Farmers Against Foster Farms

403 SE Caruthers St., # 101 2209 NE Alberta St., # 207

www.farmersagainstfosterfarms.com Portland, Oregon 97214 Portland, Oregon 97211

October 25, 2021

Via Email [email protected]

ODA - CAFO Program
Attn: Simon- J-S Ranch Comments
635 Capitol St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301

Re: Comments Opposing J-S Ranch, Inc. WPCF Permit Application

Dear ODA CAFO Program:

Farmers Against Foster Farms, Willamette Riverkeeper, and the Center for Food Safety, non-profit
organizations concerned with the integrity of the Willamette River Basin, water pollution, and the
protection of threatened species, submit these public comments, including Figures, 1 resources identified
and incorporated by reference herein, and Attachments, in opposition to the J-S Ranch, Inc.’s application
for an Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Water
Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) permit.

These comments are additionally signed by the following organizations:

Friends of Family Farmers

Humane Voters Oregon
Center for Biological Diversity
Food & Water Watch
Animal Legal Defense Fund

We submit these comments to protect and preserve the special area of the Wiseman Island reach in
the North Santiam River from a new proposed industrial chicken operation. As we have previously voiced
to ODA in early 2021, the J-S Ranch’s application should never have gotten this far in the permitting
process. This is a wholly inappropriate site for a CAFO. This site has groundwater, surface water, and air
quality concerns that should be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

1
Figures provided in this comment letter are also provided as Attachment A for better visibility.

1
permit review process, not a WPCF permit review. Furthermore, the proposed site is a spectacular section
of the North Santiam River, which is home to numerous native fish species, and which at least two federally
threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act, winter steelhead and spring Chinook
salmon, spawn their eggs and where their fry and juvenile develop before outmigration to the ocean.

In summary, the J-S Ranch, Inc. proposes producing nearly 3.5 million broiler chickens a year for
mega poultry company Foster Farms. Foster Farms distributes poultry products throughout the U.S. and
internationally. The following points outline why ODA must deny J-S Ranch’s CAFO WPCF application.

I. J-S Ranch Submitted Different Facility Plans to ODA and DEQ.

With an estimated 3,480,000 broilers 2 being produced a year, the J-S Ranch would be one of
Oregon’s largest poultry operations. Under the ODA’s newly proposed Tier I and Tier II “Large” CAFO
classification for NPDES permitting, J-S Ranch would be a Large Tier II dry waste broiler operation.
According to ODA’s 2021 Permitted CAFO list obtained through public records, there are only three other
Large Tier II broiler operations in the state. Sadly, this list (released in September 2021) already listed the J-
S Ranch in Scio as a permitted operation even though the facility clearly does not have a CAFO permit of
any kind.

J-S Ranch proposes to construct, from north to south, ten (10) chicken house structures of 60 feet x
652 feet x 10.5 feet tall, one (1) chicken house structure of 60 feet x 560 feet x 10.5 feet tall, and one (1)
manure shed of 60 feet x 140 feet x 18 feet tall to hold up to 4,977 yards of manure (including mortalities),
and to generate 15,048 yards of bedding a year. See July 20, 2021 Animal Waste Management Plan
(AWMP). Additionally, the July 20, 2021 AWMP submitted to ODA hints at a potential expansion already
being contemplated by the J-S Ranch. See, e.g., AWMP at 3 (“On the site map we have designed and
al[l]ocated space for a 200’ manure space in case we ever decide to increase the size of the [manure] shed.”).
However, just a few days later, J-S Ranch submitted a 1200-C application to DEQ with different
information. Compare Attachment B (Site Plan submitted to ODA) with Attachment C (Site Plans
submitted to DEQ).

J-S Ranch’s August 12, 2021 application to the DEQ for a 1200-C construction permit seeks
permission for construction of a manure shed that is in fact 60 x 200 feet (so no longer just a potential
expansion sometime in the distant future), also seeks permission to construct a second “chip barn” of 60 x
200 feet, which it did not disclose to ODA, also marks an open-air “proposed stockpile” oval-shaped site
estimated at 380 feet long x 160 feet wide next to Poultry House No. 11, and proposes a 50 x 506 foot
stormwater detention pond. See 1200-C Application Maps 21-20_EC-2, EC-3, EC-4. Despite these
differences in the disclosed activities, the J-S Ranch represents on both the ODA and DEQ applications

2
The August 5, 2020 Application to register states the J-S Ranch will manage 580,000 birds per flock x 6
flocks a year = 3,480,000. The July 20, 2020 AWMP (p. 2) states that “For 2021” it plans to produce
566,400 broilers per flock. 566,400 x 6 flocks = 3,398,400. Either way, the J-S Ranch is obviously proposing
to be one of the largest broiler operations in the state and would be a Large Tier II CAFO under the 2021-
2026 CAFO NPDES General Permit.

2
that it is only disturbing 24.68 acres, which simply does not add up given the significantly different
representations. Also, ODA should now question whether the Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS)
is even valid, and whether ODA can rely on it in any way, since the LUCS was based on poultry houses of
different sizes, one manure shed, and no “stockpile” site and certainly no 50 x 506 stormwater detention
pond. J-S Ranch’s failure to disclose these basic aspects of its application, and its misrepresentations to
ODA that expansions are merely speculative, merit denial of the application outright.

II. J-S Ranch Will Cause Manure, Wastewater, and Stormwater to Reach Waters of
the State Including Surface and Groundwater, and Must be Subject to NPDES Permit Review,
Not WPCF Permit Review.

A WPCF Permit only covers discharges to groundwater of the state. A WPCF Permit is inadequate
given the operations proposed by the J-S Ranch. As we point out in these comments and as other similar
commenters will discuss, the J-S Ranch will generate significant manure, wastewater, and stormwater, not all
of which will be entirely captured by its waste management system, or its stormwater management practices.
The WPCF Permit application materials do not contain any information regarding depth to groundwater,
soil permeability, or groundwater-surface water interaction. Yet, the 1200-C application discloses to DEQ
that the depth to groundwater is 31 - 64 centimeters (12.2 to 25 inches) (See 1220-C Application at 5). 3
Notably, and as further discussed below, the J-S Ranch seeks to (1) be located in a floodplain, (2) extremely
close to wetlands, (3) operate 11 barns with only 4 inches of compacted native soil as a base (as opposed to
any kind of impermeable protection) and will scrape and clean out the barns regularly, (4) operate a
stockpile, (5) operate more than one manure shed, (6) construct a storm water detention pond, (7) generate
significant storm water, and (8) to locate its operation all on top of established accumulation flow lines. The
J-S Ranch will clearly operate in violation of the CAFO WPCF General Permit.

A WPCF Permit is an inadequate permit here. At a minimum, the J-S Ranch must also apply for a
NPDES Individual Permit to address surface water discharges to meet the goal of the Clean Water Act: to
eliminate discharges.

Additionally, as we noted during the October 20, 2021 public hearing, we remain very concerned
with the 100% export model the J-S Ranch is proposing for its waste. Oral representations have been made
by ODA that Eric Simon will be sending and/or selling waste for use as compost, but nothing confirms this
is accurate or that Mr. Simon will in fact secure relationships or contracts to facilitate this transfer. If he
does not, then the J-S Ranch will be retaining the waste or finding alternative disposal methods, including
land-applying waste in the Willamette River Basin. We request more complete information regarding how
the J-S Ranch will in fact export its waste.

3
The Erosion & Sediment Control Plan submitted to DEQ discloses that fill used for construction will
consist of native material from onsite. See ESCP at 3. With such a shallow depth to groundwater onsite,
gathering sufficient fill from onsite will likely prove challenging without reaching groundwater, but will also
potentially alter the elevation of CAFO operation activities and thus their likely impacts to groundwater.

3
III. The LUCS Approval Only Relates to Local Comprehensive Plan Compliance and ODA
Must Ensure Other Local, State, and Federal Laws Are Met.

ODA’s ability to rely on the Linn County LUCS is limited only to the extent that the LUCS
addresses local comprehensive plan compliance. See ORS 197. In no way does a LUCS address issues of
other local laws, state, or federal laws that the J-S Ranch WPCF application raises. Nor should ODA rely on
a LUCS that was approved by the County on August 5, 2020, when the applicant has significantly changed
the substance of its proposed operation, and which the public was only provided notice of on September
16, 2021.

For example, public health concerns, recreational values, or federal environmental laws are not
covered by Linn County’s LUCS. The LUCS looked at Linn County’s Land Development Code farm-
related provision (LCC 920.100(B)(113) (defining “farm”) and LCC 928.310(B)(1) (exclusive farm zone)),
but did not address the broader Comprehensive Plan provisions (LCC 900-907). The Linn County
Comprehensive Plan requires:

➢ “Close coordination between the Comprehensive Plan and its implementation to maintain and
improve the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Linn
County.” LCC 900.600(B) (italics original).
➢ Consideration of carrying capacity, which is “the level of use which can be accommodated and
continued without irreversible impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the air,
land, and water resources.” LCC 900.020(6).
➢ Consideration of the “land” which is very broadly defined as “the surface of the earth and all its
natural resources including water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. Synonymous with air,
land, and water resources.” LCC 900.020(32).

We encourage ODA to consider Comprehensive Plan criteria in the context of its evaluation of the
WPCF Permit application, as Linn County did not, and these concerns and values are of great importance
to the local community and groups like Willamette Riverkeeper and the Center for Food Safety.
Furthermore, because Linn County classified the J-S Ranch application as “not a land use decision” under
ORS 197.015(b)(H)(i)-(iii), the public was not provided public notice or comment on the LUCS. Lastly, this
LUCS predates all the changes made since the LUCS was issued, and the changes the J-S Ranch made in its
1200-C application to the DEQ.

IV. Site is Inappropriate for an Industrial Chicken Operation.

The North Santiam Watershed habitat ranges from aquatic and riparian habitat at the lower
reaches (including floodplains, wetlands, wet prairie, forests), grasslands, oak savanna, and woodlands in the
upper sections of the lower and middle reaches, and late successional Douglas-fir forests in the upper
portions of the watershed. All these habitats support a range of species, including fish, amphibians, birds,
and plants. Key species in the lower reach, where the J-S Ranch is proposing to be sited and operate, include
a variety of riparian birds, Oregon chub (recently delisted), winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon

4
(both are federally listed as threatened), Western Meadowlarks, and plant species such as Bradshaw’s
Lomatium, Oregon Larkspur, White-topped Aster, and the Willamette Valley Daisy. See EcoNorthwest
(2019) at Table 2. Should ODA allow either a WPCF and/or a NPDES permit, it must do so under the
format of an individual permit, and it must require (a) stringent prevention, control, and treatment
conditions, and (b) very strict monitoring to ensure that no water quality standards are violated, and that
wildlife, the river, and human health are fully protected.

A. North Santiam River aquatic life was already at “very high” risk over a decade ago, and
the J-S Ranch will irreparably damage the river.

The North Santiam is one of Oregon’s gems, and homewaters for native fish species. Moreover,
this particular stretch of the river where the J-S Ranch proposes to be located has been confirmed to have
an extraordinarily high number of native fish species, including federally threatened species. Oregon State
University Department of Fish and Wildlife surveys conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2017 identified fully
89.5% to 95% of the fish captured as native taxa in the North Santiam. See Attachment D (OSU 2015-
2017 survey and survey report). The OSU survey included identifying native fish that are federally listed
under the Endangered Species Act - Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and winter run steelhead
trout (Oncorhychus mykiss). Id. Native Chinook and steelhead spawn and rear in the North Santiam.
Dominant native fish species in both rivers were the reticulate and Paiute sculpin, redside shiner and
speckled dace. The 2015 and 2016 surveys were conducted at Greens Bridge, about two miles downstream
from where the J-S Ranch proposes to be located, and extended down to the confluence of the Willamette
River. For 2017, the surveys were extended further upstream to Stayton. The surveys looked for micro-
habitat features consisting root-wads, undercut banks, accumulations of wood or branches and small
alcoves. The OSU 2015-2017 study report highlighted the uniqueness of this particular stretch of the North
Santiam:

The North Santiam reach from Bueller-Miller County Park to Greens Bridge has a
unique feature not found in other reaches of the Santiam. This section of river has a
reach of unconstrained channel that is well connected with its floodplain. This particular
river reach has multiple channels and an abundance of off-channel features. The riparian
corridor is wide with relatively intact riparian forests. No other reach of the North
Santiam below Stayton or the mainstem Santiam River has such high habitat diversity
as this reach.

Navigating this reach of the North Santiam is problematic in that it is difficult to

determine which channel to use when proceeding downstream. Many channels become
narrow, and we observed numerous accumulations of large instream wood in our survey.
We encountered no individuals using this section of river for recreation, unlike the
reach from Greens Bridge to Jefferson, which is heavily used by recreationalists. With
its numerous channels and accumulations of large wood, this particular reach is
dangerous for inexperienced water users. With its unconstrained character and multiple
channels, the aquatic habitat and preferred channel for boaters change yearly.

Id. See also North Santiam River Wiseman Island Reach (Mar. 18, 2021)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_fsnL5LJZ4&t=5s.

5
Another study found that in 2013 and 2014, 44% and 29% of the radio-tagged winter steelhead (tagged at
Willamette Falls) entering the North Santiam River spawned in the lower river (downstream of Stayton)
adjacent to the proposed CAFO. See Attachment E (Jepson et al. (2015)). And, a U.S. Bureau of Land
Management spawning survey study in 2013 indicated a similar proportion (look at mean redds +- 95% CIs)
of the population spawned in the lower river. See Attachment F (Zoellick 2013).

The commenters wish to know whether in reviewing the J-S Ranch permit application ODA
consulted with ODFW and NFMS, and we request that ODA release the records relating to those
consultations to the public before taking further action on the permit application, as those records should
be released to the public. It is possible that the J-S Ranch could cause an ESA Section 9 take in the event
their proposed operations are carried out as planned.

These surveys are significantly important to understanding the health of the North Santiam River
and are part of a much, much larger public investment in protecting and preserving these waters. In 2008,
in response to the lawsuit Willamette Riverkeeper et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 3:07-cv-
01399-PK (D. Or.) (filed Sept. 20, 2007), NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that set out a set of
management actions governing operations for the entire Willamette Valley Dams Project that it deemed
would be protective of threatened species. For the North Santiam Subbasin, NMFS stated that “[h]abitat
loss due to blockages has been especially severe in the North Santiam…” and found that the risk of losing
the North Santiam population subgroup of Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook to be “very high” and
the risk of losing Upper Willamette River Steelhead as “moderate.” 4 In response to the BiOp, the Corps
developed the Willamette Fish Operations Plan (WFOP), which outlines minimum stream flows, sets
monthly temperature targets downstream of Big Cliff Dam, describes hatchery and fish operation plans,
and establishes limits on future contracts for water within the North Santiam Subbasin in tributaries below
project dams to ensure adequate streamflows. Earlier this month, Judge Hernandez ordered immediate
action on the South Santiam and McKenzie Rivers to facilitate salmon migration, and the court is
convening an expert panel to address measures to address fish passage and water quality in other parts of
the Willamette Basin. See Northwest Env. Defense Ctr. et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al. No. 3:18-cv-
00437-HZ, Dkt. 202 (Opinion & Order dated Sept. 1, 2021) (D. Or). The J-S Ranch’s WPCF Permit
application is, in fact, related to these larger concerns for aquatic life in the Willamette River Basin in that
it exacerbates the problems other decades-long efforts have been fighting to resolve. Again, the J-S Ranch
could hardly have chosen a worse site to propose its broiler operation, and ODA must deny the permit.

B. Recreational use of area and downstream areas.

The proposed location for the J-S Ranch is just upstream from a popular swimming area for local
community members. A very popular summer float route for local residents is from the historical town of
Shelburn (the Buell-Miller Boat Launch) which is upriver from the J-S Ranch proposed location, and from
Greens Bridge to Jefferson, which starts about 2 miles downriver from the J-S Ranch location. In addition,

4
See NOAA NMFS (Northwest Region) Willamette Project Biological Opinion (2008) available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/consultation-willamette-river-basin-flood-control-
project.

6
thousands of visitors come to the area to visit the famous Scio-area covered bridges, to bike (motorcycle and
bicycle) the rural roads, and to float the river. These people are a significant source of tourism revenue for
the community. With people staying more local due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, the area has
experienced an increase in visitors and likely economic benefits from increased tourism. We are very
concerned about the direct exposure recreational users of the North Santiam River will have to pollutants
from the J-S Ranch.

C. Water quality impairments.

Three Basin Rule. The North Santiam River Basin is subject to the Three Basin Rule, which is
designed to “preserve or improve the existing high quality water.” Under the Three Basin Rule, “new or
increased waste discharges must be prohibited” to the waters of the North Santiam River Subbasin. OAR
340-041-0350(1)(c). The effect of the Three Basin Rule is that no new permitted facilities can be built,
regardless of the quality of the water being put back into the North Santiam. The Three Basin Rule applies
to all permits, including WPCF Permits. OAR 340-041-0350(2). Thus, the presumption is that the J-S Ranch
should not be allowed to apply for or be issued a WPCF Permit. ODA should not have even entertained the
J-S Ranch WPCF application and should have rejected it outright.

The J-S Ranch has not demonstrated that an exception to the Three Basin Rule applies. Only when
there is no discharge to surface water and all groundwater quality protections of OAR 340-0040-0030 are
met can the OAR 340-041-0350(8)(b) exception be potentially applicable. This exception goes much
further. First, the Three Basin Rule disallows the state from granting a concentration limit variance. And,
only if a finding is made that “all appropriate groundwater quality protection requirements and compliance
monitoring are met and there will be no measurable change in the water quality of the surface water that
would be potentially affected by the proposed facility.” Id. at (8)(b)(B). For any variance request, a separate
public hearing must be held. Id. J-S Ranch has not made any such showing, and ODA has not followed the
proper procedures to support using any variance.

Here, the J-S Ranch has not submitted the technical information and reports, nor can it
demonstrate that there is not a likely adverse groundwater quality impact. OAR 340-040-0030(2). In fact,
the information submitted suggests that the J-S Ranch will have significant stormwater runoff, that it is
located in a floodplain, extraordinarily close to wetlands, that only its manure storage will be on a concrete
pad but the broiler barns will be on earthen foundations. The facts strongly suggest the facility is likely to
have both surface water and groundwater impacts. Under the groundwater rules, at a minimum a
groundwater monitoring plan must be in place and there must be concentration limits. OAR 340-040-
0030(2)(a)-(3).

Antidegradation policy. The Clean Water Act’s antidegradation policy, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(o) and
Oregon’s antidegradation policy (OAR 340-041-0004) similarly have the purpose of guiding decisions “to
prevent unnecessary further degradation from new or increased point and nonpoint sources of pollution”
and “to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to ensure the full protection of all
existing beneficial uses.”

7
 Water quality standards, TMDLs. Water quality in the Willamette Basin, including tributaries like the
Santiam, must be managed to protect the designated beneficial uses. See OAR 340-041-0340 to 0350 (and
tables referenced). Since at least 2012, and as recently as 2018/2020, the Oregon DEQ Integrated Report
shows the North Santiam River has been 303(d) water quality limited for dissolved oxygen from October 15
- May 15 for salmon and steelhead spawning, and for temperature. The temperature assessments are for
spawning times and year-round. See Attachment G. From the Little North Santiam River to the South
Santiam River, DEQ has listed these North Santiam waters as a Category 5, meaning that the designated
uses (fish and aquatic life) are not supported, and that DEQ has determined a TMDL is needed. Id.

Additionally, in 2006 Oregon DEQ established the Willamette River Basin TMDL, which includes
North Santiam waters. Of particular applicability, ODA must consider, Chapter 8 (North Santiam
Subbasin TMDL), Chapter 4 (incorporating North Santiam temperature TMDL into the mainstem
Willamette River TMDLs), and that unless otherwise carved out, Willamette Basin criteria (see OAR 340-
041-0345) apply basin-wide.

DEQ’s North Santiam and South Santiam Subbasin Water Quality Overview states, in relevant part: 5

● A planning target has been proposed for bacteria in the urban and agricultural areas… Both urban
and rural/agricultural sources are major contributors to the high bacteria levels.
● Waters in these Subbasins are warmer than is necessary to protect salmonid rearing and spawning.
Lack of riparian vegetation and impacts from dams and water withdrawals are the major
contributors to high temperatures.
● Other concerns in these subbasins include sedimentation, loss of fish habitat and protection of
water supplies.

Through the Willamette TMDL, DEQ established targeted reductions for fecal bacteria from
agricultural areas, ranging from 66 to 83 percent, and urban areas, ranging from 80 to 94 percent relative to
current concentrations. See Willamette Basin TMDL Ch. 8-3 (referencing Ch. 2 Willamette Basin Bacteria
TMDL).

According to the DEQ, the North Santiam River is “relatively uncontaminated” with fecal bacteria
and serves as a dilution mechanism for the relatively more contaminated Willamette River. EcoNorthwest
(2019) at 10 (citing Oregon DEQ Willamette Basin Bacteria TMDL (2016)). Projected future climate
scenarios that were developed as part of the Willamette Water 2100 project suggest that by 2100 the average
surface temperature in the Willamette River Basin could be between 1°C (2° F) to 7°C (13° F) warmer than

5
See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/WillametteMapssantiam.pdf

8
current temperatures. 6 The North Santiam River instream temperatures are expected to see temperatures
rise between 1.1°C (2°F) and 1.5°C (3°F). 7

D. Drinking water impairments.

Drinking water in the North Santiam basin is already at risk. The 2019 ECONorthwest Report
estimated that about 6 percent of Oregonians and 84,421 households rely on the North Santiam River for
drinking water. Estimates are difficult to pinpoint, though, because of the number of people living in
unincorporated areas in Marion and Linn Counties within the North Santiam Watershed, but population
growth is ongoing and expected to increase. 8

The City of Jefferson, Oregon, has approximately 3,300 people and draws its domestic water supply
from the Santiam River downstream of the proposed J-S Ranch. Other Jefferson and Scio community
residents (approximately 1,000 additional people) draw the well water from the local waters near the
proposed CAFO. According to the City of Jefferson Public Works Department, “as water travels over the
land or underground, it can pick up substances or contaminants such as microbes, inorganic and organic
chemicals.” 9 Warm water, containing an abundance of nutrients, can rapidly form harmful algal blooms,
which can produce cyanotoxins. Industrial animal factories, like the J-S Ranch proposed CAFO, generate
massive amounts of nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen) and create conditions (temperature, pH, low
turbulence), which are known to enhance the development of harmful algal blooms in surface waters. 10

The problem of harmful algae blooms in the Santiam Watershed is an issue local communities
have already had to deal with for years. 11 Due to factors unrelated to the J-S Ranch, cities like Jefferson
already have to expend additional resources to test for cyanotoxins in the Santiam River waters from May
through October each year. In 2018, toxic algae from the Detroit Reservoir flowed down the North

6
See EcoNorthwest (2019) at 11-12 (citing Willamette Water 2100 (https://inr.oregonstate.edu/ww2100)
and Oregon State University, Institute for Natural Resources. No Date. Future Climate. Retrieved
September 24, 2018, from https://inr.oregonstate.edu/ww2100/analysis-topic/future-climate)
7
See Buccola, N. L., Risley, J. C., & Rounds, S. A. (2016). Simulating future water temperatures in the
North Santiam River, Oregon. Journal of Hydrology, 535, 318-330.
8
See EcoNorthwest (2019) at 15.
9
See City of Jefferson, Water Quality Report (2020) at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ff8a2e2e69cf8f33803cc2/t/60a6be20ba055009109ee7c2/162154
0392196/Water+Quality+Report+2020.pdf.
10
See, e.g., EcoNorthwest Report (2019) at 10 (phosphorus and temperature lead to algae blooms);
Congressional Research Service Report R44871, “Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms: Causes, Challenges,
and Policy Considerations.” (Sept. 5, 2019); “Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay are becoming
more frequent.” Science Daily (May 11, 2015) (summarizing University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science study).
11
See, e.g., “Toxic Algae in Oregon” Story Map by Oregon Environmental Council at
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=5aacb7b363684c90945d0c4e8e77964a#:~:te
xt=Detroit%20Reservoir%2C%20Marion%20County&text=By%20the%20end%20of%20the,compromis
ed%20immune%20systems%2C%20and%20pets.

9
Santiam River and contaminated Salem’s drinking water for about a month for Salem’s 168,000
residents. 12 The J-S Ranch will compound the risks of harmful algal blooms developing and bring them
significantly closer to residents.

Furthermore, upstream from the J-S Ranch, the U.S. Forest Service is conducting one of the largest
post-fire timber salvage logging operations the state has ever seen. 13 The Forest Service is proposing to log
the Beachie Creek and Lionshead Fire areas. The Beachie Creek Fire burned 193,573 acres in the North
Fork Santiam River and Little North Fork Santiam River drainages. The Lionshead Fire burned 204,469
acres within the Breitenbush River, headwaters of the North Santiam River and Upper Clackamas River
watersheds. Ground-based logging operations disturb soils, causing erosion, which leads to runoff into
streams and the resulting sedimentation of streams and other adverse water quality impacts. These risks are
heightened in recently burned areas. Logging activities also can remove snags that shade streams, reduce
substrate for the next generation of trees, increase sediment production from heavy use of unpaved roads,
and disturb soils because of heavy equipment use. Sedimentation forces downstream communities to install
costly water treatment upgrades to filter water coming from industrial activities, such as logging and
agriculture. These costs come at the expense of local taxpayers. Additionally, forest waters are critical to
water quantity and water quality for downstream communities; logged forests leave significantly less water
for the landscape, and climate change is drying out our watersheds. With the North Santiam watershed
already in such a risky situation for drinking water quality and quantity, ODA must assess whether the
additional impacts of the J-S Ranch are truly within the local community’s interests.

E. Wetlands and floodplain.

1. Presence of Wetlands

This permit fails entirely to account for the wetlands present on the property. The following Figure
1 (also included in Attachment A for better visibility) illustrates the presence of wetlands on the property,
as derived from Linn County planning data which incorporates National Wetlands Inventory data, a 2017
Wetlands Reference Layer, and any existing wetlands determinations. The yellow dot represents the address
registered to the proposed J-S Ranch operation: 37225 JEFFERSON SCIO DR, SCIO, OR 9737.

12
See, e.g., “Harmful Algal Blooms and Drinking Water in Oregon,” U.S. Geological Survey at
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/or-water/science/harmful-algal-blooms-and-drinking-water-oregon?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
13
See U.S. Forest Service Decision Memo for the Willamette 2020 Fires Roadside Danger Tree Reduction
Project (Aug. 4, 2021); Cascadia Wildlands et al. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Case No. 6:21-cv-01227-MC (D. Or.
Eugene) (filed Aug. 18, 2021). Commenter Willamette Riverkeeper is a co-plaintiff in the Cascadia
Wildlands lawsuit.

10
 Figure 1. The yellow dot in the NWI wetlands area denotes the operation’s address.

The following figure (Fig. 2.) (also included in Attachment A) estimates the location of the 11
proposed barns, 2 manure sheds, storm water detention pond, and stockpile area and other structures in
relation to the wetlands. While the facility operations are not set to be directly located “on” wetlands,
within certain instances they are within feet of a wetlands. Undoubtedly, the numerous wetlands present on
the property will be impacted by construction and the operation of this very large CAFO. Additionally, as
we discuss below, the stormwater generated and disrupted by the J-S Ranch, and flooding exacerbated by
poor stormwater management, will impact the wetlands.

11
 Figure 2. The various blue swaths, as well as the seafoam green markings denote wetlands. See
the key for more information.

Figure 3 (also included in Attachment A), the site plan submitted by J-S Ranch in applying for a
1200-C permit, indicates that the J-S Ranch has placed structures and features of the operation strategically,
as to barely avoid the wetlands present. However, as both Fig. 2 and 3 illustrate, and as is noted above,
wetlands directly abut a number of the features on the property.

12
 Figure 3. The most recent site plan submitted by J-S Ranch in their application for a
construction stormwater permit.

Wetlands meet the proposed gravel road and cover the existing road the proposed gravel road will
join. The dramatic increase in traffic that will result from an operation of this size—going from occasional
farm machinery and limited passenger-vehicle traffic to hundreds of chick, broiler, manure, feed, and other
trucks—makes it entirely unrealistic to conclude that the existing road, clearly already within wetlands, will
not undergo a change of use, and changes that will not impact the local environment and waters. Given the
property’s naturally moist composition, it will assuredly require some major alterations to support not only
the increased traffic, but also the industrial vehicles that will be required for construction and transport of
poultry, manure, feed, etc.

Additionally, the wetlands just south of barn 6 will likely be impacted during the construction of
the barn, as well as during routine operation. Construction activities by nature disturb surrounding land
and given the proximity of the wetlands to the barn, it would be an insurmountable challenge to avoid
disturbing the wetlands entirely. Further, poultry barns are routinely ventilated with industrial fans that
allow for the escape of feathers and other biological materials, such as dust and fecal matter. It is highly
likely that some of this debris will be dispersed by the fans and enter the nearby wetlands. Additionally, the
detention pond south of the barns has incredible proximity to wetlands, and because it will be dug into the
ground, it will clearly be dug into land connecting to the wetlands, and below the groundwater depth of 31-
64 centimeters. Further, in the event of a large storm, this pond will easily overflow, spewing its contents
directly into the wetlands. The Lidar map below showing floodplain and flow accumulation lines affirms
that this is the path the water would travel in the event of an overflow. See Fig. 5. Large storm events are

13
only increasing in frequency due to climate change, 14 and thus it is not just possible, but probable that
overflow events, as described above, will take place on the property. Finally, the soil stockpile threatens the
wetlands that run just north of the property. Figures 3 and 5 (included in Attachment A) illustrate the
topography and flow accumulation of the property and show that stormwater will pass through the soil
stockpile and then move northwest, directly into the wetland bordering the northern portion of the
property. Community members have witnessed soil stockpiles that are open to the elements at other Simon
owned properties. Likely, this stockpile will mimic those, thereby posing a huge risk of soil being washed
into the northern wetlands during storm events.

While ODA claims appropriate actions have been taken regarding the wetlands present on the
property, this statement fails to capture the reality of the situation. 15 The J-S Ranch has merely applied for a
determination by the Department of State Lands (DSL). This determination only establishes the likelihood
of the presence of wetlands on the property, nothing more. Nevertheless, DSL has failed to issue such
determination in a timely manner, despite the clear presence of wetlands. 16 Only upon an affirmative
determination by DSL will the J-S Ranch be obligated to conduct a wetlands delineation. And only upon
completion of this delineation will DSL be able to properly conclude what mitigation measures and permits
the J-S Ranch will require. Thus, at this time, little has actually been done to safeguard the wetlands present
on the property. In the event this permit is granted, and DSL continues to stall, the wetlands present face
an enormous risk of degradation and perhaps even destruction.

Given the evidence laid out above, a wetlands delineation may very well demonstrate that the J-S
Ranch’s proposed actions will require an Oregon “Removal-Fill” Permit, if not also a federal §404 CWA
permit. The Oregon Removal-Fill Law requires any person who plans to "remove or fill" material within
"waters of the state" to obtain a permit. See ORS 196.795-990. Removal includes taking inorganic materials
(rock, gravel, sand, silt, etc.) and large woody debris from waters of the state or moving such materials by
artificial means within waters of the state, including channel relocation. ORS 196.800(13). Fill is the
deposition, by artificial means, of any material at a location in waters of the state. ORS 196.800(3). Waters
of the state include wetlands on private land. 17 ORS 196.800(17). For most waters, a permit is required if a
project will involve 50 cubic yards of fill and/or removal within the jurisdictional boundary. 18 Removal is
calculated on an annual basis, while fill is calculated on a cumulative basis. 19

14
Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation, Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/climate-
indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation (last visited Oct. 15, 2021).
15
CAFO Advisory Committee Meeting, OR. DEP’T AGRIC. (Oct. 14, 2021)
https://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/NaturalResources/Documents/Meetings,%20minutes,%20agenda
s/CAFO2021/CACAgenda101421.pdf
16
This determination was sought on Aug 4, 2021.
17
Waterways & Wetlands, Dep’t of State Lands, https://www.oregon.gov/DSL/WW/Pages/Permits.aspx
(last visited Oct. 12, 2021).
18
Id.
19
Id.

14
 The likely change of use that will take place regarding the existing road, has a high probability of
necessitating “fill” of the wetland, thus triggering the need for a removal-fill permit. Further, both the
construction of barn 6 and its routine operation could result in “fill” of the wetland just south of the barn,
also triggering the need for a removal-fill permit. Ultimately, a wetlands delineation is needed to determine
precisely what activities will necessitate a removal-fill permit, and possibly a CWA §404 permit, however, it
is without dispute that DSL should require such a wetlands delineation.

2. Floodplain

The J-S Ranch property is located within a floodplain and the North Santiam poses a direct risk to flood the
entire operation. The DEQ Site Plan confirms that the property is located within FEMA Floodplain “X”, and
steps away from FEMA Floodplain “A.” See Attachment C (21-20_EC-1 “Property Information”) and
Figures 4 and 5 (Flood elevation and Lidar Map of flow accumulation and contour lines) (also included in
Attachment A for better visibility). The North Santiam River is located at approximately 276 feet elevation;
the bank is at approximately 292 feet elevation; and the approximate center of the J-S Ranch property
(where the barns are to be located) measures only 297 feet elevation. 20

Figure 4. Floodplain elevation.

20
The implications of this 5 foot difference is also minimized even further when, as J-S Ranch stated in
their 1200-C application to DEQ, the depth to groundwater on the property is only 31 to 64 centimeters
(approximately 1 to 2 feet).

15
 While an assessment of the entire North Santiam River basin and flooding is beyond the
capabilities of the public commenters, ODA clearly is aware of significant flooding events this area has
historically experienced, and commenters’ members who live in the area have experienced these events first-
hand. Testimony was provided at the October 20, 2021, public hearing, and will be provided in written
format as well by local community members.

FEMA floodplain maps are notoriously old, outdated, and fail to account for environmental realities we face
including climate change and increased precipitation and flooding events. FEMA’s floodplain maps are notoriously
outdated; even the U.S. Congress has addressed this problem in recent hearings. 21 If ODA were to only look
at the FEMA floodplain maps, only the North Santiam River area is shown as a floodplain. However, given
(1) the small, 5-foot difference between the river bank and the center of the J-S Ranch property, (2) the
wetlands on the property, (3) the flow accumulation lines in the sub watershed, and (4) the flow direction
from the property towards the river and neighboring properties, failing to consider the flooding potential of
the J-S Ranch by relying on an old, outdated FEMA map is arbitrary decision-making. The flooding
potential of this site is much too risky to ignore. As several local community members testified during the
October 20, 2021, public comment hearing, and as ODA confirmed, this site has documented significant
flooding episodes. One neighbor to the property, a 6th generation farmer, stated that the North Santiam
River path has moved one mile south during her lifetime. This southerly migration puts the proposed J-S
Ranch directly in the path of the North Santiam’s natural riverbed movement. This neighbor also pointed
out that because of the short distance from the current riverbed to the proposed barns, the J-S Ranch would
likely be underwater years before a 10-year WPCF permit expired.

21
See, e.g., Thomas Frank, “Studies Sound the Alarm on “Badly-Out-of-Date’ FEMA Floodplain Maps.”
Scientific American. (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/studies-sound-alarm-on-
badly-out-of-date-fema-flood-maps/ and Christopher Joyce, “Outdated FEMA Flood Maps Don’t Account
for Climate Change.” NPR. (Sept. 15, 2016) https://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/492260099/outdated-
fema-flood-maps-dont-account-for-climate-change

16
 Figure 5. Illustrating flow accumulation lines on and through the property, and contours (also
included in Attachment A for better visibility).

Lastly, the J-S Ranch proposes to construct the facilities from fill that will consist of native material
from onsite. See DEQ Erosion & Sediment Control Plan at 3 (Section 5.B.). With shallow groundwater,
floodplain terrain, and flow pathways at the site, digging up the property to construct the facilities will
necessarily change the hydrology, alter the flooding situation, create impervious surfaces, and change
stormwater movement across and through the site.

To have the necessary information before ODA, before any permit can be issued to the J-S Ranch,
the applicant must have an independent engineer prepare a complete drainage analysis which includes (1) a
stormwater drainage analysis, (2) an overall landform drainage analysis (including offsite considerations),
and (3) a floodplain analysis using information from FEMA and other sources. This assessment must look at
the property in its current state, and what the J-S Ranch’s construction and operation would do to these
analyses.

17
 F. Stormwater generation, flow, and management.

We are very concerned both with the construction stormwater (under review by DEQ) and
operational stormwater of the J-S Ranch proposal. The WPCF Permit includes contaminated stormwater as
part of “wet waste” (Special Conditions Definition 29), and the J-S Ranch “must ensure that the production
area is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent the discharge of manure, litter, process
wastewater including contaminated stormwater to surface water of the state. At a minimum, the production
area must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to contain all manure, litter, and process
wastewater including contaminated stormwater generated during the storage period established by the
ODA-approved AWMP.” WPCF General Permit S2.B.1. This essentially requires that the J-S Ranch
stormwater generation and management be a “closed loop” system.

There are several problems with stormwater at the J-S Ranch that are completely unaddressed by
the WPCF application, and which alone merit ODA denying the application.

First, water follows the path of least resistance. Data indicates that Scio, Oregon averages anywhere from
50 to 57 inches of precipitation a year, which will generate significant quantities of stormwater. ODA
should be very concerned with this low-lying property, the wetlands on the property, the proximity to the
river, and as shown on the attached Lidar analysis, the flow accumulation lines on the J-S Ranch, but also those
on the hundreds of acres upgradient from the J-S Ranch. See Figure 5 (Lidar Map). The J-S Ranch’s proposal will
build 11 chicken houses, 2 manure sheds, a soil stockpile area, and a storm water detention pond on the
western side of the property. All these components of the J-S Ranch facilities will be built on top of the flow
accumulation lines on the property, and in a flood plain. Stormwater generated by the J-S Ranch facilities
will flow into the flow accumulation line, which feed into the North Santiam River. The J-S Ranch has not
identified these existing flow accumulation lines, identified how the J-S Ranch facilities will impact or
obstruct the natural flows, whether the J-S Ranch will in fact contribute to more flooding on-site and onto
neighboring properties or into the wetlands. Nor has the J-S Ranch identified any off-site flow from
hundreds of acres of upgradient properties within the same sub watershed, and how it will manage that flow
which naturally flows through the J-S Ranch property, especially if the new structures on the J-S Ranch
property impede the natural flows shown on the Lidar map. On such a low-lying property, natural lines of
water flow already risk overflowing and flooding the area. With changes in the natural water flow, we worry
that the J-S Ranch will cause flooding on other properties, will flood the poultry houses, manure sheds,
storm water detention pond, and “stockpile” areas, and spread contamination across the local area and into
the pristine North Santiam River. Without a stormwater management study, all these questions are left
unanswered, and ODA cannot issue a WPCF Permit.

Second, none of the documents presented to ODA provide the basis for stormwater quantity estimates, flow, or
management at the J-S Ranch. Under the WPCF General Permit S3.C.2(a), “Calculations used to determine
the storage period and storage capacity for this period must be provided. Storage capacity must include the
volume of one (1), 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.” The J-S Ranch did not provide a stormwater
management study prepared by an engineer or a hydrologist. Such a study would examine, for example, the
surface area and surface types that generate stormwater, the surface slopes, soil types, soil quality, and

18
precipitation. This is the minimum necessary to even start to conduct a stormwater analysis of the property
and the structures the J-S Ranch proposes. The J-S Ranch should be required to engage an independent
engineer to prepare a stormwater management study to prepare these calculations. This analysis must also
include estimates for climate change impacts, which are already altering, and expected to continue to alter,
stormwater quantities, patterns, management, and uses.

Instead, the LUCS application, the Application to Register, and the AWMP are void of any
references to stormwater. Thus, contrary to the J-S Ranch statement in their AWMP (AWMP at 8),
stormwater is not included in its volume calculations. In fact, the Animal Waste Management System
Production spreadsheet “Production” worksheet listed as “0” (zero) the runoff in cubic feet for roof areas,
paved slab areas, unpaved lot areas, and silage pit surface areas, and did not include any stormwater in the
Total Liquids calculation.

Similarly, the Animal Waste Management System Production spreadsheet “Storage” listed as “0”
(zero) Monthly Inflows Into Tank from “Normal Runoff”.

The “Storage” Worksheet does later identify 50,090 cubic feet of liquid for the 25 year - 24 hour storm
runoff in the freeboard calculation for a tank. There are other runoff and precipitation and evaporation
numbers in this spreadsheet as well. However, these numbers are made without support, documentation,

19
basis for the data or the methodologies. Our very rough estimates for storm water generation suggest that
11 poultry barns, 1 manure shed, 1 chip barn, a stockpile, a stormwater detention pond, and a gravel road
when they experience a 4.5 inch rainfall event can generate millions of gallons of stormwater. But again,
this is a task for professional engineers, not for community members, and certainly ODA should not defer
to the applicant’s unsupported estimates that are not even based on the correct infrastructure he is
proposing to put on the property.

Third, the J-S Ranch’s construction proposal to DEQ is completely different than what it proposes to ODA for
the WPCF permit application, thus its statements to ODA about stormwater generation and management are
completely unreliable. To ODA, J-S Ranch proposes eleven covered (11) chicken houses structures and one (1)
manure shed. Again, the AWMP already contemplates increasing the size of the manure shed from 60 x
140 feet to “200 feet”. (AWMP at 3) but does not specify more about the size increase—and thus the
stormwater impacts of this structure. As noted above, just days after submitted the June 2021 AWMP and
Site Plan to the ODA, J-S Ranch submitted a 1200-C application to DEQ indicating that in fact the manure
shed was going to be 60 x 200 feet, and that a second “chip shed” of 60 x 200 feet was also to be
constructed (and which J-S Ranch had not disclosed to ODA).

Nowhere in the ODA documents does J-S Ranch disclose to ODA the 50 x 506 foot storm water
detention pond that it identified as part of its 1200-C permit application to DEQ. See Map 21-20_EC-4
(Attachment C). This stormwater detention pond is located next to Poultry House No. 1 and empties into
an existing ditch, which is where apparently the AWMP proposes that the stormwater from the CAFO’s
operation will go. In the J-S Ranch supporting materials to ODA, there is a reference to a “tank” (see
ORAWM “Storage” spreadsheet), but that tank measures 80 feet in diameter and 123.2 feet in depth. Is the
tank in addition to a 50 x 506 stormwater detention pond? Why did J-S Ranch not disclose a 50 x 506 foot
stormwater detention pond to ODA in its materials? Where are its calculations for the stormwater being
generated and stored in the pond? Will J-S Ranch be installing a synthetic liner in the detention pond? We
note that in J-S Ranch’s 1200-C application to DEQ, the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Narrative Form
left blank the question about whether any engineered facilities such as settling basins and/or diversion
structures were necessary; thus, it is reasonable to conclude that such a large pond is not built solely for
construction storm water collection but for operational storm water as well. Thus, it must adhere to proper
engineering requirements. Since ODA has not reviewed the J-S Ranch’s application with this information
before the agency, there is no way that ODA can allow the application to proceed.

As noted above, the J-S Ranch also included an approximate 380 x 160 open-air “proposed
stockpile” on its DEQ 1200-C application, which it did not disclose to ODA. This stockpile, with no cover
and no stormwater protection or diversion, would be a significant source of contaminated stormwater
runoff completely unaccounted for.

The J-S Ranch proposes building a chip barn measuring 60 x 80 feet. See June 28, 2021 CAFO Site
Plan. This structure is not mentioned in any other of the J-S Ranch’s documents. However, in the August
12, 2021 CAFO Site Plan submitted to Oregon DEQ for the J-S Ranch’s 1200-C NPDES construction
permit, the J-S Ranch discloses that the chip barn will be 60 x 200 feet. See Map 21-20_EC-3. ODA cannot

20
grant the J-S Ranch WPCF permit if the applicant is not disclosing the correct information to the agency or
to the public.

Additionally, the J-S Ranch proposal includes building a new gravel road. See June 28, 2021 CAFO
Site Plan. Has ODA considered the stormwater runoff impacts of this proposed gravel road? Both its
construction and its use as part of the J-S Ranch’s operations? Has ODA inquired of the J-S Ranch about
the CAFO Site Plan which shows the new gravel road as running approximately 800 feet from the existing
driveway to the poultry houses, and that it then extends all around the site of the 11 poultry houses, chip
barn, and manure shed?

The property also apparently has other structures on it already, including a residence and
agricultural buildings. The ODA’s assessment of the J-S Ranch’s stormwater production should also
consider the existing stormwater runoff from these structures and existing roads.

Fourth, the WPCF Permit stormwater collection, handling, and storage procedures are not met. The WPCF
Permit requires that the AWMP must include procedures “to ensure collection, handling, and storage of
contaminated stormwater runoff from the production area, manure, litter, and process wastewater…”
WPCF S3.c.2(a). The J-S Ranch does not provide a storm water management plan as part of its application
to ODA for a permit. Unlike the manure shed description, which says “[t]he manure shed has gutters that
direct the stormwater runoff away from the manure shed” (AWMP at 3), the poultry houses do not identify
that there will be gutters to convey stormwater. AWMP at 6-7. The J-S Ranch states that poultry house
runoff “from the roofs of the poultry houses will be directed to the non-working ends of the poultry
houses.” AWMP at 6. Will the J-S Ranch have gutters on the poultry houses to ensure no stormwater is
contaminated before reaching its next destination? The stormwater is somehow conveyed to the non-
working ends of the poultry houses. The J-S Ranch then proposes to “install drain tile, slope grading,
ditches and culverts to direct the stormwater to a ditch on the south end of the property. See maps” and to
build 14-foot-wide sloped concrete aprons at the front and back end of the poultry houses. AWMP at 7. All
these structures must be included in the J-S Ranch’s stormwater calculations.

Fifth, even if stormwater does not come into direct contact with chicken manure, it still picks up silt, deposited
ammonia, and other pollutants which it discharges to the North Santiam River. The North Santiam already has a
TMDL for dissolved oxygen during spawning season (which also overlaps with the late winter/spring
rainstorms). Silt reduces the amount of oxygen available to fish, increases turbidity, and can contribute to
algae blooms, further decreasing oxygen available for fish. Silt and turbidity also smother fish eggs,
compromising Chinook and steelhead survival as they emigrate and rear in this reach of the North
Santiam. Silt and turbidity also further exacerbate temperature, which includes a North Santiam TMDL.

Our reading of the J-S Ranch’s proposal is that there are significant gaps in its disclosure of the
stormwater problems and implications for this site, and with the poultry house stormwater collection and
conveyance system. Under the WPCF General Permit, the J-S Ranch must inspect and record weekly
stormwater diversion devices, runoff diversion structures, animal waste storage structures, devices
channeling contaminated stormwater to wastewater and manure storage and containment structures.

21
WPCF General Permit S4.B1(a). How will ODA be able to hold the J-S Ranch accountable for inspections,
for corrections of deficiencies, and take enforcement action against the J-S Ranch if the J-S Ranch simply
punts its stormwater management system at the outset? Again, only a stormwater management study
performed by an independent engineer or hydrologist can address these questions.

G. Unlined, compacted native soil earthen floors in poultry houses.

The J-S Ranch says that the manure shed will have a 6-inch concrete floor (AWMP at 3, Manure
Shed Elevation Drawing at 1), but despite proposing a “modern” operation, will not have a synthetic or
even a concrete base layer for the broiler barns where it admits manure will be kept in-between cleanouts.
The Building Diagram # 2 identifies that the poultry houses will only have compacted native soil that will
apparently only be 4 inches deep and “rock fill if needed to level.” See AWMP and “Building and Diagram 2”
schematic submitted to ODA. Clearly this implies that the only purpose of (porous) rock underlying the
broiler barns is to level the structure, and it does nothing to protect groundwater or inhibit flooding from
water underneath the broiler barns.

And as, Figure 5 shows, the poultry houses, manure sheds, “stockpile” and storm water detention
pond will all be placed directly on top of natural flow accumulation lines, in a region with significant
rainfall. 22 A soil base of only 4 inches, combined with removal of caked manure and scraping activities
poses serious risks of manure leaching into the soil, the wetlands, and the water system. Did ODA review
the natural flow accumulation lines on the property? Does ODA know the permeability rating of a soil base,
and its conductivity? Like manure lagoons, there must be an engineering specification for the degree of
permeability and conductivity. At the October 20, 2021, public hearing, ODA asserted that chicken
manure is completely dry and will not permeate or leach through the 4-inch soil base, but no information
in the application or provided by ODA supports this assumption. Public commenters, who raise poultry, in
fact confirmed the opposite: that poultry manure exits the birds in wet form. Has ODA considered
permeability and conductivity considering a property where the distance groundwater measures only 31 cm
to 64 cm, and is prone to flooding? Additionally, during the October 20, 2021, public hearing, ODA
asserted that the J-S Ranch site plans show the broiler barns as being built “up” in elevation so they would
not be subjected to flooding. But ODA does not estimate the height of any flooding waters, or account for
water sheeting across the property, or for water coming “up” due to the water table. And, when we reviewed
the schematics submitted to ODA and to DEQ, and the stormwater prevention and control plan submitted
to DEQ, none of these documents indicate the height above ground—and above the flood levels—that the
base of the broiler barns would be constructed.

Other states have guidances on using PVC, concrete, asphalt, or earthen floors. See, e.g.,
Attachment H (Minnesota). When the public raised this during the October 20, 2021, public hearing with
ODA, we were told that Oregon is not Minnesota, Georgia, or any other state. We agree, and in fact as we
have pointed out to ODA since early 2021, this particular site where the J-S Ranch proposes to locate its

22
ODA stated in the October 20, 2021 public hearing that the CAFO would not alter the water flow on the
property.

22
operation is unique even within Oregon. If ODA proceeds with permitting this operation, the site should require
significantly more stringent broiler barn flooring than simply compacted soils. And all of this could be accomplished
through ODA’s authority to issue individual permits. Just look at the earthen floor requirements in
Minnesota; the J-S Ranch has proposed nothing close to some of the protections that state’s guidance
provides. It has pre-construction and construction requirements, summarized below.

Pre-construction requirements
* Verify soil permeability and plasticity thresholds;
* At least 3 feet above seasonal high water table elevation or bedrock;
* Verify separation to water table;
* Recommended practices to ensure the soils at the site are adequately evaluated.

Construction requirements
* Placement of soils during construction;
* Moisture content evaluation;
* Compaction method
* The thickness of the soil must be at least 12 inches, and only may be reduced to 8
inches if constructed underlayment is installed of either 3 inches of sand (with
particle specifications) or a geotextile fabric with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 0.30
cm/ sec.

See Attachment H.

The J-S Ranch structures should not be built on this North Santiam River floodplain property in
the first place. But if they are, why is ODA not requiring a synthetic liner beneath the facility structures and
storage components? This is the minimum that should be required. And again, we call ODA’s attention to
the plight of areas in the U.S. that are also low-lying, that use a similar bird barn structure, and experience a
significant degree of surface and groundwater contamination. 23 We do not want the pristine North Santiam
River to suffer the same fate, and again urge ODA to deny this permit application and act with the
intention of protecting the environment and public health, as the Clean Water Act intended. Not to
support one person’s desires to make money.

H. Water usage, water rights.

The J-S Ranch has a groundwater right, but the right allows use only for irrigation. J-S has applied
to OWRD for a change in the water right to also allow “Agricultural and Stockwater” uses. The J-S Ranch

23
See, e.g., Shwe, Elizabeth “Report: Eastern Shore Has Unhealthy Levels of Nitrate in Drinking Water Due
to CAFOs.” Maryland Matters. (Oct. 21, 2020) https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/10/21/report-
eastern-shore-has-unhealthy-levels-of-nitrate-in-drinking-water-due-to-cafos/ and referring to “Tainted Tap:
Nitrate Pollution, Factory Farms, and Drinking Water in Maryland and Beyond.” The Center for
Progressive Reform (Oct. 2020), http://progressivereform.org/our-work/energy-environment/tainted-tap-
nitrate/

23
estimates that it will use at least at minimum of 357,592 gallons of water each year (not including irrigation
water for 45.7 acres), bringing its water use to at least the following:

* Water to irrigate 45.7 acres

(approximately 20 acres leased to a grass seed farmer);
* Compost shed moistening of 329,212 gallons
(unspecified how often this is done per compost cycle, how many compost cycles will be
done annually, but depends on moisture content needs to promote composting activity);
* Cleaning and flushing cool cell systems
(which will generate 5,940 gallons of wastewater, so presumably at least an equal
amount of water will be used);
* Cleaning fans for each flock
(20 gallons per fan x 17 fans per house x 11 houses = 3,740 gallons per cleanout x
6 flocks per year = approximately 22,440 gallons/year)

The J-S Ranch proposes to use water for at least three different functions: irrigation; cleaning; and
composting. There may be other uses not identified (such as other cleaning or employee use).

In 2019, EcoNorthwest’s Report’s report for the North Santiam Watershed Council, “Importance
of Water in the North Santiam Basin,” highlighted a key concern that the North Santiam Watershed may
not be able to meet the full range of demands without changing the way people who depend on the
watershed’s resources think about its management. 24 In the North Santiam, populations are increasing,
climate change is decreasing snowpacks, and water quantities are decreasing. See ECONorthwest Report at
1-2. It is therefore crucial that ODA not permit this CAFO to be constructed before the appropriate agency
has determined that it is entitled to use all the water it will require to operate.

V. Air quality and aerial deposition of pollutants.

A. Air Quality

This poultry operation will severely threaten local air quality. Poultry CAFOs release particulate
matter and various gases, most notably ammonia, in staggering quantities. 25 Outputs from poultry
operations can be emitted, transported, and deposited into water. See Attachment I (Baker 2019).
Particulate matter results from “[f]eed, bedding, dry manure, unpaved soil surfaces, animal dander, and
poultry feathers.” 26 As such, it is routinely composed of fecal matter, bacteria, fungi, and skin cells, amongst

24
EcoNorthwest “Importance of Water in the North Santiam Basin - An Economic Description.” (Jan. 30,
2019) at http://northsantiam.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Importance-of-Water-in-
NSW_FINAL_2019.pdf
25
D. Lee Miller & Gregory Muren, CAFOs: What we don’t Know is Hurting Us 8 (2019).
26
Nat’l Ass’n of Local Bds. of Health, Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their
Impacts on Communities 6 (2010).

24
other things. 27 Ammonia is a byproduct of animal waste 28 and it is estimated that the manure of an
“average broiler chicken emits between 0.27 and 0.54 grams of ammonia each day.” While these numbers
may appear insignificant, when examined in context, they are anything but. An operation with “an average
inventory of 110,000 broilers” may emit as much as 24 tons of ammonia per year. 29 In its first application,
the J-S Ranch proposed an average inventory of 580,000 broilers in 2020, an inventory capable of emitting
up to 126 tons of ammonia per year. 30 In 2021, the J-S Ranch proposed an inventory of 566,400 broilers
for 2021. See n. 2 supra. The production of 566,400 broilers is an inventory capable of emitting up to 123
tons of ammonia per year. 31 Either way, it is a significant quantity of ammonia.

For years, data has illustrated that exposure to air pollutants, like ammonia and particulate matter,
is correlated with negative health outcomes. 32 The particulate matter associated with CAFOs has been
linked to asthma and bronchitis, as well as systematic effects like cardiac arrest and decreased lung
function. 33 Ammonia, a gas that is rapidly absorbed by the body’s upper airways, is known to cause various
effects depending on the concentration, duration of exposure, and sensitivity of the individual. 34 Its effects
range from odor detection and nasal, throat, and eye irritation to burns, severe mucous buildup, scarring of
the airways, and even death. 35 Nearby residents to the J-S Ranch’s proposed poultry CAFO will face
potential respiratory problems, chronic lung disease, increased risk of heart attack, and chemical burns to
the respiratory tract, skin, and eyes. 36 Children will be especially at risk due to their increased air intake. 37
Multiple studies have reported increased prevalence of asthma in children living on or near CAFOs. 38
Indeed, a recent first-of-its-kind study by the National Academic of Sciences shows that air pollution from

27
Nat’l Ass’n of Local Bds. of Health, supra note 26, at 6.
28
Id.
29
Ammonia Emissions from Poultry Industry More Harmful to Chesapeake Bay than Previo
usly Thought, Env’t Integrity Project (Jan. 22, 2018), https://environmentalintegrity.org/news/ammonia-
emissions/.
30
580,000 broilers x 0.54 grams ammonia per broiler x 365 days per year= 114,318,000.00 grams of
ammonia (907,184.74 grams = 1 ton) → 114,318,000.00g / 907,184.74g = 126.014 tons of ammonia/year
31
566,400 broilers x 0.54 grams ammonia per broiler x 365 days per year= 111,637,440.00 grams of
ammonia (907,184.74 grams = 1 ton) → 111,637,440.00g /907,184.74g = 123.059 tons of ammonia/year
32
See Joan A. Casey et al., Industrial Food Animal Production and Community Health, Current Env’t Health
Reports, July 2015, at 259; see Sara G. Rasmussen et al., Proximity to Industrial Food Animal Production and
Asthma Exacerbations in Pennsylvania, 2005-2012, Int’l J. of Env’t Res. & Pub. Health, Mar. 2017, at 1;
Melissa Poulsen et al., High-Density Poultry Operations and Community Acquired Pneumonia in Pennsylvania, Int’l
J. Env’t Epidemiology, 2018, at 1.
33
Nat’l Ass’n of Local Bds. of Health, supra note 26, at 6.
34
Id.; see also Citizens Petition to List Ammonia as a Clean Air Act Criteria Pollutant 10.
35
Nat’l Ass’n of Local Bds. of Health, supra note 26, at 6’ see also Citizens Petition to List Ammonia as a Clean
Air Act Criteria Pollutant 10.
36
D. Lee Miller & Gregory Muren, supra note 25, at 9.
37
“Children take in 20-50% more air than adults.” Nat’l Ass’n of Local Bds. of Health, supra note 26, at 5.
38
See Sara G. Rasmussen et al,. supra note 32; see Siguradarson Sigurdur et al., School Proximity to
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Prevalence of Asthma in Students, 129 Chest J. 1486 (2006); see Julia
R. Barrett, Hogging the Air: CAFO Emissions Reach into Schools, Env’t Health Perspectives, Apr. 2006, at 241.

25
factory farms causes more than 17,000 deaths per year. 39 Ammonia and other gases emitted from factory farms
now account for more annual deaths than pollution from coal-fired power plants. Id.

To date there remains no federal or state regulation of ammonia as an air pollutant from CAFOs. As such,
the health of nearby residents will suffer immensely in the event this permit is granted to the J-S Ranch. As
will be discussed below, granting a NPDES permit, as compared to a WPCF, is not only required but would
aid in regulating the enormous ammonia emissions anticipated from the J-S Ranch’s proposed poultry
operation.

B. Aerial Deposition

Coverage under the WPCF permit 40 is inadequate for the J-S Ranch’s proposed operation. Once
established, this poultry CAFO will result in the atmospheric deposition of ammonia into the Santiam
River, a surface water discharge not covered under a WPCF permit. Ammonia, a form of nitrogen, exits
chicken houses and enters the atmosphere via the industrial scale fans used to circulate air within the
houses. 41 This ammonia subsequently drifts down into nearby water bodies, adding excess nitrogen to the
waters. 42 This excess nitrogen contributes to algal outbreaks, which in turn disrupt oxygen availability in
waters, causing “dead zones” or zones devoid of aquatic and marine life. 43 These ammonia depositions are
discharges of pollutants into waters of the U.S. and thus necessitate an NPDES permit.

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, except
when in compliance with a NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined
as any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). There is
no question that this facility qualifies as a point source, as CAFOs fall squarely within the definition of
point source. Or. Admin. R. 340-045-0005(17). Further, there is also little dispute that the Santiam River,
the body of water adjacent to this proposed facility, is a navigable water. See Or. Admin. R. 340-045-
0005(14). While perhaps not as clear cut as the other jurisdictional elements, precedent establishes that the
required “addition of a pollutant” is also met here.

Pollutant is statutorily defined as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or
discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged

39
Sarah Kaplan, Air pollution from farms leads to 17,900 U.S. deaths per year, study finds, WASHINGTON
POST (May 10, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/05/10/farm-
pollution-deaths/ (includes link to study).
40
“‘WPCF Permit’ means a Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit to construct and operate a disposal
system with no discharge to navigable waters.” OAR 603-074-0010(35).
41
Landmark Court Decision Requires Regulations of Air Pollution from Poultry Houses, WYPR (Mar. 18, 2021),
https://www.wypr.org/show/the-environment-in-focus/2021-03-18/landmark-court-decision-requires-
regulation-of-air-pollution-from-poultry-houses.
42
Id.
43
D. Lee Miller & Gregory Muren, supra note 25, at 9.

26
into the water.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). However, “this list is not exhaustive[,]” rather pollutant is to be
interpreted broadly. National Cotton Council of America v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 553
F.3d 927, 930 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 724 (2006)). In alignment with
this notion, ammonia emissions have previously been established as “pollutants” necessitating regulation
under the CWA.

In March 2021, a Maryland state court held that the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) erroneously concluded that gaseous ammonia emissions are not governed by Maryland’s expansion
of the CWA. See In re Assateague Coastal Trust, Case No.: 482915-V, slip op. (Md. Cir. Ct., Mar. 11, 2021).
The court noted that Maryland defined “pollutant” as “any liquid, gaseous, solid, or other substance that
will pollute any waters of this State.” Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original). In addition, the state defined
“discharge” as “the addition, introduction, leaking, spilling, or emitting of a pollutant into the waters of this
State.” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). Under this construction, the court held “it is clear that CAFOs in
Maryland, particularly CAFOs operating as poultry farms, emit gaseous ammonia by discharging noxious
fumes onto the waters of the State via industrial fans.” Id. at 10.

In Oregon, like in Maryland, “pollutant” reaches gaseous substances. Oregon defines “pollutant” to
include, inter alia, “industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” See Or. Admin. R.
340-045-0010 (18). The definition of “wastes” includes “industrial wastes, and all other liquid, gaseous,
solid, radioactive, or other substances, that will or may cause or tend to cause pollution of any waters of the
state.” Id. 340-045-0010 (31) (emphasis added). Moreover, “industrial waste” is defined to include gaseous
waste from “any process of industry, manufacturing, trade, or business[.]” Id. 340-045-0010 (10) (emphasis
added). Thus, under either the general definition of “waste” or the more specific definition of “industrial
waste,” gaseous ammonia emissions should be considered a covered pollutant triggering the need for a
NPDES permit, just as they were in Maryland.

Caselaw additionally establishes that ammonia emissions are “additions'' within the context of the
CWA. In National Cotton Council of America v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Sixth Circuit
considered an EPA rule that established the pesticide residues and excess pesticides, discharged from point
sources, as nonpoint source pollutants. Nat’l Cotton Council of America, 553 F.3d at 934. Ultimately, the
court rejected the rule, establishing that pesticide residues and excess pesticides are additions from a point
source. Id. at 936‑40. The court emphasized the impropriety of “temporally tying the “addition” (or
“discharge”) of the pollutant to the ‘point source’[.]” They reiterated that “the relevant inquiry is whether—
but for the point source—the pollutants would have been added to the receiving body of water.” Id. at 940.
(citing S. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 103 (2004)). The court
concluded “[i]t is clear that but for the application of the pesticide, the pesticide residue and excess pesticide
would not be added to the water[.]” Id. Thus, “the pesticide residue and excess pesticide are from a ‘point
source.’” Id.

Additionally, in No Spray Coal., Inc. v. City of New York, a district court in New York held that the
spraying of pesticides over navigable water can constitute an addition of a pollutant. No. 00 Civ. 5395
(GBD), 2005 WL 1354041, *4 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2005). According to the court, it did not matter that the

27
pesticide “is initially sprayed into the air as a fine mist” as long as “the mist descends downward into the
water.” Id. The court further explained that it “would be unreasonable to distinguish between a sprayer
releasing a fine mist pollutant into the atmosphere over the water and a pipe that released the same single
flow of pollutant directly into water.” Id. That is because polluters would only need “to attach an airborne
mist blower or hydraulic sprayer to their pipe to discharge a pollutant over the water in order to escape
liability or regulation.” Id.

These cases demonstrate that the atmospheric deposition of ammonia from J-S Ranch’s poultry
barns is an addition within the confines of the CWA. Just like the pesticides at issue in National Cotton
Council, but for the J-S Ranch’s CAFO and its industrial fans, the ammonia residue would not be added to
the Santiam River. And just like the “fine mist” of pesticides in No Spray Coalition that “descends downward
into the water,” so too does the ammonia emitted through the J-S Ranch’s CAFO. It does not matter that
the ammonia emissions discharge from the point source, the CAFO, well before they will likely deposit in
the Santiam River as there is no “temporal requirement” in the CWA. Nat’l Cotton Council, 553 F.3d at
939.

In conclusion, the ammonia emissions that are emitted through the industrial fans of the J-S
Ranch’s CAFO and deposited into the Santiam River meet the standard for discharge of a pollutant from a
point source into waters of the United States, triggering the need for a NPDES permit.

VI. Climate Crisis.

Extreme and varied weather events are predicted to occur for areas West of the Cascades, via
changes in temperature and precipitation patterns. 44 The unusual storms arriving just this weekend, for
example, are expected to deposit significant quantities of rainfall. Of particular note regarding this climate
crisis are the following points, which we ask ODA to consider as it reviews the J-S Ranch permit
application:

* The EcoNorthwest Report found that the effects of climate change on the North
Santiam are expected to be greater than other basins in the Willamette River
Watershed. See EcoNorthwest at 2.

* The 25-year 24 hour storm event parameters are sorely outdated, based on 60 year
old NRCS data. 45 We encourage ODA to use current rainfall probability data.

44
See NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: State Summaries - Oregon,
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/or/
45
See 40 C.F.R. § 412.2(i) (relying on National Weather Service Technical Paper No. 40 from May 1961).
EPA’s effluent guidelines for certain CAFOs call for waste storage capacity based on “actual climate data for
the previous 30 years.” 40 C.F.R. § 412.46(a)(1)(iii). This may still not be protective enough, but this at least
should be clearly incorporated into any final Permit issued to the J-S Ranch.

28
 * The USDA’s 2021 Climate Adaptation Plan 46 notes issues that relate to concerns
we have raised regarding the J-S Ranch, such as “[p]recipitation extremes can
cause excessive runoff and soil erosion, which lead to field production issues and
downstream impacts on quality of water resources, including eutrophication and hypoxia.”

* Significant acreage upstream from the J-S Ranch burned in the 2020 fires, and is
now being denuded by federal and state agencies through post-fire timber sales.
These post-fire logging activities risk adding increased sedimentation to the North Santiam
waters. Considering the Three Basin Rule and other North Santiam water quality
protections, ODA must consider whether the sedimentation that the J-S Ranch will add to
the North Santiam is even permissible.

VII. Road access and significantly increased traffic dangers.

The J-S Ranch is proposing to locate its operations off the Jefferson-Scio Road. Jefferson-Scio road
has a 55 mile per hour speed limit. The turn off for the J-S Ranch is at an intersection of Jefferson-Scio
Road, Robinson Drive, which arrives at a 45-degree angle, and the narrow drive to access neighboring
properties, and the proposed J-S Ranch. There are no traffic controls on Jefferson-Scio Road at this
intersection. Approximately 400 feet before a left-hand turn from the Jefferson-Scio Road onto the drive,
there is a bend in the Jefferson-Scio Road. This area has already seen an extraordinary number of traffic
accidents, including at least four fatalities. See Attachment J. Now, imagine hundreds of broiler trucks, feed
trucks, and manure trucks using this intersection because of the J-S Ranch’s operations. This increased use
of the intersection, and with large trucks, is not an inconsequential factor and poses a significant increased
danger to the community.

Conclusion

Thank you for seriously considering our concerns with the J-S Ranch’s application for an ODA
WPCF permit. We urge you to deny the application. Should ODA proceed with reviewing the J-S Ranch
application, it must do so under the individual permit format, both for WPCF and NPDES permitting,
with robust protective measures, monitoring, and mitigation provisions.

Sincerely,

s/ Elisabeth Holmes s/ Amy van Saun s/ Christina Eastman

Elisabeth Holmes Amy van Saun Farmers Against Foster Farms
Staff Attorney Senior Attorney www.farmersagainstfosterfarms.com
Willamette Riverkeeper Center for Food Safety [email protected]
Tel. (541) 870-7722 Tel. (585) 747-0151
[email protected] [email protected]

46
USDA 2021 Climate Adaptation Plan at 7, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-
releases/2021/10/07/usda-announces-plan-integrate-climate-adaptation-its-missions-and.

29
Commenting Organizations

Friends of Family Farmers

PO Box 665
Walterville, OR 97489
Humane Voters Oregon
5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 258
Portland, OR 97239

Center for Biological Diversity

P.O. Box 11374
Portland, OR 97211-0374

Food & Water Watch

1616 P Street NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036

Animal Legal Defense Fund

525 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931

cc: Public Works Department, City of Jefferson, Oregon

(via U.S. Mail)
Jefferson City Hall
150 N. 2nd St. / PO Box 83, Jefferson, OR 97352

NMFS NOAA
Kim Kratz, Assistant Regional Administrator ([email protected])

Oregon Department of State Lands

Vicki Walker, Director ([email protected])

Department of Environmental Quality,

Jennifer Maglinte-Timbrook ([email protected])

Enclosures: Attachments A -J

30
 INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Description

A Figures 1 - 5

Figure 1 - Linn County planning data incorporating National Wetlands Inventory

data, a 2017 Wetlands Reference Layer, and any existing wetlands determinations.

Figure 2 - Estimates the location of the 11 proposed barns, 2 manure sheds, storm
water detention pond, and stockpile area and other structures in relation to the
wetlands.

Figure 3 - Site plan submitted to DEQ by J-S Ranch in their application for a
construction stormwater permit.

Figure 4 - Floodplain elevation map by Waterstone Engineering.

Figure 5 - Lidar Illustrating flow accumulation lines on and through the property,
and contours by Waterstone Engineering.

B Site Plan and drawings submitted to ODA

C Oregon DEQ 1200-C application materials from J-S Ranch dated Aug. 13, 2021
Site Plans submitted to DEQ

D OSU Surveys (2015-2017)

E Jepson et al. (2015)

F Zoellick (2013)

G Oregon DEQ 2018/2020 Integrated Report Database Instructions and Oregon

DEQ 2018/2020 Integrated Report (filtered for North Santiam River results)

H Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Constructing poultry barn floors”

Publication WQ-F8-05 (Dec. 2019)

I Baker et al (2019)

J Traffic Accident Reports, 1998 - 2021 (Linn Co. Sheriff)

31