non - community public wa people live) and Non - or attend school) test for regulated synthetic organic contaminants every three years in treated drinking water, but there are many compounds used in Oregon that are not regulated under the sting requirements for Transient Non - community public water current requirements. The te systems (places that don’t serve the same people every day) are limited to bacteria and nitrate, pollutants that can have an acute illness risks. .S. Geological Survey, U.S. EPA, and others, we Through extensive sampling and analysis by the U know that many pollutants found in drinking water sources cannot be fully removed through , Stackelberg et al 2004 standard drinking water treatment technologies ( Glassmeyer et al 2017). ary 2018 10 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

11 The inability to remov e pollutants from source water places even more emphasis in reducing or preventing pollutants in source waters. Clean Water Act to prevent pollution in source waters. The Safe Drinking Water Act does not provide authorities rce waters for public water systems requires implementation of Protecting water quality in sou DEQ is responsible for implementation of the federal Clean Water Act authorities and state law. federal Clean Water Act and state water quality law in Oregon. Because of this authority, DEQ is responsible for addressing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources of pollution that affect the water quality throughout the state. . Oregon The federal Clean Water Act authorities apply to all surface waters in the United States state statutes (ORS 46 8B.005(10)) expand upon the federal Clean Water Act to afford protection for all waters of the state, including groundwater. Oregon statues authorize DEQ to implement vide and enforce the federal Clean Water Act within Oregon. Pertinent Oregon statutes that pro the basis for prevention of contamination include: ORS 468B.005 Definitions for water pollution control laws. ...(5) “Pollution” or “water pollution” means such alteration of the physical, chemical or including change in temperature, taste, color, biological properties of any waters of the state, turbidity, silt or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into any waters of the state, which will or tends to, either by itself or in connection w ith any other substance, create a public nuisance or which will or tends to render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to eficial uses domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate ben or to livestock, wildlife, fish or other aquatic life or the habitat thereof. ...(10) “Water” or “the waters of the state” include lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, ca nals, the Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits of the State of Oregon and all other bodies of surface or underground waters, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private (except those private waters which do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters), which are wholly or partially within or bordering the state or within its jurisdiction. ORS 468B.015 Policy. Whereas pollution of the waters of the state constitutes a menace to public hea lth and welfare, creates public nuisances, is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses of water... e: it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the stat ) ...(2 To protect, maintain and improve the quality of the waters of the state for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, municipal, recreational and other legitimate benef icial uses; ...(5) To cooperate with other agencies of the state, agencies of other states and the federal government in carrying out these objectives. ary 2018 11 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

12 DEQ has primary responsibility for implementing water quality protection in Oregon. DEQ has a suite of - point programs and responsibilities to help prevent contamination from point and non sources of pollution, to clean up pollution sources, and to monitor and assess water quality (see: ). As part of its strategic plan, DEQ places http://ww high emphasis on protecting human health. Within the water quality program, this is achieved through work on watershed health, basin assessments, discharge permitting, nonp oint source controls, water quality standards and protecting beneficial uses. There is a high level of coordination to integrate the drinking water source area information and priorities into other agency programs, including toxics reduction, pesticide ste wardship partnership implementation, emergency/spill response, hazardous waste cleanup, water quality permitting, and other programs that impact water resources. Many DEQ programs prioritize public drinking water lanning for implementation. For example, the DEQ source areas in their statewide strategic p underground storage tank cleanup program prioritized and addressed 99 leaking tanks in the source areas adjacent to public water system wells based on the 2005 Source Water Assessment data. 2.0 CLIMATE C HANGE Climate change is already affecting the Pacific Northwest, and alterations to our regional as well as global climate are expected to continue for decades. Effects of climate change include more frequent and larger major storms, drier summers and we tter winters, increased wildfire severity in some places, increases in stream temperature, and reductions to summer and early autumn erosion and are more likely to (Lanini et al 2009) streamflow. Larger storms increase surface trigger landslides (Robison e t al 1999, Turner et al 2010). In areas dependent on groundwater discharge into streams, there may be lower streamflows during the dry seasons that could create problems for fish and water supplies. Increases in stream temperatures can encourage algal blo oms and impair fish and other aquatic life. Incidences of algal blooms can also be increased by storm runoff of nitrate - or phosphorus - rich waters. Climate change effects do not occur in isolation but will interact with the effects of human activities and other natural processes. For Oregon, some specific examples of how climate change may impact surface water systems include:  Potential less surface water available in summer months and this may cause water “junior” water rights, shortages for public water systems with newer or Potential increased competition with other water users such as agriculture,   Potential increased costs for drinking water treatment due to increased algal blooms or bacteria where there are increased temperatures in streams, and Pot  ential increased costs for drinking water treatment due to water quality effects of low flows causing concentration of nutrients. In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature charged the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute with assessing the likely effects of climate change on the state, including specific biological, was developed in An assessment report physical and social science aspects that relate to Oregon. ary 2018 12 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

13 2010 to act as a compendium of the relevant research on climate change and its impacts on (Dello 2010). The report stated that human activities are primarily responsible for the Oregon th 1.5 ° F (0.83°C) increase in the 20 century temperatures in the Pacific Northwest. observed Future predicted regional climate changes in Oregon include: • Increases in temperature around 0.2 - 1 F (0.11 - 0.56°C) per decade ° • Warmer and drier summers with a likely 14 percent decrease for summer precipitation by the 2080s • Extreme precipitation events will likely increase in frequency and severity • Sea levels will rise, possibly by two to four feet (0.6 to 1.2 meters) by 2100 from the report include: Key findings • Summer water supply will decrease due to reduced snowpack and summer precipitation ; and cost of water will likely be the most limitin , Availability, quality g factor for • agricultural production under a warmer climate Wildfire is projected to increase in all Oregon forest types in the coming decades • • Frequency and magnitude of coastal flooding events may continue to increase • Many plant and animal species o n land, in freshwater and in the sea have and will shift their distribution and become less or more abundant – harmful algal invasive species and blooms may become more abundant • Changes to the marine environment including increasing water temperatures • Oregon’s economy, like many other states, is likely to be affected by a changing climate and by policies addressing projected changes and • The important drivers of greenhouse gas emissions are population, consumption , the emission . intensity of the economy US Forest Service released the National Roadmap for Responding to Climate In July 2010, the and the accompanying Climate Change Performance Scorecard. These actions were Change intended to help move USFS forward in responding to climate change , but the work on the vulnerability assessments may be useful for other applications associated with drinking water and climate change . The purpose of develop ing vulnerability assessments , through research and management s partnerships, in clude :  Assess the vulnerab ility of species, ecosystems, communities, and infrastructure and identify potential adaptation strategies. Assess the impacts of climate change and associated policies on tribes, rural communities,  dependent communities. and other resource -  h the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Collaborate wit to assess the vulnerability of threatened and endangered species and to develop potential adaptation measures. ary 2018 13 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

14 To support their vulnerability assessments, Region 6 (Pacific Northwe st) contracted with the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington to develop a set of consistent historical and future downscaled climate and hydrologic projections for the western United can be found ced by the team here: States. De tails on this project and the data produ In 2015, additional climate adaptation work was done as part of a project funded by the National (Weber 2015). The project was developed by NOAA’s Oceanic and Atmosph eric Administration Oregon Coastal Management Program and included the Oregon Sea Grant and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The project used the statewide climate d strategies for implementation at the county level. The Clatsop and impacts and produce Tillamook County strategies are transferable and can be used in other counties. For additional tools to address climate change, public water systems should review US EPA’s PA 2015). resources (USE 3.0 SURFACE WATER CHARACTERI ZATION AND RISKS This section provides an introduction to the surface water resources in Oregon, an overview of what makes surface water susceptible to contamination, and highlights of important and/or unique surfa ce water issues in Oregon. Surface water is an essential Oregon resource. By law, all surface and groundwater in Oregon belongs to the public. To protect this valuable resource, the Oregon legislature passed state laws and delegated federal Clean Water A ct implementation authorities to prevent surface water contamination, conserve and restore surface water, and maintain the high quality of Oregon’s surface water resources for present and future uses. DEQ implements Oregon’s surface water protection progra ms to monitor, assess, protect, and restore the quality of Oregon’s water resources. Because the sources of water conta mination and consumers of surface water cross all ublic boundaries, DEQ also engages with other state agencies, federal agencies, private and p organizations and individuals to improve and protect surface water quality. The Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) has significant water quantity authorities related to issuing and water resources, providing water regulating water rights, oversight of the demands on the state's resource data, and facilitating water supply solutions (especially necessary in drought conditions). Surface water in Oregon has many valuable uses and functions:  Surface water makes up of the most visible and sensitive of available freshwater resources.  Surface water uses account for approximately 70 percent of all water used in Oregon. public water systems get their drinking water from  the Oregon of Approximately 10% , but those include large municipaliti surface water es such as Portland, Salem, Eugene, . Medford, Bend, and others ary 2018 14 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

15  Oregon's businesses require clean water for industries such as food processing, breweries, dairies, manufacturing, and computer chip production.  Surface water provides irrigation water for Or egon agriculture and water for livestock. Geologic Framework The entire Pacific Northwest is a dynamic natural environment. Understanding the geographic setting improves identification of risks and vulnerabilities to a drinking water source. Watershed rotection in this geographic setting requires understanding the unique influences of geology, p topography, climate and ecology. , volcanoes, and uplift have created (and continue to Plate tectonics, a subducting ocean plate itions in the Oregon Coast Range , the Cascades, Blue, Wallowa, create) diverse geological cond and Klamath Mountains. The Blue, Wallowa, and Klamath Mountains are remnants of historic coastlines and coastal ranges when the majority of the current Oregon land mass was underwater. The Casc ade Mountains are primarily of volcanic origin and continue to be tectonically active with volcanoes and earthquakes as major forces that can drastically alter the Much of Oregon’s landscape is covered with thick volcanic basalt deposits from landscape. hi storic eruptions and flood basalt flows. is the Topographically, the terrain near the coast is mountainous. The Coast Range younger youngest of Oregon’s mountains and is primarily interlayered oceanic sediment deposits and lava flows, pushed upward as a r esult of plate tectonics. This means there are large areas of highly erodible sedimentary rocks, including some of oceanic origin, with sections of harder igneous large sea floor faults off the coast of Oregon that are acti (volcanic) rocks. There are also ve and can cause both earthquakes and tsunamis. driven t sunamis present a risk to coastal - Earthquake drinking water supplies due to the possibility of saltwater surges upstream and physical damage to the infrastructure of community water supplies. Regiona eology can be a factor in climate conditions as well. For example, t he topography of l g the mountains and proximity of the ocean makes for a climate on the west side of the unique Cascade Mountains . Oregon’s Coast Range is characterized by a dry summer sea son with high amounts of precipitation between October and April , includ ing frequent large storms. Yearly average precipitation can regularly exceed 100 inches in many mountainous locations. In contrast, t he high desert region of eastern Oregon is characte rized by average precipitation of only 8 12 inches per year. - Oregon’s geology has a very active and diverse histor y , and the conditions driving the movement and change continue today. The landscape is shaped by the erosion and sediment movement processes that vary locally due to site - specific rock types and differing degree s of consolidation. Steep slopes are prone to shallow, rapidly - moving landslides, and there are numerous large, seated landslides as well. onditions are an Understanding the geology and landscape c deep - s atershed w important first step in determining the characteristics of in Oregon. ary 2018 15 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

16 Surface Water Susceptibility An understanding of the fundamentals of surface water hydrology is essential for effective protection of waterbodies used for pub lic water supplies. Surface water originates as precipitation (rain, fog, snow) and can move directly into waterbodies as surface runoff, be stored as snowpack and ice, or infiltrate into the soil, from there moving into aquifers and waterbodies. Streams a nd lakes are connected to groundwater (aquifers) with water moving between groundwater reservoirs and surface waterbodies. Timing, form, and intensity of precipitation affect surface water quantity, quality, and seasonal flow patterns. Peak flows occur ing and directly after large storms and snowmelt events (winter and spring). Low flows dur typically occur at the end of the dry summer season (September or October, depending on when significant rainfall occurs). The basic hydrological structure of soils an d stream channels in the region varies with geology, topography, elevation, and precipitation form. Stream channels themselves can be ephemeral (only flowing during and just after storms), intermittent (flowing during much of the year but typically ceasing to flow during parts of the summer), or perennial (flowing year round). Headwaters streams collect into larger channels in hierarchal fashion, with flow volume generally (but not always) increasing in a downstream direction. As water moves across the la ndscape, surface water is vulnerable to contamination from air - or water - transported pollutants. ms, and rivers. A Surface drinkin g water intak es in Oregon draw water from lak es, strea s part of e area” fo r each public , th e “drinking water sourc OHA and D EQ’s drinking water protection work water system intak s the area of the e was delineated and mapped. An intake’s source area i catch ment upstre am of th e intak e to either th e catch ment boundarie s or th e next upstream . intak e, whichever is closer Figure 1 provid es a statewide view of th e drinkin g water sou rce areas for Oregon’s approximat ely 215 0 public water syst ems. Figur e 1 includes th e sou rce area s for 240 in tak es that are part of 163 surf ace water public water syst ems in Oregon. Many public rve their water supply needs. Individual maps can e t o se water systems have mor e than one intak be accessed for each Oregon public water system on DEQ’s Drinking Water Protection website www http:// (ODEQ 2018): ary 2018 16 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

17 Water Water Surface Using Figure 1. Drinking Water Source Areas for Public Systems Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, the - As part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water US GS has studies examining the presence and concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, volatile organic compounds, and mercury in the nation’s streams, as well as the ecological health of ). These streams and the effects of urbanization on water quality ( studies examine the physical, chemical, biological, and anthropogenic factors that create susceptibility to pollution and ecosystem degradation. These studies are national in scale with ta from the Pacific Northwest included in the data collection and analysis and give insight into da how contaminants can reach drinking water supplies and intakes. The susceptibility of a drinking water intake to contamination depends on both waterbody and landscape characteristics and the land uses and activities in the vicinity of the waterbody. Natural conditions that may contribute to higher contamination risks include the amount of local ances, erodibility of soils and precipitation, vegetation density and composition, natural disturb other geologic factors, ground surface slope/gradient, and other related factors. ary 2018 17 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

18 Water quality in Oregon can vary due to natural and/or human influences. Fires periodically burn through forests and rangelands (see for exam ple Coast Range history: Long et al 1998). In steep areas, landslides occur and can move large amounts of soil, rock and debris. Windstorms can blow over trees, and flooding periodically affects streamside areas and beyond. Erosion of ng vegetation can add sediments and organic matter (biomass) to surface streambanks and falli waters. These disturbances, large and small, are important ecological processes, rejuvenating and reorganizing ecosystems, and can at times interfere with beneficial uses of surface wa ters (Reeves et al 1995, Gomi et al 2005, Reeves et al 2006). Anthropogenic activities and pollution sources can be a risk to a drinking water intake that serves m as a private or public water system source. Surface water is susceptible to contamination fro many different land uses and activities. Common potential sources of pollution within drinking water source areas include urban stormwater runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater, gravel quarries and other mining sites, animal manage ment areas (inclu ding confined livestock or animal feeding operations), onsite wastewater systems (domestic or industrial), fuel and hazardous material storage/use locations, boat ramps and marinas, agricultural practices, , and solid waste handling site s (landfills or transfer stations). As described in forestry operations more detail below, the Source Water Assessment reports identified a broad range of these “potential contaminant sources” for each drinking water source area. To summarize, causes of water quality impact s and risks can be roughly divided into natural and human (or anthropogenic) factors. More specific information on each of these potential water quality impacts can be found in Appendix 2 in this document. clude: Natural factors that can affect water quality in  Locations of steep slopes prone to shallow, rapidly 85%), - moving landslides (>70 - depending on geology and landform)  Locations of earthflows and other deep - seated earth movements  Eroding streambanks, inner gorges and cliffs, and other erosion - prone, stream - adjacent features  Recently disturbed uplands and riparian areas (for example, fire or windstorm in the past 10 to 30 years)  Naturally - occurring mineral deposits such as mercury, nickel, chromium, and arsenic Human factors affecting water quality i nclude:  Human activities and facilities within riparian areas Road locations and conditions, especially stream crossings, roads near streams, roads on  steep slopes, and roads with drainage systems connected to the stream network or cropland that have flowing water adjacent Actively used pastures and/   Stormwater runoff from vulnerable areas (areas with high phosphorus or nitrogen content, for example)  Recently managed forestland which has been harvested, replanted, treated with herbicides, etc. ary 2018 18 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

19  Quarries and associated infrastructure  Construction sites  Residential land (rural, suburban, urban) and infrastructure (for example, onsite/septic systems and stormwater discharge pipes)  Hazardous material sites  Industrial sites  Solid waste landfill sites ns on the landscape are more sensitive to disturbances, including: Some locatio  Riparian areas  Springs, seeps and wetlands  Steep slopes (>70 - 85%)  Floodplains erodible soil  Areas with highly -  Any areas with disturbed or bare soil  High water table areas The costs associa ted with treating surface water sources can be directly related to raw water quality conditions (Brown 2000, Postel and Thompson 2005, Freeman et al 2008). The natural processes and human and natural disturbances listed above can affect water quality in wa ys that become problematic for drinking water treatment processes. Increased turbidity (cloudiness) and suspended sediment in source water can clog filters, require more water treatment chemical use, and carry pollutants and pathogenic microorganisms ( Mesc hke and Sobsey 1998, Lick 2008). Dissolved organic matter is a necessary precursor to potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts, which are formed when commonly used disinfectants react with dissolved organic carbon compounds. All of these constituen ts can raise the cost of drinking water treatment, require treatment plant shutdowns, or result in finished drinking water that does not meet Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCL) or treatment technique standards. Providing reliable clea n and safe drinking water to the public requires both water treatment technology and prevention of pollutants in source water (the “multiple barrier approach”). Reducing the pollutant loading in source waters can avoid additional treatment costs and improv e the reliability of treatment (US EPA 2001a, US EPA 2001b). Reducing pollutant levels in source water can also reduce the production of harmful disinfection byproducts, which are a result of factors such as high chlorine demand and/or high organic matter content in source waters (Nikolaou et al 1999, US EPA 2002). Protection of watersheds is often more cost - effective than treatment (Gartner et al 2014). Oregon Public Water Systems Public water systems in Oregon are regulated by the Oregon Health Authority ‒ Drinking Water Services. In Oregon, public water systems with 4 or more connections or serving more than 10 people for at least 60 days of the year are regulated. T here are approximately 3400 public water of these use 163 dwater wells or springs, and sy stems in Oregon. T he majority of these use groun from surface water wells that have been determined to be under the direct rivers, reservoirs, or ary 2018 19 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

20 influence of surface water Surface water serves most of the larger municipalities in Oregon and . they have m ore t han one intake on their surface water sources . For the 163 surface water public water systems, there are 240 intakes serving those systems as of August 2017. active Source Water Assessments The individual drinking water source areas for public water syste ms in Oregon were mapped as required in the 1996 amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (USEPA 1996). These amendments required states to develop “source water assessments” for all public water supply e Drinking Water Act. Between 1999 and 2005, systems. The work was funded through the Saf OHA and DEQ teamed up to complete the assessments for 2,656 public water systems (the total regulated systems in Oregon - ly number of federal ). Oregon’s source water at that time assessment procedures, including t he development of the list of potential risks, were established by a statewide citizen’s advisory committee (Feb 1998 June 1999) and approved by US EPA in - July 1999. ailed The assessment reports for each public water system provide community officials with det information on the watershed or recharge area that supplies their well, spring, or surface water intake and identify potential risks within the source area. The potential risks to be identified in these reports were defined by EPA and included both p oint sources and nonpoint sources. A description of each type of land use/activity defined as a potential risk is provided in the assessment for each system, along with individual maps with locational data. The potential risks identified in the assessments were based upon a review of nine agency databases (DEQ, US EPA, State Fire Marshall, etc.) and other data sources ( including some field assessments where necessary). g the One of the most important aspects of the source water assessment process was determinin “susceptibility” of each system to contamination. Susceptibility in the assessment was defined as the potential for contamination in the source area to reach the public water system intake(s). Whether or not a particular drinking water source becomes contaminated depends on three major factors: 1) the occurrence of a land use/activity that releases contamination, 2) the location of the release, and 3) the hydrologic, ecological, and/or soil characteristics in the source area that allow the transport o f the contaminants to the waterbody and thereby the intake. The assessments contained basic maps of susceptible areas within the source area for public water intakes. 2005 assessment reports are still available for the public from DEQ and OHA. Re - The 2000 ports for surface water sources ar e available on DEQ’s website at: Maps and downloadable sta ) of drinking water sourc e area tewide GIS shapefiles (ODEQ 2018 DEQ's drinking water source protection website at: data are available on spx ary 2018 20 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

21 Drinking water source areas, land use/activities, etc. are shown on DEQ's Interactive Map Viewer - Maps.aspx (IMV): lo cation - The IMV is a drinking based system showing DEQ and OHA data and information. The water source areas are also mapped on the Oregon State University ‒ Institute for Natural Resources website, and are also available from the Oregon Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The information provided within the original assessment reports served as a basis for communities to develop strategies to reduce the risks of pollution in their drinking water sources. Updated Source Water Assessments and GIS mapping has significantly improved since Oregon’s The level of information in databases original assessments were completed between 2000 and 2005. DEQ and OHA are now able to generate “Updated Source Water Assessments (USWA)”. DEQ is working to issue updated water systems , including new systems, and OHA is updating the assessments for all surface groundwater assessments with assistance from DEQ for GIS resources and mapping. Accurate source area mapping and visual resources to share with the community residents and officials is one of the most important and valuable assets a public water system can have. Since the first source water assessments were completed, DEQ has expanded its GIS capabilities and, more importantly, the range of available data for analyzing potential pollutant sour ces. Our understanding of potential pollutant sources is improved by development or acquisition of new datasets (such as the hazardous material storage locations, linking water quality assessment ; rks ; results to pollution sources better roadway and river netwo outfall locations for permitted land use based on photo ; underground injection control well pollution sources location s ; ; historic landslide data ; harmful algae blooms imagery ; permitted sources’ front door locations ; mining activities and many more). Currently the program ; confined animal feeding operation s ; has more than 40 GIS datasets to assist public water systems to identify new or previously unknown potential pollutant sources. In the updated assessment reports, DEQ and OHA provide information to the public water systems on the locations of the potential sources of contamination. The location of each intake include a new has been fixed with a precise GPS latitude and longitude location. The figures base map with the source area delineated, and regional map view of source area, aerial photo maps with anthropogenic land uses, potential sources of pollutants, and historic landslides. Tables are provided that include a summary of the types of potential pollutant risks in their drinking water source area. The susceptibility of a public drinking water system source depends on both the natural conditions in the source area and the human land uses/activities in that area. ive pollution The updated assessment reports also include a variety of resources so that effect prevention plans can be developed to prevent or reduce any surface water contamination. Appendices provide information for moving forward to develop and implement source water ater systems and community protection, lists of websites and resources available to public w members seeking technical assistance for work on watershed protection, and descriptions and contact information for grants and loans to fund both drinking water infrastructure and source ary 2018 21 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

22 protection projects. Many of those same ma terials have been expanded with more information and detail in this Resource Guide. More information on the groundwater USWA reports can be found on the OHA website: Surface water USWA reports completed to date can be found on the DEQ website : Using Oregon Data to Identify Priorities Surface water contamination is a serious issue in some areas of Oregon. Many state and federal agencies have studied the quantity and qu ality of surface water in specific areas, but there are still significant gaps and data needs to fully characterize Oregon’s water resources. This section will summarize some of the best sources of data that help DEQ to determine the priorities for surface water contaminant reduction work in drinking water source areas , based on priority contaminants identified by OHA . Figure 1 (above) provides a statewide view of the drinking water source areas for Oregon’s 163 public water systems using surface water. In terms of total land area, the drinking water source areas for public water system intakes are a significant pro portion of the land area in the state part of the state east west of the Cascade Mountain crest, but occupy a smaller proportion of the Cascades. These areas are critical for Oregon’s communities. Surface water is susceptible of the to contamination from many different land uses and activities within those source areas. Surface water may be susceptible to organic, inorganic, and pathogenic pollu tants from both historical and existing land uses and natural features . For purposes of providing statewide guidance to public water systems, drinking water protection priorities to focus on could be selected by either: areas of alculating the A) C t land uses within the public drinking water source predominan areas that have a potential to impact water quality, or B) C ompiling monitoring data to determine the most significant contaminant or chemical in surface water at or near public water systems. As previousl y discussed, the source water assessment reports identified the geographical areas of drinking water source areas supplying the public water system intakes. Each assessment provided an inventory of the potential contaminant risks identified at the time of assessment completion. A review of all statewide source water assessment 2005 data within drinking water source areas found over 15,750 potential contaminant risks (in a total of 134 categories). For the public water systems served by surface water, the fo llowing were identified as the top 5 categories for higher risks: Managed Forests (harvests/pesticides)  C utting and yarding of trees may contribute to increased erosion, resulting in mproper pplication or i A turbidity and chemical changes in drinking water supply. ary 2018 22 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

23 , depending handling of pesticides or fertilizers may impact drinking water sources procedures . Areas with a high density of roads can present on site conditions and risks. Crops – Irrigated  A pplication or improper handling of pesticides or fertili zers may impact drinking water , depending on site conditions and procedures . Excessive irrigation may cause transport of contaminants or sediments to groundwater/surface water - irrigated crops such as vineyards and some vegetables , through runoff. NOTE: Drip are considered to be a low risk.  Grazing Animals /c onfined livestock (>5 large /acre) Improper storage and management of animal wastes may impact drinking water bacterial supply. Concentrated livestock or wild animals may contribute to il erosion so contamination, surface water bodies. , and increased turbidity in Above Ground Tanks  Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored materials may impact the drinking water supply. Auto Repair  Spills, leaks, or improper handling of automotive fluids, solvents, an d repair materials during transportation, use, storage and disposal may impact the drinking water supply. Other significant potential risk categories include:  Wastewater Treatment Plants  permitted for discharge upstream of public — 47 locations, including collection stations) drinking water intakes ( at least 6 reservoirs and lakes that serve as community  Heavy Recreation — drinking water sources are also used for recreation including human contact. of risks to Oregon public potential The assessment inventory results were an important summary water systems. DEQ used this list as a first step in prioritizing drinking water protection planning is a graphic Figure 2 . and implementation after delivery of the original source water assessments ate percentage of the land uses within drinking water source areas for showing the approxim public water systems using surface water. ary 2018 23 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

24 within Uses Figure 2. Approximate Percentage of Land Drinking Water Source Areas for Surface Water The data on land uses proximate due to limitations within the GIS layers. Not all only ap is counties have data that is accurate for all types of land uses under statewide planning. Public water systems in Oregon are subject to Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations. OHA e SDWA regulations that require public water systems to test their finished or implements th treated drinking water for particular substances before delivery to customers. This required data can be evaluated to determine drinking water priorities using the detections fo und in surface water systems. OHA does not routinely collect samples of source water prior to treatment. There are some data on surface water quality prior to treatment, but it is limited. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data for treated surface water is still useful for prioritizing the contaminants since the public water systems must address these in the raw source water. Using ary 2018 24 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

25 Oregon SDWIS data from 2006 to 2017, the top contaminant detections in drinking water after treatment include nitrates, fuel constituents, pesticides, phthalates, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds such as tetrachloroethylene. For surface water systems detections of total coliform and detections of disinfection byproducts (TTHM, HAA5 and bromate) exceeding th e MCL are also prevalent . Detections of contaminants in regulatory monitoring are a clear indication that there is an existing pathway of contamination from the ground surface to the waterbody and intake. Oregon DEQ’s Laboratory collects data as part of the statewide monitoring and assessment program for surface and groundwater. The Laboratory monitors a network of 163 ambient water quality sites throughout the state six times a year. These sites represent the diverse land use coverage and geography with streams throughout the in Oregon, and include major rivers and state. The ambient network and subsequent water quality index reporting is Oregon’s only long - term, systematic, continuously funded statewide river water quality monitoring program. The DEQ beg an monitoring the oldest sites in the late 1940s and many sites in the network contain data going back more than 30 years, allowing for long - term trending in DEQ’s progress of the network periodically changes due toward meeting state water quality objectives. The size to logistical and budgetary constraints. For example, 19 sites were added to the ambient network in 2011 with funding support from the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) is a statistical tool used to anal yze a defined set of water quality variables and produce a score describing general water quality for a particular monitoring site. OWQI scores range from 10 (worst case) to 100 (ideal water quality). These l water quality information to the public, scores allow the Oregon DEQ to communicate overal - technical manner. non agency managers and the Oregon Legislature in an easy - to understand, See background information and details on the OWQI here: OWQI results for water years 2007 - 2016 show 50 percent of sites in excellent or good status, 16 percent in fair and 33 percent in poor or very poor status for the statewide ambient monitoring n etwork of 163 sites. Of the 133 ambient monitoring network sample sites with sufficient data to calculate trends (30 or more scores), 24 percent show improving water quality, while 6 percent have declining water quality. Of the sites with impr oving trends, 41 percent are categorized as fair to very poor status. This is down from 53 percent last year, which is encouraging as continued upward trends may result in improved water quality status for these sites. On the sites with declining water quality are in good status and should be other hand, three of the eight evaluated further to avoid a decrease in water quality status. The remaining 70 percent of sites have no statistically significant trend. ing water quality index scores in 2016 were ites with significantly improv OWQI monitoring s spread across the state. Two sites in the Klamath basin had the greatest improvement in water quality, based on the magnitude of the trend, with both sites showing improving trends in the dissolved oxygen, nitrog indices. Many of the sites with improving water - en and phosphorus sub quality are in fair to very poor status (11 out of 32 sites; Table 1), indicating that the largest gains 14 of the 32 in water quality occurred at sites with the most room for improvement. Statewide, ary 2018 25 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

26 sites with improving OWQI scores in 2016 have had improving trends for three or more consecutive years While sites with significantly declining water quality index scores in 2016 are also spread across the state, they are less prevalent. Only one site, in the lower Deschutes Basin, showed a declining trend for three or more consecutive years . The declining trend at this location is ongoing and further investigation should be conducted. Three sites in the Willamette Basin, tus, showed declining trends for the first time. These sites will currently in good sta be monitored to determine any further decline in status. Trending analysis of the water years 2007 - 2016 data show a greater proportion of sites with improving trends for phosphorus than an - index variable with 64 percent of the sites y other sub with improving trends, followed by temperature with 53 percent of the sites with improving trends (Figure 2). Dissolved oxygen had the greatest percentage of sites with declining trends (19 percent), followed by nitrogen and total solids, both close to 15 percent. With the exception of temperature and phosphorus, most sites showed no significant improving or declining 10 - year trends for all other sub - indexes. More information and data from the most re cent OWQI report can be found here: In 2015, Oregon DEQ - report describing the results of a 5 a published year sampling project also through the state to survey toxic compounds in Oregon’s waters. In 2008, DEQ’s Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Program began monitoring work to assess the presence and concentration of toxic chemicals in Oregon’s waters. From 2008 to 2013, DEQ la boratory staff collected water samples from 177 sites across the state to assess the presence and concentration of toxic chemicals in Oregon’s waters . These sites included coastal estuaries, large rivers and small streams. The laboratory analyzed these sam ples for more than 500 different chemicals. Although some chemicals exceeded state criteria or benchmarks for human health and aquatic organisms, most did not. Samples from urban areas in the Willamette River Basin and agricultural areas in the Hood River Basin contained the largest variety of chemicals detected at least once and the largest frequency of samples with at least one chemical over a criteria or benchmark. DEQ’s findings show that current - lycyclic pesticides, po ) use pesticides, legacy ( or no longer used aromatic hydrocarbons and certain metals are of particular concern for human health and aquatic life impacts in Oregon and will require continued monitoring. This study will serve as a baseline for future DEQ water quality monitoring studies. Sev eral key findings from the Statewide Water Quality Toxics Assessment:  128 unique chemicals detected in water samples Most detected chemicals were at very low concentrations and within  applicable criteria or benchmarks for environmental and human health  Lar gest variety of chemicals detected in the Willamette Basin, followed by the Hood Basin  Most samples with at least one chemical over a [criterion] or benchmark occurred in the Hood Basin ary 2018 26 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

27  use pesticides occurred in all basins, often as mixtures Detections of current - and at times at levels above acceptable EPA aquatic life benchmarks; diuron (see the website for a breakdown) (herbicide) detected in all but one basin Some pesticides of high concern, such as chlorpyrifos, continue to be found in  d uses include both urban and rural basins where lan  Legacy pesticides present in water; frequently above DEQ human health criteria  Priority metals (such as copper and lead) present at levels above DEQ aquatic life criteria  Arsenic measured at levels of concern above DEQ h uman health criteria, mainly in Eastern Oregon and in Oregon’s coastal estuaries  Flame retardants detected around the state in urban and rural areas -  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, which are combustion by products from fires, vehicle combustion and waste incineration) detected above DEQ human health criteria at several locations basic information about The results show . The toxic compound detections in Oregon’s waters c substances in Statewide Water Quality Toxics Assessment was part of a larger evaluation of toxi The water and products, including a project to examine drinking water sources directly. frequencies of toxic compound detections across the state serve to illustrate the potential value of a source water protection approach to prevent conta mination at the source. More information about the DEQ program can be found here: Monitoring - Statewide.aspx - th the Oregon Health Authority initiated in 2008, DEQ implemented a In a collaborative project wi Drinking Water Source Monitoring project that conducted water quality testing for chemicals in the source water for public water intakes . During the period of 2008 through 2014, Oregon DEQ tested the source waters prior to treatment at 35 surface water intakes. This provided a characterization of the waterbodies supplying public water intakes, as well as information on the influence from the drinking water source areas. The samples were ana lyzed at the DEQ Laboratory for over 250 Oregon - specific herbicides, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, VOCs (including cleaners), fire retardants, PAHs, personal care products, and plasticizers. The results lutant impacts from the various land uses showed very low concentrations of detected water pol Of all surface water sources, 66% had wastewater and activities in typical source areas. constituents and 57% of the samples had pesticide detections. With the exception of three available detections (aluminum), the levels o f all parameters detected were very low and met health standards. As part of the Drinking Water Source Monitoring project’s susceptibility analysis, DEQ also evaluated land uses/activities for source areas of each of the intakes and wells. Proj ect staff - site basis for each - by conducted further evaluation of potential sources of contaminants on a site contaminant detected. These sources are likely from multiple land uses and activities in the watershed or source area for the wells. Since the leve ls were very low in this initial sampling project, OHA and DEQ will use the data analysis to determine potential associations with sources ary 2018 27 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

28 and to provide technical assistance to public water systems to reduce concentrations of source water contaminants. K ey findings of the data analysis from the Source Monitoring project: Potential Sources of Contaminants Identified in the Drinking Water Source Monitoring Project  Fecal bacteria ( E. coli )/Pathogens are human and animal waste byproducts and are potentially from upstream wastewater discharges, concentrated animal feeding - density onsite septic systems discharging to operations, livestock grazing, wildlife, high shallow groundwater and/or surface water, and heavy recreational uses.  Turbidity/Fine Sediment refe rs to mineral and organic soil constituents and other particles which cause cloudiness (turbidity) when suspended in water. Fine sediment and turbidity - causing particles enter water from wastewater effluent, leaching of compounds from vegetation, and soil erosion due to natural and/or anthropogenic factors. Natural factors include precipitation, wind, slope gradient, and soil and bedrock type. Anthropogenic factors include agricultural and silvicultural practices, transportation, recreation, and construct ion. can enter surface water from agricultural fields, forests, urban lawns, gardens, Pesticides  and roadside spraying. Results from this drinking water source monitoring suggest the - primary sources are irrigated crops, orchards, and high density housing. Household lawn applications of pesticides can contribute urban use pesticides to local surface water resources (and can occur at higher concentrations in those areas).  Harmful algal blooms in freshwater are due to drastic population increases of certain al gal (cyanobacteria) species. Harmful species produce toxins that can remain in the water even after the death of the organism. These blooms are enabled by slow - moving, warm water and increases in nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations, which may be due to nutrient pollution from onsite septic systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and agriculture.  Steroids and hormones are very likely linked to human waste byproducts in wastewater released through sewage treatment facilities into surface water and throu gh onsite septic systems into groundwater. The most common marker of these byproducts is coprostanol, found in human feces. Some hormones can also come from livestock wastes.  Pharmaceuticals are commonly detected in surface water that is downstream of was tewater treatment facilities or high - density housing using onsite wastewater disposal. It is well documented that drugs are primarily found in human urine and can also come from improper disposal of unused drugs in toilets. Some pharmacueticals (for examp le, confined feeding or other operations — can come from livestock wastes antibiotics ) . - level detections from the Drinking Water Source Monitoring are chemicals in Many of the low c compounds are drinking water sources that are not currently regulated. Many volatile organi regulated, so this is an example of chemicals not tested in this project. Sampling and analyzing for low levels of a broad range of chemicals in waters of the state is important for several reasons: ary 2018 28 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

29  D etections become important priorities fo r prevention because we lack health standards for many of them (e.g. Benotti et al 2009) ,  D etections are priorities for prevention because many of the pollutants cannot be removed through standard treatment technologies Stackelburg et al 2004, Carpenter e t ( al 2008, Glassmeyer et al 2017)  A dditive or synergistic toxicity has not been included in developing MCLs or screening levels for chemicals that are present in finished drinking water (Hayes et al 2006)  D ata are used to prioritize future water quality mo nitoring,  D etections provide DEQ and others the ability to prioritize pollutant reduction efforts on activities and land use s that potentially impact water quality . Oregon DEQ uses monitoring data for both informational and regulatory purposes. Under th e Clean Water Act, DEQ is required to assess the condition of waterbodies statewide in comparison to water quality standards using available data of sufficient quality. The Integrated Report ” Section 305(b) ther or not they attain the water report) evaluates waters of the state as to whe (“ quality standards which are meant to protect beneficial uses including drinking water. Part of this Report is the list of impaired waters needing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to calculate ded to meet standards, commonly known as the Section 303(d) list. pollutant load reductions nee The 303(d) list consists of waters listed as Category 5 (impaired and needing a TMDL) in the Integrated Report. Waters which are impaired but not in need of a TMDL (because a TMDL or estoration plan is in place or because flow issues are causing impairment rather than a other r pollutant) are listed as Category 4. These waters still require action to bring them into compliance with standards and to fully support beneficial uses such as drinkin g water. The most recent Oregon Integrated Report is for the 2012 assessment period. In addition to numerous stream segments in Category 4 or 5 for fecal bacteria, E. coli , turbidity, or nts and waterbodies sedimentation standards exceedances , there are several stream segme . impairment of drinking water beneficial uses due to water quality degradation listed for For streams listed on the 303(d) list as Category 5, TMDLs are developed by DEQ and approved are a calculation of the maximum by the USEPA. TMD L s amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can have and still meet water quality standards. This calculation is used to set pollution limits: wasteload allocations and load allocations for point and nonpoint sources, re spe ctively, along with a margin of safet y and reserve capacity for future needs. The wasteload allocations are implemented through NPDES permits while load allocations are implemented through Designated Management Agencies such as Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Agriculture, and county governments. Meeting TMDL allocations should, over time, result in waterbodies attaining water quality standards and fully supporting beneficial uses such as drinking water and fisheries. EQ will provide general water quality Based on the sets of data presented in this section, D protection recommendations for all potential contaminants, but will focus the more detailed recommendations and preven tion tools in this Resource Guide on fecal bacteria, erosion . d pesticides (sediment/turbidity/organic carbon), an ary 2018 29 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

30 Many surface water systems in Oregon have treatment limitations for removal of . Filtration and chlorination is not an effective treatment for pesticides and has contaminants are precursors to limits for removal of sediment and organic carbon compounds (which - products (DBP s ); disinfection by see below). This places even more emphasis in reducing or preventing pollutants in source waters. Bacteria Data and Susceptibility Bacteria are a critical part of digestion processes in animals, and mass es of living and dead bacteria are a component of feces. The term “bacteria” in this context refers to fecal bacteria such as E. coli or other fecal coliform bacteria from human and/or animal sources. Agencies like DEQ use some of these bacteria species as indicators of contamination of waterbodies by human and/or animal wastes as they are pathogens (disease - causing organisms ) or co - occur with pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites from wastes. Bacteria sources include wildlife, domestic anim als (pets and livestock), septic systems, recreation, and wastewater treatment facilities. Bacteria can wash into streams and rivers from the land surface or be directly discharged there, (Cabral 2 causing elevated fecal bacteria levels in surface waters 010) . Precipitation runoff can carry improperly handled human, pet, and livestock waste into surface water. Inadequate treatment of wastewater and failing onsite septic systems can release bacteria into waterbodies. Wildlife and grazing animals can defeca te directly into surface water. Bacteria may also infiltrate into shallow groundwater from septic systems and animal agriculture operations and thereby be transported with subsurface water into surface waterbodies. . may or may not themselves be pathogenic Fecal bacteria such as E. coli and other coliforms Regardless , they are useful indicators of contamination by human and/or animal waste and - - potential waste borne pathogens. Consumption of infected water or food (known as the fecal oral route of infection ) introduces the pathogen into the human body, potentially leading to infection, sickness and disease, or even death. Feces - borne organisms include dangerous viruses (e.g. Hepatitis A virus, noroviruses, and poliovirus), bacteria (e.g. cholera, , a Shigella nd , and Toxoplasma gondii ), and parasites Campylobacter ), protozoa (e.g. Giardia , Cryptosporidium (e.g. tapeworms and hookworms). Depending on pathogen, infected persons can experience d death. Effective use diarrhea, cramping, anemia, dehydration, malnutrition, nerve damage, an of prevention (e.g. sanitation and manure management) and treatment (e.g. filtration and borne diseases. - disinfection) can prevent fecal While every community should ensure they reduce bacterial contamination of drinking water, ll and rural communities may need to pay heightened attention due to the higher prevalence sma of agricultural activities and associated fertilizer (manure) applications, septic systems, and te to the transport of animal wastes. There are several sectors of development that contribu bacteria to waterbodies. These sectors include agriculture (e.g. manure application, composting operations, animal waste from livestock) and residential (e.g. septic systems, pets, stormwater, breaks in sewer lines or inadequate trea tment of sewage). By increasing the density of humans ary 2018 30 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

31 and livestock near waterbodies, humans can increase the presence and infectiousness of fecal Cabral 2010 ). bacteria in surface waters used for drinking and contact recreation ( Note that the n confined animal operations are under permit that limit discharges to surface larger Orego water. Water samples collected from DEQ’s laboratory and partners detected bacteria above water quality standards in water bodies throughout the state. In addition, required t esting of finished (treated) drinking water sometimes detects bacteria, triggering alerts and violations of Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs. illustrates a compilation of Oregon bacteria data showing Figure 3 al bacteria. This figure includes data from some areas of surface water quality concern for fec public water systems (alerts and violations in finished drinking water testing from SDWIS) and DEQ’s database of streams which are water quality limited due to E. coli or fecal bacteria (2012 ers (Categories 4 & 5)). list of impaired wat in Surface Water for Figure 3. Oregon Data Bacteria ary 2018 31 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

32 - Data and Susceptibility Turbidity & Disinfection By Product Turbidity is a measure of optical scattering by particulate matter and pigments in water. It is a useful measu re of particulate matter of mineral and organic origin in water. One reason turbidity is regulated in public drinking water is because it can interfere with effective disinfection treatment to inactivate harmful microorganisms ( LeChevallier et al 1981 ). Pa rticulate matter shields infectious microorganisms from disinfection mechanisms like chlorine, ozone, and UV light. Particulates can also deplete the disinfectant dosage and residual concentration necessary Cryptosporidium to keep treated water safe. Some organisms (e.g. ) form spores that are resistant to chlorine, so turbidity removal through both source water protection and filtration is important Betancourt and Rose 2004 ). Accordingly, most public water systems must to prevent disease ( practice filtratio n treatment to remove particulate matter prior to disinfection. (There are a very few water systems with highly protected and unique surface water sources that are able to meet turbidity limits without filtration.) Turbidity is also a strong indicator of filtration performance. Filtration treatment systems can be highly effective in removing turbidity, and thus microorganisms, but that effectiveness is dependent on a combination of the turbidity levels in the source water, treatment technology, from those such as and public water system resources and expertise. High turbidity episodes , require increased application of coagulant chemicals and result in reduced heavy rainfall events , ). n et al 2008 Postel and Thompson 2005 filter run times and increased backwashing ( , Freema High source water turbidity can also result in higher finished water turbidity in spite of treatment adjustments, reducing disinfection effectiveness ( LeChevallier et al 1981 , Betancourt and Rose 2004 nt production in watersheds and reduce the ). Strategies to manage runoff and sedime frequency, magnitude, and duration of high turbidity in water sources used for drinking water can help ensure safe drinking water, especially considering possible future impacts of climate change on storm intensit y and frequency ( Dalton et al 2013, Abatzoglou et al 2014, Mote et al 2014 ). - to inactivate harmful microorganisms. However, undesirable by Disinfection is essential products can form. Disinfection By r Products (DBPs) are regulated in public drinking wate - systems because of chronic health effects including cancer risk. DBPs are formed in drinking - based or bromine water by reaction of organic matter present in source waters with chlorine - disinfectants, or by oxidation with ozone and subsequent reaction wi th naturally occurring halide a ). This organic matter comes from natural materials in the environment EPA 2001 atoms ( US materials and such as decaying plants, leaves, organic matter in eroded soil, and other vegetative is measured and reported as total org anic carbon (TOC) with the dissolved (and more chemically available) fraction known as DOC. High TOC/DOC may manifest as visible color or turbidity in water, especially in late fall when leaf drop impacts are high and water flows are low, but can nvisible to the eye. also be i Formation of DBPs is directly related to the quality of the source water and is also influenced by the configuration and operation of public water system EPA 2001 Source water quality factors that contribute to infrastructure ( ). a DBP formation US include TOC/DOC content, pH, temperature, and halide (i.e. chlorine, bromine, iodine) ion ary 2018 32 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

33 concentration. Infrastructure factors that contribute to DBP formation include chlorine dosage ed water in distribution piping and and application point, as well as residence time of treat storage tanks. The EPA requires public w ater systems with high source water TOC/DOC and using filtration treatment to practice enhanced coagulation to reduce TOC/DOC concentrations prior to disinfection. The public healt h objectives are to prevent acute illness by assuring that disinfection treatment inactivates microorganisms, while also limiting chronic exposure of water users to DBPs by minimizing their formation. Reducing source water TOC and DOC can be one of the st rategies to assure safe drinking water. Human land management activities can disturb watersheds and streamside areas with the potential to alter water quality and aquatic habitat. Farming, forest management, urban and ation and other activities can cause erosion, trigger residential development, roads, recre landslides, add organic matter and pollutants, change flows and stream temperature, or alter stream structure. For example, clearcut timber harvesting is known to increase landslide rates on steep slope s and increase streamflows and erosion (Montgomery et al 2000). Narrow riparian buffers are subject to frequent windthrow (toppling of trees by wind), a fraction of which will become a source of fine sediment to the stream (Rashin et al 2006). Roads are a well - known source of fine sediment, petroleum products, and other pollutants ( Christensen et al 1997, Trombulak & Frissell 2000). Bank disturbance by development, agricultural practices and grazing animals, and forest harvest can also contribute sediment and organic matter to stream systems, such as slash from forest harvests adjacent to unbuffered headwaters streams (Jackson et al - containing manure from or fecal bacteria 2001, Kibler et al 2013) or eroded soil , nutrients, 2002, Durán Roni et al cropland and grazing ( Pleguezuelo 2008, Holz et al - Zuazo and Rodríguez - ). Land clearing and construction disturb the soil and create erosion if improperly managed 2015 onstruction - C C eneral Stormwater G or lacking in riparian protections (see DEQ 1200 P ermit , and other 2015 ). M unicipal and industrial stormwater can carry sediments, metals, nutrients, . ) pollutants into waterbodies (Hughes et al 2014 , Kolpin et al 2002 - Eroded soil can transport soil 2000, Ambachtsheer et bound pesticides or other toxic substances into waterbodies (Gevao et al al 2007). Effects of these sources may be apparent immediately or over time and may be only local in effect and/or cumulative across the landscape. Figure 4 illustrates a compilation of Oregon turbidity, sedimentation, and disinfect ion by - product data showing some areas of surface water quality concern for turbidity and DBP - forming organic lerts carbon concentrations. This figure includes data from public water s ystems ( OHA 2018: A from SDWIS) and DEQ’s iolations in finished drinking water testing V and turbidity and DBPs for or sedimentation (2012 list database of streams which are water quality limited due to turbidity of impaired waters (Categories 4 & 5)). ary 2018 33 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

34 Figure 4. Oregon Data for Turbidity & Disinfection By Products - in Surface Water For public water systems, DEQ consulted a variety of sources of information and technical data to find tools to identify areas that may be susceptible to streamside erosion. Determining the relative susceptibility to erosion within a drinking water source area will allow a public water system to focus technical assistance and resources on the highest priority sections of t he drinking water source area. Three types of data from the USDA National Soil Information System (N A SIS) guide for predicting relative susceptibilities to streamside as potential tools are highlighted in this erosion : - K - factor ≥0.25 (soil erodibility, rock 1) free) for slopes >30 % , f Road/Off 2) Erosion Hazard Ratings Off - — - Trail ( Slight, Moderate, S evere , or Very Severe ) , 3) Oregon De partment of Agriculture’s (ODA ) Erosion Vulnerability Index . illustrate the statewid 5 - 7 s e data for each of these tools that can be used for predicting Figure erosion susceptibilities near waterbodies used for drinking water. ary 2018 34 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

35 Figure 5 . Predicted Susceptibility to Erosion Disturbance from Moderate Ground The data shown in Figure 5 are an evaluati on of the erosion susceptibility of bare and factor - he K t free - (rock using moderately - to - severely disturbed soils on moderate - to - steep slopes f Page 35 ary 2018 – Version 1.0 Febru

36 soil erodibility) the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), which is used to predict from on agricultural and other managed lands where practices result in disrupted soil erosion losses . % slope) This evaluation is focused on steeper landforms (>30 structure and loss of plant cover i ginal Source Water and is a 2007 update of a method for identifying sensitive areas used in the or Assessments. The data shown in Figure 6 are an evaluation by NRCS of the surface erosion hazard for non - road/trail soil disturbances where up to 75% of the soil surface is bare hazard . The erosion ratings are based upon inherent soil p and (K factor (whole soil erodibility) and slope) - roperties w heavy equipment use, reflect management disturbances such as uncontrolled grazing, forestry, t rb u dis Gully erosion, plowing or other disturbances that “ up to nearly fire control, and mining . 100 ”, and Histosol soils are not percent of the area and change the character of the soil adequately characterized by this method and effects will be underestimated. This method does evaluate mobilization potential of soil through sheet and rill erosion, but does not evaluate the Updated Source Water Assessments, DEQ map ped only those delivery to surface waters. In locations where risk is Moderate or higher AND that are within 300 feet of surface water in order to estimate those places where delivery to water is possible. According to NRCS, the r atings are: Slight — Erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Moderate — Some erosion is likely; control measures may be needed. - Erosion is very likely; control measures for vegetation re ent establishm — Severe on bare areas and structural measures are advised. Very Severe — Significant erosion is expected; loss of soil productivity and off - site damages are likely; control measures are costly and generally impractical. Index The data from ODA’s Erosion Vulnerability are shown in Figure 7 , calculated statewide in - and P factors set at a - 2001 utilizing the K with the C - , R - , and LS - factors from NRCS’s RUSLE w value of 1. [These factors are whole soil erodibility, rainfall erosivity, length and gradient of slope, soil cover, and conservation practice factors, respectively.] Setting C and P to “1” case scenario where soil is uncovered and exposed directly to precipitation - illustrates a worst forces and where no conservation practices are in place. Therefore, this in dex reflects erosion risk from severe agricultural disturbance without mitigating measures in place. It does not evaluate delivery to surface waters. In Source Water Assessments, DEQ maps only those 00 feet of surface water locations where RUSLE values are >5 AND that are within 3 in order to estimate those places where delivery to water is possible. ary 2018 36 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

37 Trail - Road, Off - Off – . NRCS Erosion Hazard Ratings 6 Figure ary 2018 37 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

38 . Ratings Index Vulnerability Figure 7 Statewide Erosion ary 2018 38 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

39 Soil erosion and stormwater runoff a nd any resulting water pollution vary greatly among sites management approaches. The development and implementation of strategic actions to and reduce sediment and organic carbon pollution will likely require research and mapping of the site - specific susce ptibility within each drinking water source area. - specific soil maps, it is important to keep in mind that interpretations and When using these site planning of conservation practices based upon these maps should be done through the involvement of a partner organization that specializes in natural resource conservation. The organizations that can most likely assist with creating and using site - specific nitrate susceptibility maps include the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Watershed Cou ncils, NRCS district s , the OSU Extension Service, or others. For a list of local county - level resources, see Partner Organizations 4. 0. in Section Pesticide Data and Susceptibility Pesticide contamination of surface water is a subject of national importan ce because surface water is used for drinking water by about 50 percent of the U.S. population. This especially concerns people living in the agricultural areas where pesticides are most often used, as about 95 percent of that population relies upon ground , or in small communities water for drinking water using surface water with limited treatment capacity. Pesticides can reach surface waterbodies from applications to crops, drift and revolatilization movement by air, precipitation runoff and shallow groundw ater transport, accidental spills and leaks, and improper disposal. The National Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program of the US Geological Survey provides the most Water - scale analysis to date of pesticide occurrence and concentrations in - comprehensive national streams and ground water: . The USGS’s WARP tool Watershed Regressions for Pesticides Models ) ( can provide estimates of pesticide occurrence to help target monitoring r esources (Stone et al 2013). Through the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership program, the state currently monitors 64 surface water locations throughout the state for approximately 140 current and historically used - pesticides. This monitoring occurs in agri culture, forestry, industrial, and urban watersheds. For more informatio n on the PSP program, see “Pesticide Regulations” below in Section 7.0 Land Uses and Regulatory Authorities. The use of pesticides is prevalent in agricultural activities but also e xists in municipalities, rural and urban properties, transportation right s - of - way, parks, forestlands, powerline corridors, golf courses, and other land use s. Pesticides can sometimes be transported by water and air from the area of application to off - site locations, where they may impact benefici al uses such as drinking water (see summary of DEQ toxic substance monitoring summary above). A summary paper of USGS pesticide sampling results showed that pesticides occur in streams and rivers in the U.S. freque ntly (>95% of samples; Stone et al 2014). Trends in exceedances of aquatic life criteria/benchmarks held relatively steady for agriculture and mixed use streams (61% and 46%, 2011 time periods ) but increased in urban str eams (from respectively for 1992 - 2001 and 2002 - 2001 to 90% for 2002 - 53% for 1992 2011), primarily due to use of recently registered - ary 2018 39 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

40 insecticides. Exceedance of human health benchmarks was rare. Changes in occurrence of such as registration ns particular pesticides appeared related to changes in pesticide regulatio . Changes in (allowed legal uses) of new compounds and loss of registration for some pesticides - pesticide uses can also be due to market based decisions related to public demand, acceptance, and perception. For example, an increased awareness of neonics affecting bees has resulted in public pressure to switch back to chlorpyrifos (more toxic) as the most effective insecticide. Oregon is the national agricultural leader in the production of hazelnuts, blackberries, Christmas trees, peppermint, orchard grass seed, and other seeds. Oregon exports $2.6 billion in raw agriculture products internationally (USDA Economic Research Service - 2013 data). Oregon’s may be success as a leading agricultural producer n chemicals partly due to the use of moder (pesticides) to control the insects, weeds, and other organisms that attack food and ornamental crops. Of the multiple land uses/activities that use pesticides in Oregon, agriculture ranks at the partment of Agriculture has an extensive program top of all of those for pesticide use. Oregon De site movement of pesticides applied to agricultural operations (see - that works to prevent off 8 provides the most recent pesticide use reporting data for Oregon by Figure Section 6.0 below). y. While these data are almost ten years old, we would expect that the land use/activit breakdown would be similar today if the data were collected and made available. S ource: Pesticide Use Reporting System: 2008 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Agriculture. June 200 9. (, December 2016) Oregon in Use/Activity Land Figure 8 . Percentage of Pesticide Active Ingredient by use practices and pesticide applications - may take decades to The effects of past and present land become apparent in groundwater, but any contamination of surface water is more immediate. ary 2018 40 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

41 When weighing pollutant reduction strategies for protection of surface water quality, it is important to consider the means of transport and the effects of weather during and after application of pesticides (and any other chemicals) to the land and subsequent off - target movement of the chemicals into a waterbody. Movement can be immediate (drift) or delayed There is a time lag before arrival in groundwater also (runoff mobilization or revolatilization) . which generally decreases with increasing aquifer permeability and with decreasing depth to water. In response to reductions in chemical applications to the land and/or use of practices - target movement, the quality of surface water will improve relatively rapidly, which reduce off excepting cases where contaminated groundwater is a major source. management practices can affect pesticide distribution. - Natural land conditions and land Pesticide concent rations in surface water vary by season, with lengthy periods of low concentrations punctuated by seasonal pulses of much higher concentrations. Concentrations are sensitive to application amount and timing and seasonal wind movement, precipitation, and drology variations. Surface water is most vulnerable to contamination in areas with high hy stream densities, erodible and/or permeable soil (depending on pesticide characteristics), and with air currents frequent or intense precipitation. Applications near to waterbodies and / or moving towards waterbodies are more susceptible to off target movement into water. Hot, dry - conditions can cause some pesticides to revolatilize and then drift on air currents, even after successful deposition hydrologic system and its during application . The e ntire atmospheric - complexities need to be considered in evaluating the potential for pesticide contamination of , as well as characteristics of pesticide formulations themselves For example, some . waterbodies ine and imazapyr) are more water soluble and move with water movement; pesticides (e.g. atraz others (e.g. glyphosate isopropylamine salt and permethrin) bind tightly to soil and organic matter and are more likely to move along with eroded soil (see National Pesticide Informatio n Center database at easonal patterns in pesticide concentrations ). S are important to consider in managing the quality of drinking water withdrawn from surface (e.g. the first large storms after application can water in agricultural, fores try, and urban settings move pesticides into water bodies while later storms have less effect; NCASI 2013) Substantive . cooperative efforts have been made in Oregon to reduce pesticide movement into waterb odies .0). (see Pesticide Stewardship Part nership information in Section 7 Understanding the correlations of pesticide occurrence with the amounts and characteristics of t likely to pesticides used can help land managers to anticipate and prioritize the pesticides mos - lists some of the pesticide transport Table 1 use settings. affect water quality in different land factors and surface water vulnerability factors that make portions of the drinking water source area susceptible to pesticide impacts. ary 2018 41 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

42 Pesticide Transport Factors Water Vulnerability Factors Soil Crop Climatological Management Site Transport Pesticide WARP Watershed Parameters Parameters Parameters Characteristics Characteristics Parameters Parameters Rainfall Erosivity Dispersion Organic carbon- Root density Rainfall or irrigation Pesticide application Surface/near- distribution (R-factor from USLE) rates coefficient rate and timing surface runoff normalized sorption ) coefficient (K oc Distribution Soil erosion & % of streamflow from Saturated water Pesticide application Maximum Pan evaporation rooting depth rates content saturation (Dunne) transport - Wind method and coefficient (K ) d formulation overland flow & water Total precipitation in Aqueous solubility Field-capacity Surface water Crop production- Daily maximum and Pesticide uptake system variables May & June (spring proximity to minimum water content rates temperature application application period) (θ ) FC Henry's constant % of soils with Soil-management Snow melt Wilting-point Vegetative cover/ restrictive layer w/in top water content disturbance variables 25cm Hours of sunlight Saturated vapor Hydraulic density properties Wind speed / Gas phase diffusion ) Bulk density (ρ b direction coefficient Depletion of Biological half-life Organic carbon residues by content (f ) oc previous storms Hydrolysis half-life pH Oxidation half-life Cation exchange capacity Foliar decay rate Heat flow parameters Sources : Pesticide Transport Factors adapted from the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Techniques for Assessing Ground Water Vulnerability. (1993). Ground water vulnerability assessment: Contamination potential . Washington, D.C Water Vulnerability Factors: Site under conditions of uncertainty. Nation al Academy Press , Range Soil and Water Conservation Policy. (1993). Soil and from NRC Committee on Long - Transport Characteristics Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture, Chapter 8: Fate and Transport of Pesticides. National Academy Press, ; NCASI 2013; and ; Holvoet et al 2007 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Washin gton, D.C. Water Vulnerab ility (2014). National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual, 2nd edition. Arlington, VA. Factors: Watershed Characteristics from Stone et al 2013. “Watershed Regressions for Pesticides” model Vulnerability 1. Factors Influencing Pesticide Table Transport and Surface Water 6 .0 will provide several tools that may be useful for r educing off - site migration of Section pesticides, with the goal of reducing any potential impact to drinking water supplies. Only a limited number of pesticides have a Safe Drinking Water Act “maximum contaminant level” for drinking water set by the U.S. EPA. Ad ditive or synergistic toxicity has not been included in the development of these drinking water standards. There are currently a number of studies examining whether (or how) low levels of chemical mixtures in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis; that is, the cumulative effects of several individual chemicals may act on cancer pathways to synergistically produce carcinogenic and Bonner , 2005 e Regarding th Goodson et al 2015). effects at low exposure levels (Alavanja issue of chemica although guidelines and detailed procedures for l mixtures, US EPA states that evaluating potential effects from exposure to chemical mixtures have been provided by US EPA ary 2018 42 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

43 and othe Agency for Toxic Substances and Di sease Registry (ATSDR), r agencies, such as the implementation has been difficult because of the complexity of mixtures that occur in the environment and the inadequacy of data on the toxicity of the mixtures. Most toxicological testing is performed on single chemicals — usually at high exposure levels — whereas most human and ecological exposures are to chemical mixtures at relatively low doses...” See: - sheets - 1/2017/1/23/pesticides do not effectively remove pesticides and other M ost drinking water treatment systems also artificial compounds effectively, and eve n with technology such as granulated activa te charcoal, Blomquist and Janet 2001, removal is incomplete ( This is the basis for why Carpenter et al 2008). environmental health professionals tend to be cautious about the presence of pesticides in drinking water. More information on the drinking wat er standards/benchmarks, and how Oregon regulates pesticides can be found in Section .0 under Pesticide Regulations. 7 Water Treatment Technologies I n addition to the watershed and water quality characteristics, the types of drinking water treatment techno logies employed can be summarized for Oregon’s 163 surface water public has a regulatory filtration treatment – -- water systems. Only one public water system Reedsport exemption and does not filter the raw water (disinfection only). Oregon Health Authority . All other Cryptosporidium detections of recently revoked Portland’s exemption after repeated Treatment systems used by the surface water systems in the state employ filtration treatment. public water systems are varied and are summarized as follows , as of February 2011 (OHA pers ) comm : Filtration Type No. PWSs Population Served 1,152,980 Conventional 65 Direct 350,296 40 Pressure/Rapid Sand 12 3,252 236,960 Membrane 23 311,812 Slow Sand 28 11,196 Cartridge 57 Diatomaceous Earth 1,700 3 water treatment is usually a combination of physical and chemical processes (see USEPA Drinking 1999, WADOH 2009). Mechanical straining removes some particles in raw water by trapping o remove Sand filters can als them between the grains of the filter medium (such as sand). Coagulation (and flocculation) is a process by which suspended particles pathogens by abrasion. form a larger “floc” particle that allows for removal by sedimentation and/or filtration. This can Other types of filtration processes can be also remove dissolved and organic carbon compounds. used without coagulation, and include membrane and cartridge filtration, as well as diatomaceous earth, while biological processes predominate in slow sand filters. Filters are ary 2018 43 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

44 (reversing the flow of water through the filter). Anthracite periodically cleaned by backwashing coal or activated carbon may also be included in addition to sand to improve the filtration process, especially for the removal of organic contaminants and taste and odor problems. Smaller commu nities with fewer resources typically have treatment that is less able to manage extensive chemical contamination, tastes and odors, and/or high turbidity, according to OHA. ssure filters are In rapid sand filtration, the water is filtered through a bed of graded sand. Pre similar to rapid sand filters, except that the water enters the filter under pressure. Cartridge straining water through porous media. Cartridge filters are — filtration uses a physical process typically used for removing microbes and turbi dity in small systems. The cartridge consists of ceramic or polypropylene filter elements fitted into pressurized housings. Cartridge filters cannot be cleaned by backwashing. Slow sand filtration occurs at a much slower rate. Removal of particles and p athogens is predominantly dependent on biological processes. These filters form a filter skin or “schmutzdecke” containing microorganisms that trap and break down algae, bacteria, and other organic matter before the water reaches the filter medium itself, where contaminant removal includes biochemical and physical mechanisms. The filter consists of a bed of fine sand of approximately 3 to 4 feet deep supported by a 1 - foot layer of gravel and an underdrain system. Membrane systems utilize material capable of separating substances, depending upon the pore size of the material, when a driving force is applied across the membrane. Membrane filtration is effective for removal of microorganisms, particulate material, and some natural organic material part taste and odor problems in drinking water. Membrane systems often employ that can im - product precursors like soluble total organic carbon that coagulation to address disinfection by filtration systems. - can more readily pass through micro and ultra Treatment syst ems have contaminant removal limits. As described, different system types have varying limitations for removal of solids and dissolved substances. Removal of pesticides, human most common waste products, petroleum and chemical contaminants, and so on is incomplete in treatment types, and expensive to treat with additional technology. Exceedances of capacities lead to exceedances of MCLs or shutdowns of water systems until conditions improve. Slow - and - 10 NTU) - w water turbidity upper limits (<5 sand filters, for instance, have relatively low ra rapid for operation (WADOH 2009). Smaller systems in particular frequently rely on technologies which are more sensitive to declines in raw water quality (approximately 75% of Oregon surface water of 3,300 or fewer persons). For this reason, source water protection is PWSs serve populations the first barrier, and an important one for many contaminants. Prevention is often more effective after the and economically efficient than enhancing treatment facilities to remove contaminants fact. ary 2018 44 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

45 4.0 PARTNERS, RESOURCES, AND FUNDS Communities of sufficient size, resources, and other means may be able to develop drinking water source protect without the use of the tools ion plans for their surface water source ource Guide. Many communities that fit this description have already taken provided in this Res steps to develop and utilize screening tools, resources, and strategies for reducing potential risks ble to assist to their drinking water. For smaller communities, partner organizations may be a with drinking water protection efforts that cannot be performed with existing staff and resources. The tools provided in this Resource Guide are intended to be used by public water system s with assistance received from their staff/managers (where possible), and community leader regional or county partner organization. A partner organization for community - led drinking water protection efforts can be the local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Watershed Council, the University Extens ion Service staff (OSU), the US Department of Agriculture Natural - Resources Conservation Service district, and/or a contracted natural resources consultant. Early involvement of a partner organization is critical in order to ensure that screening tools ar e accessible, used properly, and are effective. Developing a strategic protection plan may require grant writing and additional funding when significant collaboration work is necessary. resources available to public This section provides brief descriptions and contact information for water systems ---- including county contacts, more information on agency programs, grants, and loans to fund drinking water infrastructure and source protection projects. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - P ARTNER ORGANIZATIONS BY COUNTY Baker County OSU Extension SWCD Watershed Council NRCS 3990 Midway Lane 3990 Midway Lane 2600 East Street 2960 Broadway St Baker City, OR 97814 - 1453 Baker City, OR 97814 Baker City, OR 97814 Baker City, OR 97814 (5 (541) 523 4430 (541) 523 - 7121 - 41) 523 - 6418 (541) 523 - 7288 Benton County OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS SWCD 101 SW Western Blvd 3415 NE Granger Avenue 456 SW Monroe Avenue, 4077 SW Research Way #105 Suite 110 - Corvallis, OR 97330 Corvallis, OR 97333 9620 4400 Corva llis, OR 97333 Corvallis, OR 97339 - (541) 753 - 7208 (541) 757 - 4825 541 - 766 - 6750 (541) 758 - 7597 Clackamas County NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD 221 Molalla Avenue Street, 221 Molalla Avenue 200 Warner Miln e Rd PO Box 927 Street, Suite 120 Suite 102 OR City, OR 97045 OR City, OR 97045 OR City, OR 97045 OR City, OR 97045 503 - 0439 - (503) 427 8631 - 655 (503) 210 - 6000 (503) 655 - 3144 ary 2018 45 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

46 Clatsop County NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD 42 7th Street, Suite 750 Commercial Street 750 2001 Marine Drive, Room Commercial Street, 210 102 C Room 207 Room 207 Astoria, OR 97103 Astoria, OR 97103 Astoria, OR 97103 Astoria, OR 97103 - 4571 (503) 325 - 4571 (503) 325 - 8573 503 - 468 - 0408 (503) 325 Columbia County NRCS O SU Extension Watershed Council SWCD - 505 N. Columbia River Hwy 57420 35285 Millard Road 2 Old Portland 35285 Millard Road Rd St. Helens, OR 97051 St. Helens, OR 97051 St. Helens, OR 97051 Warren, OR 97053 (503) 397 - (503) 397 - 4555 503 - 397 - 3462 503 - 397 - 790 4 4555 Coos County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 382 North Central 382 North Central 631 Alder St. 223 N. Alder, Suite D Coquille, OR 97423 Coquille, OR 97423 - 1296 1296 Myrtle Point, OR 97458 Coquille, OR 97423 - (541) 396 - 6879 (541) 396 - 2841 541 - 572 - 5263 (541) 572 - 2541 Crook County OSU Extension NRCS Watershed Council SWCD 498 S.E. Lynn Blvd 498 S.E. Lynn Blvd 498 S.E. Lynn Blvd 498 S.E. Lynn Blvd Prineville, OR 97754 Prinevil le, OR 97754 Prineville, OR 97754 Prineville, OR 97754 - 3548 (541) 447 - 3548 (541) 447 (541) 447 - 6228 541 - 447 - 8567 Curry County SWCD OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS P.O. Box 666 See SWCD 29390 Ellensburg Ave P.O. Box 666 Gold Beach, OR 97444 Gold Beach, Or 97444 Gold Beach, OR 97444 (541) 247 2755 541 - 247 - 6672 - (541) 247 - 2755 Deschutes County SWCD OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS 625 SE Salmon Avenue, 3893 SW Airport Way 700 NW Hill St #1 625 SE Salmon Avenue, Suite 4 Suite 4 - Redmond, OR 97756 Redmond, O R 97756 - 9580 Redmond, OR 97756 - 8697 Bend, OR 97701 9580 (541) 923 - 2204 (541) 923 - 4358 541 - 548 - 6088 (541) 382 - 6102 Douglas County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 2741 West Harvard Ave 2593 NW Kline Street 1134 SE Douglas Ave. P.O. Box 10 1 Roseburg, OR 97471 Roseburg, OR 97470 Roseburg, OR 97470 Roseburg, OR 97471 - 7065 (541) 672 (541) 957 - 5061 (541) 673 - 6071 541 - 672 - 4461 ary 2018 46 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

47 Gilliam County NRCS SWCD Watershed Council OSU Extension 333 S. Main St. 135 S. Main Street, Suite 333 Main, Dunn Brothers 333 S. Main Street Building 219 Condon, OR 97823 - 0106 Condon, OR 97823 - 0707 Condon OR 97823 - 0106 Condon, OR 97823 2281 (541) 384 - 2671 541 - (541) 384 - 2271 (541) 384 - 2281 x 111 - 384 Grant County NRCS OSU Extension Wa SWCD tershed Council 721 S Canyon Blvd 530 E. Main Street Ste. 10 P.O. Box 522 721 S Canyon Blvd - 1084 John Day, OR 97845 - John Day, OR John Day, OR 97845 97845 Mt. Vernon, OR 97865 1084 - 0135 (541) 575 - 0135 (541) 575 - 2248 541 - 792 - 0435 (541) 575 County Harney NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD 530 Hwy 20 South 450 N. Buena Vista #10 530 Hwy 20 South 450 N Buena Vista Ave # 4 Burns, OR 97720 - Hines OR 97738 - 0848 Burns, OR 97720 Hines OR 97738 0848 - 5010 (541) 573 - 6446 (541) 573 (541) 573 25 06 (541) 573 - 8199 - Hood River County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 6780 Hwy 35 3007 Experiment Station 3007 Experiment 2990 Experiment Station Drive Drive Station Rd Mt Hood, OR 97041 Hood River, OR 97031 Hood River OR 97031 Hood River, OR 97031 4588 4588 541 - 352 - 1037 541 - 386 - 3343 (541) 386 - (541) 386 - Jefferson County NRCS SWCD Watershed Council OSU Extension 625 SE Salmon Avenue, 4223 Holiday Street 850 NW Dogwood Lane 625 SE Salmon Ave #6 Suite 6 OR 97756 - 8696 Warm Springs, OR 97761 Madras OR, 97741 - 8988 Redmond OR 97756 Redmond, - - (541) 553 - 2009 (541) 475 4358 ext 101 7107 (541) 923 - 4358 x139 (541) 923 Josephine County OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD NRCS 1590 SE N Street, Sui te C 1440 Parkdale Drive P.O Box 1214 215 Ringuette St Grants Pass OR 97527 Grants Pass, OR 97526 Grants Pass, OR 97527 Medford, OR 97501 (541) 474 - 6840 (541) 450 - 9724 541 - 476 - 6613 541 - 414 - 9064 Lake County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Wat ershed Council 17612 Hwy. 395 17612 Hwy. 395 103 South E Street 17482 Tunnel Hill Rd Lakeview, OR 97630 Lakeview, OR 97630 Lakeview OR 97630 Lakeview OR 97630 947 - 0830 - (541) 219 6054 - (541) 947 - 5855 (541) 947 - 2367 541 ary 2018 47 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

48 Lane County NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD 780 Bailey Hill Road, Suite 5 996 Jefferson Street 751 S. Danebo Ave. 780 Bailey Hill Road, Suite 5 Eugene, OR 97402 Eugene, OR 97402 Eugene, OR 97402 Eugene, OR 97402 - 6443 (541) 465 - 6443 541 - 344 - 5859 541 - 338 - 7055 (541) 465 Lincoln County SWCD OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS 23 North Coast Highway 1211 SE Bay Blvd 23 N Coast Hwy 23 North Coast Highway 97365 Newport OR Newport, OR 97365 Newport OR 97365 Newport, OR 97365 (541) 265 - 2631 (541) 265 - 2631 541 - 574 - 6534 (541) 265 - 9195 Linn County NRCS OSU Extension SWCD Watershed Council 33630 McFarland Road 31978 N. Lake Creek Dr . 33630 McFarland Rd PO Box 844 Tangent, OR 97389 - 9708 Tangent, OR 97389 - 9708 Tangent, OR 97389 Brownsville OR 97327 - (541) 926 (541 ) 967 - 5925 541 2483 967 - 3871 (541) 466 - 3493 - Malheur County NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD 710 SW 5th Ave 2925 SW 6th Avenue, S te 2 2925 SW 6th Ave, Ste 2 710 SW 5th Ave OR 97914 ntario Ontario, OR 97914 O - 2446 Ontario, OR 97914 - 2446 Ontario, OR 97914 (541) 889 - (541) 889 - 9689 541 - 881 - 1417 (541) 881 - 1417 x 105 2588 Marion County SWCD OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS h College Rd 4780 Brus 650 Hawthorne Ave. SE, 650 Hawthorne Avenue SE, 1320 Capitol St NE, Ste 110 Suite 130 Ste 130 NW Salem, OR 97301 Salem OR 97304 Salem, OR 97301 Salem, OR 97301 - 9927 (503) 399 - 5741 (503) 391 - 588 - 5301 (503) 371 - 6552 503 Morrow County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 430 Heppner/Lexington 430 Heppner/Lexing ton 54173 Hwy 74 920 SW Frazer Ave # Hwy Hwy 210 - Heppner, OR 97836 Heppner, OR 97836 - 0127 Heppner, OR 97836 Pendleton, OR 97801 0127 541.676.9642 - (541) 676 - 5021 (541) 676 (541) 276 - 2190 5452 Polk County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 580 Main, Suite A 580 Main, Suite A 289 E Ellendale, Suite 301 580 Main St #A 1911 Dallas, OR 97338 1911 Dallas, OR 97338 - - Dallas, OR 97338 Dallas OR 97338 8395 (503) 623 - 9680 (855) 651 - 8930 (855) 651 - 8930 503 - 623 - ary 2018 48 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

49 Sherman County OSU Extension Watershed Council SWCD NRCS P.O. Box 405 66365 Lonerock Road PO Box 405 P.O. Box 405 302 Scott Street Moro 97039 - Moro, OR 97039 - 0405 Moro, OR 97039 0405 Moro, OR 97039 (541) 565 - 3551 (541) 565 - 3551 541 - 565 - 3230 541 - 565 - 3216 X 109 County Tillamook SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 4000 Blimp Blvd. Suite 200 4000 Blimp Blvd. Ste 200 2204 4th Street 4000 Blimp Blvd #440 Tillamook, OR 97141 Tillamook, OR 97141 Tillamook, OR 97141 Tillamook OR 97141 (503) 842 - (503) 842 - 2848, Ext 3 503 - 842 - 3433 (503) 322 - 0002 2848 Ext 4 Umatilla County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 1 SW Nye Ave 1 SW Nye Ave , Ste 130 PO Box 100 920 SW Frazier Ave., Suite 210 Pendleton, OR 97801 Pendleton, OR 97801 P endleton OR 97801 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278 - 8049 ext 134 (541) 278 - 8049 541 - 278 - 5403 (541) 276 - 2190 Union County Watershed Council SWCD NRCS OSU Extension 10507 N. McAlister Road, 1901 Adams Avenue, 1114 J Ave 10507 N McAlister Rd, Room 7 Room 9 Suite 6 La Grande, OR 97850 8705 La Grande, OR 97850 - La Grande, OR 97850 La Grande, OR 97850 - 1313 (541) 963 - 4178 (541) 963 (541) 963 1010 (541) 663 - 0570 - Wallowa County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 401 NE First St., Suite E ., Suite E 668 NW 1st 1114 J Ave 401 NE First St Enterprise, OR 97828 Enterprise OR 97828 La Grande, OR 97850 Enterprise, OR 97828 (541) 426 - 4521 (541) 426 - 4521 541 - 426 - 3143 (541) 663 - 0570 Wasco County SWCD OSU Extension Watershed Council NRCS 2325 River Road, #3 400 E Scenic Dr. 2325 River Road, Ste 3 2325 River Road, #3 The Dalles, OR 97058 The Dalles, OR 97058 The Dalles, OR 97058 The Dalles, OR 97058 - - (541) 298 - 8559 (541) 296 8559 5494 (541) 296 - 6178 x102 (541) 298 Washington County SW NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council CD 1080 SW Baseline, Suite B - 2 1080 SW Baseline, Suite P.O. Box 338 1815 NW 169th Place, Bdlg 1, Ste 1000 - B 2 Hillsboro, OR 97123 - 3823 Hillsboro, OR 97123 - 3823 Beaverton, OR 97006 Hillsboro, OR 97123 1150 - 4810 (503) 846 (503) 681 - 0953 ( 503) 648 - 3174 503 - 821 - ary 2018 49 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

50 Wheeler County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council 40535 Highway 19 See SWCD 401 4th St 40535 HWY 19 Fossil, OR 97830 Fossil OR 97830 - 0407 Fossil OR 97830 (541) 468 - - 2990 541 763 - 4115 (54 1) 468 - 2990 Yamhill County SWCD NRCS OSU Extension Watershed Council NE Ford Street, Suite 9 2050 NE Lafayette Avenue 2200 SW 2nd Street 2200 SW 2nd Street ille, OR McMinnville, OR 97128 McMinnv McMinnville, OR 97128 - McMinnville, OR 97128 - 97128 9185 9185 434 - (503) 472 - 1474 (503) 472 - 1474 503 - 1047 - 7517 503 474 Note: The watershed council that is listed is only one of the watershed councils within your service area. The contact information listed is the council that is located closest to the other partner organizations within the county. Upon contacting the partner organization listed, you may be redirected to the more appropriate partner organization. RESOURCES AND FUNDS ncluded as a convenience for PLEASE NOTE: The Internet URL Addresses listed in this section were i nal at the time this section was the users of this document. All URL Addresses were functio 2017), but many URLs are changing for state agencies, so these will be updated u pdated (October as necessary . For accessing active links , this list will be placed on DEQ’s Water Quality and Drinking Water Protection web pages under “Funds and Resources”. The location for drinking deq/wq/programs/Pages/DWP.aspx water protection is: Oregon Health Authority (OHA) - 0405; Website : Drinking Water Services Phone: 971 - 673 - onments/DrinkingWater/pages/index.aspx is the primacy agency for the implementation of the federal The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) in Oregon. ORS 338.277 authorizes the OHA to administer the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in Oregon as the Primacy Agency in agreement with the federal government. ORS 448.131 further authorizes the adoption of standards necessary to protect - public health through insuring safe drinking water within a water system. Standards in OAR 333 tlines requirements for systems to meet MCLs, submit to periodic inspections, and meet 061 ou enforcement requirements as administered by OHA. As the primacy agency, OHA also approves ication standards, drinking water treatment plans and sets construction standards, operator certif and enforces rules to ensure safe drinking water. The OHA website above has extensive information on drinking water treatment requirements. ary 2018 50 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

51 In order to assist systems in complying with standards, OHA also provides technical assistance d oversight of grants and loans from the Safe Drinking Water Act for public water system an operation and improvements. For those Safe Drinking Water Act loans and grant funds, the Oregon Health Authority partners with Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority to provide the financial services (see below). usiness Oregon B - Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) 0123; (503) 986 - Phone: Website: that provides funding for municipally owned infrastructure IFA is a division of Business Oregon projects. IFA manages federal infrastructure funds for agencies such as Oregon Health Authority and Housing and Urban Development. IFA is not a regulatory agency but collaborates and state and federal partners with financing programs and technical assistance. supports our Available funding programs tha t are most applicable for drinking water source protection include: the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (SDWRLF), Drinking Water Source ection Fund (DWSP), and Special Public Works Fund (SPWF). Prot Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (SDWRLF) This loan program funds drinking water system improvements needed to maintain compliance Water Fund is funded by annual with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and matched with funds from the state Water/Wastewater Financing Program. The program is managed by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), Drinking Water Services. The loans are managed by the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA). The Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (SDWRLF) is designed for water source, treatment, distribution, storage and related infrastructure projects. Funding is available for all si zes of water systems, although 15 percent of the funds are reserved for systems serving a population of fewer than 10,000. Eligible applicants can be owners of water systems that provide service to at least round residents or systems that have 15 o 25 year - r more connections (or a nonprofit with 25 or more regular users). Owners can be a nonprofit, private party or municipality, but systems cannot be federally owned or operated. To be eligible for funding, a project must solve an existing or potential health hazard or noncompliance issue under federal/state water quality standards. The following are the main types of eligible activities:  Engineering, design, upgrade, construction or installation of system improvements and n, treatment, storage, transmission equipment for water intake, filtratio  Acquisitions of property or easements Planning, surveys, legal/technical support and environmental review   Investments to enhance the physical security of drinking water systems, as well as water sources ary 2018 51 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

52 The program provides up to $6 million per project (more with additional t: SDWRLF loan amoun approval) with the possibility of subsidized interest rate and principal forgiveness for a Disadvantaged Community. The standard loan term is 20 years or the useful life of project assets, whichever is less, and may be extended up to 30 years under SDWRLF for a 80 percent of state/local bond index rate. - Disadvantaged Community. Interest rates are 60 To apply, the municipality should first submit a Letter of Interest to Oregon Health Authority where it will be rated and ranked. Call Oregon OHA Drinking Water Services at 971 - 673 - 0422 or go to the OHA website: Projects placed on the Project Priority List will be i nvited to apply through IFA for funding. - 986 - Contact your IFA Regional Coordinator for assistance and more information. Call IFA at 503 0123 or . ction Fund (DWSP) Drinking Water Source Prote From the Safe Drinking Water Act, loans and grants are also available for drinking water protection projects: low interest loans up to a maximum of $100,000 per project , and grant funds owned - up to $30,000 per water system . Eligible systems in clude any public and privately Community water systems with a completed Source Water - Community and Nonprofit Non Assessment are able to demonstrate a direct link between the proposed project and maintaining or improving drinking water quality. Eligi ble activities include those that lead to risk reduction within the delineated source water area or would contribute to a reduction in contaminant concentration within the drinking water source. Projects can take either a local or regional approach . Loca l projects are defined as activities that concentrate on a public water system’s involve multiple communities source area(s). Regional projects are defined as activities that and/or water systems attempting to address a common source water issue or group of issues. The categories for eligible projects for DW Source Protection funding include : the following Refined Delineation OHA and DEQ have completed delineations for most drinking water source areas (DWSA) for the community and non - community public water systems. DWSAs include DW aquifer recharge areas for groundwater sources and watershed areas for surface sources. Source Protection funding can be used to complete, update, or refine DWSA delineations using specific information as part of a more comprehensive protection strategy. - new or additional site Updated Assessment Inventory – Projects that improve upon existing potential contaminant source inventories available from the DEQ database, Geographic Information System, and Assessment Reports prepared b y OHA/DEQ. A project could involve expanding or updating the inventory of land uses or existing and potential point and non - point contaminant sources. to evaluate existing Evaluation – Projects establishing a water quality monitoring project This could include evaluating and prioritizing and potential to water quality. threats threats (or protection activities) based upon new or more detailed information. potential Source Protection Planning ary 2018 52 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

53 Projects designed to identify appropriate protection measures, i ncluding development of a projects to identify and ensure comprehensive DW Source Protection plan, educational projects, implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), development of local DW Source Protection ordinances, development of restoration or for the source ar e a for conservation plans future easement or land acquisition . Implementation Funds can be used to implement many types of protection strategies in drinking water source areas. This can include implementation of any eligible activities t hat will reduce risks within the source water area or would contribute to a reduction of contaminant concentration within the drinking water source(s) . Examples of the types of projects that can be funded include:  Implementing drug - take - back projects in so urce areas  Projects for reducing pesticide application rates and loadings in source area  Implementing pesticide and household hazardous waste collection events  Closure of high - risk abandoned or unused (private or irrigation) wells close to supply well  Proj ects for reforestation or replanting in sensitive or riparian areas  Installation of fencing to protect sensitive riparian source areas Installation of signs at boundaries of zones or protection areas  -  pply wells, inspections, pump Projects for assessing risks from onsite systems near su outs, or decommissioning onsite systems.  - risk ABOVE ground tanks Secondary containment for high Focused workshop events for household/business instruction for changing to alternative  l” products) nonhazardous product usage (“green chemica  Seismic spill prevention or inspection project in proximate areas for high - risk sources  Permanent abandonment (i.e. filling in) of inadequately constructed private wells within the source area  Installation of fencing around the immediate intak e or well area to provide protection Structures to divert contaminated stormwater runoff affecting the source area  Set up ecosystem services (or similar) project in watershed to fund preservation areas   Implementation of pollution prevention or waste reduc tion projects Restoration and/or conservation projects within the  drinking water source area  Implementation of water reuse and other conservation measures related to source protection  Implementation of best management practice projects nservation easements to protect sensitive source areas Implementation of co   Implementation of a drinking water source protection ordinance Establishing management plans for easements or lands purchased within source areas  Development of educational flyers/brochures for purpose  s of public education  Purchase of lands within the drinking water source area (funded only via low interest loans) ary 2018 53 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

54 Any - owned Community and Nonprofit Non - Community water systems with a Public and Privately completed Source Water Assessment are eligible for funds. A “community water system” is defined as a public water system that has 15 or more service connections used by year - round round residents. This includes water residents, or which regularly serves 25 or more year - systems that are owned privately, b - profit or public entities such as a city, district, or port. y non A “nonprofit non - community water system” is a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 people (more than 6 months per year) and is leg ally recognized under Oregon law as a nonprofit entity. For the source water protection funds, contact OHA regarding the letter of interest submittal schedule. Call Oregon OHA Drinking Water Services at 971 - 673 - 0422 or go to the OHA website: 0123; - 986 or contact IFA at 503 - Water/Wa stewater Funding Program (WWFP) of public infrastructure needed to ensure This loan program funds the design and construction compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act. The public entities that are eligible to apply for the program are cities, counties, county service districts, tribal councils, ports, and special districts as defined in ORS 198.010. Municipalities must either have a documented compliance issue or the potential of a compliance issue in the near future. Allowable funded project activities may include: Easements, for improvement or expansion Construction costs, including Right of Way and  of drinking water, wastewater or stormwater systems Design and construction engineering   Planning/technical assistance for small communities WWFP Loans The maximum loan term is 25 years or the useful life of the inf rastructure financed, whichever is less. The maximum loan amount is $10 million per project (more with additional approval) through a combination of direct and/or bond funded loans. Loans are generally repaid with utility sues. A limited tax general obligation pledge also may be revenues or voter approved bond is required. "Credit worthy" borrowers may be funded through the sale of state revenue bonds. WWFP Grants Grant awards up to $750,000 may be awarded based on a financial review. An applicant is not igible for grant funds if the applicant's annual median household income is equal or greater el than 100 percent of the state average median household income for the same year. Funding for Technical Assistance ical assistance financing for municipalities with The Infrastructure Finance Authority offers techn populations of less than 15,000. The funds may be used to finance preliminary planning, engineering studies and economic investigations. Technical assistance projects must be in on project that is eligible and meets the established criteria. preparation for a constructi Grants up to $20,000 may be awarded per project. ary 2018 54 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

55 Loans up to $60,000 may be awarded per project. contact your IFA Regional Coordinator for assistance a - 986 - 0123, then nd To apply, call IFA at 503 more information. Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) (SPWF) provides funds for publicly owned facilities that support The Special Public Works Fund economic and community development in Oregon. Funds are available to public entities for planning, design, purchasing, improving and constructing publicly owned facilities, replacing publicly owned essential community facilities, emergency projects as a result of a disaster, and for planning. Public agencies that are eligible to apply for funding are cities, counties, county service districts (ORS 451), tribal councils, ports, districts as defined in ORS 198.010, and airport districts (ORS 838). SPWF Loans Loans for development ( construction) projects range from less than $100,000 to $10 million (more with additional approval). The Infrastructure Finance Authority offers very attractive interest rates that reflect tax - exempt market rates for highly qualified borrowers. Initial loa n terms can be up to 25 years or the useful life of the project, whichever is less. SPWF Grants sector jobs. - Grants are available for construction projects that create or retain traded er is less, and are They are limited to $500,000 or 85 percent of the project cost, whichev based on up to $5,000 per eligible job created or retained. Limited grants are available to plan industrial site development for publicly owned sites and for feasibility studies. To apply, call IFA at 503 - 986 - 0123, then contact your IF A Regional Coordinator for assistance and more information. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grants and technical assistance are available to develop livable urban communities for persons of low and moderate incomes by expanding economic opportunities and providing housing and suitable living environments. Non - metropolitan cities and counties in rural Oregon can apply for and receive grants. [Oregon tribes, urban ci ties (Albany, Ashland, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene, Gresham, Hillsboro, Medford, Portland, Salem and Springfield) and counties (Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington) receive funds directly from HUD.] Funding amounts are based on the applicant’s need, the availabi lity of funds, and other restrictions defined in the program’s guidelines. The maximum available grant for drinking water system projects is $3,000,000. All projects must meet one of three national objectives: income individuals. an d moderate -  The proposed activities must benefit low - The activities must aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight.  ary 2018 55 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

56 There must be an urgent need that poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or  welfare of the community. To apply, call IFA at 503 contact your IFA Regional Coordinator for assistance and - 986 - 0123 , then more information. Port Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF) The Port Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF) is a loan program to assist Oregon ports in the planning and construction of facilities and infrastructure. Ports must be incorporated under ORS Chapter 777 or 778. The Fund may be used for port development projects (facilities or infrastructure) or to assist port - related pri vate business development projects. The variety of eligible projects is very oriented facilities, industrial parks, airports and commercial or - broad and may include water , industrial developments. Eligible project costs can include engineering, acquisition improvement, rehabilitation, construction, operation, and maintenance or pre project planning. - Projects must be located within port district boundaries. The maximum loan amount is $3 million the useful life of the project, at any one time. The loan term can be as long as 25 years or whichever is less. Interest rates are set by the IFA at market rates, but not less than Treasury Notes of a similar term minus one percent. ing is at least Note: Flexible manufacturing space projects will not accrue interest until the build 25 percent occupied or until three years after the date of the loan contract, whichever is earlier. contact your IFA Regional Coordinator for assistance and - 986 - 0123, then To apply, call IFA at 503 more information. Other IFA Funding Programs IFA administers a number of other funding programs for communities that support the design nt. These and construction of public infrastructure and economic and community developme funding programs include the Water/Wastewater Funding Program, the Special Public Works Fund he Port Revolving Loan Fund (SPWF) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and t vailable on IFA’s website. (PRLF). More information and allowable funded project activities are a Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) - : 503 - 6412 229 Clean Water State Revolving Fund x Website: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) - cost loans for planning, design, and construction projects to attain and maintain water Low quality standards, and necessary to protect beneficial uses such as drinking water sources, Eligible borrowers are public entities, such as cities and counties, irrigation, and recreation. Indian tribal governments, sanitary districts, soil and water conservation districts, irrigation e accepted districts, various special districts and some intergovernmental entities. Applications ar ary 2018 56 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

57 year round with scheduled review and ranking in the first week of January, May and September. Contact DEQ for a list of CWSRF project officers: /wq/cwsrf/Pages/CWSRF - Contacts.aspx Financial incentives make CWSRF loans worth exploring. Principle forgiveness is available for communities meeting affordability criteria, or for meeting green project criteria. Implement a non - planning nonpoint source project and a traditional point source wastewater treatment project through the same application to reduce your interest rate on the combined two projects to as low as 1%. This combined application is called a sponsorship option. CWSRF Pollution Reduction Funding The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program provides low - cost loans to public entities for the planning, design or construction of both point source and nonpoint source projects that prevent or mitigate water pollution . CWSRF offers a Local Community Loan, which allows the borrower to make loans to private entities like home owners and farmers. The Local Community Loans fund the repair and replacement of failing decentralized systems. This loan type can also fund nonpoint source agricultural best management practices and a variety of nonpoint source watershed improvement projects. CWSRF loans fund development of nonpoint source water quality improvement plans, such as an - wide storm water management integrated water resources plan and a regional or municipality plan. Planning loans can also fund the establishment of watershed partnerships, local ordinances to implement a stormwater master/management plan, engineering and development standards for new and redevelopment, permanent riparian buffers , floodplains, wetlands and other natural features. CWSRF offers a Local Community Loan, which allows the borrower to make loans to private entities like home owners and farmers. The Local Community Loans fund the repair and replacement of failing decentra lized systems. This loan type can also fund nonpoint source agricultural best management practices such as building manure containment structures, manure digesters, and fences to protect riparian resources capture and convert methane, and purchase calibrat ed application equipment. CWSRF loans fund a variety of nonpoint source watershed improvement implementation projects such as establishing or restoring permanent riparian buffers and floodplains, and daylighting streams from pipes. Loans can fund protecti ng and restoring streamside areas, wetlands and floodplains, and to acquire riparian land, wetlands, conservation easements, and land to protect drinking water sources. More information on DEQ’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund program can be found here: For specific information on the Sponsorship Option, Planning Loans, Nonpoint Source Loans, or Local Community Loans, see the links on the above webpage. The application requirements for - CWSRF loans may take some lead pocket expense to - of - time to develop and may require out ary 2018 57 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

58 prepare. Prospective CWSRF applicants should discuss any questions about the required content a regional DEQ CWSRF Project Officer at the earliest opportunity: of these items with - Contacts.aspx Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) Supplem ental Environmental Projects are administered by DEQ’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement. When DEQ assesses civil penalties for environmental law violations, violators can offset up to 80% of their monetary penalty by agreeing to pay for a Supplemental Environmental Project that improves Oregon’s environment. SEPs can be for pollution prevention or reduction, public health protection, environmental restoration and protection as long as it is a project that the respondent is not already required to do by law or where the project would be financially self - serving for the respondent. The work can be completed by a third - party like a local government, watershed council, non - profit or private entity. Community organizations with proposed projects are also fre e to contact respondents on their own initiative. The enforcement case does not necessarily have to be in the same area (watershed/county, etc.) as the environmental project or even address the same media (i.e. air/water/land). Interested parties up for DEQ’s public notifications via email at: - can sign Involved/Pages/Public Notices.aspx - ent actions”) and which counties When signing up, select types of information (select “enforcem subbasins are of interest. o r Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) Website: The Water Resources Department is the s tate agency charged with administration of the laws governing surface and ground water resources. The Department's core functions are to protect existing water rights, facilitate voluntary streamflow restoration, increase the understanding of the demands o n the state's water resources, provide accurate and accessible water resource data, and facilitate water supply solutions. WRD carries out the water management policies and rules set by the Water Resources Commission and oversees enforcement of Oregon's wa ter laws. By law, all surface and ground water in Oregon belongs to the public. WRD developed Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy to help individuals and stream needs now and into the future, including - communities address instream and out of - water water - quantity, water quality and ecosystem needs. Funding to support quality related planning, feasibility studies, and implementation of water projects includes: Feasibility Study Grants, Water - Project Grants and Loans (formerly Water Supply Devel opment Grants and Loans), and Place based Planning Grants. For more information on the criteria for these grants, visit: ated_water_supply_strategy.aspx Municipal Water Management and Conservation Planning ary 2018 58 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

59 Municipal water management and conservation planning provides a process through which cities d identify and other municipal water suppliers estimate long - range water supply needs an alternatives, including water conservation programs, to meet those needs. The Department requires many municipal water suppliers to prepare plans as conditions of their water use permits or permit extensions. Water Rights based on the principle of prior appropriation. This means the first Oregon’s water laws are person to obtain a water right on a stream is the last to be shut off in times of low streamflows. In water - short times, the water right holder with the oldest date of priority can demand the water specified in their water right regardless of the needs of junior users. The date of application for a permit to use water usually becomes the priority date of the right. Watermasters respond to complaints from water users and determine in times of water shortage, which generally occur every year, who has the right to use water. Each summer as watermasters regulate junior users to provide water to the more senior users. streamflows drop, there is only enough water to On many streams throughout the state, by the end of summer, supply users who established their rights in the late 1800s. All of the more recently established watermaster . rights will have been regulated off by the There are “watermaster” offices located around the state. The watermaster office is an excellent source of local information. Watermasters can research water rights for a particular stream reach . During critical flow periods, watermasters and provide supporting maps regulate water usage to enable senior water right holders to satisfy their water right. The watermaster may also provide information regarding instream leases, ground water rights, cancellations, transfers of water rights, streamflow data, and water right information in general . Here’s the most recent list of Watermasters: atermasters ______________________________________________ W WRD District 1 District 3 Robert Wood Nikki Hendricks 2705 E 2nd St c/o Port of Tillamook Bay 4000 Blimp Blvd Ste 400 The Dalles, Oregon 97058 - 2652 Tillamook, Oregon 97141 506 - Ph: 541 - - 967 815 Ph: 503 1 District 4 Eric Julsrud District 2 Michael Mattick 201 S Humbolt, Suite 180 Grant C 125 East 8th Avenue ounty Courthouse - Eugene, OR 97401 Canyon City, Oregon 97820 2926 - 575 0119 3620 - 682 - Ph: 541 - Ph: 541 Febru – 59 ary 2018 Version 1.0 Page

60 5 District 12 District Brian Mayer Greg Silbernagel 116 SE Dorion Ave 513 Center St Pendleton, OR Lakeview, Oregon 97630 97801 947 - Ph: 541 Ph: 541 - 278 - 5456 6038 - District 13 District 6 Travis Kelly Shad Hattan 10 S Oakdale, Rm 309A 10507 N McAlister Rd #6 Medford, Oregon 97501 La Grande, Oregon 97850 774 6880 Ph: 541 - 963 - 1031 Ph: 541 - - District 14 strict 7 Di David Bates Kathy Smith 401 NE First St., Suite 11 700 NW Dimmick St. 97828 Enterprise, Oregon Grants Pass, O regon 97526 - Ph: 541 426 - 4464 479 Ph: 541 - - 2401 District 8 Rick Lusk District 15 Baker County Courthouse David Williams 1995 3rd Street, Suite 180 Douglas County Courthouse, Room 306 Baker City, Oregon 97814 Ph: 541 - 523 - 8224 ext 231 Roseburg, Oregon 97470 Ph: 541 - 440 - 4255 District 9 Ron Jacobs District 16 Malheur County Courthouse #4 Joel Plahn 251 B St W 725 Summer St NE, Ste A Vale, Oregon 97918 Salem, Oregon 97301 Ph: 541 - 473 - 5130 986 - - 0889 Ph: 503 District 10 District 17 JR Johnson Scott White Harney County Courthouse 305 Main Street 450 N Buena Vista #3 Burns, OR 97720 Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 - Ph: 541 2591 - 573 - 4182 Ph: 541 - 883 District 11 District 18 Jeremy Giffin Jake Constans 231 SW Scalehouse Loop, 1400 SW Walnut St, Suite 240 Ste 103 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Bend, Oregon 9 7702 846 Ph: 503 - - 7780 - 306 - 6885 Ph: 541 Febru – 60 ary 2018 Version 1.0 Page

61 District 19 Greg Wacker Physical Address: 225 N Adams Coquille, Oregon 97423 Ph: 541 - 3 96 - 1905 District 20 Amy Kim 10722 SE Highway 212 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Ph: 503 - 722 - 1410 District 21 Ken Thiemann 221 S Oregon St. P.O. Box 427 97823 Condon, OR 4207 - 384 - Ph: 541 ary 2018 61 Page Version 1.0 – Febru

62 Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Website: federal forestland The Oregon Department of Forestry manages and regulates activities on non - in Oregon. There are three main divisions under ODF ts, and -- Fire Protection, Private Fores State Forests. The Private Forests Division administers the Forest Practices Act and various forestry incentive programs and employs the use of about 50 Stewardship Foresters who work ides Private Forests also prov early detection and rapid . closely with landowners and operators , response to forest health threats family forestland incentive programs and technical assistance, Urban and Community forestry services compliance and effectiveness , and monitors The State Forests Division is responsible for forest management to of the Forest Practices Act. The Fire Protection provide economic, environmental, and social benefits to Oregonians. Division protect s Oregon forestlands from fire through a complete and coordinated system with our landowner partners a nd cooperators, including fire prevention, suppression, investigation and cost collection. The over - arching goal is to minimize the cost of suppression and the loss of rotection resource values through aggressive wildland fire initial attack, secondary only to the p of human life. Financial incentive programs are aimed at encouraging and assisting landowners in managing their resources and meeting their objectives. Typical forestry projects can be aimed at fro protecting the landowner's resources/investment m fire or insect and disease infestation, to and environmental value in the future. increasing its monetary related grants and incentive programs can be - Information about all ODF and federal forestry found at: Community Forest Program The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program is a federal financial assistance rnments, Indian tribes, and qualified nonprofit program with grants available to local gove to establish community forests and organizations sustainably manage them for many public benefits, including recreation, income, wildlife habitat, stewardship demonstration sites, and environmental education. Conservation Stewardship Program To help landowners and operators maintain existing stewardship and adopt additional industrial working forests and agricultural lands. - - conservation on privately owned, non Version 1.0 201 62 Page 8 - February

63 Forest Legacy Program - owned forestlands The Forest Legacy Program is a national program that addresses privately - forest use by development pressures. The goal of the that face threats of conversion to non Forest Legacy Program is to promote stewardship and sustainable management of private forest lands by maintaining working forests that conserve important forest resource and conservation values. Forest Legacy provides funds for eligible private forestlands for the purchase of development rights through either conservation easement or fee - title acquisit ion into public ownership. All properties entered into Oregon’s Forest Legacy Program either – through conservation easement, fee acquisition or donation – have their forest resources and conservation values protected and managed in accordance with a State Forester - approved Forest Stewardship Plan (see below). Forest Stewardship Program Oregon’s Forest Management Planning System recognizes that forest management planning is A landowne several distinct steps. involving -- Pathways to Stewardship – a journey r’s initial – such interest may be related to a specific project or action that is pressing on their property Landowner assistance as reducing hazardous wildfire fuels or combating an invasive weed. organizations and agencies usually first cross paths thro ugh outreach efforts defined around Landowners who are just beginning the management mutual interests or resource concerns. planning process begin a more formal journey by taking the Woodland Discovery Woodland Discovery step. consists of gathering basic property information and solidifying management goals. The remaining steps for completing your forest management soil plan include organizing the planning elements into specific management planning modules: and water, forest vegetation, fish and wildlife, access and protection, scenery and enjoyment Every step completed along the way results in the identification of and tax and business. owner can take to improve conditions of the forestland or otherwise specific actions that a land meet goals in owning forestland. Completion of a forest management plan opens up formal types of engagement such as forest certification and the enrollment of lands into specialized conser term commitment to sustainable forestry. vation programs that define a long - Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) The goal is to restore and enhance ecosystems and habitat for threatened and endangered on working forest lands. species while promoting sustainable timber harvests Version 1.0 201 63 Page 8 - February

64 Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Program 986 - 4700; - 503 Phone: es/Default.aspx Website: The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is responsible for developing plans to prevent and Through the control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on rural lands. aims to conserve, protect, and develop actions below, ODA’s Natural Resources Program natural resources on public and private lands to ensure that agriculture will continue to be productive and economically viable in Oregon: Address water quality and natural resource conservation on agricultural lan ds  Ensure proper and legal sale, use, and distribution of pesticide products  Assist local soil and water conservation districts as they help landowners properly  manage Oregon’s natural resources More information on the Agricultural Plan Areas and Regulati ons can be found at: DA Water Quality Specialist can be Information on local management plans and your area’s O found at: More information on the regulation and use of pesticides can be found at: Department of Agriculture Pesticide Analytical & Response Center (PARC) bsite: We The Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC) was created by executive order in 1978. eauthorized under the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) as ORS The program was r 634.550, in 1991. - related incidents PARC is mandated to perform the following activities with regard to pesticide in Oregon that have suspected health or environmental effects: collect in cident information, Version 1.0 201 64 Page 8 - February

65 mobilize expertise for investigations, identify trends and patterns of problems, make policy or other recommendations for action, report results of investigations, and prepare activity reports for each legislative session. PARC does not have regulatory authority. Their primary function is to coordinate investigations to collect and analyze information about reported incidents. To report a pesticide incident that has impacted people, animals, or the environment, contact: 6470 or toll 7272, r., PARC Coordination Team Leader at 503 - 986 - Theodore Bunch J - free at 844 - 688 - or Christina Higby, Citizen Advocate Liaison at 503 [email protected] 5105, - 986 - chig [email protected] Department of Agriculture Soil and Water Conservation Districts - Website: spx 986 SWCD Program and Water Quality Program Manager : John Byers, 503 4718 - - The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Program provides services to the 45 Soil and local Water Conservation Districts throughout Oregon (list current as of 6/16). SWCDs are government entities that have authorities to address soil, erosion, and water quality issues. Pesticide Stewardship Partnership – epartment of Agriculture D Website: The PSP Program is a cooperative, voluntary process that is designed to identify potential se. Its purpose is to reduce concerns regarding surface and groundwater affected by pesticide u the occurrence of pesticide residues in the state’s water bodies by working with local stakeholders and to provide a mechanism to share “lessons learned” with all citizens of the State of Oregon. The goal of the program is to a chieve measurable environmental improvements, making Oregon waters safer for people and aquatic life. – In cooperation with PSP partners, 64 statewide surface water locations are monitored March November for approximately 140 pesticides. - June and August These results are provided to local stakeholders and the general public. Additionally, funds are provided to local watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts to address pesticide residues that occur frequently or approach or exceed an aq uatic life benchmark. Version 1.0 201 65 Page 8 - February

66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Source Water Collaborative Technical assistance and lists of resources and contacts are available from this national network that has worked to promote drinking water protection for several year s. The Source Water Collaborative is a network of federal, state, and local organizations led by US EPA. Some of the key Source Water Collaborative members include the US EPA, US Department of Agriculture, AWWA, American Planning Association, ASDWA, ACWA, National Rural Water Association, Groundwater Protection Council, National Association of Counties, and The Trust for Public for a summary of their priorities. Resources can be found here: Appendix 1 Land. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection Website: :: :::: This is an online, free searchable database of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost - sharing) available to fund a variety of watershed protection projects. Environmental Finance - .S. Environmental Protection Agency U Centers Website: Free technical assistance is available through EPA’s Environmental Finance Centers. There is currently no Environmental Finance Center for US EPA Region 10, but the r esources are still available through the US EPA website. The program mission is to provide help to those facing the “how to pay” challenges of environmental protection. EFC is committed to helping the nagerial, and financial capabilities regulated community build and improve the technical, ma needed to comply with federal and state environmental protection laws. Conservation U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency Programs - and - services/conservation - programs/index Website: related programs. - USDA Farm Service Agency oversees a number of voluntary conservation These programs work to address a large number of farming and ranchi ng related conservation issues including: drinking water protection, reducing soil erosion, wildlife habitat preservation, Version 1.0 201 66 Page 8 - February

67 preservation and restoration of forests and wetlands, and aiding farmers whose farms are damaged by natural disasters. Source Water P rotection Program (SWPP) The SWPP is designed to protect surface and ground water used as drinking water by rural residents. Through a partnership with the National Rural Water Association, local teams are formed to develop plans to reduce pollutant impact s in rural areas. services/conservation - and - - - programs/source - water protection/index Conservation Reserve Pro gram (CRP) In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental term health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10 - 15 years in length. The long - goal of the program is to re establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, - - prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. and - - programs/conservation - services/conservation - reserve program/index Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) rvation issues identified by local, state, - The CREP, an offshoot of CRP, targets high priority conse or tribal governments or non - governmental organizations. In exchange for removing environmentally sensitive land from production and introducing conservation practices, ers are paid an annual rental rate. Participation is farmers, ranchers, and agricultural land own voluntary, and the contract period is typically 10 15 years, along with other federal and state – incentives as applicable per each CREP agreement. - programs/conservation - services/conservation - and - enhancement/index - reserve Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) tance for farmers and ranchers to restore farmland The ECP provides funding and technical assis damaged by natural disasters and for emergency water conservation measures in severe helps farmers and ranchers to repair damage to farmlands caused by natural droughts. disasters and to help. The ECP also provides funding and assistance to help ranchers and farmers install water conservation measures during severe drought. programs/conservation - and - https://www - services/conservation - enhancement/index reserve - Version 1.0 201 67 Page 8 - February

68 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service advice, NRCS provides farmers, ranchers and forest managers with free technical assistance, or for their land. Common technical assistance includes: resource assessment, practice design and resource monitoring. The conservation planner will help you determine if financial assistance is nline through . right for you. Technical assistance is also available o Conservation Client Gateway e: More information about NRCS can be found on their home pag Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - ion on private, non Grants are available for best management practices and conservat industrial forestland and agricultural lands. Financial assistance is available to help plan and implement conservation practices that address natural resource concerns and for opportunities to improve d related resources on agricultural land and non - industrial soil, water, plant, animal, air an private forestland. In addition, EQIP can help producers meet Federal, State, Tribal and local environmental regulations. Owners of land in agricultural or forest production or persons who are Eligible Applicants: engaged in livestock, agricultural or forest production on eli gible land and that have a natural resource concern on the land Financial and technical assistance to agricultural and forestland producers Funding Available: through contracts up to 10 years. Not to exceed $300,000 for all EQIP contracts entered into - dur ing any six year period. If NRCS determines project has special environmental significance the payment limitation is a maximum of $450,000. Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) ation systems and CSP helps agricultural producers maintain and improve their existing conserv Through CSP, adopt additional conservation activities to address priority resources concerns. participants take additional steps to improve resource condition including soil quality, water quality, water quantity, air quality, and habita t quality, as well as energy. Participants earn CSP the higher the performance, the higher the payment. - payments for conservation performance http://www.nrcs.u Wetlands Reserve Easements (WRE) WRE provides habitat for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, ooding, recharge improve water quality by filtering sediments and chemicals, reduce fl groundwater, protect biological diversity and provide opportunities for educational, scientific and limited recreational activities. Version 1.0 201 68 Page 8 - February

69 NRCS also provides technical and financial assistance directly to private landowners and Indian tribes to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands through the purchase of a wetland reserve easement. 9312 Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) term viability of the nation’s food supply by preventing ALE is designed to protect the long - agricultural uses. - conversion of productive working lands to non Land protected by agricultural land easements provides a dditional public benefits, including environmental quality, historic preservation, wildlife habitat and protection of open space. l/nrcs/detail/or/home/?cid=stelprdb1249312 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) The EWP program was set up by Congress to respond to emergencies created by natural disasters. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation ervice is responsible for administering the program. EWP is designed to relieve imminent S hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. It is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared for an are a to be eligible for assistance. Activities include providing financial and technical assistance to remove debris from streams, protect destabilized streambanks, establish cover on critically eroding lands, repairing e of flood plain easements. The purpose of EWP is to conservation practices, and the purchas EWP is generally not an individual assistance help groups of people with a common problem. program. All projects undertaken must be sponsored by a political subdivision of the State, such nty, general improvement district or conservation district, or by a tribal as a city, cou government. NRCS Programs Other There are other NRCS programs that are specific to Oregon geographic areas Wildfire --- Rehabilitation Initiative, Organic Initiative, drought funding, and restoration funding --- see the Oregon NRCS link for more information on those: Anyone applying for EQIP or any of the other NRCS grants for the first time should schedule a with NRCS to discuss their options before moving forward. meeting Version 1.0 201 69 Page 8 - February

70 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) 775 Summer St. NE Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301 0178 Phone: (503) 986 - Website: The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is a state agency that provides grants to help Oregonians take care of local streams, rivers, wetlands and natural areas. Community members and landowners use scientific criteria to decide jointly what needs to be done to conserve and improve rivers and natural habitat in the places where they live. OWEB grants are funded from the Oregon Lottery, federal dollars, and salmon license plate revenue. The agency is led by a 17 member citizen board drawn from the public at large , tribes, and federal and state natural resource agency boards and commissions. OWEB provides grants to projects that contribute to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds and the Oregon Conservation Strategy by protecting, restoring and improving clean water and fish and wildlife habitat. See the OWEB website for more information on grants: Oregon Sea Grant (OSG) Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon Phone 541 - 2714 - 737 Oregon Sea Grant serves Oregon coastal communities through integrated research, education Based at Oregon State University, OSG is and public engagement on ocean and coastal issu es. part of the national network of NOAA Sea Grant College Programs, dedicated to promoting term economic development and responsible use of - environmental stewardship, long America’s coastal, ocean and Great Lakes r esources. OSG targets research on better defining the relationships between the many pressures that can degrade water quality: climate change, upland and coastal land use, fish and habitat restoration efforts, aquatic invasive species. OSG - works with group landowners, outdoor s whose interests sometimes come in conflict to seek - recreationists, farmers and woodland managers, local government, the general public solutions that will help sustain healthy watersheds and our precious water resources. OSG es on the question of resilience focus - the ability to plan, adapt and rebound in the face of change by supporting physical and social science research aimed at better understanding ocean Version 1.0 201 70 Page 8 - February

71 and coastal processes and the socio - economic barriers to hazard and clima te change and climate - change - preparation. - hazards - OSG and OSU Extension produce textbooks and other publications on such topics as nservation impact development. OSG also - co friendly gardening, sustainable living and low - partners with the Oregon State Marine Board to develop the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) Education Initiative. Funded by the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, the goal of the CVA Educa tion Initiative is to improve boaters’ awareness, accessibility and use of sewage pump outs, dump stations, and - floating toilets. Publications and resources available from OSG about watershed health can be found here: - wetlands - and Every two years, OSG awards approximately $2 million in research grants addressing rshed health, other urgent or emerging community preparedness for climate change, wate regional needs with high relevance to coastal communities. For more information on grants, see: U.S. Department of Agr iculture, Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants Eligible Projects: Pre - construction and construction associated with building, repairing, or improving drinking water, solid waste facilities and wastewater facilities Eligible Ap plicants: - Cities or towns with fewer than 10,000 population - Counties, special purpose districts, non - profit corporations or tribes unable to get funds from other sources at reasonable rates and terms Funding Available: Loans (40 - year term), grants in so me cases, interest rates vary (currently 2.125 – 3.5%) How To Apply: Applications accepted year - round on a fund - available basis. - - loan - - grant - program ms - waste disposal services/water Version 1.0 201 71 Page 8 - February

72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants Eligible Projects: Prevention of human exposure to harmful pollution; improve water quality. Form communit y - based collaborative partnerships; identifying and developing an understanding of the many local sources of risk from toxic pollutants and environmental concerns; and setting priorities for the reduction of the identified risks and concerns of the communi ty Eligible Applicants: Local, public non - profit institution/organizations, federally - recognized Indian tribal government, Native American organizations, private non - profit rstate and - institution/organization, quasi public nonprofit institution/organization both inte intrastate, local government, colleges, and universities Funding Available: $75,000 to $100,000 with an average project funding of about $90,000 action - renewed - - : How To Apply - resources environment - care U.S. Department of Commerce - Community Development Block Grant Planning Program - Phone: (206) 220 5101; Website: lopment/programs ty studies, Community Eligible Projects: Comprehensive plans, Infrastructure plans, Feasibili income housing assessments - action plans, Low Projects must principally benefit low - Eligible Applicants: income people in non - - to moderate entitlement cities (under 50,000 people) and counties (under 200,000 people). Grants Funding Available: · Up to $24,000 for a single jurisdiction · Up to $35,000 for single jurisdiction projects that address urgent public health and safety needs Version 1.0 201 72 Page 8 - February

73 · Up to $40,000 for multiple jurisdictions/joint application How To Apply: Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) Website: National contact: Josh Griff, 720 - 951 - 2163, [email protected] 0207; - [email protected] 308 Oregon co ntact: Ro sAnna Noval, Rural Development Specialist 503 - At the national level, RCAC has a variety of loans for water and/or wastewater planning, environmental work, and other work to assist in developi ng an application for infrastructure improvements profit organizations, public agencies, tribes, and low - Eligible Applicants: Non income rural - communities with a 50,000 population or less, or 10,000 or less if guaranteed by USDA Rural Development financing . Funding Available: Maximum $50,000 for feasibility loan   development loan - Maximum $350,000 for pre 1 year term with 5.5% interest rate  How To Apply: Applications accepted anytime. Water Research Foundatio – n - Benefit Tool Source Water Protection Cost Website: This is a free, online suite of tools designed to assist in evaluating the triple bottom - line costs and benefits of di fferent source water protection options. Cost/benefit calculations help evaluate, prioritize, justify, and ultimately implement source water protection initiatives. Version 1.0 201 73 Page 8 - February

74 LAND TRUSTS Most land trusts are community based and deeply connected to local needs, so th - ey are well equipped to identify land that offers critical natural habitat as well as land offering recreational, agricultural and other conservation value. There are several categories of land trusts: Conservation land trusts: A land trust is a nonprofit organization that, as all or part of its  mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisition, or by its stewardship of such land or easements. Alternative type of land trust: The legal title of  the property in question is held by another person (a trustee) while the original owner retains all of the rights and privileges of property ownership. Community land trusts (CLTs): A community land trust is a private, non - profit  quire and hold land for the benefit of a community, and corporation, created to ac provide secure affordable access to land and housing for community residents. CLTs offer a balanced approach to ownership: the nonprofit trust owns the land and leases it for a nominal fee to individu In particular, als who own the buildings on the land. Community land trusts attempt to meet the needs of residents least served by the prevailing land market. Resources to assist in locating a land trust: Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts 4732 - 503 719 - Website: Phone: t representing and The Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts (COLT) is a newly formed nonprofi serving Oregon’s land trusts. Its mission is to serve and strengthen the land trust community in Oregon. Oregon’s land trust community is working at local, regional, and statewide scales with other partners to maintain the state’s natural landowners, communities, public agencies and heritage and the economies it supports. COLT will accomplish its mission by strengthening public policies and programs that are supportive of land conservation, helping to build capacity trusts, and communicating to key audiences about the role of land trusts within and across land in conserving Oregon’s natural heritage and healthy human communities that depend on it. There are currently 18 land trusts that are members of COLT. Version 1.0 201 74 Page 8 - February

75 Land Trust Alliance Phone: ( 971) 202 - 1483 Website: The Land Trust Alliance is a national conservation organization that works preserve land through conservation and easements, so land and natural reso urces get protected. The Alliance is based in Washington, D.C., and has several regional offices. Individual land trusts which may be of assistance include: Public Land The Trust for ervancy The Nature Cons PLACE BASED PLANNING FOR SOURCE WATER - 5.0 Drinking water protection involves identifying and working to reduce the highest risks that could potentially affect the public water syst em, rather than prohibiting specific uses in a watershed or groundwater recharge area. The prime benefit or incentive to local communities to voluntarily develop and implement drinking water protection strategies is reduction of risk to quality water. This is important in light of the pace at ensure a more secur e source of high - based - which new chemicals are developed and the known gaps in water quality health source water drinking standards. In addition, lands within most areas across the state are not owne d by public water systems, so voluntary commitment within the community to collaborate term protection. - protection efforts is an essential aspect of long water on Developing pollutant reduction strategies to protect a public water system is a cost ve effecti - acquire a use of resources, since it is expensive to treat contaminated drinking water or to (see Gartner replacement water supply should a supply become unusable due to contamination . DEQ estimates the cost of developing drinking water prot et al 2014) ection strategies for a community of less than 500 in population to range from $100 (with staff or donated time) to water protection is level of investment in drinking $6,000 (with preparation by a consultant). Th osts to investigate and install treatment for stands in stark contrast with the typical c supplied public water contamination. Based on an actual event in 1992, a small groundwater - system in Marion County spent at least $500,000 on contamination response. This example is consistent with a US EPA stu dy that determined the cost of contamination cleanup to be 5 to 200 times more expensive than basic pollution prevention efforts. Version 1.0 201 75 Page 8 - February

76 There are several reasons why “place - based planning” is essential to the success of overcoming commonly encountered challenge s for drinking water protection planning. The drinking water source area for most communities lies partially, if not entirely, outside of municipal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction of the source area may also be complicated by several different and overlapp ing governing agencies. The land uses and potential contaminant sources may correspond to a diverse mix of landowners, businesses and residents. When developing protection strategies, DEQ and OHA highly recommend that the water system and community involve potentially affected stakeholders early in the process to foster their awareness and water protection efforts occur at the community source trust in the resulting strategies. When level and involve key stakeholders, there is a greater likelihood of succe ss. These efforts may comprise a focused strategy to address a specific issue, or broader “action plans” that address term drinking water protection challenges. Regardless of the approach, term and longer - short - all of this work is a valuable investment in protecting the quality of life and economic vitality of the local community. In 2012 Oregon adopted an “Integrated Water Resources Strategy (IWRS)” that provides - based and integrated approach to water resources recommendations for how to follow a place pl . This approach helps communities achieve the level of coordination and (OWRD 2015) anning collaboration to successfully address local water quality and water quantity challenges, such as developing and implementing strategies to protect their drinking wate r sources. The IWRS Based Planning guidelines describe elements to consider for building a collaborative - Place process, characterizing water - related issues, quantifying existing and future water needs, ementing the plan. More information developing a suite of solutions, and adopting and impl about the process can be found in this Water Resources Department document: 2015_February_Draft_Place_Based_Guidelines .pdf - based planning include: Essentials of place  Voluntary process, driven by local partners  Involves and integrates diverse and representative perspectives qual Potentially addresse challenges that include: ity water s a broad array of common  Water quality impairments and water supply limitations   Identifying data gaps and initiating projects to address these (e.g. water monitoring studies to assess water quality, hydrology, sources of potential or known pollutants , utilization, etc.)  Identifying water resource needs and partner to develop solutions  source Lack of jurisdiction over lands in area  s waterbodie , including Assessing cumulative effects of regional demands on new development existing uses and quality visibility and awareness of water Increasing the as a priority water  resource issue Version 1.0 201 76 Page 8 - February

77  Connecting the health of source water to overall watershed health with decision makers and funders  I mpacts on water resources , e.g. development and negative effects on aquifer harge rec to and streamflows ; vulnerability of groundwater and surface water contamination. -  Collaborative partners help implement place based planning efforts:  SWCDs NRCS - USDA   Oregon State University Extension Service  Watershed Councils dictions  County and City juris Other pu blic water systems in area   WRD (Watermaster and Planning staff)  Other relevant agencies e.g.: DEQ, ODFW, ODF, ODA Representative stakeholders:  Irrigation districts  Residential homeowners   Commercial, industrial landowners forestry landowners Agricultural and  Planning Process for Protection Many public water systems do not have the staff or resources necessary to develop comprehensive drinking water protection plans, or maintain communication and coordination with landowners in their source area. For communities with limited resources, it is critical to water plementing strategies for drinking for developing and im streamline the process protection to ensure that protection effo 9 Figure resource priorities. rts focus on the highest visual map or process for moving through the various steps for developing a provides a . pollutant reduction or drinking water protection plan Version 1.0 201 77 Page 8 - February

78 Potential Fu Protection Strategy Prioritization and Implementation Capacity Building nding Contamination Assessment Source Identification Identify human resources Form partnerships to develop projects Generate Form an for implementing detailed advisory strategies & land use committee priorities map Assess Determine vulnerabilities Enhance USWA necessary Develop basic and prioritize data for Request maps level of protection ection and prot potential and data from funding strategy restoration contaminant the sta te activities sources agencies Isolate Appl y to individual available Request technical strategic funding Erosion Develop Consult assistance from priorities sources maps Potential - Common Crop DEQ, OHA, and and other runoff Pesticide other partners vulnerabilities Associations Table Assign/hire coordination of each strategic priority for . Protection Source Water Drinking Diagram Process 9 Figure 201 8 78 Page Version 1.0 - February

79 The level of available resources, information and data will likely define the scope of the drinking ly, even a focused effort to address a few higher priority water protection efforts. Initial pollutants of concern is a concrete step towards pollutant reduction. Over time, as resources allow, water systems can build on their initial efforts to pursue a broader approach that engages more local and/or regional partners and diverse community perspectives. With place - based planning, the goal of collaborators could be to develop an aquifer protection plan (e.g. the City of Florence, Oregon’s plan: - water - protection ) or a comprehensive watershed management plan that integrates surface and groundwater protection measures for drinking water and other important water uses in the region. summarizes a streamlined approach for drinking water The process diagram in Figure 10 protection planning. Protection planning may also include the following important steps: 1. Identify human resources to work on protection/restoration plann ing . 2. Solicit available technical experts, citizens, and landowners to form advisory committee (DEQ/OHA can provide technical assistance and/or participate) . 3. Review Updated Source Water Assessment and identify potential stakeholders and partners within drin king water source area. This includes the water system and any other entities that have jurisdiction and/or regulatory authority, such as cities, counties, state, federal agencies, Tribes, or special districts. This is particularly important for where priority sources occur. locations 4. REQUEST STATE AGENCY ASSISTANCE to provide GIS and database information/maps, - based planning efforts. (see along with technical support, especially for broader place Section . for list of for contacts) .0 4 Develop enhanced pot ential contaminant source (PCS) inventory to identify and map 5. . any additional PCSs not already included in the USWA 6. PRIORITIZE protection and restoration activities using all available information/maps; general criteria for prioritization include: ty to wells/springs Proximi a. Location within identified sensitive and/or susceptible areas in DWSA b. (e.g. use of toxic c. Land uses/activities that p ose significant threat to water quality chemicals, application of pesticides, older septic systems, etc.) . 7. Use available resources to develop basic protection strategies for high priority PCSs with based Planning input from stakeholders; if feasible pursue larger efforts such as a Place - approach (see details below), or a Drinking Water Protection Plan (which can be a based Planning) . nt of Place compone - Establish a timeline for implementing strategies and identify individuals and/or 8. organizations that will take the lead and/or assist (utilize technical assistance from DEQ and OHA) . - term and longer - mplish short Determine level of funding necessary to acco 9. term . protection planning and identify potential funding sources Version 1.0 201 79 Page 8 - February

80 10. Isolate individual strategic priorities and assign (or hire) a coordinator to implement each priority as resources and time permit. 11. If resources are limited for a ccomplishing proposed protection efforts, apply for grants or loans with assistance from partners who can implement the work. D ata Available to Support Surface W ater Protection Efforts Sources of data on watershed conditions and natural risks that could a id in developing plans water protection include, but are not limited to, the following (see and strategies for surface ): agencies and organizations listed in .0 also 4 Section DEQ Drinking Water Source Area data layers   Drinking water source area conditions and risks from Source Water Assessment Report  National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for land use  Aerial photography (current and past) from Google Earth Digital elevation models (DEMs) from Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office   hs from USGS (National Hydrology Dataset);USDA Waterbody locations and flow pat - NASS Cropland Data Layer (USDA 2015) for land use  Groundwater levels, aquifers, water use, and water quality data from USGS and USEPA Disturbance data from USFS   Soil contaminant leaching research data from Ore gon State University  National Soil Information System (NSIS) data from NRCS DEQ, ODA’s Pesticide – data from Oregon databases and quantity  Water quality Stewardship Partnership, WRD, others to human activities: Additional data on land uses, management, or potential risks due Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan for your area (ODA)   Source Water Assessments and Updated Assessments completed by DEQ and OHA contain information on potential contaminant sources, well construction, and susceptibility ssessment database at DEQ Site A  Land ownership category data from ODF and other agencies   Most recent data on locations of hazardous material from DEQ and the State Fire Marshall More details on locations of county roads, forest roads (County, ODF)  e notifications for harvest and application of pesticides (ODF) Forest practic  Update on locations of quarries and gas wells from DOGAMI  Appendix 2 is a compilation of information on the most common pote ntial impacts to the drinking water sources in Oregon. Appendix Pollutant Reduction Strategies for Land 2 “ Uses/Activities” lists the categories of land uses and activities that are identified in the Updated Source Water Assessments, then summarizes the potential impacts or risks from those Version 1.0 201 80 Page 8 - February

81 when chemicals are improperly handled or best activities. Contamination most commonly occur s management practices are not followed. The purpose of developing strategies to “protect” a - site movement drinking water source area is to reduce the risks of spills, pollutant release, or off chemicals. table provides key pollutant reduction ideas and resources for of The Appendix 2 implementing drinking water source protection strategies. Local and statewide technical, financial, and labor resources may be available to assist in implementation of source water protection. For example, community members, volunteer labor, and the expertise of state agencies can be important sources of technical assistance and - the - on ate ground implementation of protection strategies. There are grants available from st .0 ) - profits (see Section 4 and federal government agencies as well as foundations and non . Local experts in water quality, conservation practices, restoration, forestry, fisheries, etc. may be willing to contribute their knowledge and time. Service orga nizations, schools (including colleges/universities), OSU County Extension offices, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Watershed Councils can be a source of knowledge, labor, and sometimes funds. Local landowners and residents are often valuable re sources with important insights and understanding of area ecosystems and land management. Working with landowners within delineated drinking water source areas for public water of the area is owned systems must be a top priority in conservation and protection. If all or part by entities other than the public water supplier, then engagement and cooperation (or at least permission) of the landowner is necessary. This could take the form of permission to evaluate and remedy degraded sites on the landowner’s p roperty, a cost share agreement where the - landowner does the work and the water system assists with the necessary expenses and resources, or simply encouraging the landowner to implement conservation practices on their t to allow access to their property for liability and other own. Some landowners will be reluctan reasons. Therefore, developing a carefully negotiated agreement can address those concerns. An agreement may take the form of a “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) often used and agreements s s and private or public landowners. The discussion between municipal entitie with landowners in the drinking water source area regarding management practices (including agreements with monetary compensation attached) are an important tool. resources available to producers that outline pesticide use practices There are many technical few resources to increase yields and reduce costs. However, (such as materials comparatively toxic options) - on Integrated Pest Management and less are available to compare different pest or icide management practices in terms of their impact on sustaining the quality of ground - surface water for agricultural production and agricultural communities. Ensuring high quality water is essential for important agricultural purp and surface - ground oses such as livestock watering and irrigation of crops, as well as for providing drinking water to rural and urban homeowners in communities of all sizes. The shared vision of protecting agricultural water ols for identifying pesticide use practices and quality necessitates availability of screening to Version 1.0 201 81 Page 8 - February

82 resources . For these reasons this guide their associated potentials for contaminating water related tools that are intended to provide preliminary information includes several crop - regarding the effects of ag ricultural pesticide use within the vicinity of the drinking water source areas. This information may in turn encourage and bring about a greater level of led drinking water protection planning as it relates to the discussion regarding community - al sector and other land uses that involve pesticide , urban pesticide usage, agricultur application. In preparation of this resource guide, DEQ collaborated with a number of state partners to develop information that may help public water systems prevent or reduce c ontamination from sources within their recharge area. 6.0 POLLUTANT REDUCTION TOOLS water systems may find provides summaries and examples of tools that public This section useful for implementing pollutant reduction within drinking water so urce areas fo r surface . water intakes a “tool” is defined broadly as an organized collection of data For the purposes of this guide , technical assistance and implementation of in informing and/or information that may be use d drinking water protection planning. A pa rtial list of what can be considered a “tool” are maps, tables, diagrams, checklists, charts, online resources, scientific models and estimation methods, this guide related tools provided and referenced within - land cover and other formats. The plexity from simple tables to high resolution geospatial information system (GIS) - range in com maps. Several of the tools display statewide data that may not be directly transferrable for use at the local level due to the lack of resolution. In such cases where a local , site - specific, or Water tailored map/tool is needed, please make these requests directly to DEQ Drinking Protection ( 566 - 4 ) . Julie Harvey at 503 - 229 Communities of sufficient size, resources, and other means may be able to develop drinking rotection plans for their water resources without the use of the tools provided in water source p this section. Many communities that fit this description have already taken steps to develop sks to their and utilize screening tools, resources, and strategies for reducing potential ri drinking water. Other communities may lack the information or data to engage landowners or managers within the drinking water source area. These discussions may be aided through the use of the tools provided in this section. d in this section are intended to be used by public water system staff, The tools provide managers, and community leaders with assistance received from their regional or county - partner organization . A partner organization for community led drinking water protection efforts are most often the local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), watershed Version 1.0 201 82 Page 8 - February

83 council, the university extension office (OSU), the USDA NRCS district, and/or possibly a contracted natural resources consultant. Early involvement of a partner organization i s critical in order to ensure that screening tools are accessible, used properly, and are effective. Partner - up efforts that may require grant writing organizations may also be able to assist with follow and additional funding when in depth investigation o f natural resources may be deemed - necessary. It is important that public water systems and community leaders involve their regional partner organization at the outset when using screening tools provided in this section. artner organizations for Oregon co unties can be found in The consolidated list of potential p . 0. Section 4 The authors of this resource guide would like to stress that none of the tools provided in this . Instead, the use of the tools are highly encouraged. A community’ are regulatory s section decision to put the screening tools into use represents a community effort towards the broader, long term goal of drinking water source protection planning . T he tools provided in this - ort or fate of section do not attempt to model a watershed, an aquifer, or the transp contaminants. Rather, they are viewed more as screening tools for potential contaminant sources that provide preliminary information for informing community - led discussions aimed at drinking water source protection. S creening tools provide a cost - effective way to focus and prioritize limited resources where community planning efforts are expected to yield the None of the tools in this section should be greatest benefit to drinking water source protection. surface bacteria, considered “definitive” analysis or a or “risk analysis” for water vulnerability sediment, or pesticide transport to waterbodies . Land Cover Maps The Updated Source Water Assessments (sent to each public water system) include maps showing current land uses within the drink ing water source areas. These land cover maps are a combination of multiple datasets developed by DEQ updated in March 2017. , most recently The primary dataset is from Bureau of Land Management BLM (OWNERSHIP_POLY.shp dated 06/20/2013) obtained from BLM: - details.php?id=425. 07 ( Publication date: 2013 / / 18 ) The dataset has been modified by grouping land owner categories in order to simplify data ure the display on the map and using geospatial techniques to add additional data to capt following land uses:  A gricultural land using a combination of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data from Natural Resource Conservation Service (2007 “ cdl_awifs_r_or_2007.tif”) and agricultural land zoning from O regon Dep ar t ment of Land Conservation and Development (note that public water systems may obtain more detailed information on potential crop N ational Agricultural Statistics Service types using the US Department of Agriculture - vailable at a " cropland data layer - "CropScape ), Version 1.0 201 83 Page 8 - February

84 ar t P rivate industrial forests using Oregon Dep  ment of Forestry’s (ODF) Private_Industrial_2006_ ORLambert.shp” last updated in 2013, bined from BLM ownership, tax lot ownership information from ocal government land com  L line application: - , local county tax lot data and “OR Map” on  P rivate urban lands based on private lands located within 2016 city limit s, and  A ll other categories (BLM, USFS, State, etc) from BLM 06202013 data. Note that Private urban lands may include residential, municipal, commercial, and industrial land uses. - also include urban lands typically include rural residential land but may Private non commercial and industrial land uses. Because of the nature of combining multiple datasets, minor discrepancies will be seen in some maps especially at larger scales. Public water systems and communities could use tax lot data the counties or other datasets to further refine the analysis if higher accuracy is available from needed. For the source water areas close to the intakes, public water systems may want to develop more detailed maps to prioritize pollutant reduction strategies. For tho se areas that are current productive agricultural lands, there are additional resources available for mapping and engaging provides a list of example land covers that can be identified through Table 2 local partners. imagery. The methodology for the USDA N ational Agricultural Statistics (NASS) imagery is to identify one of over 240 unique agricultural land covers, referred as “Cropland Data Layers (CDL)”. The metadata for generating the source CDL imagery is referenced in Section 8.0 (USDA tifying the CDL covers, the tool then identifies each of the non 2015). After iden - agricultural land Cover Database (NLCD). The NLCD is a result of work by a covers as provided by National Land - federal agency consortium. The two sources of data are combined within this reco mmended Land Cover Map tool. Version 1.0 201 84 Page 8 - February

85 Imagery Identified Cover through Table and 2 . Example Land Characteristics epending on data sources being updated on a regular basis D , more detailed mapping may also lot data from local be available from local agencies . Public water systems can also request tax - more detailed land At present, when a public water system requests a city or county agencies. drinking water source area(s) for their from DEQ receive the map use community will most , the USDA National Agricultural Statistics and rom DEQ, including the updated imagery available f (USDA 2015). Cover Database - the National Land Version 1.0 201 85 Page 8 - February

86 High Soil Erosion Potential DEQ uses two different soil datasets for analyzing soil erodibility depending on the overall slope of the land surf ace. These two datasets are described as follows: - For areas with steeper slopes (>30%) This information was developed in accordance with the methods detailed in Oregon’s Source Water Assessment program to assist public water systems prioritize drinking water protection strategies within their source area and was updated in 2016 using Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 1:24,000 Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) data downloaded 25OCT2016. Hi gh Forest Service lands with steeper slopes is determined by Soil Erosion Potential for non - rock - factor") using combining the effects of slope and the - soil erodibility factor ("K free f SSURGO and STATSGO data. The K - factor quantifies the susceptibility o f soil particles to f detachment and movement by water including the effects of rainfall, runoff, and infiltration. Soils with "high" soil erodibility ratings are considered sensitive to extensive ground disturbance such as some yarding methods and road bui lding activities. Soils classified as "high" include soil with slopes of 30% (or greater) and K - factors (kffactor - rock free) of 0.25 (or f greater). Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) information from the US Forest Service was used to determine erosion potent ial on National Forest lands. Erosion potential for soils represented in the SRI data is based on available representative data attributes such as sedimentation yield potential, sediment, or surface soil erosion potential. Specific information on the fac tors used for each National Forest to evaluate sensitivity is available from DEQ upon request. This For areas with lower slopes (generally <30% i.e. valleys and agricultural lands): Section 3.0 has derived from two sources of information. information is additional details and a statewide example maps for both methods which use SSURGO data from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) . NRCS as shown in developed by system Trail Erosion Hazard Rating The first is the Off - Road/Off - the Web Soil Su rvey online viewer Erosion hazard ratings ). ( Slight, to group soils through a combination of K - factor (whole soil erodibility) and slope in w K Moderate, Severe and Very Severe classes. Higher slope and/or higher - factor ratings result w in higher ratings, and modifying conditions (incompetent rock, high rainfall erosivity, etc.) may We selected those soil units with a more severe rating. necessitate assignment of a soil unit to because significant erosion is possible or likely in these places . Severe or Very Severe ratings This method is suitable for up to 50 75% ground cover disturbance and sheet and rill erosion, - g effects from machinery, grazing, and other ground and vegetation disturbing includin , gully erosion, agricultural and silvicultural activities. It is not suitable for tillage and other major disruptions of soil structure and vegetation cover . Version 1.0 201 86 Page 8 - February

87 The second method is Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Erosion Vulnerability Index, which is based on NRCS’ Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Data are available from DEQ and This method uses the environmental variabl ODA; DEQ can assist with mapping upon request. es factors - , and LS - whole soil erodibility, rainfall erosivity, length and gradient - — from RUSLE (K , R w - factors — cropping and and P - of slope, respectively) and sets the management variables (C ck of ground cover and erosion erosion control practices, respectively) to 1, representing a la control actions or structures. Therefore, the Erosion Vulnerability Index shows locations where erosion potential is higher and erosion control practices (e.g. cover crops, no till, etc.) are most beneficial. DEQ and ODA con sider results EVI >5 tons lost per unit area in need of greater attention and caution. This method is suitable for all level of soil disturbance, especially more intensive management such as plowing and cultivation. Landslide Risks For mapping landslides, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DEQ uses the Oregon The 3.2). - (DOGAMI) Statewide Landslide Information Database of Oregon Release 3.2 (SLIDO oes ncludes earth and debris slides, flows, slumps, falls and complex landslide types data i , but d not include rock material landslide deposits. The landslide data set is published to improve the understanding of landslide hazards in Oregon and to provide a statewide base level of landslide data. This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the - specific investigations by qualified r site information. This publication cannot substitute fo specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the - practitioners. Site org/sub/slido/ http://www.oregongeology. publication. For more information see: DEQ's Water Quality Program is currently working with DOGAMI to develop and provide a more detailed landslide potential analysis for public water systems. Contact Oregon DEQ's ther information on the Environmental Solutions Division/Water Quality Program for fur analysis. If data is available for the specific area, DEQ will provide the more detailed landslide analysis to the public water system. Urban Homeowners and Pesticides At present, the use of pesticides in urban settings by homeown ers are considerably more heterogenous and unpredictable than agricultural pesticide applications. In high density housing areas, if a good portion of the homeowners are applying pesticides liberally, this could reasons we have chosen to provide a e s cause a regional water quality th problem. For e resource that consolidates the a wide range of best use practices for homeowners when attempting to manage pests. Version 1.0 201 87 Page 8 - February

88 Urban homeowners tend to apply relatively high rates of general use pesticides on a per area basis for the maintenance of lawns, home gardens, and ornamentals plants. Most homeowners apply pesticides with minimal or no training, and they usually apply pesticides without a or license). For pesticide applicator license (as general use pesticides do not require an applicat these reasons there is a reasonable likelihood to expect that residential pesticide applications can readily result in off target transport of pesticides. This means that residential pesticides - that are applied near homes may end up travel ing below the root zone of the targeted vegetation. These pesticides would be expected to travel on to contaminate the underlying site during - aquifer or a nearby aquifer. Residential pesticide use is also likely to be washed off essive watering, and thereby have the result of contaminating storm events or through exc municipal stormwater (surface water pollution). several larger municipalities in the Pacific Northwest created an , In recognition of this challenge e tool is both a website (desktop) tool as well as a online tool called Grow Smart, Grow Safe. Th smartphone/mobile application ). The tool provides ( homeowners with non - chemical options as well as comparative hazard r atings for different products depending on their intended use and application. This is a free resource to the public that is intended to assist homeowners in making informed decisions and thereby lead to a reduction of negative environmental impacts that a re commonly associated with pesticide use. Grow Smart Grow Safe organizes its information and ratings by whether the intended user Additional information about is managing for insects, weeds, plant diseases, and animal pests. less found at the National Pesticide Information Center - toxic alternatives can be ; see & ( below ). Pesticide Associations - Common Crop Gaining a better understanding of land use activities within a drinking water source area for towards developing strategies for drinking water source public supply wells is an important step ssed in Section 5 As discu protection. based planning approach for - .0 above, within the place drinking water source protection, it is important to use every available data source to identify vulnerabilities and risks to be addressed in risk reduction. After identifying the land uses and activities in the drinking water source area, the next step is to prioritize the reduction work that may impact the drinking water system. In based on the particular chemicals or pesticides this section, tools are provided that enable the public water system staff to identify priority areas regarding potential risks from pesticides. management practices T can based vary over time he association of pesticides with specific land actors when Today’s producers must continually adapt to many f upon several factors. considering what to grow year to year. Some of these factors include: changing commodity Version 1.0 201 88 Page 8 - February

89 prices, climate change, available labor, cost of crop inputs (pesticides and fertilizers), and encroaching urbaniz , s ee: ation in some areas. For more information However, c ounty level statistics suggest that crop selections and their yield tend to be relatively stable over the past two decades. The stability in land management decisions is further supported by the consistency of USDA satellite imagery data ( as shown in Figure 8). Proven pest management strategies tend to be carri ed forward from the previous year into the next. Where rotation a crop - plan is practiced, these operations typically rotate back through set grouping of crops as well as a corresponding set of pest management strategies. The possible variability in crops a nd pesticides can be addressed through precise mapping and working closely with the local agricultural partners. Several resources or tools are described here that may be useful in identifying pesticides that are most commonly associated with specific lan d uses or crops . Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service operates an extensive resource with information on crops and pesticides. The “Pesticide Information Center Online” (PICOL) . can be found at: PICOL database of registered pesticides provides thousands of potential pesticide use The associations . It is good resource for drinking water s sheer ource planning efforts, but the volume of pesticide registrations contained in PICOL means that it may not be the best tool for . initiating the drinking water source protection efforts After initial characterization, the PICOL database may be a secon dary research tool for identifying more details of the crop - associated pest management strategies . ich pesticid Table 3 es a startin g point or a preliminary identification of wh provid es are most commonly associated with specific land u ses. Tab 4 provide s common crop application le patterns fo r the pesticid es that are typically applied t o mor e common Oregon crops. The patterns or association s between land management and pesticid le 4 are a result of es in Tab multiple producer/landowner survey data, pesticide registration information, and published http:// regional strategies for managing pests (Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbooks ). While most of the land uses are specific crops, nursery operations, Christmas trees, and other non-crop land uses are included in these tools as they are available. Please note that this table is simplistic and may not b e representativ e of crop pesticides in your drinking wat er source area. Th e tab le is included ocal partner will be ab le to assist in s (listed in Section 4 .0) ional purposes only. L for educat e actual crop identifying th s and pesticides. 89 Page Version 1.0 - 8 201 February

90 Table . Common Crop - Pesticide Associations in Oregon 3 : DATA The majority of the data in this table are survey data provided by the USDA - NASS SOURCES , with the additional data sources liste Agricultural Chemical Use Program d at the bottom of the table. - farm pesticide use and pest The NASS program is USDA’s official source of statistics about on management practices. NASS collects information directly from growers, who participate voluntarily NASS data are empirical and report actual pesticide use. Estimates and on a confidential basis. The were subject to sampling variability; sampling variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (cv), expressed as a percent of the estimate. Type of Predo minant Crop Estimate Year Additional commonly - Data used chemicals of Pesticide Source % Acres Treated Alfalfa Herbicide Metribuzin -- Diuron 2 1992 - 2013 201 Apples Triflumizole 55 Penthiopyrad, 5 Fungicide 1 Myclobutanil, cozeb, n Ma Streptomycin sulfate, Trifloxystrobin -- Apples 49 Herbicide 1 2015 Glyphosate Apples Insecticide Chlorantranilipr 2015 58 Carbaryl, 1 Methoxyfenozide, ole Spinetoram Blackberries Fungicide Cyprodinil; 2015 52 Azoxystrobin, 1 Fludioxonil Pyraclostrobin, Captan Blackberries Herbicide Carfe ntrazon e 2015 54 Simazine, Paraquat, 1 - Diuron ethyl 2015 1 Bifenthrin 64 - Blackberries Zeta Insecticide Version 1.0 201 90 Page 8 - February

91 Cypermethrin Fungicide Cyprodinil 54 Fludioxonil, Blueberries 2015 1 Azoxystrobin, Captan, Fenhexamid, Boscalid, Pyraclostrobin, Fenbuconazole Herbicide Simazine Bluebe Diuron, Flumioxazin 1 2015 rries 35 1 Insecticide Zeta - 2015 61 Malathion, Blueberries Thiamethoxam, Cypermethrin Bifenthrin 54 Quinoxyfen Cherries, Fungicide Triflumizole, 2015 1 Sweet Pyraclostrobin, Boscalid, Trifloxystrobin Cherrie s, 2015 Herbicide Glyphosate 25 -- 1 Sweet Cherries, Insecticide Imidacloprid 1 44 Fenpropathrin, 2015 - Sweet Malathion, Lambda Cyhalothrin -- Fungicide Chlorothalonil Christmas 2009 -- 1 1 Trees Christmas 9 200 Herbicide Glyphosate Iso. 1 -- -- 1 Salt Trees Christmas 2009 1 Insecticide Chlorpyrifos -- -- 1 Trees Corn, Sweet Herbicide Atrazine 2014 95 Dimethenamid - P 1 2015 1 alid, Cyclufenamid, Bosc 70 Quinoxyfen Fungicide Grapes, 2 Wine Pyraclostrobin, Fluopyram, Ebuconazole, Version 1.0 91 Page 8 - 201 February

92 Triflumizole 1 2015 Her bicide Glyphosate Iso - Grapes, 67 Paraquat, Glyphosate 2 Amm. Salt, Salt Wine - Ethyl Carfentrazone 2015 Abamectin Bifenthrin 26 Grapes, 1 Insecticide 2 Wine Hazelnuts Fungicide Chlorothalonil -- -- 7 2006 2,4 Hazelnuts Herbicide Paraquat -- - D 7 2006 Hazelnuts Ins ecticide Esfenvalerate 80 Chlorpyrifos , 2006 7 Permethrin, Pyriproxyfen 5 Hops Fungicide Quinoxyfen -- Pyraclostrobin, 2013 Boscalid Herbicide -- Paraquat, Clethodim, Carfentrazone 5 2014 Hops 2,4 ethyl D - Insecticide Imida cloprid -- Bifenthrin, aba mectin Hops 2010, 5 2013 (mite), spiridoclofen (mite), hexythiazox (mite) Herbicide Bromoxynil -- Bentazon Mint 3 2011 Mint Chlorpyrifos, 2015 -- Insecticide Chloranthraniliprole 4 Acephate 2009 1 Fungicide Chlorothalonil -- -- Nursery 1 Stock 2009 Nursery 1 -- Herbicide Glyphosate Iso. -- 1 Salt Stock Nursery 2009 1 -- -- Petroleum Insecticide 1 Distillate Stock 92 Page 8 201 Version 1.0 - February

93 Onions Mancozeb 48 Pyraclostrobin, Fungicide 2014 1 Mefenoxam, Chlorothalonil Herbicide Pendimethalin 88 Bromoxynil Octanoate, Onions 2014 1 Oxyfluorfen, Clethodim, P, - Dimethenamid Glyphosate Onions Insecticide Methomyl 90 Spirotetramat, 2014 1 Azadirachtin, Chlorpyrifos Pasture and 1992 Herbicide 2,4 - D -- MCPA, Diuron 2 Hay - 2013 Pears Fungicide Mancozeb 84 Penthiopyrad,Triflumiz 2015 1 ole, Pyraclostrob in, Boscalid Pears Herbicide Glyphosate 42 2,4 - D 1 2015 Pears Insecticide Spirotetramat 82 Pyridaben, 2015 1 Pyriproxyfen, Abamectin, Chlorantraniliprole, - Etoxazole, Lambda Cyhalothrin 2 Potatoes Fungicide Chlorothalonil 78 2014 1 Mancozeb, Mefenoxam, luazinam, F Azoxystrobin, Boscalid, Fludioxonil, Cymoxanil, Famoxadone, Difenoconazole 2 -- 37 Rimsulfuron Herbicide 2014 1 Potatoes Version 1.0 201 93 Page 8 - February

94 2 Insecticide Novaluron 29 Flonicamid 1 2014 Potatoes Raspberries Fungicide Cyprodinil 58 Fludioxonil, Boscalid, 2015 1 raclostrobin, Py Azoxystrobin Paraquat Simazine 42 Raspberries Herbicide 1 2015 Insecticide Zeta - 2015 58 Bifenthrin 1 Raspberries Cypermethrin 6 -- -- Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 2002 Ryegrass seed Strawberries 67 Boscalid, 2014 Fungicide -- 1 Pyraclostrobin Strawberries 54 -- 1 2014 Herbicide Flumioxazin D 1 Winter amox, z Herbicide 2,4 - 2015 49 Ima Wheat Metsulfuron - Methyl, Thifensulfuron, - Tribenuron Methyl Notes 1 Cut Christmas tree and nursery survey data from the USDA chemical use program i nclude data - from multiple program states, of which Oregon was one of the participating program states. USDA surveys of Washington wine grape and potato producers were used 2 f since Oregon data o - led. this type was not available at th e time this table was compi Version 1.0 201 94 Page 8 - February

95 Oregon in Associations Table 3 (Continuation) . Common Crop - Pesticide References/ Data Sources - – National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2016. 1 - [USDA NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Chemical Use Program. Washington, D.C.: USDA N ational Agricultural Statistics Service, Accessed On line October, 18, 2016: sticide use estimates are based upon USGS NAWQA project data. Nancy T. Baker, U.S. Pe - 2 Geological Survey, 2016, written communication. 3 Sbatella G and Twelker S, "Weed Control Programs in Mint Based Upon Spring Applied Herbicides - to Minimize Rotational Restr ictions," Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State February 2017: University. Accessed online http:// spring_applied_herbicides.pdf Butler M, Walenta D, Sullivan C, Anderson N, Berry R, "Electronic Mint Pest Alert Newsletter to 4 - nd Promote Optimal Application of Coragen (R) to Control Mint Root Borer, Cutworms, Armyworms a ssed online cultural Research Center, Oregon State University. Acce Loopers." Central Oregon Agri February 2017: 5 - O'Neal S, "Pest Management Strategic Plan for U.S. Hops," Washington State University Irrigated . Accessed online February 2017: Agriculture Research and Extension Cent er PMSP2015.pdf - hops - - USDA Integrated Pest Management Center, [Report], "Crop Profile for Ryegrass Seed in Oregon." 6 February 2017: Accessed online 7 - DeFrancesco J, Oregon State University, Workshop Summary, "Pest Management Strategic Plan Accessed online February 2017: Oregon and Washington." for Hazelnuts in in Table 3 The data preliminary list for provides a discussing pest management practices that source area used within the As indicated in the notes, there are limitations . d rinking water are e grape and potato USDA surveys of Washington win associated with the data. For example, the producers were used since Oregon data of this type was not available at the time this table was Version 1.0 201 95 Page 8 - February

96 compiled. The data on the percentage of total acreage treated are for the first (predominant) ar e pesticide listed by the survey, and the data not always available. The table does not include common “ organic - approved pesticides ” that may be used in both organic and conventional PICOL Pesticide Database agricultural systems. The was accessed and cross - referenced for - Oregon - registered products. S ite specific pesticide use practices should be confirmed through discussions with producers and landowners. and These discussions benefit from guidance s provided by the partner organizations assistance ( agricultural service ee Section 4 .0). The US Geologi cal Survey has done extensive research on pesticides in surface water and groundwater across the country. USGS data on pesticides in US waters can be found here: As pa rt of the USGS research, their National Water - Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program not only does research in pesticide occurrence, but also how that data relates to land use and pesticide use. The NAWQA program is currently working to publish reports on new statistical models that can be used to estimate the concentrations or occurrence of some pesticides in The national N AWQA data streams and ground water where they have not yet been measured. he . T these are sufficiently extensive to support statistical models allows spatial extrapolation NAWQA's on detections, sources and factors that affect pesticide occurrence — such as data — to be used as a more pesticide use and land use, climate, and soil characteristics comprehensive national assessment that includes unm onitored areas. The Watershed Regressio ns for Pesticides (WARP) Models give a means to predict probable pesticide concentrations in waterbodies, given several watershed characteristics, pesticide properties, and use practices. - pesticide show the geographic distribution of estimated use that USGS has developed use maps on agricultural land in the conterminous United States for numerous pesticides. Maps were Graphs created by allocating county - level use estimates to agricultural land within each county. s at t he county level are available that show annual use by major crop for the mapped pesticide . These pesticide use estimates are suitable for evaluating national and (Thelin et al 2013) he (Baker et al 2015) . USGS notes that t regional patterns and trends of annual pesticide use rel iability of estimates generally decrease with scale and these maps are not intended for . Details for how the detailed evaluations, such as within or between specific individual counties rces and methodologies, are available here: use maps are made, including data sou pesticide - For purposes of providing additional tools to be used within drinking water source areas, DEQ - ata from USGS and Oregon the d used specific data for pesticides in statewide water quality Appendix to create a “Categorical Crop to Pesticide Table”. The table is attached as monitoring provides a broad association between common Oregon crops and pesticide u 3 . It se, potentially useful as another starting point in working to develop drinking water protection strategies. Version 1.0 201 96 Page 8 - February

97 Additional information on pesticides and for crop - t he National Pesticide pesticide association is (NPIC). The NPIC ive agreement between Oregon State Information Center is a cooperat ( University and the U.S. EPA - 83560101 ) . This site is an important reference for pesticide #X8 related information , providing science - based information about pesticides and pesticide - related topics n health/environmental impacts, pest identification, , including information o pesticide label and MSDS databases, manufacturers, statistics, and records of exposures, etc. The NPIC site can be accessed a location : http://npic.ors t the following It is important to state again that p esticide use practices may have variability with respect to - he site T specific data for chemical and geography, time/season, and landowner decisions. patterns pesticide usage should b he spe cific land use s, cropping e verified at the field level. T , and associated pesticides chosen by landowners/producers can change from one year to the next. Agricultural prod adapt new strategies to manage pests ucers may need to . The particular pest pressures year to will vary from year , and chemical companies formulate new pesticides Agricultural service partners (Section .0) 4 . for review and potential registered us ag e in Oregon may be able to assist with the outreach necessary to work with the landowners and operators so that ther e is an understanding of their practices and product usage. Conservation Practices universities, and other , from USDA Drawing upon the extensive research available nationwide organizations, it is well known y beneficial to that some conservation practices are universall To provide or to r each to reducing the potential for pesticides water. other pollutants surface background information on potential technical approaches, here are summaries of s ome of the leading conservation pract ices :  Irrigation practices — r estricting irrigation based on plant needs and soil water content can off - target to con taminate reduce the potential for pesticides to be moved groundwater or use desktop and mobile irrigation surface water. A selection of free - for - scheduler applications for multiple irrigation methods are available at the WSU Extension website: - Calculators.php .  — o bserving wea ther patterns and avoiding the Timing of pesticide applications application of pesticides preceding rain events considerably reduces the potential for off - target pesticide movement.  Quantity of pesticide application — p recision agriculture techniques are allowing producers to better utiliz - win for producers’ e pesticides and their efficacy as a win profits and a way to reduce the potential for water quality impacts .  Nutrient management — calculating the necessary nutrients using soil characteristics can maximize yields and protect water quali ty. - ntegrated est M chemical solutions (e.g. crop rotations, anagement — developing P non I  trap crops, beneficial insects, etc.) Version 1.0 201 97 Page 8 - February

98 crop residual through tillage and reduced tillage Conservation t illage — integrating  practices can provide increased returns in c rop yield, enhanced soil health (increased nutrients and organic matter, better water infiltration and storage ), and reduc ed erosion and water pollution (USDA 2016) . keep the soil surface covered and conserving nutrients by planting —  Cover cropping ops between market crops builds soil structure and health, retains nutrients, cover cr prevents erosion, and increases crop yields (USDA 2016). approved organic farms generally use natural pesticides or pesticides  Organic farming --- lower in toxicity and persistence . The above points are a few of the key strategies that can lead to increased profits while at the crop products . A sampling agricultural same time reduce costs and risks of off - site movement of of current innovations in IPM can be accessed through the OS U Integrated Plant Protection Center website at: Additional strategies for IPM can be found from local in your county partner organizations (Section 4 These same resources should also be consulted for technical assistance when . .0) ttempting to use or implement the tools provided in this section of the guide. a Nutrient Management Municipal stormwater contributes a considerable amount of nitrogen from fertilizers used on a relatively high amount of urban pr ivate and commercial properties. On a per area basis , nitrogen and other macronutrients are applied to lawns, gardens, and ornamental plants throughout cities. The high rate of application , when combined with large amounts of pervious surfaces in urban settings , presents a considerable challenge to manage nitrogen im and other nutrients for city planners. Urban zoning laws and building codes are increasingly taking into account over time the influence of impervious surface effect and the corresponding need to construct bioswales, buffers, and constructed wetlands to mitigate these effects. In most cases these requirements are only placed upon new and larger - sized development projects and they do not apply to existing or previously completed projects. In 2014, DEQ issued “Oregon’s Nutrient Management Program” guidance that discusses sources and source control for nutrients in Oregon: ilterDocs/NutrientManageRep.pdf EPA website : Many tools for urban nutrient management can be found on this US do - you - - can addresses excessive nutrient (ODA) s, the Oregon Department of Agriculture In agricultural area implementation of its 38 Agricultural Water Qua runoff through lity Management Area plans and r to ules. Numerous financial incentives are available to encourage agricultural landowners Version 1.0 201 98 Page 8 - February

99 - nutrient runoff and off reduce site movement , including programs through the state Soil and Watershed Enhancement Board, DEQ’s Section 319 Water Conservation Districts, Oregon nonpoint grants, and federal grant programs. The y also Oregon Department of Forestr addresses nutrients in its fertilizer application management program. Cover crops and no till operations have the benefit of reducing or even eliminating the need for fertilizer application . They reduce the leaching of nutrients, and they are protec tive of our farmers and ranchers in Oregon to prevent and shared drinking water resources. ODA assists pollution from agricultural activities on rural lands. nutrient control More information on agricultural water quality plans and programs can be found he re: Nutrient management within the agricultural sector is extremely important for m aximizing yields and protecting water quality. Calculating the necessary nutrients for cultivating crops begins with obtaining soil samples from each field that have distinct soil characteristics and ed in the fall so that the remaining crop cultivation histories. Soil samples are best obtain fertility after harvest can be factored into the upcoming season’s planned fertilization schedule. The OSU Extension cover crop calculator for regions both east and west of the Cascades Mountain can be found here: The leftover . nutrients after harvest can be carried over to the next seasons and the leaching of these e minimized through the use of winter cover nutrients during heavy winter rainfall events can b crops. tune fertilizer application with each Obtaining soil test data can allow - producers to fine of obtaining soil sample results is that they may benefit consecutive crop cycle. An additional influence a produ Soil sampling for nutrients is best cer’s decision for which cover crop to use. done in the spring before planting and in the fall after harvest. The spring samples are useful for knowing the concentration of nutrients already present, so the fertilization can be adjusted. The fall sample is an effective measure of how much of the nutrient addition was not used by the crop, so the fertilization amount can be adjusted the next season. When excessive nitrogen remains in th e soil, a grass cover crop may effec tively take up nitrogen and conserve it for spring planting as a “green manure.” Legume cover crops fix additional nitrogen from the atmosphere. Legumes are best used when soils are deficient for this enough o 150 pounds per acre — nitrogen. Legume cover crops are capable of fixing up t . The organic (Hoorman et al 2009) nitrogen for some of the most heavy nitrogen feeding crops matter produced during the winter months provide a “soil building” benefit to the soil, effectively increasing tilth for present and f uture production. The use of cover crops have also - till or conservation tillage been found to “jump start” the increase yields obtained from no practices (Hoorman et al 2009) till operations have taken many as . Where conversion to no - till practices have - nine years to observe increased yields, combining cover crops with no reduced or even eliminated this lag time to see increase yields. Version 1.0 201 99 Page 8 - February

100 Potential Goals and Outcomes for Using Tools The tools in this section are provided to assist public water system of ficial s in understanding site migration of some of the primary tools and best management practices to reduce off - the pollutants such as n utrients, sediment (soil), or pesticides . T he tools may be useful in following practical way : s ; F or prioritizing technical as sistance and outreach efforts   T o inform the creation and composition of an inclusive community - led drinking water ; protection planning committee A  ; s a technical basis for submitting grant requests taminant sources (e.g.  A s a basis for needing comprehensive modeling of local con - follow ; dies, and/or modeling efforts) on grants, stu s justification for new/renewed water quality monitoring/sampling activities A  . Additional beneficial outcomes are expected to result from using the tools provided in this based planning section. The use of these tools are best done through collaborative place - In practice, keep in mind that most of the coordination and collaboration of the approaches. such as watershed agricultural community will be done through your local partners councils, and SWCDs. , NRCS LAND USES AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES 7.0 DEQ, along with the State Departments of Forestry, Agriculture, State Lands, Geology and Mineral Industries, Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, Land Conservation and and Marine Board have regulatory authority or advisory roles associated with Development, land use activities that potentially impact water quality. Two of the primary mechanisms for l DEQ to regulate pollution is through the adoption of water quality standards and Tota Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the related implementation plans. TMDLs and their implementation plans are designed to control source pollution to bring water bodies into attainment with the water quality standards adopted by the state for water bodies i n Oregon. Water bodies meeting water quality standards should be readily useable as drinking water sources with standard treatment technology. In DEQ’s rules, a "source" is defined as any process, practice, activity or resulting condition that - 42 - may cause pollution or the introduction of pollutants to a waterbody (OAR 340 causes or 0025). Sources of pollutants can be point sources or nonpoint sources. Under ORS 468B.110 (1), DEQ has the specific authority to take the actions necessary to attain and maint ain water quality standards and to implement load allocations established under a TMDL. Management Version 1.0 201 100 Page 8 - February

101 strategies to achieve wasteload and load allocations in a TMDL are implemented through water quality permits for those sources subject to permit requirements in ORS 468B.050 and through source - specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) for other sources. Nonpoint source pollution is pollution from a diffuse area as opposed to point sources from a discrete pipe, ditch, etc. At DEQ, nonpoint sources are ad dressed through the following programs: Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Assessment, Groundwater, TMDLs, §319 Nonpoint Source Planning and Grants, Drinking Water Protection, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships, and Wa ter Quality Monitoring. DEQ also coordinates with federal and state agencies that are responsible for nonpoint source issues and identifies them as Designated Management Agencies (DMAs). The - WQMPs identify the source specific , implementation requirements an d the persons, including DMAs, responsible for developing implementing, and revising those plans. 0080 for nonpoint There are two areas where DEQ’s authority is limited under OAR 340 42 - - in forested and agriculture land uses. Nonpoint sour : source controls ce discharges of pollutants from forest operations on state or private lands are subject to best management practices and other control measures established by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) under the ORS ose or enforce effluent limits on nonpoint source DEQ may not imp 527.610 to 527.992. Oregon discharges from forest operations subject to the State’s Forest Practice Act, unless such limits are required by the CWA or other federal law. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates agricultu ral activities through Agricultural Water Quality Management Area rules. In areas subject to the Agricultural Water Quality Management Act under ORS 568.900, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) gement area plans and rules to develops and implements agricultural water quality mana prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on agricultural and rural lands. Regulatory responsibilities vary by land use and ownership type. It is important that public water systems and community citizens understand which agencies have authority for regulation of anthropogenic activities, the structure of those regulations, and the individual agency responsibilities. The landowner is ultimately responsible for management activities and site impacts, so in addition to regulatory agencies, community engagement with otential off - p landowners in a drinking water source area can be a critical component to implement strategies for improving water quality. Mining / Extraction & Mineral Wells Aggregate Development, use, and reclamation of rock pits or quarries are regulated by the Department of Geology and Mining Industry (DOGAMI). DOGAMI acts as DEQ’s agent for water quality ) and adds permit conditi Memorandum of Understanding permitting (under a ons to the Operating Permit for each facility to ensure compliance with state regulations. Many quarries Version 1.0 201 101 Page 8 - February

102 contain process water and stormwater runoff on - site which minimizes the risks of groundwater or surface water pollution. Landowners are required to ob tain the following permits if they discharge process water or otherwise discharge water from their site: for disposing of process water by evaporation or --- DEQ WPCF 1000 General Permit  seepage in ponds or by irrigation (issued through DOGAMI); -  200 DEQ NPDES 1 A General Permit --- for stormwater from the mining operation and haul roads that drains to surface waters (issued through DOGAMI); --- Individual DEQ NPDES or WPCF Permit for discharging process wastewater to surface  water or groundwater (issued by DEQ) . Rock pits or quarries located on forestland and used for forest management are exempt from - needing a DOGAMI mine operating permit but under the Forest Practices Act (OAR - 625 629 and protect water “shall be conducted using practices which maintain stable slopes 0500), they quality”. On forestlands, the regulating agency for rock pits or quarries is the Department of Forestry. DOGAMI is also the permitting agency for extraction wells, such as gas, oil, and geothermal PCF permitting to protect dress NPDES or W DOGAMI coordinates with DEQ to ad water wells. quality. More information on the permits for surface mining, wells, or chemical process mining in Oregon can be found here: http://www.oregongeolog Agricultural Lands administered activities through programs Oregon regulates agricultural by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Program regulates animal facilities such as dairi es and large chicken and hog operations. CAFOs are point sources of pollution under Oregon and federal law, and many must have a permit to operate. The permits provide for zero effluent discharge limits. For more information, please go to : The Agricultu WQM) Program regulates animal production ral Water Quality Management (Ag activities not regulated by the CAFO Program and all other agricultural activities that may , formerly r Quality Management Act impact water quality. The Agricultural Wate referred to as gives ODA the authority to establish management plans and adopt rules to Senate Bill 1010, d control water pollution from agricultural lands. These areas include those where prevent an an agricultural water quality management plan is required by state or federal law , such as DEQ Management A roundwater TMDLs and Oregon G reas (ORS 568.909). ODA’s AgWQM area plans and rules are the official TMDL implementation plans for agricultural nonpoint sectors. Version 1.0 201 102 Page 8 - February

103 There are 38 management areas throughout the state with area plans and the rules that regulate agricultural activities to prevent and control water pollution. Ap pendix 4 is a compilation of riparian management widths and rules for agricultural land uses. All 38 management areas have riparian rules requiring that agricultural activities allow the establishment and growth of stream - side vegetation to provide specifi c functions such as: moderation of solar heating (shade), filtration of overland flow, and stream bank stability. Further information can be found here: http://www ODA’s Pesticide Program regulates the sale and use of pesticides . Program staff in Oregon conduct routine compliance monitoring, investigate complaints of alleged pesticide misuse, and ad minister enforcement actions when appropriate. Enforcement actions, including civil penalties, play a vital role in deterring unlawful use of pesticides. Additional responsibilities include communicating the laws and regulations to licensed pesticide appli cators and the public. This is done through continuing education training resources, informational brochures, the ODA website, and one - For more information about ODA’s one communication. - on regulatory authorities, see: Commercial and Industrial Lands can be susceptible to contamination from many different commercial or Oregon waters industrial land uses. DEQ is responsible for waste re duction and management from commercial and industrial activities, air quality monitoring, spill preparedness and response, environmental Oregon’s assessment and cleanup, and underground storage tank compliance and cleanup. s Waste Reduction Act of 1989 was one of the first laws in Toxics Use Reduction and Hazardou the nation to mandate pollution prevention planning. The Act outlines a comprehensive approach to reduce or eliminate toxic chemical use and hazardous waste generation. In June 2005, the Oregon Leg islature passed a law (Oregon Revised Statute 465.003 to 465.037) that streamlined and made other significant changes to the Toxics Use and Hazardous Waste Reduction Program. t prepare a Large toxics users, large quantity generators and small quantity generators mus , Reduction Plan or an Environmental Management System. As part of the planning, a facility must evaluate options to reduce its toxics and hazardous wastes. Materials that must be in the plan include any toxic substance reported to the U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency under the Toxics Release Inventory program. Since the Act’s adoption, businesses throughout Oregon have reduced their toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes. DEQ publishes pollution prevention stories to explain how businesses are reducing their toxics and hazardous waste. In the program’s 21 years, businesses have voluntarily reported: reducing more than 31.5 million pounds of hazardous waste with savings Version 1.0 201 103 Page 8 - February

104 estimated at $5.25 million, and reducing more than 56.25 million pounds of t oxic chemicals with savings at over $15 million. For more information on toxics reduction, see: and - es/default.aspx Cleanup/ToxicReduction/Pag - or surface water , DEQ's Site When there are spills or releases that contaminate groundwater Assessment program investigates hazardous substance sites that may require further action to on threat to human health and the protect health and the environment, ranks sites based environment, overseeing limited removal and remedial actions, and maintains DEQ's Environmental Cleanup Site Information database. When extensive investigation and appropriate cleanup of hazardous substance site is necessa ry to protect public health and the environment, the Site Response program works to investigate and clean up contaminated hazardous waste sites throughout Oregon. Federal Lands Federal lands in drinking water source areas are primarily forestlands elands managed and rang for multiple uses including watersheds and water quality, biodiversity and endangered species, recreation, and forest products. The US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management pectively. Each National Forest and manage these lands in National Forests and Districts, res BLM District has a unique management plan, but all have common features. In the past, the federal agencies have entered into agreements with municipalities and water districts to ensure protection of drinking water sour ces on federal lands. In August 2016, BLM approved new Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for western Oregon. The approval marked the end of a four - year effort by the BLM to use new science, policies, and DEQ’s drinking water technology to protect natural resources and support local communities. protection staff evaluated the proposals to provide input to BLM so that those federal lands will continue to provide high quality water for ecosystems and domestic use. These RMPs provide direction for the managemen t of approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM - administered lands, and maintain strong protections for the northern spotted owl, listed fish species, and water resources while offering predictable and sustainable outcomes for local communities from tourism, r ecreation, and timber harvest. For more information on the BLM plan and implementation, see: u/oregon yo - nepa/near - and - - westernoregon - washington/rmps Forest Lands owned and private lands are regulated by the Oregon Department - Forestry activities on state statutes and The of Forestry (ODF). rules, referred to as the “Forest Practices Act”, are nd address the overall maintenance of the following resources: (a) air implemented by ODF a Version 1.0 201 104 Page 8 - February

105 quality; (b) water resources, including but not limited to sources of domestic drinking water; (c) soil productivity; and (d) fish and wildlife (ORS 527.710(2)). The forest practice rul es address chemical use, pesticides, and water protection provisions governing activities in or adjacent to 635 water bodies, wetlands, and riparian areas (OAR 629 - 660 - 0000 to 629 - - 0060). The overall goal of the water protection rules is to provide resource protection during operations adjacent to and within streams, lakes, wetlands and riparian management areas so that, while continuing to grow and harvest trees, the protection goals for fish, wildlife, and water quality and rules for forestry. are met. Appendix 4 is a compilation of riparian management widths Forest practice rules related to water quality (as prescribed in ORS 527.765) must ensure that, - to the maximum extent practicable, non point source discharges of pollutants resulting from ions do not impair the achievement and maintenance of the water quality forest operat - (c)). - 0100(7)(a) - 035 standards (OAR 629 Forestry rules specify harvest protections for riparian areas and some steep slopes, chemical use (including pesticides), reforestation requirem ents, and road construction and maintenance. Rules for private forests can be found here: An illustrated guide to the rules from the Oregon Fore st Resources Institute can be found here: State stlands are referred to as “Board of Forestry lands”. Management plans (rules) owned fore - owned forests can be found here: - for state Th e overall goal of managing state - owned forestlands is stated as follows: “Oregon Revised Statutes direct that Board of Forestry Lands shall be managed by the State Forester to ‘secure state forestlands the greatest permanent value of such lands to the state’.” The goals for include maintaining healthy watershed conditions to support the beneficial uses of the waters Public water systems with state of the state both in water quality and water quantity. ting the District or State Forester to forestlands within their source area may consider contac ensure that management of the forest to maintain the quality and quantity of public water supplies for community water systems is adequately considered when determining the greatest permanent value of these lands to t he state. An economic analysis of the value of the land to term community drinking water may be helpful for demonstrating this. - provide long Onsite Septic Systems Approximately 30 percent of Oregon households rely on onsite septic systems to treat their Properly functioning septic systems treat sewage to minimize groundwater and surface se wage. water pollution. A malfunctioning system can be a health hazard and will harm natural resources. Version 1.0 201 105 Page 8 - February

106 Under state law, DEQ is responsible for ensuring that septic system s are sited, installed, and operated so that Oregon’s land, water, and public health are protected. Improperly functioning septic systems can pollute streams and groundwater and be a public health hazard. Owners of onsite systems must operate and maintain their systems in compliance with all permit conditions and applicable requirements in this rule division and must not create a public health hazard or pollute public waters ( OAR 340 - 71 - 0130 General Standards, Prohibitions, and Requirements) . implement the onsite system regulations within their county on behalf of DEQ, Many counties and some counties have additional requirements beyond those in state rules. For more se information on regulatory oversight and counties that administer state and local rules, plea go to the DEQ Onsite web pages: A new program was initiated in 2016 between DEQ and a regional nonprofit lender “Craft3” to m ake repairs more affordable for Oregonians in need. The new partnership provides funds to help Oregonians get their septic systems fixed. The Clean Water Loans will allow homeowners to pay for all costs associated with the project, including:  Septic syste m design ,  , Relevant permits Installation of the new septic system ,   Ongoing maintenance , Essential safety measures, such as those to prevent children from falling into septic  tanks . Special rates and deferred payment options may be available for homeow ners with lower incomes. Homeowners, small businesses and onsite service providers can learn more about the . In addition, Clean Water Loan program and apply for loans at share programs for local homeowners several public wate - r systems have implemented cost conducting septic system inspections and repairs in areas that could impact drinking water quality if the septic system fails or is not functioning properly. There are excellent resources available to assist homeowners with septic systems. The “Septic .0 includes resources for septic system owners for the ection 7 Smart” program discussed in S and repair and maintenance of septic systems as this helps protect the quality of groundwater . downg radient surface water Pesticide Regulations Pesticide use is governed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and .992). Nearly 1,400 pesticides are currently registered - corresponding state law (ORS634.005 agricultural use (US - r agricultural and non and approved by the US EPA fo HHS 2010). Agencies D Version 1.0 201 106 Page 8 - February

107 responsible for implementation in Oregon are the US EPA and ODA, DEQ, and ODF (for non - federal forestlands). nduct routine ODA’s Pesticide Program regulates the sale and use of pesticides. Program staff co compliance monitoring, investigate complaints of alleged pesticide misuse, and administer enforcement actions when appropriate. Enforcement actions, including civil penalties, play a onal responsibilities include vital role in deterring unlawful use of pesticides. Additi communicating the laws and regulations to licensed pesticide applicators and the public. This is done through continuing education training resources, informational brochures, the ODA website, and one one communication. on - - He re is a summary and website link for pertinent pesticide programs and resources: Additional information about pesticide regulation can be found at: ograms/Pesticides/Pages/default.aspx Water Quality Pesticides Management Team – Collaboratively addresses challenges associated with detecting active pesticide ingredients in surface and groundwater sources for the protection of public health and environm ental sustainability. Implements the Pesticide Water Quality Management Plan – Pesticide Water Quality Program rs from pesticide contamination. Prioritizes pesticides of concern, establishes to protect wate water quality guidelines, performs watershed vulnerability assessments, designs and conducts monitoring, recommends management options, and develops communication strategies. Pesticide Management Plan (2011): Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC) Coordinate investigations to collect and – ze information about reported pesticide incidents that have health or environmental analy impacts. Cooperating member agencies: ODEQ, ODF, ODFW, ODOT, OHA, OHSU, Poison Control, OSHA, State Fire Marshall, OSU Tracks and - investigates health effects Pesticide Exposure, Safety and Tracking Program reported by people exposed to pesticides. s/index.aspx US EPA recently revised - Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides (HHBPs) in drinking water this list for 363 compounds that have no drinking water health advisory or SDWA MCL. Public water systems can use this information to respond to detections of pesticides in drinking water. ting It will be useful to help determine the need for remedial action and assist in craf Version 1.0 201 107 Page 8 - February

108 appropriate messages for the public about risk. To view the table and supporting information online, go to: As of 2016, the HHBP list includes 11 new benchmarks an d 10 updates of existing numbers, with cancer effects added to 40 pesticides. Exposure to various pesticides has been linked to brain/central nervous system, breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodg Hodgkins lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and - kins and non soft tissue sarcoma (Clapp 2007). Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are used in EPA - regi stered pesticides now on the market (IARC 2009). The HHBPs or benchmarks indicate levels in water, below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The benchmarks include values for short term and lifetime exposure and cover canc - both cancer and non er risks. The benchmarks are based on studies and data that EPA receives through the pesticide registration process. Health advisories and MCLs for other pesticides can be found at: http://ww . - Pesticide Data Program Database provides national data on pesticide residues in food and water. - greement with USEPA to ensure proper Pesticide Container ODA a and Containment management and disposal of pesticides. Minimizes risk of environmental release in the event of leaks or spills through inspection of pesticide containers and containment structures, inspection refilling establishments, and label review to verify instruction on proper rinsing and disposal of of pesticide residues. summary of For a Oregon pesticide regulations with regard to drinking water sources, please see: Since 1999, Oregon has been using a vo luntary, collaborative approach called Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs) to identify problems and improve water quality associated with pesticide use at the local level. The PSP approach uses local expertise in combination with mpling and toxicology expertise of state agency partners to encourage and the water quality sa support voluntary changes that cause measurable environmental improvements. The key - actions include: identifying local, pesticide related water quality issues through targeted ring, sharing results early and often with local stakeholders, explaining data in relation monito to effects and water quality criteria, engaging the agricultural community for identifying and implementing solutions, and using ongoing effectiveness monitoring to measure success and provide feedback to support water quality management. Version 1.0 201 108 Page 8 - February

109 PSPs use both water quality and crop quality as measures of success. Pest management and term stewardship of natural - water quality management must both be effective for long resource s. As DEQ and ODA implement the PSP projects, there has been a focus on agricultural ODF and some urban areas to date, but DEQ is also working with and urban stakeholders with the goal of increasing the PSPs reach into urban and forested landscapes. Curr ently there are eight partnerships in seven watershed areas. The eight include Hood River; Mill Creek and Fifteenmile Creek (in Wasco County); the Walla Walla River; Clackamas River; or rural and urban Pudding River; Yamhill River (Yamhill Pesticide Stewardship Partnership f areas, and South Yamhill River Pesticide Stewardship Partnership, for a forested area of the These partnerships receive watershed); and the Amazon Creek watershed project in Eugene. - guidance from an inter agency Water Quality Pesticide M anagement Team. This team developed a statewide plan to protect water quality from pesticide impacts. It also designates priority pesticides that could affect water quality, and helps evaluate monitoring data. In 2013, the Legislature allocated stable fund ing to ODA and DEQ to expand the program to additional watersheds. I n addition, DEQ and ODA work with many of the same partners to conduct pesticide waste collection events in watersheds where Pesticide Stewardship Projects are active, as well as as of the state. The purpose of these events is to reduce the risks of accidental other are effective - releases of unwanted pesticides into surface or groundwater and provide a cost . disposal option for pesticide users s information on public drinking water source DEQ’s drinking water protection program provide areas and public water system partners to help prioritize areas for Pesticide Stewardship Partnership implementation. Several waste pesticide collection events benefiting drinking - 2014, including a project in Milton Freewater that collected water source areas occurred in Freewater pesticide waste - more than 15,000 pounds. The collection area for the Milton - Freewater’s public supply collection event included the drinking water source area for Milton wells, serving over 7,000 people. For more information on the PSP program, see: Water Quality Permits rmwater in larger municipalities, and sewage treatment are Construction stormwater, city sto regulated by DEQ through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In urban areas, city governments are primarily responsible for regulations. In rural areas, counties are pr imarily responsible. Rural residential activities related to livestock and farming activities are regulated by ODA. Rules and ordinances vary among cities and counties, so restrictions on Version 1.0 201 109 Page 8 - February

110 ion of a given drinking water residential land activities will be different depending on the locat source area. DEQ regulates sewage treatment systems and industrial dischargers through the water quality - permit program. NPDES permitted facilities are those which discharge pollutants from any state waters. If a facility discharges to the ground, it is a WPCF point source, such as a pipe, to (Water Pollution Control Facility). Several of DEQ’s general permits are administered by other agencies through Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding (MOA or MOU); these include the GEN8 00 for CAFOs (ODA), GEN1000 for gravel mining (Oregon Department of Geology and - Mineral Industries; DOGAMI), NPDES 1200A for off site discharge of storm and process water 1200C and 1200CN for stormwater runoff from construc and from gravel mining (DOGAMI), tion activities administered by various local government agencies. Other permits are administered directly by DEQ. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from DEQ are required for stormwater and process discharges to surface water s from construction and industrial activities and larger municipalities if stormwater from rain or snow melt leaves a site through a "point source" and reaches surface waters either directly or through storm drainage. As a result, m large and medium sized municipal storm sewer systems are stormwater discharges fro required to have NPDES permits. Similarly, NPDES stormwater permits are required for most industrial properties and for construction affecting one acre or more of land, including projects that are less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development that ultimately disturbs one acre or more. (UIC) . DEQ i ischarges d well ssues permits for UIC Underground Injection Control DEQ r egulat es king Water Act to p systems under the Safe Drin water quality. Injection systems are any rotect , large capacity septic discharges below the ground or subsurface including geothermal systems se of C DEQ m and aquifer storage and recovery systems. systems, databa a lass V wells. aintains n, see: For more informatio Runoff from rural communities and rural residential areas remains largely unregulated, except e covered by an implementation plan developed by a local to the extent that it may b government or special district as a designated management agency identified under a TMDL. DEQ has clear legal authority to require local governments to address pollution that arises from controlled activities. Small rural “farmsteads” are subject to regulation by ODA. - proprietary Local governments operating as designated management agencies may develop TMDL implementation plans both for properties over which they have proprietary control (e.g. a t system or park) and for areas where they maintain regulatory authority (police power or stree land use planning) over private property. Version 1.0 201 110 Page 8 - February

111 8.0 RELATED WATER QUALITY ISSUES/PROJECTS Total Maximum Daily Loads DEQ prepares Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Wa ter Quality Management Plan (WQMP) documents for waterbodies in Oregon designated as water quality limited and on DEQ’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. A TMDL uses scientific data collection and analysis to determine the amount and source of each pollutant entering streams. A TMDL is the maximum amount of pollutant that can be present in a waterbody while meeting water quality standards. These maximum allowable pollutant loads are assigned to contributing sources, typically to point ations) and land use authorities sources (wasteload alloc (load or nonpoint source sectors allocations). The WQMP provides the framework for management strategies to attain and maintain water quality standards. The framework is designed to work in conjunction with specific implementation plans. specific or source - nd analyses provided in sector detailed plans a - specific TMDL - The plan designates organizations to prepare and carry out source implementation plans including the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, the n Departments of Agriculture and Forestry, counties, cities, and others. The Orego implementation plans identify management measures that will be used to achieve and maintain water quality standards. and implement control , When TMDLs are developed, it is necessary to identify, assess measures that limit the known and potential sources of pollutants entering the surface water Any pollutants entering the surface water from that did not meet water quality standards. These are evaluated as part of the urce. groundwater discharge is considered a nonpoint so allocation process when the TMDL is developed. Groundwater is generally a transport mechanism for pollutants entering surface waters and should be considered as part of the load information on the TMDL program and status: allocations for pollutants. For more Statewide Toxics Monitoring and Assessment s Monitoring”, the DEQ laboratory staff collect In a program referred to as “Statewide Toxic samples on a rotating basin schedule during spring, summer and fall around the state. The DEQ laboratory analyzes seven major categories of toxics, including consumer product constituents, use pestici - current des, legacy pesticides, flame retardants, combustion products, metals, and industrial intermediates. Access, site appropriateness, species availability and hydrology all - determine the types of samples collected. In 2012 13 sampling, DEQ tested for more tha n 500 unique chemicals using 21 different analytical methods and 128 unique chemicals were Version 1.0 201 111 Page 8 - February

112 detected in that round of sampling. The most commonly detected groups were priority metals at just over 50% of use pesticides, and sterols present at 100% of sites, followed by current - sites sampled. In 2015, DEQ began its second round of monitoring for toxics around the state. The DEQ laboratory is currently collecting water and sediment samples from locations in the Klamath, North Coast, Rogue, and Umpqua basins. or an update of the status of Statewide Toxics Monitoring, se F e : - - - Cleanup/ToxicReduction/Pages/Reducing and Toxics.aspx Harmful Algae Blooms State officials in Oregon expect that with climate change, algae blooms in streams and lakes will increase in number and severity. Algae blooms are associated with warmer temperatures in streams and lakes, increased sunlight, and inc - intensity reased runoff of nutrients during high storms. The floodwater and stormwater runoff carries additional pollutants into the streams and lakes, including phosphorus and nitrates that increase the risks of algae blooms. Algae blooms can cause many c omplications for drinking water, including toxic exposures, taste and odor issues, algal mats blocking the intakes, and changes in pH. section above, HABs would likely become more abundant in Climate Change As noted in the Oregon with climate change. Ch anging conditions, both warmer and drier climate and lower flows (based both on shifts in precipitation and demand for water), would result in warmer water and more standing water which is more favorable to cyanobacteria growth. Therefore, it is likely tha t blooms would occur longer, in more places and perhaps with greater magnitude (Paerl et al 2011). DEQ and OHA work with a variety of federal, state and local partners to coordinate monitoring garding the risks to human and and response related to HABs. OHA provides public education re animal health that HABs pose as part of their overall program. OHA developed HABs sampling guidelines and has been working with a number of labs to better standardize identification and Drinking W enumeration techniques. OHA ater Services has several resources for HABs and - drinking water are available on their website and it is important to note that these are updated as necessary: ages/algae.aspx OHA recreational HAB’s program also has several resources on their website: index.aspx Oregon’s current HAB strategy (Schaedel 2011) relies primarily on monitoring by management es, or groups such as watershed councils, that are: agenci esponsible for recreational sites, water access or water uses such as drinking water; R • perate dams; O • Version 1.0 201 112 Page 8 - February

113 • anage activities in the lake or reservoir and its watershed; or M • H ave water quality responsibil ities . Partners include DEQ, USFS, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USGS, ODFW , and a number of local watershed groups, health departments, parks and recreation agencies and drinking as been established, with water providers. Through this effort, a limited surveillance program h monitoring occurring primarily at or near recreational facilities maintained by the USFS or the USACE. If there is no clear Designated Management Agency that would be responsible for monitoring the HAB, as resources allow, DEQ wou ld collect, preserve and ship samples. An Interagency Agreement between OHA and DEQ defines and partially funds this activity (Oregon DHS 2010), and the IGA is updated as necessary. equency and types of While there is variation in monitoring protocols including the number, fr sample analysis (algal identification, enumeration, or toxin), it generally consists of the following:  --- bservation of conditions in the lake or reservoir this is usually done by a partner O agency with familiarity and knowledge of a w . aterbody’s current conditions hen visible scums or blooms occur, samples are collected by the partner agency for  W identification and enumeration; secchi disk depths are often used to trigger the algal . process issues s for toxigenic cyanobacteria are at or an advisory if combined cell count  OHA above 100,000 cells/ml, or less than 40,000 cells/ml of microcystis or planktothrix; to typically advisories are posted on the OHA website, at the waterbody and are sent . media outlets T  d is lifted on the basis of no visible bloom and both cell he advisory stays in effect an toxicity testing showing that both are below advisory values. counts and With regard to HAB monitoring, funding and resources may change from year year, so public - to - agencies may depend more upon observation and water providers and management inspection, and less upon active monitoring. DEQ and OHA are currently revising the HAB strategy to reflect ongoing funding changes and focused priorities. ng appropriate pollutant loads to address DEQ’s TMDLs are an effective approach for developi the causes of HABs. TMDLs are not only required under the Clean Water Act but they are a good tool for conducting the necessary studies to determine factors that are causing HABs and setting appropriate goals for a ddressing HABs. TMDLs can address coastal lakes already experiencing HABs, rather than preventing other lakes from developing HABs. DEQ’s TMDL by - - TMDLs that set a target for each lake basis -- approach is currently being applied on a lake ultimately address waters on the impaired waterbody list, but do not specific lake can automatically address nearby lakes that may be declining or could be experiencing HABs. For example, the 2007 Umpqua TMDL addressed blooms in Diamond Lake and the South Umpqua Version 1.0 201 113 Page 8 - February

114 in 2010, four other listings for HABs were added in the Umpqua (Lemolo and Fish River but, Lakes, Elk Creek and the Umpqua River). Tillamook Estuary Partnership As part of a regional water quality assessment, the Tillamook Estuary Partnership and DEQ nalysis in 2014 of water samples collected from surface water sources in 5 North completed an a Coast drinking water watersheds. The samples were analyzed for over 120 different chemicals using 4 different laboratory methods. DEQ summarized the results and coordinated wi th OHA toxicologist to compare to health standards, and letters were sent to all of the public water systems where sampling occurred. The public water systems sampled were the City of t, and Neskowin Vernonia, Beaver Water District, Rockaway Beach, Tillamook Water Distric Regional Water District. Low levels of pesticides were detected, including atrazine and its methyl, DEET, and Glyphosate and its breakdown product. - breakdown products, sulfometuron Concentrations were near the detection level, and well belo w any available health standards. DEQ drinking water staff continues to provide technical assistance to public water systems in the North Coast as part of this larger effort, including addressing issues surrounding gravel pesticide spraying, and forest harvests on private lands. quarries within their source area, underway. anning and scoping is Additional project pl Basin Assessments specific sections and data input for the Basin Assessment - DEQ works to develop drinking water l reviews of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans Reports and during the biennia (AgWQMP), including identifying drinking water sources, drinking water quality issues, potential WQMPs are developed to contaminant sources and recommendations for action. The Ag ater pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on rural lands, prevent and control w and include pollution reduction strategies that protect sources of drinking water. - The basin (or watershed) assessments draw on the expertise of DEQ’s 17 water quality sub progr ams including recommendations for actions that DEQ (and others who are interested in rinking water input for the these basins) can take to improve water quality. To date, d , assessments has been developed for the North Coast, South Coast, Deschutes watershed Rogue, Umpqua, and Willamette basins. DEQ is also working directly with multiple public water systems in basins or subbasins to encourage protection strategies on a watershed scale basis. This includes coordinating with Rogue River, Umpqua, and Siletz subbasins. In the Umpqua surface water providers in the Dillard Water District, Oregon Department of - DEQ staff has worked with the Winston project, Agriculture, Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), and Partnership for the E. coli address high Umpqua Rivers to bacteria counts in untreated drinking water detected during Safe Drinking Water Act testing. The partners are providing technical assistance to Version 1.0 201 114 Page 8 - February

115 interested landowners, implementing on ground restoration projects, and conducting - the - effe ctiveness monitoring at project sites identified as high risk for bacteria contribution. In the Siletz watershed, Lincoln SWCD worked with the Cities of Toledo and Newport to conduct a a sediment delivery bank erosion assessment in portions of the upper watershed, as well as analysis for county roads within the drinking water source area. The work products identify priority areas for restoration/best management practices within the Siletz, setting the stage for the on - - ground implementation. In addition, the work serves as a model to employ within other basins and subbasins dealing with the impacts of bank erosion and sediment at drinking water treatment plants. Lincoln SWCD’s work was funded through the OHA drinking water protection ). Funds and Resources grant program (described section above in the Turbidity and TMDLs DEQ drinking water staff recently worked directly with 15 public water systems to research/document water quality problems with turbidity. Several systems are impacted so severely that the in take must be shut down regularly due to extremely high turbid water. - products are also problematic for many communities, and the organic matter Disinfection by precursors may be related to land management and nonpoint source pollution. Research and assessm ent included collection of raw water data, interviews with operators, GIS research on land uses, and field inspections. The report documenting data and findings (Seeds 2010) can be accessed on DEQ’s drinking water protection website. DEQ continues to use t he data from the report to promote further research, more active protection and awareness of potential or potable water standards in the public water supply watersheds. violations to the turbidity , watershed councils, and water This includes conversations with citizens, city governments In addition, data and utility boards to share information and source water protection strategies. - analysis from the above mentioned turbidity report were used to list three waterbodies on 2010 List of Impaired Water Oregon’s s (303(d) list). One of those waterbodies (the Siletz River upstream of the intake for the City of Siletz) has a TMDL for turbidity/sediment under development. DEQ is currently working on that TMDL as well as other sediment al and human sources of sediment based TMDLs, evaluating natur - - pollution to the listed waterbodies in the Oregon Mid Coast Basin. The TMDLs will document known and potential sediment sources, set allowable limits of sediment inputs to the waterbodies, and detail management measures and monitoring needed. Information from the and - TMDLs may be used to inform changes to riparian and steep slope protections on forest agricultural lands. onpoint Sources N onpoint source pollution (pollution from a diffuse area rather than a discrete pipe, ditch, etc.) N is addressed through the following programs implemented by DEQ: Water Quality Standards, , §319 Nonpoint Source Planning and Grants, Drinking Water s Water Quality Assessment, TMDL Version 1.0 201 115 Page 8 - February

116 Protection, Groundwater, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Pest icide Stewardship Partnerships, and Water Quality Monitoring. DEQ also coordinates with federal and state agencies that are responsible for nonpoint source issues and identifies them as Designated the specific authority to take 1), DEQ has 468B.110 ( Management Agencies (DMAs). Under ORS the actions necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards and to implement load allocations established under a TMDL. The only significant limitation on DEQ’s authority is that it may not impose or enforce effluen t limits on nonpoint source discharges from forest operations subject to the State’s Forest Practice Act, unless such limits are required by the CWA or other federal law. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) regulates commercial harvesting on private an d state forest lands. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates agricultural activities through Agricultural Water Quality Management Area rules. at DEQ coordinates with ODA and ODF to ensure that forestry The Nonpoint Source Program ulture on nonfederal lands meets water quality standards and TMDL load allocations. and agric The NPS Program also coordinates with other programs within DEQ (e.g. Drinking Water Protection, Water Quality Standards) and with outside partners to prevent and remediate nonpoint sources of pollution using cooperation, technical assistance, and federal pass through - ( §319 ) grants. Federal land management agencies (e.g. USFS and BLM) work with the NPS Program to ensure management is consistent with state and federal water q uality laws and regulations. An additional responsibility is creation, approval, and implementation of a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plan under the federal CZARA statute. Version 1.0 201 116 Page 8 - February

117 9 .0 REFERENCES E. Rupp, W. Mote. 2014 . Seasonal climate variability and change in the Pacific Abatzoglou, J. T., D. P. . Journal of Climate 27 : Northwest of the United States - 2142, doi:10.1175/JCLI - D - 13 - 00218.1. 2125 Alavanja , M . C . R . and M.R. Bonner. 2005. Pesticides and Human Cancers. Cancer Invest. 23: 700 - 11. Massey. Amb . , J . Kron, R . A . Liroff, T . Little, and R . achtsheer, J 2007. Fiduciary Guide to Toxic Chemical Risk. Investor Environmental Health Network & Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment. pp 50. Baker, N.T., and W.W. Stone. 2015. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of the Conterminous United States, 2008-1 2: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 907, 9 p., Stanford, and S A . . Snyder. 2009. . Benotti, M . J . , R . A . Trenholm, B . J . Vanderford, J . C . Holady, B . D Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in U .S Drinking Water. Environmental Science 603. - and Technology 43: 597 Betancourt, W.Q. and J.B. Rose. 2004. Drinking water treatment processes for removal of , Giardia . Veterinary Parasitology 126: 219 - 234 . Cryptosporidium and Blomquist, J. D., and Janet M . D. 2001. Pesticides in Water - Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water: A Pilot Monitoring Program. USGS Open File Report 01 456 . - Brown, Thomas C. 2000. Economic issues for watersheds supplying drinking water. In: Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. George E Dissmeyer, ed . General Technical Report SRS - 39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servic e, Southern - Research Station. p 42 51. Cabral, Joao P. S. 2010. Int J Environ Res Public Water Microbiology. B acterial Pathogens and Water . 7: 3657 – 3703. Health . . D . , S . Sobieszczyk, A . J Arnsberg, and F . A . Carpenter, K Rinella. 2008. Pesticide occurrence and distribution in the lower Clackamas River basin, Oregon, 2000 - 2005. U.S. Geologi cal Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008 - 5027, 98pp. . Sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Christensen, E . R . , A . Li, I . A . A . Razak, et al 1997. 23: 61 - 73. Journal of G reat Lakes Research sediments of the Kinnickinnic River, Wisconsin. Clapp RW, Jacobs MM, Loechler EL. Environmental & Occupational Causes of Cancer: New Evidence 2007. Lowell (MA): Lowell Center for Sustainable Production; 2007 Oct. - 2005 117 Page Version 1.0 - 8 201 February

118 Dalton, M., P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, eds. 2013 . mate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Cli Island Press. 224 pp. aters, and Communities. Our Landscapes, W 2010 . Dello, K.D., and P.W. Mote, eds Oregon Climate Assessment Report. COAS, OSU . http://occr Oregon Climate Change Research Institute Website: , and C.R. Rodríguez Pleguezuelo. 2008. Soil erosion and runo ff prevention by plant Durán Zuazo, V.H. . : 65 – 86 Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28 covers. A review. Freeman J., R. Madsen, K. Hart. 2008. Statistical Analysis of Drinking Water Treatment Plant Cos ts, t y, and Land Cover Characteristics. Trust for Public Land. Source Water Quali Gartner, T., Mehan III, T., Mulligan, J., Roberson, J.A., Stangel, P., Qin, Y. 2014. Protecting Forested and ter Works Association Journal 106.9 Watersheds is Smart Economics for Water Utilities. American Wa : 54 - 64 . Gevao, B. K.T. Semple, and K.C. Jones. Bound pesticide residues in soils: a review. Envir onmental 2000. Pollution 108: 3 - 14 . Glassmeyer, S.T., E.T. Furlong, D.W. Kolpin, A.L. Batt, R. Benson, J.S. Boone, O. Con erly, M.J. Donohue, D.N. King, M.S. Kostich, H.E. Mash, S.L. Pfaller, K.M. Schenck, J.E. Simmons, E.A. Varughese, S.J. Vesper, E.N. Villegas, and V.S. Wilson. 2017. Nationwide Reconnaissance of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Source and Treated Drinkin g Waters of the United States. Science of the Total Environment 581 - 582: 909 - 922. Gomi, T Hassan. 2005. Suspended sediment dynamics in small forest streams of , R . D . Moore, and M . A . . the Pacific Northwest. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 41: 877 - 898. Ali , Goodso n , W . H . , L. Lowe , D.O. Carpenter , M. Gilbertson A.M. Salsamendi, et al. C. 2015. Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the - environment: the chal lenge ahead. Carcinogenesis 36: S254 – S296. . B . , P . Case, S . Chui, D . Chung, C . Haefele, K Hayes, T . Haston, M . Lee, V . P . Mai, Y . Marjuoa, J . Parker, and M . Tsui. 2006. Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines: Are we underestimating the impact? Environmental Health Perspectives 114su ppl: 140 - 150. Holvoet, K. M.A. , P . Seuntjens, and P . A. Vanrolleghem. 2007. Monitoring and modeling pesticide fate in – surface waters at the catchment scale. odelling 209 : 53 cological M 64 . E Holz , D.J., K. W.J. Williard , P. J. Edwards , and J. E. Schoonover . 201 5. Soil Erosion in Humid Regions: A Review. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 154: 48 - 59. 2009. Using Cover Crops to Convert to Hoorman , J . , R. I slam, A. Sundermeier, and R. Reeder . 11 - SAG till. Agriculture and Natural Resources Fact Sheet. - No 09. Retrieved - 540 - 09, AEX - Version 1.0 201 118 Page 8 - February

119 November 8, 2009 from Center/SARE - Project - Produ cts/North - - - - - Project - Products/Using - Cover - Central - to - Convert SARE to - No - till . Crops Hughes, Robert M., Susie Dunham, Kathleen G. Maas - Hebner, J. Alan Yeakley, Carl Schreck, Michael Harte, Nancy Molina, Clinton C. Shock, Victor W. Kaczynski, and Jeff Schaeff er. 2014. “A Review of Urban Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and Remediation.” Fisheries 39 (1): 18 – 29. doi:10.1080/03632415.2013.836500. nogenic IARC 2009. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs on the evaluation of carci risks to humans: overall evaluations of carcinogenicity to humans. Lyon (France): IARC [updated 2009 Classification/crthgr02a.php Mar 28; cited 2009 Nov 8]. Available from: Jackson, C.R., C.A. Sturm, and J.M. Ward. 2001. Timber harvest impacts on small headwater stream channels in the coast ranges of Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 1533 - 1549. Kibler, K . M . , A . S kaugset, L . M . Ganio, and M . M . Huso. 2013. Effect of contemporary forest harvesting practices on headwater stream temperatures: Initial response of the Hinkle Creek catchment, Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 310: 680 - 691. S.D. 2002. . . Buxton H.T and Ko lpin, D.W. , E.T. Furlong , M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, Barber, Zaugg, L.B. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999 - — A 2000 ance . national reconnaiss Environmental Science a nd Technology 36: 1202 - 1211, doi : 10.1021 /es011055j. - Precipitation Timing Lanini, Jordan S., Elizabeth A. Clark, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier. 2009. Effects of Fire and Regime on Post - Fire Sediment Delivery in Pacific Northwest Forests. Geophysical Research Letters 36 (1): L01402. doi:10.1029/2008GL034588. LeChevallier, M . W . , T . M . Evans, and R . J . Seidler. 1981. Effect of turbidity on chlorination efficiency and bacterial persistence in drinki ng water. crobiology 42: 159 - 167. Applied and Environmental Mi Sediment and Contaminant Transport in Surface Waters. CRC Press. 404pp. Lick, William. 2008. Meschke, J . S . , and M . D . Sobsey. 1998. Comparative adsorption of Norwalk virus, poliovirus 1 and F+ RNA - coliphage MS2 to soils suspended i Water Sci. Technol. 38: 187 n treated wastewater. 189. Montgomery, D.R., K.M. Schmidt, H.M. Greenberg, and W.E. Dietrich . 2000. Forest clearing and regional 314. : 311 landsliding . Geology 28 - Mote, P., A.K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S.D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J 2014 . . Littell, R. Raymondi, and S. Reeder . . Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, Ch. 21: Northwest , J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program 495 pp 521. - Version 1.0 201 119 Page 8 - February

120 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. 2014. National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual, 2nd edition. Arlington, VA. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Long - Range Soil and Water Conservation Policy. 1993. nd Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture, Chapter 8: Fate and Transport of Pesticides. National Soil a , Washington, D.C. Academy Press National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Techniques for Assessing Gr ound Water Vulnerability. 1993 . Ground water vulne rability assessment: Contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement). 2013. Measurement of glyphosate, imazapyr, sulfometuron methyl, and metsulfuro stream water . S pecial R eport n methyl in Needle Branch N o . 13 - 01. 130pp. . Lekkas. 1999. products of drinking water - Organic by Nikolaou, A . D . , M . N . Kostopoulou, and T . D 156. - 143 1: Global Nest: The Int. J. chlorination. C General Permit, National Pollution Discharge Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1200 - Elimination System, Stormwater Discharge Permit for Construction ( pdf ) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2018. Geographic Information System, Data and Reports Water Quality, Drinking Water Program ages/DWP - Maps.aspx Oregon Department of Human Services Public Health Division and Oregon Department of Harmful Blue - Environmental Quality. 2010. Interagency Agreement – Green Algae Monitoring. DHS/OEPH Agreement #131357. Oregon Health Authority. 2018. Safe Drinking Water Information System https://yourwater.or - Draft Guidelines: A Tool for Conducting Place Based Oregon Water Resources Department. 2015. Integrated Water Resources Planning in Oregon. h ttp:// in a World Controlling Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms no. 2011. S. Calandri Paerl, H.W., N.S. Hall and E. Environment. 409 Experiencing Anthropogenic and Climatic - 1739 : - e of the Total induced Change. Scienc 1745. Version 1.0 201 120 Page 8 - February

121 Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature’s Postel, S L . , and B . H . Thompson, Jr. 2005. . 29: wa Natural Resources Forum ter supply services. 98 - 108. T Rashin, E B . , C . J . Clishe, A . . . Loch, and J . M . Bell . 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources 1327. 1307 - Association 42: A . H . , L . E . Benda, K . M . Burnett, P . Reeves, G . Bisson, and J . R . Sedell. 1995. A dist urbance - based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 334 - 349. . Benda. 2006. Post fire logging in riparian areas. Reeves, G . H . , P . A . Bisson, B . E . Riema n and L . E - Conservation Biology 20: 994 1004. Robison, E.G., K. Mills, J. Paul, L. Dent, and A. Skaugset. 1999. Oregon Department of Forestry Storm Impacts and Landslides of 1996: Final Report. Forest Pract ices Technical Report No. 4. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. ock, and George R. Roni, Philip, Timothy J. Beechie, Robert E. Bilby, Frank E. Leonetti, Michael M. Poll Pess. 2002. ategy for Prioritizing A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Str Restoration i n Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22 (1): – 20. doi:10.1577/1548 1 8675(2002)022<0001:AROSRT>2.0.CO;2. - Schaedel, Andy. 2011. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Strategy, Water Quality Division, June 2011 . ua . 2010. Turbidity Analysis for Oregon Public Water Systems - Water Quality in Coast Range Seeds, Josh Drinking Water Source Areas . Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, W ater Quality D ivision. Henderson, and D Stackelberg, P . E, E . T . Furlong, M . T . Meyer, S . D . Zaugg, A . K . . B . Reissman. 2004. Persistence of pharmaceutical compounds and other organic wastewater contaminants in a conventional drinking water - treatment plant. Science of the T otal Environment 329: 99 - 113. - Stone, C.G. Crawford, and R. J. Gilliom. 2013. Watershed Regressions for Pesticides (WARP) W.W., Models for Predicting Stream Concentrations of Multiple Pesticides. Journal of Environmental Quality 42: 1838 - 1851. Stone, W. W., R . J. Gilliom, and K . R. Ryberg . 2014. Pesticides in U.S. Streams and Rivers: Occurrence and : Trends during 1992 − 2011. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 11025 − 11030 . , e. 2013. , and Estimation of annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the . P . G Ston Thelin W.W. Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013 : U.S. Geological 2009 – conterminous United States, 1992 - 5009, 54 p. Version 1.0 201 121 Page 8 - February

122 Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. 14: 18 - 30. Conservation Biology Turner, T.R., S.D. Duke, B.R.Fransen, M.L. Re iter, A.J. Kroll, J.W. Ward, J.L. Bach, T.E. Justice, and R.E. Bilby. 2010. Landslide densities associated with rainfall, stand age, and topography on forested Forest Ecology and Management 259: 2233 - 2247. landscapes, southwestern Washington, USA. US Depa - rtment of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. 2015. USDA https://www/mass/ NASS, Washington, DC Retrieved July 2016 from /Research and Science/Cropland/metadata or15.htm US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016 Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till. Retrieved November 2016 from United States Department of Health and Human Services, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. 2010. nitrates - pg. National Cancer Panel. ( - pg. 45 ) Available online at: 48; pesticides - 09rpt/PCP_Report_08 - 09_508.pdf ntal Protection Agency. 1996. Pub 1. 104 - 183, 110 Stat. 1613 “Safe Drinking Water Act US Environme Amendments of 1996” 1996 - 08 - 06. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Interim Enhanced US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Turbidi 010. - 99 - R - Surface Water Treatment Rule: 815 ty Provisions. EPA - . Controlling Disinfection By - Products and Microbial a US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 - 600 - R 01 Contaminants in Drinking Water. EPA - 110. - US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 b. Revisions to the Interim Enhance d Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments: 66 FR 3770, January 16, 2001, Vol 66 , No. 29. tion Agency. 2002. US Environmental Protec Health Advisories, EPA 822 - R - 02 - 038. nvironmental Protection Agency Climate Ready Water Utilities Toolbox. 2015. US E Website: US Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Ground Water and Drinking Water, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. - - water/national - drinking - water - Website: - water - and - drinking primary regulations . DOH Water System Design Manual Washington State Department of Health). 2009. ( WADOH Version 1.0 201 122 Page 8 - February

123 PUB. #331 - 123 (Rev. 12/09). Weber, J. A. 2015. Regional Framework for Climate Adaptation: Clatsop and Tillamook Counties. Joint project by the NOAA’s Oregon Coastal Management Program, Oregon Sea Grant, and the Oregon 58pp. Department of Land Conservation and Development. 201 8 - Version 1.0 Page 1 23 February

124 APPENDICES Call to Action -- Source Water Collaborative APPENDIX 1. APPENDIX 2 Pollutant Reduction Strategies for Land Uses/Activities . Categorical Crop Pesticide Table - to APPENDIX 3 . - APPENDIX 4 . Riparian Management Widths: Forestry & A griculture Drinking Water Protection Websites APPENDIX 5. Version 1.0 201 124 Page 8 - February

125 APPENDIX 1 . Source Water Collaborative -- Call to Action




129 APPENDIX 2 Pollutant Reduction Strategies for Common Land Uses / Activities Within the Drinking Water Source Areas This table is a compilation of information on the most common potential impacts to the drinking water sources in Oregon. Impacts from these land uses and activities will only occur when chemicals are improperly handled or best management practices are not followed. The pollutant reduction strategies are intended to reduce the risk of impacts to the drinking water source(s) downstream. luded in this table: The Potential Pollutant Land Use/Activity categories inc Aboveground storage tanks Agricultural activities - other than cropland washes, repair, gas stations Automotive – launches, marinas, river traffic – Boats stored, areas of use – Chemicals Commercial or industrial sites Confined animal feeding operations Cropland – irrigated, non - irrigated Dams, reservoirs burned areas Fire impacts - Fish hatchery Forest lands Golf courses, parks, lawns Grazing animals Irrigation canal, ponds Known contamination sites Landfills, composting, transfer, r ecycling

130 Large capacity onsite septic systems Mining activities, gravel pits Onsite septic systems – Parking lots large impervious areas petroleum or other chemicals – Pipelines Random dump sites Residential lands heavy use areas – River recreation , universities Schools Sewer lines Stormwater runoff Stream crossing Transportation corridors Underground injection control (UICs) Underground storage tanks Utility stations Wastewater treatment, outfalls Wells – private domestic, others Potential Potential Pollutant Pollutant Reduction and Outreach Ideas Impact pe Ty □ Work with the local SWCD, Oregon State University County Agricultural activities, Improper soil other than cropland or sources Conservation Service to Extension Agent, or Natural Re management or - y encourage management measures that protect water activel improper animal management quality and develop farm plans when beneficial. Management storage or includes farm manage ment of measures may include: crop production practices, machinery repair areas pesticide/fertilizer/petroleum product handling and storage, cleaning and equipment solvents, fuels, pair, livestock waste storage vehicle/equipment maintenance and re maintenance areas petroleum and treatment, hazardous waste management, wastewater products, disposal/fill, and wells. pesticides, fertilizers, and Agency Websites irrigation water Soil and Water Conservation Districts: may impact ion - districts/directory OSU Extension: - us drinking water Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oregon: Oregon Department of Agriculture: Additional recommendations □ If this land covers a large percentage of your drinking water source area, notify your local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) of your drinking water intake. □ Identify and document any pesticides used to maintain site and the areas where appl ied.

131 □ Set up or participate in a local material exchange program. - - Recovery and - Recycling.aspx actsheets □ Other than crops, see DEQ f *“Pesticide use in the vicinity of drinking water sources” for additional regulations and recommendations: washes, Automotive – □ Notify the car wash or repair shop of their location within your Improper management of drinking water source area and send the following fact sheets: repair shops, gas vehicle wash Automotive Repair and Maintenance Tips for Drinking Water * stations Protection: water may result in soaps, oils, greases, and *Managing Vehicle Washing to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water: metals impacting water quality. VehicleWashing.pdf Spills, leaks, or improper □ Implement best management practices to minimize potential impact from stormwater runoff. handling of fuels and other □ Implement best management practices for chemical and fuel storage, handling, and disposal, including spill response. materials during transportation, □ Review "Drinking Water Protection Strategies for Commercial and tr ansfer, and Industrial Land Uses" and consider other general or business sector specific strategies for pollution risk reduction. storage may impact water PStrategiesComInd.pdf quality. □ Ensure all shallow/underground injection well issues are addressed so that surface water is not impacted from those (see other fact sheets in commercial/industrial section below) – launches, See the Oregon State Marine Board website for helpful information Boats Spills, leaks, or improper marinas, river traffic on water quality protection: ha ndling of fuels, water work on boats, see - □ For in grease, solvents, and other - library/Documents/Boating%20Facilities/boating_facility_operation materials from _ bmps.pdf boats, fueling, storage and □ Implement best management practices for chemical and fuel parking areas storage, handling, and disposal, including spill response; at boat may impact the launches, ensure that boats do not idle excessively if near drinking drinking water water intake(s). □ If appropriate, marinas may rec eive technical assistance from supply. DEQ Toxics Use/Waste Reduction Assistance Program. □ For marinas, implement management practices for Clean Marina certification (administered by Oregon State Marine Board) - info/Pages/Environmental.aspx □ Implement best management practices to minimize potential impact from stormwater runoff. Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to protect water qu ality: - Permits - Applications.aspx

132 Chemicals - stored or □ Verify that no fuels, pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals are Chemicals, fuels, and equ used in close ipment specific safe distance) of used or stored within 100 feet (or a site - proximity to intake the surface water intake. maintenance □ Ensure all fuels and chemical vessels/tanks in sensitive upstream materials may source areas have seco impact surface ndary containment to prevent leaks into water sources of groundwater or as runoff impacting surface water downstream. □ Consider increased setbacks based on sensitivity and degree of drinking water. hazard from chemicals or pesticides within sensitive areas upstream de applications, see info on Integrated Pest of intake. For pestici Management ( ) for alternative methods in sensitive areas; alternate methods for vegetation management in riparian or buffer ar eas may include mechanical - chemical pre - emergent or post - emergent removal, mowing, or non herbicide. □ Work with the local first responders to develop a spill response for any nearby upstream chemical and/or communication strategy storage areas. □ Correct any outstanding deficiencies at the intake structure that may increase risk of chemical impacts. □ Ac quire adequate spill response equipment and any required training. Fact Sheets/Resources *Managing Small Quantity Chemical Use: ChemUseSmallQ.pdf http:// *Integrated Pest Management: Commercial □ Work with the local first responders to develop a spill response Spills, leaks, or and/or communication strategy in case of accident or or industrial sites improper – includes businesses environmental releases; make a plan for regular updates. handling of that 1) do not require □ Review "Drinking Water Protection Strategies for Commercial and solvents, Industrial La permits or ne Uses" and consider other general or business sector petroleum products, specific strategies for pollution risk reduction. 2) regulated facilities wastewater, or like dry cleaners, other chemicals cleanup sites, □ Check D EQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to protect water quality from commercial or industrial sites: and materials hazardous associated with - Permits waste/materials sites, - Applications.aspx commercial or underground storage □ Notify the owner or manager of commercial/industrial sites about tanks, wastewater and industrial their location within your drinking water source area and send the soli activities may d waste disposal impact the following general fact sheets: *Basic Tips for Keeping Drinking Water Clean and Safe drinking water supply. *Business and Industry tips for reducing water quality impacts (DEQ) /deq/FilterDocs/dwpbusindtips.pdf *Pollution Prevention for Industry and the Environment: - and - Cleanup/ToxicReduction/Pages/Pollution - Prevention.aspx □ Contact owner/operator to verify that chemical or petroleum

133 product storage are not high risks for impacting water quality. For example, chemicals could be stored and used inside, or have secondary containment. Encourage business to receive technical ass regulatory Toxics Use/Waste Reduction istance from DEQ’s non - Technical Assistance Program: - - and sistance.aspx As - Cleanup/hw/Pages/Technical □ Implement relevant best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater and industrial wastewater: - best - managem ent - - menu - bmps - stormwater#edu practices - wastewater □ Work with Drinking Water Protection staff and permitting program staff to ensure permitted facilities are i n compliance. Confined animal Improper □ Verify that the owner or CAFO manager has the contact information for a storage and ny nearby public water systems in the Emergency feeding operations Response section of their Animal Waste/Nutrient Management Plan (CAFOs) management of to ensure timely notification of spills or releases that may impact animal wastes drinking water supply. and wastewater in areas of □ Contact ODA’s Livestock Water Quality specialist fo r your area to concentrated ensure that all CAFOs that are required to have a permit have one. Ensure the ODA specialist is aware of the public water system animals may impact drinking location and that the permit and associated Animal Waste water Management Plan are protective of the drinking water su pply; request that existing technical assistance resources and compliance inspections be prioritized for the drinking water source area. □ Note that all permitted CAFOs are regularly inspected on a 10 - month rotation and water quality protection is part of the permit conditions. □ Get notification from ODA on permit modifications or renewals; review/comment as appropriate. Fact Sheets/Resources *Oregon Department of Agriculture CAFO program: AFO.aspx US EPA Animal Feeding Operations: - feeding - operations - afos Cro pland - Over □ Work with the local SWCD, Oregon State University County -- application Extension Agent, or Natural Resources Conservation Service to or improper handling of (includes actively encourage management measures that protect water Irrigated pesticides and quality and develop farm plans when beneficial; management orchards, vineyards, fertilizers may nurseries, measures may include: crop production practices, pesticide/fertilizer/petrole greenhouses) impact drinking um product handling and storage, vehicle/equipment maintenance and repair, livestock waste storage water; excessive irrigated and treatment, hazardous waste management, wastewater (includes ir - Non rigation may Christmas trees, grains, transport disposal/fill, and wells. □ If this land covers a large percentage of your Drinking Water contaminants to grass seed, pasture) groundwater Source Area, notify your local Soil and Water Conservation District (impacting (SWCD) of your source area location and ask for technical assistance

134 nearby surface to work with owner/operator. □ Work with owner/operator to identify and document any water), or pesticides used and the areas where they are regularly applied. surface water □ Participate in, or request assistance from, the Pesticide through runoff. Stewardship or Integrated Pest Management Programs (or other Note: drip - efforts , such as pesticide collection ev ents for unused and legacy irrigated and pesticides) to reduce use of products that threaten water quality: - irrigated non crops are □ See DEQ factsheet “Pesti cide use in the vicinity of drinking water considered to be sources” for additional regulations and recommendations: lower risk. Agency Websites Soil and Water Conservation Districts: - districts/directory http://extension.oregonstate. edu/find - us OSU Extension: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oregon: Oregon Department of Agriculture: □ Also send relevant fact sheets and information below. Fact Sheets/Resources *Managing Agricultural Fertilizer Application (US EPA source): /deq/FilterDocs/EPASWPPracticesBulletin_ AgFertilizer.pdf *Managing Large - Scale Application of Pesticides: icesBulletin_ PesticidesLargeScale.pdf *Irrigation System Maintenance and Improved Production: Lands Formerly *Guidance for Evaluating Residual Pesticides on Used for Agricultural Production cides.pdf Additional recommendation □ Set up or particip ate in a local material exchange program. - Recovery - and - Recycling.aspx □ Notify the dam owner or operator of their location within the During major Dams, reservoirs drinking water source area and ensure that there is secondary storm events, rs may containment for fuels or other chemicals stored; send the fact reservoi contribute to sheet: prolonged “Managing Small Quantity Chemical Use” turbidity for downstream n_ ChemUseSmallQ.pdf intakes for drinking water. □ Work with the local first responders to develop a spill response and/or communication strategy in case of accident or dam release; Construction, fluctuating water make a plan for regular updates.

135 levels, and heavy Additional recommendations waterside use □ Consult dam safety resources from FEMA. can increase □ Consider restricti ng use of two - stroke engines on small reservoirs erosion and that serve drinking water intakes turbidity in reservoir or drinking water source. Vegetation Fire impacts, burned □ During fire prevention planning, work with the forest owner(s) or manager(s) so they know where the drinking water intake is located areas removal by fire may increase and the location of the drinking water source area boundaries; send surface erosion the “Basic Tips for Keeping Drinking Water Clean and Safe”: and sediment □ On state delivery rates, - owned or regulated forest lands, learn more about the Oregon Department of Forestry’s work regarding fires ; work with resulting in high ODF to identify and address potential impacts to drinking water turbidity in intake(s): surface water and drinking ter intake; assess potential wa Work with land owners and managers to quickly □ fighting - fire water quality impacts after fire; support Forest Service and others to implement stabilization such as Burn Area Emergency activities and Rehabilitation (BAER) for erosion control and/or other treatments application of to reduce the risk of runoff. See: retardants can impact fire, c □ Post - downstream ontact Oregon DEQ Laboratory (503 - 229 - 5630) to request water quality monitoring at the drinking water intake to drinking water. evaluate chemical changes in levels of nitrogen, sulfates, pH, chlorides, turbidity, fire fighting chemicals, etc. - Contact Oreg fire - □ on Health Authority to find out about post emergency drinking water source protection grant to help with watershed stabilization to reduce water quality impacts and risks: NGWATER/SRF/Pages/index.aspx Fish hatchery Some □ Notify the owner or manager of their location within the drinking water source area and send the “Basic Tips for Keeping Drinking aquaculture Clean and Safe”: Water practices may increase surface □ Contact the owner or manager to verify that best management erosion and practices are being used for chemical or p etroleum product storage sediment delivery rates, (indoors or outdoors) to reduce potential impacts to water quality. resulting in □ Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to turbidity in protect water quality from aquaculture operrations: - - Permits drinking water unoff or Applications.aspx source; r discharges containing nutrients, suspended solids, antibiotics and other chemicals may

136 impact drinking water. Forest Forest lands □ Notify forest landowner(s) or manager(s) of their location in your management or forest management drinking water source area and send EPA fact sheets: areas *Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry activities including cutting - source - nonpoint - runoff - forestry and yarding of source - pollution/nonpoint - and trees; improper *Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry: National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry management of pesti cide and - - runoff - nonpoint - source resources - - additional fertilizer pollution/forestry applications; and □ If there is private industrial forest land scheduled for harvest or Travel zone (or within - of road chemical application within 2 - year Time - building/usage/ short - term recharge area for a spring), work with landowner to set maintenance up direct communication, share maps, and provide noti fication on any chemical application. activities may impact drinking □ For details on pesticide use in Oregon forestry, please see: water ForestryFacts_Herbi cides_And_Forestry_01092017.pdf □ Work with Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Stewardship or District Forester to request that there is voluntarily no mixing, - year handling, or storage of bulk pesticides or fertilizers in the 2 o - Travel zone or Zone 1 for springs. ODF may be able to help Time f - facilitate communication with the land owners or managers to discuss site - specific concerns about protecting the groundwater or springs: □ For harvested areas that use pesticides, refer to fact sheets in “Cropland” section above for additional information □ For assistance with drinking water source protection issues on federal forest lands, contact US Forest Service Region 6: Additional recommendations □ Set up an agreement or MOU with landowner(s) or manager(s) that addresses handling and application of pesticides and fertilizers and best managem ent practices for equipment fueling and spills. □ See DEQ factsheet on “Pesticide use in the vicinity of drinking water sources” for additional regulations and recommendations: ht tps:// □ Determine degree and type of chemicals used for lawns and Golf courses, application - Over or improper landscaping maintenance. parks handling of □ Share relevant fact sheets below. □ Work with landowners or operators to minimize (or eliminate in pesticides or (and any other highly - maintained areas, like rs may sensitive areas) pesticide and fertilizer application. fertilize cemeteries, impact water □ Provide trai ning/workshops to park staff on water quality concentrated quality; protection. See: *Integrated Pest Management website (OSU): residential lawns, ball excessive fields, etc.) irrigation may cause transport □ Use products that are environmentally friendly.

137 rigation, or use water - efficient irrigation. of contaminants □ Minimize ir through runoff □ Ensure pesticides are handled and stored safely. and infiltration. □ Ensure that a spill response plan is in place, a spill kit is available and employees are trained annually in spill response. ntegrated Pest Management (IPM) □ For golf courses, distribute I information: *Integrated Pest Management Info for Golf Courses: - index.php Fact Sheets/Resources *Healthy Lawn, Healthy Environment : - 04/documents/healthy_lawn_healthy_environment.pdf *EPA Source Water Protection Practice Bul letins: - Scale Application of Pesticides: - Managing Small PesticidesSmallScale.pdf - Managing Turfgrass and Garden Fertilizer Applications: TurfgrassGarden.pdf - Quantity Chemical Use: Managing Small ChemUseSmallQ.pdf - □ Encourage farm operator to work with their local Soil and Water Improper Grazing animals Conservation District (SWCD), Oregon State University County storage and (as a guideline, only management of Extension Agent, or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) those areas wi th >5 animal wastes to actively encourage management measures that protect water large animals or equivalent per acre and wastewater quality; management measures can address livestock waste storage in areas of and treatment, wastewater disposal, etc. over an extended time) concentrated Agency Websites: Includes small rural animals may Oregon Department of Agriculture: impact water farms, boarding default.aspx uality q stables, Soil and Water Conservation Districts: auction lots, districts/directory - fairgrounds OSU Extension: http://extension. - us Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oregon: □ Share relevant fact sheets below. □ If this land cove rs a large percentage of your drinking water source area, notify your local SWCD of your source area location. □ Identify and document any pesticides used to maintain site and areas applied. Fact Sheets/Resources *For grazing animals, provide Oregon NRCS F act Sheets from this link: id=nrcs142p2_046062 *Managing Pastures in Eastern Oregon (or Western Oregon)

138 *Managing Stock Water in Pastures and Streamside Areas *Managing Weeds in Pasture and Managing Pastures. (Tips for Eastern Oregon Landowners) *Managing Pastures in Western Oregon (Tips for Western Oregon Landowners) ds near Streams *Providing Stock Water in Fiel *Managing Weeds in Pasture Also, Manure Management in Small Farm Livestock Operations R unoff or Irrigation canal, ponds □ Determine from owner(s) or operator(s) whether fertilizer or infiltration pesticides are being used. See DEQ Factsheet: “Pesticide use in the vicinity of drinking water sources”: containing https://www pesticides or □ Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to fertilizers may impact drinking protect water quality from pesticide application areas: - Permits - water Applications.aspx □ Work with land owner or manager to ensure that the pesticide/fertilizer/petroleum mixing and storage areas is located of - Travel zone or Zone 1 for spring s. outside the 2 year Time - □ If irrigation canals are in close proximity to shallow wells, share guidance on integrated pest management approaches to control vegetation: h ttp:// &context=centerforlakes_pub □ Verify cleanup site status by checking Environmental Cleanup Site Existing Known contamination contamination - sites Information (ECSI) database at: - spill sites or known - and - from spills, leaks, Cleanup/env or improper i.aspx cleanup/Pages/ecs downgradient plumes handling of used □ Contact DEQ Cleanup program or Drinking Water Protection staff or stored (Julie Harvey, DEQ, 503 - 229 - 5664) for assistance in verifying that ls may materia cleanup is protective of drinking water. impact the drinking water □ Ensure DEQ cleanup program staff are aware of the drinking supply water source a rea location, and are working towards “No Further Action” status. For more information, go to: - and - Cleanup/env - cleanup/Pages/defau lt.aspx Landfills, Water coming composting □ Notify the landowner or manager of their location within your facility, historic waste drinking water source area into contact with dumps, waste transfer, □ Work with DEQ Drinking Water Protection staff or permitting waste material may transport waste recycling program staff to review permits and ensure permitted facilities are contaminants to stations in compliance. groundwater and/or as runoff □ For historic landfills, check with the DEQ Site Assessment program affecting surface to verify status of site: - water - and - Cleanup/env

139 cleanup/Pages/Site - Assessment.aspx □ Ensure DEQ cleanup program staff are aware of the drinking water source area location, and are working towards “No F urther Action” status. For more information, go to: - and - - Cleanup/env cleanup/Pages/default.aspx Large capacity onsite □ Review and share technical information from: If not properly sited, designed, septic syst *Managing Septic Systems to Prevent Contamination of Drinking ems (serves Water installed, and > 20 people) cticesBulletin_S maintained, epticSystems.pdf septic systems can impact □ Encourage/incentivize septic system upgrades and establish an groundwater ongoing septic system maintenance program. and DEQ On - site permitting: ov/DEQ/Residential/Pages/Onsite.aspx downgradient http://www.oregon.g surface water □ Verify UIC registration and onsite permit with DEQ; sign up to get notifications from DEQ on any permit modifications □ See Residential lands for additional technical assistance (below) □ If applicable, ongoing educa tion program for residents or businesses on household hazardous waste and proper disposal of pharmaceuticals. Household Hazardous Waste Program: ds - and - Cleanup/hw/Pages/hhw.aspx Household Pharmaceutical Waste Disposal: - and - Cleanup/hw/Pages/Pharmaceuticals.aspx □ Contact the site manager and verify that chemicals, petroleum Mining activities, Spills, leaks, or improper gravel pits products, and other materials are handled properly and share: handling of rotection *Business and Industry Tips for Drinking Water P chemicals and wastes □ Contact Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Resources for more information on best management practices: n generated i mining faq.htm - operations or □ Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to from heavy protect water quality: equipment may - Permits - impact the Applications.aspx □ Verify Permit status with regional DEQ office; gravel mines may drinking water supply have a general WPCF permit 1000 for gravel mining activities and a General 1200 - A permit for stormwater discharge; set up notification from DEQ on any permit modifications. Additional recommendations □ Review Recommended Best Management Practices for Storm Water Discharges and implement best management practices (See Section 2.1)

140 Onsite septic systems □ In addition to general residential lands (below), rural lands, If not properly sited, designed, commercial/industrial factsheets, share relevant information from residential, farm, installed, and list below: commercial mai ntained, Fact Sheets/Resources septic systems onsite systems *DEQ Septic Sma rt Program web site: - can impact Smart.aspx - drinking water; - *"Septic Smart for Homeowners brochure": use of drain cleaners and *”Managing Septic Systems to Prevent Contamination of Drinking dumping Water”: household http://www.ore hazardous epticSystems.pdf wastes or □ Refer local homeowners and small businesses to Oregon Onsite - pharma ceuticals loan program that can help with septic system costs: can result in Loans.aspx - groundwater contamination Additional measures may include: affecting nearby □ Make "Septic Smart for Homebuyers" available at local permitting surface water; counter or to local realtors: - for higher density septic, □ Develop ongoing education program on septic system operation, cumulative maintenance and upgrades effects of □ Consider grants to partially fund inspection/repair program mu ltiple systems □ Implement required inspection progra m on property transfer in an area may impact groundwater and surface water quality Parking lots, □ Notify the owner or manager of their location within your Spills and leaks of automotive a and send fact sheets on "Use of drinking water source are large impervious Injection Control Systems and Groundwater Protection" and surfaces fluids and "Managing Storm Water Runoff"; work with municipality (permit residues in holder) to ensure best management practices are in place to parking lots may impact the protect drinking water resources. □ Verify if the drinking water source area is covered under a drinking water Municipal Phase I or Phase II separate storm sewer system (MS4) supply. permit; c heck DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to protect water quality: - Permits - Applications.aspx □ Identify sensitive areas or locations where stormwater management enhancements would benefit drinking water; work with landowner to secure grants to implement best management practices.

141 Pipelines Spills, leaks, or If a public water system is concerned about potential or known ing water source area, please contact pipelines within their drink petroleum, chemicals improper 5664) for mapping - 229 - DEQ’s drinking water GIS staff (503 ing of handl pipeline information. See: - products may Maps.aspx impact water □ Contact the pipeline owner or contractor and ensure they are aware of their location within your drinking water source area; quality; construction and request direct immediate notification of the public water system in case of spills. corridor evelop a spill response maintenance □ Work with the local first responders to d and/or communication strategy and plan for regular updates. may contribute to increased □ Request pipeline owners or operators to eliminate or minimize pesticide applications and extensive soil disturbance in the source erosion and water area or upstream of the intake. turbidity in During pipeline construction or maintenance work, request that □ drinking water the owner/operator take significant precautions to prevent soil supply. erosion, especially during storm events. Illegal trash and □ Notify the owner of the property of their location within your Random dump sites debris drinking water source area and send "Combating Illegal Dumping". - containing Clean - Dumping - Up.aspx chemicals and hazardous □ Implement appropriate community - based prevention strategies – install signs, newspaper releases ials may mater including an education campaign generate runoff eanup events, collection events, install and ads, utility inserts, cl lights, use vehicle barriers, and/or public - private partnerships. and cause □ If contamination is suspected, file a complaint online or call DEQ’s contamination of - - 888 complaint line (1 997 - 7888) for assistance. drinking water sources Fact Sheets/Resources DEQ Si te Assessment Program: - and - Cleanup/env - - cleanup/Pages/Site Assessment.aspx – Provide information to residents within your drinking water □ Spills, leaks, or Residential lands improper source area. See this example letter: private urban or handling of private rural homes ents.docx chemicals, fuels, Outreach can be done through local media or via utility . bills. Send (or refer to) relevant fact sheets and web resources from wastewater, and list below. other materials may impact Fact Sheets/Resources drinking water; infiltration *Healthy Lawn, Healthy Environment: containing - pesticides or 04/documents/healthy_lawn_healthy_environment.pdf *What is Household Hazardous Waste?: fertilizers may impact drinking water; see onsite *Household Hazardous Waste Program: - septic systems and - (above) Cleanup/hw/Pages/hhw.aspx *Household Pharmace utical Waste Disposal: WasteDisposal.pdf

142 *Stormwater runoff from residential lands: tormWater.pdf Additional measures may include: □ Establish partnerships with County Extension Service or SWCD to with educational program on household hazardous waste and assist proper disposal of pharmaceuticals, lawn and landscaping, septic system maintenance. □ Establish regular presence at local events, fairs, etc. with educational materials River recreation and □ Notify the owner, operator, or land manager of their location Inadequate ng campi disposal of within your drinking water source area. Check if there are septic – systems and portable toilet disposal systems in close proximity to human wastes heavy use areas may contribute o verify the stream or reservoir; verify maintenance and permits. (T - the septic system permit status, contact DEQ regional office 503 bacteria, pathogens, and 5630) If applicable, post information about safe fueling, and 229 - waste disposal at marina/boat launch; see Oregon State Marine nutrients to the Board website: drinking water supply; heavy - info/Pages/Environmental.aspx use may contribute to Work with landowners and jurisdictions to address any significant □ streambank water quality degradation in surface water; management options erosion causing for reducing impacts include providing toilets, requiring waste - turbidity; fuel collection and haul out, prohibiting pets and pack animals, r educing spills and vehicle traffic, minimizing streamside camping, targeted education to visitors on waste disposal techniques, etc. emissions from boats may also □ Share information from the Bureau of Land Management’s summary of how to reduce impacts of river recreation and camping: contri bute to contamination. llowaGRlowimpact070606.pdf Over - application □ Notify the school of their location within your drinking water Schools, universities source area and send fact sheets (below) as appropriate. or improper handling of □ Verify that the school is complying with Oregon schools’ cl eaning Integrated Pest Management (IPM) law; contact Oregon ture with questions or assistance: Department of Agricul products, lab chemicals, - pesticides or Main_Page.html fertilizers used Learn more about schools and drinking water: - on the school - - water quality/schools - air - water grounds may quality impact drinking □ Contact the school and find out if there is an onsite septic system, water; parking if there are aboveground storage tanks, underground injection lots, roadways, wells, or vehicle maintenance and washing; if present, contact DEQ 5664) so that D - - 229 or vehicle EQ may Drinking Water Protection staff (503 maintenance assist school with best management practices. may also contribute Fact Sheets contaminants to *DEQ’s Household Hazardous Waste Program: runoff and - and - infiltration Cleanup/hw/Pages/hhw.aspx

143 *He althy Lawn, Healthy Environment: - 04/documents/healthy_lawn_healthy_environment.pdf *Managing Septic Systems: epticSystems.pd f *Septic Systems OSU Extension website: - 0 - systems *Automotive Repair and Maintenance Tips for Drinking Water Protection: q/Filterdocs/automaint.pdf *Managing Vehicle Washing to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water: VehicleWashing.pdf – Sewer lines If not properly □ Contact jurisdiction for sewer/wastewater management and designed, determine locations, status of sewer lines and sewer plan within close proximity to waterbody installed, and □ Identify broken or cracked lines in relation to drinking water intake(s), areas with inflow and infiltration; identify upgrade or maintained, sewer lines can ment of lines as a high priority within the municipal sewer replace master planning. impact drinking water, especially □ Work with jurisdiction to request maintenance, replacement, or double sleeve of sewer lines near surface water, especially adjacent to a waterbody immediately upstream of intakes -- Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to Stormwater runoff Stormwater protect water quality: runoff from land (focusing on - Permits and impervious - Applications.aspx impervious surfaces or areas such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits high density housing paved streets, □ are required for storm water discharges to surface waters from parking lots, and (> 1 House/0.5 acre)) building rooftops construction and industrial activities and municipalities if stormwater from rain or snow melt leave during rainfall s a site through a "point source" and reaches surface waters either directly or through storm and snow events drainage. often contain pollutants that □ Identify underground injection wells and dry wells for stormwater d adversely coul disposal; verify permit status. affect water □ Implement education program on stormwater issues; ongoing quality. public education program on pesticide and fertilizer use, household hazardous waste, pet waste, and household pharmaceutical waste disposal. □ Host or facilitate ongoing household hazardous waste, collections; see: and - - Cleanup/hw/Pages/hhw.aspx □ Work with your municipality to increase emphasis on pre - treatment for stormwater runoff and best management practices for stormwater. □ Develop best management practices and maintenance plan for drywells and injection wells. -

144 Guidance.aspx tormWater.pdf □ Review Oregon's Water Quality Model Code and Guidebook or Portland’s Stormwater Management Manual (or other stormwater management document), and develop program to address stormwater issues. □ Send applicable information from list below: Fact Sheets/Res ources *Managing Stormwater to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water: tormWater.pdf y Model Code and Guidebook: *Water Qualit *Portland's Stormwater Management Manual: http:// *Best Management Practices (BMPs) for washing vehicles: in_ VehicleWashing.pdf *Managing Pet and Wildlife Waste to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water: PetWa ste.pdf *Disposal of Chlorinated Water from Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs: *Household Hazardous Waste Program: and - - Cleanup/hw/Pages/hhw.aspx *Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: :// http *Healthy Lawn, Healthy Environment: - 04/docu ments/healthy_lawn_healthy_environment.pdf Transported □ Work with the local first responders to develop a spill response Stream crossings chemicals or and/or communication strategy and plan for regular updates. Become familiar with the Office of Emergency Operations and □ fuels from trucks and cars can web mapping a --- their Assessment and Planning Tools (RAPTOR) easily enter application that allows users to display data from various agencies: surface water □ Verify that your public water system contact informatio n is when spilled at - bridges or low correct in the state emergency response programs water crossings □ Learn more about Oregon DEQ’s work with other agencies and in stream beds; industry to prevent and respond to spills of oil and hazardous these can chemicals: immediately - and - Cleanup/env - impact Response.aspx - cleanup/Pages/Emergency downstream □ Become familiar with the role of the Oregon Emergency Response g water drinkin System (OERS); should a spill occur, this agency coordinates and intakes. anages state resources in response to natural and technological m

145 emergencies involving multi jurisdictional cooperation between all - levels of government and the private sector. NOTE: the phone number to report spills to OERS is 800 0311 - 452 - □ Notify the owner (City, County, ODOT, railroad, transmission line, Vehicle use Transportation ng water source area of - increases risk for etc) and local first responders of the drinki corridors, right - ways, roads, railroads, location to enable rapid spill response; consult the Oregon fuel and other Emergency Response Program Local Emergency Managers List: transmission lines chemical leaks, an_train/locals_list.pd spills and f emissions affecting □ In areas where pesticides are used for weed suppression, share water technical information on quality drinking water; and pesticides: - over application Scale Application of Pesticides: - Managing Small or improper handling of PesticidesSmallScale.pdf pesticides or □ See DEQ factsheet “Pesticide use in the vicinity of drinking water fertilizers may sources” for additional regulations and recommendations: impact drinki ng water supply; □ Request elimination or minimization of herbicide application on construction and - of - ways that may contaminate groundwater and right r. maintenance of downgradient surface wate □ roadways and Recognize stormwater discharge issues from transportation sources: corridors may contribute to - discharges - transportation increased - sources □ Identify if stormwater erosion and injection wells are present. If they are present, verify the permit status by contacting Oregon DEQ’s turbidity in Underground Injection Control staff (503 - 229 - 5630). drinking water Additional recommendations □ Encourage proper use or elimination of any dry wells or sumps in your d rinking water source area. □ Ask transportation officials to examine spill/runoff detention capacity to prevent contaminants entering the groundwater or surface water after an accident. □ Ask for notification of the public water system in case of spills □ Reroute transport of hazardous materials if possible - □ Public water system may want to assume responsibility for non chemical weed control near the intake Underground injection □ Notify the landowner or manager of their location within your Shallow injection (UICs) – drinking water source area. control wells may transport dry wells, stormwater □ Work with Drinking Water Protection staff or UIC permitting 229 - untreated water sumps 5630) to ensure permitted facilities are in - program sta ff (503 compliance. directly into groundwater □ Share applicable information on UICs: and impact * Oregon DEQ Underground Injection Control Program: downgradient wq/wqpermits/Pages/UIC.aspx surface water Check DEQ’s permit webpage to learn more about permits to protect water quality: - Permits - Applications.aspx

146 Existing or Underground storage □ Notify owner or manager of their location within the drinking tanks (USTs) historic water source area; share technical information about protecting contamination nearby drinking water resources: from spills, leaks, s.aspx or improper *DEQ's Underground Storage Tank Program: handling of nks/Pages/default.aspx stored materials may impact the □ For Active Registered Tanks: Verify permit status at drinking water Lists.aspx - supply; spills or Contact DEQ Tanks program with questions. □ For Leaking USTs, verify stat improper us at handling during - Undergr - tank filling or Tanks.aspx product □ Contact DEQ Tanks program at: Underground Storage Tanks - 229 - bution may distri 800 6652, Helpline, 1 7878, 503 - 742 - - [email protected] or Drinking Water Protection staff (Julie also impact groundwater 5664) for assistance in verifying that cleanup Harvey, DEQ, 503 - 229 - and/or is protective of drinking water. □ For non - regulated tanks (<1,100 gals or large heating oil tanks) downgradient also send: surface water *Frequently Asked Questions About Heating Oil Tanks Utility stations □ Notify the landowner or property manager of their location , Spills, leaks, or substations, within the drinking water source area; identify and discuss pollution improper handling of prevention activities at the site maintenance, and □ Work with DEQ Drinking Water Protection staff or permitting former storage trans chemicals and tted facilities are in compliance. other materials program staff to ensure permi including PCBs □ Request elimination or minimization of herbicide application on during utility station properties that may contaminate groundwater and transportation, downgradient surface water. e □ In areas where pesticides are used for weed suppression, shar use, storage and technical information on pesticides and water quality: disposal may impact the Scale Application of Pesticides: - *Managing Small drinking water acticesBulletin_ supply PesticidesSmallScale.pdf □ See DEQ factsheet “Pesticide use in the vicinity of drinking water sources” for additional regulations and recommendations: cdws.pdf Wastewater Treatment nteractive Map Viewer to verify locations of □ Consult DEQ’s I upstream wastewater treatment outfalls: treatment, outfalls chemicals and equipment - Maps.aspx □ Work with the local first responders to develop a spill response maintenance and/or communication strategy and plan for regular updates. materials may impact surface □ If applicable, ongoing education program for residents or water quality; businesses on household hazardous waste and proper disposal of wastewater pharmaceuticals; obtain grants to implement h ousehold hazardous treatment waste and pharmaceutical collection events to reduce waste input effluent is levels to wastewater treatment plant upstream of drinking water

147 known to intakes contain trace amounts of human, household, and chemical wastes □ Notify well owners of closure requirements for unused wells and Improperl Wells y – construction requirements for active wells. private domestic installed or , maintained wells □ Ensure local cross connection program protects public water municipal, commercial, - supply. and abandoned industrial, irrigation, or unused wells □ Offer educational programs to residential well owners on proper (unused) wells e and drinking water protection. maintenanc may provide a direct conduit □ Verify proper well abandonment in sensitive areas that may for impact surface water intake(s). contamination □ Provide financial incentives for permanent well abandonment to groundwater according to the Water Resources Department’s (WRD) “Water and Well Owne r’s Handbook”. See: downgradient (Provided well construction is adequate, temporary abandonment surface water --- will be protective of groundwater contact WRD Staff for ssistance.) a □ Adopt local ordinance or internal procedures to ensure compliance with WRD well abandonment requirements prior to development. □ Share applicable information from list below: Fact Sheets/Resources *Domestic Well Safety Program – Oregon Healt h Authority er/SourceWater/DomesticWellSafety/Pages/index.aspx *Groundwater Basics: *Water Well Owner’s Handbook & other related guidance documents (WRD): *Groundwater Friendly Gardening Tips: er - friendly - gardening

148 APPENDIX 3. Categorical Crop - to - Pesticide Table

149 APPENDIX 4. Ripa Forestry & Agriculture rian Management Widths: in feet from bankfull width (edge of typical high water level). are outside boundary of zone All distances - no cut, 21 - 100 limited entry.] [For example, Oregon Private RMA for Large F is 0 - 20 Stream Oregon Private Oregon State Forests Federal Forests Agriculture C1 Classification Forests Aquatic Site Capable Limited No Limited Mature No Conservation P1 Cut Entry Entry Forest Cut Vegetation Strategy F1 10 0 2 SPTH S3 S6 A1 100 170 25 Large F 20 Undefined - (300 (230/100) 400ft) F1 70 2 SPTH A1 S6 S3 20 170 Medium F 25 100 Undefined 400ft) (300 (120/74.7) - F1 2 SPTH 50 A1 S6 S3 100 20 170 25 Small F Undefined - (40/34.8) (300 400ft) 1 F 2 SPTH A1 S6 S3 20 100 170 0 8 25 Undefined SSBT Medium - 400ft) (300 F1 2 SPTH S3 S6 A1 100 Small SSBT 170 20 6 0 25 Undefined 400ft) - (300 F1 70 2 SPTH A1 Large D See F See F See F 20 Undefined 400ft) - (90/56.0) (300 F1 50 2 SPTH A1 See F See F See F 20 Medium D Undefined 400ft) - (300 (50/43.6) F1 2 SPTH A1 See F See F See F Small D 20 None Undefined (300 400ft) - F1 70 2 SPTH S3 S7 A1 170 100 20 25 Large N Undefined 400ft) (90/56.0) (300 - F1 50 2 SPTH S3 S7 A1 170 20 25 100 Medium N Undefined - 400ft) (50/43.6) (300 F1 2 SPTH P2 S1 S4 S8 A1 0/10 170 Small Np 25 0 100 Undefined 400ft) - (300 F1 1 SPTH S8 S2 A1 S5 P2 0 170 0/10 25/0 Small Ns Undefined 100 (150 - 200ft) C1: Type F = Streams with anadromous or “game” fish (e.g. cutthroat trout) = Streams with qualifying fish that are used for domestic (drinking) water Type D = Stream with neither qualifying fish nor domestic use; (p/s) designates perennial or seasonal Type N(p/s) = >10cfs (cubic feet per second) average annual flow Large Medium = 2 - 10cfs (cubic feet per second) average annual flow Small = <2cfs (cubic feet pe r second) average annual flow 2 2 / ( ft P per 1000ft of stream 1: ft per acre ) = Coast Range and South Coast regions’ standard target for required conifer basal area retention in square feet per 1000ft/square feet per acre for clearcut harvests . Lower ea retention is allowed if active restoration (e.g. large wood placement) is part of the harvest basal ar

150 operation. have slightly higher or lower retention (see OAR 629 - 640 - 0100 (6) (a) Table Other regions may See ODF rules for SSBT stream details . 1). 2: tory vegetation and conifers less than 6 inches in diameter breast height retained within 10 feet in P Unders Eastern Cascades and Blue Mountain regions; retained within 10 feet in larger drainages in South Coast , Interior region (330 acres) , and Siskiyou region (580 acres) ; and no retention in Coast region (160 acres) - Range and West Cascades regions (see OAR 629 0200 (6) Table 5). 640 - Applied to at least 75% of the reach including junctions with Type F streams. S1 : : High Energy reaches and Potential Debris Flow Track reaches have 25ft no - cut buffer. Other small S2 seasonal Type N reaches have no retention requirements. S3 : Manage for mature forest condition and retain at least 50 trees per acre. 25 conifer trees and snags per acre. : 15 - S4 S5 : 15 - 25 conifer trees an d snags per acre on High Energy reaches, 10 conifer trees and snags per acre on other Type N seasonal streams. : 10 - 45 conifer trees and snags per acre. S6 S7 : At least 10 conifer trees and snags per acre. S8 : 0 - 10 conifer trees and snags per acre. Doesn’t apply to seasonal streams other than High Energy reaches. F1: SPTH= site potential tree height, the maximum height a mature conifer tree is expected to reach based on - 200 feet. the productivity of the site. It ranges from 150 ed under the Northwest Forest Plan which requires management for Federal forestlands are manag ecological purposes only in the riparian reserves. Bureau of Land Management lands in western Oregon are undergoing revisions to their management plans that are expected to reduce the size of riparian reserves while continuing to protect water quality. specify distances for riparian management rule requirements A None of the ODA water quality rules 1: . Specific r ules vary by WQMA but generally require agricultural activities in the riparian are a to allow for establishment, growth, and maintenance of vegetation consistent with “vegetative site capability”, shade production, and sediment filtration. See here for details: .

151 APPENDIX 5. Drinking Water Protection Websites Oregon Health Authority Regulations for drinking water, health effects information, data, etc.: Oregon DEQ’s Drinking Water Protection Technical resources, best management practices, fact sheets, etc.: s/DWP - Pubs.aspx Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Information on landslides, mapping, 3D terrain, and LiDAR: regon Geospatial Enterprise Office O For Oregon Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers: Google Earth For maps, satellite imager y, etc.: https:// earth google .com/ . US Geological Survey Information on toxics, monitoring data, and human health benchmarks, etc.: gov/regional/emc/index.html http://toxics.usgs. Scientific information to identify, assess, and qua ntify the availability of water resources. Information on groundwater levels, a quifers, water use, and water quality. Multidisciplinary studies of regional drinking water availability across the United States to provide resource managers and policy mak ers with essential information needed for management of a limited resource in areas experiencing chronic water - supply issues and concerns. onal.html

Related documents