Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
03/25/2023Douglas Pollock To: Joel Plahn, district 22 watermaster, OWRD Priscilla Woolverton, Willamette Basin coordinator, DEQ Janna Stevens, water planning coordinator, ODFW Toby Lewis, senior planner/flood plain administrator, Benton County Ryan Beyer, compliance specialist, ODA From: Doug Pollock Re: Please DENY Application R 89321 - Permit to Store Water in a Reservoir 3/24/23 Dear Mr. Plahn, Ms. Woolverton, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Lewis, and Mr. Beyer, You each have a designated role as public employees tasked with upholding various provisions of our regulations designed to protect water resources. Unfortunately, our regulations and processes are full of gaps. Government agencies seem to have a great deal of discretion in their interpretation of rules, and enforcement actions are exceptionally rare. I'm reminded of a discussion I had with the former Benton County development director (a neighbor) years ago. I was complaining about a cabin someone had constructed next to Soap Creek and was renting out (without obtaining a building permit or providing bathroom facilities). The director claimed there was nothing he could do about it (even though he conceded it was in violation of county code). He drove past it on his way to work each day, but chose to look the other way. There will always be irresponsible individuals who choose to take advantage of loopholes and a severe lack of resources in our public institutions. When those entrusted with upholding our regulations look the other way, they encourage more violations and diminish public trust. The applicant has already done a number of things that have clearly caused significant adverse impacts to Soap Creek and the adjacent riparian zone. He constructed a catchment and drainage system to channel water into a retaining pond. He removed vegetation using heavy equipment in a lengthy section of riparian wetlands along Soap Creek (and was grazing his cattle and pigs there). He used heavy equipment to dredge and expand the capacity of the existing pond. He excavated a ditch from the pond to Soap Creek (through a wetland and riparian area) and installed a culvert. All of these actions were done without any permit, in apparent violation of numerous provisions of law (e.g. protecting wetlands, riparian zones, requiring a permit to dredge in a wetlands, enlarging a reservoir without a permit, etc.). One result (which neighbors have documented and reported) was a significant discharge of sediment into Soap Creek during wet winter months. A second result is that the unpermitted reservoir has been deepened, increasing risk of overflow/rupture in the future. The construction of the catchment and drainage canal into Soap Creek will likely continue to cause sedimentation and erosion. All of these unpermitted constructions will have a direct, adverse impact on the water quality and aquatic habitat of Soap Creek. In addition to these tangible offenses, the applicant's reckless actions have exposed the weaknesses of our regulatory system - which you ostensibly represent and uphold. The DEQ rep. has claimed she has no jurisdiction when it comes to dredging ponds or destroying riparian habitat without a permit. Then who does? The ODA rep. gave us a minor victory by requiring the applicant to install a fence to keep livestock out of the most sensitive riparian area, but apparently failed to see anything wrong with the applicant's numerous other offenses. I don't know what the Benton Co. rep. thought or did, as that section of the application is blank (except for the sign-off). I'm glad ODFW expressed objections to pumping water from the creek during dry months. But I wonder why any of you would think it's okay to draw water from a creek that is on the DEQ's 303d list of impaired waters and already fails to meet numerous water quality standards. I also wonder if any of you are concerned about the numerous violations of the "Menu of Conditions" (on page 16 of the packet) that the applicant has already committed. These include: "Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Rules:...The permittee shall protect riparian areas...through the management of any livestock..." "fishdiv33: If the riparian area is disturbed in the process of developing a point of diversion, the permittee shall be responsible for restoration and enhancement..." "In-Water or Riparian Construction:...permittee may be required to obtain additional permits prior to construction..." "Off-channel Stored Water Releases: The permittee shall not release polluted waters into the waters of the State..." "riparian: If the riparian area is disturbed in the process of developing a point of diversion, the permittee shall be responsible for restoration and enhancement..." "Water Quality:...The permittee shall ... not cause pollution of any waters of the State...and shall not place any wastes....where such wastes are likely to escape or be carried into the waters of the state..." (a neighbor told me the applicant has buried cattle carcasses in the riparian zone). "wetland: The permittee must submit an offsite determination request...to determine the need for a wetland delineation...prior to disturbance or development of the point of diversion..." Why is it that those responsible for protecting these water resources, are unable or unwilling to hold people like the applicant accountable for gross violations of our regulations? This application ought to be rejected outright because the applicant has already violated numerous conditions that approval would entail. If you now grant this application with those same conditions, you are sending the message that it's okay for people to do whatever they want when it comes to our water resources. Without any meaningful consequences, you will encourage these types of violations and make your jobs even harder in the future. Clearly, the applicant's actions have already and will continue to "pose a significant detrimental impact to fisheries resources". By significantly enlarging the capacity of the reservoir, creating major sources of sedimentation, and excavating a drainage line in the riparian zone, the applicant has caused conditions that will continue to degrade the aquatic habitat and water quality of Soap Creek. Having a large reservoir in the floodplain next to Soap Creek is a significant risk to water quality (regardless of how it is filled). The applicant has substantially increased this risk through his unauthorized enlargement of the existing, unpermitted reservoir. Furthermore, the applicant has indicated his intent to withdraw water from Soap Creek during the "off season" (drier months) which is in violation of the specific ODFW requirements (not allowing water to be withdrawn between 1. April and 30. November). Given his past behavior and expressed intent, one should reasonably expect the applicant to withdraw water from Soap Creek during the prohibited period. Indeed, he has expressed this as a primary purpose of the application! I am also concerned about the lack of means to prevent (or even detect) out-of-season use of the proposed "gravity feed" and "pump draw" in Soap Creek. This section of Soap Creek is relatively inaccessible, with thick brush covering multiple channels. It will be difficult for anyone to access the creek bed to ensure compliance. The applicant has also failed to provide any information about how the "gravity feed" would work (as there is likely not enough drop in the creek to supply water to the pond). It is unclear how he expects to power the "pump draw". Installing the electrical conduit required by code would create further disturbance and erosion in the riparian/wetland zone. In short, the applicant's plans are ill-conceived, vague and unenforceable. I urge you to assert your responsibilities and deny this application! Doug Pollock
03/25/2023Mark Yeager Public Comment – App. R – 89321 March 25, 2023 I support and second the public comments submitted opposing this application for a reservoir storage water use permit. Specifically, those comments submitted by Glenn Griffith, Dale Blackburn, Janet Ohmann, and others. Approval of this application would make a mockery of the entire regulatory system designed to protect waters of the state; fisheries recovery efforts (specifically ESA listed salmon and steelhead); water quality (temperature and turbidity); and wetland and riparian habitat protection and restoration efforts. For more than two years, this property owner has systematically abused the land and riparian areas, has created illegal water storage areas (a pond that has been created next to Moss Rock Road, not the pond that is subject of this application), has conducted and exceeded soil removal and fill limits without a permit, and has caused multiple instances of extremely high turbidity water releases into Soap Creek. The “runoff” water that is proposed to be captured and stored in the reservoir does NOT begin on his property. It is runoff from the hillside far west of his property across Moss Rock Road. Water that would otherwise flow into Soap Creek. The property owner clearly plans to divert water from Soap Creek during the low flow season. See application Project Description – “I am proposing a draw location from Soap Creek in order to pump water into the reservoir during off seasons. I proposed to add a gated box upstream on Soap Creek allowing gravity fill.” This property does not have a water right to withdraw water from Soap Creek and this application is not an application for a new water right. How can water be diverted, either pumped or gravity flow, without a water right? The proposed project description also does not meet required fish screening requirements for any diversions (pumped or gravity) from Soap Creek. While a pond has apparently existed on the property for some years without the required permits, this application is NOT simply a request to permit an existing use. The property owner has dramatically changed the existing “pond” through excavation and re-channelization, all without any permits. This application is not approvable or permissible under the rules and must be denied.
03/24/2023Brett Reistad We are writing in response to the Alternative Review application for R-89321 regarding water rights at 37481 Moss Rock Drive, Corvallis, OR. Our address is 27630 Writsman Creek Dr. and we own property on both sides of Soap Creek across from and immediately downstream of the proposed site. As downstream neighboring property owners we have water quantity, water quality, biosecurity, and invasive species concerns about the proposed pond expansion project that we would like to be considered in the discussion. We have concerns that the water quality of Soap Creek will be negatively impacted by the withdrawal of water specifically during drier seasons. We have observed over our 22 years of living along Soap Creek that the historical runoff period has decreased over time. The proposed withdrawal period of September through July (11 months of the year), would allow unregulated withdrawal during many months that have in recent history had minimal creek flow. Reducing the creek flow would contribute to higher water temperatures and lower oxygen levels. These impacts together with the additional nutrient load from water returned untreated from the pond to the creek would decrease water quality and be harmful to fish. Biosecurity threats: This proposal increases biological health threats to humans as well as domestic and wild animals. Allowing for the draw of water out of Soap Creek will increase the water in the pond and lengthens the period of time that the pond has habitat to attract wild waterfowl. This would increase the opportunity for and likelihood of disease transmission between wild and domestic animals. Many neighboring properties to the pond house poultry flocks. Avian flu biosecurity article: https://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/animalhealthfeedslivestockid/animaldiseases/pages/avianinfluenza.aspx Allowing for the draw of water out of Soap Creek will extend the period of time of stagnant water in the pond, beyond that which would occur from natural runoff into the pond, thereby increasing the mosquito population every year. Mosquitoes pose health threats to people as well as domesticated animals through West Nile virus, Zika virus, and other pathogens. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/diseasesconditions/diseasesaz/westnilevirus/pages/wnile.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/diseasesconditions/diseasesaz/zika/pages/index.aspx We are also concerned about the common issues mentioned in an OSU Extension article (link below) about the threats to water quality from nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation in ponds with eventual run off into Soap Creek. The particular concern is the proposed direct piped discharge of pond overflow water to the creek, rather than the existing berm overflow with overland flow to the creek that would provide some degree of natural treatment of the water before reaching the creek. Our property and creek access is directly downstream of the return flow from this proposal. Our drinking water source is a well sourced from an aquifer below the proposed pond expansion area. https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em9243/html The OSU Extension article highlights the threats domestic ponds present from aquatic invasive plants and animals. Currently the aquatic invasive plant species are limited to reed canary grass. The proposed pond expansion provides habitat for introduction of new aquatic invasive species several miles higher up in the watershed. For example, yellow flag iris is established at Coffin Butte landfill, and if it or another ODA listed invasive species established through equipment or animal transfer to this proposed pond expansion site three miles upstream the environmental damage will be significant, expensive, and very difficult to control for all the property owners downstream. We have observed both native frog species (pacific chorus and red legged frogs) as well as invasive American bullfrogs in our riparian area on Soap Creek. This proposal will increase the size and quality of the artificial habitat in which bullfrogs thrive and is very likely to increase their local population with the following outcome as quoted from the below linked article: “Bullfrogs cause decline of native species through competition and predation. The bullfrog can also be a carrier of the chytrid fungus that affects frogs and amphibians, and is a contributor to many dwindling native amphibian populations around the world.” https://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sites/seagrant.oregonstate.edu/files/bf-species-guide.pdf
03/24/2023Julie Gust Soap Creek is a very small tributary. Any water taken from it would be detrimental to such an ecosystem. The water volume should be kept as is to maintain the existing cutthroat population.
03/23/2023David Patte I urge you to deny this application. Awarding this application would reward unpermitted and unlawful activities that have already disturbed the environment and reduced flows into Soap Creek. This proposal would further degrade the impaired waters of Soap Creek. There are a plethora of permitted and unpermitted ponds and diversions in the Soap Creek Valley that are contributing to water quality problems in the creek and its tributaries. A simple Google Earth/Satellite review will show dozens and dozens of such diversions, including the one in this application which was constructed without evaluation, review and approval. For example, the OSU Ranch property still contains several old hatchery ponds that were constructed decades ago and formerly owned by ODFW. Why have these abandoned ponds been allowed to capture water when there is no need, and no beneficial use of this withheld water? There are many more examples in the Valley. I also want to second concerns shared and sent to you by others as follows. Many thanks. Soap Creek is on the DEQ’s 303d list of impaired waters, as reported to US EPA. Soap Creek does not meet water quality standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen and this has been a problem for many years. Meeting these standards is crucial for supporting fisheries habitat. The OR Dept. of Agriculture’s 2020 document, Middle Willamette Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (p.31) also notes there are temperature violations year-round on Soap Creek as well as dissolved oxygen concerns. In Section 5 Environmental Impact, the applicant checked “unknown” on the question of “Is there a fish habitat upstream of the proposed structure?” That is incorrect and contrary to documented fish habitat in this part of Soap Creek. In the Luckiamute Watershed Rapid Bio-Assessment 2008, author Steve Trask states (p.33): "The best conditions for Cutthroat and Steelhead were encountered upstream of the large wetland habitat at the Writsman Rd. Bridge. Colder temperatures and stronger flows were noted here ….. A prime stream gradient is maintained through this reach which has created a very healthy pool/riffle ratio and excellent conditions for salmonid spawning.... This is clearly the most critical habitat in the Soap Cr sub-basin for salmonid production." The lower portion of Soap Creek is deemed essential salmonid habitat by the OR Dept. of State Lands (https://maps.dsl.state.or.us/esh/). On p.38 of the 2008 Luckiamute Watershed report were these recommendations: "Decrease water temperatures in the lower Luckiamute, Little Luckiamute, and Soap Cr. mainstem habitats. This is a long term goal that will be accomplished through minimizing water withdrawals, initiating riparian canopy development and excluding cattle from stream channels and riparian vegetation." In contradiction to these recommendations, the applicant’s proposal would increase water withdrawals, evaporate more water from the system, and return warmed water to the stream. Warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen and this impacts fish and fish habitat. The applicant’s recent practices include removing riparian canopy/shading, while overgrazing cattle and pigs near stream channels and riparian vegetation. In Section 7 Description, the applicant states, “The reservoir is separate from Soap Creek.” This is incorrect relative to likely hydrological connections and the reservoir is well within the 100year (or 1% annual chance) floodplain. The existing pond is 150-160 feet from the creek. The upslope 100-year floodplain boundary line is about 72 feet to the west of the pond. The 100-year floodplain boundary, based on the FEMA 2011 mapping, is outdated relative to storm potentials and floods likely to occur with higher atmospheric moisture levels under rising temperatures. In Section 7, the applicant’s description of how he will convey stream water from the south end of the property to the pond is vague, but likely involves the use of heavy equipment along the length of the riparian zone, impacting soils and creating more bare dirt as a source of sediment. On his map and description is he proposing two draw locations? Why would two be necessary? For return flows from the pond to the stream, the applicant mentions “12’ Culvert plus 30’ of Delta”. What does this Delta even mean? How is water returned over the other 100+ feet? As part of ODFW’s mitigation plan for damaging stream and fish habitat in this project, they state “The applicant must maintain the berm around the pond as constructed.” This is only an invitation for the applicant to use his heavy earth-moving equipment in the floodplain on a frequent basis to grade and reshape the area, which will likely create more erosion and add nutrient-enriched sediment to the creek. If ODFW is suggesting a December through March period for stream water withdrawal, how would that be enforced? Watermasters and agencies are understaffed. The stream is ungauged. Shouldn’t the applicant be required to put a flowmeter on his intakes since the stream is already impaired? Shouldn’t there be a record of the volume of water diverted? On the “Menu of Conditions for WRD, ODFW, DEQ, and ODA” the box for Live Flow is checked, i.e., ”Once the allocated volume has been stored, permittee shall pass all live flow downstream at a rate equal to inflow, using methods that protect instream water quality.” The problem is in this process itself. The applicant can withdraw creek water to fill the pond, some of that water will then evaporate or infiltrate and be lost to the stream. Live flow back into the creek will likely be return water of warmer temperatures (i.e., off the top of the pond) and possibly with higher nutrients. Many of the boxes checked on the “Menu of Conditions” are for practices that the applicant has already violated. With a lack of monitoring, poor enforcement, and reliance on voluntary compliance, the stream will surely be the loser. Benton County Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.2.4 states that, “Benton County shall place a high priority on maintaining natural systems and processes as a biological method for maintaining and protecting clean water.” And Benton County Policy 6.2.10 states that, “Water resources shall be managed wherever possible on a watershed or landcape scale to assure continuity and integrity of practices to the waterway.” Do these words have any meaning or do we just continue to degrade our streams with death by a thousand cuts? Intact riparian zones are among the most productive and valuable natural resources in the world because they support numerous ecological processes (e.g., high species diversity, wildlife habitat, nutrient recycling, etc.). They help reduce erosion and flood damage, maintain cool water temperatures, filter pollutants, and protect critical habitats. Many thanks!
03/22/2023Glenn Griffith This application for a water right to withdraw water from Soap Creek has several problems. I urge the involved state and local agencies to deny the application as written. While I do not object to granting a permit for a pond using runoff only, I do object to pulling water from Soap Creek to fill this pond. Under Oregon law, water belongs to the public. This project would take a public resource, use it for non-essential private purposes, and reduce the quality and quantity of Soap Creek. Soap Creek is on the DEQ’s 303d list of impaired waters, as reported to US EPA. Soap Creek does not meet water quality standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen and this has been a problem for many years. Meeting these standards is crucial for supporting fisheries habitat. The OR Dept. of Agriculture’s 2020 document, Middle Willamette Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (p.31) also notes there are temperature violations year-round on Soap Creek as well as dissolved oxygen concerns. The application and proposal is vague on the amount of water that will be withdrawn from Soap Creek. In Section 2 Source of Water it lists the Quantity as 3 Acre-Feet. On p.20, Land Use Information Form, under B Description of Proposed Use, “Estimated quantity of water needed” is left blank. On the “Alternate Reservoir Application Completeness Checklist, the “Amount Requested” is listed as 3 cubic feet per second. It is unclear if the withdrawn water is a set volume or a constant flow. If the pond capacity is 3 acre-feet, that amount equals 977,554 US gallons of water. A typical mid-Willamette valley household (2.5 people) uses about 90,000 gallons/year for domestic purposes, so the pond volume of water is similar to that amount used by nearly 11 homes in a year. Or, consider one day of 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) withdrawn from the creek. That amounts to about 1346 US gallons per minute, 80,760 gallons per hour, or 1,938,240 gallons per day. That one day of water withdrawal is similar to the amount used by 21 homes in a year. One month of 3 cfs withdrawal equals 58,147,200 gallons, enough water for 646 homes for a year. These are not trivial amounts of water. In Section 5 Environmental Impact, the applicant checked “unknown” on the question of “Is there a fish habitat upstream of the proposed structure?” That is incorrect and contrary to documented fish habitat in this part of Soap Creek. In the Luckiamute Watershed Rapid Bio-Assessment 2008, author Steve Trask states (p.33): "The best conditions for Cutthroat and Steelhead were encountered upstream of the large wetland habitat at the Writsman Rd. Bridge. Colder temperatures and stronger flows were noted here ….. A prime stream gradient is maintained through this reach which has created a very healthy pool/riffle ratio and excellent conditions for salmonid spawning.... This is clearly the most critical habitat in the Soap Cr sub-basin for salmonid production." The lower portion of Soap Creek is deemed essential salmonid habitat by the OR Dept. of State Lands (https://maps.dsl.state.or.us/esh/). On p.38 of the 2008 Luckiamute Watershed report were these recommendations: "Decrease water temperatures in the lower Luckiamute, Little Luckiamute, and Soap Cr. mainstem habitats. This is a long term goal that will be accomplished through minimizing water withdrawals, initiating riparian canopy development and excluding cattle from stream channels and riparian vegetation." In contradiction to these recommendations, the applicant’s proposal would increase water withdrawals, evaporate more water from the system, and return warmed water to the stream. Warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen and this impacts fish and fish habitat. The applicant’s recent practices include removing riparian canopy/shading, while overgrazing cattle and pigs near stream channels and riparian vegetation. In Section 7 Description, the applicant states, “The reservoir is separate from Soap Creek.” This is incorrect relative to likely hydrological connections and the reservoir is well within the 100-year (or 1% annual chance) floodplain. The existing pond is 150-160 feet from the creek. The upslope 100-year floodplain boundary line is about 72 feet to the west of the pond. The 100-year floodplain boundary, based on the FEMA 2011 mapping, is outdated relative to storm potentials and floods likely to occur with higher atmospheric moisture levels under rising temperatures. In Section 7, the applicant’s description of how he will convey stream water from the south end of the property to the pond is vague. Is he using a pipe? Digging a canal? Either way this likely means his use of heavy equipment along the length of the riparian zone, impacting soils and creating more bare dirt as a source of sediment. On his map and description is he proposing two draw locations? Why would two be necessary? For return flows from the pond to the stream, the applicant mentions “12’ Culvert plus 30’ of Delta”. What does this Delta even mean? How is water returned over the other 100+ feet? As part of ODFW’s mitigation plan for damaging stream and fish habitat in this project, they state “The applicant must maintain the berm around the pond as constructed.” This is only an invitation for the applicant to use his heavy earth-moving equipment in the floodplain on a frequent basis to grade and reshape the area, which will likely create more erosion and add nutrient-enriched sediment to the creek. If ODFW is suggesting a December through March period for stream water withdrawal, how would that be enforced? Watermasters and agencies are understaffed. The stream is ungauged. Shouldn’t the applicant be required to put a flowmeter on his intakes since the stream is already impaired? Shouldn’t there be a record of the volume of water diverted? On the “Menu of Conditions for WRD, ODFW, DEQ, and ODA” the box for Live Flow is checked, i.e., ”Once the allocated volume has been stored, permittee shall pass all live flow downstream at a rate equal to inflow, using methods that protect instream water quality.” The problem is in this process itself. The applicant can withdraw creek water to fill the pond, some of that water will then evaporate or infiltrate and be lost to the stream. Live flow back into the creek will likely be return water of warmer temperatures (i.e., off the top of the pond) and possibly with higher nutrients. Many of the boxes checked on the “Menu of Conditions” are for practices that the applicant has already violated. With a lack of monitoring, poor enforcement, and reliance on voluntary compliance, the stream will surely be the loser. Benton County Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.2.4 states that, “Benton County shall place a high priority on maintaining natural systems and processes as a biological method for maintaining and protecting clean water.” And Benton County Policy 6.2.10 states that, “Water resources shall be managed wherever possible on a watershed or landcape scale to assure continuity and integrity of practices to the waterway.” Do these words have any meaning or do we just continue to degrade our streams with death by a thousand cuts? Intact riparian zones are among the most productive and valuable natural resources in the world because they support numerous ecological processes (e.g., high species diversity, wildlife habitat, nutrient recycling, etc.). They help reduce erosion and flood damage, maintain cool water temperatures, filter pollutants, and protect critical habitats. A quick way to benefit aquatic ecosystems is to back off— to keep our human infrastructure and damaging activities away from the stream. The applicant could do more to collect roof runoff from his own buildings to help fill the pond, but please don’t let him dewater and degrade Soap Creek. I hope that you Oregon and Benton County personnel can do all you can to help protect this valuable public resource.
03/22/2023Buford Blackburn To the OWRD staff, I want to say from the beginning that I oppose the application of Adrian Shannon’s request “To Store Water in a Reservoir” file number R-89321. Yes, there has been a pond of 25+ years on the property he purchased 2 years ago (Benton County Taxlots 10534C000100/10534B001800). This pond is fed by water runoff from the hill above his property and along ditches on Moss Rock Road. My property is directly across Moss Rock (Benton County Taxlot 10534B001600). I have lived here for 25 years and have maintained those ditches along the road to prevent spillover onto the road as well as minimal trenching to maintain a clean flow of water without sedimentation. During the rainy season there has always been enough water to fill the pond and lasting through the dry season. I could not tell you if there was a way for water to drain from his pond or just overflowed the berm. However, in a letter to him from the ODA, Agricultural Water Quality Program, dated September 27, 2021, it stated “that livestock are not accessing surface water and there appears to be no connection between the pond and Soap Creek”. That changed last year, June 29, 2022, when Mr. Shannon dug a ditch from the pond to Soap Creek and drained his pond. He then excavated the pond deeper and spread the sediment along his side of Moss Rock over the culvert carrying the water under the road, in the southern boundary of his property within a riparian area that has a tendency to get high water from the creek, and other places on his property. (At this time his pigs are rooting in a pasture that extends into that southern portion that gets high water from the creek). Presently, there is no water in his pond because it appears to be draining through the culvert he placed in the bottom of the pond to the creek. If he is just now applying for a permit, where was his approval for the work he did last summer and fall? In his application, Section 7: Description, he states “The reservoir will drain from the surface of the reservoir to Soap Creek via 12’ culvert plus 30’ of delta to slow the velocity of the water”. Does this mean the culvert goes directly to Soap Creek or stops short to flow into the “delta”? Why does he need a culvert if he wants to retain water and have it flow over the berm into the “delta”? Included in the ODFW Alternate Reservoir Application Review Sheet “The proposed pond location is within the floodplain…..The applicant must maintain the berm around the pond as constructed”. I think the “delta” could just as well be called wetlands! In Mr. Shannon’s application for a permit to Store Water in a Reservoir, Section 5: Environmental Impact; Wetland he has marked “unknown”. Reviewing the overlays from the BentonCountygis.maps his project appears to be in the wetlands and, as stated above, is in the floodplain. However, the wetland has not been officially determined. In a letter from the OWRD, dated January 18, 2023, saying Mr. Shannon’s application has been received, there was a DSL Wetland Determination Request form “to determine if wetlands or other regulated water bodies (such as creeks) are in the project area”. In conversation with DSL staff this request has not been submitted. As part of his project, he has drawn maps showing the “point of diversion” to access the water presumably from the creek itself and traveling 800-900’ to the pond. What kind of structure will this be? A ditch that will alter the flow of ever changing channels in this section of Soap Creek? Or a culvert that will block the flow of side channels? And he wants to use this structure in the “offseason”? Again referring to the ODFW review sheet, “Water is only available to support the quality and quantity of biologically necessary flows at the POD and/or downstream during December1-March 31”. While reviewing the application forms and a brochure from the DSL-Working in Wetlands and Waterways, I learned that the section of Soap Creek from the mouth at the Luckiamute River to Tampico Road in Benton County is considered Essential Salmonid Habitat. Soap Creek from Tampico Road to the headwaters in McDonald Forest are not included in this ESH designation. I have submitted a DSL Review Request Form to get this section of Soap Creek included in the ESH. The paperwork was submitted to DSL on March 7, 2023, and has been forwarded to the ODFW for review. Please take this into consideration while deciding on the outcome of this application. Oregon State University College of Agriculture has a webpage for the Soap Creek and Berry Creek farms that states “Just over 100 acres of riparian area at Soap Creek is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program of Farm Service Agency”. This voluntary program provided by Oregon’s Riparian Enhancement Initiative encourages “removal (of) cropland and marginal pastureland” to “improve water quality by reducing sediment, nutrients, nitrogen, and other pollutants from entering streams and rivers, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat”. This as an alternative option that should be offered to Mr. Shannon instead of permitting his proposed reservoir project. This section of Soap Creek has unique qualities (among many other rural streams in the Willamette Valley) with the riparian areas, shifting pools, and vegetative structure that it is worth protecting without destructive encroachments. Thank You, Dale Blackburn
03/21/2023Debbie Seeley  Re: Water Rights Permit Application Adrian Shannon Application#___R89321_________________ My name is Debbie Seeley and I live at 37941 Moss Rock Drive, next to (downstream from) the Applicant, Adrien Shannon. As many of our neighbors, I have concerns. I would object to anything that would harm either Soap Creek or the animals or the fish in and around Soap Creek. We have already seen most if not all the vegetation removed from the area around the creek. I am concerned that by stripping the vegetation the bank of the creek will start to erode. This will adversely affect my portion of the stream as well as everyone downstream. Now Mr. Shannon is proposing putting in a gravity feed line or pump to take water from the creek. The pond on his property has been filled by the runoff from the hill for many years. I don’t understand what the need is for additional water from the creek. I would also like to know how much noise would be heard when a pump is running. Could that noise bother the wildlife? Aside from pumping water from the creek Mr. Shannon is also proposing that he be allowed to drain excess water into the creek. Depending upon what Mr. Shannon is planning to do with the pond it could easily adversely effect Soap Creek. If the pond is to be a duck pond, I believe there will be problems with feces and sludge will be pumped into the creek. Some of us have grandchildren that still wade and swim in that fresh water creek. I believe that you are not supposed to dig a trench in the watershed, Mr. Shannon has already done so. My next concern would be who will monitor the effects of pumping water out of and into the Soap Creek? What governmental agency makes sure if this application is approved that there is no lasting damage to Soap Creek? Many of my neighbors have tried to work with ODFW, Department of State Lands and Benton County Planning Department. As I understand it, there has been no real follow-up to the last time someone was here and gave Mr. Shannon instructions to replant some of the vegetation, which I do not believe has been done. Therefore, I question what department would monitor Soap Creek to assure the safety of the ecosystem in and around the creek. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
03/19/2023Hewes Hewes I have lived in Soap Creek Valley since 1995 and I am a neighbor of this property - one property separates our property from the proposed project. I oppose this project because it would potentially affect the flora and fauna of the wetland of our property which is 1/8 of a mile upstream. By taking water from Soap Creek to keep a pond filled would affect wildlife and stream flows during winter. Our valley is experiencing a long term drought with rainfall declining over the last ten years. Respectfully submitted Thomas Hewes
03/14/2023Bart W. Spiller Dale E. Draeger Hello! Our property adjoins the water right spplicat's property. The applicant has enlarged his pond significantly and then dug a ditch for the outflow of the pond without a permit. It is a sizable ditch into the wetland area. The appllicant removed flora, fauna and tree canopy from the wetland and Soap Creek. He was told a year ago that it was a wetland area but in his application he says that it is "unknown" that his project is in a wetland. It is shown on on several maps that portions of this project are within the wetland. These maps are available and accessible on the Benton County website. His proposal for taking water from Soap Creek are within the wetlands. Soap Creek on this application has many channels and it is hard to conceive of drawing water from the wetlands on the proposed site, especially at the location furthest from his pond using gravity feed. The wetlands encompassing this project is a unique ecosystem with many beneficial attributes for both fish and wildlife. Coyote, bobcat, otter, fish and many bird species use this sections of Soap Creek.It is a wildlife corridor. Further, we have consistently been getting less average rain fall in the Soap Creek valley that supports this wetlands. Soap Creek is already under stress from increased temperatures and sediment runoff. We are opposed to using water from the creek to fill the pond for the applicant's personal use as it would affect stream flow and deprive this sensitive ecosystem of water. Also the months that allows the applicant to get water 12/1 to 3/31 should be acceased only from run off from above the pond. The applicant says that his land encompasses the source of water from run off. In fact, the source of water is from several properties up hill from the applicant's property. The applicant has already stored water and subsequently done a major water dump into Soap Creek with large quantities of sediment. This was observed by several neighbors. Our concern is: Who is going to monitor his activities if the water right is approved? Also, are the areas of the wetlands that have already been disturbed going to be rehabiltated? No vegetation was restored after the applicant's initial intrusion into the creek that removed trees, plant life and disturbing the bank of the creek. If the general goal is to protect wetlands and stream habitat for fish and wildlife, we hope that if the water right is permitted that the various agencies will do their jobs in protecting the goal.
12