-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (STATEMENT
FOR
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
EPA-10-OR-JACKSON-JACKSONVILLE-WWTW-76
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
IBLf OFFIC
•mid P. jDulfois
Regional Administrator
December 6, 1976
Date
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
EPA-10-OR-JACKSON-JACKSONVILLE-WWTW-76
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
February 8, 1977
Date
o
C-
C; 77 ! '
> ro C-
D3 cr
-------
ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
DECEMBER 1976
Introduction
This addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) (December 1976) for the City of Jacksonville,
Oregon, wastewater treatment system amends the Draft EIS
by presenting: 1) an additional facilities alternative
(A-3); 2) a cost for A-3; and 3) recomputations of costs
for Alternatives A-l and A-2. Also included is an environ-
mental impact evaluation of Alternative A-3. This added
and revised material will be included in the Final EIS along
with other revisions that respond to comments on the Draft
EIS. This addendum is being distributed to those persons
who have received a Draft EIS and will be available at the
public hearing to be held on February 17, 1977 in Jackson-
ville.
Description of Alternative A-3 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority (BCVSA) Annexation with Limited Service Area
al -t-orna t- i wo A — "} ic r-omro rnhl o -Ho A 1 fe> rn A f i ur> c A — 1
f. .»— V %-• •- » * W. »- » • V- •- - W -- *-- V w ...»£- •**. — -^- .-— _ «_ W — - -— — V — - - — •. — — • — "-• -— ^-
A-2 except that the sewerage service area was reduced to
include only: 1) the present City of Jacksonville (1,274
acres) ; 2) the proposed Jacksonville urban growth areas
(328 acres) ; and 3) a 152-acre corridor of land between
Pioneer Avenue and the existing Jacksonville sewage lagoons.
This corridor is defined as a 300-foot setback from the
interceptor plus existing developments. The City of Jackson-
ville would extend its interceptor, which presently terminates
at the sewage lagoons, to connect to the headworks of the
existing 30-inch West Medford trunk operated by BCVSA.
The West Medford trunk presently terminates at Pioneer
Avenue. BCVSA would participate in this extension. The
existing sewage lagoon site would be drained, regraded and
sold.
The extension of the Jacksonville interceptor from
the sewage lagoons to Pioneer Avenue will require 7,200
feet of 15-inch pipe. The probable alignment of the exten-
sion and the service area are shown on Figure 12a. The
main difference between Alternative A-l and A-3 interceptors
is in pipeline size and thus, long-term service capacities.
-------
URBAN
GROV/TH
BOUNDARY
JACKSONVILLE
CITY LIMITS
EXISTING 15
INTERCEPTOR
INTERCEPTOR
ROUTE
SEWAGE
LAGOONS
AREA BOUNDARY
FIGURE I2A SERVICE AREA AND ROUTING OF INTERCEPTORS FOR ALTERNATIVE A-3
-------
This 15-inch pipeline could convey 2.7 mgd (4.2 cfs),
while the expected wastewater flow will be 1.46 mgd (2.3
cfs). It will serve the projected 1997 Jacksonville popu-
lation of 5,300 plus a projected population of 561 in the
corridor between Pioneer Avenue and the existing Jackson-
ville sewage ponds.
The population in the corridor area is estimated to
be 371. This estimate was made by counting houses in a
1975 aerial photograph of the area (scale 1" = 500') and
by comparing this count with the existing zoning map which
shows platted property along the Jacksonville Highway.
The house count (109 dwellings) was multiplied by 3.4 (BCATS
data, 1974) to derive the present population estimate.
The projected 1997 population of 561 persons in the
corridor was determined by assuming: 1) that present F-5
and RR-5 (5-acre minimum) zoning would be maintained; 2)
total infilling and buildout would occur in the corridor
by 1997; 3) a minimum lot frontage of 300 feet (as required
under Jackson County ordinance for 5-acre zoning); 4) lots
less than 5 acres in size platted prior to ordinance would
be developed as they were platted and not as 5-acre minimums;
5) 15 trailers would be added to the trailer park at the
corner Oj. Hanj.ey Roau anu Jackson Kiguway; and G) the same
3.4 factor applied (Jackson County zoning map, BCATS data,
1974; aerial photo, 1975; Nelson, pers. comm.). The pro-
jected population was calculated using these assumptions
by adding 190 to the present population of 371 for a total
of 561.
The population sizing and capacity of this alternative
is smaller than that recommended to Jacksonville by BCVSA
(January 26, 1977) which estimated a 1997 population of
1,050 people for the corridor area. Based on the BCVSA
criteria (i.e., a wastewater flow of 100 gallons per capita
per day [gpd]), a peaking factor of 2.5 and an infiltration-
inflow rate of 200 pcd, the Jacksonville population plus
the corridor population of 1,050 would produce a total flow
of 4.3 cfs (2.8 mgd). BCVSA recommended pipeline segment
sizes of 15, 18 and 21 inches from Jacksonville to Pioneer
Avenue. This pipeline capacity of 2.8 mgd (4.3 cfs) could
serve a population of nearly 11,200 people, which is already
covered by Alternatives A-l and A-2 in the Draft EIS. Based
on population projections for the City of Jacksonville,
and in the corridor between Jacksonville and Pioneer Avenue
(5,861 persons), the BCVSA capacity is judged to be greater
-------
than the projected needs of the City of Jacksonville and
the corridor, thus providing a principal reason for describing
Alternative A-3. T. Flatebo & Associates, sanitary engineer
to Jacksonville, judged that sufficient sizing could be
achieved by assuming a wastewater flow of 80 gallons per
capita per day, an infiltration-inflow of 50 gpcd and a
peaking factor of 2.5. These assumptions were used to
develop the proposed 15-inch size.
However, the proposed 15-inch interceptor could service
a population of approximately 10,800 which is also greater
than the expected 20-year need for Jacksonville and the
300-foot setback corridor. The rationale for 15 inches
relates to the fact that the projected 1.46 mgd flow is
at the upper capacity limit for a 12-inch pipe; thus to
achieve a safety factor and accommodation of growth beyond
20 years, 15 inches is proposed. Detailed design engineer-
ing may not determine the long-term sizing needed because
of uncertainties about land use in the area.
Issues relating to interceptor pipeline sizing will
probably have to be resolved before a federal grant is awarded,
The estimated capital cost of implementing Alternative
A-3f assuming construction begin? in 1977. is estimated
to be $491,200, and the average annual operation/maintenance
costs are $77,900 (see Table 13A). These costs were developed
for the pipeline sizes suggested by BCVSA. Reduction in
pipe size to 15 inches would not significantly change the
cost estimate. Under this alternative, the City of Jackson-
ville would annex into the BCVSA for sewerage services based
on a contractual agreement. The details of such a contract
have not been determined at this time.
-------
Table 13A
• Alternative A-3
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Annexation
With Minimum Service Area
Cost Life, Salvage Value,
Item Dollarsl'2 Years Dollars*
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor 102,000 50 61,200
West Medford Trunk
extension 379, 2003" 50 227,500
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility 10,000 — 42,500
Total construction cost 491,200
Salvage value at year 20 288,700
Existing site -
salvage value S^
Total capital cost 491,200
Annual operation and
maintenance cost 77,900
Costs above do not include $40,200 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
These costs were computed for pipeline sizes greater than
15 inches; however, decreasing portions of the pipeline
from 21- and 24-inch to 15-inch changes the capital costs
less than 10 percent which is not significant in comparison
to methods used to estimate cost.
This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $454,367.
An estimated savings of $11,670 or 3 percent of the cost
would be achieved by reducing the pipe size from 15, 18
and 21 inches to 15 inches.
72A
-------
Impacts
The short-term impacts of Alternative A-3 will be equal
in scope and magnitude to those identified for Alternatives
A-l and A-2 in Table 19 (page 87) of the Draft EIS.
Some of the long-term environmental impacts of Alter-
native A-3 are essentially the same as those identified
in the Draft EIS for Alternatives A-l and A-2. These impacts
include: water quality, flood and geologic hazards, soils,
archeological resources, vegetation, terrestrial wildlife,
aesthetics and project energy consumption. Changing the
size of the pipe will not greatly change the magnitude of
these impacts.
There are differences in impact magnitude among the
remaining direct and secondary impacts of Alternative A-3,
because the service area and population to be served are
significantly smaller than in Alternative A-l and A-2 (1,754
acres vs. 6,550 acres and a projected population of 5,861
vs. 9,623 respectively). Property that could be served
by Alternatives A-l and A-2 would not be served by Alter-
native A-3. Those of importance are as follows:
Population Growth
o Impact on population size.
The projected 1997 human population to be served by
Alternative A-3 is 5,861. Sewerage service capability is
based on a 1997 population of 5,300 in the City of Jackson-
ville and the designated urban growth boundary, and 561
in the corridor between Pioneer Avenue and the existing
Jacksonville sewage ponds. The proposed pipeline would
also have the capacity to serve larger populations.
Population density in Jacksonville and the urban growth
area would increase from 1.6 persons per acre to 3.3 per
acre. The density of that portion of the service area
between Pioneer Avenue and the sewage ponds could increase
from 2.4 persons to 3.7 persons per acre.
o Impact on population distribution.
Using Alternative A-3, a majority of future growth
in the sewage area will be within the city limits of Jackson-
ville, its designated urban growth boundary, and the corridor
area from the sewage ponds to Pioneer Avenue. When the
buildable land within those areas is filled, future urban
population growth will probably continue outside of the
city limits.
-------
Land Use
o Impact on land use patterns.
The interceptor line from Pioneer Avenue to Jackson-
ville will result in pressures to convert existing agricul-
tural uses to residential uses of land immediately adjacent
to the interceptor system. In the scope of Alternative
A-3, development could be limited by an agreement between
Jacksonville and BCVSA to 300 feet either side of the inter-
ceptor. However, the ultimate use of that land will depend
upon the land use policy of Jackson County and decisions
made by the County Commissioners and the LCDC.
Air Quality
o Regional air quality.
Alternative A-3 is designed to handle a 1997 population
of 5,861 people which is comparable to the projected year
2000 population for the City of Jacksonville (see Appendix H,
page 182). Therefore, the expected air pollutant emissions
resulting from population growth under Alternative A-3 are
judged to be comparable to the "city mid-range" estimates
for the year 2000 as presented in Table 20 on page 95.
Traffic
o Impact from traffic and circulation patterns.
Any subsequent residential development in Jacksonville
and along the eastern service area corridor will cause an
increase in traffic loads, particularly on the Jacksonville
Highway (238) and its lateral streets within the City of
Jacksonville, the county and West Medford.
Quality of Life and Social Well-Being
o Impact on historical value and integrity.
The development of residential areas along Highway
238 from Pioneer Avenue to Jacksonville would have the most
significant impact on the autonomy of Jacksonville. The
distinct eastern boundary represented by open space and.
low density residential development will be significantly
reduced as residential growth proceeds along the Jackson-
ville Highway. However, the maintenance of Farm Residential
(F-5) zoning (a minimum of one dwelling per 5 acres) in
-------
that corridor could contribute toward maintaining an open
space appearance. Growth in the corridor and the Jackson-
ville urban area could dilute the historical value and
integrity of Jacksonville. The degree of this effect is
generally one of personal opinion, and thus, one that should
be decided by residents through their governmental processes,
Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project and
Environmental Objectives
Table 24 has been revised to include the comparative
evaluation of Alternative A-3.
Recomputation of Cost Analyses for Alternatives
A-l and A-2
The reevaluation of cost estimates for Alternatives
A-l and A-2 appear as Tables 12, 13 and 14 herein. The
comparative summary for the 20-year total and local costs
appears as Table 18.. Those cost changes have also
reflected in Appendices C-l and C-2.
-------
Table 12
Alternative A-l
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Annexation
Cost Life, Salvage Value,
Item Dollars1 Years Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor 102,000 50
West Medford Trunk
extension 476, OOO2 50
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility 10,000
61,200
285,600
42,500
Total construction cost 588,000
Salvage value at year 20
Existing site -
salvage value
346,800
42,500
Total capital cost 588,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost 77,900
Costs above do not include $40,200 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2. This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
70
-------
Table 13
Alternative A-2
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Lease
Cost, Life, Salvage Value,
Item Dollars1 Years Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor 102,000 50 61,200
West Medford Trunk
extension2 476,000 50 285,600
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility 10,000 0 42,500
Total construction cost 588,000
Salvage value at year 20
Existing site
346, 800
42,500
Total capital 588,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost3 75,000
1 Costs above do not include $40,200 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2 This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of -a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
Breakdown of operation and maintenance costs is as
follows: Bear Creek interceptor, $500/year; West Medford
Trunk, $ll,400/year; Kirtland pump station, $10,500/year;
treatment, $31,700/year; and Jacksonville sewer system,
$20,900/year.
72
-------
Table 14
Alternative B
Activated Sludge Package Plant and
Discharge to U. S.
Item
Operation building,
W. Lab.
0.425 mgd activated
sludge plant
Chlorination pond,
W. equip.
Expand existing lagoons
for storage
Fence, roads, landscape
11,200', 12" diameter
outfall
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent
Forest Service Tree Farm1
Cost, Life, Salvage Value,
Dollars Years Dollars
15,000 25 3,000
325,000 20 0
22,000 20 0
54,200 50 32,500
10,000 50 6,000
133,000 50 79,800
559,200
121,300
31,000 31,000
139,800
Total capital cost
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
730,000
35,400
1 If this alternative is used, there is an additional cost
related to sewage services for landowners outside of
Jacksonville that is not included. These users could
connect to the BCVSD interceptor that terminates at
Pioneer Avenue.
75
-------
Table 18
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND LOCAL COSTS*
Average Annual Equivalent Cost
Alternative
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
Total Cost
Basis, $/Year
118,600
115,700
111,000
97,600
58,200
37,200
72,700
Local Cost
Basis, $/Year**
79,800
76,900
78,600
49,400
32,100
20,000
51,700
* In the case of Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 sewage
services for land between Jacksonville and Pioneer Avenue
is not provided. If this area were to be sewered, there
would be an additional cost.
** Local cost is the equivalent annual cost of capital facili-
ties after subtracting federal grant, plus the annual
operation/maintenance costs.
83
-------
Table 24
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION RELATING PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES TO PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
] A-l A-2 A-3 B C-l C-la C-2 D
Project Objectives;
Provide an institutionally
acceptable wastewater dis-
posal system for the citizens
of Jacksonville. Ill 22 224
Environmental Objectives;
Minimize the adverse
effects of wastewater treat-
ment and disposal. Ill 22 224
Minimize the social-
economic costs of waste-
water treatment and
disposal.
Provide for the reuse of
treated wastewater.
Maintain the historical
quality of Jacksonville.
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
4
4
1
LEGEND;
1 Best
2 Second best
3 Limited
4 Fails
119
-------
Appendix C-l
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - LOCAL COST
Item
Total capital
cost
Local share
capital cost
Interest during
construction
Salvage value
Total present
worth
Average annual
equivalent cost
Annual operation
and maintenance
Interest
Factor A-l
1.000 588,000
1.000 147,000
22,500
0.30454 -148,100
21,400
0.08807 1,900
77,900
A- 2
588,000
147,000
22,500
-148,100
21,400
1,900
75,000
A- 3
491,200
122,800
15,000
-130,400
7,400
700
77,900
B
730,000
182,500
22,400
-46,400
158,500
14,000
35,400
C-l
349,500
98,600
12,100
-58,000
52,700
4,600
36,000
C-la
262,000
65,500
9,000
-42,500
32,000
2,800
22,200
C-2
317,500
79,400
9,700
-29,800
59,300
5,200
46,500
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
8,500
5,000
79,800 76,900 78,600 49,400 32,100 20,000 51,700
-------
Appendix C-2
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - TOTAL CAPITAL
Item
Capital cost
Interest during
construction
Salvage value
Interest
Factor
1.000
1.000
0.30454
A-l
588,000
22,500
-148,100
A- 2
588,000
22,500
148,100
A- 3
491,200
15,000
-130,400
B
730,000
22,400
-46,400
C-l
349,500
12,100
-58,000
C-la
262,000
9,000
-42,500
C-2
317,500
9,700
-29,800
Total present
worth
Average annual
equivalent cost
Annual operation
and maintenance
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
0.08807
462,400 462,400 375,800 706,000 348,600 228,500
40,700 40,700
33,100 62,200 30,700 20,000
77,900 75,000 77,900 35,400 . 36,000 22,200
8,500 5,000
118,600 115,700 111,000 97,600 58,200 37,200
297,400
26,200
46,500
72,700
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY XI
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Objectives 1
Background of Past Events 2
Project and Environmental Objectives 4
Important Issues and Considerations 5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
Physical and Biological Features 7
General Location 7
Study Area 7
Topography and Drainage 9
Climate 9
Air Quality 9
Geology 11
Geologic Hazards 13
Edaphic Features 14
Biotic Resources 17
Aesthetic Values 22
Water Resources and Water Quality 22
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions 23
Archeological Resources 24
Historical Resources 25
Socio-Economic Features 26
Description * 26
Population 27
Economy 33
Land Use 39
Land Use Planning 50
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 53
Introduction 53
Constraints on Alternative Development 53
Regionalization 55
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures 56
Wastewater Management Options 57
Possible Alternatives 57
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives 59
The Activated Sludge Process 59
The Aerated Lagoon Process 61
Land Application for Beneficial Use or Disposal 61
Treatment Plant Site Options 63
-------
Page
Land Application Site Options 63
Sludge Disposal Options 64
Implementation Options - Financing and
Organization 64
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 66
Population Capacity of Project Facilities 66
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 68
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Annexation (BCVSA) 68
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Lease 68
Alternative B - Local Treatment and Use of
Reclaimed Water by U. S. Forest Service 71
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use 73
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use (No Growth) 76
Alternative C-2 - Aerated Lagoons with
Spray Disposal 76
Alternative D - No Action Alternative 81
Cost Comparison and Summary 81
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
ALTERNATIVES 85
Introduction 85
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 85
Short-Term Impacts 86
Long-Term Direct Impacts 86
Physical and Biological Resources 86
Social Features 101
Financial Impacts 113
Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project
and Environmental Objectives 118
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 121
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS.
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 125
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 127
VIII. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 129
IX. BIBLIOGRPAHY 131
X. APPENDICES 137
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
1 Summary: Estimates of annual particulate
emissions in Jackson County 12
2 Vegetation and land use - City of Jacksonville 20
3 Endangered and threatened vertebrate species 21
4 Jacksonville's population growth in relation
to Medford and Jackson Counties 29
5 1970 age characteristic of Jacksonville 29
6 Visitors to the Jacksonville Museum 36
7 Employment categories: Jackson County and
Jacksonville 36
8 Income distribution for Jacksonville 38
9 Income categories: Jackson County and
Jacksonville 38
10 Jacksonville land use summary 40
11 Average daily traffic counts 42
12 Alternative A-l - BCVSA annexation 70
13 Alternative A-2 - BCVSA lease 72
14 Alternative B - activated sludge plant and
U. S. Forest Service tree farm 75
15 Alternative C-l - aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use 77
16 Alternative C-la - aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use (no growth) 79
17 Alternative C-2 - aerated lagoons with
spray disposal 82
18 20-year comparison of total and local costs 83
111
-------
Table
Number Title Page
19 Short-term impacts - Jacksonville sewage
treatment alternatives 87
20 Index of motor vehicle air pollutant emissions 95
21 Energy requirements - kilowatt-hours/20 years 102
22 Projected monthly cost per connection and
assessed valuation for the various
alternatives 114
23 City revenue from residential taxes 116
24 Comparative evaluation relating project
alternatives to project and environmental
objectives 119
25 Environmental summary of long-term impacts
of project alternatives for Jacksonville
wastewater disposal 122
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Title Page
1 The City of Jacksonville and environs 8
2 Mean monthly temperature and precipitation
in Medford, Oregon 10
3 Soil map - Jacksonville area, Oregon 15
4 Vegetation and land use - City of Jacksonville 19
5 Jacksonville city limits and proposed urban
growth boundaries 30
6 Population projections to the year 2000
for Jacksonville, Oregon 32
7 Proposed Jacksonville bypass, Highway 238 43
8 Zoning - county area surrounding Jacksonville 45
9 Zoning - City of Jacksonville 47
10 Pictorial flow diagram of activated sludge
treatment 60
11 Pictorial flow diagram of aerated lagoon
treatment 62
12 Service area and routing of interceptors -
Alternatives A-l and A-2 69
13 Alternative B (use of reclaimed wastewater
by U. S. Forest Service) 74
14 Alternative C-l - aerated lagoons with
agricultural use 78
15 Alternative C-2 - aerated lagoons with
spray disposal 80
v
-------
-------
SUMMARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT — WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, OREGON
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement; Draft (X) Final ( )
2. Type of Action; Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action;
The objective of this project is to provide an institu-
tionally acceptable wastewater disposal system for the citizens
of Jacksonville, Oregon, located 5 miles west of the City of
Medford in Jackson County, Oregon. This Draft Environmental
Impact Statement identifies alternatives for providing the city
with wastewater facilities designed both to meet the needs of
the residents of the city and maintain environmental quality.
The City of Jacksonville covers approximately 1,300 acres of
land and has a population of 2,070 (1975 estimate). In 1967,
part of the city was declared a National Historic Landmark.
Since 1973 the City of Jacksonville has had sewer connec-
tion limitations which were imposed by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality because the present treatment facilities
were unsatisfactory for adequate treatment of generated waste.
The City of Jacksonville is surrounded by the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), which provides sewerage
service to the City of Medford and surrounding areas. Jackson-
ville has not become a part of the BCVSA due to the city's past
concern for potentially adverse impacts on its historic charac-
ter as a National Historic Landmark.
In March 1976 the City of Jacksonville initiated a Step 1
grant application to find a means of resolving the waste treat-
ment problem.
VI
-------
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse
Environmental Effects";
The magnitude of the environmental impacts will vary
according to the alternatives proposed. Alternatives A-l
through C represent the hookup to existing or the construc-
tion of new treatment facilities while Alternative D repre-
sents no action.
Short-term impacts such as temporary loss of vegetation,
disruption of wildlife, traffic and utility problems, dust
and aerial pollutants, noise, visual impact, safety hazards,
spoil disposal and water quality impairments will occur in
varying degrees using Alternatives A-l, A-2, B, C-l, C-la and
C-2. No short-term impacts will be associated with
Alternative D.
The long-term impacts associated with Alternatives A-l
and A-2 indicate a potential for changes in population dis-
tribution and size, project cost and effects on land use
patterns; the major impacts of Alternative B will be its
effect on groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, archeological
resources, population size and distribution and project cost.
Impacts resulting from Alternatives C-l and C-2 will be similar
except for variations in effect on groundwater and vegetation
and wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative C-la (no growth) will be similar
to those of Alternative C-l except that the magnitude of
effect will be less. Secondary impacts on Jacksonville
resulting from population growth will be minor because of the
no-growth feature of the alternative.
The major impacts involving use of Alternative D would
see a continuation of odor problems, a continued moratorium on
building construction and the likelihood of future action by
the Department of Environmental Quality.
5. Alternatives Considered;
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Annexation.BCVSA would extend the west Medford trunk to
connect to the existing Jacksonville sewage system. Capital
costs — $735,000. Average annual operation/maintenance costs -
$77,900.
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Lease. A hookup by Jacksonville to BCVSA would have the same
result as Alternative A-2; however, the financial agreement
would be different. Capital costs — $735,000. Average annual
operation/maintenance costs — $75,000.
VII
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
T- 1200 SIXTH AVENUE
£ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
? &C-C 2 9 J976
xiM M/S 443
To: All Interested Governmental Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and implementing Federal Regulation, I am forwarding for your review
and comment this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a waste-
water system to be located in the City of Jacksonville, Jackson County,
Oregon. The City has applied for Federal assistance in financing the
proposed project pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 and implementing Federal Regulations.
If you have any comments on this Draft EIS or wish to provide additional
information for inclusion in the Final EIS, we would appreciate hearing
from you. All comments received will be used by Region X personnel in
evaluating the effects of awarding the requested grant.
It is anticipated that receipt of this document will be acknowledged by the
President's Council on Environmental Quality in the Federal Register on
Friday, January 14, .1977, initiating a forty-five day review and comment
period. Comments received through February 28, 1977 will be considered.
Additional copies of this document are available for review in the EPA
Region X Library, the Jacksonville City Library, and the Jackson County
Library. Please send your comments to:
Richard R. Thiel, P.E.,- Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Region X will hold a public hearing to receive oral and written testimony
concerning the Draft EIS and the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action. Notification of the date, time and location will be
announced"approximately 15-days prior to the event in the local newspaper.
.if .Donald V. Dubois
Regional Administrator
c:
-------
-------
Alternative B - Local Treatment and Use of Reclaimed Water
by the" U. S. Forest Service. A package-activated sludge plant
would be installed at the site of existing lagoons, and treated
sewage would be piped to a 500-acre U. S. Forest Service
seedling farm and spray irrigated. Capital cost — $730/000.
Average annual operation/maintenance costs — $35,400.
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons With Adjacent Agri-
cultural Use. Sewage would be treated in aerated lagoons and
disposed of by spraying the treated sewage onto a 77-acre
agricultural site adjacent to the treatment site. Capital
costs — $394,500. Average annual operation/maintenance
costs — $36,000.
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with Adjacent Agri-
cultuFal Use (No Growth).Sewage would be treated as with
Alternative C-l and disposed of by its being sprayed onto
50 acres of agricultural land adjacent to the treatment site.
Capital costs — $262,000. Average annual operation/
maintenance costs — $22,200.
Alternative C-2 - Aerated Lagoons with Spray Disposal.
Treatment would be identical to that of C-l; however, the
disposal site would be on 80 acres of forest land in the hills
to the southwest of Jacksonville. Capital costs — $317,500.
Average annual operation/maintenance costs — $46,500.
Alternative D - No Action Alternative. This alternative
would involve a continuation of existing conditions in which
sewage would be inadequately treated prior to its discharge
into Daisy Creek. Associated with this alternative would be
a continued moratorium on construction of sewer connections.
6. The Following State, Federal and Local Agencies, as well
as Other Interested Groups, were Invited to Comment on
the Environmental Impact Statement:
Vlll
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
U,S, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL ENERGY OFFICE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OF CONGRESS
MARK 0, HATFIELD JAMES WEAVER
U,S, SENATE U,S, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ROBERT W, PACKWOOD
U,S, SENATE
STATE
ROBERT W, STRAUB - GOVERNOR OF OREGON
BRAD Ftais - STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 51
OREGON STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IUALITY
-------
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JACKSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JACKSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
JACKSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE LIBRARY
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MEDFORD
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
INTERESTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
T, FLATEBO AND ASSOCIATES
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON
NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
OSPIRG
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
SOUTHERN OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY
THIS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ) AND THE PUBLIC ON JANUARY 14, 1977,
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires that all agencies of the federal government prepare
a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals
for projects that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. NEPA requires that agencies (in this case
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) include in their
decision-making process all considerations of environmental
aspects of proposed actions, the environmental impacts of the
proposed project and its alternatives, and a discussion of
ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects. The EIS is to be
a "full disclosure" document and must follow specific regula-
tions of the EPA as contained in 40 CFS, part 6, as published
in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72, April 14, 1975.
Because the City of Jacksonville project can be 75 per-
cent funded by the EPA, as a part of Construction Grants
Program authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), it requires NEPA action.
After reviewing the Step 1 grant application from the City of
Jacksonville for the planning and construction of a wastewater
treatment facility, it was determined by the EPA that an EIS
was needed. The decision was based on the potential adverse
effects of future growth on the historical integrity of
Jacksonville, on changes in land use patterns and effects on
agricultural land.
This EIS has been prepared as a "piggyback" document
which will allow the draft EIS and draft facilities plan to
be prepared concurrently. The "piggyback" approach allows
for an evaluation of a variety of alternatives and an option
to discard those deemed environmentally and socially unsound.
This process also reduces the period of time required to
evaluate and subsequently approve a project since the EIS is
often prepared after a draft facilities plan is drawn up, a
process which tends to lengthen the time needed to select a
final alternative.
Data for this EIS were compiled from various existing
studies of Jackson County and the Cities of Jacksonville and
Medford, field reconnaissance and numerous personal contacts
with involved agencies and individuals. A complete listing
of references appears in the Bibliography.
-------
The EIS process encourages public input into the decision-
making process. This EIS is prepared in draft form to be
widely circulated for public comment. Announcements in the
local press and a public hearing will be held to solicit
responses. After a 45-day public comment period, all replies
will be addressed and the EPA decision recommending a grant
fundable project will be published as the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Following a 30-day comment period on the
Final EIS, the EPA Regional Administrator will announce his
decision concerning a grant award for the city.
Background of Past Events
Questions and controversies relating to the collection,
treatment and disposal of sewage in the Jacksonville and
Medford area arose prior to the EPA decision to prepare an
EIS on Jacksonville's proposed project.
The City of Jacksonville in 1963 constructed a sewage
collection and treatment system having a design capacity for
a population of 1,600. That design capacity was exceeded in
1970 and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
has limited further connections to the existing system.
In 1966 the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA)
was formed to provide sanitary sewage collection and treatment
facilities on a regional basis. The authority encompasses
approximately 220 square miles of incorporated and unincorporated
land, including the City of Talent. A large portion of the
unincorporated area within the Authority has been divided into
various districts, including West Medford, South Medford, White
City and Westside. Jacksonville is surrounded by the West
Medford Trunk District.
In 1973 the BCVSA submitted an application for planning,
design and construction grant assistance in building an inter-
ceptor for the West Medford Trunk District that would be sized
to support Jacksonville's sewage, which would be transported to
the City of Medford Sewage Treatment Plant. In September 1973
the EPA established that an EIS was not necessary for the proposed
construction of the West Medford interceptor. This interceptor
was constructed and terminates 1.36 miles from Jacksonville.
-------
The following is a summary of events from 1973 leading
to this EIS:
Date
January 24, 1974
Event
February 7, 1974
March 28, 1974
August 23, 1974
October 1975
December 19, 1975
March 2, 1976
March 16, 1976
The City of Jacksonville requested that an
EIS be prepared on the proposed BCVSA
project. The city expressed concern about
potential degradation of its historic char-
acter (it is a National Historic Landmark).
A meeting was held with representatives of
Jacksonville, BCVSA, Jackson County and EPA.
The city proposed that they provide their
own sewage treatment with EPA assistance.
EPA indicated, however, that such an alter-
native was likely to be less cost-effective
than the BCVSA project. County represen-
tatives assured the city that zoning along
the interceptor route would restrict develop-
ment and preserve the city's historic values.
EPA notified the city that it felt that the
project was acceptable if the grant was con-
ditioned on the city's acceptance of BCVSA
service.
The State Historic Preservation Office
notified EPA that the BCVSA project would not
adversely affect the city's historic character,
based on a pipeline sized to support 6,000
people.
Construction completed on portion of BCVSA
interceptor to Pioneer Avenue. This leaves
7,200 feet of incompleted line to the Jackson-
ville lagoons. Construction of the remaining
portions was not undertaken because no agree-
ment could be reached between Jacksonville
and BCVSA.
DEQ certified to EPA a Step 1 grant appli-
cation from Jacksonville.
EPA's Oregon Operations Office recommends
EIS on Jacksonville's proposed project.
EPA notifies City of Jacksonville of EIS
intent. Memorandum of Understanding to pre-
pare joint Facilities/Plan - EIS mailed to
Jacksonville.
-------
Date
March 24, 1976
April 15, 1976
April 28, 1976
June 1-15, 1976
June 17, 1976
June 21, 1976
July 6, 1976
Event
City of Jacksonville signs Memorandum of
Understanding. City agrees to "piggyback"
EIS.
Meeting held with representatives of
Jacksonville and EPA to discuss "piggyback"
EIS. Issue paper outlining EPA's environ-
mental concerns delivered.
City of Jacksonville releases Request for
Proposals to potential EIS consultants.
City of Jacksonville selects Jones & Stokes
Associates for EIS preparation and EPA
approves selection.
Meeting with EPA, City of Jacksonville,
T. Flatebo and Associates and Jones & Stokes
Associates to discuss Facilities/Plan - EIS
preparation.
EPA's Notice of Intent to prepare EIS
released.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. began pre-
paration of the preliminary draft EIS.
Although the City of Jacksonville hired Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc. to prepare the draft and final EIS, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ultimate responsibility
in the planning and approval of the environmental documents.
Project and Environmental Objectives
An important element of any project is its objectives.
Well defined objectives are essential to establishing a
rationale for a project and later to provide guideposts to
determine if identified alternatives are justifiable or viable.
The replacement of the Jacksonville wastewater treatment
and disposal system is deemed a necessity in part because of
institutional requirements — that is to meet EPA and DEQ
regulations for wastewater disposal. For the purposes of this
EIS, one facilities objective and four environmental objectives
appeared relevant. These objectives are:
-------
Facilities Objective
- Provide an institutionally acceptable wastewater
disposal system for the citizens of Jacksonville.
Environmental Objectives
- Minimize the adverse environmental effects of waste-
water treatment and disposal.
- Minimize the social-economic costs of wastewater
treatment and disposal.
- Provide for the reuse of treated wastewater.
- Maintain the historical quality of Jacksonville.
Important Issues and Considerations
In the course of preparing this EIS, it became clear that
there were several key issues relating to the proposed sewage
interceptor and disposal system. These issues became evident
after discussions with City of Jacksonville officials, personnel
of various state and federal agencies and from reviewing rele-
vant correspondence.
The issues listed below are to be identified and evaluated
in the Environmental Setting and Environmental Impact sections
of this report. Those issues remaining unresolved and/or of
greater scope than covered in this EIS will be discussed in
Chapter VIII - Issues to be Resolved. Of particular importance
to this project are the following:
1. The impact of the project and/or of subsequent growth
on the historical qualities and integrity of Jacksonville.
2. The impacts and ramifications of Jacksonville connec-
ting with a regional sanitary authority.
3. Projected growth in the Jacksonville service area for
each alternative.
4. Response of traffic and circulation patterns to
growth in relation to present and planned roads,
streets and highways.
-------
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical and Biological Features
General Location
The City of Jacksonville is located in southwest Oregon
near the City of Medford, Jackson County. Jacksonville is
approximately 170 miles south of Eugene, 32 miles from Grants
Pass and 5 miles west of Medford. The area lies on the
western edge of the Bear Creek Valley at an elevation of
approximately 1,570 feet (Figure 1).
Jacksonville is bordered on the south and west by
mountainous terrain and on the north and east by the flat
margins of the Bear Creek Valley. Most residential and
commercial development in Jacksonville is located in and
around the intersections of South Stage Road and the Jackson-
ville Highway.
Study Area
For purposes of evaluating the various alternatives and
impacts of those alternatives, two service area boundaries
were defined (Figure 1).
Alternative A-l and A-2 Service Area. A boundary encom-
pass in^~lie^rTy~TT~s^u^r^~lnrieT~w^s~~d^fTned as the service
area for the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA)
alternative. The interceptor system is sized to include an
area larger than the City of Jacksonville.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 Service Area. A boundary
encompassing the City of Jacksonville plus a proposed rela-
tively small urban, growth area constitute the service area
for the land disposal and crop irrigation alternatives. The
treatment system would be sized to handle only Jacksonville
and its designated urban growth area. The urban growth area
refers to areas tentatively identified by the City of Jackson-
ville as allowing for future urban development (to year 2000) .
-------
ALTERNATIVE A-l a A-2
SERVICE AREA
r
oo
vff
LTERNATIVE B, C-l, 8 C-2
SERVICE AREA
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE I. THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND ENVIRONS
-------
Topography and Drainage
The Jacksonville study area is located on a fan and low
terrace at the western edge of Bear Creek Valley. Elevations
vary from 1,400 to 1,600 feet above sea level. Most of the
study area lies along the eastern margin of the Siskiyou
Mountain range.
The study area is bisected by numerous small streams
most of which are ephemeral and draining in a generally
northeasterly direction toward the Rogue River. Major water
courses in the area include: Jackson Creek, Walker Creek,
Griffin Creek, Horn Creek, Bear Creek, Daisy Creek, Phoenix
Canal and Hopkins Canal.
Climate
The weather in the Jacksonville area is characterized by
hot dry summers and mild wet winters. The annual average
temperature recorded at Medford Experimental Station is 52.4°F
and ranges from an average low of 37°F to an average high of
71OF (Figure 2).
Spring temperatures (April through June) are typically
cool with average daily temperatures in the high 40 *s to low
50's. Temperatures usually reach their maximum late in July
and continue high through August. During this period, daytime
temperatures average 88°F with occasional readings of 100°F
or more. The dominance of moist marine air masses provides
for relatively mild fall and winter months with temperatures
occasionally falling below freezing.
Average annual precipitation measured at the Medford
Experimental Station is 21.3 inches per year. The higher,
mountain elevations receive considerably more precipitation,
which can exceed 70 inches per year.
Air Quality
The Jacksonville/Medford area has been characterized as
having a long-term problem of particulate emissions. Federal
primary (health) standards and secondary (welfare) standards
were exceeded in 1970. Since that time particulate air quality
has improved to a point where federal health standards were not
exceeded in 1975; however, secondary welfare standards were not
met.
-------
CD
c
:o
m
ro
CO Z ^
->j ^, m
&^.>
T-' m z
o
m
c/) H
°5
m ^
^^
Isf
S?
~n m
m
ro
i
01
PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
-t* en & -
00
I
O
I
— ro
c_
>•
m-
CD
=<
c_
c_
C-
<
O
I
\
\
m
Z.
TJ
m
c
33
m
§ 8
(H3HN3dHVJ S33d93Q)
8
-------
The Jacksonville/Medford area is considered to be an Air
Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). The need for an AQMA plan is
now being evaluated. If an AQMA plan is needed, a draft
report will be developed by July 1977 and adopted by July 1978.
During the winter, November through February, temperature
inversion tendencies are high in the Bear Creek Valley; this
phenomenon occurs in part because of the topographical con-
ditions of the area. It is during these winter months that
past violations of air standards have occurred.
Estimates of particulate emissions in Jackson County show
wood processing industries and industrial fuel combustion con-
taminants to be the major source of particulate pollutants in
the county (Table 1). Other major sources stem from slash
burning and motor vehicles.
In August 1976 DEQ began monitoring photochemical oxidants
in the Medford area. Since then, federal standards for oxidant
levels have been exceeded 17 times. The major oxidant sources
appear to be motor vehicles and plywood veneer dryers.
Sulfur dioxide emission standards have never been exceeded
in Jackson County.
Geology
The Jacksonville study area lies on the eastern side of
the Klamath Mountain physiographic division of Oregon on the
western fringe of the Bear Creek Valley. The mountains to the
west of Jacksonville rise 2,000 to 5,000 feet and consist
largely of pre-tertiary strata that have been folded, faulted
and in places intruded by granite rocks and serpentine masses.
Since Jacksonville lies on the edge of the Bear Creek
Valley, a number of geologic formations occur within the
study area.
Recent Alluvium (QAL) - The Bear Creek Valley to the east
of Jacksonville consists of recent alluvial deposits resulting
from the meandering of Bear Creek. These alluvial deposits
make up a majority of the prime agricultural lands of the area.
Applegate Group (Tra) - Much of the land to the west of
Jacksonville is part of the Applegate group. The formation
resulted fron folding and metamorphism producing a series of
steeply-dipping metavolcanic and metasedimentary layers.
11
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY: ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS IN JACKSON COUNTY
Tons/Year Pollutant Emission
Source Particulates
Fuel combustion —
Industrial 2,648
Residential/commercial 93
Process loss sources —
Wood processing industries 2,178
Food/agricultural, mineral,
chemical 119
Transportation sources —
Motor vehicles 526
Off-highway fuel use 24
Solid waste sources —
Wigwam waste burners, etc. 346
Miscellaneous area sources —
Slash burning
Other
TOTAL 8,512
Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Ober, pers.
comm.
12
-------
Hornbrook Formation (Kh) - Portions of Jacksonville lie
on or adjacent to (north and south) the Hornbrook formation.
The rocks were folded and deformed during the late middle
Cretaceous period and lie upon older formations. Gold has been
mined from conglomerate at the base of this formation in
Jacksonville.
Granitic Intrusive Pock (gd) - A small mass of intruded
granitic rock lies north of Jacksonville. The commonest rock
types are diorite, quartz diorite and granite (Baldwin, 1964).
During 1977 the State of Oregon, Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries, will be preparing a comprehensive geological
survey of Jackson County (Lilley, pers. comm.).
Geologic Hazards
The geologic hazards of the Jacksonville area have not
been well identified. It is expected that during 1977 the_
State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,
will comprehensively map the geologic hazards of Jackson
County.
Earthquake Faults. According to the USGS geologic
quadrangle map of the Medford area, no evident or concealed
faults are present in the Rogue Valley or along the immediate
margins of hills west of Jacksonville (USGS, 1956). A more
comprehensive survey of earthquake hazards will likely be
conducted during 1977.
Erosion. The soils on most hillsides of 20 percent slope
or greater are considered to have a high erosion hazard. In
the Jacksonville area these consist of Brader, Debenger, Ruch,
Manzanita, Vannoy and Voorhies soil series. A high erosion
factor means that soil movement is expected to accelerate in
response to rainfall and runoff.
Areas of gentler slopes (1 to 20 percent) generally have
a moderate or low erosion hazard.
Flooding. Flooding can be caused by heavy rainfall and
melting snow or a combination of the two. Stream flooding
is a potential hazard to property along virtually all streams
in the Jacksonville area. The hazard is increased where
residential development borders streams and wherever higher
elevation watersheds are of sufficient size to generate sub-
stantial runoff during storms.
13
-------
In 1965 the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared an
interim floodplain information report on Jackson County in
which flood hazards on major waterways of the county were
delineated.
Flood hazards were not identified along small creeks
(Jackson, Daisy, Walker) but were shown on the major waterways
such as Bear Creek and the Rogue River.
Edaphic Features
According to a U. S. Soil Conservation Service study
conducted in Jackson County in 1974, the Jacksonville area is
underlain by ten soil series — Brader, Central Point, Coleman,
Cove, Debenger, Manzanita, Medford, Ruch, Vannoy and Voorhies.
The patterns of distribution of the soil series are strongly
influenced by parent material and physiographic location. The
soils tend to be grouped into three physiographic categories:
• Low Terraces - The Medford, Central Point, Coleman and
Cove soils represent low terrace areas that tend to be
poorly drained and limited by permeability and drainage.
• Fans - Ruch and Manzanita are well-drained with a
permeability limiting factor.
• Hillslopes - The hillslopes consist of well-drained
Vannoy, Voorhies, Brader and Manzanita soils (see
Figure 3).
Virtually all of the soils (except for Central Point
series) have moderate or severe limitations for septic tank
drainfield use. These limitations are due to slow percolation,
restrictive clay layers and in some areas a high water table.
Much of the land to the east-northeast of Jacksonville is
classified for agricultural uses by the Soil Conservation
Service as Class I or II, while the steeper areas directly north
and southeast of the city are designated as Class III and IV.
A majority of the land west of the city is classed V or higher.
Soil classes are based on an agricultural capability
system designed by the Soil Conservation System. These classes
are defined as follows:
14
-------
/K
NORTH
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 3. SOIL MAP-JACKSONVILLE AREA, OREGON
FROM: USDA.SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
15
-------
SOIL SURVEY LEGEND
City of Jacksonville
Percent
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope
18D Brader-Debenger loams 7-20
38A Medford silty clay loam 0-3
39A Cove clay 0-3
46A Central Point sandy loam 0-3
55B Ruch silt loam 2-7
55D Ruch silt loam 7-15
56B Coleman loam 2-7
58B Ruch gravelly loam, gravelly
substratum 2-7
70B Manzanita loam 2-7
70D Manzanita loam 7-20
80E Vannoy silt loam 12-35
8IF Vannoy-Voorhies complex 35-70
North
82F Voorhies-Vannoy complex 35-60
South
16
-------
Class I — Soils having few limitations that could restrict their
use.
Class II — Soils having moderate limitations that reduce the
choice of plants or that require moderate conservation
practices.
Class III — Soils having severe limitations that reduce the choice
of plants, require special conservation practices, or both.
Class IV — Soils having very severe limitations that reduce the
choice of plants, require very careful management, or both.
Class V - Soils which are not likely to erode but have other limi-
tations are impracticable to remove, or whose uses are
limited to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife.
(Soil Conservation Service, 1974)
Biotic Resources
Jacksonville is located in the Klamath Mountain physio-
graphic province of Oregon in the rain shadow of the Siskiyou
Mountains. The summers are warm and dry and evapotranspiration
far exceeds the precipitation of the winter months. Much of
the natural vegetation in the Jacksonville area reflects the
xeric conditions of the area.
Vegetation. Much of the Jacksonville study area is in
a "semi-natural" vegetative condition, because most of the
area has been subjected to major human activities such as
logging, clearing, grazing or burning (or a combination of
these).
Agricultural. Portions of Jacksonville lie on the edge
of Bear Creek Valley, much of which is under agricultural
use. Vegetation in the valley is a mosaic of irrigated
pasture, alfalfa, pear orchards, truck crops and riparian
habitat. Uncultivated edges of agricultural lands are typified
by annual grasses such as wheat, grass, bentgrass, brome and
wildrye and weed and forb species such as yellowstar thistle,
yarrow, wild carrot and American vetch.
Riparian. Riparian vegetation along waterways of the
study area is characterized by Oregon ash, black cottonwood,
bigleaf maple, red and white alder, willows and blackberry.
Oak Woodland and Shrub Communities. The hills to the
north, west and south of Jacksonville are vegetated by
deciduous oak woodland — California black oak, Oregon white
oak, deerbrush, white-leaved manzanita, poison oak and
birchleaf mountain mahogany and scattered ponderosa pine and
cedar (Franklin and Dyrness, 1969).
17
-------
The more xeric areas and disturbed sites are characterized
by open grasslands with scattered oak stands and sclero-
phyllous shrubs such as narrow-leaf buckbrush and tanoak.
Mixed Conifer/Pine Forests. Much of the land on the foot-
hill s"^c7d^rT^igJack^olivITTe~Ts vegetated with a diversity of
plant species, while Douglas fir is a dominant species; ponderosa
pine is present in some areas, along with deerbrush, poison oak
and manzanita.
Appendix A-l identifies the more common vegetation of the
study area, while Figure 4 and Table 2 show the present vege-
tative cover types of the study area.
Fauna. The faunal resources of the Jacksonville area
consist of two major groups — freshwater and terrestrial.
Freshwater Fauna. A majority of the streams within the
study area originate in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains and
flow in a northeasterly direction to Bear Creek and thence
to the Rogue River.
Some of the streams in the area include Jackson, Walker,
Griffin, Horn, Bear and Daisy Creeks. Appendix A-3 lists
those fish species most common to the streams of the area.
Terrestrial Fauna. A wide variety of terrestrial wild-
life species are associated with the agricultural, riparian
and oak woodland and shrub communities of the Jacksonville
area. Common birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals are
identified in Appendix A-2.
The black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionis columbianus)
is the most common of the big game mammals in the Jacksonville
area. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis
concolor) occur in the more remote portions of Jackson and
nearby Josephine Counties.
Band-tailed pigeon (Columbia fasciata), mountain quail
(Oreortyx picta) , California quail (Lophortyx californic'us) ,
mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura) and ring-necked pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus) are found in varying numbers throughout
the region. The ring-necked pheasant, California quail and
mourning dove occur in greatest numbers in the agricultural
areas to the east of the City of Jacksonville.
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. Three species of
wildlife identified by the U. S. Department of Interior (1973)
and the Oregon Wildlife Commission (1975) as endangered or
threatened with extinction, could occur within the project
area. Those animals are listed in Table 3.
18
-------
Residential
Oak/ \Grasslands
Woodland
rasstand t
Barren |
-*-.'
FIGURE 4 VEGETATION AND LAND USE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
AND THE URBAN GROWTH AREA.
19
-------
Table 2
VEGETATION AND LAND USE — CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE AND URBAN GROWTH AREAS
Land Use or Approximate Acres
Vegetative Type
Residential
Grasslands
Riparian
Orchard
Oak/ scrub
Oak
Fir/scrub
Fir/pine
Fir/oak/scrub
Barren
TOTAL AVERAGE
City of Jacksonville
411
123
10
3
256
12
87
298
74
—
1,274
Urban Growth Area*
12
48
—
3
214
15
—
—
—
36
328
* Urban growth area refers to areas tentatively identified
by the City of Jacksonville as allowing for future urban
development (to year 2000).
20
-------
Table 3
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATE SPECIES
WHOSE DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES THE
SOUTHEAST LINCOLN STUDY AREA
Present Status
Common Name
Peregrine falcon
Scientific Name
Falco peregrinus
tundrius
Federal1
FR
X
T
State2
T
E
X
Northern bald
eagle
Northern
spotted owl
Haliaetus leucocephalus
alascans
Strix occidentalis
caurina
X
X
1 Federal Status
FR Federal Register - Species is on the official endangered
species list, Federal Register, June 4, 1973.
T Those species identified by U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United
States.
2 State Status
T Threatened.
E Endangered
Source: Oregon State Wildlife Commission, January 1975.
21
-------
Only one species, the northern spotted owl, is likely to
reside in the study area. The other listed species could
occur in the study area for at least part of the year.
Aesthetic Values
Much of the land surrounding Jacksonville is agricultural,
accompanied by natural vegetation, thus providing a diverse
scenic environment encompassing oak woodland/conifer woodland,
riparian vegetation and agricultural acreage.
The hills and uplands to the west of Jacksonville provide
the major visual setting for the city. In addition, the
location of the City of Jacksonville on the western edge of
the Bear Creek Valley allows for a broad panoramic view east-
ward across the valley to the Cascade Mountain Range.
The City of Jacksonville is an historic landmark because
of the presence of many buildings representative of the era
from the 1850's to the early 1900's. The historic and quaint
nature of Jacksonville attracts many visitors and tourists
to the city each year.
The aesthetic quality of the Jacksonville area generally
results from the maintenance of the historic values of the
city coupled with the natural beauty of the surrounding lands.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Surface Water. The study area contains reaches of three
small creeks — Jackson Creek, Walker Creek and Daisy Creek.
Jackson Creek is a perennial creek maintained almost exclu-
sively by agricultural return water during the summer low
flow period. Walker Creek is an ephemeral creek and may cease
to flow during the dry summer months. Daisy Creek is naturally
an ephemeral creek; however, wastewater discharged from the
Jacksonville sewage ponds presently maintains a continuous
flow. These creeks generally react immediately to rainfall
and exhibit peak flows within a few hours of a storm.
The quality of surface waters in the Jacksonville area
varies throughout the year. In streams receiving wastewater
the quality is typically poorest during the low flow summer
months. Jackson, Griffin and Daisy Creeks are representative
of streams that have been degraded by wastewater inflows and
agricultural irrigation return water.
22
-------
Several streamways also receive inflow from septic tanks
and drainfields which malfunction periodically.
Groundwater. Groundwater resources are of somewhat
limited quantity in the study area. Agricultural irrigation
in the Bear Creek Valley places a high demand upon the ground-
water resources. However, groundwater levels have remained
somewhat static because much of the water used for irrigation
subsequently percolates back into the groundwater table. A
combination of agricultural irrigation recharge and natural
accretion has probably prevented overdrafting of the ground-
water resources. However, replenishment of the groundwater
with agricultural return waters has brought about some degra-
dation of the groundwater quality.
Water Use and Supply. The City of Jacksonville derives
its water supply from the City of Medford via an 8-inch
pipeline. Prior to the Use of Medford water, Jacksonville
obtained water from Jackson Creek.
As of 1970, Jacksonville used an average of 289,000 gallons
of water per day to serve a population of 1,600 through 600
service connections. Water from the Medford pipeline is stored
in three reservoirs which have a capacity of 1.26 MG (million
gallons). Water must be pumped to these reservoirs for
storage and then distributed to Jacksonville via a gravity
flow system.
According to the Jackson County comprehensive areawide
water and sewerage plan prepared by Stevens, Thompson and Runyon,
Inc (1973), the present average daily water demand for Jackson-
ville is 0.289 mg, or 181 gallons per capita per day average
consumption. This is somewhat lower than the national average
of 200 gpcd (gallons per capita per day). Per capita water
consumption is expected to continue to increase to 210 gpcd.
With projected increases in population and per capita water
consumption, it will be necessary for Jacksonville to expand
the 8-inch water line to 14 inches and to provide an addi-
tional 1.0 MG storage system.
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions
In 1963 the City of Jacksonville constructed a sewage
collection and treatment system consisting of 7 miles of
8- to 15-inch diameter sewers and a 2-cell sewage stabilization
pond with approximately 9 acres of surface area.
23
-------
The stabilization ponds were designed for a population
of 1,600 — a population size which was achieved during 1970.
The present population (1975) of Jacksonville is estimated to
be 2,070 with approximately 628 customer units connected to
the sewerage system.
The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
established a maximum 5-day BOD loading of 35 pounds per acre
per day for cell lagoons. Under present conditions the present
facilities are being loaded above capacity and DEQ has re-
stricted further connections until a new treatment system can
be provided. DEQ has established in the NPDES permit for
Jacksonville, that the average 5-day BOD shall not exceed
54 pounds per day with a weekly average not to exceed 108
pounds per day and with a daily maximum of 162 pounds.
In June 1973, the DEQ limited the City of Jacksonville to
25 sewer connection permits in order to limit the overloading
of the sewage system. In November 1974, an additional 25
permits were allocated, with a request that existing mal-
functioning septic systems be given priority to connect to
the sewage system.
In April 1976, at the request of the City of Jacksonville,
the DEQ surveyed subsurface disposal systems on South Oregon
Street. As a result of the survey, 9 permits were allocated
to those systems found to be malfunctioning or questionable.
Homes in some portions of Jacksonville are still on septic
systems. Many function properly while others periodically
malfunction because of poor maintenance or the inherent problems
of subsurface sewage disposal in the Jacksonville area.
Appendix B shows the sewage flow for the City of Jackson-
ville for the years 1973 through 1975. The flow data show that
infiltration/inflow is of considerable magnitude during high
rainfall months.
Archeological Resources
Very little archeology study has been accomplished in the
Rogue River drainage basin, particularly in the vicinity of
Bear Creek Valley. The earliest published work was accomplished
by Luther Cressman (1933a; 1933b) in 1931 and 1932 at Gold Hill,
Oregon. He recovered what may be some early flexed burials.
Included among the grave offerings were large obsidian blades
and leaf-shaped projectile points. Later material overlaid the
burials.
24
-------
Wilbur Davis excavated several sites in the Lost Creek
and Elk Creek vicinities in 1967, 1968, 1972 and 1973 (Davis,
1968, 1970, 1974). Davis1 work was a forerunner to hydro-
electric dam construction on the two streams. Davis1 work
has established a cultural history along the upper Rogue River
extending back at least 6,000 years. Encompassed within this
6,000-year period are four provisionally-defined phases
(Davis, 1974).
The only upland survey published to date in the vicinity
of Jacksonville produced negative results. This was Wilbur
Davis1 (1964) survey of the Oregon Caves National Monument.
As stated in the regulations for preparing environmental
impact statements Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72), the EPA
is subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966 and the archeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1974.
For purposes of this EIS, an archeological survey of the
alternative pipeline routes was conducted by David Brauner of
Oregon State University. The results of the survey are pre-
sented in the impact section of this document, while an account
of the cultural background of the early inhabitants of Jackson
County is presented in Appendix E.
Historical Resources
Historical Background. A discussion of the discovery,
settlement and early growth of Jacksonville, Oregon, is pre-
sented as Appendix E of this EIS. A more contemporary look at
Jacksonville is presented as a discussion of the Socio-
Economic Features immediately following this next section on
the federal and state designation of Jacksonville as an
historic place.
Federal and State Inventory of Historic Sites. In
August of 1967 Jacksonville was dedicated as a National
Historic Landmark, a distinction that led to its being
placed upon the National Register of Historic Places and
making it one of four residential communities to be so
dedicated in the United States. Originally, the historic
area was comprised of and confined to 4-1/2 square blocks
within the downtown area. In 1972, however, the historic
core was expanded to include a majority of downtown buildings.
Also included was the site where gold was originally dis-
covered near Jacksonville.
25
-------
Socio-Economic Features
Description
The City of Jacksonville is located some five miles west
of Medford in the mid-western portion of Jackson County. It
is readily accessible from a northern exit off Interstate
Highway 5 or by northern and southern routes from within the
City of Medford. There is access from other highway routes,
but access is less direct.
Jacksonville is located in the western portion of Jackson
County on the edge of the Siskiyou Mountain Range. To the
north are rolling hills and agricultural lands, while the
southern boundary is marked by rolling and gently sloping
hillsides; to the east are its prime agricultural lands.
Jacksonville City Government consists of a mayor, the
city council, city administrator, and a planning assistant
supported by Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA)
funds -and a clerical staff. Support services include an all-
volunteer fire department whose members are paid a $2.00
gratuity per response to a fire, and a volunteer chief who
receives an annual allotment of $300.00 for his services.
There are three full-time salaried policemen. Equipment can
be dispatched from nearby communities on a need basis.
The evolution of Jacksonville has been that of a bustling
town, prominent in county and state affairs and economically
significant (mid to late 1800s), to one of little or limited
significance (early to mid 1900s), to one of little or limited
significance (early to mid 1900s), and culminating in its
present status as a historical landmark.
The city has strived to maintain this historic image in
part through its architecture. Many of the buildings within
the historic section (downtown) are not original, while
several that can claim originality are thought to be struc-
turally unsound. The effort nevertheless continues to be
made to preserve the historical imagery regardless of the
structural condition of buildings.
Jacksonville's citizenry have a presumed commitment
to preserve Jacksonville's historic character and integrity.
Their primary concerns center around community growth, the
wastewater treatment plans and associated growth, economic
dependence, and outside interference in community matters.
The people of Jacksonville are faced with major divisive
issues ever the town's historical preservation and its
potential development in other directions. The majority of
the residents interviewed are not opposed to a slow, well
26
-------
defined, and well controlled growth (Interview: Jacksonville
City Government, Citizen interviews). This majority would
prefer a controlled growth with the maintenance and expansion
of historical features. No isolatable faction or individuals
support wholesale and rapid residential, commercial, industrial,
or other development for the City of Jacksonville.
The community can best be described as a "bedroom
community", one that is dependent upon other areas to provide
jobs for its residents. Housing and property values are in
an acute state in Jacksonville. Although adequate housing
is available, it is very expensive. City government is under-
manned and the tax base is small. Support services consist
of a volunteer fire department and part-time police agency.
The key areas of planning and growth in Jacksonville
proper as defined by city government are: 1) the downtown
core area, 2) the Stage Coach subdivision to the southeast,
3) the northwest trailer court, and 4) the Paradise Ranch
subdivision, also to the northwest. Jacksonville is a con-
glomerate of residential areas including the affluent, the
modest, and the poor. The condition of residential areas
further illustrates the diversity of wealth and attitudes
within Jacksonville's population.
Population
Present Population - Jacksonville. Jacksonville's
population is heterogeneous and consists of the following,
locally defined categories:
1. Native or long-time resident
2. Newcomer — active and retired
3. California immigrant — active and retired
Although there are no statistics to account for the
percentages of people that comprise these population cate-
gories, Jacksonville claims some 2,070 persons in its 1975
population, nearly 2 percent of the county's total of
110,700. The influx of California immigrants presents an
interesting phenomenon in that residents of Jacksonville
have historically thought that Californians were buying all
their lands for residence purposes as well as for speculation.
Research by the Jackson County Tax Assessment Office indi-
cates that this belief was prevalent in the late 1800s and
still persists. No reason is given for this attitude, but
the assessor's office claims this wholesale purchase of such
lands by Californians is not true now, nor has it ever been.
The county shows no large land transactions from out-of-
state buyers. Indications are that most of the buying of
land in and around Jacksonville is done by county or state
residents (Interview: Jackson County Department of Tax
Assessment, 1976).
27
-------
Jacksonville's growth since 1940 has been slower than
that of Medford or the county. Table 4 indicates the
growth of Jacksonville from 1940-1975 in comparison with
that of the City of Medford and Jackson County.
Jacksonville's slower growth is probably attributable
to reduced economic opportunity for its residents. In fact,
Medford has been the chief attraction in terms of county
economic opportunity, while Jacksonville has appealed to
people who desire to live in a rural environment and work
in an urban area.
Jacksonville's age composition shows a slightly higher
percentage of persons 45 years and older than does the
remainder of the county or the state (see Table 5). It is
noteworthy that a slightly higher percentage of people age
65 and over reside in Jacksonville. The largest concentration
of people age 65 and over in the State of Oregon is found in
Lincoln County (18.2 percent). Jacksonville's percentage is
17.9 percent, which is a strong indication of the attractive-
ness of the city as a retirement community. The presence of
large numbers of retirees also represents a unique attitudinal
adjustment for the town. The median age for Jacksonville
residents is 34.6 years, or 4 years higher than the county
median age.
Figure 5 portrays the present city limits of Jacksonville
along with its proposed urban growth boundaries (UGB). An
urban growth boundary is in the process of being designed for
the southeast, north, and northwest sections of the city.
Growth also can be expected along the western foothills, which
already sustain abundant housing. Planners for Jackson
County generally concur with Jacksonville's proposed growth
patterns and plans and would not interfere unless the UGBs
were designed to invade the prime agricultural lands to
Jacksonville's east and toward Medford (Interview: Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, 1976).
Jacksonville's most recent annexations have been to the north
and to the east — a trailer park and the Stage Coach sub-
division.
Housing is said to be experiencing a rapid, inflationary
trend in Jacksonville. Presently, a modest three-bedroom
home with a bath and one-half will bring $40,000 on the real
estate market. Some of the less affluent people who work in
Jacksonville are thus forced to locate their families in
trailer parks or in other outlying, less expensive areas
(Interview: Jacksonville City Government, 1976).
28
-------
Table 4 Jacksonville's Population Growth in Relation to Medford and
Jackson County, by Years, 1940-1975.
Numerical
Percent
Jacksonville
Medford
Jackson County
1940
761
11281
36213
1950
1193
17305
'58510
1960
1172
24425
73962
1970
1611
28454
94533
1975
2070
34000
110700
Change
1940-1975
+1804
+22179
+74481
Change
1940-1975
+172
+201
+206
Source: Bureau of Municipal Research and Service, 1958; State of
Oregon, 1974; Jacksonville City Planner, 1976.
Table 5 1970 Age Characteristic of Jacksonville, Jackson County, and
the State of Oregon, in Percentages
Age Category
Under 20
20-44
45-64
65 and over
Jacksonville
33.7(est.)
27.0
21.5
17.9
Jackson County
36.0
39.6
22.2
12.0
State of Oregon
37.0
31.0
21.0
11.0
Source: State of Oregon, 1974; Plambeck, 1975.
29
-------
VI- I • I.
i>> ..
I I M
: -- - *_* '—i~i
**• * *s _. .
----
Figure 5. Jacksonville City. Limits
and Proposed Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB).
30 ....... . !
-------
Present Population - Surrounding Area. For purposes of
this EIS, present population estimates were made for the area
surrounding Jacksonville that constitutes the likely service
area for Alternatives A-l and A-2 (Figure 1). No census data
have been derived from that specific area; however, some
estimates from county census tracts are available. The present
population of the service area is approximately 500 (BCATS
census data; Hogg, pers. comm.) (Figure 6).
Projected Population - Jacksonville. The population
projections for the City of Jacksonville are presented in
Figure 6. Jacksonville's realizable population growth in
the future will depend upon a host of intervening variables.
Among them are the projected selection of a wastewater treat-
ment plan, the availability of additional housing and asso-
ciated property values, the expansion of city services, and
a more diverse and expanded economic base. Also of importance
is Medford's continued appeal as an employment center for the
county.
The population projections in Figure 6 were derived by
applying a variety of population study techniques. For
example, the estimates made by the Bonneville Power Admini-
stration (BPA) are computed from the County Census District
(CCD) of which Jacksonville is a part. BPA applied trend
findings for past population growth percentages in the CCD to
a population estimator (for Jacksonville) which has been
developed by Portland State University. This technique assumes
that the factors which led to the spatial distribution of popu-
lation in Jackson County in the past decade would continue to
operate in subsequent decades (Interview: Jacksonville Assistant
Planner, 1976).
The preliminary population projections made by the City
of Jacksonville (Figure 6) were based on a variety of assump-
tions bearing on growth policy, regional economic conditions,
desirability of living in Jacksonville and provisions of public
services. The 5 percent growth represents the approximate
historical growth rate of Jacksonville, while the medium and
high projections represent growth rates characteristic of recent
moderate (1968 to 1975) and high (1968 to 1972) population
increases. A more complete description of the assumptions for
population projections is presented in Appendix F.
Jacksonville's largest population surge since 1860
occurred between 1940-1950 when it increased by 56 percent.
Historically, the county and the City of Medford have grown
at much faster rates and have realized larger percentage
increases than has the City of Jacksonville. In all
31
-------
u>
7000
6000
5000
6
a.
o
a_
4000
3000
2000
1000
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
2,070
A-I.A-2
SERVICE AREA
HIGH (9%)
MEDIUM (7%)O> Jacksonville Planning
Department Projections
LOW (5%)
BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION (B.RA.) (3.3%)
Maximum allowable population given
present zoning
(5% GROWTH)
B.P.A. PROJECTION
(3.3%)
1940 1950 I960
1970 1980
YEAR
1990 2000 2010
2020
FIGURE 6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000 FOR JACKSONVILLE AND THE
SURROUNDING SERVICE AREA.
-------
likelihood this trend will continue for some time into the
future. Medford, therefore, will continue to be the area's
chief economic attraction, although some people will still
choose Jacksonville for residential settlement. Jacksonville's
continuing desirability for retirement is difficult to project.
The city will probably continue to attract higher percentages
of individuals from age 65 and over even though recreation is
not as much as a factor here as it is in coastal Lincoln
County.
Projected Population - Surrounding Area. The service
area for Alternatives A-l and A-2 encompasses approximately
6,550 acres. Based on the present zoning classifications of
rural-residential and open space development (1 dwelling per
5 acres) for the land, and 3.3 persons per household, a maxi-
mum of 4,323 persons could inhabit the area. Using a 5 percent
growth estimate, the population could reach 1,050 by 1997
(Figure 6). It is unknown whether this total will ever be
achieved because of factors such as 1) potential zoning changes,
and 2) constraints to development such as slope, soil type, etc.
A population approaching 3.3 percent growth (Figure 6) appears
to be a more realistic estimate.
Urban Growth Boundary. As a requirement of the 1973 Land
Use Act, the City of Jacksonville is preparing an urban growth
boundary (UGB). This UGB represents an area outside of the pre-
sent city limits that would allow for projected urban development
to the year 2000. This boundary size is based on a format
established by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) whereby the following factors are considered: 1) retention
of soils with agricultural classifications I-IV (U. S. Soil
Conservation Service); 2) provision of support services such as
sewer and water; 3) a genuine need to accommodate the proposed
population growth; and 4) county coordination and agreement with
the proposed boundary area.
The urban growth boundary as now identified has, in
concept, been approved by the Jacksonville Planning Commission.
The final boundary size has not been established or approved
by Jackson County or LCDC.
Economy
Jacksonville diverges from the general resource economics
pattern of the county in that forest products neither dominate
the employment picture nor do they furnish the income for most
Jacksonville residents. Almost half of the local Jacksonville
work force is engaged in logging or lumbering. A nearly equal
number of people work in agriculture around Jacksonville but do
33
-------
not necessarily live there. Jacksonville possesses few com-
mercial or industrial enterprises that serve areas beyond the
immediate community, and this worker category is smaller than
might be expected. Some "cottage-type" industry is developing,
largely in the area of enterprises to attract more tourist
dollars. In recent years, Jacksonville has become a "bedroom
community" to Medford with nearly three fourths of Jacksonville
workers deriving their incomes from Medford payrolls.
Agriculture and Farming. Adjacent to the Town of
Jacksonville are nearly 3,000 acres of Class 1 farmland,
some of the best in Jackson County. Most of this acreage
is devoted to seed production, alfalfa, fruit orchards,
some pasturage for sheep, cattle and horses, and a few
vegetable crops. Farmlands adjacent to Jacksonville com-
prise about 3 percent of the total cropland in Jackson
County (Interview: Oregon State University Extension Service,
1976).
Most of the farms, with the major exception of an Oregon
State University experimental farm, are family operations.
Some of these farms have been in production for more than a
generation. The major lands in production include those to
the immediate north and east of Jacksonville. According to
1970 data, approximately 1.6 percent of the labor force of
Jackson County was in the farmer and farm manager category,
whereas 8 percent of the work force was involved in agriculture,
including forestry and fisheries. Considering these data to
be reasonably typical of Jacksonville, they would translate
into estimates of a farmer-farm manager population of
12 persons and an agricultural work force of slightly over
55 persons, not including seasonal labor. Actual census or
survey data are lacking, however.
One of the major issues surrounding development in
Jackson County involves the maintenance of agricultural lands.
In Jacksonville this same issue emerges with most people and
agencies articulating a strong desire to maintain Jacksonville's
separateness from Medford. At the same time there is substantial
pressure for development of these lands. Even though Medford
possesses an almost equivalent open space within its municipal
boundaries, the fear of encroachment and urban sprawl is quite
strong. The potential is there for the loss of lands. Within
the past few years open lands have been lost to housing and other
developments, some of which show little or no planning.
34
-------
Commerce and Industry. According to the Oregon State
offices of the Research and Statistics Laboratory, Jacksonville's
manufacturing and processing industries are few and have a small
work force. Data reported for 1976 show 56 persons employed in
logging while petroleum and stainless steel (metal fabrication)
employ only 4 persons.
Other commerce includes a telephone utility, banking and
small business operations, including restaurants and curio
shops. According to a 1974 report by Haynes and Cox, only
7 percent of their survey respondents were actually employed
in Jacksonville. Recomputing their data, by housewife dele-
tion, this places an estimate of the Jacksonville work force
at approximately 500 persons, about 12 percent of whom are
estimated to be employed in Jacksonville. Since the work site
for loggers working for Jacksonville firms is not within the
town per se, it is estimated there is an in Jacksonville work
force of approximately 120 persons, half of whom are in manu-
facturing or processing of wood products and the other half
in retail or wholesale trade or commercial enterprises.
Tourism. Tourism is a very important activity in Jack-
sonville, but the financial return from visitors is not great.
Few data are available to indicate the magnitude of the tourist
dollar for Jacksonville. Since Oregon has no sales tax an
accurate tourist revenue assessment, based on retailer's records,
cannot be made.
In the absence of motel facilities in Jacksonville, tourist
traffic surveys are nonexistent. The only data available that
would offer some indication of tourism figures are those provided
by the Jacksonville museum. Those data are presented in Table 6.
Employment. Table 7 shows Jacksonville to have a high
percentage of managerial and administrative personnel, laborers,
and retired persons relative to the county population. Con-
versely, Jacksonville has relatively low percentages of
professional — technical, clerical-kindred, craftsmen-kindred,
operatives, service workers and unemployed. The data suggest
a generally affluent population in Jacksonville even through
there is a slightly higher percentage of laborers than for the
whole county. Few Jacksonville residents occupy service-related
positions or lower level organizational positions.
35
-------
Table 6 Visitors to the Jacksonville Museum
Nr. increase %income
1970 1,092,561 95,173 +8.7
1971 1,187,734 91,518 +7.7
1972 1,279,252 77,963 +6.1
1973 1,357,215 63,215 +4.7
1974 1,420,430 13()>014 +g>2
1975 1,550,444
Table 7
Employment Categories: Jackson County and Jacksonville
Jackson County (1970) Jacksonville (1973)
Professional, Technical and Kindred
Workers 13.0% 10%
Managers and Administrators 9.9% 12%
Salesworkers 8.2% "8%
Clerical ar.d Kindred 15.3% 5%
Craftsmen and Kindred 12.9% 9%
Operatives 9.6% 6%
Laborers (except farm) 6.3% 9%
Service Workers 13.2% 6%
Private Household 1.3% 1%
Unemployed 8.5% 2%
Retired 28.6% 34%
*An estimated 20,000 persons in Jackson County were receiving Social
Security in August, 1976. Relative to a workforce of 50,000, the above
computation is made. No adjustment has been made for widow - widower
benefits.
36
-------
Income data reflect the same judgments. Table 8 shows
the income distribution for Jacksonville. Considering that
34 percent of the people represented in the figure in Table 9
are retired, the figures are all the more significant with
respect to affluence. Jackson County data for 1970 are not
fully comparable but show the following in comparison with
Jacksonville.
While the data in Table 9 continue to suggest Jackson-
ville 's general affluence, median income data place Jackson-
ville's position at approximately $10,000 per annum as com-
pared to a 1970 figure of $9,624 for Jackson County families.
Adjusting for inflation in the four-year period, but not
accounting for the higher percentage of retirees in Jackson-
ville, the Jackson County median wage is well above
Jacksonville's. A differential of $1,000 is estimated to
have existed in 1975. The conclusion, therefore, is that
Jacksonville manifests proportionately as much poverty and
as many lower income households as the whole county. The
remainder of the Jacksonville population, a substantial
portion, ranges in the middle to upper strata in economic
means and their activities tend to mask the nonaffluent
elements.
As previously mentioned, Jacksonville's labor force
consists of nearly 500 persons, only 12 percent of whom work
in Jacksonville. Including the some 60 other persons
employed by Jacksonville firms, approximately one quarter of
the people living in Jacksonville have an employment base
there. Forty-three percent work in Medford (Haynes and Cox,
1974) and another very small percentage of workers are
employed in other valley towns or work outside the immediate
locale. This pattern has persisted over the past 7 years
insofar as 74 percent of Jacksonville's population has been
stable in the county during the period (Haynes and Cox, 1974)
37
-------
25
20
15
10
5
0
Table 8
Income Distribution for Jacksonville
9%
10%
13%
20%
14%
7%
18%
Less than 3,000- 5,000- 7,000- 10,000
3,000/yr 4,999 6,999 9,999 14,999
Source: Haynes and Cox, 1974.
15,000- 25,000+ No
24,999 Response
Income Categories:
Table 9
Jackson County and Jacksonville
0-$3,999
$4,000-%5,999
$6,000-$11,999
$12,000+
Jackson County (1970)
17.03%
12.81%
45.26%
24.89%
Jacksonville (1973)
16.1%'
10.5%
32.7%
40.8%
1
Adjusted to 100% of those reporting income as reported by Haynes and
Cox (1974).
38
-------
Land Use
Present Land Use. The majority of lands in and around
Jacksonville are in some form of agricultural use or are in
open space. Slope requirements, drainage, and soil charac-
teristics nevertheless keep many of these open lands from
being suitable for subdivision or for recreational develop-
ment (Interview: Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, 1976).
Land planted in crops is significant; for example, Jackson-
ville's environs claim nearly 3 percent of the total county
lands are in crops (horticulture).
Residential areas of Jacksonville are scattered inter-
mittently in most directions, excluding the east. The most
recent annexations by the city have been to the north and
northeast, but the southern and western foothills show signs
of residential sprawl. The western foothill regions could
sustain quite a bit more residential development before
saturation occurs (Interview: Jacksonville City Engineer,
1976). The core area of the downtown portion of Jacksonville
is presently reaching its saturation point as there is little
or no room for growth, either in residential or commercial
areas. This growth must be directed elsewhere.
Jacksonville's commercial enterprises are very small in
scope and do not offer a wide variety of services to residents.
As a result, most people visit Medford or other communities
for commercial services (Interview: Jacksonville City Govern-
ment, 1976). Jacksonville's commercial services are primarily
confined to the downtown area. Large shopping centers do not
exist.
Industry is very limited in Jacksonville. Table 10 illus-
trates a land use summary based on 1969 statistics. It should
be noted that Jacksonville claims some 22 percent of its lands
to be vacant.
Land outside of but adjacent to Jacksonville falls within
the jurisdiction of the Jackson County Department of Planning
and Development. The assistant planner for the City of Jackson-
ville is currently revising and updating land use policies in
order to conform to the goals and guidelines of the Land Con-
servation and Development Commission (LCDC) as well as enacting
the Citizen Involvement Program. The city assistant planner
has worked periodically with county planners in Medford in an
attempt to anticipate growth demands that may be placed on
Jacksonville in the future.
39
-------
Table 10
Jacksonville Land Use Summary
October 1969
Acres Percentage
Agriculture 429.63 36.25
Vacant 262.63 22.16
Residential 298.86 25.22
Trailer Park 19.57 1.65
Commercial 9.90 .83
Hotel-Motel .00 .00
Industrial .36 .03
Utility .03 .01
Institutional 21.11 1.78
Public 3.56 .30
Schools 16.65 1.40
Park & Recreation 3.56 .30
Streets 119.34 10.07
Total 1,185.20 100.00
(Courtesy Jacksonville Assistant City Planner)
40
-------
Roads and Highways. The City of Jacksonville is trans-
sected by two major highways — Highway 238 running from
Medford westerly and northwesterly to Jacksonville and Grants
Pass, and the South Stage Road southeast to Phoenix. Old
Stage Road to Central Point is also a heavily-traveled highway.
The 1975 average daily traffic loads for various points
along the Jacksonville Highway and Old Stage Road are shown
in Table 11. Future highway improvements have been planned
for the Jacksonville Highway because of the heavy traffic
volumes within the City of Jacksonville and on the northern
portion of the Jacksonville Highway to Grants Pass. The pro-
posed Jacksonville Highway bypass north of the city would
virtually eliminate through traffic in Jacksonville thereby
reducing much of the present traffic congestion. The proposed
routing of the bypass is shown on Figure 7.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has also proposed
a highway improvement for the Grants Pass-New Hope Road section
of the Jacksonville Highway. That proposed improvement will
include the portion of the Jacksonville Highway from Harbeck
Road in Grants Pass to the New Hope Road northwest of
Jacksonville (Schwab, pers. comm.).
Parks and Recreation. Numerous state, federal and county
park areas are located within a 20-mile radius of the City of
Jacksonville. The Klamath Mountains to the west of Jackson-
ville are a popular recreation area and, as a result, the U. S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management maintain six picnic
and campground areas.
The State of Oregon maintains three wayside and campground
areas and a 2,000-acre upland game and waterfowl management
area in the vicinity of Jacksonville.
Two recreational facilities are proposed for the Jacksonville
area — a recreation trail from Ashland to Jacksonville and the
380-acre county administered-Britt Botanical Garden and Arboretum
on the south side of Highway 238 to the west of Jacksonville.
Solid Waste. The collection and disposal of solid waste
in Jacksonville is accomplished by a franchised, commercial (private)
collection service. The "City Sanitary Service" collects refuse
in the communities of Jacksonville, Phoenix, Central Point,
Medford and White City.
41
-------
Table 11
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE
JACKSONVILLE HIGHWAY AND OLD STAGE
ROAD TO CENTRAL POINT
1975 ADT (Average Daily
Location Traffic) All Vehicles
Jacksonville Highway
West city limits of Jacksonville 3,100
0.01 mile east of Oregon Street 4,100
0.01 mile west of 5th Street 5,000
0.01 mile north of California Street 4,400
0.01 mile north of F Street 4,700
North city limits of Jacksonville 4,600
0.01 mile west of Hanley Road 4,100
0.01 mile east of Hanley Road 4,600
Old Stage Road
0.02 mile north of Jacksonville
Highway in Jacksonville 1,700
0.02 mile north of F Street 1,200
North city limits of Jacksonville 940
0.02 mile south of Old Military Road 820
42
-------
Roads and Highways. The City of Jacksonville is trans-
sected by two major highways — Highway 238 running from
Medford westerly and northwesterly to Jacksonville and Grants
Pass, and the South Stage Road southeast to Phoenix. Old
Stage Road to Central Point is also a heavily-traveled highway.
The 1975 average daily traffic loads for various points
along the Jacksonville Highway and Old Stage Road are shown
in Table 11. Future highway improvements have been planned
for the Jacksonville Highway because of the heavy traffic
volumes within the City of Jacksonville and on the northern
portion of the Jacksonville Highway to Grants Pass. The pro-
posed Jacksonville Highway bypass north of the city would
virtually eliminate through traffic in Jacksonville thereby
reducing much of the present traffic congestion. The proposed
routing of the bypass is shown on Figure 7.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has also proposed
a highway improvement for the Grants Pass-New Hope Road section
of the Jacksonville Highway. That proposed improvement will
include the portion of the Jacksonville Highway from Harbeck
Road in Grants Pass to the New Hope Road northwest of
Jacksonville (Schwab, pers. comm.).
Parks and Recreation. Numerous state, federal and county
park areas are located within a 20-mile radius of the City of
Jacksonville. The Klamath Mountains to the west of Jackson-
ville are a popular recreation area and, as a result, the U. S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management maintain six picnic
and campground areas.
The State of Oregon maintains three wayside and campground
areas and a 2,000-acre upland game and waterfowl management
area in the vicinity of Jacksonville.
Two recreational facilities are proposed for the Jacksonville
area — a recreation trail from Ashland to Jacksonville and the
380-acre county administered-Britt Botanical Garden and Arboretum
on the south side of Highway 238 to the west of Jacksonville.
Solid Waste. The collection and disposal of solid waste
in Jacksonville is accomplished by a franchised, commercial (private)
collection service. The "City Sanitary Service" collects refuse
in the communities of Jacksonville, Phoenix, Central Point,
Medford and White City.
41
-------
Table 11
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE
JACKSONVILLE HIGHWAY AND OLD STAGE
ROAD TO CENTRAL POINT
1975 ADT (Average Daily
Location Traffic) All Vehicles
Jacksonville Highway
West city limits of Jacksonville 3,100
0.01 mile east of Oregon Street 4,100
0.01 mile west of 5th Street 5,000
0.01 mile north of California Street 4,400
0.01 mile north of F Street 4,700
North city limits of Jacksonville 4,600
0.01 mile west of Hanley Road 4,100
0.01 mile east of Hanley Road 4,600
Old Stage Road
0.02 mile north of Jacksonville
Highway in Jacksonville 1,700
0.02 mile north of F Street 1,200
North city limits of Jacksonville 940
0.02 mile south of Old Military Road 820
42
-------
PROPOSED
JACKSONVILLE
FIGURE 7 PROPOSED JACKSONVILLE BYPASS, HIGHWAY 238
43
-------
A modified landfill site is located west of South Stage
Road to the south of Jacksonville. This disposal site, known as
the South Stage site, receives waste from the City Sanitary
Service and portions of Pat's Sanitary Service in Eagle Point.
In addition to the franchised use of the site, many members of the
public haul and dispose of their own wastes.
The disposal site was begun in 1962 and is projected to be
used until 1980.
Zoning. Present zoning classifications for the City of
Jacksonville and the service area surrounding the city are pre-
sented in Figures 8 and 9. Legends pertaining to each map
follow.
Future Land Use.j:/ Future use designs, constraints and
needs placed upon land are becoming more and more critical as
population pressures increase. These pressures occur not only
because of natural increases in the birth rate, but they also
stem from the whims of people who wish to migrate to what they
feel are more attractive areas for either retirement or living
purposes. Future land use projections thus are subject to a
host of the same intervening variables that impinge upon
accurate population projections. In the majority of cases,
present land use patterns, practices and problems are merely
intensified for the future.
Many of the concepts within the Jacksonville General
Plan have not been formalized. The urban growth boundaries
of the city have not been finalized along property lines.
The planners and Commission are cognizant of this fact,
however. Although the general plan is not intended to be
a rigid instrument, its basic objective is to maintain the
city's historic character while still providing a high degree
of liveability for its residents (Interview: Jacksonville
Assistant City Planner, 1976).
Plans are designed so that the core downtown area, or
older and more congested area of the city, can maintain a
certain historical and aesthetic quality. The General
Plan outlines that continued care be given to this area
simply for added insurance against over-development. The
hillside and additional upland areas to the south and west
—' Much of this material is derived from the Jacksonville
General Plan. For a more detailed description consult
the General Plan.
44
-------
tn
FIGURE 8
ZONING-JACKSON COUNTY AREA SURROUNDING JACKSONVILLE
-------
LEGEND - ZONING JACKSON COUNTY AREA
SURROUNDING JACKSONVILLE
OSR-20 - Open space reserve - 1 dwelling/20 acres
AR - Aggregate resource
OSD-5 - Open space development - 1 dwelling/5 acres
RR-2.5 - Rural residential - 1 dwelling/2.5 acres
F-5 - Farm - 1 dwelling/5 acres
RR-5 - Rural residential - 1 dwelling/5 acres
46
-------
*>.
FIGURE 9
ZONING MAP
CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT
-------
LEGEND TO JACKSONVILLE ZONING MAP
Zoning District
Eoaidential-Farm District
Residential-Farm District
Residential-Single Family District
Residential-Single Family District
Residential-Single Family District
Residential-Single Family District
Resident ial-Two Family District
Residential-Multiple Family District
Residential-Multiple Family District
Residential-Multiple Family District
f*j-l"i'i.jij,M •< 7 n*l T?£i*-Q-i 1 T^-i o^-v-1 /*4-
voc.33rc.La.L— rce L/au. uisunct
/^/*'"» >^T»/*-t n"\ .^OTMr-i r»o-.Tnr?n.c!-f >*•? nl D-f«f>Y*^^i'
Minimum
Site Ar^n
20,000 sq.
40,000 sq.
6,000 sq.
8,000 sq.
10,000 sq.
12,000 sq.
5,000 sq.
1,200 sq.
2,400 sq.
3,600 sq.
•
Map
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
it. /Unit
ft ./Unit
ft. /Unit
Symbol and Abb:?c='
R-F-20
R-F-40
R-l-6
R-l-8
R-lwlO
R-l-12
R-2
R-5-1.2
R=5-2«^
R-3-5.6
C-l
v/ JL
M-l
48
-------
of the city are designated to be developed with foresight
in order to maintain their scenic quality as a natural
setting. Restrictions are placed on the number of roadways
or streets that can be built and limits are set on the
removal of natural vegetation which would promote erosion
if unchecked. Most of the routine development can occur in
the more level areas of the city, either outside or relatively
close to the city limits. Patterns of growth could continue
with a degree of continuity within these areas (cf. Jackson-
ville General Plan).
Another principal objective is to establish and provide
residential choices for existing and future populations of
Jacksonville. A summary of these recommendations is provided
below:
1. Residential growth is to be encouraged only in a
controlled and orderly fashion from existing areas
to avoid unnecessary and costly parcelization.
2. All residential developments are to be consistent
with the physical environment.
3. Ranges of densities will be provided for designated
residential areas.
4. Types of residential uses will be consistent with
housing densities and character.
5. Zone residential areas are to avoid the intrusion
of other incompatible uses; e.g., industry.
6. Density levels should conform with topographic
constraints.
Commercial areas and future developments represent a
potential problem for Jacksonville in terms of its ability
to maintain the historical character of the downtown area
and attempt to meet the needs of its anticipated population
growth. In order to accommodate any type of population
growth and its demands, Jacksonville will need to significantly
increase its commercial opportunities beyond those that pres-
ently exist; the alternative will be increased dependency on
Medford. The city plan does not reflect the feeling that the
downtown core area is an appropriate locale for commercial
growth. It calls for the maintenance of small scope, tourist-
oriented, commercial enterprises. The plan will call for
locating other, larger enterprises such as shopping centers,
to the north.
49
-------
The General Plan, thus far, makes no real mention of
accommodation of industrial growth — either light or heavy
types. It suggests that light industry could possibly be
located in the commercial area with conditional uses.
The future demand and need for public facilities has
also been identified in Jacksonville. Schools, parks,
emergency support services, and other agencies and institutions
will need to be expanded.
One of the city's most critical needs will be to expand
its highway arterials to avoid congestion, not only from
residents but also from traffic posed by tourism. This is
to include not only primary thoroughfares, but those which
are secondary. Expanded width and the inclusion of community
sidewalks will be vital in some residential and subsequent
commercial areas. Measures should be taken to make roadways
as efficient as possible without detracting from appearances.
Land Use Planning
Land use planning in Jacksonville and Jackson County is
undertaken by the City of Jacksonville and the county level
planning authority. The local planning authorities in the
State of Oregon are established by the 1973 Land Use Act. By
the provisions of this act, all local city or county planning
jurisdictions are required to develop and maintain comprehen-
sive land use plans which conform with adopted statewide
planning goals.
State Authority. The 1973 Land Use Act established the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
The commission consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor and subject to approval by the legislature. Each
commissioner is appointed to a four-year term of office but
may be removed for cause by directive of the Governor. No
member is allowed to serve on the commission for more than two
full terms (SB 100, 1973, ORS, Ch. 197.5).
Following its creation in 1973, LCDC began the task of
formulating a series of comprehensive statewide planning goals
to be used in coordinating local planning efforts throughout
Oregon. After conducting a series of public hearings and
reviewing existing state land use planning goals, a series of
14 goals with accompanying guidelines for compliance were
adopted by the commission on January 1, 1975. All local plan-
ning authorities were then directed to produce comprehensive
land use plans and to submit them to LCDC by January 1, 1976,
for commission review. By law, local planning authorities
50
-------
who fail to meet the required deadline can have their planning
responsibilities carried out for them, at local expense, by
the LCDC planning staff. Those local authorities unable to meet
LCDC's deadline may be allowed extensions, provided that
evidence of satisfactory progress in completing their compre-
hensive plans is provided.
In November 1976 the City of Jacksonville requested and
was granted a planning extension until January 1, 1977 and was
given until January 1979 to submit a final plan to the LCDC.
The County of Jackson was also given a planning extension
until January 1, 1977, with a plan due date of January 1981.
The authority of LCDC includes coordinating the statewide
planning effort and granting planning and siting permits to
individuals or public agencies for land use activities of
statewide significance. Activities which may be of statewide
significance are defined in the 1973 Land Use Act as follows:
1) the planning and siting of public transportation facilities;
2) the planning and siting of public sewerage systems, water
supply systems and solid waste disposal sites and facilities;
and 3) the planning and siting of public schools (Oregon
statutes related to comprehensive land use planning, ORS,
Ch. 197.4).
Local Planning Authority. Local planning responsibilities
are undertaken by the City of Jacksonville and Jackson County.
City of Jaoksonville. Planning for the City of Jackson-
ville is accomplished by the Planning Commission and the city
planning staff. The planning staff has been working to fulfill
the city's requirements for land use planning within and
directly adjacent to the city limits.
County Authority. A planning commission consisting of
nine members from various geographic locations in Jackson
County is appointed by the County Board of Commissioners, each
to serve a four-year term. The Planning Commission has authority
to recommend adoption of plans and zoning ordinances in the
county, while the County Board of Commissioners has the sole
responsibility to adopt comprehensive land use plans and zoning
ordinances for its jurisdiction. A County Planning Director is
designated by the commission to oversee the operations of the
Planning Department and serve as the chief administrative arm
of the County Planning Commission.
51
-------
At the present time, Jackson County has a comprehensive
plan that was adopted by the planning commission in June 1972
and endorsed by the Board of Commissioners in July of that
year. The zoning ordinance was adopted in 1973 and the Sub-
division Ordinance in 1959. A revised comprehensive land use
plan, as defined by SB 100, for Jackson County is not yet
completed. However, it is scheduled to be finalized in
January 1981.
52
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Introduction
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency rules and regula-
tions for the preparation of an EIS (CFR, part 6) require that
alternatives to a proposed project be developed, described, and
objectively weighed when significant resource tradeoffs are
involved. During the preparation of this draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), a number of alternative projects were
evaluated in conjunction with the preparation of a Facilities
Plan by T. Flatebo & Associates. In this draft EIS, information
and data are submitted to allow an independent comparison of the
environmental and financial cost differences among the available
alternatives without nominating one alternative for implemen-
tation. The reasons why an alternative is selected as the best
must be objectively determined and stated in detail, and the
information needed for this determination will not be available
until after the public hearing.
At the present time, construction within the City of
Jacksonville is restricted by controls on new sewer connections
issued by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. This restriction was imposed because the design capa-
city of the existing sewage treatment lagoons is presently being
exceeded. In addition, the treatment lagoons discharge to Daisy
Creek, and this is a violation of the Proposed Water Quality
Management Plan, Rogue River Basin. The City of Jacksonville's
existing NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
prohibits the direct discharge of treated wastewater to Daisy
Creek after July 1, 1977.
Constraints on Alternative Development
In the conjunctive development of project alternatives,
by the EIS and Facilities Planning Engineers, there were cer-
tain institutional constraints imposed upon facility selection
and cost of implementation. The principal constraints influencing
the development of alternatives for the City of Jacksonville
are:
1. PL 92-500 - Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
2. EPA Secondary Treatment Information, Federal Register,
Vol. 38, No. 1959, August 17, 1973.
53
-------
3. EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines, Federal
Register, Vol. 39, No. 29, February 11, 1974.
4. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Standards.
5. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
and EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit.
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, assigns EPA responsibility for the
establishment of waste discharge criteria for all federally-
funded wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, PL 92-500
provides three dates by which wastewater treatment facilities
must meet certain effluent quality criteria. By July 1, 1977,
all municipal treatment facilities should be capable of pro-
ducing an effluent which meets EPA secondary treatment require-
ments. By July 1, 1983, all municipal treatment facilities
should be providing treatment to a level referred to as "Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology" (BPWTT). An EPA qoal is
that by July 1, 1985, municipal wastewater treatment facilities
will reach a condition of zero discharge of pollutants.
Although this latter requirement is generally undefined and the
nature of any future actions uncertain, the general definition
of pollutant should be considered as any material in a discharge
which adversely affects the beneficial uses of receiving water.
The EPA "Secondary Treatment Information" defines effluent
quality requirements for achieving secondary treatment and thus
compliance with PL 92-500. The requirements for secondary
treatment stipulate effluent concentration limits for biological
oxygen demand, suspended solids and pH. The secondary treatment
definition was recently revised to exclude fecal coliform bacteria
limits (Federal Register, Vol. 41).
The EPA "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines" provide
a uniform method for calculating the cost of wastewater treat-
ment projects, and they have been used as a portion of the cost
evaluation in this EIS. These guidelines delineate the planning
period to be utilized in the alternative evaluations, the ele-
ments of cost which must be included, the method of handling
prices for various components of the system, the interest rate
which must be utilized, the service life of various facilities,
and salvage value to be utilized for the proposed works. The
guidelines provide a uniform method for comparing the cost of
various alternatives for a given project, as well as the cost
of any given project in the state. Therefore, while the
monetary costs developed in the Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines
may not always represent the "true cost" of a project, they do
approximate the cost and present a uniform method for comparing
alternative projects.
54
-------
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has established minimum water quality requirements for
receiving waters of the state. These criteria are contained
in Section 11—010 of OAR Chapter 334, and they state, in
general, that the highest and best wastewater treatment should
be provided and that the control of waste discharge shall in
every case be the best practical method. In February 1976,
the DEQ completed a Proposed Water Quality Management Plan,
Rogue River Basin, to comply with EPA requirements (PL 92-500,
303)for performing comprehensive basin planning for all river
basins in the state. This document summarized and discussed
existing water quality data, water quality standards, and
nutrient problems, among other subjects. The only discussion
of alternative projects pertained to past reports and no
attempt was made to develop any new alternative.
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality and
the EPA must review and certify all NPDES permits for waste-
water discharge. The purpose of an NPDES permit is to establish
specific effluent and receiving water quality requirements which
must be met by a treatment plant facility. In formulating
alternatives, only those that will meet the probable NPDES
requirements are considered feasible. It should be noted that
each wastewater discharger must possess a NPDES permit prior
to discharge, and each permit is prepared to respond to the
particular discharge situation.
Regionalization
The objective of a regionalized system is to provide the
most cost-effective method for collection, treatment, and dis-
posal of wastewater. It should be understood that regionalization
does not imply or require that only one treatment facility be
utilized, or that an entire area must be sewered, but rather
that planning must be done for an entire region, and not on a
piece-meal basis. The term "cost-effectiveness" comprises
three very important costs: monetary or dollar costs, environ-
mental costs, and social costs. One other equally important
factor in considering alternatives is that of meeting federal
and state water quality standards and treatment requirements.
Within this chapter, only monetary costs are considered since
subsequent chapters describe the environmental and social impacts
of the project alternatives. Typically, environmental and social
costs are not monetary but judgmental. The cost-effective project
is that project which is judged to have the lowest overall mone-
tary, social and environmental cost.
55
-------
Several advantages can be obtained by regionalization —
economy of scale in construction, operation and maintenance,
wider distribution of costs, one operating authority for treat-
ment facilities, treatment process efficiency control, easier
inclusion of new residential and commercial developments into
the system, and ability to plan for a basin or area as a whole.
The principal disadvantage of regionalization is that local
governments or agencies often must enter into joint powers or
other agreements that extend local responsibilities beyond
individual member control. Regionalization in this case encom-
passes relationships between the City of Jacksonville and the
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
At the present time, overall water consumption within the
city is about 180 gpcd (gallons per capita per day). Thus,
average water consumption is somewhat less than the national
average, which is about 200 gpcd. A typical trend in non-
industrial areas is for about one half of the water purchased
to be utilized outdoors for lawn and garden irrigation, car
washing, and other uses. The remaining half is utilized in-
doors, mostly nonconsumptively, and on a national average
results in a sewage generation rate of 90-100 gpcd. Records
for the City of Jacksonville indicate that summer wastewater
flows average about 80 gpcd, or somewhat less than the national
average, even though this is the peak tourist season.
During the winter months the average per capita flow is
about 135 gpcd, indicating that the sewerage system is accruing
additional flow called infiltration/inflow. Infiltration is
characterized by seepage of groundwater into pipes due to
poor joint construction, cracked pipes or joints, whereas
inflow enters through manhole covers, ground drains and house
roof drains connected to the sewer. Infiltration/inflow is
typically highest during the rainy season, and infiltration is
greatest during high groundwater conditions. The quantity of
infiltration/inflow depends to a large extent on the size of
the sewer system, the "tightness" of the collection system,
and whether roof drains are connected to the sewer system.
For the Jacksonville system, it would be anticipated that
once the excessive infiltration-inflow is corrected, the overall
quantity should fall in the general range of 10-20 gpcd, making
the average winter wastewater production about 100 gpcd, not the
135 gpcd calculated.
56
-------
Rather than comparing on a per capita basis, another
method is to compare average daily summer and winter flows.
This information is presented in the following table for years
1973, 1974, and 1975. The summer months are May through
September and winter months are January through April and
October through December.
Year
1973
1974
1975
Average
of 1973-
1975
Summer
Average Daily
Flow, Gallons/Day
112,477
120,261
131,712
121,483
Total Rain-
fall, Inches
1.22
0.32
2.03
1.19
Winter
Average Daily
Flow, Gallons/Day
138,165
187,396
180,401
168,654
Total Rain-
fall, Inches
17.68
18.77
12.73
16.39
Percent Increase
of Average Daily
Winter Flow Over
Summer Flow
22.8
55.8
37.0
38.8
As shown, an average increase of winter flow over a summer
flow of 38.8 percent occurred over a 3-year period.
The City Engineer has indicated that all of the existing
collection system was installed in 1964 under one contract,
and that all joints in the collection system are tight. Flow
measurements taken during the winter of 1975-1976 at 10 key
manholes located throughout the city indicated flow increases
between wet and dry winter conditions (rainy vs. dry) of any-
where between 130 percent and 400 percent. Since that time
more than 12 manhole covers have been raised, which will
probably lessen the quantity of inflow during the winter of
1976-1977. In addition, the City of Jacksonville is initiating
an analysis to determine sources of infiltration and inflow.
Based upon summer month water usage, it appears that water
conservation measures to reduce sewage flow are not an issue
because both water use and wastewater production are below the
national average. The high rate of infiltration/inflow may
require that remedial measures be taken.
Wastewater Management Options
Possible Alternatives
During the preliminary analysis of wastewater treatment/
disposal alternatives a wide range of wastewater management
alternatives were considered. Of these alternatives some were
identified as being non-viable and were eliminated from further
consideration in the Facilities Plan. The alternative concepts
that were screened out initially and the reasons for doing so
follow:
57
-------
1. Local Orchard Irrigation. A requirement of EPA's
Construction Grants Program is that land application of
treated effluent must be considered as one means of meeting
the 1983 and 1985 goals of PL 92-500. Use of reclaimed water
for orchard irrigation initially appeared desirable primarily
because many existing orchards could use additional water
supplies, and also because there are many potentially farmable
parcels of land which do not now have sufficient water for such
a purpose.
The use of treated wastewater for orchard irrigation was
dismissed because of the method of irrigation presently utilized.
When orchards are irrigated, there is no control of the tailwater
(runoff). Any resulting tailwater is simply discharged into
nearby creeks, which then carry it to the next lower elevation
irrigation canal. While this practice is now considered accept-
able, it would not be acceptable if reclaimed water were used
for irrigation. The principal reason this practice is not
accepted relates to public health considerations and the inability
of the city to control the ultimate destiny of the water initially
used for orchard irrigation.
2. Percolation Pond Disposal. In many parts of the
western United States treated wastewater is percolated to
groundwater basins, a practice which not only results in a
low cost method of disposal, but also beneficially recharges the
groundwater basin in a majority of situations. For percolation
ponds to perform satisfactorily, the soil must be of a rela-
tively high permeability and the depth to the groundwater table
should be in the range of 15 to 20 feet. Although the soil in
the general vicinity of the treatment facility is marginally
suitable for percolation, the shallow depth to groundwater was
the principal reason for dismissing this alternative from
further consideration. In much of the area near the existing
lagoons, the depth to groundwater is so shallow that alfalfa
can be grown without surface irrigation. In order to gain a
greater depth to groundwater, a pond would have to be located
at a higher elevation than the valley floor, and in these areas,
rocky, impermeable strata are found beneath the overlying allu-
vium. Thus, there was no general area determined suitable for
percolation ponds.
3. Direct Creek Discharge. Under certain conditions, an
acceptable form of effluent disposal is by direct discharge
to a water course. An important criterion in permitting such
discharge is the amount of dilution which is afforded by the
water course. In some situations, if sufficient dilution is
not available, direct discharge may still be suitable if a
high quality effluent is produced, and then filtered prior to
58
-------
discharge. In the case of the City of Jacksonville, any direct
discharge would be to Daisy Creek, which, although it probably
provides sufficient dilution during the winter months, is
essentially dry during the summer months if no wastewater is
discharged.
The screening out of this alternative disposal concept
was based primarily upon probable adverse public health
situations which could be expected in the urbanizing area
downstream of the probable discharge location. In addition,
such a discharge would violate both the Basin Water Quality
Control Plan and the city's present NPDES permit.
4. Evaporation. Although normally not a beneficial
use of a water resource, it is possible to evaporate treated
wastewater as a method of disposal. This concept was screened
from further consideration because of the relatively large area
of land required. Using an average annual evaporation rate
of 35 inches and an average annual precipitation rate of 20
inches, a required evaporation surface area of 357 acres would
be required in 1996. Since roughly 5 percent of additional
land area would be required for dikes, an estimated 375 acres
would be required. Since the only feasible location for ponds
of this magnitude would be the flat valley floor, the majority
of which is Class 1 farmland, the concept was eliminated from
further consideration.
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Each of the treatment and disposal concepts, considered
feasible after the initial technical and environmental screening,
is briefly described to acquaint the reader with their general
characteristics. The two processes which will be considered are
activated sludge and aerated lagoon treatments. Two separate
disposal alternatives considered are land application for
beneficial use of reclaimed water and land application solely
as a form of effluent disposal.
The Activated Sludge Process
Activated sludge treatment uses bacteria to decompose the
organic matter in sewage (Figure 10). During this process the
bacteria convert the organic matter into more bacteria, i.e.,
multiply in number and mass, and some mass must be removed
from the process in a form called sludge. Following removal
from the liquid portion of the process, sludge is first
treated by maintaining it for a lengthy period without a
food supply in order to reduce its volume; it is then de-
watered using a sand drying bed and, when dry, transported to
a disposal area.
59
-------
LIQUID
HANDLING
SOLIDS
HANDLING
RAW
SEWAGE
'/
h-4H ^
..-.. ./.. "*- ;....•/
/"
&
>o
&r
^
f J
* ^ s
AIR
.: "X| !•*;.*• . "~^ .V.v.:-
RETURNING CELLS
WASTED CELLS
Eir^-j—. n_l 1
-^ ' '
' '
i »j-:~.'i.''.'v;lj II •
5?V^ V*
^ ^
*»V*
VJ
CHLORINE
j i ll
'• _., ..1 TRFATFP
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
• DISPOSAL
...u.»,.^
FIGURE 10: PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT
-------
The Aerated Lagoon Process
This treatment process consists of using two separate ponds,
one for aeration and one for sedimentation (Figure 11). In the
aeration pond, which has floating mechanical aerators driven by
electric motors, bacteria grow and convert organic matter to
more bacteria, as in the activated sludge process. The second
pond is required for sedimentation of suspended bacteria and
further stabilization of wastewater by algae. Sludge must not
be removed from the process, as it is all biologically destroyed
due to the relatively long detention time. Occasionally, once
every ten to twenty years, the lagoons must be dewatered to
remove an accumulation of grit and humus soil.
Land Application for Beneficial Use or Disposal
Treated effluent, from either the activated sludge or the
aerated lagoon processes, can be applied to land for beneficial
use or disposal. The method of application is essentially
dependent on the ultimate objective as well as physical and bio-
logical factors involved. Three basic land application approaches
have been set forth by EPA (1973) — irrigation, overland flow
and infiltration-percolation.
Irrigation. This is the most widely used type of land
application in the United States. There are three basic methods
of effluent irrigation — spray, ridge and furrow and flood. The
type of irrigation system to use depends upon soil drainability,
topography, economics and the crop involved (Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973). For crops which are utilized directly
by the consumer without intermediate processing, public health
considerations preclude use of sprinkler application or any
method where direct contact is possible with the edible portion
of the crop. Many studies have been conducted by the State of
California relative to the possible airborne transmission of
pathogens or virus by sprinkler application, and these studies
indicate such transmission to be possible only within a very
short distance. Prevention of public health problems is accom-
plished by providing a buffer zone, fencing and by excluding the
public from contact areas.
Overland Flow. This method of disposal consists of flowing
wastewater over land having limited drainability and a slope of
2 to 6 percent. The wastewater is utilized by vegetation and
some evaporation and percolation occurs; however, because of
runoff the remaining wastewater must be discharged by another
means. Because of the limited permeability of the soil, ground-
water will not be affected by this method (Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1973) .
61
-------
RAW
CTl
INJ
OR
EVAPORATION
PERCOLATION
SPRAY DISPOSAL
FIGURE 11: PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF AERATED LAGOON TREATMENT
-------
Infiltration-Percolation. With this method of application,
wastewater may be applied either by spreading or spraying.
Because effluent can infiltrate at a high rate, less land is
required for the same volume than for the two other alternatives
(Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). The rate of applica-
tion is governed only by the ability of the soil to evaporate/
percolate the effluent. Land used for a pure disposal appli-
cation is normally marginal land, and quite often is land which
is too hilly or remote for other uses. Most water is lost
through percolation and evaporation.
Treatment Plant Site Options
Should the City of Jacksonville proceed independently of
the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), there is
only one location considered feasible for a treatment facility.
This is the location of the City of Jacksonville's existing
treatment facility, which is located south of the Jacksonville
Highway, about 1,600 feet west of its intersection with Hanley
Road and north of Daisy Creek.
Should Jacksonville participate with BCVSA by either
lease or annexation, the treatment facility would be the exist-
ing City of Medford treatment plant which is located near
White City and discharges directly to the Rogue River.
Land Application Site Options
Three site options are considered feasible for land appli-
cation, two for beneficial use application and one for disposal
application. One beneficial application site is owned by the
U. S. Forest Service, which is in the process of developing a
seedling farm. This site occupies an area of about 250 acres
and is located on the general northwest corner of Hanley Road
and Ross Lane. The Hopkins Canal forms the northeast boundary.
This site is presently used for cattle pasturage.
Another site for possible beneficial application is a
77-acre parcel of land immediately across Daisy Creek and
southeast of the existing City of Jacksonville treatment
facility. If this site were utilized, it would be used to grow
alfalfa under a controlled.irrigation program operated by the
city. The site is presently utilized to grow alfalfa.
The only feasible site selected for application solely
for disposal is an 80-acre parcel located above and southwest
of the existing county landfill. This site is vegetated with
a mix of oaks, fir and pine.
63
-------
Sludge Disposal Options
The disposal of sewage sludge is necessary whenever acti-
vated sludge wastewater treatment is employed. A number of
options are possible for the alternatives requiring sludge
disposal.
Direct Land Disposal. This option would involve disposing
sludge directly onto a land area. The sludge is usually plowed
under when dried. Land disposal would be suitable for alterna-
tives involving activated sludge treatment.
Incineration. Sludge incineration is a means of reducing
the volume of sewage sludge to an ash or small volume of sludge.
The residue must ultimately be disposed of in a landfill or
onto farmland. There are several methods of incineration —
multiple hearth, flash-drying and fluidized bed. With adequate
dewatering (to approximately 30 percent solids) the process can
be self-sustaining, without the need for supplemental fuel except
for warmup and heat control (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1972).
When using raw sludge in a multiple hearth or fluidized bed
system, the heat necessary for incineration can be obtained from
combustion of volatile matter in the sludge.
Landfill Disposal. A sanitary landfill can be used for the
disposal of stabilized or unstabilized sludge. The most likely
location would be at the South Stage site south of Jacksonville.
That site is approximately 2 miles from the existing sewage
lagoons.
Sludge Dewatering and Drying. The most commonly used
method is to spread wet sludge on a bed for drying. The dried
sludge is transported to a farmland disposal site, landfill
site, or is made available to the public for use in gardens and
flowerbeds. Drying beds are now utilized at the regional
treatment plant.
Implementation Options — Financing and Organization
A variety of facilities may be required for implementation
of the alternative projects: a wastewater treatment facility,
an outfall to land application sites, land application sites,
an interceptor sewer, and pumping stations. The questions
listed below may be as important to some city residents as the
technical and environmental aspects of the project.
64
-------
1. How will new facilities be paid for?
2. How will the cost of required facilities be allo-
cated to residents within the city?
3. How will the facilities be operated?
There are various ways to accomplish the above actions,
and they should be dealt with in detail before a project becomes
operational. These subjects are discussed at a general level
of detail in the following text and should be kept in mind while
reviewing the alternatives and their environmental and social
impacts.
First, how will the facilities be paid for? This project,
as a part of EPA's Construction Grants Program, is eligible
for 75 percent federal funding of treatment facilities, pumping
stations and interceptor pipelines. The remaining 25 percent is
the local share and would have to be paid for by the city. It
should also be noted that land and right-of-way purchase is not
an eligible cost and would not be paid for with EPA grant funds.
The 25 percent local share of treatment, interceptor, and
pumping facilities will probably be financed by general obli-
gation bonds sold by the city, bonds which would be repaid by
money collected from ad valorem (property) taxes, and possibly
a portion of the monthly sewer service charge. Usually, however,
a lower interest rate can be obtained if the bonds are repaid by
only ad valorem taxation and this is a commonly followed procedure.
General obligation bonds must be approved by voters within the
city and are limited by Oregon State Statute to 13 percent of the
assessed valuation of the city.
Secondly, how will the cost of required facilities be
allocated? As discussed, the 25 percent local share of
treatment, outfall, interceptor, and pumping facilities is
generally paid for by ad valorem taxes and this would be
allocated according to the assessed valuation of the property
in the city. Allocation of operation/maintenance costs would
be governed by Federal Guidelines for Revenue and Repayment
programs, but since Jacksonville has no major industry, they
would most likely be allocated uniformly on a per connection
basis.
Thirdly, how would the various proposed facilities be
operated? Should either lease or annexation to BCVSA be selected,
BCVSA would assume responsibility for operation/maintenance
of all new facilities constructed as a part of this project
and, in the case of annexation, would include operation of
65
-------
Jacksonville's collection system. Should facilities be con-
structed to serve only Jacksonville, the facilities would be
operated by the city, requiring at least one full-time
operator and probably one part-time operator. The city would
also be responsible for the operation of all land application
areas, except the alternative using the U. S. Forest Service
seedling farm. At this site the Forest Service would take
delivery of the effluent and assume the operating
responsibility.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Jacksonville presently owns and operates an
existing stabilization pond treatment facility. This facility
consists of two ponds which are operated in series, the total
surface area of the ponds being about 9 acres. Prior to dis-
charge to Daisy Creek chlorine is added to the pond effluent
in order to provide disinfection. This treatment facility was
constructed in 1963 in conjunction with the sanitary sewer system
and payments will be required on the bonds until 1987.
The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority provides sewerage
service to a 220-square mile service authority. The sewage
is treated at the 10 mgd Medford treatment plant. This plant
operates using the activated sludge process, and discharge is
to the Rogue River. It is anticipated that this plant will
be expanded to 20 mgd in 1977 and 30 mgd in 1985.
Population Capacity of Project Facilities
For purposes of sizing the various project facilities,
two population projections were utilized.
Alternatives A-l and A-2. For alternatives which discharge
to the BCVSA(Alternatives A-l and A-2), the required interceptor
extension of the West Medford Trunk from its present terminus at
Pioneer Avenue and the Jacksonville Highway would be sized not
only for Jacksonville, but also for those areas that are presently
within BCVSA that drain naturally toward the Pioneer Avenue
terminus. Although the interceptor would be sized greater than
required for Jacksonville alone, Jacksonville would pay only for
a pro rata share based on flow if the project selected is for
Jacksonville to lease capacity from BCVSA. Based on 100 gpcd and
a peaking factor of 2.5, the 24-inch interceptor is sized for an
estimated design flow of 5.24 mgd, which is expected to provide
capacity for 20,943 people. The 15-inch portion of the inter-
ceptor will have a design flow of 2.13 mgd.
66
-------
The peaking factor is based on the projected highest
instantaneous flow for the sewerage system. Interceptor systems
must be designed to handle the peak load flows (which usually
occur in the morning and in the evening) rather than the average
flow.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2. For those alternatives that
provide capacity for only the City of Jacksonville the various
project facilities will be sized on the basis of a projected
7 percent growth. Based on a 7 percent growth, the 1997 popu-
lation would be 5,300.
Facilities are projected to be sized as follows:
Facility
Sized to serve needs
until year
Interceptors
Pumping stations
Wet wells
Pumps
Treatment facilities
Outfalls
Land application sites
2027
2027
1997
1997
2027
1997
These facility components are planned to provide capacity
for the projected population until the year shown above.
For pumps, treatment facilities, and land application sites,
a 1997 population of 5,300 people could be accommodated. For
interceptors, outfalls, and pumping station wet wells, a 2027
population of approximately 9,500 could be accommodated.
Alternative C-la (no growth). This alternative will have
facilities designed to support the 1975 Jacksonville population
of 2,070. The aerated lagoons will have a design capacity of
0.25 mgd, which based on 100 gallons of wastewater per capita
per day could support a population of 2,500 or approximately 430
more than the 1975 population.
Theoretically, if no further population growth occurs
within the city, the facilities could serve the needs of Jackson-
ville for an indefinite time period.
67
-------
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Annexation (BCVSA)
Using this alternative, the City of Jacksonville would annex
to the BCVSA. BCVSA would extend the West Medford Trunk to
connect to the headworks of the existing Jacksonville sewerage
system. The existing lagoons would be removed, the land regraded
to its original form and probably sold. Extension of the West
Medford Trunk from its present terminus at Pioneer Avenue and
Jacksonville Highway would require 4,800 feet of 18- and 24-inch
pipe and 2,400 feet of 15-inch pipe. The probable alignment of
the West Medford Trunk extension and the location of the existing
BCVSA facilities which would be utilized are shown on Figure 12.
The capacity of this new pipeline would be 2.13 mgd in the
15-inch section where it connects to the existing Jacksonville
system and 5.24 mgd in the 24-inch section where it would
connect to the existing West Medford trunk at Pioneer Avenue.
At a flow generation rate of 100 gpcd this pipeline could
serve 8,533 people where it connects to the Jacksonville system
and 20,943 people where it connects to the existing West Medford
trunk.
The capital costs of implementing Alternative A-l,
assuming construction begins in 1977, are estimated to be
$735,000, as shown in Table 12. The average annual operation/
maintenance costs are §77,900, which would be collected directly
by BCVSA at a rate of $3.80 per connection per month.
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Lease
In this alternative, the City of Jacksonville would con-
tribute raw sewage to the BCVSA system, as in Alternative A-l,
but the city would not be a member of BCVSA. The city would
be required to purchase capacity in the existing Bear Creek
interceptor and share in the construction costs of the West
Medford Trunk extension. The existing lagoon treatment
facility would be abandoned, the site regraded and the land
would be sold.
The differences between a lease arrangement and annexa-
tion to BCVSA relate not only to the methods used for payment
of capital and annual costs, but also to maintenance of the
Jacksonville sewerage collection system. Relative to capital
cost differences in a lease arrangement, capacity purchase
68
-------
r
01
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
URBAN
GROWTH
BOUNDARY
JACKSONVILLE
CITY LIMITS
EXISTING 15
INTERCEPTOR
INTERCEPTOR
ROUTE
Figure 12 Service Area and Routing of Interceptors for
Alternatives A-l and A-2 (Annexation or Lease with BCVSA)
-------
Table 12
Alternative A-l
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Annexation
Cost Life, Salvage Value,
Item Dollars1 Years Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor 102,000 50
West Medford Trunk
extension 476, 000 2 50
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility 10,000
61,200
285,600
42,500
Total construction cost 588,000
Salvage value at year 20 346,800
Existing site -
salvage value 42,500
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent 147,000
Total capital cost 735,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost 77,900
Costs above do not include $40,200 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2 This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
70
-------
in the Bear Creek interceptor would have to be paid in a lump
sum, rather than on a larger term annual payment method.
Operation/maintenance costs in a lease arrangement must be
paid to BCVSA monthly by the City of Jacksonville, while, if
Jacksonville annexed, these costs would be included in BCVSA's
monthly user charge, which would be collected by BCVSA directly
from the user. Another difference concerns maintenance of
Jacksonville's existing collection system, which would be done
by the city in a lease situation; it would be done by BCVSA if
the city is annexed to BCVSA and the cost would be included in
the BCVSA monthly charge.
The capital costs of lease or annexation are the same,
$735,000, as shown on Table 13. Average annual costs are
estimated to be $75,000, and would be collected by the city
as a monthly charge.
Alternative B - Local Treatment and Use of
Reclaimed Water by U. S. Forest Service
In this alternative the City of Jacksonville would install
a package activated sludge treatment plant at the site of the
existing treatment lagoons. Effluent from the treatment plant
would be stored at the plant site until required for use at
the U. S. Forest Service seedling farm. An estimated 9 acres of
storage pond having an initial storage volume of 29 mg would
be required. This would be accomplished by use of the two
existing lagoons. To meet 1997 quantity requirements 24 acres
of storage ponds having a storage capacity of 77 mg would be
needed. To accomplish this, additional storage ponds having
a surface area of 15 acres would be constructed.
Treated and chlorinated effluent will be delivered to the
seedling farm by gravity, using 11,200 feet of 12-inch diameter
pipe. The Forest Service has indicated that water could be
utilized at a rate of 750,000 gallons per day between June 1
and October 1, and at occasional rates as high as 3.4 mgd
when it is used for frost protection during the fall and spring.
The Forest Service has indicated that the seedling farm
will be completed by 1978. The farm irrigation method is ex-
pected to be spray irrigation, and the percolating water will
be collected by tile underdrains located at an approximate
depth of 6 to 8 feet. Most of the water volume collected by
the tile underdrains would be reused in order to lessen overall
water requirements, but some of the water would have to be dis-
charged to a nearby creek to prevent salt buildup within the
system.
71
-------
Table 13
Alternative A-2
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Lease
Cost, Life, Salvage Value,
Item Dollars1 Years Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor
West Medford Trunk
extension2
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility
102,000
476,000
10,000
50
50
0
61,200
285,600
42,500
Total construction cost 588,000
Salvage value at year 20
Existing site
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent 147,000
346,800
42,500
Total capital 735,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost3 75,000
1 Costs above do not include $40,200 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2 This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
Breakdown of operation and maintenance costs is as
follows: Bear Creek interceptor, $500/year; West Medford
Trunk, $11,400/year; Kirtland pump station, $10,500/year;
treatment, $31,700/year; and Jacksonville sewer system,
$20,900/year.
72
-------
The Forest Service has indicated a desire for the highest
quality reclaimed water available, and this is the principal
reason for selecting an activated sludge plant rather than
using aerated lagoon treatment. Tests are presently being
conducted by the Forest Service to determine the compatibility
of wastewater from the existing lagoons with requirements of
a seedling farm. Although results are not available, no
problems are anticipated because the wastewater originates
entirely from domestic and commercial activities and there is
no industrial influence.
Sludge disposal would consist of drying liquid sludge on
a drying bed and transporting dried sludge to the sanitary
landfill site south of Jacksonville or by making the sludge
available for public use.
The capital cost of implementing Alternative B, assuming
construction begins in 1977, is estimated to be $730,000 as
shown on Table 14. The average annual operation/maintenance
costs are expected to be $35,400. Figure 13 shows the location
of facilities which would be required to implement Alternative B.
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons
with Adjacent Agricultural Use
In this alternative an aerated lagoon would be constructed
at the existing plant site, and the existing lagoons would
be converted to storage/stabilization ponds. Effluent from
these storage ponds would be utilized to irrigate alfalfa grown
on a 77-acre site just across Daisy Creek to the south of the
treatment plant site. Figure 11 shows the location of the
required facilities.
The aerated lagoon to be constructed would have a surface
area of 0.8 acre. No sludge would be created in the process,
although the aerated lagoons and the storage ponds may have to
be cleaned every 10-20 years. The reclaimed water used to irri-
gate the alfalfa would be applied by sprinkler irrigation, and
provision would be made to prevent any tailwater runoff from
the site by returning any potential runoff back to the storage
lagoons. Wells would be installed to monitor the groundwater
level under the irrigation area. The city would operate the
entire system, but would contract for harvesting of the alfalfa.
Because satisfactory effluent quality could be achieved
using aerated lagoons, activated sludge treatment was not con-
sidered in this alternative. In addition, the cost of using
an activated sludge treatment would be considerably greater
than would the use of aerated lagoons.
73
-------
EXISTING SEWAGE
LAGOONS
US. FOREST
SERVICE
TREE NURSERY
SITE
(250 ACRES)
Figure 13. Alternative B (use of reclaimed
wastewater by U. S. Forest Service).
74
-------
Table 14
Alternative B
Activated Sludge Package Plant and
Discharge to U. S.
Item
Operation building,
W. Lab.
0.425 mgd activated
sludge plant
Chlorination pond,
W. equip.
Expand existing lagoons
for storage
Fence, roads, landscape
11,200' , 12" diameter
outfall
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent
Forest Service Tree Farm
Cost, Life, Salvage Value,
Dollars Years Dollars
15,000 25 3,000
325,000 20 0
22,000 20 0
54,200 50 32,500
10,000 50 6,000
133,000 50 79,800
559,200
121,300
31,000 31,000
139,800
Total capital cost 730,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost 35,400
75
-------
The capital cost of implementing Alternative C-l, assuming
construction begins in 1977, is estimated to be $394,500, as
shown in Table 15. The average annual operation/maintenance
cost for operation of the Jacksonville sewerage collection
system, the treatment facilities, and the agricultural irriga-
tion area is $36,000; an estimated $8,500 would be returned
to the city annually from harvesting of the alfalfa.
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use (No Growth)
This alternative is essentially identical to C-l, except
that the facilities would be sized to handle the existing popu-
lation of Jacksonville, with very little capacity for addi-
tional growth. The facilities location will be as shown in
Figure 14.
Costs of this alternative will be less than those for
Alternative C-l because of the smallness of the required treat-
ment capacity and the fact that less land (50 acres vs. 77 acres)
will be necessary for disposal.
The capital cost of implementing Alternative C-la will be
$262,000 as shown in Table 16. The average annual operation/
maintenance cost will be $22,200.
Alternative C-2 - Aerated Lagoons with Spray Disposal
This alternative is identical to Alternative C-l, except
for the use of the effluent. In Alternative C-2, effluent
would not be utilized beneficially but would simply be dis-
posed of on 80 acres of forest land located to the southwest
of the county landfill (Figure 15).
Treatment would be in a 0.8-acre aerated lagoon and
stored in the existing lagoons when spray disposal is not
feasible. From the storage lagoons effluent would be pumped
through an 8-inch diameter, 9,600-foot long outfall to the
disposal area. Large impulse type sprinklers would be
utilized in the disposal area, and provisions would be made
to prevent runoff from the disposal site. The city would
own and operate the disposal system in order to provide
satisfactory operation.
76
-------
Table 15
Alternative C-l
Aerated Lagoons with
Item
Operation building,
W. Lab.
0.425 mgd aerated lagoon
system
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
Chlorination equipment -
1st 10 years
2nd 10 years
Pumping station
Adjacent
Cost,
Dollars
15,000
40,800
10,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
Fence, roads and landscaping 10,000
Agricultural land site
preparation (includes
return water system)
Sprinkler system
Monitoring wells
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent
Total capital cost
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
36,000
43,300
5,000
180,000
169,400
45,000
394,500
36,000
Agricultural Use
Life,
Years
25
20
20
10
10
20
50
30
20
20
Salvage Value,
Dollars
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
6,000
12,000
0
0
21,000
77
-------
-J
00
PROPOSED
SPRAY IRRIGATION
SITE
Figure 14. Alternative C-l and C-la (aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use)
-------
-J
V£>
Table 16
Alternative C-la
AERATED LAGOONS WITH ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL USE -
Item
Operation building with lab
0.25 mgd aerated lagoons
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
Chlorination equipment
Pumping facilities
Fence, roads, landscape
Prepare site for irrigation
Sprinkler system
Monitoring wells
Total construction cost
Salvage value
Land (50 acres)
Total capital cost
Annual operation and mainte-
nance cost
Cost
Dollars
15,000.-
30,000.-
10,000.-
10,000.-
8,000.-
8,000.-
20,000.-
33,000.-
3,000.-
137,000.-
125,000.-
262,000.-
22,200.-
Life
Years
25
20
20
10+10
20
50
30
20
20
— NO GROWTH
Salvage Value
After 20 Years
3,000.-
0
0
0
0
4,800.-
6,660.-
0
0
14,460.-
125,000.-
-------
CO
o
AERATED
LAGOONS
PROPOSED PIPELINE
ROUTE
Figure 15. Alternative C-2 (aerated lagoons
with spray disposal).
-------
The capital cost of constructing the entire system in
1977 is estimated to be $317,500 as shown in Table 17.
Average annual cost to operate the treatment and disposal system
as well as the city's sewerage collection system would be
$46,500.
Alternative D - No Action Alternative
In this alternative no action would be taken to solve
existing treatment and disposal problems. No facilities
would be constructed and discharge to Daisy Creek would
continue. Probable consequences of this alternative would
be violation of effluent quality stipulation in the city's
NPDES permit, and the initiation of enforcement proceedings
by EPA and/or the State of Oregon. In all probability this
would mean that punitive actions could be taken by the various
state or federal agencies, coupled with a prospect that
Jacksonville might lose any federal aid funds which might now
be available. Odor problems at the treatment facility would
continue and perhaps worsen. The present ban on new connections
would in all likelihood remain in effect.
Cost Comparison and Summary
Two methods can be utilized to compare the overall costs
of the proposed alternatives:
1. Total equivalent annual cost to construct and
operate over 20 years.
2- Local equivalent annual cost to construct and
operate over 20 years.
Equivalent annual cost represents the summation of annual
operation/maintenance costs and the annual principal and
interest payments to retire the construction bonds. In the
case of item 1 above, this number is somewhat misleading
because it treats the 75 percent capital cost funded by the
federal grant as though interest must be paid to retire a bond.
Thus, the second method is perhaps the more realistic method
from which to evaluate projects, and certainly gives a truer
picture of actual local costs. A comparison of both total and
local equivalent annual cost is presented in Table 18. As can
be seen, Alternative C-l is the least expensive monetarily,
regardless of the method of comparison utilized. Appendix C
presents a more detailed comparison of these costs.
81
-------
Table 17
Alternative C-2
Aerated Lagoons
Item
Operation building,
W. Lab.
0.425 mgd aerated lagoon
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
Chlorination equipment
Pumping station and
controls
Fence, roads and landscape
Outfall to disposal area,
9,600' of 8" pipe
Disposal site preparation
Sprinkler system
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Engineering and con-
tingencies, 25 percent
Total capital cost
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
with Spray Disposal
Cost, Life, Salvage Value,
Dollars Years Dollars
15,000 25 3,000
40,800 20 0
10,000 20 0
5,000 10 0
5,000 10 0
15,000 20 0
10,000 50 6,000
81,600 50 49,000
31,000 20 0
41,000 20 0
254,000
58,000
40,000 40,000
63,400
317,500
46,500
82
-------
Table 18
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND LOCAL COSTS
Average Annual Equivalent Cost
Alternative
A-l
A- 2
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
Total Cost
Basis, $/Year
131,600
128,700
97,600
58,200
37,200
72,700
Total Cost
Basis, $/Year*
83,000
80,100
49,400
32,100
20,000
51,700
* Local cost is the equivalent annual cost of capital facili-
ties after subtracting federal grant, plus the annual
operation/maintenance costs.
83
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Central to the evaluation of the proposed viable alterna-
tives are the various environmental impacts that result. In
this chapter, both beneficial and adverse impacts are identi-
fied. Primary attention is given to those factors most evi-
dently affected by the proposed actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements [40 CFS, Part 6,
6.304(c)] require that primary and secondary environmental
impacts, of short- and long-term duration, be evaluated. This
EIS identifies the short-term, long-term direct and long-term
secondary impacts related to all project alternatives.
"Primary impacts are those that can be attributed
directly to the proposed action.... If the action
involves construction of a facility, such as a sewage
treatment works..., the primary impacts of the action
would include the environmental impacts related to
construction and operation of the facility and land
use changes at the facility site.
"Secondary impacts are indirect or induced changes.
If the action involves construction of a facility, the
secondary impacts would include the environmental
impacts related to:
i) Induced changes in the pattern of land use,
population density and related effects on air
and water quality or other natural resources.
ii) Increased growth at a faster rate than planned
for or above the total level planned by the
existing community." (Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 72, part III)
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Many of the impacts of the wastewater treatment and dis-
posal project occur regardless of choice of any particular
alternative plan. These common impacts come about as the
result of general construction and development activities
and operation of the system.
85
-------
Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are, as the name implies, a short and
definite period of impact, usually from the start of construc-
tion until completion of the project. Such impacts can
usually be effectively mitigated. Common short-term impacts
and mitigation measures are presented in Table 19.
Long-Term Direct Impacts
Long-term direct impacts result from the construction,
location and/or operation of the facilities and generally
remain in force for the life of the project or longer. The
time span may be from 20 to more than 50 years. These impacts
tend to be on or near a facilities site or pipeline route or
in the area of wastewater disposal. Some impacts are generally
common to all alternatives in that the magnitude of variation
in degree of impact among alternatives is small. These impacts
do not greatly influence the selection of a recommended plan
from among the alternatives even though the impact may be signifi-
cantly adverse.
For ease of understanding, the following long-term impacts
have been divided according to major areas of concern —
physical and biological resources, social features and financial
considerations.
Physical and Biological Resources
The following list indicates those physical and biological
resource impacts to be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Water resources - quality and quantity
- Geologic and flood hazards
- Soils
- Air quality
- Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife
- Aesthetics
- Archeological
- Energy
86
-------
Table 19
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
JACKSONVILLE SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The direct short-term impacts of this project are related to construction activities.
These impacts are relatively minor in effect and magnitude and in most cases the adverse
impact can be effectively mitigated. The impacts considered, their mitigation and our
judgment of the relative level of effect are given in the following matrix.
Alternatives
Short-Term Impacts
Temporary loss of
vegetation
A-l A-2 B C-l C-la C-2 D Recommended Mitigation Measures
-- + - - -Oo Replant after construction or allow for natural
regrcwth of shrubs and trees.
o Vegetation adjacent to pipelines should be flagged
or fenced to keep vegetative destruction to a
minimum.
Disruption of wildlife
o Vegetation stripping for the pipelines should
occur during the late suntner or fall months
when nesting birds are not present.
Construction-related
traffic
o Construction should occur, if possible, during the
fall periods when traffic volume is lower.
Utility service
disruption
o Advance notice of anticipated utility disruption
should be given.
o If a lengthy period of disruption is necessary,
utility bypasses should be provided.
Disruption of through
and local traffic
o Barricades and flagmen should be posted as neces-
sary to guide traffic through construction zones,
residents in area should be notified as to location,
nature and duration of construction.
Dust
o Keep soil wetted down in construction area.
Increased potential
soil erosion
0 o If possible, construction should be done during
the drier months of the year.
o After construction, exposed soil areas should be
reseeded using grasses native to the area.
Employment
B B B B
B 0 o None necessary.
Economic activity
B B B B
B 0 o None necessary.
Safety hazard
0 o All open trenches should be covered or fenced at
the end of each work day.
o All construction equipment should be secured
against unauthorized use.
UDGEKP:
- Minor adverse impact
+ Moderate adverse inpact
B Beneficial impact
0 No change from present
87
-------
Alternatives
Short-Term Impacts A-l A-2 B C-l C-la C-2
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Aerial pollutants
o All vehicles and equipment should be fitted with
appropriate pollution control devices that are
properly maintained.
Visual impact of
construction equipment
and construction site
o Equipment should be stored in a designated area.
All litter should be picked up.
o Fence or otherwise screen construction
maintenance area.
Spoil disposal
o Disposal of spoil material from the pipeline
should be coordinated with other ongoing projects
needing fill material.
Stockpiling and
storage of spoil
o All spoil material not needed for backfilling
should be removed from the pipeline route or
spread over the surface and seeded.
Increased noise
o All equipment should have mufflers, properly
installed and maintained.
o Construction activities should be limited to
daylight hours.
Water quality
(streams)
o Construction activities in streamways should be
limited to low flow periods.
o Care should be taken not to discharge petroleum
or other pollutants into stream.
Temporary blockage 0
of streamways, increased
turbidity and distur-
bance of fish life.
o Construction should occur during low flow periods
(late sutmer) and when anadrctnous fish popu-
lations would be least affected.
88
-------
Water Resources - Quality and Quantity.
o The construction of a waste disposal system will
improve the quality of water in area streams.
Under present conditions, wastewater from the Jacksonville
sewage lagoons discharges into Daisy Creek and thence into
Jackson Creek. During the summer months the wastewater and
agricultural return flows comprise virtually the entire source
of water in Daisy Creek. Under such conditions, the quality
of water in the creek does not meet DEQ standards during summer
flows. Suspended solids and BOD are often above acceptable
standards (DEQ evaluation of permit compliance, 1975).
The construction and operation of any of the alternative
treatment and disposal options will eliminate wastewater flow
to Daisy Creek. Such action is expected to result in compliance
with DEQ water quality requirements.
Improvement in Daisy Creek water quality represents a
benefit to downstream users by improving water quality.
The no action alternative will result in continued viola-
tion of DEQ water quality requirements and adversely impact
the beneficial uses of the stream.
o The construction and operation of a wastewater dis-
posal system will reduce flows in Daisy Creek.
During 1975, wastewater flows to Daisy Creek from the
sewage ponds varied between 114,000 to 295,000 gallons per
day and for the 12-month period averaged 174,000 gallons per
day. During the dry summer months this wastewater discharge
represents nearly the entire flow in Daisy Creek.
Construction and operation of any of the alternatives
will result in a reduction of flow in Daisy Creek. The
effects of such a flow reduction are expected to be minor.
Under natural conditions, Daisy Creek was ephemeral —
maintaining a flow only during the winter months.
Alternative D, No Action, would result in the contin-
uation of discharges to Daisy Creek and additional flows
in future years. The no action alternative would be in
violation of the NPDES permit issued by DEQ.
89
-------
o Impact on groundwater from land disposal of
wastewater.
Four of the alternatives, B (U. S. Forest Service land),
C-l, C-la (sites near existing sewage lagoons) and C-2 (site
at county landfill), represent disposal options utilizing
spray irrigation.
Under existing conditions, many portions of the Bear
Creek Valley have experienced rising groundwater levels
because of increased irrigation of crops. This is perched
groundwater which lies atop clay layers in many areas. In
areas around Jacksonville the median depth to groundwater is
10 to 14 feet and usually higher during the rainy months.
The quantity of wastewater for Alternatives B, C-l and
C-2 is projected to average 160,000 gallons per day in 1976,
318,000 per day in 1987 and 424,000 in 1997. Alternative
C-la (no growth) will likely average between 160,000 gallons
and 212,000 gallons (1976 population x 100 gallons per capita
per day).
The impacts on groundwater at the various alternative
sites will be as follows:
- Alternative B ( U. S. Forest Service land) — The
sewage effluent from the activated sludge plant will
be blended with irrigation water in a 1:5 ratio during
the summer months and a 1:21 ratio for fall and spring
application and sprayed on 240 acres of land. Irri-
gation needs will amount to 780,000 gallons per day (gpd)
from June through September and 3.4 million gallons per
day (mgd) during the fall and spring. No water will be
utilized during the winter months. The ratio of waste-
water to irrigation water will change as wastewater
quantities increase. The 1997 ratios of wastewater
to irrigation water are projected to be 1:1.8 in the
summer and 1:8 in the winter.
The application of water on the 250 acres will not affect
groundwater on the site because the Forest Service is
planning to install a subsurface drainage, runoff col-
lection system and sump, thus drainage would be recycled.
- Alternative C-l (site near sewage lagoons) — Much of
the 77-acre site is underlain by Medford soils;
however, several veins of restrictive Cove soils criss-
cross the site. The Cove soils are characterized by
a perched water table, which often surfaces during
the wet winter months. These soils also form "dikes"
to lateral water movement, causing high water table
conditions even in adjacent Medford soils.
90
-------
The application of wastewater at this site may create
a high water table during the winter months/ although
during early years of operation this will likely be of
little impact due to the small quantity of water
applied. The application water quantities projected
for 1987 and 1997 could cause a more substantial rise
in the perched groundwater.
- Alternative C-la (site near sewage lagoons) — The
soils site description as presented above for Alterna-
tive C-l also applies to C-la. The major differences
in impact will be that only 50 acres of land will be
necessary for Alternative C-la, and the quantity of
wastewater applied over the 20-year life of the project
will not increase substantially. The impacts on the
water table during the later years of operation will
not be as great as would occur under Alternative C-l.
- Alternative C-2 (county landfill) — This alternative
site has a slope ranging from 7 to 35 percent and has
a combination of Brader loam and Vannon silt loam.
Depth to groundwater is greater than 6 feet; however,
upon hitting the clay subsoil water tends to move
laterally downslope. If the combination of precipi-
tation and spray disposal was excessive, water could
outcrop downhill from the disposal site or cause a
rising water table.
This could cause problems wherever physical structures
such as roads and buildings would be involved.
Complete soil surveys would be necessary at the disposal
site to determine groundwater movement. Problems of
overloading the holding capacity of soils during the wet
winter months could be alleviated by storing wastewater
in holding ponds.
Flood and Geologic Hazards.
o Damage to treatment fao-ilit-ies due to flood or
geolog-Le hazards.
The potential for damage to treatment facilities as a
result of physical damage from earthquakes or subsurface
flooding is slight.
There are no known active or concealed earthquake faults
in the vicinity of Jacksonville.
91
-------
Potential flood hazards exist at all streams within the
study area. Unusually high stream discharge could cause
damage to sewage lines crossing Daisy Creek (Alternatives
C-l, C-la and C-2) and Jackson Creek (Alternative B).
In order to reduce the potential for such damage, the
facilities should be designed to avoid physical damage, i.e.
they should be designed to withstand the consequences of
100-year storm flooding. In all alternatives the disposal
pipelines should meet strong leakage requirements following
construction to help ensure against groundwater infiltration.
Soils.
o Impact on soils from the application of wastewater.
Soils will be impacted from application of wastewater
in three of the alternatives.
- Alternative B — The U. S. Forest Service land is
underlain by Central Point and Kubli soils. At the
present time, the U. S. Forest Service is preparing
a detailed soils grid of the site to determine areas
of restriction or limitation for growing nursery
stock or draining irrigation water.
- Alternatives C-l and C-la -- The C-l site is 77 acres
of flat land south of the sewage lagoons. The site
for Alternative C-la is essentially the same except
that only 50 acres of land are necessary. Soils include
Medford, Manzanita, Ruch and Cove series. The Cove
series occurs as veins throughout portions of the
site. This soils series is restrictive in terms of
irrigation potential. These areas of Cove soil will
represent a potential problem for irrigation.
The remaining soils have good permeability and
suitability for irrigation.
Before this site can be utilized for wastewater dis-
posal, a complete survey of soils, drainage patterns,
etc. must be accomplished. The results of the survey
would determine whether a subsurface drainage system
was necessary, with a collection and redistribution
system, as well as what type of application method
should be utilized. Generally speaking, small acreage
areas (less than 200 acres) are served best by spray
irrigation rather than by ridge-and-furrow distribution
(flood irrigating) (EPA, 1973).
92
-------
In all likelihood storage ponds will be needed to
hold wastewater for some time during the winter months.
Even during other times of the year there may be a gap
between the rate and continuity of wastewater produc-
tion and the ability of the land to accept the appli-
cation of effluents.
Under both alternatives the wastewater is projected to
be applied over 50-acre areas at the rate of 1 inch per
week loading. With such a low application rate there
are not likely to be any problems with soil clogging due
to sodium buildup or biological slimes. As waste-
water flows increase, as the population of Jacksonville
increases, the rate and area of application will need
to be changed to reflect the quantity changes.
Alternative C-2 — The soils on the C-2 alternative
site above the landfill consist of Manzanita, Brader
loam and Vannon silt loam. All soils have good
permeability with a slope varying from 7 to 35 percent.
There are no known areas of restrictive soils; however,
a complete survey should be conducted to establish
locations of any such soils and to determine the exact
location for spray disposal. With the projected low
application rate of wastewater, soil erosion or slumping
problems are not expected to occur.
Air Quality.
o Odor.
Under normal working conditions, none of the alternatives
is expected to create major odor problems. The proper engi-
neering design, combined with the proper operation of waste-
water treatment facilities, would control the production and
release of odors to concentration levels not detectable beyond
the treatment facility boundary.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 will not produce odors in the
Jacksonville area since no new treatment facilities will be
located there. In a proportional sense the odor is transferred
to the BCVSA plant.
In Alternative B, secondary-treated wastewater will be
stored in holding ponds for a short time. To eliminate the
chance of odor production, partial disinfection and pond aera-
tion should be provided after secondary treatment. The activated
sludge plant associated with this alternative should be located
a sufficient distance from residential areas to avoid odor
complaints. There should be no detectable odor associated with
spray irrigation of the blended, secondary-treated wastewater.
93
-------
Alternatives C-l, C-la and C-2 will consist of land dis-
posal of secondary-treated wastewater from aerated lagoons.
In a properly operating aerated lagoon system, odors should
be negligible. Spray disposal with wastewater which has been
secondarily treated and chlorinated will have little odor
impact. In the event of a malfunction of treatment processes,
Alternative C-2 will have less of an odor impact on residential
areas than will C-l and C-la.
Alternative D (no action) will result in a continuation
of periodic odor problems associated with the present lagoon
treatment system. While there are no sensitive stationary
receptors in the immediate area surrounding the lagoons, odors
are often evident from the Jacksonville Highway.
o Regional air quality.
None of the alternative wastewater facilities will create
direct adverse effects on the regional air quality. Instead,
the major impacts on air quality will result from increased
socio-economic development in Jacksonville. Added population
growth, as well as increased tourist traffic, will result in
increased highway vehicular emissions from off-highway sources
(utility engine and construction equipment emissions) and open
burning of trash such as wood and landscape refuse.
Because Jacksonville (and the entire Medford area) lies
within an air quality maintenance area (with regard to particu-
lates and oxidants) future population growth will have a signifi-
cant impact on air quality relative to vehicular emissions
(Table 20). The projected air emissions from mobile sources as
shown in Table 20 are based on a 7 percent population growth
(5,745 by the year 2000) for Jacksonville, a 5 percent growth
for the rural area, a combination of the two, and a population
assuming the capacity of the interceptor system (see population
projections in Appendix H).
If the population of Jacksonville were to follow a no
growth pattern (Alternative C-la), pollutant emissions from
vehicular sources in Jacksonville would decrease greatly.
The total effect on the regional air resources of no population
growth in Jacksonville, however, would be difficult to assess.
Because air resources are a regional consideration, there will
be other factors involved in determining the ultimate air quality
of the basin, one of the most significant being population
growth in the areas surrounding Jacksonville and Medford.
94
-------
Table 20
INDEX OF MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Year
1975
1980
1985
1990
VD
Ul
1995
1997
2000
Area and
Population Vehicle Miles
Basis of Travel1
City Mid-Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid- Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid-Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid-Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid- Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
City Mid-Range
Study Area - Low
Study Area - High
30,000
37,248
37,248
40,686
49,740
87,114
51,318
62,190
136,986
61,968
74,652
186,870
72,606
87,102
236,742
76,866
92,088
256,686
83,262
99,564
286,608
Vehicle Emissions2 (Pounds Per Day
Carbon
Monoxide
4,041
5,017
5,017
2,781
3,399
5,954
1,776
2,153
4,741
1,544
1,860
4,655
1,809
2,170
5,898
1,915
2,294
6,395
2,074
2,408
7,140
Total
Hydrocarbons
582
723
723
484
592
1,037
305
370
815
260
313
783
3P4
365
992
322
386
1,075
349
417
1,201
Nitrogen
Oxides
317
394
394
323
395
691
272
329
725
273
329
824
320
384
1,044
339
406
1,132
367
439
1,264
Sulfur
Oxides Particulates
15.2
18.9
18.9
17.9
21.9
38.4
21.5
26.1
57.4
26.0
31.3
78.3
30.4
36.5
99.2
32.2
38.6
108
34.9
41.7
120
39.0
48.4
48.4
42.2
51.5
90.3
46.4
56.2
124
54.6
65.8
165
64.0
76.8
209
67.8
81.2
226
73.4
87.8
253
NOTES: Based on population projections and per capita travel index from Appendix H.
1 Assuming an average one-way trip length of 6 miles.
2 Using projected national average vehicle emission factors from U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976, Table D.7-1. 1990 emission factors used for 1995-2000 period.
-------
Table 20 shows the impact on air quality if the population
of the surrounding rural area were 1,050 people (1997 projected
population) or 12,410 people (population based on interceptor
size). The ultimate population will be dependent on a number of
factors, among them allowable zoning, economic conditions,
desirability of the area, etc.
Vegetation and Terrestrial Wildlife.
o The construction of sewage facilities will impact
vegetation and attendant wildlife.
Sewage facilities require land and the removal of some
native vegetation. This removal of habitat will affect
wildlife both directly and indirectly. Subsurface dwelling
and sedentary mammals, amphibians and reptiles at facilities
locations will be destroyed during construction. Some birds,
mammals and reptiles that periodically use facilities sites
might be excluded from this use.
- Alternative A-l and A-2 — The proposed interceptor
connecting the Jacksonville sewerage system to the
existing West Medford Trunk line will, for a portion
of its length, parallel existing roadway (Jacksonville
Highway). Impacts on vegetation and wildlife along
this length of sewer line will be minor. For the remain-
der of its length, the interceptor will parallel Daisy
Creek and a fallow field.
- Alternative B — Portions of the pipeline from the
sewage lagoons to the U. S. Forest Service land, will
parallel Hanley Road before following fencelines and
crossing cultivated fields and Jackson Creek. Impact
on vegetation and wildlife along Hanley Road will be
negligible; however, portions of the route through and
adjacent to cultivated fields and riparian vegetation
will have more significant impact. Riparian habitat
is among the most valuable to wildlife. The impacts
of this pipeline route could be reduced by rerouting
to parallel existing roadways or to previously dis-
turbed areas. Paralleling Hanley Road for the entire
distance would require use of a pumpstation.
- Alternative C-l and C-la — A wastewater distribution
system for irrigation of agricultural land at Site C-l
and C-la would have an insignificant impact on vegetation
and wildlife.
96
-------
- Alternative C-2 — The pipeline to disposal Site C-2
will border fencelines, cross existing cultivated
fields and grazing lands and foothill areas of oak/
fir/pine mixed woodland. Following pipeline construc-
tion, much of the vegetation is expected to regrow;
however, a somewhat open right-of-way will be maintained
for maintenance.
- Alternative D — Under the no action alternative there
will be no additional impact on terrestrial vegetation
and wildlife resources.
The most significant impacts on vegetation and wildlife will
result from subsequent population growth in Jacksonville and the
surrounding service area. While the land to the north and west
of Jacksonville is considered poor agricultural land, it is valu-
able to game and nongame wildlife. Because the majority of
future development will likely be away from good class agricul-
tural land, the upland areas will probably be used more and more
for residential development. This residential growth will cause
a reduction in deer winter range and habitat for other upland
game and nongame species.
The degree of impact on this wildlife habitat will depend
on the ultimate population, direction of population growth, and
state and county policy decisions regarding resource management.
The maintenance of present zoning (one dwelling per 5 acres)
in the area surrounding Jacksonville will do a great deal to
ensure the maintenance of upland habitat.
Alternative C-la (no growth) would cause little or no
secondary impact on vegetation and wildlife within the City
limits of Jacksonville. Much of the land now supporting wild-
life is likely to continue that function.
o Raret endangered and threatened speoies.
The three species deemed rare, endangered or possibly
threatened are either seasonal visitors to the study area or
occur primarily in habitats outside of the facilities area.
o Impacts on natural vegetation resulting from applica-
tion of wastewater.
97
-------
Four of the alternatives (B, C-l, C-la and C-2) would
result in the application of wastewater onto vegetated areas.
- Alternative B — This site is presently fallow in some
portions and used for cut and baled hay on others.
The U. S. Forest Service will be planting coniferous
seedlings and spray irrigating with a blend of irri-
gation and wastewater. Because this site is presently
disturbed and will be disturbed in the future and does
hot support native vegetation, the impacts of waste-
water will be insignificant.
- Alternatives C-l and C-la ~ The site for these alter-
natives is also cultivated (alfalfa hay) and when irri-
gated will also be used to grow alfalfa. The impact of
wastewater application on natural vegetation will also
be considered insignificant.
- Alternative C-2 — This alternative site is presented
vegetated with a mix of oak, pine and fir. Previous
studies on the effects of applying wastewater to wood-
lands have shown a favorable response of vegetation
to irrigation up to about 1 inch per week (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1976). Vegetation receiving 2 inches of waste-
water per week showed reduced growth due to excessive
soil moisture. In some areas of the United States,
minerals such as boron and constituents such as total
dissolved solids, chlorides, sodium and heavy metals
can affect crops or irrigated vegetation. The quality of
effluent water from Jacksonville is expected to be
satisfactory for land disposal and to be low in boron
(a major influencing factor on vegetation), sodium,
chlorides and heavy metals.
The application of wastewater will likely result in
some vegetative changes, with those species requiring
moist environments being favored and eventually domi-
nating some of the more xeric species.
Aesthetics.
o Aesthetics impact.
The impact on aesthetics for all alternatives will be minor.
The activated sludge plant for Alternative B would be
located in the vicinity of the existing sewage lagoons off of
the Jacksonville Highway. The plant would be set back enough
from the roadway to reduce visual impact. The planting of
trees and scrubs around the facility would eventually screen
the plant from view.
98
-------
Holding ponds for Alternative B and aerated lagoons for
Alternatives C-l, C-la and C-2 would be raised by a dike system
slightly above the natural land contour. The facilities should
not be visible from the road. The addition of landscaping with
vegetation native to the area would provide a screening of dike
areas and other low structures.
The spray irrigators for Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2
will look much like those presently used for agricultural use.
The major impact on aesthetics will result from the
secondary influences of population growth. The open agricul-
tural lands to the east and the wooded hillsides to the west
and north represent the focal points of the Jacksonville
setting. The future trend of residential development will
probably be toward the surrounding hills and away from the
more valuable agricultural lands.
Alternatives A-l, A-2, B, C-l and C-2 will all have an
effect on aesthetic values of Jacksonville, with A-l and A-2
exerting a greater impact on the lands surrounding the city.
The likelihood of major impacts on aesthetic quality are
greatly diminished with Alternatives C-la and D because of
the growth-limiting features of each.
Archeological.
o Impact of the various alternatives on archeological
resources.
- Alternative A - No apparent impact on cultural
resources.
- Alternative B - Alternative B would require the construc-
tion of 11,200' of pipeline between existing sewage
lagoons and U. S. Forest Service property north of Ross
Lane. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed line was
traversed by the archeologist. No cultural resources
were encountered between the sewage lagoons and the line
paralleling Hanley Road. The line leaves the road along
the eastern boundary of section 41 and heads north,
proceeding to Horn Creek. The line then parallels Horn
Creek between the boundary of section 41 and Ross Lane.
99
-------
A major archeological site (site designation pending)
was discovered beginning at the intersection of section
41 (east boundary) and Horn Creek. The site parallels
both sides -of the stream channel on the property of
the Oregon State University Experimental Agricultural
Station and continues in a northeasterly direction into
the adjoining Heffernan property.
Heavy crop cover on the Heffernan property paralleling
Horn Creek did not allow direct surface observations.
Discussions with the Heffernans and people at the experi-
ment station about cultural resources along Horn Creek
suggested either the presence of numerous small sites or
a single large site paralleling the old channel.
The impact of the proposed pipeline on these archeo-
logical resources can be mitigated by: 1) Continuing
the pipeline down the section 41 boundary following
Redwood Drive, then down Ross Lane to the spray applica-
tion site. By relocating the line away from an old
stream channel, the likelihood of encountering cultural
resources lessens. Such a relocated route would need
to be surveyed for cultural resources. 2) Mitigate
impact on archeological sites through excavation by
professional archeologists. If the route along Horn
Creek is selected for construction with no route change,
excavation of several archeological sites may be manda-
tory. The cost of these excavations could exceed $80,000.00
plus a significant delay in construction of the sewage
line. 3) Relocating the pipeline route along Hanley
Road for its entire length.
The 250-acre tree nursery (spray irrigation site) was
not surveyed for archeological resources; however, it
is understood that the U. S. Forest Service is in the
process of conducting a field reconnaissance.
Alternatives C-l and C-la - A complete archeological sur-
vey of this spray irrigation site south of the sewage
lagoons was not conducted and informants did not know of
any archeological materials havina ever been recovered from
this area. The likelihood of encountering archeological
sites on this area is low, but a systematic archeological
survey would be required should this option be selected.
Alternative C-2 - Alternative C-2 entails the construction
of a 9600* pipeline from existing sewage lagoons to a
land application site near the present Jacksonville land
fill site. The proposed pipeline route was walked by
the archeologist with negative results. However, dense
grass cover along 50 percent of the route limited surface
observations. As with Alternative C-l, informants knew
of no archeological sites along this pipeline. The land
application site was not surveyed.
100
-------
Based on limited surface reconnaissance and informant
testimony, no cultural resources will be impacted by
this pipeline. The land application site would be
surveyed if this alternative is selected.
A grant condition of the project chosen would be to mini-
mize the impact on archeological resources.
No surface reconnaissance is absolute. The likelihood that
several archeological sites lie buried within alluvial deposits
is high. During construction, should any archeological materials
be encountered, archeologists from Oregon State University or
the State Historic Preservation Office in Salem should be notified
and construction halted on that section of line immediately.
Prompt action will be taken by the archeologists to minimize
construction delays.
Energy.
o Impact of consumptive use of energy
All alternatives, except the no action alternative, will
have an impact upon energy consumption. Alternative C-2 will
require the greatest amount of energy because of the require-
ment for pumping large amounts of effluent to the hillside
disposal area (Table 21).
Energy requirements for Alternatives C-l and C-la are
identical, while Alternative B represents the least requirement
of energy consumption for the alternatives because no pumping
will be required.
Social Features
The following list indicates those social impacts discussed
in the subsequent text:
- Population growth
- Land use
- Land use planning
- Traffic
- Water supply
- Quality of life and social well being
- Historical value and integrity
- Historic landmark
- Cumulative effects
101
-------
Table 21
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
KILOWATT-HOURS/20 YEARS
Alternative
A-l
A- 2
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
D
Treatment
UK*
UK
3,226,600
4,204,800
4,204,800
4,204,800
—
Pumping
UK
UK
0
876,000
876,000
4,380,000
—
Total
UK
UK
3,226,600
5,080,800
5,080,800
8,584,800
—
* UK = Unknown.
102
-------
Population Growth.
o Impact on population.
For purposes of this discussion, population growth and
future land use will be considered within the same topic
category since they tend to overlap and are similar in scope.
Alternatives A-l (annexation with BCVSA) and A-2 (lease
with BCVSA) provide sewage services to a much larger geographic
area than Jacksonville. Sewering of lands outside Jacksonville
would be expected to result in a greater density of habitation
and thus stimulate growth in this locality.
The selection of Alternatives A-l and A-2 would result in
the construction of a pipeline (sized at 15, 18 and 24 inches
in diameter) from the existing 15-inch Jacksonville line to
the terminus of the 30-inch West Medford Trunk at Pioneer
Avenue. The 24-inch pipeline could service an ultimate popu-
lation equivalent to 20,943 people, based on peak wastewater
flow of 250 gpcd. While Jacksonville will be responsible for
a pro rata share of interceptor use, the remaining capacity of
the pipelines will be designed to support portions of the West
Medford Trunk District of BCVSA surrounding Jacksonville on
the north, south and west (see Figure 9).
The flow and equivalent population capacities of pipe-
line segments are as follows:
Flow Potential Population
Capacity Pipeline Can Serve
24-inch pipeline; Pioneer
Avenue to Hanley Road
intersection 5.24 mgd 20,943
15-inch pipeline; existing
Jacksonville interceptor,
Jacksonville to sewage
lagoons plus new section to
Highway 238 2.13 mgd 8,533
The interceptor pipeline from Jacksonville as now sized
at 15 inches could serve a population of 8,533 people, about
3,200 more than projected under 0.7 percent growth.
103
-------
Jacksonville encompasses 1,274 acres and has a popu-
lation of 2,070 or 1.6 persons per acre. Population projec-
tions of 5,300 for 1997 on 1,602 acres (present Jacksonville
limits plus the urban growth boundary area) would increase
the density to 3.3 persons per acre
According to the existing zoning classification (one
dwelling per 5 acres), a maximum of 4,323 people could inhabit
the service area surrounding Jacksonville. Based on the pro-
jected size of the interceptor from Pioneer Avenue to Hanley
Road, the A-l, A-2 service area capacity (total capacity minus
Jacksonville capacity) will be capable of handling a population
of 12,410 people, or approximately 8,087 more than the projected
zoning capacity. In order to achieve such a population in the
service area, a zoning classification change will be necessary.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 are proposed to support only
population growth in the Jacksonville urban growth boundary.
By the design of the facility capacity, the growth of the
population is expected to be more confined (to that area
within the City of Jacksonville and urban growth area) but
not necessarily at a slower rate than that of Alternative A-l
or A-2.
Alternative C-la (no growth) represents an alternative
which will allow support of only the existing population of
Jacksonville. The 1975 population was estimated to be 2,070*
and the plant design of 0.25 mgd of wastewater will support
a population of not more than 2,500 people (based on 100
gallons of wastewater per capita per day). The population to
be supported under Alternative C-la is expected to be confined
to existing City of Jacksonville boundaries and it will not
be necessary to incorporate the urban growth boundary.
Alternative D (no action) is presently and would continue
to be restrictive for population growth. Residential and
commercial establishments are now denied permits for sewerage
hookup because of the inability of the present disposal system
to properly treat and dispose of a greater waste volume.
The no action alternative would continue this situation and
thus restrain growth and maintain the present population.
* Note: New population estimates recently made by Portland
State University place the 1976 population at 2,120.
104
-------
o Impact on population distribution.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 would allow for a broader dis-
tribution of population throughout the service area (Figure 9)
and could provide sewerage for any population growth in the area.
While there is a long-term potential for growth in that part
of the service area surrounding Jacksonville/ the immediate
and most rapid distribution of growth would probably occur
within the Jacksonville urban boundary because: 1) present
city zoning allows for residential development; 2) the city
is plotted for residential use; 3) Jacksonville has an existing
wastewater collection system which would allow for almost
immediate hookup; 4) present zoning surrounding Jacksonville
allows only for density of one dwelling unit per five acres;
5) the area surrounding Jacksonville is not sewered; and
6) sewering at the present zoning would probably be too costly
to implement.
Changes in zoning classification in parts of the service
area outside Jacksonville could accelerate the rate of develop-
ment in this area. Such a zoning change would be the only
means of achieving a population of 12,410 (population.capacity
of the interceptor) since under the present zoning only a maxi-
mum of 4,323 people could reside in the area. Although the
extent of rezoning is unknown at this time, one can presume
that at some time in the future, it could result in the popu-
lation shown above. The size of the present population in
this part of the service area is estimated to be 500 people.
With Alternatives C, C-l and C-2, a majority of future
growth in the service area will be within the city limits
and the designated urban growth area. At a future time when
buidable land is eliminated in Jacksonville, growth outside
of the city limits will probably accelerate.
Alternative C-la will result in the maintenance of the
existing population distribution within the City of Jackson-
ville. Because the population will not expand, the buildable
land within the city limits will remain as open space. While
this alternative would have a major impact on the population
distribution of the City of Jacksonville, it will have only a
minor effect on the area surrounding the city. Population
growth in that area could still occur whether or not Alter-
native C-la is implemented.
Alternative D essentially limits any new development in
Jacksonville. Surrounding areas that can support a sub-
surface (septic tank and leach field) system could continue
to increase population in response to other growth stimulants.
Development will probably occur wherever soils and slope are
not limiting to septic systems and land splits occur to bring
parcel size into the 5-10 acre range.
105
-------
All alternatives will require Jacksonville to expand
its other city services. Expanded population will call for
expansion of water, police and fire services. There is, for
example, a 4-hour period during the night in which there are
no police on duty. Fire protection will have to be expanded
in terms of both men and equipment. Insofar as growth will
probably mean a higher per household occupancy, per capita
increases in taxes for Jacksonville are anticipated.
Land Use.
o Impact on land use patterns.
The major impact upon land use in the Jacksonville area
relates to increased residential growth. Jacksonville pres-
ently attracts many retired individuals, and people in the
30 to 40-year age category comprise the bulk of the commuting
populations. With the construction of a new waste disposal
system, sewerage will no longer represent a constraining
factor.
The greatest potential impact on land use would derive
from tie-in with Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Sewerage for lands outside of Jacksonville could result in
zone changes permitting denser residential development on these
lands. Conceivably, this could affect the rate of growth in
Jacksonville by transferring some of the basic residential
growth potential to the outlying lands.
Alternative A would aid in turning vacant and other
lands already planned for such use into residential and com-
menrcial lots or other developments. While 22 percent of the
area of Jacksonville is in vacant lands, not all of this is
usable. There are some vacant lands north of the downtown
area that are relatively flat and could be developed rather
easily and economically. Others are not as suitable for
development, and unless land use constraints are overcome,
these lands will likely remain undeveloped. Because of the
combined land use changes in Jacksonville and the surrounding
service area, Alternatives A-l and A-2 are considered to have
the greatest impact.
Although restrictive zoning is now in effect on agri-
cultural lands surrounding Jacksonville, there will probably
be a continued diminution that will probably happen regardless
of any wastewater treatment. Presently, there are some large
agricultural parcels for sale around Jacksonville, but because
of soil limitations, they have been for sale for quite some
time. The sale price and taxes vs. possible use will ulti-
mately determine the future of these parcels.
106
-------
While the capacity of the interceptor system in Alter-
natives A-l and A-2 is such that substantial population growth
could occur within the service area, it is unlikely that this
growth will occur in the prime agricultural lands east of
Jacksonville. The LCDC has a policy and guidelines relating
to the preservation of agricultural land. Both the City of
Jacksonville and Jackson County are directing their planning
effort toward identifying and preserving agricultural lands.
Other land use changes occurring because of a growing
population and residential developments will be the growth
of commercial enterprises and the possibility of some light
industrial operations. The degree of development of sur-
rounding land, as well as that in Jacksonville is expected to
influence commercial development. Accordingly, even under
strict zoning regulations, Jacksonville may have some problems
preserving its historical quality unless it maintains a
ceiling limitation on commercial and industrial operations.
If historical preservation does not keep pace with other
growth, it is expected to be diminished in importance.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 will not have the immediate
impact of Alternative A upon land use practices outside the
Jacksonville service area. Alternative B, the tie with the
U. S. Forest Service seedling farm, will have impacts upon
land use depending upon additional land requirements for the
winter time storage of effluent and the siting of the 11,200-
foot line. Presently, the Forest Service is not certain of
its actual water quantity and quality needs for irrigation
and/or frost protection. Although it has irrigation rights,
use intensities may change in the future, thereby requiring
Jacksonville to store wastewater if less is needed at any
particular time. The total concept of the alternative is to
recycle resources by putting treated effluents into a bene-
ficial use.
Alternative C-la (no growth) will have a major impact on
the land use patterns within the City of Jacksonville. In
essence, this alternative will result in the maintenance of
existing uses. The present mix of residential, commercial
and agricultural uses is likely to remain. This alternative,
however, will have little impact on the future use patterns
of lands outside the Jacksonville city limits.
107
-------
Land Use Planning*
o Impact on land use planning.
Very little change is anticipated countywide in terms of
zoning or land use practices, regardless of alternative
selection. The county is considering taking steps to zone
lands between Medford and Jacksonville under a more restric-
tive agricultural designation in order to assure its continued
open character. The City of Jacksonville is in the process of
preparing a more comprehensive general plan and framework.
The county zoning pattern to the west of Medford is
designated Farm Residential (F-5) which has many permitted
and conditional uses and which, for the most part, provides
for an area where agriculture can be operant without intrusion
by conflicting uses. The county intends to maintain, if not
improve, this zoning requirement.
Because of the large service area involved, Alternative
A-l and A-2 will require an immediate planning effort in order
to assure a proper and controlled direction of growth.
Although contemplated changes in zoning are not reported, one
must assume that social-political pressures will increase to
rezone the areas outside of Jacksonville for residential use.
According to the goals and guidelines of LCDC, an urban
growth limit must be identified by the Cities of Jacksonville
and Medford. This limit allows for urban development of less
than 1 acre/dwelling unit within the boundary. The development
of the service area surrounding Jacksonville to accommodate a
population of 12,410 people would be contrary to efforts to
identify an urban growth limit.
The maintenance of present zoning (1 dwelling/5 acres)
would ensure that urban growth limits would be maintained.
Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 are not expected to
significantly impact the present course of zoning and land use
planning because the area of effect is generally restricted to
Jacksonville. If no action is taken then the city must con-
tinue to dispose of its effluent into Daisy Creek and to find
a solution to lift the DEQ moratorium on building permits.
The present course of planning for the community is not predi-
cated on almost zero growth, thus the selection of this
alternative would probably require new planning objectives.
Because the city must serve its present and anticipated popu-
lation adequately, the choice of no action would have a great
impact on community planning.
108
-------
Traffic.
o Impact from traffic and circulation patterns.
A secondary impact of sewerage facility development and
subsequent residential development will be an increase in
traffic loads on the road systems within, entering and leaving
Jacksonville.
Daily traffic loads within the center of Jacksonville
often create problems and conflicts with other activities.
Present highway development plans indicate that a bypass of
Highway 238 is planned north of the City of Jacksonville.
Such a bypass would greatly reduce through-traffic loads in
the center of the city.
Any future population growth within and adjacent to the
city will create additional traffic problems, particularly
along main roads such as Fifth Street, California Street and
South Stage Road.
Even with the no growth alternative (C-la), traffic
problems are likely to increase in Jacksonville due to pro-
jected increases in tourist traffic and as a consequence of
travel by Jacksonville residents.
Water Supply.
o Impact on available water supply.
The City of Jacksonville is presently facing the problem
of an inadequate water supply and distribution system. The
8-inch pipeline now supplying Jacksonville storage reservoirs
will require upgrading in order to properly handle the demand.
Future population growth in Jacksonville will require an
adequate water supply. Although the city presently derives
its water from the City of Medford, increasing demand for
water from that source may make future procurements difficult,
particularly if substantial population growth occurs in portions
of the West Medford and Westside Trunk Districts to the east
and north of Jacksonville.
The water supply and distribution system will require
upgrading, even with the no growth alternative (C-la), because
of the present inadequacy of the system. Coupled with this
problem is the likelihood of an increase in per capita con-
sumption of water.
109
-------
Quality of Life and Social Weil-Being.
o Impact on the quality of life.
Any development to serve the needs of existing and future
populations of an area should be considered with respect to
its long-range impacts upon the quality of life and social
well-being of the population of Jacksonville.
One of the major difficulties in all stages of planning
arises through attempts to mirror the community's preferences
and attitudes.
Quality of life, or a general state of happiness or
contentment, is defined here as a subjective degree of satis-
faction or dissatisfaction regarding the totality of a
person's existence. Social well-being, a person's state of
health, economic condition, etc., implies an objective and
specifiable measure of a person's life situation. Quality of
life and social well-being are quite different phenomena;
one may increase to the detriment of the other (cf. Smith,
1973; and Hogg and Honey, 1976).
During the course of preparation of this EIS, inferences
were drawn from the several short conversations with individual
citizens and their notions of the quality of life in Jackson-
ville, and from observations in the field.
It is inevitable that a replacement wastewater system,
regardless of the alternative selected, will mean growth for
the city. If growth can be reasonably managed, then the
residents of Jacksonville could possibly sustain a fairly
harmonious balance between their present quality of life and
social well-being. If, for example, the city is annexed by
BCVSA and growth occurs randomly and rapidly, the situation
may be the reverse. While social well-being might be enhanced,
quality of life could be impaired. Although commercial and
residential expansion may increase the social well-being for
a few persons, the overall quality of life for most could
diminish. For a segment of the population, diminished quality
would mainly occur from the city losing its historical integrity.
The chief short-term, economic beneficiaries would be the
owners of undeveloped land, operators of commercial outlets,
and other investors within the primary service areas.
All situations that deal with long-range planning efforts
call for a close scrutiny of quality of life and social well-
being factors. In this case, Medford's growth is also a
consideration. As Medford grows and expands its industrial
and commercial base and attracts people for employment, more
individuals may seek out Jacksonville and the surrounding area
as a residential escape from the urban setting.
110
-------
o Impact on his tor-Leal value and integrity.
Growth in Jacksonville and the surrounding service area,
for all practical purposes, is certain to occur. When and at
what stage of population growth an adverse impact can be
expected on the historical quality of the city is now
indeterminable. However, in all likelihood, the historical
character of Jacksonville will still remain as a focal point
when the population reaches 5,300 at about 1997.
The maintenance of the small-town character of Jackson-
ville and its registered historical sites will be determined
to the greatest extent by the direction and type of popu-
lation growth. The city now has distinct boundaries and is
the focal point for Highway 238 travelers from Jacksonville
or Grants Pass. This is maintained by the open space surround-
ing the city.
With Alternatives A-l and A-2, there is a greater potential
for growth in and around Jacksonville because of the large
capacity of the interceptor system. The degree to which this
growth is realized will be dependent on factors such as zoning,
economics, desirability of settlement, and the availability of
support services such as water.
Because of the smaller capacity of facilities under
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2, the impact on the area's his-
torical value is likely to be less. However, even these
alternatives could adversely affect the historical quality
of the area if direction is unregulated or if Jacksonville
loses its boundaries by encompassing urban growth in the
county.
The opportunity to maintain the historical value and
integrity of Jacksonville will be present with Alternative
C-la (no growth). Because the population will be maintained
at its present level, population growth of the City of Jackson-
ville will be less of a factor in adversely affecting his-
torical quality.
o Impact on Jacksonville as an historic landmark.
The impacts of alternatives on the status of Jacksonville
as a National Historic Landmark are quite indirect. It is
unlikely that the official and legal designation of the com-
munity will not be affected, unless the present historical
features are allowed to go into decline, or are removed as
a result of residential or commercial development.
Ill
-------
The impact instead, will come in terms of the creation of
any imbalance of residential-commercial growth and historical
preservation. People presently feel that the amount of pre-
servation is in balance (Haynes and Cox, 1974), and are not
strongly committed to the idea of increasing expenditures for
greater preservation. Residential and commercial growth
therefore, especially that to be stimulated by Alternatives
A-l and A-2, are likely to diminish the relative significance
of that preservation which has already occurred.
Cumulative Effects.
o Cumulative impacts of the Jacksonville project
associated with BCVSA.
Although the City of Jacksonville and the BCVSA are con-
sidered separate legal entities, the effect of providing
sewerage service will not be limited to the City of Jackson-
ville Sanitary Authority boundaries, but instead will have
an impact on each other.
The BCVSA is now preparing an EIS on providing sewerage
service to the 5,200-acre Westside Trunk District, which lies
north of the City of Jacksonville and the West Medford Trunk
District. Although the District contains only 500 residences
(approximately 2,000 people), projections call for rapid growth
over the next 50 years. While present zoning and the compre-
hensive plan allow for a total buildout population of 9,000
people, projections indicate that by the year 2000 the district
will contain 6,200 people and by the year 2026, 17,300 people,
with more than 8,000 of that population inhabiting the southern
portion of the district.
The increase in population of Jacksonville, the West
Medford Trunk District, and the Westside Trunk District will
also increase traffic loads on existing roads and eventually
will require that surface streets and main arteries be up-
graded to support the additional use.
Increases in population will create a demand for
utilities — electricity, water and natural gas — and for
community services in the area — police and fire protection,
street maintenance, and solid waste collection and disposal.
Because of increasing demand (by Jacksonville and by some
parts of the Westside Trunk District) water may become a
particularly important factor in the future growth and
development of the area. There will likely be an increase
in school enrollment.
112
-------
Changes in land use will occur within the trunk districts
and in Jacksonville. Land now as open space and covered with
natural vegetation or agricultural crops and supporting wild-
life species will be changed to a residential land use. Other
areas of open space may become commercial.
Financial Impacts
The following list indicates those financial impacts to
be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Project financing
- Related financial effects
- Property values
- Building construction
Project Financing.
o Impact of project financing.
Data provided T. Flatebo and Associates constitute the
basis for evaluating financial impacts of the various
alternatives. Analyses of local costs vs. total costs are
presented in Appendix C.
Table 22 identifies the projected cost per month per
connection and the likely assessed valuation per $1,000 for
1977, 1987 and 1997.
Costs per month will be low for all alternatives because
the sewage collection system (which typically represents a
major expense) is already installed.
Related Finances.
o Related financial impacts.
Other city services must keep pace with sewer program
development if inordinate future costs are to be avoided.
The city's water system is cited as barely adequate for
residential needs and inadequate for fire protection.
Expansion and renovation of schools will be needed and new
requirements for storm sewers and sidewalks will be generated
as a consequence of population gains. Factors affecting
public finance will be equivalent to real and anticipated
population growth plus adjustments for inflation and interest,
113
-------
Table 22
PROJECTED MONTHLY COST PER CONNECTION AND
ASSESSED VALUATION FOR THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
Item
Monthly cost per
connection
Assessed valuation
per $1,000
Date
1977
1977
1987
1997
A-l
$3.80
0.83
0.45
0.31
A- 2
$3.66
0.83
0.45
0.31
B
$1.73
0.82
0.45
0.31
C-l
$1.34
0.44
0.24
0.17
C-la
$1.08
0.30
0.16
0.11
C-2
$2.26
0.36
0.19
0.13
-------
The city's tax base will probably have to be expanded
from its present $1.83 per thousand dollars of property value.
Present underdeveloped services will require expansion for any
projected population increase in Jacksonville. Either greater
densities of people, markedly higher valued property, or an
increased tax rate will be required. To serve the anticipated
growth, a combination of these circumstances will be necessary
in order for the costs per connection to be relatively stable.
Property Values.
o Impact on property values.
Property valuation has increased dramatically in Jackson-
ville since 1971. The total assessed valuation of residential
and commercial property in that year was 7.21 million dollars
compared to a 1976 valuation of 17.9 million dollars. The
valuation increase in this period thus amounts to over 10
million dollars and an increase of 148 percent. A decrease
in rates per $1,000 valuation has occurred over the same period
but by no means to the same extent. Rates in 1971 were $5.57
per $1,000 valuation and in 1976 the rate was $1.83 per $1,000
valuation (City of Jacksonville), a decrease of 67 percent.
Relative taxesi/ per $1,000 valuation therefore have decreased
by nearly 50 percent, or by slightly over 7 percent per
annum since 1971.
Decreases in tax rates per $1,000 valuation may not con-
tinue to occur at the same rate relative to total assessed
valuation increases. Table 23 shows city revenues since
1969 as a result of the inverse trends.
The data in Table 23 show no dramatic per capita property
tax increases in Jacksonville in the past five years. City
revenue from residential taxes has decreased by 17.2 percent
over the same period. The number of Jacksonville's commercial
accounts has decreased by 18 percent since 1971, while the
number of residential accounts has increased by 25 percent.
Determining the impacts of the various alternatives on
property values is difficult and at the best judgmental. In
all likelihood, the availability of sewerage facilities as
provided by Alternatives A-l, A-2, B, C-l, C-la and C-2 will
result in an increase in property values throughout Jackson-
ville. Property values would probably increase more under
Alternative C-la because no growth would, in essence, create
a "sellers market". The influence of a "building moratorium"
115
-------
Table 23
Year City Revenue from Residential Taxes City Residential Taxes Per Capita
1971 $33,825 $19.00
1972 23,940 12.50
1973 26,564 13.42
1974 25,775 12.45
1975 36,537 17.78
1976 28,012 13.53
Residential and commercial tax assessment data provided by Jackson County
Department of Assessment and Taxation
116
-------
by DEQ has been clearly evident. Property values have in-
creased and housing is in great demand. Such would also be
the case under Alternative C-la. No growth would provide
assurances of a small-town atmosphere in close proximity to
a growing commercial and residential area.
With Alternatives A-l, A-2, B, C-l and C-2, property
values will also increase, but probably at a slower rate than
they would under C-la.
In all probability, property valuation assessments would
increase in response to the market value of the property and
the greater services needed as populations increase.
Building Construction.
o Impact on building construction.
Under present conditions, residential and commercial
construction is constrained in Jacksonville. This is due
to the present restrictions that DEQ placed on sewer hookups.
All of the project alternatives, A-l through C-2, will
provide sewage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to
remove the hookup restrictions. The lifting of the hookup
ban will result in the completion of homes in which construc-
tion was started but not completed due to the ban, and an
increase in the number of new housing starts.
Alternative D (no action) will lead to a continuation
of present restrictions and the virtual elimination of
housing starts except for those where soils are suitable for
installation of subsurface (septic system) disposal systems.
117
-------
Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project and
Environmental Objectives
Project Objective. As stated in the introduction, the
overall project objective is to "Provide an institutionally
acceptable wastewater disposal system for the citizens of
Jacksonville". This requires compliance with all environ-
mental and social-economic policies and standards of Oregon
and the Environmental Protection Agency that pertain to
wastewater treatment and disposal. All project alternatives
(A-l, A-2, B, C-l, C-la and C-2) are proposed to be institu-
tionally acceptable alternatives. Insofar as is known, each
alternative can be implemented and meet the NPDES permit
requirements. Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 must be
designed to prevent treated sewage from entering surface
waterways or contaminating groundwater.
Alternative D (no action) would be unacceptable because
of the inability of Daisy Creek to assimilate wastewater during
the low flow months.
Table 24 shows how alternatives compare with each other
in meeting this project objective.
Environmental Objectives. Four environmental objectives
were identified in the introduction:
1) Minimise the adverse environmental effects of waste-
water treatment and disposal.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 represent the two alternatives
that best meet this objective. The placement of 7,200 feet
of pipeline along existing roadways and on disturbed land
will have a minor short-term impact on the service area
environment. In the long term, urban development in the
service area could convert significant portions of agricul-
tural and open land to other uses.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 are second best due to the
greater length of the pipelines of B and C-2 and the potential
for soils and groundwater problems from wastewater application.
2) Minimise the social-economic costs of wastewater
treatment and disposal.
118
-------
Table 24
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION RELATING PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES TO PRPJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
A-l A-2 B C-l C-la C-2 D
Project Objectives;
Provide an institutionally
acceptable wastewater dis-
posal system for the citizens
of Jacksonville. 1 122 2 24
Environmental Objectives;
Minimize the adverse
effects of wastewater treat-
ment and disposal.
Minimize the social-
economic costs of waste-
water treatment and
disposal.
Provide for the reuse of
treated wastewater.
Maintain the historical
quality of Jacksonville.
LEGEND;
1 Best
2 Second best
3 Limited
4 Fails
119
-------
With any project that becomes the responsibility of the
citizens of a community and a tax-supported service, there
is a need to minimize social and economic costs. None of
the alternatives will represent major tax burdens on the
present or projected populations of Jacksonville. The major
differences between the alternatives selected to meet this
objective lie in the potential for population growth (Table 24)
3) Provide for the reuse of treated wastewater.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 will not allow for the direct
reuse of treated wastewater, while Alternatives B, C-l and
C-la would permit such a use for tree farm spray irrigation
and irrigation of alfalfa. Alternative C-2 would permit the
spray disposal of wastewater with limited opportunity for
direct reuse (Table 24).
Alternative D would not provide for reuse of wastewater.
4) Maintain the historical quality of Jacksonville.
This is a very broad objective which relates to more than
the influencing factors of the sewage treatment system. The
major influencing factor will be associated with the rate and
direction of population growth in Jacksonville and surrounding
lands.
Because of the land use planning and other influencing
factors involved, it is questionable to what degree the
historical quality of Jacksonville will be affected.
Alternatives C-la and D will have the least effect on
historical quality because each will represent limitations
on population growth.
Under all alternatives, population growth could affect
the historical values of Jacksonville from outside the city
limits, regardless of which avenue the city chooses to take
in terms of future population growth.
120
-------
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The unavoidable adverse impacts of the various alternatives
are summarized in Table 25 and as follows.
Alternative A-l - Annexation to BCVSA
There will be no major long-term impacts to the physical
or biological resources resulting from the actual construction
of the pipeline from Jacksonville to BCVSA. The major impacts
on these resources will result secondarily from the subsequent
development of vacant lands, both within the Jacksonville city
boundaries and in the service area surrounding the city.
Major social impacts include increased population, changes in
land use quality, detraction from the historical character and
aesthetic quality of Jacksonville, increased traffic resulting
from growth effect on regional air quality and increased costs
of sewage and other public services.
Alternative A-2 - Lease from BCVSA
The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those
associated with Alternative A-l. Costs of this alternative
will be slightly less than those in Alternative A-l.
Alternative B - Wastewater Application on
U. S. Forest Service Land
The potential impacts on archeological resources represent
a major concern, while effects on groundwater vegetation and
wildlife and air quality will be moderate. Minor impacts
include flood hazards, soils, odor, air quality, rare and
endangered species, vegetation and aesthetics. This alter-
native accommodates less growth than Alternatives A-l and
A-2 and represents the least costly of the alternatives.
Alternative C-l - Irrigation of Crops
This alternative will potentially result in a moderate
impact on local groundwater. The impacts on flooding, soils,
odor, vegetation, wildlife and aesthetics will be minor.
121
-------
Table 25
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES FOR JACKSONVILLE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Alternatives
Impacts
Improve stream water quality
Reduce flows in Daisy Creek
Impact groundwater
Flood and geologic hazard
Impact on soils from waste-
water application
Odor
Regional air quality
Vegetation and wildlife loss
Rare and endangered species
Effects on natural vegetation
from application of
wastewater
Aesthetics
Potential impact on
archeological resources
Consumptive use of energy
Population size
Population distribution
Land use patterns
Land use planning
Traffic and circulation
patterns
Water supply
Quality of life
Impact on historical integrity
Impact on historic landmark
Project financing
Property values
Impact on building construction
A-l
c
0
•H
*)
id
S§3
> c
u c
CO 3:
B
U
0
0
0
0
A
-
0
0
A
0
u
A
+
A
-
A
A
U
A
0
A
U
B
A-2
< oi
U] 01
U Q)
m u
B
0
0
0
0
0
A
-
0
0
A
0
U
A
+•
A
-
A
A
O
A
0
A
U
B
B
>,
ti
01
en m
fa H
5> a
a B:
B
U
A
-
-
-
A
A
0
0
-
+
-
A
A
-
-
A
A
a
-
0
A
U
B
C-l
c
o
-H
4J
id
en
O.-H
O M
Vj H
U H
B
u
A
-
-
-
A
-
0
0
-
0
A
A
A
-
-
A
A
a
-
0
A
U
B
C-la
cS
o3
•H 5
•P 0
id n
0*0
CVH
O M O
H H 2
OH —
B
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
-
0
A
-
+
+
-
-
-
a
-
0
A
U
+
C-2
r-l H >i 0
•a id a
C H 01
a IVH
ij
-------
Alternative C-la - Irrigation of Crops (No Growth)
The short-term, adverse impacts of this alternative will
be of minor consequence. Because of the low quantity of waste-
water to be applied, the impacts of local groundwater will be
minor, as will be the impacts on soils, flooding, odor, vege-
tation and wildlife. Because of the no growth nature of this
alternative virtually all impacts will be of less consequence
than those of other alternatives.
Alternative C-2 - Spray Disposal Above the Landfill Site
Impacts on groundwater, soils, air quality, natural vege-
tation and aesthetics will be minor. There will be a minor
potential for flood or geologic hazards. A moderate impact
will occur on vegetation and wildlife as a result of pipeline
construction. Socio-economic impacts will be minor.
Alternative D - No Action
Adoption of the no action alternative would continue to
result in violation of the Environmental Protection Agency
and DEQ wastewater discharge requirements, would result in
continuous odor problems with the existing lagoon system,
and bans on hookups to the sewerage system would be continued.
123
-------
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
VS. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The present discharge of inadequately-treated wastewater
into Daisy Creek represents a short-term use that adversely
affects the long-term productivity and value of Daisy Creek,
its beneficial uses and its receiving waters.
The principal beneficial effect on surface water of
using Alternatives A-l through C-2 is the alleviation of water
quality impairment related to the discharge of inadequately-
treated wastewater to Daisy Creek.
Alternative D (no action) would allow for the continuation
of this problem and impairs the use of Daisy Creek for any
beneficial uses.
While Alternatives A-l through C-2 would remove the adverse
water quality problem, new impacts would result from the con-
struction of a waste treatment system. These impacts relate
to increased taxes and service charges, increased consumption
of natural resources and the likelihood of a greater popu-
lation growth within the City of Jacksonville and surrounding
area.
The implementation of either Alternative A-l, A-2, B,
C-l or C-2 would represent a tradeoff for meeting waste dis-
charge requirements while providing for a varying level of
future population growth since all of the above alternatives
are designed to support additional growth. For Alternatives
A-l, A-2, B, C-l and C-2, Jacksonville will be committed to a
population growth of approximately 7 percent per annum. In
addition, the rural service area surrounding Jacksonville will
be committed to a growth rate which will be dictated in part
by land use and zoning decisions set forth by state and local
governing bodies.
Alternative C-la represents a provision for maintenance
of the present population and historic character of Jacksonville,
with a commitment to established land use patterns and popu-
lation distribution within the city limits.
125
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
With all alternatives except no action, there will be
minor and major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
renewable and non-renewable resources. Significant commit-
ments of general irrecoverable resources, i.e., time, building
materials and energy, will be required during construction of
any of the treatment alternatives.
After construction, operation of the treatment plant will
require irrecoverable resources such as time, chemicals, energy
and maintenance materials.
The secondary effects of population growth will result in
the conversion of open, natural land to urban development,
reduction in air quality, increased use of water, electricity,
petroleum products, timber and food, and increased demand for
social services. If growth occurs in a reasonably well con-
ceived manner, none of these effects are forecasted to be
significantly adverse.
127
-------
-------
VIII. UNRESOLVED ISSUES
During the course of this environmental impact analysis,
it became clear that there are numerous questions and issues
relative to the Jacksonville wastewater treatment project.
Several important issues were identified in the introduction
of this report and analyzed and discussed further throughout
the report. Issues that could be dealt with in the facilities
planning activity were addressed. Resolutions to several of
the issues are institutional rather than technical and they
must await further political and social action. The following
important issues must be dealt with by the responsible city,
county and/or state officials having responsibilities in
Jacksonville and Jackson County.
1. An unresolved question relates to the definition
of a reasonable population projection for the City
of Jacksonville. This cannot be established until
the following information is collected: 1) a
current land use survey of the city on contiguous
urban growth area showing current residential
densities; 2) a buildable land survey of this area
to find out potential infilling capacity for resi-
dential uses; and 3) the current and proposed water
supply capacity of the water system.
2. How would the population capacity of the BCVSA
interceptor in Alternatives A-l and A-2 relate
to the ultimate allowable population (based on the
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan) in the West
Medford Trunk District surrounding Jacksonville?
129
-------
-------
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Baldwin, E. M. 1964. Geology of Oregon. University of Oregon,
Edwards Brothers, Inc. 165 pp.
Beckham, S. D. 1971. Requiem for a people - the Rogue Indians
and the frontiersmen. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Berreman, Joel V. 1937. Tribal distribution in Oregon. Memoirs
of the American Anthropological Association. No. 47.
Bertrand, G. A. and J. M. Scott. 1973. Checklist of the birds
of Oregon. Oregon State University, Museum of Natural
History. 17 pp.
Burcham, M. B. 1940. Scott's and Applegate's old south road.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 41 (4) : 405-423.
Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1952. A field guide to
the mammals. Houghton Mifflin Co. 200 pp.
Cline, G. G. 1974. Peter Skene Ogden and the Hudson's Bay
Company. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Colvig, W. M. 1906. Indian wars in southern Oregon. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 4(3): 227-240.
Cressman, Luther. 1933. Aboriginal burials in southwestern
Oregon. American Anthropologist, new series vol. 35.
1933. Contributions to the archaeology of Oregon:
final report on the Gold Hill burial site. University of
Oregon Studies in Anthropology, bulletin 1, no. 1.
Davis, Wilbur. 1964. Archaeological survey of Crater Lake
National Park and Oregon Caves National Monument, Oregon.
Report submitted to the National Park Service. University
of Oregon, Eugene.
1968. Archaeology of the Lost Creek Dam Reservoir.
Final report to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
1970. Lost Creek archaeology, 1968. Final report
to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
1974. Lost Creek archaeology, 1972. Final report
to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
131
-------
Farnum, W. D. 1956. The development of an Oregon County,
1852-1890: mines, farms and a railroad. Pacific
Historical Review, 25(1): 29-46.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dryness. 1969. Vegetation of
Oregon and Washington. U. S. Forest Service research
paper PNW80. 216 pp.
Gaston, J. 1906. Genesis of the Oregon railway system.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 7(2): 105-132.
Gill, F. B. 1924. Oregon's first railway. Oregon Historical
Quarterly, 25(3): 171-235.
Haines, F. D. 1959. The Jacksonville Cannonball: the history
of the Rogue Valley Railway, 1890-1925. Pacific Northwest
Quarterly, 50(4): 144-154.
Haynes, M. C. and K. Cox. 1974. An economical-statistical
analysis of citizen attitudes with regard to city services,
growth, historical preservation and tax revenues in
Jacksonville, Oregon. Unpublished research activity,
Southern Oregon College, Ashland (mimeographed).
Hogg, T. C. and W. D. Honey. 1976. Dam the river: the
proposed Days Creek Dam and the human ecology of the
South Umpqua River Basin, Oregon. Dept. of Anthropology,
Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State
University, OWRRI #43, Corvallis (in press).
Jackson County. 1968. A plan for parks and recreation, Jackson
County.
Jackson County. Planning Commission. 1972. A summary of the
comprehensive plan for Jackson County, Oregon. Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, Medford.
1973. Zoning ordinance for Jackson County, Oregon.
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development, Medfora.
. 1976. Jackson County comprehensive plan, Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, Medford (map).
Jacksonville (City of). [n.d.] General plan (mimeographed).
. 1969. Demographic data (mimeographed).
1976. Part A - Facilities plan, municipal waste
treatment works, draft copy. Compiled by T. Flatebo and
Associates, Jacksonville.
Johansen, D. 0. and C. M. Gates. 1957. Empire of the Columbia -
a history of the Pacific northwest. Harper and Brothers,
New York.
132
-------
Maloney, A. B. 1940. Camp sites of Jededian Smith on the Oregon
coast. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 41(3): 305-323.
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers. 1976. Report - hand application of
wastewater in the Salinas-Monterey Peninsula area.
Mullen, J. 1906. From Walla Walla to San Francisco, 1862.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 4(3): 202-226.
Nunis, D. B. (ed). 1968. The Hudson Bay Company's first
fur brigade to the Sacramento Valley: Alexander McLeod's
1829 hunt. Sacramento Book Collector Club, Sacramento.
Oregon (State of). 1974. Population projections for Oregon.
Economic Services Section, Salem,
1974. Resource atlas, Jackson County, Oregon.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis,
prepared by Marilyn Ruttle.
1976. Labor force trends, Jackson County, Oregon.
Department of Human Resources, Employment Division (mimeographed).
Oregon. Bureau of Municipal Research and Service. 1964.
Employment forecast 1962-1985, Jackson County, Oregon.
University of Oregon, Eugene.
1964. Industrial land use, Bear Creek urban region,
Jackson County, Oregon'. University of Oregon, Eugene.
1958. Population of Oregon cities, counties and
metropolitan areas 1850-1957, a compilation of census
counts and estimates in Oregon. Information Bulletin 106,
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Oregon. Department of Environmental Quality. 1976. Proposed
water quality management plan for Rogue River Basin. 74 pp.
Oregon. State Highway Division. 1976. Preliminary six year
highway improvement program - July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1982.
Oregon. State Water Resources Board. 1969. Oregon's long-
range requirements for water: general soil map report
with irrigable areas Rogue drainage basin. Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University and U. S.
Soil Conservation Service.
Palmer, Joel. 1847. Journal of travels over the Rocky Mountains
to the mouth of the Columbia River made during the years
1845 and 1846..., J.A. and U.P. James, Cincinnati. Reprinted
in Early Western Travels 1748-18'46, vol. 30, AMS Press Inc.
New York, Rueben Thwaites, ed.
133
-------
Peterson, R. T. 1961. A field guide to western birds. Houghton
Mifflin Company. 309 pp.
Sargent, A. A. 1921. A sketch of the Rogue River Valley and
southern Oregon history. Oregon Historical Quarterly,
22(1) : 1-11.
Sapir, Edward. 1907. Notes on the Takelma Indians of southwestern
Oregon. American Anthropologist, new series, 9:2.
Schaeffer, Claude. 1959. Indian tribes and languages of old
Oregon country. Map prepared for the Oregon Historical
Society-
Scott, L. M. 1917. The pioneer stimulus of gold. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 18(3): 147-166.
Smith, C. L. 1973. Social well-being: problems and prospects,
draft prepared for the conference on "The social well-being—
quality of life dimensions in water resources and development".
Logan, Utah (mimeographed).
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and
amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co. 279 pp.
Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, Inc. 1973. Jackson County comprehensive
areawide water and sewerage plan. 218 pp.
1973. Solid waste management plan - Jackson County,
Oregon.
Sutton, Jack and Lee Pinkham. 1961. The golden years of
Jacksonville - a pictorial walking tour. Bulletin
Publishing Company in cooperation with the Southern
Oregon Historical Society and the Siskiyou Pioneer Sites
Foundation, Grants Pass.
Tucker, W. P. 1932. Social history of Jackson County. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 33(4): 313-317.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Jackson County, Oregon -
flood plain information - interim report. Portland, Oregon.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Population, employment
and housing units projected to 1990. Bonneville Power
Administration.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Evaluation of land
application systems. Technical Bulletin-EPA-430/9-75-001.
182 pp.
1976. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors.
AP-42, Parts A and B, second edition.
134
-------
. 1973. Recycling municipal sludges and effluents
on land. National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges. 244 pp.
1973. Survey of facilities using land application
of wastewater. Office of Water Program Operations.
U. S. Geological Survey. 1956. Geologic quadrangle maps of
the United States - Geology of the Medford quadrangle.
Map GQ 89.
U. S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
1975. Climatological data - Oregon. Volume 81.
U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Land use planning
and community development, soils - Jacksonville, Oregon.
Walling, A. G. 1884. History of southern Oregon comprising
Jackson, Josephine, Douglas, Curry and Coos Counties.
Compiled from the Most Authentic Sources. Published
by A. G. Walling, Portland.
Winther, 0.0. and R. D. Galey. 1940. Mrs. Butler's 1853 diary
of Rogue River Valley. Oregon Historical Quarterly,
41(4): 338-366.
1950. The old Oregon country - a history of
frontier trade, transportation, and travel. Stanford
University Press.
1956. The great northwest, second edition.
Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Personal Communications
Anonymous informants, Jacksonville, Oregon.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Blankenship, Tom. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon.
Bogar, Larry. Floodplain management, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Oregon.
Carter, Glen. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Salem,
Oregon.
Cobo, Ted. Rogue River National Forest, U. S. Forest Service.
135
-------
Gildow, Robert. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon.
Gustafson, Gary. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Salem, Oregon.
City of Jacksonville, Mayor, City Administrator and Assistant
Planner.
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development.
Jackson County Department of Tax Assessment.
Jones, Terry. City of Jacksonville, Planning Department,
Jacksonville, Oregon.
Kingsley, Wayne. Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Lilley, Robin. Planner, Jackson County Planning Department,
Medford, Oregon.
Ober, Doug. Air Quality Engineer, Department of Environmental
Quality, Portland, Oregon.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Jackson County, Oregon.
Schwab, Thomas. Planner, Oregon Department of Highways, Salem,
Oregon.
Shay, Ron. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,
Oregon.
U. S. Forest Service.
Vandervelden, Don. District Conservationist, U. S. Soil Conservation
Service, Medford, Oregon.
Werner, Richard. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Roseburg,
Oregon.
136
-------
X. APPENDICES
Appendix A - Biotic Resources
A-l Common flora of the Jacksonville area
A-2 Common terrestrial vertebrates of the
Jacksonville, Oregon area
A-3 Common freshwater and anadromous fish of
the study area streams
A-4 Correspondence from the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife
Appendix B - Sewage Flows
Appendix C - Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
C-l Local cost
C-2 Total capital
Appendix D - Water Quality Standards for Rogue River Basin
Appendix E - Cultural Background and History of Jacksonville
Appendix F - Population Projections - City of Jacksonville
Appendix G - Wastewater Analysis by U. S. Forest Service
Appendix H - Compilation of Air Emissions Based on Population
and an Index of Annual Average Daily Travel
137
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Biotic Resources
139
-------
Appendix A-l
Common Flora of the Jacksonville Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Oregon white oak
Ponderosa pine
Idaho fescue
bluebunch wheatgrass
pine bluegrass
black oak
Douglas fir
wildrye
yarrow
Oregon ash
black cottonwood
red alder
willow
blackberry
deerbrush
white-leaved manzanita
poison oak
bigleaf maple
Quercus garryana
Pinus ponderosa
Festuca idahoensis
Agropyron spicatum
Poa scabrella
Quercus kello'ggii
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Elymus sp.
Achillea millefolium
Fraxinus latifolia
Populus trichocarpa
Alnus rubra.
Salix sp.
Rubus sp.
Ceanothus integerrimus
Arctostaphylos viscida
Rhus diversiloba
Acer macrophyllum
140
-------
Appendix A-2
Common Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Jacksonville,
Oregon Area
Common Name
Mammals
Townsend mole
California mole
Pacific mole
shrew mole
Pacific shrew
vagrant shrew
little brown bat
long-eared myotis
Yuma myotis
California myotis
big brown bat
black bear
raccoon
longtailed weasel
mink
striped skunk
spotted skunk
coyote
bobcat
California ground squirrel
western gray squirrel
deer mouse
Oregon vole
house mouse
Scientific Name
Scapanus townsendi
.cap
!. 1
__ atimanus
§J_ °rarius
Neurotrichus g_ibbsi
Sorex pacifi'cus
S_._ vagrans
Myotis lucifugus
M. evotis
M. yumanensis
M. californicus
Eptesicus f.uscus
Ursus americanus
Procypn lotor
Mustela frenata
M. vis"oh
Mephitis mephitis
Spilozale put onus
Cams latrans
Lynx ruf us
Citellus beecheyi
Sciurus grisens
Peromyscus maniculatus
Microtus pregoni
Mus musculus
Birds
great blue heron
green heron
black-crowned night heron
mallard
pintail
cinnamon teal
American wigeon
wood duck
turkey vulture
red-tailed hawk
Cooper's hawk
marsh hawk
American kestrel
California quail
ring-tailed pheasant
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Nycticorax nycticorax
Anas platyrtynekos
A._ acuta
A. cyanoptera
Mareca americana
Aix sponsa
Cathartes aura
Buteo jamaicensis
Accipites cooperii
Circus cyaneus
Falco sparverius
Lpphprtyx califprnicus
Phasiamus colchicus
141
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
American coot
killdeer
band-tailed pigeon
mourning dove
barn owl
great horned owl
belted kingfisher
red-shafted flicker
horned lark
tree swallow
barn swallow
scrub jay
common crow
starling
brewer's blackbird
dark-eyed juneo
white-crowned sparrow
Furlica americana
Charadrius vociferus
Columba fasciata
Zenaidura macroura
Tyto alba
Bubo virginiamus
«
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes cafer
Eremophila alpestris
Iridoprocne bicolor
Hirundo rustica
Aphelocoma coerulescena
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Sturnus vulgaris
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Juneo hyemalis oreganus
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Amphibians
Pacific giant salamander
long-tailed salamander
rough-skinned newt
ensatina
tailed frog
boreal toad
Pacific treefrog
red-legged frog
bullfrog
western pond turtle
Dicamptodon ensatus
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Taricha granulosa
EnsatiiTa eschscholtzi
Ascaphus truei
Bufo boreas
Hyla regilla
Rana aurora
Rana catesbeiana
Clemmyo marmorata
Reptiles
western fence lizard
northern alligator lizard
Pacific rubber boa
Pacific gopher snake
common garter snake
Oregon garter snake
western rattlesnake
Sceloporus occidentalis
Gerrhonatus coeruleus
Charina bottae
Pituophis melanoleucus
Thamnophis sirtalis
T. couchi
Crotalus viridis
Note: For more detailed data on flora and fauna of the Rogue
River area, see "Fish and Wildlife Resources of the
Rogue River Basin, Oregon and their Water Requirements",
Oregon State Game Commission, 1970.
142
-------
Appendix A-3
Common Freshwater and Anadromous Fish
of the Study Area Streams
Common Name
Scientific Name
Pacific lamprey*
Black-nosed dace
Long-nosed dace
Redside shiner
Squawfish
Coho salmon*
Chinook salmon*
Cutthroat trout*
Steelhead trout*
Buffalo sculpins
Staghorn sculpin
Lamptera tridentata
Rhinichthys atratulus
R. sp.
Richardsonius balteatus
Ptychocheilus' oregonensis
Oncorhynchus kisutch
0. tshawytscha
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Enophrys bison
Leptocottus armatus
* Anadromous
143
-------
Appendix A-4
DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
3140 N.E. STEPHENS STREET, ROSEBURG, OREGON 97^70 PH. 672-65'll
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
July 29, 1976
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Ives:
In answer to your letter of July 19, regarding an EIS for the City of
Jacksonville on a proposed wastewater treatment facility. There are
no "key wildlife areas" such as pristine marshes or primitive lakes
nor do I know of any endangered speices that inhabit the area. My
main concern as a wildlife manager is the rate at which we are Closing
our upland gamebird habitat and deer winter ranges to housing develop-
ments, concrete highways and in general urban sprawl.
The west hills of Jacksonville is classed as critical deer winter range
and the agricultural land to the east of the city is prime pheasant,
quail and mourning dove habitat. With the connection of the city of
Jacksonville to the BCVSA or the establishment of a large waste water
facility, urban sprawl will be accelerated and more game habitat will
be lost at a more rapid rate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the preparation of the
environmental irrroact statement.
incerely yours,
,
Richard L. Werner
District Wildlife Biologist
144
-------
APPENDIX B
Sewage Flows
145
-------
APPENDIX B
SEWAGE FLOW - CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1973
Monthly Average Monthly
Total Daily Rainfall
4,082,000 131,698 1.98
3,484,000 124,428 .54
3,870,000 124,864 1.58
3,568,000 118,900 .76
3,991,000 125,516 .45
3,402,000 113,400 .06
3,274,000 105,613 .04
3,491,000 112,612 .03
3,051,000 101,700 .64
3,292,000 106,193 2.79
4,471,000 149,033 7.01
6,524,000 210,451 3.02
1974
Monthly Average Monthly
Total Daily Rainfall
9,371,000 302,000 4.32
5,466,000 195,214 2.78
7,840,000 252,903 3.76
6,175,000 205,030 1.70
4,036,000 130,193 .22
3,841,000 128,000 0
3,583,000 115,806 .10
3,534,000 114,000 0
3,406,000 114,000 0
3,222,000 104,000 1.17
3,834,000 127,000 1.13
3,820,000 123,000 3.91
1975
Monthly Average Monthly
Total Daily Rainfall
4,839,000 156,000 2.64
5,666,000 202,000 2.64
9,052,000 292,000 3.97
5,847,000 195,000 1.27
4,460,000 144,000 .24
4,186,000 139,000 .38
4,037,000 130,000 .22
4,023,000 129,000 .54
3,446,000 114,000 .65
3,606,000 116,000 2.21
4,116,000 137,000
5,119,000 165,000
Notes
School out
School out
School out
-------
APPENDIX C
Economic Evaluation of
Alternatives
147
-------
Appendix C-l
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - LOCAL COST
oo
Item
Total capital
cost
Local share
capital cost
Interest during
construction
Salvage value
Total present
worth
Average annual
equivalent cost
Annual operation
and maintenance
Interest
Factor A-
1.000 735,
1.000 183,
22,
0.30454 -148,
58,
0.08807 5,
77,
1
000
800
500
100
200
100
900
A-
735,
183,
22,
-148,
58,
5,
75,
2
000
800
500
100
200
100
000
B
730
182
22
-46
158
14
35
,000
,500
,400
,400
,500
,000
,400
C-l
349
98
12
-58
52
4
36
,500
,600
,100
,000
,700
,600
,000
C-la
262
65
9
-42
32
2
22
,000
,500
,000
,500
,000
,800
,200
C-2
317,500
79,400
9,700
-29,800
59,300
5,200
46,500
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
8,500
5,000
83,000
80,100 49,400 32,100 20,000 51,700
-------
Appendix C-2
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - TOTAL CAPITAL
Item
Capital cost
Interest during
construction
Salvage value
Total present
_, worth
c*
Average annual
equivalent cost
Annual operation
and maintenance
Interest
Factor A-l
1.000 735
1.000 22
0.30454 -148
609
0.08807 53
77
,000
,500
,100
,400
,700
,900
A- 2
735
22
148
609
53
75
,000
,500
,100
,400
,700
,000
B
730,
22,
-46,
706,
62,
35,
C-l
000
400
400
000
200
400
349
12
-58
348
30
36
,500
,100
,000
,600
,700
,000
C-la
262,
9,
-42,
228,
20,
22,
000
000
500
500
000
200
C-2
317,500
9,700
-29,800
297,400
26,200
46,500
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
8,500 5,000
131,600 128,700 97,600 58,200 37,200
72,700
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Water Quality Standards for the
Rogue River Basin
151
-------
41-080 SPECIAL WATER QUALITY AND WASTE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ROGUE RIVER BASIN.
(1) Special Water Quality Standards. The provisions of this sub-section shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of the General Water Quality Standards contained in Section 41-025,
except where this subsection imposes a conflicting requirement with the provisions of Section
41-025, this sub-section shall govern. No wastes shall be discharged and no activities shall
be conducted which either alone or in conjunction with other wastes or activities will cause in
the waters of the Rogue River Basin:
(a) Organisms of the Coliform Group Where Associated with Fecal Sources (MPN or
equivalent MF using a representative number of samples.)
(A) Mainstem Rogue River from the point of salt water intrusion, approximately
R.M. 4, upstream to Dodge Park, river mile 138.4, and Bear Creek; average concentrations to
exceed 1000 per 100 milliliters, except during periods of high surface runoff.
(B) Rogue River above Dodge Park and all unspecified tributaries, average
concentrations to exceed 240 per 100 milliliters, except during periods of high surface runoff.
(b) Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.). Dissolved oxygen concentrations to be less than 90
percent of saturation at the seasonal low, or less than 95 percent of saturation in spawning areas
during spawning, incubation, hatching, and fry stages of salmonid fishes.
(c) pH (Hydrogen Ion Concentration). pH values to fall outside the range of 7.0 to 8.5.
(d) Turbidity. (Jackson Turbidity Units, JTU). Any measurable increases in natural
stream turbidities when natural turbidities are less than 30 JTU, or more than a 10 percent cum-
ulative increase in natural stream turbidities when stream turbidities are more than 30 JTU, except
for certain short-term activities which may be specifically authorized by the Department of
Environmental Quality under such conditions as it may prescribe and which are necessary to accom-
modate essential dredging, construction, or other legitimate uses or activities where turbidities
in excess of this standard are unavoidable.
(e) Temperature. Any measurable increases when stream temperatures are 58° F. or
greater; or more than 0.5° F. increase due to a single-source discharge when receiving water
temperatures are 57.5° F. or less or more than 2° F. increase due to all sources combined when
stream temperatures are 56° F. or less, except for short-term activities which may be specifically
authorized by the Department of Environmental Quality upon such conditions as it may prescribe and
which are necessary to accommodate legitimate uses or activities where temperatures in excess of
this standard are unavoidable.
(f) Dissolved Chemical Substances. Guide concentrations listed below to be exceeded
except as may be specifically authorized by the Department of Environmental Quality upon such
conditions as it may deem necessary to carry out the general intent of Section 41-010 and to
protect the beneficial uses set forth in Table 11.
-------
mg/1
Arsenic (As) 0.01
Barium (Ba) 1.0
Boron (Bo) 0.5
Cadmium (Cd) 0.003
Chloride (Cl) 25.0
Chromium (Cr) 0.02
Copper (Cu) 0.005
Cyanide (Cn) 0.005
Fluoride (F) 1.0
Iron (Fe) 0.1
Lead (Pb) 0.05
Manganese (Mn) 0.05
Phenols (totals) 0.001
Total dissolved solids 100.0
Zinc (In) 0.01
(2) Minimum Standards for Treatment and Control of Wastes. All wastes shall be treated,
prior to discharge, in accordance with the following:
(a) Sewage Wastes.
(A) During the period of low stream flows (approximately June 1 - October 31 of
each year), secondary treatment resulting in monthly average effluent concentrations not to exceed
20 mg/1 of 5-day 20° C. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 20 mg/1 of suspended solids or equiva-
lent control.
(B) During the period of high steam flows (approximately November 1 - May 31 of
each year) a minimum of secondary treatment or equivalent shall be provided and all waste treat-
ment and control facilities shall be operated at maximum efficiency so as to minimize waste dis-
charges to public waters.
(C) All sewage wastes shall be disinfected, after treatment, equivalent to
thorough mixing with sufficient chlorine to provide a residual of at least 1 part per million after
60 minutes of contact time.
(D) More stringent waste treatment requirements may be imposed, especially in
headwater and tributary streams, where waste loads may be large relative to stream flows.
(b) Industrial Wastes.
(A) Industrial waste treatment, requirements shall be determined on an individual
basis in accordance with the provisions of Sections 41-010, 41-015, 41-020, 41-025, and 41-030.
(B) Where industrial effluents, contain significant quantities of potentially
toxic elements, treatment requirements shall be determined utilizing appropriate bio-assays.
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
Cultural Background
by
David Brauner
and
History of Jacksonville
by
Thomas C. Hogg and William D. Honey
Oregon State University
155
-------
Cultural Background. The first Europeans to enter the
Bear Creek drainage basin found the region occupied by a
people collectively referred to as the Takelma. The Takelma
occupied the upper and middle Rogue River drainage basin and
the drainages of the major tributary streams. The single
exception was the Applegate Creek drainage inhabited by
Athapascan speakers.
The Takelma were most easily distinguished from their
neighbors linguistically. The language of the Takelma,
referred to as "Takelman" (Berreman, 1937), was a Penutian
language unintelligible to Athapascan speakers to the west,
other Penutian speakers to the north and east, and Hokan
speakers to the south (Berreman, 1937; Sapir, 1907; and
Schaeffer, 1959). Takelman speakers were divisible into two
groups referred to as the upper and lower Takelma. The
distinction was primarily linguistic, i.e., different dialects,
but cultural distinctions were apparent (Berreman, 1937; and
Sapir, 1907).
The Upland Takelma occupied the Bear Creek drainage
basin, territory east of Table Rock to the crest of the
Cascades, and the adjacent banks of the Rogue River (Berreman,
1937 and Sapir, 1907). Since the Jacksonville locality was
probably inhabited by Upland Takelma prior to the advent of
the Euro-American, the following discussion will concern only
this group. Unless otherwise cited, the following information
was derived from Berreman (1937) and Sapir (1907).
Politically the Takelma were not a tribe. The highest
level of political organization achieved was autonomous band
organization. The bands were generally small, composed of
closely related families. The band leader or headman was
selected on the basis of wealth and prestige. The headman
was not selected for life nor was the position hereditary.
This individual was generally not a peacetime headman.
The pre-European lifeway of the Takelma was dramatically
disrupted in the early 1850s. The discovery of gold and
secondarily the presence of good agricultural and timberland
brought a tidal wave of Euro-Americans into the Rogue River
drainage. A number of inexcusable atrocities were perpe-
trated on the native populations in 1852 and 1853. Any
retaliation on the Indian's part was met with even greater
brutality by the Euro-Americans. Full-scale war thus resulted
between the "Rogue Indians" and Euro-Americans. As a result,
aboriginal settlement patterns and social organization were
effectively terminated by late 1853. For a detailed account
of the plight of the Takelma, see Beckham (1971). Decimated
by warfare, the few surviving Takelma were removed to the
newly established Siletz Reservation on the Oregon coast in
1855, thus ending over 6,000 years of Native American occu-
pation in the valley of the Rogue.
156
-------
Among the Takelma social stratification was apparent.
Four classes of people were recognized: rich, commoner, poor
and slaves. The class system was not hereditary. Everyone
except slaves could better his position in life. Marriage
was generally band exogamous. Marriages were prearranged
between families and a bride price was paid. The sororate
and levirate were probably practiced.
Takelma bands were named after the location of their
principal winter village. The villages were generally
located along the Rogue River or one of its major tributaries.
Characteristic of the winter villages were durable semi-
subterranean plank houses. The houses were large rectangular
structures. Their floors were dug two to three feet below
the existing ground surface. The walls were made of upright
pine planks supported by four corner posts and cross beams.
Most structures had a gable roof with a central smoke hole.
Access was gained through a side entryway.
Winter villages were abandoned in the early spring in
favor of less permanent upland camp sites. Crude brush
structures generally served as shelters in the summer camps.
The central-based, wandering settlement pattern charac-
teristic of the Takelma was dictated by the availability and
location of exploitable resources= Acorns, camas and fish
were the staple foods of the Takelma. Acorns were gathered
in early spring, pulverized and cooked into a meal. Camas
roots were gathered during the spring and early summer, baked
in earth ovens, and stored as a winter staple. Other favored
plant foods included cherries, sunflower seeds, tarweed,
madrona and pine nuts. A form of tobacco was apparently
cultivated by the Takelma and smoked.
The principal sources of protein for the Takelma were
the salmon and trout. Fish could be taken in large quantities
during the late summer and fall in the various river systems.
Fish were taken in nets, speared and caught with hook and line.
Crawfish and river mussels were also recovered from the river
systems but only as dietary adjuncts. Among the terrestrial
animals deer and elk were the preferred exploitable species.
Few ethnographers fail to report, with ethnocentric disdain,
the Takelma's liking for insect larvae and grasshoppers.
One of the apparent distinctions between the Upper and
Lower Takelma was the Upper Takelma's greater reliance on
terrestrial resources. Fewer good fishing localities in the
latter's territory necessitated this adaptation. The Upper
Takelma are characterized as shorter in stature than their
downriver counterparts and technologically less advanced.
They were also supposedly quite warlike, preying on the Lower
Takelma for slaves. Slaves were supposedly sold to the Klamath
and Shasta groups.
157
-------
History
Introduction
The history of Oregon, just like the history of the Pacific Northwest,
is one of people laying claims to the land, minerals, and other natural
resources. Within Oregon's political boundaries lie numerous major river
basin systems. Each basin possesses unique characteristics which distinguish
it from others, including contiguous basins. These distinguishing features
come in the form of different topographical characteristics, varieties of
flora, fauna, and other environmental characteristics such as soils, hydrology,
etc. Although it can be argued that basins possess more commonalities than
uniqueness in terms of their ecological components, one also must consider
a more subtle portion of their composition which comes in terms of their human
occupation and the history of their development.
Northwestern history often discloses that motivations for Euro-american
settlement in Oregon were quite dependent upon the environmental suitabili-
ty of a particular river basin and the economic security it represented.
Some basins possessed soil more advantageous for agricultural endeavors than
others; some possessed more navigable waterways that created expedient trade
routes; some were more desirable in terms of their forest or mineral resources;
and many were not immediately desirable because of their relative isolation.
More often than not a combination of factors were operant to structure set-
tlement motives (cf. Hogg & Honey, 1976). The case here in point is the Rogue
River Basin, Oregon, which was characterized by relative isolation and non-
navigable waterways making any subsequent trade very difficult; but which
contained land suitable for agriculture on a smaller scale than that of the
Willamette or even the contiguous Umpqua basin.
The Rogue's most attractive feature was the mineral resource which it
harbored—gold. Its presence contributed to a very rapid settlement of the
valley and to the development of an historically important community of Jack-
sonville. Jacksonville's population and economic importance was to decline
at nearly the same rate at which it grew and a mineral based economy was soon
to give way to an agrarian lifestyle. Nevertheless, the community of Jack-
sonville did play a significant role in the history of the Rogue River Basin
as well as a large portion of Southern Oregon. Herein is contained a discus-
sion of Jacksonville's significance in Rogue River Valley history. The two
must be discussed in the same context in order to provide a larger context
for assessing Jacksonville's significance.
158
-------
Period of Discovery
The first Europeans to sight portions of the Pacific Northwest were
the Spanish in the mid 16th century. In the same century the English
also sailed off the Northwest's coastal shores. Both nations reappeared
periodically in the next few centuries, and were subsequently joined by
the Russians in the 18th century. By the late 1770's, English, French,
Russians and Americans began laying claim to the Northwest, while the
Spanish chiefly confined their interests south of the 42nd parallel.
The various European and American interests exploring the Northwest
possess one commonality—the search, discovery, and control of natural
resources that would serve as an efficient basis for exploitation and
establishment of claim to vast portions of yet unchartered territory.
In addition to the unclaimed land, in the Northwest, the most immediate-
ly noticeable resource was the sea-otter and other fur bearing animals,
which were in great demand in other portions of the world. Eventually
the pursuit of these animals led inland where other resources were dis-
covered and exploited. Thus the hinterland traders, trappers, and explor-
ers eventually contributed to the settlement of this entire new country.
Period of Fur Trade
The first known trading and trapping expeditions to enter Oregon
Territory were those of the Pacific Fur Company in 1811-13 and the North-
west Company in the year 1818. The Northwest Company continued their
expeditions for five years. After their reorganization with the Hudson's
Bay Company in 1823, the trade continued until resources were virtually
exhausted. The impact of the early trappers and traders upon this new
land should not be underestimated. Many regions such as the Rogue Valley
attracted these individuals who subsequently mapped and chartered vast
drainages and opened the way for the later and more permanent settlers.
Once the Columbia region was opened, a natural corridor was available
to the Willamette, Umpqua and, later, the Rogue Valley. Areas such as
the Rogue were not as accurately documented as the Willamette, It can
be assumed, however, that individuals involved in the historical connec-
tions of both areas contributed to the cartographical knowledge to be
of later use.
159
-------
The first significant Euro-American activities in the confines of
the Rogue River Basin were those connected with Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1826 and 1827 Alexander McLeod penetrated into the Umpqua from the
Willamette corridor and on into the Rogue on a journey which ended in
the Sacramento Valley. He was leading what is now termed the "Umpqua
Brigade", a portion of Peter Skene Ogden's main expeditionary force camped
at Fort Vancouver (Cline 1974:83).
The furrier activities in the Rogue were not as great as they were
in other portions of western river drainages. McLeod reported that while
the beaver was rather abundant, trappers' and soldiers' rapport with the
aboriginals was not favorable. Their exploration continued, however,
and they mapped and explored along the Rogue and Applegate Rivers and
on into the Klamath Drainage. McLeod1s accounts concerning early furrier
activities in the Rogue are hard to verify and this is attributed to lost
correspondence between McLeod and Hudson's Bay Company (cf. Nunis 1968).
In March of 1827, Peter Skene Ogden crossed over the Siskiyou Moun-
tains from the Klamath Basin and penetrated deep into the Rogue's hinter-
land. Ogden spent some time trapping for furs before continuing north
to Fort Vancouver (Beckham 1971:27). In later years many other individ-
usals became involved and contributed to the "opening of the Rogue Coun-
try" (Beckham 1972). The importance was therefore substantial to creat-
ing new interest in the Rogue Basin.
Period of Reprisal
Circumstances that would culminate in the Rogue River Indian Wars
began as early as 1828 when the Jedediah Smith Expedition clashed with
coastal Indian groups. This incident is the first recorded and documented
conflict between Indians and whites in southern Oregon (Colvig 1902:230).
As more and more settlers began to infiltrate the Rogue in search of furs,
land for colonization, and routes of travel opposition from aboriginal
groups became more apparent and critical. By 1846, penetration of whites
into the Rogue Basin became synonymous with confrontations with abori-
ginals. In 1850, Joseph Lane, the territorial governor of Oregon, was
encouraged to take action against the Indians of that region (Beckham
1971:43).
160
-------
"In 1851, miners and settlers gained more and more control over the
basin and the aboriginals began to actuate to retrive their control (cf.
Beckham 1971). To effectively resist white encroachment into their lands,
aboriginal groups were forced to consolidate. From 1851-1853 conflict
grew immensely and many individuals came into historical prominence from
their direct or indirect involvements in the region's wars. Although
treaties were initiated from time to time throughout the period of 1851
to 1855, these were not successful. The year 1856 found the consolidated
Rogue groups either heavily dispersed or annihilated to such small num-
bers they could no longer effectively resist the whites. Most were taken
to the Siletz Reservation and on May 29th of 1856 the last remaining Rogues
surrendered their lands.
Period of Settlement: The Rogue Basin
As Joel Palmer passed from the Umpqua into the Rogue Valley in 1846
he noted that, while it was similar to the Umpqua in its beauty, it was
smaller in size and much more difficult to pass due to larger mountains
(Palmer 1847:191-192). In the late 1840's when the choicest lands of
the Willamette had already been claimed, areas such as the Umpqua and
Rogue began to receive the overflow of those looking for permanent settle-
ment. Reasons for settling the northwest varied somewhat; however, chief
among motivations were the development of land for agriculture and ani-
mal husbandry—such was the case in the Willamette Valley. As the afore-
mentioned spillover began to occur, settlers moved south. Some moved
into California and others chose sites in the Rogue Valley. Movement
proved difficult until the 1850's when Scott and Applegate initiated the
"South Road" (cf. Burcham 1940).
Settlement and progress was delayed in the Rogue because of its rel-
ative isolation. Later, however, its attractivess came from an extremely
different source, a resource in gold. As early as 1848, miners began
moving into California in the quest for gold; by 1850 it was gold that
brought people into Southern Oregon and as a result towns were established.
One such place was Jacksonville—the first permanent settlement in what
is now Jackson County.
161
-------
Period of Growth: Jacksonville
What stimulated the growth of Jacksonville was not its agricultur-
al potential or its timber, it was its mineral wealth. Gold was first
discovered in southern Oregon in 1849 at Table Rock. Mining activities
took up some two years later (Scott 1917:150). The discovery and the
mining of gold brought vigorous life to boom areas such as Jacksonville,
and this, in conjunction with the South Road facilitated settlement in
the Rogue Valley (cf. Winther 1950).
In December of 1851, James Cluggage and John R. Pool located the
first mining claim in Jacksonville. These initial diggings took the form
of placer or streambed mining. By 1852, a few hundred settlers migrated
into the Rogue and Jacksonville areas. While the primary emphasis was
originally on gold mining, agriculture and animal husbandry were engaged
In, but to a lesser extent (Tucker 1932:313). In 1852 Henry Kipple and
J. R. Pool began laying out the physical townsite of Jacksonville. In
February of that year the town's first general store appeared along with
a sort of organized law and order. A sawmill also appeared near Ashland
Creek. Population of the growing Jacksonville was estimated at over 1,000
persons. From 1853- 1854 schools, churches, and mail service began for
Jacksonville. At this same time Peter Britt opened his first studio (Haines
1967). By 1855 Jacksonville had the distinction of having its own news-
paper, The Table Rock Sentinel, and a jail. During 1853 gold was discov-
ered in other portions of the Rogue Basin: Applegate Creek, Coquille,
and the upper Rogue tributaries (cf. Scott 1917). From 1851-1900 the
area surrounding Jacksonville yielded some $35,000,000 in gold (Colvig
1902:230).
Gold was not a localized phenomena; in fact, its generalized distri-
bution throughout the Northwest and other portions of the country provided
an added stimulus for settlement and for the development of mercantiling
and transportation. Although gold played an important part in the growth
of Jacksonville and other portions of southern Oregon, by 1860 farmers
and ranchers were becoming more commonplace and were playing a more im-
portant role in the economy. Steadily the miners were coming to be re-
placed as rapidly as they had their beginning. Some remain even today,
in search of other minerals like silver.
162
-------
Initially, Jacksonville was dependent upon a "home economy." Min-
ers and farmer-ranchers developed a reciprocity in trading; each was high-
ly dependent upon the others' wares. As late as 1862 the system was still
in effect. A large part was due, of course, to the Rogue isolation.
The Willamette Valley had by now developed much more sophisticated trans-
portation and trade networks. It was a definite economic advantage for
settlement (cf. Mullen 1902). In the heighth of the gold rush, Jackson-
ville and other portions of southern Oregon were largely dependent upon
overland supplies via California and Crescent City. Wagon freighting was
greatest in the Rogue Valley since its waterways were not navigable and
since the railroad had not yet made its appearance in many parts of the
Pacific Northwest. Eventually overland trade was initiated from the Wil-
lamette Valley. In spite of the great distance and difficult terrain, the
Rogue proved to be an eager market (Winther 1950:138).
The earlier transportational devices were pack trains in the 1850's,
and eventually, wagons in the 1860's. Jacksonville maintained its import-
ance for a number of years as a nucleus for trade and settlement. Stage
lines appeared in 1861 which linked Jacksonville to California and the
Willamette Valley (cf. Winther 1950).
City improvements began for Jacksonville in the 1860's. Grading
graveling of streets and sidewalks marked the first real efforts at com-
munity improvements, in addition to a host of new buildings and enterprises
(cf. Haines 1967). The U.S. Postal Service now offered mail on a regular
basis via Wells Fargo and Company.
During the 1870's agriculturalists in the Rogue began producing items
for export since the depletion of miners were no longer creating heavy
demand locally for their wares. Jacksonville was beginning to lose its
importance, its population was declining, and the coming of the railroad
was to signify its commercial demise.
Rnal Period: Attempts at Revitalization
The railroad had much to do with reshaping the economic and social
order of many communities. Jacksonville, as well as other parts of the
Rogue Basin, had for the most part felt the deprivation associated with
163
-------
geographical isolation. At the time the Oregon and California Railroad
reached the Rogue Valley it was experiencing financial hardships. This
in combination with the decreasing economic and social importance of Jack-
sonville, and its being removed from the main rail line, led to the de-
cision to bypass Jacksonville. The decision raised protest from the res-
idents of the community but to no avail (Haines 1959:144-145). Thus the
railroad, in conjunction with the depletion of ore reserves, was soon
to reduce Jacksonville not only in size but also significance. By 1890
Jacksonville's growth had ceased and the railroad had served to accentu-
ate the decline (Farnum 1956:43).
Jacksonville's one last attempt to reshape its economic order and
importance came in 1890 through efforts to establish its own railroad
to connect with the main line to the east; however, it never realized
any significant success. Subsequently, the town began losing its busi-
ness among the now well-developed agrarian economy. A newly formed com-
munity called Medford was now realizing the importance and prestige that
was once Jacksonville's.
From the 1890's Jacksonville supported a very important agricultural
market, in conjunction with that of the remainder of Jackson County.
It continued to grow, but prosperity of the gold mining days was never
again realized. In 1912 more local industry was attracted which made a
new type of axle for automobiles (cf. Haines 1967). Its population by
1920 was some 489 persons. Jacksonville, today, is once again marked
for population growth, but the attraction is of a different nature.
164
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OREGON OPERATIONS OFFICE
1234 S. W. MORRISON STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
10000
OCT 8 1976
Mr. Edward Long Re: City of Jacksonville
State Historic Preservation C-410498
Oregon State Highway Division
Highway Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
Dear Mr. Long:
As part of the EPA's preparation of the draft environmental impact
statement for the City of Jacksonville, an archaeological survey
of the various project alternatives was conducted. The survey was
conducted by Mr. David Brauner, Oregon State University. The
following are results of the survey:
Alternative A - no impact
Alternative B - three options of which two require additional
surveys.
Alternative C - additional surveys needed on spray irrigation
site.
Alterntiave C-2 - no impact but additional surveys needed on
spray irrigation site.
As you may note, the surveys are incomplete. However, with your
concurrence, the EPA will insure that a complete survey is conducted
once an alternative has been selected. The survey will be completed
prior to the initiation of design.
If you have any specific questions, please call me at 221-3250.
Sincerely yours,
William J. Sobolewski
Project Officer
cc: City of Jacksonville
T. Flatebo
Jones & Stokes Associate, Inc.
DEQ
165
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
Population Projections and Definition of an Urban
Growth Boundary for the City of Jacksonville
167
-------
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
P. O. BOX 7
JACKSONVILLE OREGON 9753O
July 20, 1976
T. Flatebo and Associates
PO Box 849
Jacksonville, OR 97530
Dear Mr. Flatebo:
Here is the outline of work that I have done with the county on the urban growth boundary
(UGB) for the City of Jacksonville.
I The urban growth boundary concept
1) It is a boundary area outside the present city limits allowing for urban develop-
ment (less than 1 acre/dwelling unit) to the year 2000.
2) Vacant land within the city should be encouraged to be developed'before expanding
outward. Thus it would be phased expansion or growth.
3) The city does not have to annex the land within the UGB.
4) The line must be within the constraints outlined in LCDC Goal 14, Urbanization:
(a) retention of USDA/SCS Class I-IV soils in agriculture
(b) provision of support services, in particular sewer and water
(c) a genuine need to accommodate the proposed population growth
(d) county coordination and agreement with the boundary area
5) Ultimately, the line will be precisely set along legal property lines. The
county will appropriately zone the areas inside and out the UGB area to guide urbanization
to the designated areas.
II The work I have done to date along with Robin Lilley, the county planner assigned to
the job.
1) From county sources we mapped the areas outside the city limits as to:
(a) soil type, SCS land capability classifications
(b) slope
(c) present county zoning
(d) present land uses
(e) county comprehensive plan designations
2) I made three population projections (low 5%, medium 7%, and high 9%) based on
various assumptions as to growth policy, regional economic conditions, desirability of
living in Jacksonville, and provision of public services. The assumptions and projections
are enclosed.
3) On April 14 Robin and I held introductory meeting jointly open to both the
Jacksonville Planning Commission and City Council to explain the UGB .concept and present
the background maps.
4) Two work sessions were held with two members of the Planning Commission, one
member of the Council, the the City Administrator to work on the placement of a tentative
UGB line.
5) A conceptual UGB line was presented to the Planning Commission on May 6. This
was approved by the Commission. A map showing the UGB is included.
6) On July 19 I presented the UGB work to our Citizens Advisory Committee on Planning.
Ill There is still musch work to done to finalize the boundary along property lines
1) I need to do a buildable land survey within the city limits to get a more accurate
idea on how much growth and at what densities the city can accommodate. This will be
completed by the end of December of this year.
2) Population projections will also be completed by that time.
3) The city through the comprehensive planning process, including citizen participation,
168
-------
I
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
P. O. BOX 7
JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 9753O
page 2
needs to develop growth policies to hook up with the UGB process'.
4) Generally, the sequence of events with county coordination for the UGB is pre-
sented in a county outline entitled "Countywide Urbanization Plan". We are presently
starting Phase II. The outline is enclosed.
5) The whole process should take lh years to complete.
I hope this information will be of help to you. Unfortunately our time frameworks do
not really match up, but I hope that it will at least be consistent.
Sincerely,
Terry Jones
Planning Assistant
encl.
cc: John Ives, Jones and Stokes
169
-------
Jacksonville Urban Grout.h Boundary and Population Assumptions
Methodol2 si':
I'.-ojecL- various rates of iirnwth (straight line) Lo the year .'000
5% low (close L.i hi^t01ioal growth late)
7-i medium
9 % h i g h
List assumptions for each rate
1) growth policy
2) regional economic condition'.
3) desirability or demand for living in Jacksonville
4) public service availability
a.schools
b . w a t s? r
c. sewer
Points to keep in mind
the relationship be two on diffoiont densities and land con sump t i or.
the re lationship between density and demand
the relationship between growth and the character of the arra
(the consumption of open space land)
LCDCconstraints
retention of Clas^ l-l\~ ayrit-ultiir.il land
maximum efficiency of Land uses within and on the fringe of urban
area
Low P r q je c t ion
Continuation of population trend from 1960-75
As sumpt ions:
1 )G rowt h Policy
General continuation of present density of development (low)
and mainta in ence of unofficial op (Mi H f ace (vacant lot? and laraelots).
2)Regional Economic Conditions
Continuation of regional eoo'mic condition;.;. Assumes that timber
industry will continue to be dominant, in the economy with attendant
yearly and seasonal fluctuations in employment (based on demand) .
3)Desirability
Jacksonville to remain or increase as an fixc1uRive aroa to
live in: large lot sines, higher incomes, older residents, less
chi Idren
4} Public Services
a. S chooIs
probably SMall increase in enrollment, present school capacity
may be adequate.
b. Water
present system will have to be expanded to tome degree, higher
value of homes would probably pay for it if cost is relatively low.
c. Sewer ' c ., -
Sewer capacity will have to be expanded, if system^is too high,
highefdensity development might result in order to be aule to pay for it
170
-------
Projection ''
(Continuation of trend from 1968-75
t ' -assumptions: ,
-" 1) Growth Policy
encouragement of additional development at relativley higher den-
sity than present. Some unofficial opeu space lost from the efficiency
of development.
2) Economic
Some improvement on economic conditions. Timber industry either
less dominant in economy or diversified to such a degree that employ-
ment stability is define&tly increased, unemployment is reduced.
3) Desirability
The City is assumed to be desirable to a wider range of people.
New residents young to old, some children.
4) Public Services
a . S chools
slightly higher demand than present. Projected needs should
be examined as to financing capability and 549C school policy.
b. Water
Expand present system, examine financing capability, etc.
c . Sewer
Expand present system, examine finacing capability, etc.
High Projection,
-continuation of trend from 1968-72 (during sewer hook up availability)
-as sumptions:
l)Growth Policy
Active encouragement of new development at higher density than
present. Significant in-town open space lost, due to infilling.
2)Economi c
Significant improvement. Primary industry (timber or othur)
has stable employment. Unemployment significantly reduced from present.
3)Des irabili ty
Assumed to be desirable to wide range. Ne.w residents of all types,
greatest increase in young with children. >
4) Public Services
a. SchooIs
Much higher demand thai; present, consider financial capabilities.
b, Water
Much higher demand thcin present, etc.
c. Sewer
Much higher demand than present, etc.
171
-------
J» '
/ ••/
•c
/
*•'
-------
V. '' '•
'X /
'^Cx
,''~~
/
/,
/ •
J
_=j=^, '*&•,$£„ ;£
*• M'&l^iiM4L.
^^m^lwy^i,
i ^ii^y^
' ' 1 <~'-(I/'//!//&£*£& •' ,•-'
": i i "" i /''//!// y&£~£«
I /," '• If /,"'ilp<{
•I \\ ^/f/^Cl: \\'
h^\ y/M^A-^.-H
-------
V
•2GH9IH ;I-rX-HVf+>v' V-H'J-V ft V t-'trrnrf lrrn±lt" .if :tf rh^-ftVfi-H-f-H+H
o
-aocy'^asHi <•'.-<•
•'••••{
~£ttJsZ. ""»*»» tC,
3S*O •».#*
• • • * v
i •*•**
I
V.
'^' ssf^v^ W lAr-^nT^ • tl" T iRJfl
-"-^^'S:
^-^.=-//i-U i}}r*&$ : -
mZtm^--^
ife^te#^--:——
s^rY^
r~ ^-t i^^'ffi
XlJr^j_. _l
: CL _
-------
K^ -i' \-v
•i>
igx^x-j^x^x^^^^iili^x 1 / : .^
^XWx^^^^X^X^X-vJx^
' A •x:s::i:x^ g^SiJ
/ *>^y^mm&
/•"£.' >'*X*« . «V
-------
^ - JtUtHH--
-------
APPENDIX G
Wastewater Analysis by U. S. Forest Service
177
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Ro«rue River National Forest
P. 0. Box 520, MedforJ, Oregon 97501,
2470
October 4, 1976
T. Flatebo and Associates
935 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 849
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
L
Dear Mr. Flatebo:
This summer you discussed with us the possibility of using the outflow
treated sewage effluent for irrigation water at the proposed Forest
Service Tree Nursery in Sections 15 and 16, T.36S., R.2W., W.M. You
asked for a decision as to whether we would be able to use this water,
if the City of Jacksonville piped it to the property for our use on an
as-needed basis.
Our research into the matter is completed, and the decision has been
made that this treated water would be acceptable for nursery irrigation,
but with several limitations, as follows:
1. The boron content at the present treatment plant was measured at
0.60 ing/liter. We feel this is tolerable, but approaching a con-
centration that could be a future problem. Should boron, or any
other chemical become unmanageable in the future, we would have to
reserve the right to cancel the agreement on one year's notice.
2. The period of water use at the nursery will be about April 1,
through September 15 most years. We cannot use tlia water during
the fall and winter months. Thus, the City of Jacksonville should
plan sufficient reservoir storage to hold the fall and winter
supply until such time thr.t.tit. could bo used at the nursery_site.
3. The treated discharge from the treatment reservoirs must be bio-
logically inert when it enters the pipeline, in order that there
be no possibility of transmitting diseases to Forest workers at the
nursery.
4. Although we know of no reason at this time, if something unforeseen
should cause the nursery not to be built, we could not use the
water.
The above criteria have all been discussed with you previously, but it
seems proper to list them again as a part of this letter. Since they
have all been considered in your design criteria, none should present
any great obstacle to your proposal.
178
6200-11 (1/65)
-------
Therefore, in summary/ the alternative that treated effluent be piped by
the City of Jacksonville to the proposed Forest Nursery site for irriga-
tion is acceptable to the Rogue River National Forest. Tho project
would be mutually beneficial to both the Forest Service and the City.
We look forward to working with you on this project, if it is accepted
by the City.
DONALD H. SMITH
Forest Supervisor
179
-------
UMPQUA RESEARCH COMPANY
^WatE.i iind <^rjii -Je-ciDioLoqu
P. O. Box 791 * Telephone (503) 863-5732
626 N.E. Division Street Myrtle Creek, Oregon 97-457
TEST RESULTS
Gerald V. Colomi
David F. Putnar
NAME Rogue River National Forest ATTN^Q"" Brazier PATE yS-16-76
/ \
ADDRESS 333 W. 8th St. , Medford, OR 97501 DATE REPORTED 9-16-76 i
Phoenix Canal ,- , , ,,, „ !
TEST
PH
SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY
ALUMINUM, Extractable
ARSENIC, Extractable
BORON * Total
CALCIUM, Extractable
IRON, Extractable
MAGNESIUM, Extractable
MANGANESE, Extractable
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
FILTERABLE RESIDUE
SELENIUM, Extractable
COPPER, Extractable
ZINC, Extractable
ORTHO PHOSPHOROUS
SODIUM, Extractable
•
|
!
SOURCE
DATE TESTED
"^-^SAMPLE #
UNITS^^^^
_pH Units
Vi mho/cm
mg/ liter
mg/ liter
mg/1 iter
mg/ 1 i ter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
mg/1 iter
Road
Site 4
60826-4
7.7
183
0.7 _j
<-0.01
0.33
19.85
0.67
10.13
0.11
0.4
24
<0.002
-
•
/
;
t
\
I
i
i
!
t-
i
i
i
\
.)
\
V
\
\
\
^ \
s V
Treatment
Site 5
-5 r •
7.4
MO
0.3
<0.01
0.60
18.61
0.26
8.64
0.13
11.5
59
< 0.002
0.01
; 0. 07
6.7
44.0
»,
s
^ — s
Plant
i
4
*
i
f
I
!
i
I
!
f
;
i
1
|.
\
t
1
I
I
1
i
, 1
1
/
f
/
*Unable to run Boron on extractable
APPROVED BY
180
s_ample
-------
APPENDIX H
Compilation of Air Emissions Based on Population
and an Index of Annual Average Daily Travel
181
-------
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
City of
Year Jacksonville1
Rural Portion
of Project
Study Area2
Total Study
Area —
Low Projection3
Total Study
Area —
High Projection1*
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1997
2000
2,070
2,807
3,541
4,276
5,010
5,304
5,745
500
625
750
875
1,000
1,050
1,125
2,570
3,432
4,291
5,151
6,010
6,354
6,870
2,570
6,011
9,452
12,894
16,335
17,711
19,776
NOTES;
1 Mid-range projection (7.09 percent annual growth rate).
2 Based on holding capacity set by current zoning, 5.0 percent annual
growth rate.
3 Total of first two columns.
"* Based on capacity of interceptor connecting the study area to the
regional treatment plant; assumes utilization of full capacity by
1997 and necessary changes in study area zoning.
182
-------
INDEX OF ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL
(trips per day)
Year
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1997
2000
Index of
Population
Local Travel1
Projection
Basis
City Study Area Study Area
Mid-Range
4.400
5,967
7,527
9,089
10,649
11,274
12,212
Low
5,463
7,295
9,121
10,949
12,775
13,506
14,603
High
5,463
12,777
20,091
27,408
34,722
37,647
42,036
Local of
Population
Tourist
Travel2
Projection Basis
City Study Area
Mid-Range
600
814
1,026
1,239
1,452
1,537
1,665
Low
745
995
1,244
1,493
1,742
1,842
1,991
Study Area
High
745
1,742
2,740
3,737
4,735
5,134
5,732
Index of
Population
Total
Travel
Projection Basis
City Study Area Study Area
Mid-Range
5,000
6,781
8,553
10,328
12,101
12,811
13,877
Low
6,208
8,290
10,365
12,442
14,517
15,348
16,594
High
6,208
14,519
22,831
31,145
39,457
42,781
47,768
u>
NOTES: Based on population projestions shown in the previous table and on 1975 traffic count data for Highway 238
west of 5th Street in Jacksonville.
1 Assuming constant 2.13 trips per person, based on 1975 data for Jacksonville.
2 Assuming tourist travel remains a constant percentage of local travel (13.64 percent) based on 1975 data for
Jacksonville.
997-479
------- |