Rogue River Basin,Oregon
. Medford Division
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
-------
Rogue River Basin,Oregon
Medford Division
Bear Creek
A SURVEY HAS BEEN MADE WHICH DISCLOSES A NEED FOR STREAM FLOW REG-
ULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL IN BEAR CREEK, A
TRIBUTARY OF THE ROGUE RIVER. THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON ECON-
OMIC, DEMOGRAPHIC, AND ENGINEERING STUDIES. FUTURE CONDITIONS
ARE BASED ON PROJECTED POPULATION AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH.
Prepared at the Request of the
Area Engineer, Lower Columbia Development Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salem, Oregon
by the
U.S. DEPARTMENT,OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service, Region IX
Portland, Oregon
-------
LIST of TABLES
Table No. Page No .
V-i Expected Mean Monthly Flow, Bear Creek @ Medford 11
V-2 Water Rights Summary, Bear Creek Basin . . . . . 11
V-3 Bear Creek Water Quality Data Summary . . . . . 12
VI-l Present & Projected Employment, by Major
Industry, Jackson County . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
VI-2 Population, Bear Creek Economic Study Area, 1960 17
VI-3 Present and Projected Population,
Bear Creek Economic Study Area . • • . . . . . . 19
Vu-i Municipal Water Supply Data, Bear Creek Basin • 21
VII-2 Summary of Water Requirements, Bear Creek Basin,
Acre-Feet Per Year • • • . • . • • . . • . . . . 21
VIII-l Coho (Silver) Salmon Potential With Minimum Flow
Requirement of 75 cfs, Bear Creek • • • • • • 22
VIII-2 Municipal and Industrial Waste, Bear Creek Basin 26
VIII-3 Present & Projected Waste Loadings,
Bear Creek Basin . . . . • • . . . • • . • . • • 27
VIII-4 Present & Projected Deficiencies, Bear Creek at
Medford, Ten-Year Recurrence Interval . . • . • 29
-------
TABLE of CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION Page No .
A. Request and Authority . . . . . 2
B. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. SUMMARY of Findings and Conclusions
A. Sunimary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B • Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A • Location . • , . . • . . . . . U S • • 6
B. Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
A • Boundaries . . . . . . • • . . 8
B. Physical Features . • . . . . . • . . . . . 9
V. WATER RESOURCES of the Study Area
A. Surface Water . • . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Ground Water . . . . . . 13
VI. THE ECONOMY
A. General . . . . • . . • . . . • . • • , 15
B. Present • • . . . . . . . . • • . . . 15
C. Factors Influencing Future Growth . • . . 17
D. Projected Future Population . . • . . . . . 18
VII. WATER REQUIREMENTS
Municipal & Industrial
A. Present Water Use . . . . . . . o . • . . . 20
B. Forecast of Future Needs . . . . . . . . . 20
VIII. WATER QUALITY CONTROL
A. Water Use and Need for Control . . . . . • 22
B. Municipal and Industrial Pollution . . . . 26
C. Water Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . 27
D. Flow Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IX. BENEFITS....WaterQualityControl . . . 30
X.BIBLIOGRAPHY.............. 31
1.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. REQUEST AND AUTHORITY
The request for the investigation was made by the Bureau of Recla-
mation, Regional Office, Region I, Boise, Idaho, in a letter dated
June 20, 1962. The request was for an evaluation of streamfiow require-
ments for water quality control and for an estimate of benefits that
might be derived through releases from storage for this purpose.
Authority for the investigation is the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466a (b)).
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The investigation was undertaken to determine the potential need for
and value of storage for regulation of streamfiows for water quality con-
trol in the Rogue River Basin Project, Medford Division, Jackson County,
Oregon.
The scope of this study was limited to determination of water quality
control requirements within the Bear Creek portion of the Medford Division.
Study elements included projection of the population and industry growth,
determination of sources, and effects of present and future waste loadings,
an examination of the hydrology of the area, a determination of the assimi-
lative capacity of the stream, a determination of stream uses and required
quality objectives, a projection of adequate treatment levels and flow
requirements necessary to protect stream uses, and consideration of alter-
native methods, costs, and values of meeting water quality requirements.
Preliminary estimates of water quality flow requirements were sub-
mitted to the Corps of Engineers in a letter dated December 1, 1961, for
the following locations: Rogue River near Medford and near Grants Pass;
and Bear Creek near Ashland and near Medford. Existing streamflows were
shown to be adequate to meet projected waste loading in the Rogue River
but inadequate in Bear Creek. It is the purpose of this report to sub-
stantiate and better define the flow needs in Bear Creek.
Water quality control requirements are projected for the design years
of 1985 and 2010. These requirements are based upon maintaining a dis-
solved oxygen quality objective, assuming a minimum treatment prior to
discharge of 85 per cent organic BOD removal of projected municipal and
industrial wastes.
The conclusions presented are subject to confirmation, pending com-
pletion of comprehensive water supply and water quality management studies
being conducted in this region by the Columbia River Basin Comprehensive
Program for Water Supply and Pollution Control. The water quality flow
requirements and values are suitable for project feasibility determinations.
2.
-------
C. ACKNOWLEDG!€NTS
Information for this report was provided by officials of the Cities
of Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, and Grants Pass; Oregon State Board
of Health; Oregon State Water Resources Board; State Engineer’s Office;
Rogue Basin Flood Control and Water Resources Association; Jackson County
Court; Oregon State Game Conunission; Oregon State Fish Commission; Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; National Park Service; Corps of Engineers;
Bureau of Reclamation; U. S. Geological Survey; the engineering firms of
Clark and Croff Engineers, Inc., and Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield;
and Jackson County Parks and Recreation Department. The cooperation of
all individuals and groups is gratefully acknowledged.
3.
-------
II. SUMMARY of Findings and Conclusions
A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. The Medford Division is located in Southwestern Oregon, in
Jackson County, near the town of Gold Hill and the City of Medford.
The study area includes Bear Creek drainage and portions of the Little
Butte Creek and Antelope Creek drainages.
2. The Medford Division is under study by the Bureau of Reclama-
tion for the principal purpose of supplying additional water for new
and supplemental irrigation. Water allocated for irrigation in the
authorized Lost Creek and Elk Creek multiple-purpose reservoirs of the
Corps of Engineers will be utilized in this development.
3. In planning for the distribution of stored water for irrigation
use, the Bureau of Reclamation will consider the delivery of water to
the Division area for water quality control, recreation, and fish and
wildlife enhancement.
4. The Bear Creek Basin has a drainage area of 341 square miles
(total Rogue River Basin - 5,160 square miles). The average annual
yield of Bear Creek is 112,000 acre-feet, with a minimum yield of some
10- to 12,000 acre-feet estimated for 1931. The hydrology of the Bear
Creek Basin is complicated by transbasin and interbasin diversions.
Ground water is limited and, therefore, of minor significance in most
of the Bear Creek Basin.
5. The economic study area consists of Jackson County (population
74,000), which wholly encompasses the Medford Division and the Bear Creek
Basin (population 60,000). The economy of the county is based primarily
upon lumber and wood products, agriculture (including food processing),
tourism, and recreation.
6. Bear Creek is used extensively for irrigation and to a limited
extent for fish propagation. The creek is important to Ashland, Medford,
and several smaller communities for park developments and other water-
oriented activities.
7. Bear Creek receives about 5,800 population equivalents (PE) of
unstable organic wastes per day from municipal and industrial sources.
The receiving flows are highly variable due to diversions for irrigation;
and, at various times and places, flows are essentially depleted.
4.
-------
B. CONCLUSIONS
1. Sufficient storage to meet future needs for municipal and
industrial water supply in the study area has been authorized in Lost
Creek and Elk Creek Reservoirs of the Corps of Engineers.
2. Existing streamfiows of Little Butte Creek and Antelope Creek
are considered adequate to meet present and projected waste loads.
3. Maintenance of water quality is needed in the 23 miles of Bear
Creek to protect fish and wildlife, provide recreational opportunities,
and preserve the aesthetic attractiveness of the stream. Adequate waste
treatment, controlled surface and subsurface drainage, and assured quanti-
ties of streamfiow to maintain dissolved oxygen (DO) levels at or above
6 milligrams per liter (mg/i) are needed.
4. Sufficient streamfiow on a one-in-ten year low-flow frequency
basis would provide satisfactory protection of stream uses. With ade-
quate waste treatment, residual organic loads to Bear Creek by the years
1985 and 2010 are projected to be 7,100 PE and 12,500 PE per day,
respectively. One-in-ten year low flows in Bear Creek are inadequate
for protection of present and future stream uses.
5. There is a need, beginning immediately upon completion of the
project, for a draft on storage to yield some 3,000 acre-feet. By the
end of the study period, there will be a need for an annual draft on
storage of 12,760 acre-feet for maintenance of water quality in Bear
Creek between the City of Ashland and the mouth of Bear Creek.
6. The value of benefits attributable to storage for regulation
of streamfiow for water quality control is considered to be at least
equal to the cost of providing releases from an alternative single-
purpose reservoir, including cost of delivery facilities. The least-
cost alternative storage site is adjacent to the study area on McNeil
Creek, a tributary of Big Butte Creek.
7. The minim nn value assignable to an annual draft on storage of
12,760 acre-feet based on delivery costs to Bear Creek, 100-year proj-
ect life, needs beginning at the time of project completion, and inter-
est at 3.125 per cent, is estimated to be $522,000 or $41.00 per acre-
foot.
8. The benefits derived from water quality maintenance in Bear
Creek are both tangible and intangible, and are widespread both in
area and in type of beneficiary.
5.
-------
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION
The Rogue River and its tributaries drain 5,160 square miles in the
southwestern corner of the State of Oregon and the northern edge of
California. More than 2,500 streams comprise the drainage system, result-
ing in highly dissected land forms cut by hundreds of stream valleys.
Bear Creek (drainage area - 341 square miles) lies within Jackson County
and has the heaviest concentration of population and the highest level
of development of any region in the Rogue River Basin.
A portion of the drainages of Little Butte Creek and Antelope Creek
is included in the study area because these areas could be served by the
existing and proposed distribution canals which will carry water from
the proposed Lost Creek and Elk Creek Reservoirs to the Bear Creek
drainage.
B. PROJECT
The Medford Division features include: a diversion dam on Elk Creek;
seven pumping plants located on the main canals for reaching areas of
higher elevation; about 100 miles of canals; siphons and miscellaneous
features; and drainage works. Acreage to be served would include about
21,100 acres of new lands and some 6,380 acres in need of supplemental
water. These lands are located in Medford, Rogue River Valley, Eagle
Point, and Sams Valley Irrigation Districts, and the Shady Cove area.
In plans for storage, the Corps of Engineers has considered flood
control, power, water supply, fish and wildlife enhancement, water qual-
ity control, and recreation. The Bureau of Reclamation, in its plans to
utilize water from storage in Elk Creek and Lost Creek Reservoirs for
irrigation, is involved in the transportation of water for fish and wild-
life, and water quality control.
Water required for the various functions would be released down-
stream from Elk Creek and Lost Creek Reservoirs, on Elk Creek and Rogue
River, respectively, and diverted into Rogue Canal. This canal would
parallel Rogue River to a separating diversion structure below Shady
Cove. From this structure, Sams Valley Canal would cross Rogue River
to supply irrigation needs in Sams Valley, and Eagle Point Supply Canal
would extend down the river to supply multiple-purpose requirements in
the area near Nedford.
At the present time, transbasin diversions from Little Butte Creek
flow into Howard Prairie Reservoir but do not enter Hyatt Prairie
Reservoir. Hyatt Prairie Reservoir receives inflow only from its own
drainage area. Releases from Hyatt Prairie Reservoir flow down Keene
6.
-------
Creek to Keene Creek Diversion Dam. Releases from Howard Prairie Reser-
voir flow through Howard Prairie Delivery Canal to Keene Creek Diversion
Dam. From Keene Creek Diversion Dam the water enters a system of tunnels
and penstocks which carry it to Green Springs Power Plant. The power
plant discharges into Emigrant Creek, and the water then flows into
Emigrant Reservoir (40,500 acre-feet). Maximum releases from Emigrant
Reservoir into East Lateral Canal are 143 cfs maximum.
BEAR CREEK
April Through October
DRY YEAR FLOW PROFILE
During much of the non-
irrigation season (October 15
to April 15), flows from Emi-
grant Reservoir to Bear Creek
are low or nonexistent. A few
small creeks add some flow,
most of which is diverted just
above the Ashland sewage treat-
ment plant outfall. Between
Ashland and Talent, flows again
build up from small creeks and
from return irrigation flows
until the flow is again
diverted at the Phoenix
diversion downstream from
the Talent sewage treatment
plant outfall. Absolute
values vary, depending on
demands within the basin,
but the sawtooth profile
shown has been noted during
the irrigation season for
many years.
Public health officials, fishery groups, water resources and recrea-
tional interests, and the cities through which Bear Creek flows, are all
concerned because there are periods of no flow in the creek at diversion
points. To correct this condition, these groups met with the Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to determine the feasibility of
an inter-basin diversion of water from the proposed Elk Creek Dam and
Lost Creek Dam in the Rogue River Basin to the vicinity of Talent. Pre-
liminary studies by the Bureau of Reclamation indicate that it would be
feasible to bring water from the proposed dams to the area of Talent by
enlarging existing canals and adding some new sections.
TALENT
DIVERSION
3O
13
20
l0
13
DIVER SION
HOPKINS
RIVER MILE
S
7.
-------
IV. STUDY AREA DISCRIPTION
A • BOUNDARIES
In its 25-mile length, Bear Creek flows through or is adjacent to
the Cities of Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, and Medford. (See location map
at the back of the report.) Outlying cities are Jacksonville, Central
Point, Eagle Point, and various water districts or other unincorporated
places. Most of the industrial development (primarily wood products and
agricultural products) is in the vicinity of Medford.
For purposes of economic analysis and projection in connection with
the Bear Creek Project, a group of eight 1960 Census County Divisions has
been selected to comprise the economic base study area. The Census Divi-
sions used, the boundaries of which are shown in “U. S. Census of Popula-
tion, Oregon, Number of Inhabitants (PCi, 39A),” are the following:
Ashland, Central Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Medford Rural, Phoenix,
Sams Valley, and Talent.
The water quality study area considered in this report is limited to
the Bear Creek drainage and the lower portions of Little Butte and Antelope
Creeks; the main stem Rogue has been considered in previous studies. (See
Chapter I, Section B.)
8.
-------
B. PHYS ICAL FEATURES
Bear Creek Valley has more expanse of agricultural lands than any
other valley in the Rogue River Basin, even though 60 per cent of its
area is unsuitable for farming because of mountainous terrain. Valley
elevations run from 1,140 feet above mean sea level near the mouth of
Bear Creek to 2,000 feet in the vicinity of Ashland. Mount Ashland,
located in the southern part of the subbasin near the headwaters of
Ashland Creek, is the highest point in the subbasin (elevation 7,533
feet), and there are four other peaks in the area above an elevation of
5,000 feet.
The slope of Bear Creek main stem is relatively mild compared with
other streams in the basin, averaging 28 feet of drop per mile, but the
slope of Ashland Creek, one of the major tributaries, is more than 400
feet per mile.
The lowest average annual precipitation in the Rogue River Basin
(less than 20 inches) occurs in the Bear Creek Valley in the Medford area,
while the annual precipitation is nearly 30 inches in the southern part of
the Bear Creek Basin and around 24 inches in the northwestern part. About
30 per cent of the annual precipitation occurs during the irrigation
season (Nay 15 to October 15). Snowfall is light in this section, with
an average annual fall of four inches at Medford Experiment Station,
increasing to nearly 18 inches at Ashland. A high of 137 inches occurs
at the Siskiyou summit in the extreme southeastern corner of the basin.
Temperatures in the basin are mild, with an average range of highs
and lows below elevation 1,350 from 81 to 47 degrees Fahrenheit in the
summer months and 54 to 33 degrees in the winter. Average variations
at elevations near 4,500 feet are from 68 to 46 degrees in the stnmner
and 45 to 33 degrees in the winter.
The annual growing season in this valley averages about 220 days.
9.
-------
V. WATER RESOURCES of the Study Area
A. SURFACE WATER
The hydrology of the Bear Creek Basin is complicated by trans-basin
and internal diversions, which alternately deplete and replenish the
stream. Records from two U. S. Geological Survey gaging stations give
an indication of streamfiow conditions. The gage data from the station
on Emigrant Creek near Ashland (19 per cent of the Bear Creek drainage)
show an average annual yield of s ie 17,000 acre-feet (affected by
regulation). Unregulated average annual yield is estimated at some
24,000 acre-feet. The records for the gage on Bear Creek at Medford
(85 per cent of the Bear Creek drainage) indicate an average regulated
annual yield of some 72,000 acre-feet.
EMIGRANT CR ..., ASHLAND
196/
• FE6’MAR’APR ‘MAV ’AUGS T0CTN0vOEC
BEAR CR. at MEDFORD
‘9’,
75
JAN (S MAR APR MAY *3 JULY AUG SLPI’OCT NOV D CC
MEAN MONTHLY DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPHS
A daily hydrograph for the
low-yield water year of 1931
illustrates the flow conditions
which may be expected during
critical years at the Medford gage.
10.
The extensive regulation of Bear
Creek by Emigrant Reservoir is re-
flected, for example, in the dis-
charge records for 1961. -
Water stored in Emigrant Reservoir
during the winter months is released
during the irrigation season to
Emigrant Creek, a tributary of Bear
Creek. Diversions are made from Bear
Creek for irrigation, with a portion
of the water again entering the stream
as irrigation return flow.
BEAR CREEK at MEDFORD
DAILY FLOW HYDROG RAPH, LOWEST Y I EU) WATER YEAR
70
GO
sO
40
30
20
I0
1931
46
42
36
I i24
I8
It
2
-------
Ashland Creek
Jackson Creek
Bear Creek
Emigrant Creek and Tributaries
Griffin Creek
Jackson Creek
Others
Ashland Creek
Wagner Creek
Others
All Basin Streams
27.7
2.0
29.7
120.0
350 4
77.8
32.8
270.9
851.9
54.0
30.0
1.5
85.5
6.4
Data from the Medford gage was
utilized to develop expected
low flows for two—, five-, ten-,
and twenty—year frequencies,
as shown in TABLE V-l .
Mining
Rec rest ion
Wildlife
Fishlife
Pollution Abatement
All Basin Streams
All Basin Streams
All Basin Streams
All Basin Streams
None
33.5
0.2
1.8
0.5
TOTAL, BEAR CREEK BASIN
1,013.6
SOURCES: Oregon State Water Resources Board “Rogue River Basin” Report,
Bureau of Reclamation
TABLE V-I
EXPECTED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW
BEAR CREEK AT MEDFORD, CFS
Month
Recurrence Intervals - Years
Two Five Ten Twenty
January. . .
78 47 20 6 6
February
161 97 41 14
March
.
186 112 47 16
April. . . .
161 97 41 14
May. . .
93 56 24 7 9
June .
48 29 12 4.1
July
16 10 4.2 1 4
August
15 9 3 8 1.3
September .
16 9.5 4 0 1 4
October .
.
23 14 5 9 2.0
November .
.
39 23 10 33
December
63 38 16 5 4
Mean Annual.
.
75 45 19 6 4
TABLE V-2
PRIMARY WATER RIGHTS SUMMARV
BEAR CREEK BASIN
Use
Stream CFS
Domestic All Basin Streams
4.1
Municipal
Irrigation
Power
Industrial
Comparison of the expected
monthly flows ( TABLE V-l )
with the water rights
summary CTABLE V-2)makes
it apparent that rights
to use water exceed the
expected available flows.
11.
-------
Available data on the present quality of the water of the Rogue
River and Bear Creek were tabulated from records of the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority and the U. S. Geological Survey. These data tabu-
lations are shown in TABLE V-3 . Because the data are not sufficient
for a statistical treatment, it is only possible to generalize on the
overall appearance of the information.
TABLE v-3
BEAR (EKK WA1 R QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
(5) Conntr $0.0
Rrid$o Opp..it.o
J.tk.oe 11.1
$pri ,S.
(6) P 1.4 1.6.
Itsd (Ko.oot .ie
An. -
Ashland)
Censlant 5, 1dr 14
5o Ce ,tr.i Point Its,
Io.d 04 lUte K .,
fl u of Central Kin
‘.inI
ti to too ,o 33
73 06 8 4 I ) 6 126 7 7
36 2 7 I 8 7 87 0 7
II I I 0 10 7 tOO 0 0
25 00 l OS ilK 38
2 73 68 79 07
53 10 3 I 9
75 24 80
38 3 2 I I
During July and September of 1960 and 1962, the pH of Bear Creek
water at Medford was about 8.0; dissolved oxygen (Do) content ranged
from 7.6 to 16.8 mg/i; biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) ranged from
0.7 to 4.2 mg/i; and the most probable numbers (MPN) of coliform
bacteria, which are indicators of sewage pollution, ranged from 600 to
24,000 organisms per 100 ml. Streamfiows at the time of these samplings
were not measured; however, by interpretation and calculation, using
known waste loads and the typical flow profile shown in Chapter III,
Section B, it is apparent that lower DO’s and higher BOD’s would at
times occur.
12.
815,. .1 th.abr Of D ate• of T.0 p0
n .r.. o i... It It
U I 000 C5olontOn , . IllS
...IItK., r ,.Il
(l )Rr.rC,rrh 19
Cono, Rd Orid r $0.9
O 1(11. Ilnflh 01 1,t
C .ntr.1 P0 101 t O,
(0) Or., C,rrk 19
try 67 R,id 5 , It..
I Oil. tr,b of K..
M.df.rd Kin
(3) Kstn SIren
8, 10 5.
0.0 10 ,0
oI..otvr, 03
SolId.
__rn/7 “ /L
171 I 14
III 36
166 01
(4) F.,. n.llry 19
80.0 Rnid ;r U .n
T .t ,,t K..
‘U.
I•U4 CL Ii, . Sojito.
(Fr)
, /l nV-Il n-/I _ JL
0 39 II 0 0 84 06
I 13 26 53 I 0 19
0 26 3 C 0 I Ii
Color Turbidity OiLilin- COCa 5 TotOl
_________________ lIp lard Soil,.
s o/I Jj_j i
04.000 73 90 102 106 070
70. 100 300 184 146 054
010 5 5 396 76 171
6.100
26.000
684
0 136 50 5
70.000 (Oor .oaplr
43 7-li 60)
3.900
7.060
40
13.000
70.000
8 50
lOT 9 171 094 210 0 34 0 OCt IS 00
(So. o.pl 0.11 60)
7-li 00 SI IS 0
8-10-62 07 30
30 0
1 9
8 6
75
00 0
14 0
70
107
147
06
3 0
7 0
12
030
540
70
1-11—40 17 14
-i0—62 04 09
32 0
K I
9 I
76
II I
14 8
74
110
191
84
0 0
8 7
01
076
370
170
00
It..
It.
Itt,
7—11—60 3) Ii
9-10—62 01 27
30 0
8 0
9 0
73
II 8
16 6
IS
117
190
09
2 0
3 I
06
081
3(0
67
1 11—60 36 13 5
0-10—62 80 27 5
3) 2
0 I
9 3
74
il 8
i4 8
76
118
IR S
44
0 4
I I 0
09
095
300
175
20
ItrO,
8..
I So
7 il-CO
9-00-62
Oi l
350
72
00
It ..,
1150
Kin
7-11—60 53
9—10—60 77
36
081
670
144
0.500
7.000
45
50 00
(0.o. ..nplo
7-11-60)
82 5
91 1 245 22C
(On, ... pIr 7-Il-SO)
005
0076
02 9)
051
3 51
205
18 ItO
2) 300
0 5
175
184
94
lO S 006 170
144 1)4 200
02 110 i39
I 3
26
0 0
0 53 9 5
076 14
0 26 3 8
0 30
20
0 I
14
19
II
-------
B. GROUND WATER
The City of Talent and the neighboring Cities of Ashland, Phoenix,
and Medford lie on the broad valley floor of the Bear Creek drainage.
The valley sediments consist of bedded sandstones, shales, and conglom-
erates of fresh and brackish water deposition. These rocks are fine-
grained and do not yield water to wells readily. Often deep wells in
this formation produce brackish water and exhibit extreme drawdowns
while yielding water in quantities less than 10 gallons per minute
(GEM). A number of deep wells in this same formation, but outside the
Bear Creek Basin, contain water with excessive fluoride, boron, and
sodium.
The Umpqua beds also form the rolling hills along the northern side
of the Bear Creek Valley, and most wells in this region are adequate for
domestic water supply only. The flanks of Bear Creek Valley are made up
of a complex series of igneous and metamorphic rocks, both of which have
poor water-bearing characteristics and are not reliable sources of ground
water. Some weathered granitic bodies do store varied amounts of ground
water suitable for domestic water supply.
No ground water quality data were found for Bear Creek Basin, except
the one sample from the Talent well, which indicated that the water may
be harder and have more dissolved solids than surface water but is still
well within the U. S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
13.
-------
VI. THE ECONOMY
A. GENERAL
The demand for water for municipal and industrial purposes, and
the amount and character of waste waters resulting from such uses, are
determined largely by the activities associated with a region’s eco-
noinic base. The purpose of this section is to present economic and
demographic data to be used as a basis for projecting the needs for
water for municipal and industrial purposes and for estimating the
future amounts and types of waste and land drainage material that may
be expected to occur in the Bear Creek Basin with the expanded develop-
ment anticipated in the future.
B. PRESENT
1. Industry and Employment
For purposes of this report, it is assumed that the pattern of
industrial activity and employment in the economic base study area is
close to that of Jackson County as a whole. The study area’s popula-
tion comprises 84.5 per cent of the total Jackson County population.
In the portion of Jackson County outside the study area, there are
only three incorporated places, having a total 1960 population of
1,512. The study area also includes most of the agricultural land
of Jackson County. Hence, for both urban and rural employment, the
study area is well described by analyzing data for the county.
15.
-------
TABLE VI-l shows employment, by major industry, in Jackson County
in 1960, with a comparison of its percentage distribution with that in
the United States as a whole. The table shows that the economy of
Jackson County is heavily dependent on processing the timber resource
(shown by the categories “forest management,” “logging,” and “lumber
and wood products”). Three-quarters of all manufacturing employment
was in lumber and wood products in 1960. Employment in agriculture
is also above the national average.
TABLE V11
PRESENT & PROJECTED EMPWYMENT, BY MAJOR INDUSIRY
JACKSON COUNI’i
1960 Distribution nployment
Industry Category Jackson Co. U.S. 1960 1985 2010
Agriculture 8.1 6.1 2,190 2,000 2,000
Forest Management, Fisheries 0.8 0.1 223 300 400
Mining 0.3 0.9 70 100 100
Manufacturing, TOTAL 20.3 25.1 2J 14.400
lagging, lAimber,
Wood Products 15.1 1.6 4,103 4,100 4,100
All Other Durables 2.1 12.4 572 2,300 6,100
Food & Kindred 1.6 2.6 444 800 1,100
Printing, Publishing & allied 1.3 1.7 344 600 900
All other nondurables & Misc. 0.2 6.8 68 1,300 2,200
Construction 6.5 5.5 1,757 2,200 3,800
Services 57.0 54.8 15,529 27,700 50,600
Military 0.1 2.5 38 200 400
Unemployment 6.9 5.0
TOTAL LABOR FORCE 100.0 100.0 27,220 43,800 75,500
Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1960
The above-average employment in services reflects the fact that the study
area is so far from larger urban centers (Portland or San Francisco) that
it is relatively autonomous in services. The high service-industry employ-
ment also results from the fact that recreation, tourism, and in-migration
of retired persons are important to the economic base of the Rogue Valley
and of the study area.
16.
-------
2. Population
The total labor force of 27,220, in April 1960, supported a Jackson
County population of 73,962; that is, the ratio of population to labor
force was 2.7. Of this total Jackson County population, 84.5 per cent
(62,490) were in the Census Divisions comprising the Bear Creek study
area.
TABLE VI-2 shows the allocation of this
population among the incorporated places,
26,731 urban and non-urban portions of the study
2:289 area. Of the total study area population,
66.7 per cent (41,700) were in incorporated
752 places or in the Medford urban area. A
868 substantial part of the remaining population,
20,790 shown in Table VI-2 as “non-urban,” was
located around the peripheries of the in-
62,490 corporated places and hence was more sub-
urban than rural.
C. FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE GROWTH
it
TABLE VI-2
P0P .TLATION, BEAR CREEK ECONOMIC STUDY AREA!’
1960
41,700
Urban Portion:
Med ford Urban Area J
Ash land
Central Point
Jacksonville
Thoenix
Eagle Point
Talent
Non-Urban Portion
TOTAL
1/ For list of Census Divisions comprising
the economic study area, see Chapter IV,
Study Area Description.
2/ 1960 Population Medford City 24,425,
‘South Medford’ Suburb 2,306.
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population, 1960.
With 15 per cent of its labor force in lumber and wood products manu-
facturing, Jackson County’s economy is highly specialized. The outlook
for growth in Jackson County depends on possibilities for (1) maintaining
or increasing the annual timber harvest; and (2) diversifying the economy,
either by further fabrication of the total timber resource in secondary
manufacturing or by development of new industries not related to the tim-
ber base.
A Forest Service study* has projected an increase of about 25 per
cent in total timber harvest in the Southwestern Oregon area during the
next 25 years. Some industrial growth can be expected in Jackson County
from more efficient utilization of this timber harvest. Of the timber
resource available, an increasing proportion will go to plywood uses,
with a decrease in sawed lumber. Raw materials (wastes and residues)
exist in the area in adequate amounts to support a pulp mill; however,
has been concluded, based upon existing and contemplated legislation,
*Prospective Economic Developments Based on the Timber Resources of the
Pacific Northwest, March 1965, Table 108.
17.
-------
and public opinion regarding the Rogue River as a recreation stream, that
the establisimient of such a mill will be precluded. Instead, it is con-
cluded that the raw material will be shipped out of the county to be
processed or the material will be used to fabricate particle or hard-
board, which are low waste-producers.
It is expected that agricultural and food-processing employment and
production will increase moderately in Jackson County during the study
period. The outlook appears good for increases in manufacturing employ-
ment in industries not dependent upon either timber harvesting or agri-
culture. An example is the film and copying paper plant recently located
at Medford. The electronic components plant at Grants Pass also illus-
trates the sort of diversification expected to occur in Jackson County.
Service industries, related to recreation and tourism, are an impor-
tant part of the economic base of Jackson County at present, and it is
expected that employment in this sector will grow substantially in the
future. It will be stimulated further by the popularity of the Rogue
Valley as a place for retirement.
D. PROJECTED FUTURE POPULATION
It is expected that earlier retirement and an increasing population
of retired persons in the Rogue Valley will lead to an increase in the
future in the ratio of population to total labor force. At present, the
ratio is about 2.7, and it is expected that it will be 2.9 by 1985 and
2010. On that basis, the total labor force projected in TABLE VI-l
would support a population in Jackson County of 127,000 by 1985 and
219,000 by 2010. Population in the Bear Creek economic study area com-
prised about 85 per cent of the total Jackson County population in 1960.
This percentage will increase in the future, however, because it is ex-
pected that there will be little or no population growth in the parts of
Jackson County outside the economic study area. On the basis that county
population outside the economic study area will remain, in the future,
at about its present level, population in the Bear Creek economic study
area would be about 116,000 by 1985 and 208,000 by 2010.
For purposes of allocating study area population among the areas
and cities shown in TABLE VI-3, it is assumed that population in the
non-urban portion of the study area will remain at about the present
level and that growth rates will be about the same in the various urban
areas. This does not mean that the presently unincorporated portions
will not grow in population, since annexations are likely to result in
the cities absorbing surrounding suburbs as they are built up. For
planning purposes, a reasonable allocation of estimated future popula-
tion among the urban areas is given in TABLE VI-3 .
18.
-------
TABLE VI-3
PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
BEAR CREEK ECONOMIC STuDY AREA 1’
1960 1985 2010
Urban Portion: 41,700 95,200 187,200
Medford Urban AreaV 26,731 61,600 121,300
Ashland 9,119 21,200 40,800
Central Point 2,289 5,100 10,400
Jacksonville 1,172 2,500 5,300
Phoenix 769 1,700 3,400
Eagle Point 752 1,200 2,100
Talent 868 1,900 3,900
Non—Urban Portion: 20,790 20,800 20,800
TOTAL, Bear Creek Economic Study Area 62,490 116,000 208,000
1/ For list of Census Division comprising the economic study area,
see Chapter IV, Study Area Description.
2/ 1960 population Medford City 24,425; “South Medford” Suburb 2,306.
SOURCE: U. S. Census of Population, 1960.
19.
-------
VII. WATER REQUIREMENTS
Municipal & Industrial
A. PRESENT WATER USE
There are four separate water systems in the Bear Creek Basin, as
shown in TABLE Vu-i . Ashland and Talent have coagulation, filtration,
and chlorination facilities to treat for high turbidities and high
numbers of coliform organisms that occur during portions of the year.
Industrial supplies, for the most part, are served by municipal systems,
since much of the industrial development is adjacent to or within the
cities. A few industries use ground water sources, but these uses are
minor.
B. FORECAST OF FUTURE NEEDS
A municipal and industrial water supply study for the Rogue River
Basin has been completed by the Public Health Service and was forwarded
to the Corps of Engineers*; the findings and conclusions of this study
are presently valid. TABLE VII-2 , from that report, lists the existing
water supply capability, projected future requirements, and the net
storage which would be needed to fulfill such projected needs. The
authorized Corps of Engineers’ Rogue River Basin Project includes
20,000 acre-feet of storage space for meeting the Rogue River Basin
needs (including Bear Creek).
* “Report on Municipal and Industrial Water Supply, Rogue River Basin,
Oregon,” U. S. Public Health Service, Portland, Oregon, June 1959.”
20.
-------
TABLE Vu-I
City
MUNICIPAL WAlER SUPPLY DATA
BEAR CREEK BASIN
1960
— Population
Stiurc s of Water
Ashland
Phoenix
Talent
Medford!f
Eagle Point
Central Point
Jacksonville
Charlotte Anne WD
Elk City WD
Jacksonville Hwy. WD
King’s Hwy. WI)
Maple Park WI)
White City Water Co.
1/ Total population served
Ashland Creek
Wells
Talent Irrigation Dist.,
Wagner Creek, and Wells
Big Butte Springs
Served by Medford
,, I,
I, II
I II I
I II
,I II II
II II
II II II
I, II
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF WATER REQUIREMENTS, BEAR CREEK BASIN!L
ACRE-FEET PER YEAR?..!
Existing
Supply
Net
Water
From
or
Total
2010
Future
City Water
Rights
Requirements
Storage Reservoir
Ashland
6,700
9,200
2,500
Central Point
3/
Eagle Point
3/
Jackaonville
2J
j
V
Medford
28 , 0 0 0 Y
33,600
5,600
Phoenix
690
1,280
5/
Talent
130
940
81O /
TOTAL
35,520
45,020
8,910
1/ Condensed from table in “Report on Municipal 6 Industrial Water
Supply, Rogue River Basin, Oregon”, June, 1959, PItS, Portland,Oregon
2/ Excludes industrial water use above the present rate.
3/ Included with City of Mudford.
J Hold 100 cfs (71,600 Ac—Ft./Yr.) rights on Rogue River.
J Ground water to be developed for future supply.
f j Exchange of water rights proposed.
9,120
800
900
24,400
900
2,500
1,300
350
200
1,300
660
600
150
by Medford 32,600.
*“Report on Municipal & Industrial Water Supply, Rogue River Basin,
Oregon”, June, 1959, by USPHS, Portland, Oregon.
21.
-------
VIII. WATER QUALITY CONTROL
A. WATER USE AND NEED FOR CONTROL
Bear Creek is extensively used for irrigation, as shown by the
diversions and return flows reflected in the sawtooth profile shown on
page 7. Bear Creek, in its present state, provides limited fisher-
ies, recreation, and a base for park development. It is also used to
receive and assimilate treated wastes from the Cities of Ashland and
Talent, and domestic and land-drainage wastes from areas adjacent to
the stream.
1. Fisheries
Historically, Bear Creek was a particularly important tributary of
the Rogue River in terms of anadromous fish production (steelhead, sil-
ver salmon, and cutthroat). The construction of Emigrant Reservoir,
about 1924, blocked upper Emigrant Creek to anadromous fish and radi-
cally changed the flow pattern of Emigrant Creek below the project.
Heavy irrigation demands along the main stem and tributaries, together
with diversion structures and unscreened diversions, created almost
impossible obstacles for anadromous fish. Silver salmon are no longer
found in Bear Creek, while cutthroat trout are limited to native popu-
lations in west side tributary headwaters.
In spite of all abuses, an estimated 800 to 1,000 steelhead still
use the Bear Creek system, and their young provide an early trout fish-
ery from Talent to Emigrant Dam. There has been little stocking of the
area with hatchery fish, and angling has been maintained almost com-
pletely on natural production of the native steelhead.
Present management provisions for steelhead in Bear Creek include
passage for adults at the diversion structures, screening of diversion
ditches to prevent loss of downstream migrating adults and juveniles,
and a closed angling season during most of the steelhead spawning period.
Recent fish collections revealed juvenile stecihead present as far down
as Medford.
TABLE VIII-l
COHO (SILVER) SAU4ON POTENTIAL WITH
MINIMUM FWW REQUIREMENT OF 75 CFS
BEAR CREEK
Downstream Returning Adults @
Stream Section Migrants 1 to 3 Per Cent
TOTAL 147,500 1,470 to 4,420
Condensed from preliminary data on coho salmon rearing
studies presently being conducted by the Oregon Fish
Cotmnission. Original data also includes potential at
50 and 100 cfs.
Emigrant - Phoenix 54,400
Phoenix — Medford 25,300
Medford - Mouth 67,800
540 to 1,630
252 to 760
to
Fishery agencies have indicated that
a considerable potential exists for
fishery enhancement, including larger
runs of steelhead, reestablishment of
silver salmon, and an increased trout
fishery. TABLE VIII-1 illustrates the
silver salmon potential for several
reaches of Bear Creek if a minimum
rearing flow of 75 cfs and adequate
quality were maintained.
22.
-------
2. Recreation
The planned uses of Bear Creek for recreation at the present time
are negligible. In actuality, however, the stream receives considerable
attention from the children of the residential areas through which it
travels. During an inspection trip in June 1963, numerous children were
observed wading or playing in the stream and on its banks.
Developments along Bear Creek above Ashland are rural in nature,
with subdivision into two- to three-acre homesites. Recreational uses
would be confined to those related to private dwellings in the vicinity
of the creek. Bear Creek at Ashland flows through the northeastern
portion of the city, where it is relatively unimproved and no recrea-
tional use is made of the stream other than by the children in its
vicinity. The growth of Ashland and the proposed annexations to the
city, however, will bring the city adjacent to the creek along much of
its northern border. The City of Ashland has indicated an interest in,
and has encouraged the development of, adjacent water resources in order
to acquire water-based recreational opportunities.
3. Parks and Streamside Developments
The State Highway Department is proposing to develop two rest areas
near Ashland to serve freeway traffic. One of these is a ten-acre tract
bordering on Bear Creek. Although these areas are not being planned as
water recreation areas, the stream will receive incidental use by rest-
area visitors. A general idea of the magnitude of this use can be ob-
tained by examining the attendance a other waysides in the area. It
would appear that this attendance would be numbered in the tens of thou-
sands per year if the facilities were available at the present time.
City planners and various civic groups at Medford have indicated
the need for and have started various programs designed to utilize Bear
Creek as one of the city’s recreational assets. The 1960 report*
“Planning for Parks and Recreation,” by the Bureau of Municipal Research
and Service, prepared for the Medford City Planning Commission, proposed
that Bear Creek be developed for recreational purposes. This report was
extended, in 1963, by a more detailed park plan** prepared by the city.
The 1963 report recommends that three additional park areas be developed
along Bear Creek, in addition to extensive landscaping. Although the
total costs of these proposed developments are not available, the cost
of acquisition and initial development of Bear Creek Park, alone, is
estimated at a total of $270,000. The final cost is estimated to be
$900,000. The city has already acquired most of the 79 acres recommended
for the park, and a local civic group has done the initial cleanup. The
* Financed in part by Federal funds (HHFA).
** “Ashland and Its Urban Fringe,” Bureau of Municipal Research and
Service, University of Oregon, 1963.
23.
-------
site lies along both sides of Bear Creek and is easily accessible from
all parts of the city. The plans for the Bear Creek oriented facility
include a lagoon for boating and children’s fishing. This development
is considered by the coimnunity to constitute its most important park
facility.
The ultimate development of Bear Creek, in Medford, is for a park
extending through the city. As indicated in the 1963 park plans, “The
proposed development would be a landscaped strip along both sides of
the creek. Improvement and beautification of the banks should also in-
clude effort to reduce or eliminate pollution of Bear Creek water, both
within and without the City of Medford.”
In addition to acquiring park sites and preparing development plans,
the city has also engaged a landscape architect firm to prepare the land-
scaping plans for the Bear Creek area. The extent to which the community
is behind this activity to utilize Bear Creek is illustrated by the fact
that the Lions Club of Medford has taken on a project of cleaning its
banks and has contributed both labor and funds to the project in the
anticipation that the stream’s quality would be improved.
The Jackson County Planning Commission, in cooperation with the
Oregon State Bureau of Municipal Research, is planning a study* of the
Ashland-to-Medford portion of the Bear Creek Valley which would provide
the basis for creating a “park chain” along Bear Creek. The study would
cost from $15,000 to $20,000 and would include Federal matching funds
(miFA), as well as state, county, and city funds. The plans to be de-
veloped will capitalize on the area’s natural attributes and provide
places for such pursuits as hiking, riding, fishing, water-skiing, pic-
nicking, and sight-seeing. In addition to planning for public lands
already acquired or available, the study would examine the manner in
which adjoining private lands could be retained in private ownership
and contribute to the overall development by providing services such as
riding stables, fishing ponds, and hunting preserves. These plans are
being coordinated with the plans of the Jackson County Park and Recrea-
tion Department and the City of Medford. Interest and support have been
indicated for this development by the Chambers of Commerce of both Medford
and Ashland, as well as the Izaak Walton League.
4. Aesthetic Environment
In addition to the specific categories of water use for which qual-
ity is important, which were described in preceding sections, there is a
further area of public concern and benefit in connection with the quality
of Bear Creek. This might be characterized as the influence of the stream
on the study area environment. Although difficult to assess in absolute
ntnnerical terms, the impact is real and of major consequence. In the
* Bear Creek Urban Region Planning Project.
24.
-------
Bear Creek Valley, the influence of the stream on the environment is of
more than ordinary significance because of the area’s importance as a
tourist center. Without attempting to describe the actual attractions
of the area, it can be noted that the valley is traversed by a major
north-south interstate highway; is adjacent to Crater Lake National
Park, Oregon Caves National Monument, and the Rogue River; and is host
each year to thousands of tourists, including those attending the
nationally known Shakespearean Festival at Ashland. In addition to the
stream’s general impact on the area environment, it also has the poten-
tial to exert an influence on the real estate adjacent to it. In order
to give dimension to the magnitude of the impact, the following section
describes briefly the numbers of persons involved and some of the indi-
cations of importance of the stream to the area that can be served.
Of the more than 80,000 persons living in Jackson County (1962),
about 64,000 live in the relatively small area of the Bear Creek Valley.
The stream bisects Medford (population 26,000) and cuts through a corner
of Ashland (population 9,500). The importance of the creek in Medford
is emphasized by the fact that the major park now developed is adjacent
to the creek, and most of the future park plans include the creek. One
of the main thoroughfares of Medford (it parallels the creek through the
city) is named Riverside Avenue. This is a reminder that at one time
Bear Creek was a major stream and was considered to be a principal tribu-
tary of the Rogue : The name “Medford,” itself, was derived from the
fact that it was located at the middle fork of Bear Creek.
Outside of the two cities through which it passes, the creek (in
its present state) apparently exerts no positive benefit on the value
of adjoining real estate, unless it is in connection with irrigation.
The 10-mile stretch of Bear Creek between Ashland and Medford is
parallel to a major north-south interstate highway which has a clear
view of the creek through most of this area. The appearance of the
water will be observable from the freeway, and the economic blight which
wasteways create would be very obvious. Based on Oregon State Highway
Department traffic counts, over seven million vehicles a year are cur-
rently using this route. The significance of interstate traffic (of
which tourists are a major component) is indicated by a traffic count
of over one million vehicles per year at a point 17 miles south of
Ashland at the Oregon-California border.
25.
-------
B. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION
Present waste loadings to Bear Creek are shown in TABLE VIII-2 .
Locations of the loading points on Bear Creek and on the Rogue River are
illustrated in the schematic diagram below. At the present time, all
municipal wastes and a portion of the industrial wastes of the Medford
and Central Point areas are treated and discharged to the Rogue River.
TABLE vIII-2
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE
BEAR CREEK BASIN
1960
CitY Population
Raw
Waste
Production
Total Treated
Waste to Stream
PE
Receiving
Stream
Municipal
PE
Industrial
PE
11,900
300
Bear
Cr.
Ashland 9,120
Talent 900
*
Medford 24.400
*Iflcludes Phoenix 1960 Municipal PE 750.
800 -- -
35,500
12,350
Bear
Cr.
12,350
500
Bear
Cr.
1,580
620
Bear
Cr.
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
OF WASTE LOADINGS
Future municipal and industrial waste loadings,
ASHLAND
as shown in TABLE VIII-3 , were projected on the
basis of population growth rates for urban areas.
The loadings shown are those remaining after ade-
quate treatment (secondary treatment resulting in
85 per cent BOD removal). It is assumed, based
on basin-wide planning being conducted for Jackson
County ”, that all future industrial wastes will be
treated and transported to the Rogue River rather
than discharged to Bear Creek.
POINT
0 FORD
‘
PHOENIX
iK
175 Bear Cr.
TALENT
56O P(
8(5
* “Engineering Study of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities for the
Bear Creek Basin, Jackson County, Oregon,” Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and
Merryfield, Corvallis, Oregon, February 1965.
26.
-------
TABlE VIII—3
PRESENT & PROJECTED WASTE LOADINGS, BEAR CREEK BASIN
Population Estimated Total PE/Day Est.PE/Day to Bear Cr.
City 1960 1985 2010 1960 1985 2010 1960 1985 2010
Medford 24,400 45,100 77,000 51,550 95,000 143,000 1,000 2,000* 3,000*
Ashland 9,120 17,000 31,000 12,460 31,000 57,000 4,560 4,600 8,500
Talent 900 1,600 3,000 1,150 2,050 3,900 175 300 590
Phoenix 800 1,400 2,600 750 1,300 2,400 115 195 360
*These values reflect treatment of cannery & meat-packing wastes at existing
plant sites. All municipal waste and waste from new industry discharged to
Rogue River.
Existing streamfiows of Little Butte and Antelope Creeks (adjacent
to the study area and subject to potential flow augmentation from canals
serving the Medford Division) are considered adequate to meet the minor
present and projected waste loads.
C. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
There is a need to maintain water quality for recreation, fisheries,
and protection of general aesthetic conditions in and along Bear Creek.
Indicators of water quality involving these uses are:
(1) Dissolved oxygen;
(2) Bacterial pollution (coliform organisms);
(3) Floating, suspended, and settleable solids;
(4) Agricultural chemicals, salts, silts, and
other irrigation return flow constituents;
(5) Temperature;
(6) Nuisance aquatic growths.
Water quality for maintenance and restoration of an anadromous fish-
ery requires a DO concentration of at least 6 mg/i at 70 degrees Fahren-
heit for fish passage, and 7.0 mg/l at 65 degrees Fahrenheit for rearing.
Water-contact recreation requires a stream that is low in coliform
organisms (240 to 1,000 MPN); free from floating, suspended, or settle-
able solids; and aesthetically pleasing from the standpoint of turbid-
ity, color, and aquatic growths. Achievement of these objectives requires
adequate treatment of wastes, including disinfection of effluents, ade-
quate flow throughout the stream length without pooling, and control of
excessive land drainage to the stream.
27.
-------
D. FLOW REGULATION
The present quality of Bear Creek during critical periods is unsuit-
able from a recreational, fishery, and aesthetic point of view. Stream-
flows essentially cease during some periods, and there is no assured flow
available to receive and assimilate municipal, industrial, and agricul-
tural wastes. Sampling data show, for example, that with a flow of 46
cfs in lower reaches of Bear Creek, the DO content is barely suitable for
fish passage. With lesser flows, which occur annually, the DO concentra-
tion would fall below the requirement.
Municipal wastes from the City of Medford are, and will continue to
be, treated and discharged to the Rogue River. The transmission of treated
wastes from other sources along Bear Creek to the Rogue River has been con-
sidered as a means of achieving improved water quality. A private study
by Jackson County and a statement by the Oregon State Sanitary Authority
indicate that such transport of waste is unlikely to occur in the foresee-
able future because of the high costs involved.
Adequate waste treatment, in combination with flow regulation to
achieve a minimtm DO level of 6 mg/l at the mouth of Bear Creek and 7 mg/l
in the Ashland-Medford reach of Bear Creek on a one-in-ten year low-flow
recurrence basis, would accommodate the stream uses previously described.
Computations, utilizing projected waste loads and the Streeter-Phelps DO
sag equation, show a need by the end of the study period for an average
annual flow in Bear Creek of 30 cfs to accomplish these objectives. On a
one-in-ten year low-flow recurrence basis, there would be a need for an
annual draft on storage to yield 12,760 acre-feet of additional water to
maintain this flow.
28.
-------
The typical monthly schedule of
required flows and deficits for
present and future years is
shown in TABLE VIII-4 . The flow
deficiencies shown are for
measurements at Medford, where
diversions and return flows in
the system are the most accu-
rately typified.
6
4
;3o
I—-- ’
L __ , 010 REQ ,
JAN ‘FEB’MAR APR ‘ MAY JUNE’JULY’AUG ‘SEPT’OCT NOv’bt
WATER QUALITY CONTROL FLOW REQUIREMENTS
TABLE VIII-4
PRESENT & PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES, BEAR CREEK AT NEDFORD
Month
Present
Flow,cfs
Required Flow,cfs
Deficiencies
1960
1985
2010
1960
1985
2010
cfs
Ac-Ft.
cfs
Ac-Ft.
cfs
Ac-Ft.
Jan.
20
4
7
13
--
--
--
--
--
--
Feb.
41
5
9
17
--
--
--
--
--
--
March
47
7
12
22
--
--
--
--
--
- -
April
41
9
15
28
--
--
--
--
--
--
May
24
11
20
34
- -
--
--
- -
10
615
June
12
12
22
39
--
--
10
595
27
1,660
July
Aug.
5
4
20
18
36
32
65
58
15
14
922
860
31
28
1,900
1,720
60
54
3,680
3,320
Sept.
4
12
21
37
8
476
17
1,050
33
2,070
Oct.
6
7
13
22
1
62
7
430
16
985
Nov.
10
5
9
17
--
--
--
--
7
430
Dec.
16
4
7
13
--
--
--
--
--
--
TOTAL
2,320
5,695
12,760
I In
29.
-------
IX. BENEFITS... .Water Quality Control
The various water uses requiring controlled water quality (fish life,
recreation, and general aesthetics) were discussed in detail in Chapter
VIII, Section A. Storage releases for regulation of streamfiow for water
quality control, in addition to adequate waste treatment, are needed to
protect these uses of Bear Creek into the future. Increased flows from
Ashland downstream to the mouth of Bear Creek would produce considerable
benefits, both tangible and intangible. Failure to provide flow regula-
tion for water quality control would allow further decline in quality as
residual waste loads increase and would impose further limitations and
restrictions on fishery programs, recreation, park developments, and
property values in the area.
The minimum value of storage and delivery works for regulation of
streamfiow for water quality control is considered to be equal to the
cost of the least-cost alternative in the absence of the project. Alter-
natives examined for this value determination were storage within the
Bear Creek Basin, storage adjacent to the basin, and pumping from the
Rogue River. The least-cost alternative was determined to be storage
adjacent to the basin on McNeil Creek, a tributary of Big Butte Creek.
(See location map.)
Based on this alternative, the minimum value assignable to an annual
draft on storage of 12,760 acre-feet, including transmission costs to
Bear Creek, a 100-year project life, needs beginning at the time of proj-
ect completion, and interest at 3.125 per cent, is estimated to be
$522,000 or $41.00 per acre-foot.
The benefits derived from water quality maintenance in Bear Creek
are both tangible and intangible, and are widespread both in area and
in type of beneficiary.
30.
-------
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
U. S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon
Survey Report, 9ogue River and Tributaries.
California, Transcript of Public Hearing held at Grants Pass,
Oregon, Seprnnber 25, 1961, December 1961,
b, Rogue River Basin Water Resource Development, Volemes I, IS,
I II AND IV, (Contains reports frem other agencies)
Report on Ptsnieipal and Snduanrial Water Supply. Rogue River Basin,
U, I, Public Health Service, Portland, Oregon, June 1959.
Rogue River Basin, Oregon Stats Water Resourgee Board, Salem, Oregon
January 1959. (ieerion 3, Bear Creeb Basin Pp 219-241)
Rogue River Basin Stmmary, State Water Resources Board, Salem,
Oregon, January 1959.
Potential Rogue River Begin Projects, Projett Dsta Sheetg for
Consideration Prior to Public Hearing, U. 5, Army fngimer District,
Foct land, August 23, 1961.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Rogion I,
Boise, Idaho
a, Medford and Rogue River Valley lrrjgation Districts, Oregon .
Rehabilitation, March 1955.
b, Agate Dam and Reaervmir, Rogue River Rosin Project. Oregon,
December 1959.
e. Rogue River Rosin Project. Merlin DivisIon, January 1961
d. Rogue River Roam Project. Evans Valley DivisionS Wrap
up
!s ss, Hay 1961
a, Talent Division, Rogue River Basin Prolect. Oregon,
Dsgembsc 1953.
Water Resources Study. River
Basin, Mountain Reservoir
U. S. fl, PHI, Region S I, Portland, Oregon, September 1963.
Recreation lucvey af the Pacific Horthwest Region, Part One,
Existing Recreation Area,, Mactb 1961. By Recreation Subc ittee
Colcnbta Roam Inter—Agency C itree,
9. Statement Water Pollution Control and Quality Management Programs
of the Pacific Northwest , Vol. I and II, U S aiai, FItS, Facific
Northwest, Region IX Portland, Oregon, November 1963.
10, Quality of Surface Wateca of the United States. 195y , Parts 9-14,
U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1523.
11. An tngineering Report on a Preliminary Stndy of Sew o Collection
and T reatment Fscilitioa, City of Grants Peas. Oregon , Cornell,
Howland, Bayes and Mecryfield, Corvallis, Oregon Juno 1961.
12, Engineerj.ng Report on a Preliminary Study of Sewage Collection and
Treatment Facilities. City of Rogue River, Oregon , Cornell, Howland,
Hayes and Merryfield Corvallis, Oregon, July 1960.
13. Engineering Report on a Preliminary Study of Sewage Collection snd
Treatment Facilities, City of Cove Junction, Oregon , Cornell,
Howland, Bayes and Morryfield, Corvallis, Oregon, August 1961.
14. Bi-Annual Roporc. 1962-1963 , Medford Water Cnission, City of
Medford Oregon
15. A Report on the Feasibility of Water Supply for the Medfocd Fringe
Area, Medford Water Ccission, by Cornell, Rowland, HayeB and
Merryfield, March 1961.
An Engineering Report on Waoto Treatment Facilities for White City
Realty C any. Medford, Oregon, Cornell, Howland, Hayes end
Merryfield, Corvallis, Oregon, May 1960.
Water for Talent, A
the
of
on
Feaaibility
Securing Additional
Water Sources for City Uas, Clark and Groff, Engineera, Salem,
Oregon, April 1961.
Engineering Report on a Pceliminary Study of Sewerage Facilities,
Sonth Talent Sanitary District. Jackson County. Oregon, Cornell,
Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield, Corvallis, Oregon, September 1963,
A Report on an Engineering Study of Water Treatment Plant
Expansion,
City of Aahland, Oregon, Cornell, Houland, Rayos and Merryfielai,
Corvallis, Oregon, March 1961.
Plan for Developosnc in Ashland Watershed, USDA and City of Ashland,
Oregon, 1957.
City of Jacksonville, An
Engineering Ropoct on a Freliminary
Stndy of Sanitary Sewers and Sewage Treatment Focilitiea, Cornell,
Howland, and
22 City of Central Point, Oregon, A report on an Investigation of the
City Water Supply and Distribution Syorem , Clark and Gcoff
Engineers, Salem, Oregon, fuvember 1960.
23, City of Eagle Point, Orego n. A Report on the Feasibility of a
Sever System for Eagle Point , Clark and Croff Enginoero, Salem,
Oregon, September 1960.
24, An Analysts of Meteorological Conditions Affecting Stream and
Reoer-vnir Temperatures in the Rogue River Basin , W. Bruce
McAllister for Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife,Fortland,
Oregon, May 1961.
25. Rogue River Rosin Study: Part III. Probable Temperatures in the
Proposed Lopt Creek Reservoir , W. Brute McAllister for Bureau of
Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, November 1961.
26. Prediction of Strep Temperatures Downstream frcm the Proposed
Lot Creek Remsite , W. Bruce McAlltster for Bureau of Sports
Fiahariea and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, Key 1961.
27 Statemepy, Water Quality Gonaideratfoo s for Roar Creek (Rogue River
Basin), U. S. Public Health Service, Portland, Oregon, January 3,
1964. (Stmmarioes the Roar Greek-Medford Division Project in terma
of K 4 1 water supply, water quality and other flow requirement
paramecere.)
28. Bear Creek , Oregon State Game Cission, Fish C iosion of
Oregon, U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 7, 1964. (Seven
page a ary regarding fisheries in the Bear Creek.)
29. A Park Plan for Kndford , City of Medford, 1963
30. Letter Filee, U. S. Public Health Service, Water Supply and
Pollution Control Program, Fseific Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
31. Engineering Study of Water Supply for the Bear Creek Roam,
Jackson County, Oregon , Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Mairyfield,
Corvallis, Oregon, January 1965.
32, Engineering Study of Sewage Colloeefon and Treatment fecijities
for the Bear Creek Room, Jackson Comnty. Oregon , Cornell, Hovland,
Iiayse and Marryfield, Corvallia, Oregon, February 1965.
26.
17.
58
59.
20.
21
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
31.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |