## CITY OF HILLSBORO

150 E . Main Street , Hillsboro Oregon 97123 Office: 503

- 615

- 670 2

Fax: 503

- 615

- 6595 

### Water Department

March 19, 2008

Bob McDonald Project Lead Bureau of Land Management

Tillamook Resource Area

4610 3rd St. Tillamook, OR 97141



### RE: Protest to the Roaring Creek Decision Rationale as they rel ate to the City of

Hillsboro’s Slow Sand Filter Plant

Dear Mr. McDonald,

The City of Hillsboro Water Department submits this protest regarding the Roaring Creek Projects

Decision and Decision Rationale

. The City of Hillsboro Water D epartment submitted comment s on the EA expressing concerns of inadequate drinking wate r protection. As indicated in those comments our Slow Sand Filtration Plant (SSFP) is extremely susceptible to turbidity events in the Upper Tualatin River

Basin.

The S SFP is located on the Tualatin River west of Haines Falls, approximately 1⁄2 mile down stream from the proposed density management treatment areas in section 29, and just over a mile from the nearest proposed road work. The S SFP is the sole water supply source for the community of Cherry Grove and the primary source for Dilley, LA Water Coop erative, and the City of Gaston.

BLM’s proposed actions threaten to disrupt or severely degrade the capability of the plant to serve those

communities. Due to the limited nature of the treatment process at the SSFP , it is very sensitive to

additional sed iment loads. The EA points out that the treatment plant has experienced high turbidity and nutrient problems in the past (p age 57) yet no accommodating changes were made in the Decision

Rationale [ were no changes made or were the re changes that just aren’t adequate to address high turbidity and nutrient problems ]

. The Water Department is concerned that implementation of the proposed actions could result in significant impacts to our drinking water supply. It is for these reasons that we are particularly con cerned about the impacts the Roaring Creek project may have o n sedimentation and turbidity. This sole drinking water source has not received sufficient management

considerations.We want to be clear that t he Wat er Department is supportiv e of [or not o pposed to] timber harvest that ensures full protection of our public water supply sources that provide drinking water to the more than 300,000 Oregonians that we serve. We also recognize that BLM has a unique responsibility under the Oregon and California (O&C) Act to provide a sustainable supply of timber. However, In addition to sustainable production of timber, the of O&C Act mandates that timber be sold, cut,

and removed “ in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities . . .(43 U.S.C. §1181a)”. Given potential impacts f rom roads and timber harvest

we do not believe that BLM’s proposed decision adequately protect s a watershed that is the sole water supply sourc e for the community of Cherry Grove and the primary source for the communities of Dilley, LA Water Cooperative, a nd the City of Gaston. Further, we believe that impacts to public water supply from BLM’s proposed actions will have adverse economic and destabilizing effects on local communities and industries served by Hillsboro’s Slow Sand Filter Plant. T he se mandate d O&C Act requirements for protecting watersheds and contributing to the economic stability of communit ies have not been adequately addressed by the proposed action, nor in the responses to our comments.

We also note the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are federal laws which require full protection of water quality and beneficial uses such as municipal water supply. The O&C Act does not obviate the need to meet these federal laws.

In the EA’ s scoping letters [ whose letter(s )? ] a comment was made that commercial harvest activities and road construction in municipal watershe d s should be avoided. The BLM responded that no such municipal watersheds existed in the project area. Since this information is incorrect we are asking for a

reconsideratio n of the proposed actions to increase protections to the City of Hillsboro’s municipal water supply source.

Please respond to our additional questions about proposed treatements

. What is the current relative density in riparian areas and upland areas in the harvest units? Will trees in the 60’ no cut zone count
towards calculation of the post

- treatment relative density target s for riparian areas ? Why were proposed relative density targets chosen that will not maximize forest stand vigor and growth and c anopy closure

levels?

M ultiple

- objective thinning research on Olympic National Forest has found that a relative density of 35 to

50 maximize s forest stand vigor and growth. The relative density of mature stands inventoried in Washington State ranged fr om approximately 60 to 87 (see Study on Riparian Desired Future Condition Performance Targets for Forests and Fish Program 2004). BLM’s proposed action would result in stands with a relative density of 25on upland sites and 30 in riparian stands. While w e understand that BLM wants to accelerate the growth of individual trees it is not clear how treatments would meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives 4 and 5 which focus on maintaining and restoring water quality and sediment regimes. Proposed ground based skidding on over half the area

, new roads, and the level of tree removal do not support BLM’s affirmative findings for these two ACS objectives. We believe that

the proposed harvest methods and intensity levels are not appropriate given the public water supply concerns. We suggest that post treatment relative density targets towards the high end of the range for

maximiz ing forest stand vigor and growth would be appropriate. We are not certain how this would relate

to BLM’s basal area targets but note that the above referenced inventory of mature stands in Washington

found mean basal area levels ranging from approximately 300 square feet/acre to 368 square feet/acre depending on site productivity. Removal of no more than a third of the basal a rea on stands in BLM’s sale units would help maintain a higher canopy level and result in less ground disturbance

. We would be agreeable to eliminating harvest and new roads on slopes above 50% in section 29 and on units where there are steep headwall area s or high to moderate erosion potential.Sedimentation due to timber yarding, hauling and road construction and maintenance.

BLM’s argument that the only increase sediment will result from the removal of an existing culvert in

Section 29 is not supported. We believe that the high level of ground based skidding, new road construction, and the relatively high level of tree removal will exacerbate sedimentation and stream turbidity which are already a periodic problem at the SSFP. We support planning operat ions during the summer season and agree that i ncreased sedimentation will occur during the first rainfall event . However, the effects of topsoil disturbance, roads, reduced canopy levels, soil compaction, and disturbance of steep

headwalls will be seen in subsequent winter seasons.

Review of analysis determining road construction affects on water quality.

BLM comments that any increases in sedimentation and turbidity would occur over a three year time period. Our municipal water supply must deliver water every hour of every day. The turbidity increases for three years will require major operational and maintenance adjustments by means of increasing staff time to monitor turbidity levels and the increased capital costs of filtration materials.

As implied by the EA, road use alone causes increases in sedimentation. The mere presence of an improved road can increase the sedimentation delivery (Jones). We do acknowledge and support BLM efforts to decommission decaying roads. We object to BLM’s reluctance to a cknowledge that even well constructed roads can increase sedimentation delivery , particularly in a watershed that provides such a sensitive municipal water supply source.

Based on our discussions with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and t he Environmental Protection Agency it is our understanding that other Oregon municipalities are dealing with high turbidity levels as a result of forest practices attributed to roads and harvest levels and methods. Water quality impacts from f

orest practi ces on private and State lands and management associated with other land uses makes a conservative approach on BLM lands even more important from a cumulative effects perspective.

City of Hillsboro coordination with BLM The City of Hillsboro is very appr eciative of the assurances BLM has made to keep our staff involved. We will be required to increase staff presence at the SSFP to track turbidity levels to prevent a total plant

shut down. The COH Water Department requests to be informed of all pending lan d use activities including harvest, fertilizer and herbicide application.

Sedimentation

The Decision Rationale claims to accommodate the Upper Tualatin/Scoggins Creek Watershed analysis. According to this document a key water quality recommendation is to “expand the Best Management Practices to reduce sediment discharge to streams and revegetate eroding areas.” Sedimentation is impairing the biological function of the watershed (Upper Tualatin Watershed Analysis). The reduction of

erosion and mass flow ev ents is also a major management goal of the Upper Tualatin watershed analysis. It recommends increases in riparian vegetation to reduce erosion and filter pollutants.

Currently the BMPs for erosion reduction have not been adequately assessed for the Upper Tualatin basin (w ater shed analysis)

. However, the NW Forest Plan Preliminary Assessment has shown that riparian reserves of this magnitude have been successful in maintaining watershed conditions. These riparian reserves are 180 feet along intermittent st reams and 360 feet along fish bearing streams. We ask that the BLM consider increasing the riparian reserves to meet these NW Forest Plan requirements. It has been shown that an effective buffer width is 300ft for overland flows, but that sediment can be t ransported4500ft if channels are formed (Belt and O’Laughlin 1994). Given the steep topography and highly

erodible soils we request an increased buffer width.

We ask that the BLM create BMPs to control erosion. BMPs and erosion control measures on roads

newly constructed and decommissioned

- and surrounding any harvest activities affecting the SSFP at least one year after operations. Coordinating the implementation of these BMPs with the COH is the best method. This has been successful in coordinating wit h private forestry operations adjacent to COH’s municipal water supply sources.

The limited buffer size proposed by the BLM is not congrue nt with the recommendations of either the watershed analysis, or the NW Forest Plan. We ask that the BLM aggressively consider increasing the size of the stream buffer width, especially in section 29.

Mass Wasting Pg 64 of EA “Most of the eroded material in the upper Roaring Creek appears to originate from natural sources, mainly from deep

- seated mass wasting.” Pg 49” A few additional, small fragile areas will probably be identified and removed upon closer examination during the timber sale layout” We implore the BLM to be overly cautious when selecting these areas especially in area 29.

Additionally, a ll activities in riparian areas must not retard or prevent attainment of NW Forest Plan aquatic conservation strategy objectives. Including maintaining and restoring the sediment regime composed of timing, volume, rate and character of sediment input, storage and transpor t. We feel that the currently proposed actions put the soil at high risk for major alterations to the sediment regime and the increase of mass wasting events.

Since, the primary interest is to increase the growth rate of individual tress the RD should be increased even further from 30 to a minimum of 35 or more agreeably to 50. A n RD of this magnitude will minimize soil displacement and maximize precipitation interception. The proposed RD of 30 in this highly sensitive area is deemed inadequate in our opi nion.

No

- Harvest Areas Riparian no harvest buffers may have yarding corridors cut through if necessary. Trees cut in the buffer will be left on site to augment CWD (Pg 25). Yarding corridors expected to be 12 feet wide and 150 feet

apart.

Cumulative Impa cts In the past decade the Upper Tualatin watershed has been heavily logged by private industrial and non

industrial owners. Combine these recent logging events with the planned BLM and ODF ones and it

becomes obvious that the SSFP has be e n placed in a pre carious environment.

Nonmarket values Impacts to nonmarket values are not well described or quantified in the EA analysis. These values affect

the economic well

- being, health, and resiliency of these local communities served by the COH SSFP.

Clean drinki ng water is a highly valued commodity produced by BLM lands. The valuable commodity of the clean drinking water entrusted to BLM’s hands of economic well

- being, public health, and resiliency

of these local communities. The increased value of the BLM’s fidu ciary responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public would.Even if full SSFP shut down is not a direct result of the actions taken by BLM, even minor increased

sedimentation loads will increase the operational and maintenance co st including staff time, filtration, monitoring

Protection measures As administrators of the Clean Water Act, the DEQ regulates water protection measures. Although the State of Oregon does not have a water quality standards specifically for protection of municipal water sources (pg 57) a turbidity water quality standard does exist. Water quality standards not only include a numeric and narrative criteria, they also include designated beneficial uses which must be fully protected,

and an anti

- degradation po licy. We note that municipal water supply is one of if not the most sensitive beneficial use which must be protected. All waters within Oregon regardless of whether they pass through public or private lands must not increase turbidity levels more than 10 % of background levels. All BLM operations must meet this standard of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The SSFP closely monitors turbidity levels, should the level increase more than 10% the DEQ will be notified of the violation. Should turbidity levels become higher than 5 NTUs we will need to shut down the SSFP.

Recommendations Eliminate logging on slopes above 50% in section 29 [see earlier text for other areas]

. Increase harvest buffer to meet NW Forest Plan standards, including 180ft buffers along intermittent streams and 360ft buffers along fish bearing streams. Or at least 100 ft buffers along

intermittent. [are you sure these aren’t the buffers proposed]

BMPs and erosion control measures on roads

- newly constructed and decommissioned

- and

surro unding any harvest activities affecting the SSFP at least one year after operations. Minimize number and potential impact of corridors needed for operations within no harvest buffers and riparian reserves. If considering no harvest buffer and/or riparia n reserve within the RD calculation, then increase RD to 0.4. If these areas are not included in the RD calculation, then increase the RD to 0.35. [see earlier discussion]

Make sure recommendations are conistent with earlier text or change earlier text.

Please call if you have any questions at (503) 615

- 6585

Sincerely,

Kevin Hanway Director, Water Department City of Hillsboro (503) 615

- 6585

kevinha@ci.hillsboro.or.us