EPA 910/9-76-032
EPA-10-JACKS0N-BCVSA-INT-76
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MAY 1977
WESTSIDE TRUNK DISTRICT
JACKSON COUNTRY, OREGON
$ « \
USB,'
*<- PR O^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
WESTSIDE TRUNK DISTRICT
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
EPA Project No. C-410527
EPA-10-0R-Jackson-BCVSA-INT-76
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Wilsey and Ham
222 S.W. Harrison
Portland, Oregon 97201
,V?
-------
PREFACE
On November 26, 1976 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) released for public review a draft Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) which evaluates the environmental impacts associated with
construction of a wastewater trunk line in an area designated as the
Westside Trunk District, located in Jackson County, Oregon. The
decision to prepare an EIS on the proposed project was based on an
expected grant application from the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority (BCVSA) for construction grant funding in which EPA would
provide 75% of the funds required to plan, design and construct the
wastewater trunk system. The EIS for this project was prepared
utilizing the "piggyback" approach which allowed the draft EIS and
BCVSA1s draft Facilities Plan to be prepared concurrently. To complete
the environmental impact evaluation, EPA, in joint agreement with
BCVSA, has prepared this final EIS which is the result of comments
received on the draft EIS, oral and written testimony received at
the EIS public hearing, BCVSA's draft Facilities Plan and various other
supporting documents. The following discussion summarizes salient
points identified in these documents.
The draft Facilities Plan, prepared by BCVSA, indicates that
water quality problems are generally scattered throughout the entire
Westside Trunk District. Water samples collected from roadside ditches
in April 1976, indicate fecal coliform contamination in the range of
11 to 11,000 MPN per 100 ml. It is not known, however, what specific
contribution is made by residential septic tank failures. In the
Westwood (Niedermeyer) subdivision 5% of the 59 homes have documented
septic tank problems and in the El Reina Subdivision, of the houses
surveyed by Jackson County in April 1976, 33% have continuing septic
tank failures and 50% have seasonal or occasional failures. In addition,
the Westside Elementary School has a history of septic tank failures.
As many as 25 cases of septic tank "red tagging" have been reported by
Jackson County. Problems associated with these failures include 7
water wells within the District which do not conform to State and
Federal standards of purity. Many of these problems can largely be
attributed to soil types and conditions within the District. Of the
5,400 acres, 75% cannot meet the soil conditions necessary for sub-
surface disposal systems required by the Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality.
Considering the need for wastewater facilities within the District,
and the results of EPA's environmental evaluation of 3 alternative
alignments, EPA recommends that Alternative 2A be constructed to solve
the wastewater problems within the Westside Trunk District. Alterna-
tive 2A is the most cost effective of the Alternatives evaluated in
the draft EIS and the environmental impacts associated with this
alternative are of an acceptable nature. It should be noted, however,
that while the impacts associated with Alternative 2A are considered
unavoidable and judged as insignificant at this time, they will be
given further consideration and will continue to be examined throughout
the remainder of the EIS process. Major adverse impacts must be
-------
studied in terms of mitigating techniques which can be incorporated
into project construction and which may affect the degree of future
secondary impacts. Comments received during the review process and
testimony received at EPA's public hearing give evidence that two
related secondary impact areas are of major concern to individuals
residing in the District. These concerns center on the projected
population growth for the Westside Trunk District, and the effect
this growth will have on areas designated by Jackson County as
agricultural lands.
The draft EIS states that a population projection developed for
the Westside Trunk District indicates that 17,400 people could reside
in the District by the year 2026. This projection was developed by
BCVSA's Facilities Plan consultant and was utilized for calculating
design flow in sizing the proposed wastewater trunk line. Comments
received from Jackson County, however state that
"Based on current zoning of the area and the Plan map
designation, the ultimate population is expected to be
about 4,000 persons for the area lying outside of the
proposed Central Point Growth Boundary. Another 9,000
persons can be accommodated within that portion of the
proposed Central Point Growth Boundary lying within the
trunk district."
Based on the foregoing, EPA considers itself bound to respect Jackson
County's existing Zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan and there-
fore is requiring BCVSA to re-design Alternative 2A to accommodate a
population of 13,000 people rather than the 17,400 population utilized
by BCVSA's Facilities Plan consultant. In resizing the trunk line,
the Facilities Plan use of 200 gallons per capita per day allowance
for groundwater infiltration will be accepted by EPA. The District
is in an area of high groundwater and the allowance is within the
sewer design criteria used by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and manuals of practice of ASCE and WPCF.
As stated above, the protection of existing agricultural lands is
a significant issue associated with the proposed project. The Oregon
State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) stated in
comments to the draft EIS that "all agricultural lands must be protected
from urban development...it is critical that remaining agricultural
lands not be threatened by further encroachment of urban sprawl." It
should also be noted that protection of agricultural lands is a
statewide planning goal and that Jackson County is bound by Oregon
statutory authority to plan in accordance with these goals. In an
effort to mitigate any secondary adverse impacts to agricultural lands
EPA has decided that any subsequent grant award to BCVSA for this
project will be conditional upon the following;
The grantee agrees that connections inconsistent with
agricultural zoning will not be allowed for sewerage service
to those areas traversed by the proposed trunk line through
-------
lands designated as agricultural by the County's Compre-
hensive Plan. The proposed Forest Service facility will,
however, be required to hook-up to the proposed trunk line
as well as any existing residents which are located within
300 feet of the proposed wastewater system. If additional
structures requiring sewerage service are allowed by
Jackson County to be constructed, hook-up to the sewerage
system is required.
In addition to the above requirements, EPA requires Jackson County
certification that Alternative 2A complies with the County Comprehen-
sive Plan and appropriate statewide planning goals as they effect
the current plan.
A new addition to the text of this final EIS is the inclusion
of a chapter entitled "Comments and Responses to the Draft EIS".
In this chapter, EPA has reprinted letters commenting specifically
on the draft statement and has attempted to respond to all questions
and requests for explanation, correction, or revision where additional
evaluation proved the draft statement to be in error.
The Environmental Protection Agency submits this final EIS for
a public review period of 30 days. Following this review period
EPA's Regional Administrator will make his final determination
concerning a construction grant award as authorized by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act ammendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) to the
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
-------
TABLE of CONTENTS
SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1
Project Location & Grant Applicant 1
Project Objectives 1
Project History 3
EPA's Environmental Responsibilities 4
Citizen Concerns & Issues 5
SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS & PROJECTED TRENDS 7
Population Growth 7
Population Characteristics 9
Economic Base 12
Population Projections 13
Land Use Plans and Policies 18
Public Facilities & Services 23
Archaeological Resources 29
Historical Resources 29
Climate 35
Air Quality 35
Topography 37
Geology 37
Soils 38
Hydrology 43
Water Quality 44
Vegetation/Wildlife 46
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 48
SECTION III ALTERNATIVES & THEIR IMPACTS 51
Alternative Screening Process 51
Impact Evaluation 51
ALTERNATIVE #2 - NO ACTION 53
Population Growth & Projections 53
Area Economy 53
Land Use Plans & Policies 54
Public Facilities & Services 54
Archaeological Historical Resources 55
Air Quality 55
Surface Water Quality 55
Groundwater Quality 56
Vegetation/Wildlife 56
Short-Term Resource Use Versus
Long-Term Productivity 56
Irreversible & Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources 57
I
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Mitigating Measures 57
ALTERNATIVE #2 - CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWAGE
COLLECTION SYSTEM CONNECTING TO THE LOWER
BEAR CREEK INTERCEPTOR 59
Population Growth and Projections 60
Area Economy 66
Land Use Plans & Policies 67
Public Facilities & Services 69
Archaeological/Historical 71
Air Quality 72
Surface Water Quality 72
Groundwater Quality 73
Vegetation/Wildlife 73
Energy 7A
Short-Term Resource Use vs.
Long-Term Productivity 74
Irreversible & Irretrievable Resource
Commitments 75
Mitigating Measures 75
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS 77
Alternative //2A - Grant/Beall/Ross Alignment 77
Alternative #2B - Hanley Road Alignment 79
Alternative #2C - Old Stage Road Alignment 80
Summary Matrix 81
SECTION IV RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 83
FOOTNOTES 109
BIBLIOGRAPHY 110
APPENDIX MATERIALS A-l
II
-------
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page No.
Jackson County Population 1940-1975 7
Comparative Population Growth 8
Selected Jackson County Census
Subdivisions Population Growth
1960-1970 8
Comparative Growth 1970-1975 9
Age Distribution 1970 10
Comparative Income Distribution 1970 11
Comparative Occupational Distribution
1970 12
Jackson County Projected Annual
Growth Rates 15
Future Population Levels for Jackson
County Based on a Population of
Historic Growth Rates 2.46% 16
Community Population Projections 16
Facilities Plan Projections for the
Project Area 17
Road Conditions 27
School Enrollment 28
Ambient Air Sampling 1969-1975
for Particulates 36
Agricultural Capability 40
Stream Flow Rates 43
Fecal Coliform Concentration 45
Central Point Area Growth Distribution
(Assumes 9.0 Percent of Jackson
County) 61
Central Point Area Growth Distribution
(Assumes 11.0 Percent of Jackson
County 62
Comparative Growth Potential 64
Short-term Impacts & Mitigating
Measures 76
Summary of Adverse Impacts of
Project Alternatives 81
Response to Comments 85
Comments Received on Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement 86
III
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
Title
Page No
1
Location Map
2
2
Population Projections
14
3
Existing Land Use
Between
Pages
18-19
4
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan
Between
Pages
22-23
5
Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Between
Pages
22-23
6
Historical Sites
Between
Pages
32-33
7
Soils Series
Between
Pages
38-39
8
Septic Tank Suitability
Between
Pages
42-43
9
Vegetation/Wildlife
Between
Pages
46-47
10
Alternative Selection Process
50
11
Alignment 2A
Between
Pages
60-61
12
Alignment 2B
Between
Pages
60-61
13
Alignment 2C
Between
Pages
60-61
IV
-------
APPENDIX MATERIALS
Appendix Title Page No.
A Archaeological/Historial Resources A-l
B Bird and Mammal Species A-7
C Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Financing & Assessment Methods A-l7
V
-------
SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT — WESTSIDE
TRUNK DISTRICT FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE BEAR CREEK VALLEY
SANITARY AUTHORITY
1. Type of Statement: Draft ( ) Final (X)
2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action;
The subject action for this environmental impact statement is the
awarding of grant funds to Jackson County for the construction of
a wastewater collection system in the Westside Trunk District,
Jackson County, Oregon. The objective of this project is to provide
wastewater collection to residents of the Westside Trunk District,
which is located southwest of the City of Central Point. Wastewater
from this area would be collected and transported to the Lower Bear
Creek Interceptor and through the interceptor to treatment at the
Medford Regional Sewage Treatment Plant located on Rogue River.
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifies alternatives
for providing the district with a wastewater collection facility
designed to meet the needs of the residents of the district and to
maintain and enhance the area's environmental quality. The district
covers approximately 5,400 acres and has a population of about
2,000 residents.
Much of the Westside Trunk District is underlain by impermeable
clay soils and is characterized by a high groundwater table. Such
conditions have created periodic sewage waste disposal problems
causing septic systems to fail and sewage to appear in surface
drainage areas, irrigation ditches and local streams. Surveys
conducted by the Jackson County Health Department located several
areas of high fecal coliform levels, resulting in the posting of
Jackson and Griffin Creeks as public health hazards.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effects:
The impacts and magnitude of those impacts will vary according to
the alternatives proposed. Alternative I represents a no-action
alternative, while Alternative 2 suggests the construction of a
wastewater collection facility. Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C propose
alternative alignments for the proposed collection systems, short-
term impacts such as temporary loss of vegetation, disruption of
wildlife, traffic congestion, utility service disruption, aerial
pollutant, visual impact, and noise would occur with Alternative 2.
VII
-------
Long-term impacts of Alternative 2 would include protection
and enhancement of local ground water, protection of the
local aquifer, and increased water quality in local surface
waters and streams. By providing wastewater collection facilities,
Alternative 2 would allow growth to occur within the project
area, at least to the level indicated in the local comprehensive
plans. This growth would result in conversion of vacant land
to residential uses and would create some pressure for conversion
of agricultural land. The extent of this pressure would vary
depending upon whether Alternative 2A, 2B or 2C were chosen.
Long-term impacts associated with growth would include increased
traffic, and increasing pressure for provision of a public
water supply.
Major impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the
continuation of periodic problems of groundwater and surface
water contamination by sewage, the potential for a health
hazard, a potential for contamination of the local aquifer,
and effects on land use patterns.
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative. This alternative would
involve the continuation of existing conditions of installing
septic tanks and drain fields to handle individual home sewage.
Associated with this alternative would be the continuation of
periodic septic tank failures and surfacing of sewage wastes.
Alternative 2 - Construction of a sewage collection system connecting
to the Lower Bear Creek Interceptor. The alternative would provide
for construction of a sewage collecion system to serve the Westside
Trunk District. Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C suggest three different
alignments for the construction of that collection system.
Comments
The following State, Federal and local agencies and interested
groups were invited to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement:
VIII
-------
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
Department of the Army, Corp of Engineers
Federal Energy Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
MEMBERS 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
Cleatis G. Mitchell - State Representative District 52
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Department of Environmental Quality
-------
REGIONAL and LOCAL
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development
Jackson County Health Department
Jackson County Library
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District
City of Medford
City of Central Point
City of Jacksonville
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Medford Irrigation District
School District 549C
Jackson County Fire District #3
Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
National Wildlife Federation
Northwest Environmental Defense Center E.R. Frohreich
INTERESTED GROUPS and INDIVIDUALS
Dale Cannon CH2P-1 - Corvallis
Oregon Wildlife Federation
1000 Friends of Oregon
Homer A, Conger
Otto Bohnert
James Mills
OSPIRG
Oregon Environmental Council
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Southern Oregon Historical Society
C.L. Robinson
Joseph Grosquth
Roy Hatcher
Roger Vanderbeck
-------
Mr. & Mrs. M.E. Heisel
Edwin Frost
John Fleeger
Robert Wilcox
John Wittevee .
Joanne Wilcox
F.R. Bauman
Anne Johnson
Bryce S. Phillips
Keith A. Smith
Mr. & Mrs. J. Leland Wilson
Edward L. Walter
Mr. & Mrs. H. LaFever
Mr. & Mrs. J.L. Beyoff
C.R. Barbhurst
Evelyn Ousterhout
Mr. & Mrs. E.W. Nitcher
Mr. & Mrs. Ray Newmann
This Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available
to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Public
0N JUN 8 1977
-------
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
Project Location and Grant Applicant
The proposed project area is commonly known as the Westside Trunk Dis-
trict and is located southwest of Central Point in Jackson County,
Oregon, as shown on Fig. 1. It is characterized by a mix of suburban
and rural home sites and productive farming units. The north portion of
the project area is adjacent to the city limits of Central Point and is
often called West Central Point. None of the land within the Westside
Trunk District is included within the boundaries of the incorporated
city. The project area includes approximately 5,400 acres and has a
population of approximately 2,000 residents.
The Westside Trunk District is within the Bear Creek Drainage Basin and
drains north and east into Griffin and Jackson Creeks. Both of these
tributary streams drain into Bear Creek north of the project area. The
topographic and drainage features of this basin are further described in
the subsequent chapter on the project area environment'.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) has requested a grant of
Federal funds to solve the wastewater problems existing within the
Westside Trunk District. BCVSA was formed under the authority of Oregon
Revised Statutes Chapter 450 (ORS 450.705 through 450.990) by vote of
the people in the BCVSA area on August 30, 1966. At that time it was
granted authority to provide sanitary sewer service within the unincorporated
areas of Jackson County, including the City of Talent, the South Bear
Creek Sanitary District, and the White City Sanitary District. The
incorporated cities of Phoenix, Medford, Jacksonville, and Central Point
are within the geographic boundaries of BCVSA, but have elected to
retain city control of sewer systems within their legal city limits. A
large portion of the area within the BCVSA boundaries has been divided
into trunk districts including West Medford and South Medford, in addition
to the subject Westside Trunk District.
The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority has been granted a Step 1
Facilities Planning Grant (as authorized under Public Law 92-500) for
the project and anticipates following this with Steps 2 and 3 Design and
Construction Grants. The grant application EPA project number is C-
410527-01-1. No other local jurisdictions would receive grant funds for
the construction of a wastewater collection system within the Westside
Trunk District. EPA would provide 75 percent of the funds for the grant
eligible portion of the project.
Project Objectives
The project objectives are best stated by the following adopted BCVSA
policy. Public sewers are constructed primarily to solve existing
1
-------
2
-------
pollution and health hazard problems and secondly, to meet developmental
needs upon proper conformance with land use planning." No public sewers
currently exist within the Westside Trunk District and all wastewater is
disposed of by septic tanks and drain fields. Poor soils suitability
for septic tanks coupled with a high water table have led to current and
potential health problems. A detailed explanation of these conditions
may be found in Section II.
o Stream Contamination
Conditions existing within Jackson and Griffin Creeks exceed the water
quality criteria established in ORS Chapter 340, Rogue River Basin Water
Quality and Treatment Standards, which provide that: "No wastes shall
be discharged and no activities shall be conducted ... which will cause ...
average (fecal coliform) concentrations to exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters."
(1). (Footnote references are listed at the conclusion of the FEIS.)
o Surface Water Contamination
Drainage ditches, irrigation ditches and standing water not in natural
water courses, are being contaminated with septic tank effluent in
locations scattered throughout the project area. Again, fecal coliform
counts have been recorded above the maximum acceptable level of 1,000
per 100 milliliters.
o Ground Water Contamination
Septic tanks, as well as a variety of non-point sources, appear to be
contaminating the shallow ground waters within the Westside Trunk District.
Reports on well tests indicate that septic tank effluent may be seeping
into individual household water supplies in selected locations. Wells
often must be drilled to greater depths in order to be free from conta-
minated conditions.
o Curtailment of Development
Although accurate records are not available, Jackson County Health Depart-
ment officials estimate that approximately fifty percent of all requests
for septic tank permits within the Westside Trunk District are denied due
to the unsuitability of area soils to serve as an efficient drain field,
and to a high water table.
Project History
In March 1969, an agreement was entered into between Jackson County, the
cities of Medford, Central Point and Phoenix, and the Bear Creek Valley
Sanitary Authority to construct the Bear Creek Interceptor system as well
as a new sewage treatment plant at the site of the then existing Medford
Sewage Treatment Plant. Bond issues were passed in June 1969 which pro-
vided the funds necessary to construct the interceptor system.
3
-------
In mid-1971, subsequent to the construction of the interceptor system,
CH2M Hill completed feasibility studies for three trunk districts within
the BCVSA boundaries — Westside, West Medford and South Medford. The
BCVSA Board of Directors gave top priority to the West and South Medford
projects both of which were underway by late 1974 when the Board voted
to proceed with the Westside project. At that time, the project was
presented to Jackson County for their review and comment. The Westside
Trunk District project was placed on the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality priority list in May 1975, and in November of that year, the
BCVSA Board of Directors filed a Notification of Intent to Apply for
Federal Aid with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In May 1976
a grant offer from EPA for Step 1 Facilities Planning was accepted by
the BCVSA Board of Directors. The consulting engineering firm of CH2M
Hill has recently prepared a Facilities Plan which explores alternate
methods of solving the wastewater/water quality problems which now exist
within the project area.
From late 1974 until the present, BCVSA has been negotiating with Jackson
County in relationship to the preparation of population projections for
the project area. Population projections will be discussed further in
Section II. Jurisdictional questions arose between BCVSA and the City of
Central Point due to the inclusion of the northern portion of the project
area within the proposed Central Point urban growth boundary. It is the
belief of Central Point officials that inclusion of that area within
their urban growth boundary transferred the responsibility to provide
public services to the city. BCVSA officials do not concur with that
belief, and at the present time BCVSA remains the sole grant applicant.
EPA's Environmental Responsibilities
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91-190,
requires all Federal agencies to "...utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will assure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-
making which may have an impact on man's environment..." Section 102
(2) (c) of that Act also requires the agency to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) on, "...major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment..." This is to be accomplished in
consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , established
by Title II of the Act.
One of the major EPA programs involving actions which are candidates for
EIS's is the Construction Grants Program as authorized by Title II -
Grants for Construction of Treatment Works, Section 208 (g) (1), of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), Public
Law 92500. The Act authorizes the Administrator of EPA, "...to make
grants to any state, municipality, or intermunicipal or Interstate
agency for the construction of publicly owned treatment works..." The
regional EPA offices have, in turn, been delegated the authority to fund
state-approved wastewater treatment projects.
4
-------
Concurrent with all of these authorities is the responsibility to assure
that Federal funds will produce a project which will have maximum beneficial
effects on the environment and minimum adverse effects.
The public laws quoted above, along with the CEQ and EPA regulations,
constitute the authority and responsibility for the preparation of en-
vironmenal impact statements on wastewater treatment works, or facilities
or 208 plans when deemed necessary by the regional offices of EPA.
If approved, a BCVSA proposed project for the Westside Trunk District
would be financed by a combination of Federal funds and a local financing
plan under procedures adopted as part of the local improvement district
and BCVSA authorizing legislation. In order for Federal funds to be
granted, the Environmental Protection Agency must independently review
the information submitted by BCVSA and decide whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Due to the magnitude of controversy which surrounded BCVSA1s recent South
Medford Project, and the uncertainty of population projections and city
and county planning policies for the project area, EPA determined that
an environmental impact statement for the Westside Facilities Plan was
necessary. It was determined that the EIS would be prepared using the
"piggyback" technique, i.e., that it would be prepared concurrently with
the Facilities Plan by a separately retained consulting firm.
Citizen Concerns and Issues
During the course of the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), two public involvement efforts were undertaken. The
first was a workshop planned to discuss the major land use planning and
growth policies which affect the project area. Participants in this
August 17 workshop included county and city officials, planning agency
staffs and other interested local and state agency personnel. The
second public input session was a public information meeting held September
2 within the project area. The presentation at that meeting described
the major alternatives to be evaluated in the DEIS, and presented pre-
liminary material on the effects of those various alternatives.
The following is a summary of the issues and problems raised to date:
A. Comments received from agency staffs, public officials and
local citizens have generally agreed that a water quality problem does
exist within the Westside Trunk District. The major questions raised
have related to the size of the project that is needed to solve that
problem. Some residents are concerned that provision of sanitary sewer
service will cause more growth than the area can adequately handle, or
than they desire. Other residents are concerned that growth will occur
regardless, and that without public sewers, the quality of life will be
degraded.
5
-------
B. Recognizing that some future growth would be allowed by con-
struction of a sewer trunk line, residents have asked specific questions
relating to impacts on local public services and tax rates:
- Many residents believe that a public water supply system
is as important to the area as is a public sewerage system.
All households within the Westside Trunk District are de-
pendent upon individual residential wells which vary greatly
in both water quantity and water quality. Numerous individuals
raised questions as to when a public water supply system
would be provided within the project area.
- Concern has been expressed that tax rates would increase as a
result of increased valuation to houses on public sewer systems.
- While many residents feel that the elementary school should pay its
fair share of the assessment, others are concerned that the additional
cost of operation might be a hardship to the school district.
Some residents expressed concern regarding the effect that project con-
struction would have upon conversion of agricultural land to residential
uses. A portion of the project area is currently used for productive
farm purposes, and these residents fear that project construction would
increase pressures for residential uses, making it economically unfeasible
to retain the agricultural land in its present use.
On January 4th, 1977 a formal public hearing was conducted to receive
comments on the DEIS and the Facilities Plan. Most of the comments received
at that meeting related to the issues of future population projections and
the potential conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. The
responses to those comments are included in Section IV of the FEIS.
6
-------
SECTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED TRENDS
Population Growth
The 1975 Jackson County population was estimated by the Portland State
University Center for Population Research and Census to be 110,700, an
increase of approximately 17 percent over the 1960 figure. As shown in
Table 1, Jackson County has experienced rapid growth since the 1940's,
and during the last 35 years has grown one and a half times faster than
the State of Oregon and three times faster than the United States as a
whole. As shown in Table 2, the largest growth has been occurring in
the small towns and cities within the county.
It is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the population growth
between 1960 and 1970 was a result of in-migration of residents from
other parts of Oregon and the United States.
The Westside Trunk District is included within the Central Point and
Jacksonville Census Divisions. The majority of the project area falls
within the subdivision known as Central Point West, however this portion
was not measured separately until 1970. Although population growth
figures are not available for the specific project area, a feeling for
past growth trends can be gained by an examination of the growth rates
for those two divisions. As shown in Table 3, in the period from 1960-
70 the Central Point Census Division registered a growth of 45.5 per-
cent. At the same time the City of Central Point recorded a growth of
almost 75 percent , a higher figure than any other incorporated area
within Jackson County. The Jacksonville Census Division recorded a
substantially lower growth, approximately 24 percent from 1960-70.
These trends are reflected in county building records which indicate
that the majority of the project area growth has occurred in the northern
portion (Central Point Division) as opposed to the southern portion
(Jacksonville Division).
TABLE 1
JACKSON COUNTY POPULATION 1940-1975
Population
Growth Rate from
Previous Count
1940
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
36,213
58,510
73,962
92,100
94,533
66.7%
26.4%
24.5%
2.6%
17.0%
110,700 (estimated)
Source: Bureau of the Census, 1972.
7
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARATIVE POPULATION GROWTH
1950-1970
1950
1960
% Change
50-60
1970
% Change
60-70
Jackson County
58,510
73,962
26.4%
94,533
27.8%
Unincorporated Areas
26,933
33,056
23.0%
42,403
28.0%
Incorporated Areas
31,577
40,906
30.0%
52,130
27.0%
Medford
17,305
24,425
41.1%
28,454
16.5%
Ashland
7,739
9,119
17.8%
12,342
35.8%
Central Point
1,667
2,289
37.3%
4,004
74.9%
Phoenix
746
769
0.03%
1,287
67.4%
Eagle Point
607
752
0.24%
1,241
65.0%
Talent
739
868
17.0%
1,389
60.5%
Source: Southern Oregon College, Regional Development Center.
TABLE 3
SELECTED JACKSON COUNTY CENSUS SUBDIVISIONS
POPULATION GROWTH 1960-1970
1960
1970
% Change
Central Point Division
8,679
12,629
45.5
Central Point City
2,289
4,004
74.9
Central Point West
(part)
-
1,261
-
Jacksonville Division
5,898
7,282
23.5
Central Point West
(part)
-
727
-
Jacksonville City
1,172
1,611
37.5
Medford West
-
3,919
-
South Medford
-
272
-
Source: Southern Oregon College, Regional Development Center
8
-------
On the basis of aerial photographic analysis, the Facilities Plan has
calculated 575 homes and 1900 people (based on 3.3 people per household)
within the project area in 1970. While the project area does not corre-
spond exactly with any census units, a review of that data does confirm
the general figures.
The Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census
has recently completed 1975 population estimates for Jackson County
cities. According to these figures, shown in Table 4, the cities of
Eagle Point and Talent have both recorded growth in excess of 80 percent
during that five year period. In fact, Eagle Point has almost doubled
its 1970 population. The City of Central Point, on the other hand,
recorded a growth of 38 percent for that period, which is comparable
with the 75 percent growth that the city experienced during the ten
years from 1960 to 1970.
TABLE 4
COMPARATIVE GROWTH 1970-1975
1970
1975
Percent
Increase
Jackson County
94,533
110,700
17%
Central Point
4,004
5,530
38%
Eagle Point
1,241
2,460
98%
Phoenix
1,287
1,620
26%
Talent
1,389
2,420
74%
Source: Portland State University,
Center for Population Research and Census
Population Characteristics
The passage of the Donation Land Claims Act in 1850 brought many settlers
to the Westside area where both town and farming communities were esta-
blished. The City of Central Point was founded in the late 1860's and
was the focal point for the Westside rural farming community. Farming
was the major activity within the project area until the Jackson County
population boom which began in the 1940's. Since that time large farm
parcels have been partitioned into subdivisions and five acre "hobby"
farms to accommodate the growing number of Jackson County residents.
9
-------
The Westside Trunk District still consists of two separate communities,
however — the suburban residential community adjacent to the Central
Point city limits, and the rural residential-farming community to the
south and west. The recently developed home sites along the lower
foothills are representive of neither of these communities, but rather
are large lot developments catering to Jackson County's higher Income
residents who wish secluded, forested, view lots in close proximity to
the Medford urban area.
No census data exist for the specific geographic area of the Westside
Trunk District. However, based on interviews with local residents and
research of recent Jackson County census data, it is apparent that the
northern suburban portions of the project area closely parallel Central
Point and Jackson County population characteristics, while the southern,
rural portions parallel Jackson County rural non-farm population charac-
teristics. Therefore, Central Point, Jackson County and Jackson County
rural non-farm census data are used to describe the basic population
characteristics of the Westside Trunk District residents.
o Age
As shown in Table 5, Jackson County rural non-farm residents are slightly
older than the Jackson County average. The rural non-farm areas, such
as the southern portion of the project area, are characterized by a
lower percentage of young families in the 20 to 39 year age group and a
higher percentage of families in the 40 to 59 year group. This is
evident within the project area, as the suburban residential areas close
to Central Point appear to draw many young families as compared with the
older family units found in the rural residential, farm and foothills
developments.
TABLE 5
AGE DISTRIBUTION 1970
Age
Group
Jackson Co.
Rural Non-farm
Number %
Jackson Co.
Overall
Number %
State of
Oregon
Number %
0-19
13,283
36.7%
34,400
36.5%
773,922
37%
20-39
7,888
21.8%
23,200
24.6%
522,400
25%
40-59
9,028
25.0%
21,600
22.9%
473,306
22.6%
60+
5,974
16.5%
15,500
16.0%
321,757
15.4%
Total
35,173
100%
94,300
100%
2,091,385
100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 1972
10
-------
o Income
The area adjacent to Central Point is characterized by a large percentage
of middle income families, with corresponding lower percentages of both
the very low and very high income families. This closely parallels the
belief that Central Point and its adjacent suburbs are attracting families
of skilled blue-collar workers, and entry level management and professional
personnel. The rural non-farm areas of Jackson County, as evidenced in
the rural portions of the Westside Trunk District, show a wider divergence
between income levels, with more families at both the bottom and the top
of the scale as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6
COMPARATIVE INCOME DISTRIBUTION
1970
Jackson Co.
Rural Non-Farm
Number %
Central Point
Number
Jackson Co.
Overall
Number %
Less than
$4,999
5,000-
9,999
10,000-
14,999
Over
15,000
Total
2,413 25.3%
3,828 40.2%
2,235 23.4%
1,056 11.1%
9,532 100%
160 15.0%
513 48.3%
312 29.4$
78 7.3%
1,063 100%
5,886 23.7%
9,536 38.4%
6,090 24.5%
3,347 13.4%
24,859 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 1972
o Occupation
Table 7 illustrates the major occupational groups for Central Point,
Jackson County, and the rural non-farm portions of Jackson County.
Although Central Point residents exhibit substantially higher numbers of
professional, management, sales and clerical occupations than do the
rural non-farm residents of the county, those occupational levels still
fall below the over-all county figures. Again, it is apparent that
Central Point is characterized by skilled blue collar workers (as evidenced
by the lower level of laborers), as well as by management, sales and
clerical personnel.
11
-------
TABLE 7
COMPARATIVE OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION
(1970)
Professional &
Management
Sales & Clerical
•Craftsmen &
Operatives
Farmers & Farm
Managers
Jackson Co.
Rural Non-Farm
Number %
1,506 19.9%
869 11.5%
3,369 44.6%
105 1.4%
Laborers (including
farm) 1,280 16.9%
Service Workers
Total
433 5.7%
Central Point
Number %
313 23.3%
254 18.9%
493 36.7%
7,562 100%
135 10.0%
148 11.1%
1,343 100%
Jackson County
Overall
Number %
7,438 23.3%
7,655 23.8%
8,940 27.8%
508 1.5%
3,277 10.3%
4,285 13.3%
32,103 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Census.
Economic Base
The Jackson County economy is strongly based on its natural resources,
primarily timber and agriculture. The wood products industry asserts a
strong influence on all areas of Jackson County employment and directly
or indirectly supports 80 percent of the county's manufacturing jobs as
measured in 1970. This emphasis on wood products makes the Jackson
County employment base highly dependent upon national economic cycles;
for example, in January 1975 when unemployment for the State of Oregon
was climbing towards 7 percent, the comparable figure for Jackson County
was 10 percent.
The county's economy has experienced a period of rapid growth in the
last 20 to 25 years. Whereas the economic base of the 1950's was closely
tied to the primary production and harvesting of resources such as
timber and agricultural products, recent employment gains have been in
the areas of secondary processing, such as wood fiber manufacturing, and
tourism, trade and services. The most substantial changes have been the
decrease of employment in timber and wood products manufacturing, and
the increases in trade and service employment.
12
-------
An area's economic base can be defined as those goods and services which
are produced within a community, but are consumed by residents of other
communities. The critical factor is that the basic industry generates,
or brings, income into an area, rather than merely redistributing the
existing local income. Within Jackson County, the historical economic
base has been primarily dependent upon wood products and agriculture —
commodities which have been grown and harvested locally, and sold in
national and international markets. Recent growth in the wood products
industry has resulted from increased processing within the county; that
is, an increasing amount of rough timber is now being converted into the
final product in Jackson County manufacturing plants, rather than being
transported to other manufacturing centers for final processing. Al-
though this increase in local processing has caused a recent increase in
employment in the lumber and wood products area, overall employment in
that field has decreased from 15 percent of the 1960 labor force to less
than 10 percent of the 1975 labor force. A comparable decline has also
been recorded in the agriculture and food processing industries.
Agriculture is the major economic activity occurring within the Westside
Trunk District. A variety of agricultural crops including pears, seed
crops, wheat, grains, forage and irrigated pasture are produced. It is
estimated that of the 5,400 acres within the project area, approximately
1,000 acres are managed for independent farm income. Throughout much of
the project area, however, land has been parceled into small lots which
precludes farming on a profitable scale. As has been the case throughout
Jackson County, agricultural use within the project area has been declining
rapidly over the past 20 years. This decline is expected to continue at
a somewhat slower rate over the next 5 to 10 years until the marginally
productive land is removed from farming use.
In contrast to the decline in the importance of basic manufacturing,
Jackson County has rapidly become an exporter of retail trade services.
The increase in tourism over the past 15 years has caused rapid growth
in seasonal retail trade. In addition, the county has come to serve
as a regional service center to most of southern Oregon and parts of
northern California. Thus, the rapid growth in the areas of finance,
insurance, real estate and services which was evidenced between 1960 and
1975.
Although Jackson County has experienced expansion in retail trade and
services, primary manufacturing and employment has been declining as a
proportion of the total civilian labor force. The importance of the
county's basic resources — timber and agriculture — has been declining
and as yet no significant industrial growth has occurred to offset this
loss.
Population Projections
Numerous population projections have been prepared for Jackson County as
shown on Figure 2 . Each of these studies has projected population to a
13
-------
different base year and has used different assumptions about the county's
future growth. The following paragraphs review these projections:
FIGURE 2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
o Jackson County (Bear Creek Area Transportation Study)
The Jackson County Planning Department recently prepared an update to
the population projection which was prepared in the 1964 Bear Creek Area
Transportation study- This projection is based on an anaylsis of spatial
population distribution within the county as well as housing, population,
employment and income characteristics. It is assumed that growth within
the primary economic sectors will lag behind growth in population, and
therefore that slow economic growth will be a downward constraint on
population growth. The result of this study is a projection of approxi-
mately 170,000 residents in Jackson County by the year 2000.
o Oregon State Highway Department
The Oregon State Highway Department has prepared population projections
for Jackson County which project a year 2000 population of 212,454, or
approximately double the current population. This is the highest
14
-------
level of growth indicated by any of the projections and assumes an annual
growth rate of over 3 percent from 1975 to 1990, declining to 2 percent
in the period from 1990 to 2000. Based on an actual estimated 1975
population of 110,700 (compared with the State Highway projection of
117,500 for that year), this set of projections appears to be too high.
o Oregon State Employment Service
The Oregon State Employment Service prepared population projections
based on past growth and employment. As shown on Figure 2, these projections
are slightly higher than those prepared by the Jackson County Planning
Department, projecting a year 2000 population of approximately 190,000.
Although this projection remains fairly close to county projections
through 1980, the growth rates begin to diverge more rapidly at that
point. This difference occurs due to the county's assumption that
growth rates will decrease during the latter part of the century because
of decreased job availability.
o Pacific Northwest Bell
In April 1976, Pacific Northwest Bell published Population & Household
Trends, Washington, Oregon and Northern Idaho which contained population
forecasts by county for the period from 1975 to 1990. Although this
study assumed that growth would continue in Jackson County, it projected
future growth at a somewhat lower rate than the previously mentioned
studies. The Pacific Northwest Bell report assumed a 1975 population of
110,000, which is approximately 10,000 below the Population and Census
Division estimated 1975 level. The study then projected a future annual
growth rate of 2.51 percent from 1975 to 1980 tapering to 1.87 percent
1980 to 1990. If projected to 2000, these growth rates would yield a
total county population of approximately 155,000.
TABLE 8
JACKSON COUNTY PROJECTED ANNUAL GROWTH RATES
Source
Growth
Rate
1970-75
Growth
Rate
1975-80
Growth
Rate
1980-85
1985
Proj ected
Population
Oregon State
Highway Depart.
4.48
3.28
2.50
156,314
Oregon State
Employment Serv.
Bear Creek Area
Transportation
Study (update) 1.90 (actual)
Pacific Northwest
Bell 1.34
Southern Oregon
College 1.90
141,000
132,000
2.51 1.86 125,500
1.76 1.61 122,928
15
-------
Table 8 compares the 1985 projection for each of the above sources and
details the growth rates upon which each projection is based. The pro-
jected annual growth rates vary widely from a high of 4.48 percent to a
low of 1.34 percent. Based on a calculation of annual growth rates in
Jackson County from 1950 to 1970, growth rates have ranged from a high
of 7.68 percent in 1955-1956 to a low of -4.31 percent (population loss)
in 1957-1958. During this twenty year period the average annual growth
rate was 2.46 percent. If this historic figure is used as a trend and
projected to the future, population levels are attained as indicated in
Table 9. Few people would support the notion that historic growth is an
indicator of future growth, but it does provide a point of comparison.
TABLE 9
FUTURE POPULATION LEVELS FOR JACKSON
COUNTY BASED ON A PROJECTION OF HISTORIC
GROWTH RATES 2.46 %
Year
Population
1970*
94,533*
1975
106,750
1980
120,540
1990
153,700
2000
195,980
* Actual
In addition to the population projections prepared by planning agencies
and private businesses, each community within Jackson County has prepared
a population projection to the year 2000. These city projections combined
with projections for the unincorporated areas in the county total 191,000
or approximately 20,000 more residents than were estimated by the Jackson
County Department of Planning & Development. Census division projections
prepared by Jackson County are compared with city projections in Table
10. It is important to note that census divisions include large areas
adjacent to the cities, while city projections include only the land
that would be within corporate city limits by 2000.
TABLE 10
COMMUNITY POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Jackson County
County Census Division City Projection
Census Division Projection Year 2000 Year 2000
Central Point 26,000 13,200
Jacksonville 12,250 2,500
16
-------
The projections listed in Table 10 indicate the following overall growth
for the period 1975 to 2000:
Central Point Division 105%
City of Central Point 230%
Jacksonville Division 68%
City of Jacksonville 55%
If these growth projections were applied to the Westside Trunk District
they could yield a year 2000 projection ranging from a high of 7,260 to
a low of 3,410.
The Facilities Plan, based on a calculation of growth between 1954 and
1971 for the project area, has projected an average annual growth rate
of 4.5 percent to the year 2026. Such a projection yields the population
levels shown in Table 11. This projection does not reflect present or
future land use plans, but merely projects past local growth rates into
the future.
TABLE 11
FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTIONS
FOR THE PROJECT AREA
Year
Population
1970
1,900
1975
2,000
1980
2,500
1990
3,900
2000
6,300
2010
9,600
2026*
17,300
* The year 2026 is used as a target year in the Facilities
Plan because of the assumed 50 year project life.
In response to a request from the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority,
the Jackson County Department of Planning and Development prepared a
build-out capacity figure for the Westside Trunk District. By applying
existing Jackson County zoning densities to the areas expected to remain
under county jurisdiction and the Central Point Comprehensive Plan
densities to the areas which are expected to be annexed to Central
Point, county planners were able to establish the total capacity for the
project area. Based on those assumptions, a future population of 8,959
was received. This figure does not attempt to project how many people
will desire to live within the project area, how rapidly such growth
might occur, nor does it attempt to establish the "carrying capacity" of
the land; it merely takes existing zoning and comprehensive plans and
records the population capacity allowable under those current policies.
This figure is subject to change as the applicable comprehensive plans
and zoning ordinances are reviewed and revised. On the basis of those
calculations, the design population for the proposed project was established
at 9,000.
17
-------
Land Use Plans and Policies
The existing land use patterns within the Westside Trunk District are
shown on Figure 3. Historically, the primary land use within the
project area has been agricultural. As growth has occurred throughout
Jackson County, many of the area's marginal farming units have been
partitioned into housing subdivisions, one to five-acre rural residential
home sites, and five to ten acre "hobby" farms.
The project area is characterized by two separate land use patterns.
The northern portion adjacent to Central Point is suburban in nature,
and generally consists of medium density suburban-type subdivisions, and
roadside housing. As indicated on Figure 3, roadside housing is
prevalent throughout the project area, and usually results in houses
being constructed on the major roads, while the interior land either
remains vacant, or is used for pasture. The southern portion of the
project area is more rural in nature, and contains most of the project
area's productive farm land. Small nodes of low-density subdivisions
occur in the southern portion in the vicinity of the Westside Elementary
School. The remainder of the southern portion is characterized by large
lot housing in the foothills, and a mix of productive and "hobby" farm
units along the valley floor.
The majority of the land within the project area has been divided into
parcels of less than ten acres. Along the valley floor, most of the
remaining large tracts (over 40 acres) are in productive agricultural
use. It is generally believed that, for the most part, the marginal
farming operations have already been converted to non-farm uses. On
that basis, ic appears that the remaining large farm units are econo-
mically stable.
One of the largest single portions of land within the project area, the
260-acre Elk Farm located along Ross and Hanley Roads, has recently been
purchased by the United States Forest Service for use as a tree nursery.
That purchase essentially commits the land to a long-term agricultural
use which is not dependent upon farm economic conditions. The Forest
Service expects to begin planting in 1979, and 25 million seedlings will
be harvested annually beginning in 1981.
Property ownership within the project area is fairly diverse north of
Ross Lane and is characterized by home sites and small farming units.
Excluding the Forest Service land, the largest single ownership parcel
on the valley floor north of Ross Lane is the dairy farm along Taylor
Road west of Grant Road, and the large parcel at the southeast corner of
Hanley Road and Beall Lane.
18
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
On the valley floor south of Ross Lane, property ownership lies with two
old-time families, the Hanleys and the Niedermeyers. The Hanley property
is currently in grain crops and pasture, and the family has stated that
they are committed to the continued farming of the land (2). The
Niedermeyer land is individually owned by many members of that family,
and at least one parcel has been converted to residential use.
Ownership patterns within the foothills are varied. A portion of the
western foothills is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, while
the remainder is in private ownership, with the exception of two quarry
sites which are under Jackson County ownership. At one time large
portions of the foothills were in single ownerships, but most of the
land has since been sold in three to five-acre parcels for rural homesite
development. A number of AO-acre parcels still remain in the western
portions of the foothills, west of Military Road.
Land use within the Westside Trunk District is guided by plans and
policies on the state, county and city level. The State of Oregon
planning goals and guidelines, the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan,
and the City of Central Point urban growth boundary each will affect
future land use within the project area.
o State of Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
During 1973, the Oregon Legislature adopted Senate Bill 100 (ORS Chapter
197) which provided for the coordination of local comprehensive plans to
state standards and review. The Act established the Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC) and directed that commission to adopt
state wide planning goals and guidelines by January 1, 1975. Goals and
guidelines were adopted at that time with the legislative directive that
they be used by state agencies, cities, counties and special districts
in preparing, adopting, revising and implementing their comprehensive
plans. These plans and any ordinances or regulations implementing the
plans were to have complied with the statewide planning goals by January
1, 1976. Time extensions have been granted to all jurisdictions within
Jackson County, because they have shown that they are making satisfactory
progress towards bringing their comprehensive plans into conformance
with LCDC goals.
19
-------
Four of the twelve planning goals have particular applicability to the
project area and the analysis of the Westside Trunk District Facilities
Plan. Each of these four is detailed below.
Goal ti3, Agricultural Land
Goal #3 is "to preserve and maintain agricultural land." The goal
states that agricultural land shall be preserved and maintained for farm
use, and that conversion from rural and agricultural land to urbanizable
land should be based upon social, economic, environmental and energy
considerations. One of these considerations is that Class I, II, III and
IV soils in western Oregon should be retained in farm use ( 3).
Goal #6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
This goal is to "maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and
land resources of the state." The goal requires that "all waste discharges
from future development, when combined with discharges from existing
development, shall not threaten to violate applicable state or environ-
mental quality statutes, rules and standards (4)."
Goal #11, Public Facilities and Services
The public facilities and services goal is "to plan and develop a timely,
orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for urban and rural development." The goal requires
that the provision of public services should be closely tied with local
land use designations, and that comprehensive plans and public services
should work together to reach the desired local goal. In addition, the
goal states that "urban and rural development shall be guided and supported
by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services
appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the
urban, urbanizable and rural areas to be served. ( 5)."
Goal #14, Urbanization
The urbanization goal requiries local comprehensive plans "to provide
for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use."
In order to achieve this, the goal requires that "urban growth boundaries
shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from
rural land." Establishment of these boundaries is to be based upon such
factors as population growth requirements, need for housing, provision
of public services and retention of Class I through IV agricultural
lands ( 6 ).
Revisions to both the Jackson County and Central Point comprehensive
plans must comply with the above described goals.
20
-------
o Jackson County County Comprehensive Plan
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in June 1972; while
the implementing zoning ordinance was adopted in April 1973. These
were the first such plan and ordinance to be prepared and adopted by the
county. The Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the Westside
Trunk District are illustrated in Figure 4 . The zoning ordinance
described these designations as follows:
Open space development: Land in the open space development regions
is available for use as improved residential rural development sites.
This zone is limited to five-acre minimum parcel sizes.
Agriculture: The agricultural designation on the Comprehensive
Plan map includes the zoning designations of "Exclusive Farm" and "Farm-
s'1. Both of these zones require five-acre minimum lot sizes. Under the
existing Comprehensive Plan, land is placed within an exclusive farm use
zone at the request of the property owner. This designation provides
specific tax advantages while the property continues in farm use. If
the owner desires to convert the land into more intensive uses, a tax
penalty is applied to the land.
Rural Residential: The rural residential areas occur along the
lower portion of the foothills west of Old Stage Road. The purpose of
this classification is to encourage homesite development in an agri-
cultural or rural environment which minimizes potental conflicts between
agricultural and residential uses. Parcel sizes are based primarily on
the physical characteristics of the land, and may range from one to
five-acre minimums. The rural residential area within the Westside
Trunk District requires five-acre minimum lot sizes due to the inability
of the soils to efficiently accept septic tank effluent. The designation
assumes that community water and sewer systems will not be provided in
the near future.
Suburban Residential: The suburban residential classification on
the Comprehensive Plan coincides with the rural residential minimum 2^
acre lot size designation on the county zoning map. The purpose of this
zone is similar to the rural residential zone, but the county recognizes
that public services could be provided to these locations during the
planning period, hence the 2% acre minimum lot size. The areas of
suburban residential classification occur around the residential nodes
adjacent to Central Point and in the vicinity of the Westside Elementary
School.
Jackson County is currently revising its Comprehensive Plan to bring it
into compliance with LCDC goals. It is also the county's responsibility
to coordinate the development of urban growth boundaries with each of
the cities within the county. The City of Central Point's tentative
urban growth boundary includes a portion of the project area, and Jackson
County has recently proposed to the City a work process which would
provide for joint review of that boundary and the adoption of the necessary
implementing land use designations and ordinances. The city has not yet
accepted that work process, and resolution of the urban growth boundary
is awaiting their action.
21
-------
In addition to revising county policy and potential land use designations
as they apply to urban growth boundaries, Jackson County may also revise
policies as they relate to rural areas of the county. The planning de-
partment expects that the urbanization and agricultural preservation
goals of the comprehensive plan will be completed within the next year.
Land use designations within the Westside Trunk District will not be
finalized until that time. It is possible that land use designations
within the project area could receive some minor revisions, since county
officials have indicated that increased densities adjacent to Central
Point and along Old Stage Road may be desirable.
As mentioned previously, the Jackson County Department of Planning and
Development prepared a build-out capacity figure for the Westside Trunk
District based on existing Central Point and Jackson County plan designations.
According to that calculation, if the project area were developed to the
maximum extent allowed by those plans, its population capacity would be
8,959.
o Central Point Comprehensive Plan
In December 1975, the City of Central Point adopted a revision to its
1973 Comprehensive Plan. This revised Comprehensive Plan was submitted
to LCDC goals. The staff of LCDC recommended that compliance for the
area outside the current city limits be denied on the basis that portions
of the Comprehensive Plan required additional clarification, and that
proper coordination between Jackson County, BCVSA and Central Point had
not occurred relative to the city's urban growth boundary.
Since June of this year, Central Point has been revising its Comprehensive
Plan in response to the LCDC staff comments. A revised urban growth
boundary has been suggested which encompasses substantially less land to
the north and east than did the original boundary. This boundary has
received the tentative approval of both the Central Point and Jackson
County Planning Commissions. The portion of the Westside Trunk District
which is included within this revised urban growth boundary is shown on
Figure 5.
The Central Point Comprehensive Plan establishes as its major goal "to
seek improvement of the existing urban environment while planning for
the logical expansion of urban uses which are consistent with the needs
created by the growth and development of the city." The city recognizes
that it is basically a bedroom community serving the north Medford and
White City industrial areas, and hopes to maintain that role. As discussed
previously, the city has projected a year 2000 population of 13,200
residents within the city limits, which are expected to expand to fill a
larger portion of the lands within the urban growth boundary.
The Central Point Comprehensive Plan designations for the area within
the Westside Trunk District are shown on Figure 5. The plan divides
the area into two classifications: medium density and low density
22
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
residential. The medium density classification occurs adjacent to and
west of the existing Central Point City limits, while the low density
areas are shown as occurring farther to the west and slightly south
of the medium density portions. The Comprehensive Plan states that the
desired density within medium density residential areas is four to eight
dwelling unitsfper acre, or approximately 12 to 24 people per acre,
assuming 3.0 people per household. With the provision of public sewer
and water service, the Comprehensive Plan allows 20,000 square foot lots
within the low density residential areas. This density of approximately
two dwelling units per acre yields approximately six people per acre. The
City of Central Point has projected these land uses based on the assumption
that both public sewer and water will be provided to both areas. They
believe that sewerage service will be provided by either the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority, or the City itself, and that public water will
be provided as those areas annex to the city.
Public Facilities and Services
Streets, schools, sewer and water services within the project area are
provided by a mix of general and special service governmental units as
well as individual households. Sewer and water systems are provided on
a lot by lot basis by the individual property owners. The remainder of
the services, including streets and schools, are provided by local govern-
ment units supported through property taxes. Within the project area 1975
tax rates ranged between $21.03 and $22.87 per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation. Within the City of Central Point, 1975 tax rates varied between
$23.16 and $24.53.
The Jackson County Assessor's Office has indicated that septic tank suit-
ability can affect the tax rate applied to a parcel of vacant land. If
the parcel is found to be unsuitable for a septic tank, and as a result
cannot be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, the
Assessor's office may grant a 25 percent reduction on the taxes for that
vacant parcel.
The following paragraphs describe the existing level of public services
within the Westside Trunk District.
o Sewer
No public sewer service exists within the project area, therefore all
households are served by individual septic tank and drain field systems.
The Jackson County Sanitarian's office estimates that approximately 50
percent of all requests for septic tank permits within the project area
are denied on the basis of Inadequate soils suitability. In addition,
as described in following chapters, there have been numerous reports of
failing septic tanks. The county has maintained a file on the Westside
Elementary School due to potentially inefficient operation of the school's
septic tank and drainfield which has reportedly resulted in the surfacing
of effluent on adjacent property. The Sanitarian's office also reported
that approximately 20 to 25 cases of failing or inefficiently operating
23
-------
septic tanks have been investigated within the project area (7). This
area is within the Westside Trunk District and could be served by
this project.
Recent testing of the streams and irrigation canals within^the project
area has found that fecal coliform levels commonly exceed state and
federal standards. Fecal coliform is a bacteria which is found in the
intestinal tracts of both humans and animals. Although the source of
the fecal coliform found in local surface waters has not been specifically
identified, inefficient and failing septic tanks are believed to be con-
tributors. Both Jackson and Griffin Creeks have been posted as public
health hazards since late spring because of high fecal coliform counts.
(A more detailed discussion of water quality within the project area can
be found on page 44.)
Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City of Central Point to
residents within the city limits. The Lower Bear Creek Interceptor
runs through Central Point along Taylor Road, ending just east of the project
area. Extension of that trunk is required in order for Central Point to
service any property it would wish to annex along its western border.
The recently annexed property shown on Figure 5 has not received city
sewer service.
Two sewage collection trunk line systems have recently been constructed
in the area west and south of Medford, and a Facilities Plan is currently
being prepared to alleviate sewerage problems in the Jacksonville area.
Construction of the first phase of the West Medford trunk line was com-
pleted in January, 1975 and included eight miles of sewer line. The West
Medford Trunk District covers 21,000 acres of land to the east, south and
southwest of the project area. Although the district boundaries extend
west of Jacksonville, the initial phase serves only the areas immediately
west of Medford. The West Medford trunk line has been sized with sufficient
capacity to serve the City of Jacksonville if that city should decide to
connect to the regional collection and treatment system. The City of
Jacksonville is currently preparing a Facilities Plan to determine how
its future wastewater collection and processing needs should be met. In
addition to the West Medford project, construction of three miles of trunk
line was recently completed in the South Medford Trunk District. This
district covers approximately 2,500 acres southwest of Medford.
Wastewater collected throughout the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
system is processed at the Medford Regional Treatment Plant. This
secondary treatment facility has a current load of approximately 7-10
million gallons per day (mgd) and a design flow of 10-15 mgd. A three
stage expansion plan is proposed which would double the capacity of the
plant by 1982-83. Treated effluent is currently released into Rogue River
although expansion plans will investigate land disposal alternatives (8).
24
-------
o Water
No public water supply exists within the project area, therefore all
households are served by individual well systems. Water availability is
sporadic throughout the project area in relationship to both location
and quantity. It is generally believed that a single family home requires
a well discharge of approximately 10 gallons per minute (gpm) in order
to supply unrestricted service. As discussed in a following chapter,
many wells within the project area are able to maintain that level of
productivity, while others cannot. Depth to water supply also varies
widely, with households along the upper foothills often forced to drill
over 200 feet in granite in order to receive an adequate water supply.
Water officials within the Medford region have indicated that the lack
of a public water supply is the major constraint to growth within the
Westside Trunk District. This is based on a belief that greatly increased
residential densities cannot be served by existing local ground water (9).
The Medford Water Commission controls the major public water supply
within the Medford urbanizing areas. With the exception of the cities
of Talent and Phoenix, all incorporated areas around Medford buy their
water from the Medford Water Commission. The Commission also sells
water to a small number of local water districts which fringe Medford.
Rogue River and Butte Springs are the major water supplies for this
system, and the Water Commission currently holds water rights sufficient
to serve a population of 250,000 people.
The Medford City Council and Water Commission have elected to use their
water service policy as a means to control urban growth. Current city
policy prohibits extension of water service beyond the existing service
area, which includes the adjacent incorporated cities and existing local
water districts. City service areas are defined by corporate boundaries
and additional water can be provided to areas that are annexed to a city
within the water commission's service area. The city will not, however,
extend service to presently unserved areas within the special service
water districts, or to new water districts. On the basis of this policy,
the only extension of water service that can occur is through the expansion
of city boundaries through annexation.
Medford officials indicate that this policy was adopted in order to
control the development that was occurring within the urban fringe
areas during the 1960's and early 1970's. At that time the city did
not believe that county planning policies were adequate to control this
growth, and therefore determined to use water policy as a growth control
mechanism ( 10 )• As the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan begins to
identify specific areas for future growth, the Water Commission has
indicated a willingness to work with the county to determine future
water service areas.
Two irrigation districts provide irrigation water within the project
area. The Rogue River Valley Irrigation District serves the northern
portion of the Westside Trunk District, while the Medford Irrigation
25
-------
District services the southern portion. District records were not able
to indicate how much land is irrigated within the project area. The
Medford Irrigation District is not able to increase water service to the
Westside area for two reasons: 1) the major irrigation canal has reached
capacity, and 2) increased water availability is unknown. Although the
Rogue River Valley Irrigation District is able to provide increased
water service to selected portions of the project area, its supplies
are also limited. It is important to note that conversion of land from a
farm use to a residential use does not alter the irrigation rights held
by that land. Irrigation rights remain with the land regardless of the
future use of the land, until such time as another land owner buys the
rights and transfers them to a separate parcel of property.
o Transportation
The county road network is the only transportation system within the
project area. Street design, existing traffic loads, and capacity esti-
mates for the major roads are shown in Table 12. In general, average
daily traffic counts have increased approximately 10% from 1972 to 1975.
The Jackson County Department of Public Works does not have a current
capital improvements program. They have indicated that street repair
occurs on an as-needed basis, and that new road construction is kept
to a minimum. They were not aware of any existing or potential traffic
pattern problems within the project area.
o Education
Two school districts — Medford and Central Point — operate schools
within the Westside Trunk District. Central Point School District
provides service to the portion of the project area that lies north of
Beall Lane, while Medford School District generally serves the area to
the south of that boundary.
Central Point students living within the project area attend Central
Point and Richardson Elementary Schools, Scenic Junior High School, and
Crater Senior High School. The 1976 fall enrollment and school building
capacity figures for those schools are shown in Table 13.
The Central Point School District serves a 250-acre area north of Medford.
Although the City of Central Point takes in only about one-third of that
area, it provides over two-thirds of the district students. According
to school district officials, there has been no coordination between the
city and the school district regarding establishment of the city's urban
growth boundary. School officials are concerned about the ability of
their facilities to handle increased numbers of students, but recognize
that some level of growth within the school district is inevitable. As
the largest single taxing unit, they feel that coordination between the
district and city growth policies is imperative.
26
-------
Road Section
TABLE 12
ROAD DESIGN, TRAFFIC LEVELS AND CAPACITY
Road Counts
Design Characteristics
1972
1973
1974
1975
Average Daily Traffic
Capacity (based on 12
hour day)
Old Stage Road
- Taylor to Beall
20
4
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
900
930
900
900
720
- Beall to Ross
24
8
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
720
740
720
740
1,440
- Ross to Military
20
10
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
870
890
890
1,000
720
- South of Military
20
10
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
800
820
820
900
720
Ross Lane
- East of Hillside
24
8
feet
feet
paved
paved shoulders
1,350
1,400
1,400
1,400
2,880
- Hillside to Hanley
24
8
feet
feet
paved
paved shoulders
1,650
1,700
1,700
1,700
2,880
Hanley Road
- Jacksonville Highway
to south of Hanley
Hill
20
12
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,700
1,440
- South of Hanley
Hill to Rossanley
22
8
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
2,200
2,250
2,250
2,700
1,440
- Rossanley to Ross
22
8
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
3,350
3,400
3,400
3,400
1,440
- Ross to Beall
22
16
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
2,300
2,350
2,350
2,350
2,880
- Beall to Central
Point City Limits
22
16
feet
feet
paved
gravel
shoulders
2,400
2,450
2,450
2,650
2,880
Source: Jackson County Department of Public Works
-------
The Medford School District operates the Westside Elementary School at
the intersection of Old Stage Road and Ross Lane. The current capacity
and enrollment of the school is approximately 170 students ranging from
grades kindergarten to sixth. Westside Elementary School is one of the
smallest elementary schools within the Medford school system. Westside
students attend McLoughlin Jr. High School and Medford High School.
Enrollment and capacity figures for those three schools are shown in
Table 13.
TABLE 13
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
1976 Enrollment Operating Capacity
Central Point School District
Richardson Elementary 397 450
Central Point Elementary 555 490
Scenic Junior High 893 750
Crater Senior High 1,050 800
Medford School District
Westside Elementary 170 172
McLoughlin Jr. High 856 960
Medford Senior High 1,529 1,845
o Recreation
With the exception of the Westside Elementary School playground, there are
no developed recreation sites within the Westside Trunk District boundaries.
Hiking and hunting are known to occur within the upper reaches of the foot-
hills, but no facilities have been developed to accommodate those uses.
28
-------
Archaeological Resources
The archaeological resources of the Bear Creek Valley south of Rogue
River are not well known since no systematic attempt has been made to
inventory this resource. Generally, surveys and subsequent excavations
in southwest Oregon have been conducted within small areas on specific
projects, so that it is difficult to evaluate the pattern or aboriginal
habitation, or to know the extent of the archaeological resources which
have survived the effects of white settlement.
Ethnographically, as well as archaeologically, little is known about the
area. It is disputed whether the territory in Bear Creek Valley belonged
to the Shasta or to the Takelma Indians at the time of the earliest
white contact. Because so little archaeological research has been done,
there is also not much known about the prehistoric inhabitants. Hopefully
these data gaps may be filled as more information becomes available.
In August 1976, an archaeological survey was prepared for the Westside
Trunk District alternative sewer alignments. The methods used in this
reconnaissance are outlined in Appendix A. The on-site survey of the
proposed project area revealed no archaeological resources. The areas
under investigation, however, have been severely altered by both agriculture
and residential development. If any archaeological resources existed
within the project aarea, they are no longer readily visible due to
these alterations. However, Bear Creek Valley and much of the project
area is an area of soil deposition, and there is a possibility that
buried archaeological sites may exist. Within three miles of this
project, buried sites have been discovered which contained clay-lined
pits, yielding valuable information about the llfeway of the native
inhabitants (11). There are no archaeological sites within the project
area on file with the State Historic Preservation Office. The Oregon
State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the archaeological
inventory prepared for this report and has determined that no adverse
effects would result from project construction. A copy of their letter
to that effect is also found in Appendix A.
Historical Resources
During August 1976 an historial survey of the project area was performed.
Specific attention was given to architectural features, since a number of
19th century residences still exist within the area. The methods which
were used in this historical survey are outlined in Appendix A. No
sites within the project area are listed in the National Register of
Historic Places or the State of Oregon Historical Inventory. Suggestions
of sites to be placed within those listings can be found later in this
report.
Jackson County was organized in January 1852, largely in response to the
tremendous influx of mining and farming interests resulting from the
discovery of gold. Additionally, southern Oregon became an important
cross roads for travelers between the Willamette Valley and the gold
fields of northern California due to the opening of the Southern Route
(Applegate Trail) in 1846.
29
-------
As originally created, Jackson County also encompassed the present day
areas of Josephine and Klamath Counties. Although the Rogue River
Valley was generally considered remote by pioneers prior to 1846, it is
believed that trappers from the Hudson's Bay Company.traversed the area
as early as the 1820's. It is certain that they did so after that
company established Fort Umpqua in 1836. It is known that in 1841 Lt.
Emmons led a detachment of the Pacific Exploring Squadron over a trail
known as the "Company Trail" which led southward towards the Sacramento
Valley.
o Roads and Transportation
In 1846 the South Road Company was formed to establish a southern route
from the Willamette Valley to Ft. Hall, Idaho. Lindsay and Jesse Applegate,
along with 13 other riders, established this route through the Rogue
River Valley, along Bear Creek and eastward along Emigrant Creek to a
crossing at the Green Springs summit. The South Road, possibly more
than any other, was responsible for opening the valley to settlement and
commerce.
In 1852 the United States government appropriated funds for the survey
and establishment of a Military Road to connect Camp Stuart south of
Jacksonville to Myrtle Creek located to the north along the South Umpqua
River. The road was constructed and used in stages, but by 1854 it was
sufficiently complete that the Territorial Government declared Military
Road a "Territorial Road." By 1874 one account has the Military Road
being used by passenger and freight stage lines, notably the Wells,
Fargo and Company Stage. In 1914 the Jackson County Board of Commissioners
declared the road the responsibility of the county road system. When a
1939 name change threatened to do away with the designation, Military
Road, citizens circulated a successful petition to preserve the historic
name.
Old Stage Road was also known as the "Valley Road" and "Old Foothills
Road." It runs parallel to much of Military Road north of Jacksonville,
but takes a route farther out into the valley. The relatively exposed
location of Old Stage Road gives an indication of the time period in
which it was built, that is, after the Indian War of 1856-57.
Ross Lane is named after John E. Ross, a well-known native of Ohio, who
relocated to the Oregon Territory as a packer, freighter, and Indian
fighter. Ross distinguished himself in the hostilities of the Rogue
Indian War and the Modoc War (1872). In 1866, he was elected to the
Oregon State Legislature.
Hanley Road, also sometimes referred to as the Jacksonville - Central
Point Highway, is named after the Hanley family, who are long time
residents of the area. Michael Hanley secured a Donation Land Claim in
the area after the Act of 1850. The Hanley farm still exists at the
southern end of the project area, and has been designated a "Century
Farm" by the Oregon Historical Society.
30
-------
Beall Lane is named for R. V. Beall, a native of Maryland who emigrated
to the Oregon Territory. He became a locally well-known farmer and pack
train operator.
o Community History
In December 1851, or January 1852, two packers — Cluggage and Poole —
discovered placer gold in Jacksonville. Overnight the site became a
boom town camp, creating the first community within the Rogue River
Valley. Within two months over 1,000 men were working the nearby streams.
It was this impetus which promoted the creation of wagon train traffic
into and out of the valley.
Jackson County was established in 1852 and Jacksonville was named as the
county seat. In 1927, county government was moved to Medford, five
miles to the east, for as Jacksonville's fortunes waned, Medford's
increased. In 1855 the Oregon and California Railroad Company laid
tracks through the valley near Stewart Creek (Bear Creek) instead of
running through Jacksonville, as was expected. Two years later the line
connected in Ashland and formed a link-up with the California and Oregon
Railroad, forerunner of the Southern Pacific Railroad. This local
version of Promontory Point marked an historic beginning for the valley's
economic growth and rang the death knell for Jacksonville as a trade
center and political power.
The first commercial pear orchards were started in 1883, and by 1906 were
doing exceptionally well. Because of this agricultural importance,
Medford became the trade center of the valley. In the first decade of
the century the city boasted 15 miles of sewer lines, and led the nation
in the number of automobiles per capita.
Central Point began as the crossroads between Jacksonville on the south,
and Fort Lane near Table Rock on the north. One account places the
community's beginning at 1868, although the town did not warrant a post
office of its own until 1872. Enterprising merchants found an opportunity
to set up businesses at the crossroads to serve buyers traveling from
the upper Rogue River Valley and Eagle Point to Jacksonville. For such,
travelers, the ability to purchase goods at Central Point represented a
savings of six miles of travel. The town of Central Point was incorporated
in 1889.
The Donation Land Claims Act of 1850 did much to promote the settling of
Bear Creek Valley. By this enactment Congress permitted each eligible
male a grant of 320 acres (640 if filing with a spouse), provided that
the claimant lived on the property and farmed it regularly. Within the
Westside Trunk District a number of Donation Land Claims were filed.
The Donation Land Claims Act encouraged farmers to settle in the valley
where their crops found a ready market with the mining population.
Mining continued to be an important economic part of the valley's development
31
-------
well into the 1880's, and between 1856 and 1880, Jackson County recorded
over 5000 mining claims. The Jacksonville District alone had 1,463
claims during that period.
Within the proposed Westside Trunk District, agriculture was and, to an
extent, is the chief economic activity. Therefore the area's architecture
and history reflect more than a century of farming activity. The area
has been cultivated since the days of the Donation Land Claims Act of
1850.
o Sites of Historical Interest
The following sites of historical interest are located on Figure 6.
1. Grant Road Barn
This large wooden barn is sheathed in board and batten, and
bears a gabled, hipped roof with lesser center gables located
front and back. A handsomely proportioned structure, this
building figures in local lore as having been part of a grand-
stand structure for a race track which once existed in the
adjacent fields. Local residents identified the area as a
place where fairs and races were held at the turn of the
century. Nothing physical remains of the track except the
curving property lines visible on Figure 6.
2. Sears Site, Southwest corner of Beall and Freeland
Local lore reports that Granville Sears built his original
Donation Land Claim cabin on this site. The lot is now occupied
by a structure built in the 1940's.
3. Aaron Chambers House
The farm house located at 2602 Hanley Road was built by Aaron
Chambers in 1855. It appears to be the oldest extant structure
within the project area, and one of the oldest in Jackson
County. Aaron Chambers occupied the land in 1853 and built
the present house in 1855. He applied for a Donation Land
Claim in 1857 using a survey plat prepared in 1853. The house
itself is a story and a half frame structure with a gable
roof, lap siding and has a covered porch on the west side.
The porch columns utilize sawn wooden brackets.
The succession of owners of the house and property reads like
a "Who's Who" of early Jacksonville. The partnership of
Beltman and Reames once owned the property, having acquired it
from the sheriff for back taxes. Among others, the prominent
Jacksonville families of both the Love's and the Burcell's
owned the property. Victor Burcell was elected Jackson
32
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
County Commissioner in 1920, and served for a total of eight
years. Local historians claim that the county's first paved
asphalt road was located in Hanley Road, in front of the
commissioner's property.
The structure's antiquity and its historical associations make
the Chambers House an outstanding historical feature within
the project area. It is recommended that the Aaron Chambers
House be considered as appropriate for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
4. Newhall House
According to the present owner, this house is the third built
by A. S. Newhall and was constructed in 1907. The other two
residences were constructed immediately south of this house.
The house itself is a large, two story structure with a full
basement. It has a complex roof system which utilizes shed
dormer roofs and gables. The lower half of the house is
sheathed in alternating narrow and wide lap siding, while the
upper floor is wood shingle. The house reflects the eccentricity
of its owner as well as his talents. Newhall used ten-inch
steel beams in the framing of the second level and a form of
reinforced concrete is employed in the outside decks. The
windows open outward, while the window screens roll up out of
sight into the exterior walls. Although the house includes
approximately 5,000 square feet of floor space, in its original
form it did not have a kitchen. The house has been ransacked
of its original lamps and mouldings, but the interior still
retains such features as terra cotta tile fireplaces, curved
stairs, and a massive exterior door with wrought iron hinges.
5. Newhall Kitchen
This residence, located south of the Newhall House, served as
the kitchen for the main house and the residence of the hired
hands. The building is almost totally hidden from view due to
a heavy growth of trees and shrubbery.
6. McCredie House
This house was built in 1908 on the site of an earlier house
which had burned. The earlier structure was reportedly built
in 1866, probably by Newhall, who constructed the two residences
immediately north of this house. The house is a large, two
story wood frame structure which employs sfeveral classical
revival motifs. This property represents the northern boundary
of the land being purchased by the U. S. Forest Service for
future use as a tree nursery.
33
-------
7.
Old Stage Road Residence (1890)
This two story frame structure employs some of the same
classical revival elements as the house to the north, but was
built 18 years earlier in 1890. Although it was originally a
handsome structure, it is now badly deteriorated.
8. Old Stage Road Residence (1903)
This residence is similar in attributes to the preceding
houses, but is in much better condition. The story and a
half wood frame house has strong classical revival elements.
The houses listed along Old Stage Road offer strong architectural simi-
larities and reinforcements to each other, and should be considered for
state inventory listing for this reason. In addition to the above
reviewed structures, the project area includes two historically important
roads — Military Road and Old Stage Road.
34
-------
Climate
The project area experiences a moderate climate, with annual rainfall
averaging about 21 inches and a temperature mean of 53° F. The growing
season is typically 170 days in length, from April 30 to October 16
inclusive. Summer months are dry, sunny, and warm with precipitation
stemming primarily from thunderstorms. Temperatures during the summer
reach highs of 90° F, with occasional highs of 100° F. These summer
highs are characteristically associated with a low humidity condition
which draws cool air down to the valley floor at night. This action
encourages a favorable shifting and "cleansing" of the airshed. Summer
thunderstorms can develop gusts up to 40-50 miles per hour, coming from
any direction.
The fall through spring months are damp, cloudy, and cool, accounting
for 90 percent of the annual precipitation. Snowfall is generally
light, rarely collecting for more than 24 hours at the lower elevations.
The average daily minimum temperature during December and January is
slightly below freezing, although the minimum will rarely be less than
0° F. High velocity winter winds occur when storms off the northern
California coast produce Chinook winds that often reach levels of 50 mph
and occasionally 70 mph. During the winter months a cold layer of air
will often sit on the valley floor, with temperature increases coinciding
with altitudinal increases. This type of air stratification is known as
an inversion, and can literally stop all air movement within the Medford
area. This phenomenon causes thick fog blankets to cover the project
area for 2-3 days at a time during the winter season, and greatly inhibits
the dispersal of suspended air pollution particulates.
Air Quality
Although the airshed of the Medford area has historically experienced
little chemical pollution, suspended particulate matter periodically
exceeds federal and state air quality standards. These Federal and
State Air Pollution Control Standards are violated when particulate
matter exceeds 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ugm^) of air over a 24
hour time period. Concentrations in excess of 150 micrograms per cubic
meter have been recorded each year since the Medford Airport monitoring
program was adopted in 1969. The number of violations has not shown a
definite trend, however, as 1975 recorded seven days of violation,
whereas 1969 recorded 11 days of violation. Table 14 shows results of
the monitoring program for 1969 - 1975.
A recent air quality test program, which was started in August 1976,
has indicated that levels of photochemical oxidents and carbon monoxide
both occasionally exceed acceptable state standards. Motor vehicles are
the primary source of photochemical oxidents while chemical processing
and the wood products industry are listed as the second largest source.
35
-------
TABLE 14
AMBIENT AIR SAMPLING 1969-1975 FOR PARTICULATES
Annual
Mean
3
ugmJ
Minimum
Recorded
Maximum
Recorded
Days in !
150
1969
NA
32
301
11
1970
76.6
16
209
13
1971
78.9
21
226
5
1972
83.4
23
207
7
1973
69.9
33
183
3
1974
95.9
23
303
5
1975
71.7
22
228
7
Source: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Because of the peculiar topography of the valley, strong inversions
develop during the winter months. The same cold air mass and subsequent
inversions that encourage fog in December and January, also trap sus-
pended particulates in the static air. The air quality standards viola-
tions for particulate matter typically occur between November and January,
with the month of January experiencing the highest annual particulate
counts. During the spring through fall months, air movements provide
sufficient ventilation to prevent the build-up of particulates that commonly
occurs during the winter months.
The potential for further air quality degradation in this area is,
considered "serious". An analysis of the particulate matter, conducted
by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, revealed that the wood
products industry is the largest single contributor to suspended particulate
matter. If the wood products industry, or industries of similar air
effluent nature, continue to expand in the area, proper safeguards will
have to be applied to prevent increases in local air pollution. Likewise,
significant increases in vehicular traffic through the valley will
noticeably increase the air quality problems. Because the potential for
serious air quality problems does exist within the Medford airshed, the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is currently preparing an Air
Quality Management Plan to outline the necessary precautionary measures
to be taken.
36
-------
Topography
The project area is located on the west side of the mountain valley
formed by the Rogue River drainage system. The valley is surrounded by
mountains on all sides, and has a width of approximately 5.5 miles. To
the east are the Cascade Mountains ranging from 4,000 to 9,500 feet; to
the south the Siskiyous, ranging from 3,000 to 7,600 feet; to the west
the Klamath Mountains, 3,500 to 5,500 feet; and to the north the Umpqua
Divide.
As shown on Figure 1, the specific project area lies on the valley floor
and along the primary foothills of the Klamath Mountains to the west.
Elevation spans from 1,260 feet just south of Central Point,to 2,800
feet at John's Peak, the western boundary. At approximately 1,800 feet
the slope of the foothills increases in gradient to about 20 percent, with
certain areas sloping to 75 percent grades near the crest of the western
boundary.
Geology
The Cascade Mountain Range to the east of the project area began its formation
approximately 25 million years ago. The Klamath Mountains, of which the
Siskiyou's are considered a part, are made up of strata that have been
folded, faulted, and intruded by granite-type rocks. Since the formation
of these mountains (Cascades to the east, Siskiyous and Klamaths to the
south and west), the Bear Creek Valley has acted as a large drainage
basin. The hydrologic movement of soils and rock from adjoining mountain
and hills down to the valley floor is a typical example of sedimentary
deposition. This hydrologic transport of the soil and rock types to the
valley floor has formed the broad alluvium (sedimentary deposit) that
now covers the lower elevations of the project area. The deposits
have built up over the ages, attaining various thicknesses and compositions
according to their specific sources. The slow processes of mountain
erosion and valley deposition can be expected to continue to slowly
alter the topography of the region.
Granodiorite is the predominant rock in the west hills. Rock within the area
generally appears as granite, gray boulders, and blue or gray sandstone. There
exists one small intrusive outcropping of rock in the southeast part of
the project area on Hanley Road (3,000 feet south of Ross Lane). It is
composed of diorite and gabbro sills, and exists as a small rise, adjacent
to Hanley Hill. The steeply sloping hillsides in the upper foothills
are the only geologically sensitive or hazardous sites within the project
area. Shallow soils with depths of about 20 inches, coupled with slope
gradients attaining 75 percent in some areas and a bedrock of hard
granodiorite, combine to form a potential for slides and erosion if the
stabilizing factors (vegetation and soil stratum) are disturbed.
37
-------
Soils
The process of soil formation is the result of physical, chemical and
biological actions upon bedrock material. The characteristics of soils
are a product of the integration of several factors including the
parent bedrock material, climate, topography, time and biotic communities.
In an area with a single topographic pattern where the factors .of soil
formation are similar, the repetitive topography results in the develop-
ment of soils with similar profile characteristics. These soils are
often treated as a single unit for purposes of classification and form
what is commonly termed a soil series. Although the members of a soil
series are formed from the same parent material and may vary slightly in
color, horizon thickness and pH, they will generally be very uniform in
texture and properties. Several series occurring together within a
region are referred to as an association. The soils occurring in the
project area can be divided into six associations and are shown on
Figure 7 . Their general characteristics may be summarized as follows:
o Medford-Cove Association A
The Medford and Cove Soils Series represent this association within the
project area. They are generally excessively to poorly drained soils on
nearly level to slightly sloping stream terraces and alluvial fans
(stream deposits). The surface layer is usually dark brown to gray
brown silty clay loam 8-12 inches thick. A clay to silty clay loam
lies underneath this topsoil and has a slow water permeability rating
and poor percolation capabilities. These characteristics give the soils
a slow water run-off potential and slow water infiltration rates.
Problems arise with seasonal high water tables resulting in limitations
for septic tank absorption fields. Where cultivated, the soils are used
for orchards, grass seed, small grains, forage crops, pasture, and
irrigated truck crops. Where not cultivated, the natural vegetation is
ash, willow, sedges, cattails, and grasses.
o Central Point-Kubli Association - B
The Barron, Central Point and Kubli Soils Series represent this asso-
ciation within the project area. They are found primarily in the flat
areas located in the central portion of the project area. The association
consists of excessively drained sandy loam soils, and very deep poorly
drained soils with a loam surface layer and a clay subsoil. The surface
layer is dark-brown, grey-brown, to black in color and a sandy loam
texture. The subsoil is clay to loam type, with a moderate permeability
rating. The soils experience seasonally high water tables, typically 4
to 6 feet in depth but sometimes reaching 0.5 - 1.5 feet depths below
ground surface. The rating for septic tank absorption fields is slight
to moderate, with the 1 foot water table depth areas receiving a severe
38
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
rating. The cultivated areas support irrigated pasture, hay, timber
production, pears, and some grass seed production. Native vegetation
includes black oak, ponderosa pine, sedges, Douglas fir and madrone.
o Carney-Witzel-Brader Association - C
The Brader Soils Series is the only soil unit representative of this
association found within the project area. It appears in the flat and
slightly sloping areas of the southwest portion of the project area.
The soil is well-drained loam over clay loam formed in alluvium. The
surface layer is dark brown loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is
dark brown clay loam about 9 inches thick. Weathered sedimentary rock
is 12 to 20 inches below the surface. Permeability is moderate, but due
to the shallow depth of the bedrock the association has a severe rating
for septic tank absorption fields. The land is used primarily for
irrigated pasture. Native vegetation is characterized by white oak,
manzanita, and Idaho fescue.
o Manzanita-Ruch-Holland Association D
The Selmac and Ruch Soils Series represent this association within the
project area. They consist of well-drained silty clay loam over clay
soils formed in alluvium and drainage basins. The surface layer is dark
brown silty clay loam from 7 to 18 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish-
red to yellowish-brown clay between 41 inches and 63 inches thick.
Permeability and percolation are slow. Cultivated areas are used for
irrigated pasture, hay, grazing, and timber production. Native vegeta-
tion is Douglas fir, black oak, ponderosa pine, madrone and grasses.
o Vannoy-Voorheis-Beekman Association E
The Vannoy Soils Series is the only soil unit representative of this
association found within the project area. It is found in the low
foothills, particularly in the northwest portion of the project area,
and consists of well-drained loam over clay loam soils. The surface
layer is usually dark brown silt loam about 4 inches thick, and the
subsoil is yellowish-red clay loam and gravelly clay loam about 36
inches thick. The permeability is moderately slow, as is the percola-
tion ability. Septic tank systems have severe limitations as the slope
and the depth to bedrock (20-40 inches) are restrictive. The association
is suited for timber production, wildlife and water supply. Native
vegetation consists of Douglas fir, black oak, white oak, ponderosa
pine, madrone, snowbrush and poison oak.
o Siskiyou Association - F
The Siskiyou Soils Series comprises most of the foothills and all of the
upper elevations of the project area. It consists of excessively
drained soils that are coarse and were derived from granitic rock sources.
The surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 4
39
-------
inches thick, with the subsoil a dark yellowish-brown coarse sandy loam
about 15 Inches thick. The granodiorite bedrock is 20-40 inches from
the surface. Although permeability is moderately rapid, septic tank
absorption fields have severe limitations because of their shallow
bedrock and considerable slopes. The land is used for timber production,
water supply, grazing and wildlife habiat. Native vegetation is
primarily Douglas fir, sugar pine, manzanita, deerbrush and madrone.
The most significant soils characteristics are those which relate to
suitability for agricultural use, and septic tank limitations.
o Agricultural Suitability
Soils associations and series are rated for agricultural capability on a
scale from Class I to Class VIII. Class I soils have few limitations
which would restrict their use for agricultural purposes and are considered
to be the most productive soils for crop growing purposes. Class VIII
soils and land forms have limitations that preclude their use for the
growing of any cultivated plants and restrict their use to recreation,
wildlife, water supply or aesthetic purposes. Classes II through VII
are gradations between those two extremes. Within the project area the
majority of the soils along the valley floor are Class I, II and III.
Soils within the foothills generally range from Class III to Class VII.
Table 15 lists the percentage of each soil capability class found within
the six soils associations.
TABLE 15
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Percent of Class
I II III IV V
VI VII VII
Soil Association
A Hedford-Cove 55% 5% 5% 35%
B Central Point
Kubli
40% 5% 55%
C - Manzanita-Ruch
Holland
40% 55% 5%
D - Carney-Witzel
5% 55%
20% 20%
E - Vannoy-Voorheis
Beekman
5%
10% 85%
F - Siskiyou
10%
10% 80%
Source: Soil Conservation Service
40
-------
Although Class II and III soils have moderate to severe limitations for
agricultural use, these limitations can be overcome by use of the
correct cropping patterns and conservation methods. As discussed pre-
viously, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission's
Statewide Planning Goals consider soils Classes I, II, III and IV to be
prime agricultural land and have adopted goals which provide for their
protection.
o Septic Tank Suitability
When septic tanks are utilized for disposal of wastewater, the primary
concern is the ability of the soils to absorb the septic tank effluent.
This is indicated by the percolation rate or permeability of the soils
which is determined by site specific field tests. In general, granular
soils such as sands and gravels have an average to fast percolation rate
and are considered "suitable" for absorbing effluent. Cohesive soils,
such as clays and silts or mixtures of such, have slow to very slow
percolation rates and will not readily absorb effluent. Also, the soils
used for the drainfield must not be in close proximity to an impermeable
subsurface strata (as with the Siskiyou Association F), or in close
proximity to local high water tables (as is seasonally true with the
Medford-Cove Association A). In many areas increasing the size of the
drainfield can overcome permeability and percolation problems.
Based on this information, Figure 8 delineates the ability of the project
area soils to absorb septic tank effluent. The map is divided into
areas in which: 1) septic systems should function properly, 2) septic
systems should not function properly, and 3) proper functioning of a
septic system is questionable. The following is a discussion of each
type of area.
Suitable for Septic Tanks
Those places where septic tanks and drainfields should function properly
have soils with high percolation rates and no near-surface impermeable
layers or groundwater. In the project area such places occur in the
Barron Series of the Central Point-Kubli Association as indicated on
Figure 8. This series has the most favorable septic tank suitability
within the project area. The sandy loam soil allows up to 20 inches/hour
permeability, which is considered rapid. Minimal restrictions for
septic tank use apply to this series.
Unsuitable for Septic Tank Use
Those places where septic tanks and drainfields should not function
properly have soils of low to negligible permeabilities or soil profiles
with near-surface impervious soils or groundwater. As stated previously,
requiring increased lot sizes may allow for septic tank use on soils which
would normally be considered unsuitable. In areas of low permeability,
41
-------
drainfields cannot function properly since the effluent cannot infiltrate
at an acceptable rate through the compact material. In addition, septic
tank failures would cause the effluent to pond and saturate the near-
surface soils. Septic systems sited in permeable soils which are under-
lain by near-surface impermeable soils like clay, also should not function
properly. Although the effluent may infiltrate quickly at first, an
eventual build up of effluent will occur above the impermeable soil,
saturating the material and causing septic failures. The presence of
near-surface groundwater can impede the operation of septic systems.
With high water table levels, the soil section between the drainfield
and the water table is not sufficient for infiltration of the septic
effluent. An eventual build-up and saturation will occur around the
drainfield causing failure. More importantly, the effluent will enter
the water table directly, without the benefit of a filtering process
through unsaturated soil which is needed to purify the effluent. For
this reason, septic tank systems should not be permitted in areas of
near-surface groundwater.
A seasonally high water table puts severe limitations on soils in the
Medford-Cove Association, the Manzanita-Ruch-Holland Association, and
the Kubli Series of the Central Point-Kubli Association. Insufficient
permeability places severe septic tank limitations on the Medford-Cove
Association and the Kubli Series of the Central Point-Kubli Association.
Shallow bedrock, with depths to bedrock typically between 20 and 40
inches, warrants severe septic tank ratings in three soil associations
the Carney-Witzel-Brader Association, the Vannoy-Voorhies-Beekman
Association, and the Siskiyou Association. Excessive slope grades add
further limitations to septic tank feasibility within the Vannoy-Voorhies-
Beekman Association and the Siskiyou Association.
Questionable for Septic Tank Use
Those areas where the function of septic systems is questionable have
soil and groundwater characteristics ranging between the two categories
described above. Variations in the thickness of permeable soils, in the
elevations of impermeable soils and/or groundwaters, and surface gradient
can cause septic systems to function inefficiently. 8
The Central Point Soils Series of the Central Point-Kubli Association is
considered questionable for septic tank suitability. Though it has
moderately rapid permeability ratings, the soil experiences a seasonallv
somewhat high water table. The water table does not restrict the suitah-n
for septic tanks to the extent that it restricts other soils in the H-ty
project area, but it is significant enough to require site-specific
qualifications.
For effective septic tank functioning, the recei/ing ground formations
must be capable of purifying effluent as well as be permeable. It
42
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
appears that little is known about the filtering and purification proper-
ties of aquifers on polluted groundwaters. In a recent report for the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, several field studies are
discussed relating expected distance traveled by bacteria to the grain
size and the moisture conditions of the filtering soil. It is indicated
that fine grained soils remove suspended particles much quicker than do
course grained soils. In addition, bacterial travel is substantially
greater in saturated soils than unsaturated soils. The report concludes
that the survival and travel of organisms in soil varies as a function
of soil moisture, soil temperature, and type of organisms (12).
Hydrology
o Surface Water
The surface water of the project area includes three creeks and an
extensive irrigation system. Although the creeks are natural water
networks, their courses have been altered due to the historical use of
the land for agricultural purposes. Horn Creek is the smallest of the
three creeks and is seasonal in nature. It originates in the foothills
south of John's Peak and flows eight miles before joining Jackson Creek.
Jackson Creek originates in the Klamath Range west of Jacksonville and
flows north through the project area. Flows in Jackson Creek range from
an approximate low of 7 cfs (cubic feet per second) to a high of 32 cfs.
As shown in Table 16 low flows generally occur during the fall months,
while high flows are recorded during the winter months and summer irri-
gation months. Griffin Creek drains the Siskiyou Mountains to the south
and travels north through the project area, parallel to and east of
Jackson Creek. Flows in Griffin Creek range from a low of 9.5 cfs to a
high of 21 cfs. Both Jackson and Griffin Creeks flow into Bear Creek
north of the project area.
TABLE 16
STREAM FLOW RATES (cfs)
1975 1976
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July
Jackson Creek 8 9 10 11 7 7 7.9 11 32 32
Griffin Creek 9.5 9.5 10 14 11 9.5 15 13 19 21
Source: Jackson County Department of Planning & Development
43
-------
The irrigation system includes the Phoenix and Hopkins Canals as
well as several laterals and holding ponds. These systems are managed
by the Medford and Rogue River Valley Irrigation Districts.
o Ground Water
The underground water system, or aquifer, in the project area is subject
to significant fluctuations in both depth and potential surface yield.
The alluvium, which is the principal surface strata at the lower elevations,
is considered the most productive water source in the Bear Creek Valley.
In the project area, the nonmarine sedimentary rocks underlying the
alluvium also produce substantial quantities of water.
The alluvium is usually 30 - 100 feet deep, and is typically saturated
from 10 to 15 feet with water. The nonmarine sedimentary rocks underlying
the alluvium can produce good well yields of 10 - 15 gpm (gallons per
minute) in certain areas, but may contain excessive concentrations of
boron or fluoride. The Hornbrook Formation is tapped at the base of the
foothills, where seepage water is carried along bedding planes and in
the weathered granitic rock. The Hornbrook can yield 5-10 gpm, but
required well depth is variable and some attempts have been abandoned.
The wells that have been drilled in the granodiorite along Military Road
near Ross Lane have had good yields (5 - 11 gpm) but have required
greater depths (180 feet average). Again, some drilling attempts have
been abandoned because of excessive depths.
The best groundwater yields have come from the central and eastern parts
of the project area, with the northeast corner of the area having a
median discharge rate of 14 gpm with a median depth of 80 feet. However,
the Old Stage Road/Erline Way area has a median well depth of 200 feet
with a well yield of 5 gpm and several abandoned drilling attempts.
Roughly estimated, the overall median well depth within the project area
is from 100-200 feet, with a median yield of between 5 to 15 gpm. In
certain areas, the yield has shown a slight decrease over the years, and
this trend is expected to continue. This depletion is due to increasing
numbers of wells drawing on the local aquifer. Thus, the water reserves
have shown a measurable decline over the years. At this time, these
decreases are not considered alarming, although a significant increase
in demand on the aquifer could show long-term depletions in the water
resource.
Water Quality
o Surface Water
Although no industrial effluents contaminate Jackson and Griffin Creeks,
farmland and residential wastes have caused significant water quality
44
-------
problems in both waterways. Fecal collform, a bacteric derived from the in-
testinal tracts of humans and animals, is the most consistent water quality
problem that has been identified within the project area. High levels of
fecal coliform are present in the project area as a result of a combina-
tion of factors including unusually high local water tables, the associated
problems of soils suitability and septic tank failures, and agricultural
runoff. The specific contribution of residential or agricultural uses to
these high fecal coliform counts cannot be calculated. All that is currently
known is that surfacing of septic tank effluent combined with runoff from
agricultural land creates high fecal coliform counts within the surface
waters of the project area. State of Oregon standards have established
maximum levels of fecal coliform at 1000/100 ml, except during periods of
high surface runoff. As shown in Table 17, these concentrations are fre-
quently exceeded in both creeks. Since late spring 1976, both Jackson and
Griffin Creeks have been posted as unsafe to public health because of fecal
coliform contamination. The Jackson County Health Department expects that
this posting will continue throughout the length of both streams (13).
TABLE 17
FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATION
(milliliters)
1975 1976
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March Apr. May June July
Jackson Creek 7900 4600 1700 490 3300 2200 3300 1300 2300 4900
Griffin Creek 1300 3300 130 170 79 49 330 7000 1300 1100
Source: Jackson County Sanitation Department
Excessive levels of fecal coliform have also been recorded in roadside
ditches within the project area. April.1976 water samples that were
taken from the New Ray Road area near Beall Lane showed substantial
levels of fecal coliform, though these were very localized. One sample
taken from the east side of New Ray Road, 35 feet north of Beall Lane, recorded
coliform levels eleven times in excess of state standards (e.g. 11,000/100
ml). Such site specific instances of pollution indicate direct source
contamination derived from nearby septic tank failures. Within two
blocks of this site, samples taken the same day showed minimal levels
of fecal coliform, well below the recommended state limits.
Excessive amounts of fecal coliform bacteria are presumably associated
with seasonal rains which run off the land areas, carrying farmland and
residential wastes into the surface water systems. Instances of irrigation
water contamination by septic tank systems have been reported, as well
as septic tank failures that have brought raw sewage directly to the
surface. Within the Westside Trunk District there have been as many as
25 cases of septic tank "red-tagging" (recognized failures to comply
with local codes) reported by the Jackson County Sanitarian's' Office (14).
Most of these cases involved failures during the high water table months,
which would suggest that the effluents were being dispersed into the
natural water systems.
45
-------
Organic and inorganic nitrogen concentrations periodically become ex-
cessive in both Jackson and Griffin Creeks. Inorganic nitrates are a
major nutrient to plant life and can cause algae blooms when concentrations
become high. This most common form of inorganic nitrogen is readily
soluble in water, suggesting that its appearance in the creeks is derived
from surface run-off. The nitrogen sources have not been specifically identi-
fied, but agricultural practices including the use of fertilizer are
believed to contribute to their concentrations.
Rogue River is the ultimate receiving stream for treated wastewater
effluent from the Medford Treatment Plant. According to Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality monitoring records, effluent discharged
from the plant has consistently been within the standards detailed in
the treatment plant's waste discharge permit. No violations of those
standards have been recorded ( 15).
Problems with water quality within the project area can be expected to
continue. Future residential development dependent upon individual
septic tank systems will lead to continued contamination of the existing
creeks and drainage ditches.
o Groundwater
Contamination of the aquifer in the project area has been suspected, but
not adequately investigated. In the early 1960's, the Jackson County
Health Department prepared a contamination study within the Niedermeyer
(Westwood) Subdivision area, and found that approximately 50 percent of
the wells were contaminated. Much of the problem was attributed to
types of well casings, particularly the cement-tile wells. These well
casings allowed seepage from the upper groundwater into the wells. The
wells which reported contamination were changed to steel casings and
the problem was eliminated. Local residents recite stories of neighbors
being forced to import drinking water due to current well contamination.
However, these stories cannot be verified by county or state records.
Septic tank failures have been numerous in certain sections of the
project area, raising concerns over potential contamination of the
aquifer. At this time the quality of septic tank seepage which reaches
the aquifer is unknown. The possibility does exist that excessive
septic tank failures in a concentrated area could, in fact, contaminate
the aquifer.
Ve»etation/Wildlife
The project area is comprised of four different biologic systems, as
shown on Figure 9. These zones are easily distinguishable but some-
what overlapping. Agricultural uses are limited to the valley floor and
low hillsides, while the residential areas are spread throughout the
46
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
project area, with the exception of the upper elevation near the west
boundary. Both these divisions nurture a simplified ecological system,
and do not represent a large number of plant and animal species. The
other two biologic systems are the riparian, or "waters edge" system,
and the woodland system. The riparian system is limited to the undisturbed
water courses, most notably Griffin Creek and Jackson Creek. The wood-
land system is extensive and well diversified, spread throughout the
west hills above the agricultural lands. Animal species lists for the
project area can be found in Appendix B .
o Agricultural
The agricultural lands are primarily used for pear orchards, row crops,
grain fields, irrigated and non-irrigated pasture and hay production.
Wildlife and natural vegetation is limited in these areas, as the controls
imposed upon them has restricted the natural influences and processes.
Insectivores (moles and shrews), rodents (field mice, voles and squirrels),
porcupine, and small carnivores inhabit these areas in varying concentrations.
Field birds, raptors, and game birds use the farmland for feeding. The
field perimeters also provide breeding habitat. Selected areas just
north of Ross Lane are considered important breeding grounds for
ring-necked pheasant. California quail are also known to breed through-
out the agricultural areas. Since the general area has had a long
history of agricultural use, the systems are well established and can be
expected to continue in a consistent manner.
o Riparian
The riparian biotic zone is a narrow strip of dense foliage and well
diversified wildlife restricted to the immediate area of the unhampered
water courses. Both Jackson Creek and Griffin Creek support healthy
riparian systems, as the stream banks have not been altered for some
time. Thick stands of cottonwood, red alder, willow, black locust and
woody shrubs provide good diversification for smaller plant life and
excellent protection for wildlife. Many species of birds, both game
(mourning dove, band-tailed pigeon) and non-game (warblers, vireos,
blackbirds), as well as reptiles and amphibians inhabit such areas.
Mammals are well represented by the smaller groups which utilize the
protected access it affords to the feeding fields. The riparian eco-
system is broken where roads, irrigation systems, or agricultural practices
have denuded the stream banks. The extensive irrigation canals that
spread across the project area do not, for the most part, support a
riparian eco-system as complete as the creeks because of continual
clearing and dredging.
o Woodland
The woodland system begins on the lower foothills and continues west to
the western boundary of the project area, at an elevation of approxi-
mately 2800 feet. The lower reaches of this system are comprised of
47
-------
Oregon white oak, California black oak, ponderosa pine, Pacific madrone,
and white manzanita. Well established populations of perching birds,
raptors and woodpeckers can be found in these woods, as well as bats,
coyotes and black-tailed deer. As this zone advances up the western
slopes, vegetal changes coincide with changes in altitude. Douglas fir,
Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, mountain ash and ceanothus become more
common. Larger mammals may appear, such as weasels and bobcats, as well
as greater numbers of black-tailed deer. Jays, owls, nutcrackers and
shrike inhabit these higher elevations, and the golden eagle is suspected
of using such areas for feeding.
o Residential
The vegetation of the residential areas is under the control of the
local human populations and is typically introduced. The wildlife is
limited to the more daring mammals, and yard birds such as house sparrows
and finches. Deer often frequent the gardens of residences in the
foothills.
o Endangered Species
There are no known plant or animal species of endangered classification
within the project area, as determined by the Department of Interior
listings. Some species are classified as "undetermined status" which
means there is not enough information at this time to adequately classify
them, but that they could be endangered or threatened. Species of this
status are marked with an asterisk in the species lists found in Appendix B.
Long-term changes in the agricultural, riparian and woodland systems
found within the project area would occur as the result of continued
urbanization, and would result in a decrease in the size and diversity
of the vegetation and wildlife communities. If agricultural and woodland
areas continue to be transformed to residential use, wildlife habitat
and movement would be further restricted.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
o Surface Water and Ground Water
The water systems of the project area have suffered adverse effects as
a result of farm uses and residential development. Though pollution
levels have been regularly recorded in various bodies of water through-
out the area, detailed data will not be available regarding direct and
non-direct sources until the completion of the 208 Study. A discussion
of the current situation has previously been presented in this chapter.
o Steeply Sloping Lands
The steeply sloping lands within the project area are found in the
western hills, typically at the higher elevations. These areas are
48
-------
sensitive due to the slope gradients that can reach 75 percent in some
places, and a depth to granodiorite bedrock of 20 to 40 inches. Erosion
and slide potentials must be defined if residential development spreads
into these areas.
o Forest and Woodland
The forest and woodland areas are located in the west hills, extending
from just above the valley floor to the highest elevations within the
district boundary. Residential development in these areas has not yet
caused significant alteration of the woodland systems.
o Significant Habitats
As outlined previously, the significant habitats are the riparian and
woodland systems. Both of these systems have been described. No rare
or endangered species have been identified in the project area, but
species worthy of consideration (undetermined classifications) are
present. Their existence in the project area is not considered threatened.
o Prime Agricultural Land
As detailed previously in Table 15, more than one-half of the 5,400
acres within the project area includes soils within Agricultural Capability
Classes I, II, III and IV. Approximately 1,000 acres remain in productive
farm use, while the remainder of the productive and marginally productive
farmland has been converted to residential and "hobby" farm uses. As
residential uses have spread into the project area, marginal farming
operations have been abandoned, and the land has been converted to
residential uses. Local farmers have reported that the profitable
farming operations have continued to operate, although their farming
practices have been altered in some instances to conform to adjacent
residential norms.
o Public Outdoor Recreation Areas
With the exception of the playground area adjacent to the Westside Ele-
mentary School, no developed outdoor recreation areas exist within the
Westside Trunk District. Hunting and hiking are known to occur within
the upper portions of the foothills, but no developed recreational
facilities are provided to serve those uses.
o Archaeological and Historical Sites
No archaeological sites were discovered within the project area. The
location of historical sites and buildings has been discussed earlier in
this chapter.
49
-------
Figure 10
SIMPLIFIED FLOW-CHART
OF SELECTION PROCESS FOR ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE WESTSIDE TRUNK DISTRICT FACILITIES PLAN
Develop possible
Alternatives
Construct public
sewer system
Construct individual
treatment systems
Construct collection
system in phases
Consideration of Feasibility
of alternatives in regard to Physical Constraints
and Service Needs of Area
Alternative 1
"No Action"
]
Analysis of Impact
{
Development of Alternatives
Alternative 2
Construct Trunk Sewage
Collection System
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2B
Grant/Beall/Ross Hanley Road
Alternative 2C
Old Stage Road
]
Analysis of Impact
SELECTION OF PROJECT
K-1
50
-------
SECTION III. ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS
Alternative Screening Process
Prior to a discussion of alternatives and their impacts, the process of
selection of feasible alternatives should be outlined. Each major
alternative is developed from a number of possible alternatives, as
illustrated in Figure 10 . Based on the service needs and physical
environment of the project area, two major alternatives were considered
for analysis within the Facilities Plan: 1) no action, and 2) construction
of a wastewater collection system to connect with the Lower Bear Creek
Interceptor. The construction alternative offers three different
alignments which differ in terms of available service areas.
Impact Evaluation
In this section, possible environmental impacts associated with each
alternative are discussed following a brief description of the alter-
native. Environmental impact may be categorized as adverse or beneficial,
primary or secondary, and short-term or long-term. Any number of combinations
of these categories are possible depending on the type of project involved.
For each alternative, impacts on the social and natural environments are
discussed in terms of these categories, where the categories can be
applied. Elements of the natural and social environments are discussed
in an order corresponding to Section II, Project Area Existing Conditions
and Projected Trends.
Most of the terms used to describe environmental impact are self-explanatory.
However, for the purpose of this discussion, several need further
clarification.
Primary impacts include short-term impacts occurring during construction,
and long-term impacts related to construction and operation of
the facilities. Examples of primary impacts include traffic disruption,
disruption to vegetation, water quality changes, etc.
Secondary impacts are essentially those associated with growth and
development. These impacts will be discussed in the context that a
lack of sewerage facilities, either public or private, is one of the
limiting constraints to growth. Other constraints to be discussed
include local planning policies, availability of public services,
and the desirability of the area to potential residents. The extent
to which any of the alternatives can remove these constraints
will be considered. Examples of secondary impacts include potential
increases in air contaminants, traffic, need for increased public
services, and other effects of growth in general. Cumulative
impacts will be discussed where applicable.
51
-------
In addition to environmental impact, short-term uses and long-term
productivity must be discussed, as well as any irreversible and/or
irretrievable resource commitments. The proposed alternatives must
be analyzed in relationship to their effect on future options, and the
availability of future resources. Resource commitment is primarily a
discussion of the environmental and monetary resources which would be
committed to the project, and thus would not be available for future use.
Mitigating measures for each individual alternative must also be considered.
Mitigating measures may be technological means to avoid adverse environment-
al impact, or policy methods to mitigate the impact of growth. In the
final analysis, it should be remembered that the key factor in avoiding
severe environmental degradation as a result of potential land development
is local governmental planning and control, and policy decisions as to
commitments of resources.
52
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
Alternative 1 is the "no project" or do nothing.alternative and assumes
that wastewater would continue to be disposed of by individual septic
tank and drain field systems.
Population Growth & Projections
o Primary Impacts
Adoption of a "no action" alternative would result in the short-term
continuation of current growth rates within the project area. From 1954
to 1970 growth has occurred at a rate of approximately A.8 percent per
year. This level of growth could be expected to continue until constrained
by the availability of land suitable for septic tank systems. Efficient
septic tank operation within the project area requires minimum lot sizes
ranging from 2.5 to 5 acres. These larger lot sizes will serve as a
constraint to growth in terms of both cost and availability of land and
improvements. It is expected that pressure would grow for decreasing the
minimum lot size needed for septic tank operation.
o Secondary Impacts
Long-term growth within the project area may be appreciably lower than
the recent 4.8 percent rate, as land suitable for septic tanks becomes
committed to use. The 9,000 build out population anticipated by the
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development assumes that public
sewer service would be provided to the northern portion of the project
area. If that service were not available, it is unlikely that that popu-
lation level could be reached.
The restriction of growth within the project area that could result from
selection of a "no action" alternative would transfer growth pressures
to other areas within the urbanizing region adjacent to Medford, and to
the remaining agricultural lands to the east and south of the Westside
Trunk District.
Area Economy
o Beneficial Impacts
Primary. There would be no assessment, connection, or service charges
to individuals with respect to this alternative. Present costs of
maintenance of septic tank systems would continue, plus costs for deep-
ening wells if the groundwater becomes increasingly contaminated.
o Adverse Impacts
Secondary. Selection of a "no action" alternative would be certain to
raise the long-term cost of housing within the project area. Larger lot
sizes, increased cost of more efficient septic tanks, and deeper well
53
-------
depths in order to avoid well contamination, would all add to increasing
housing costs. Increased costs would also accure to existing property
owners who would be required to reconstruct their septic tanks due to
inefficient operation. It should also be noted that construction of a
public sewer system could also result in increased housing costs within
the project area; however, this would be offset by smaller lot sizes which
could decrease new housing costs.
Land Use Plans and Policies
o Beneficial Impacts
Secondary. Selection of the "no action" alternative would not initially
place any additional pressure upon the Jackson County Planning Commission
to consider alternative futures for the Westside Trunk District. Unless
both water and sewer service were provided to the project area, it is
questionable whether growth could occur up to or beyond the level currently
established in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, with selection of a
"no action" alternative, the current plan designations could remain in
effect in the foreseeable future. The plan designations currently being
worked out between the Jackson County Planning Commission and the City of
Central Point indicate that in order for the 9,000 population to be
reached both sewer and water must be provided to the northern portions
of the project area — the areas included within the proposed Central
Point urban growth boundary. If sewer service were not provided to the
Westside Trunk District using the proposed program, another method for
provision of public sewers would be necessary.
o Adverse Impacts
Secondary. It is unlikely that the proposed Jackson County Comprehensive
Plan densities could be achieved without provision of sanitary sewer
service within the Westside Trunk District. Although local officials
believe that there may be sufficient groundwater to allow the level of
growth suggested in the plan, they argue that the quality of that water
might be in question if increasing numbers of septic tanks are constructed.
Public Facilities and Services
o Beneficial Impacts
Primary. A "no action" alternative would involve no construction,
therefore, there would be no disruption of roads or traffic. Roads and
rights-of-ways would retain their present form. Flow of irrigation
water would also not be affected.
Secondary. Pressure for future extension of road and school services
would not be increased beyond the level called for within the proposed
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, or a 9,000 population level.
54
-------
o Adverse Impacts
Primary. Selection of a "no action" alternative would result in con-
tinued problems in terms of the quality of sewer and water service.
Some existing septic tanks would continue to operate inefficiently,
causing water quality problems in drainage and irrigation ditches, and
local streams. Well contamination would become more prevalent and could
result in isolated cases of importation of drinking water.
Secondary. If cases of well contamination become more prevalent due to
inefficient septic tanks, there will be increasing pressure for provision
of a public water supply. This pressure could take two forms: 1)
requests to the Medford Water Commission to serve the project area, or
2) attempts to establish a special service water district to serve the
area.
Archaeological/Historical Resources
Since no archaeological resources were discovered within the Westside
Trunk District, no primary effects would accrue as a result of the
selection of the "no action" alternative. Selection of a "no action"
alternative would have no affect upon the historical resources identified
within the project area.
Air Quality
o Beneficial Impacts
The "no action" alternative would have no significant effect on local
air quality. No primary effects due to construction noise and dust would
occur. Increased air pollution emissions associated with population
growth would presumably be depressed to the level currently identified
in the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
o Adverse Impacts
Air pollution in the form of odors associated with septic tank failures
and surfacing of septic tank effluent would occur as a result of selection
of the "no action" alternative.
Surface Water Quality
o Adverse Impacts
Secondary. Continued discharge of septic tank effluent into the high
water table and local water systems would occur as a direct result of
selection of a "no action" alternative. This continued discharge would
55
-------
increase the pollution concentrations in those areas, and would encourage
further spreading of such contaminants into adjacent systems. The pro-
bability of pathogenic contamination due to the continued input of wastes
would increase. High fecal coliform levels have already caused Jackson
and Griffin Creeks to be posted as public health hazards, and increased
discharges into these creeks due to the anticipated level of future growth
would cause that posting to be continued. Such effects would be reversible
if alternate methods of dealing with inefficient septic tank operations
were initiated.
Groundwater Quality
o Adverse Impacts
Secondary. The impact on local groundwater due to the continuation of
existing septic tank practices, or their increased use, is difficult to
assess. Although surface soils and waters have been saturated by septic
tank effluent, aquifer contamination has not been adequately detected.
If contamination of the aquifer did occur because of prolonged saturation,
the impact could be irreversible.
Vegetation/Wildlife
o Beneficial Impacts
Primary. Selection of a "no action" alternative would prohibit the
short-term destruction of vegetation along the proposed alignment corridors.
Secondary. Restraint of growth within the upper foothills and along the
creek beds would protect the woodland and riparian vegetation and wild-
life habitat areas.
o Adverse Effects
Secondary. Selection of a "no action" alternative would prolong the
unfavorable effects that septic tank failures have on the biology of the
local water systems. If more residences with questionable septic tank
drainfields are added to those already in existence, the quality of life
within the local water bodies, and those lives directly dependent upon
them, would suffer from the continued degradation.
Short-Term Resource Use Versus Long-Term Productivity
All alternative wastewater treatment and disposal systems including "no
action" involve the acceptance of trade-offs among beneficial and adverse
project impacts. Selection of the most cost effective alternative is
promulgated to result in the greatest beneficial effects obtainable at
the least possible environmental, social and monetary costs. Selection
of a "no action" alternative would allow for the continuation of existing
water quality problems. Throughout much of the Westside Trunk District,
the present means of sewage disposal can be considered a short-term use
of the environment which has periodic adverse effects on the water re-
sources and aesthetic quality of the area. If continued use of faulty
56
-------
septic tank systems were to effect the quality of the aquifer, this use
could have long-term negative effects on local groundwater supplies. The
long-term ability of the project area soils to efficiently accept and
purify increasing amounts of wastewater is unknown.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Commitment of resources in a "no action" alternative would be limited
primarily to the costs to individual homeowners necessary to upgrade
existing septic tank systems. Long-term costs would include higher
housing costs due to the need for larger lot sizes to allow efficient
purification of residential wastewater. If ground water and aquifer
were to be contaminated by septic tank effluent, it may not be possible
to restore the natural environment to its original condition, resulting
in an irreversible commitment of that resource.
Mitigating Measures
There are no mitigating measures for the "no action" alternative which
could be implemented or affected by either the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More stringent
enforcement of Department of Environmental Quality standards by the
Jackson County Health Department could potentially result in decreased
septic tank contamination of local drainage ditches and streams. However,
the Health Department has limited resources to undertake the testing
that would be required to adequately monitor and locate existing offenders.
Continued application of stringent permit requirements would ensure that
future septic tanks did not add to existing water quality problems. It
is possible that some sites would require larger drainfields than could
occur within the existing minimum lot sizes, and therefore, that minimum
lot sizes in some areas would be increased.
57
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OF A
SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM CONNECTING
TO THE LOWER BEAR CREEK INTERCEPTOR
Alternative 2 proposes the construction of a wastewater collection
system to carry wastewater from the project area to the 36-inch Lower
Bear Creek Interceptor located in Taylor Road west of Central Point.
The Lower Bear Creek Interceptor would then carry the wastewater to the
Kirtland Pump Station from where it would be pumped to the Medford Re-
gional Sewage Treatment Plant on Rogue River.
Three alternative alignments have been proposed to provide sanitary
sewer service to the project area. These alignments are illustrated on
Figures 11, 12, and 13.
Alignment 2A Grant/Beall/Ross
Alignment 2B Hanley Road
Alignment 2C Old Stage Road
On the basis of communications with the Jackson County Planning Department,
the project area design population is established at 13,000. In order to
provide sewer service to the design capacities shown on the current Jackson
County and City of Central Point Comprehensive Plans, the Facilities Plan
proposes to construct approximately 3 miles of trunk sewer line. Each
alignment alternative begins at Taylor Road and ends at the intersection
of Ross Lane and Old Stage Road, west of the West«ide Elementary School.
Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the maximum proposed pipe size as a 27-inch
line along Taylor Road dropping to an 18-inch line at the intersection
of Grant and Taylor Roads. As the pipe proceeds southerly through the
project area, pipe sizes continue to decrease, terminating with an 8-inch
pipe for the section along Ross Lane. The pipe sizes shown on Figures 11,
12 and 13 were developed using a design population of 17,400. Since the
design population has now been decreased to 13,000 it is probable that the
pipe along Taylor Road could be decreased to 21 or 24 inches. Design
studies are currently being completed to determine the final pipe sizes
throughout the project area.
The initial project would include only the construction of the trunk line.
Individuals living directly along the proposed alignment would receive
sewer service through participation in the trunk local improvement district.
In that way the trunk line would be constructed by a combination of federal
and local funds.
The majority of the sewerage service would be accomplished by the con-
struction of laterals which would connect from specific service areas to
the main trunk line. The major difference between the three alternatives
59
-------
alignments is the local service areas which could be served by the
laterals. Preliminary lateral alignments are illustrated in the Facilities
Plan. It is important to note that individual laterals are financed
solely by local funds. The primary funding method is the Local Improve-
ment District (LID), in which local residents petition to the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority for information concerning sewerage service.
Generally speaking, if over 50 percent of the affected property owners
are in agreement, the LID is formed, the lateral is constructed, and the
individual owners are assessed for the cost of that construction. It is
expected that lateral systems would first be constructed in the developed
portions of the project area, and that later construction would coincide
with future needs.
A large share of the impacts resulting from the construction of a waste-
water collection facility would occur regardless of the specific alignment
of the proposed trunk line. Therefore, the following discussion will
describe impacts common to all of the alternative alignments. Site
specific impacts resulting from the differences in individual alignments
will be discussed separately.
Population Growth and Projections
Based on current Jackson County population projections, the county-wide
growth rate to the year 2000 is expected to range between 2.7 and 3.4
percent. This growth rate is projected over the entire county, many
areas of which will receive little or no growth. Therefore the urban
and urbanizing areas of the county can be expected to register higher
rates than the average 3.4 percent. The 4.5 percent growth rate applied
to the Westside Trunk District within the proposed Facilities Plan
suggests that with construction of a sewerage system, growth within the
project area would be higher than in the county as a whole. Since no
growth rates for the urban and urbanizing areas of the county have been
prepared, it is not possible to compare the projected 4.5 percent rate
with a comparable county projection.
Table 18 includes the entire Westside Trunk District within the general
Central Point area and compares the Facilities Plan projected growth
rate with the county's projections for the Central Point area. (The
Central Point area is defined as the current Central Point city limits,
the Westside Trunk District, and Census Enumeration Districts 1319, 1320
and 1323 B which occur to the north and east of Central Point and generally
correspond to Central Point's proposed urban growth boundary.) Based on
Jackson County's projected growth rate and the percentage of the county's
population that occurs in Central Point (e.g. 9 percent of the county's
population lives in the Central Point area), the table allocates future
anticipated growth using a variety of assumptions. For example, if in
the year 2000 Central Point maintains 9.0 percent of the total Jackson
County population, the Central Point area would have a total population
60
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
of 15,300 compared with the current 9,980. If this growth were distributed
evenly between the Westside Trunk District and the remainder of the Central
Point area, the project area would have a population of 4,300 compared
with the Facilities Plan projection of 6,550. If the Westside Trunk
District were to experience 75 percent of the Central Point area's total
growth, it would have a year 2000 population of 5,450.
TABLE 18
CENTRAL POINT AREA GROWTH DISTRIBUTION
(Assumes 9.0 percent of Jackson County)
Remainder
Central Westside of Central Total
Point Trunk Point Area Population
1975 5,530 2,000 2,450 9,980
2000
Assumes equal
distribution of
growth
Assumes 75% of
growth occurs in
Westside Trunk
District
Assumes Facilities
Plan projections
are met
6,250 1 4,300
6,250 5,450
6,250 6,550
4,750 15,300
3,600 15,300
2,500 15,300
1_ For purposes of this analysis the 1975 Central Point City limits
are assumed to remain fixed. Assuming a density of 12 people per
acre on the 60 acres of vacant city land, the total possible city
population would be 6,250.
Table 19 assumes that by the year 2000, the Central Point area registers
11.0 percent of the total county population, or a population of 18,700.
This predicted increase in relative size is based on the belief of
county and city officials that the Central Point area is one of the more
61
-------
desirable growth centers for the Intermediate future. If this increase
were to occur, and growth was equally distributed between the Westside
Trunk District and the remainder of the Central Point area, the year
2000 project area population would be 6,000, or slightly less than the
Facilities Plan projection of 6,550. Thus, this slight increase in
the percentage of total county population residing in the Central Point
area, has a significant effect on the population recorded within the
project area.
TABLE 19
CENTRAL POINT AREA GROWTH DISTRIBUTION
(Assumes 11.0 percent of Jackson County)
Central
Point
Remainder
Westside of Central Total
Trunk Point Area Population
1975
5,530
2,000
2,450
9,980
2000
Assumes equal
distribution of
growth
6,250
6,000
6,450
18,700
Assumes 75% of
growth occurs in
Westside Trunk
District
6,250
8,000
4,450
18,700
Assumes Facilities
Plan projections
are met
5,250
6,550
5,900
18,700
The concept of growth inducement suggests that through the installation
of a basic utility service such as sewers, it is possible for growth to
occur within an area where it had formerly been precluded. Therefore,
instead of growth occurring in areas where people might naturally wish
to live, growth is induced in specific areas because of the availability
of services. The question that must be raised regarding the proposed
trunk line construction is how much growth inducement, if any, will be
caused by the construction of that proposed project. It is important to
remember that while the installation of such facilities makes it possible
for growth to occur within the area to be served, two major constraints
to growth could potentially still remain in the Westside Trunk District:
1) lack of public water supply, coupled with questionable long-term
availability of groundwater, and 2) Jackson County and Central Point
land use and growth policies.
62
-------
Growth within any one segment of the Medford urbanizing area is primarily
dependent upon the overall economic and population growth of Jackson
County. In addition, in a regional center like Medford, many cities,
communities and residential areas compete for portions of that overall
growth. Perhaps it is easiest to describe the phenonemon in terms of
competitive advantage — i.e., what characteristics make one area more
attractive to residents than another. In other words, why do people
choose to live where they do in terms of the entire urban area. Table
20 outlines the comparative growth potentials of each of the major
communities and residential sub-areas in the Medford vicinity. Each
area, including the Westside Trunk District, is compared on the basis of
four criteria: 1) availability of public services, 2) availability of
developable land, 3) attitudes of local agencies towards growth, and 4)
the natural and social amenities of this specific area. The material
presented for the Westside Trunk District assumes that the proposed
project is constructed.
o Public Services
As shown in Table 20, availability of a public water supply is a major
constraint to growth throughout the Medford region. On the basis of
public water availability, Eagle Point, White City, Central Point, and
East and Northeast Medford have the greatest potential for future growth.
According to local planners, South and West Medford could easily be served
by the local water system, but service in the near future is unlikely since
it is controlled by the Medford Water Commission.
o Land Availability
On the basis of land availability, the areas around Medford can be easily
broken into two categories — those areas which have large parcels of un-
developed land available for subdivision, and those areas in which most of
the land has been parcelled into 1 to 5 acre pieces. Eagle Point, White
City, Gibbon Acres area, East and Northeast Medford, and Central Point
(within its proposed urban growth boundary) generally fall within the first
category, while South and West Medford fall within the second. The West-
side Trunk District has a mix of both conditions. Large parcels remain
in the lower foothills, and a few exist within the suburban residential
areas shown on the county's comprehensive plan. However, much of the
land on the valley floor has been partitioned into 1 to 5 acre, long,
narrow lots. The largest undeveloped parcels on the valley floor are
zoned for farm use.
o Attitudes Towards Growth
The cities of Central Point and Eagle Point have taken the most aggressive
positions towards future growth, and both have proposed major expansion
of city boundaries in their proposed urban growth boundary decisions.
The City of Medford through its comprehensive plan and public services
policies is actively promoting growth in the east and northeast portions
of the city. Jackson County has taken a slow growth position in West and
South Medford, as well as the Westside Trunk Distirct. Their position
63
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARATIVE GROWTH POTENTIAL
City or Sub-Area
West Medford
South Medford
Eagle Point
Whits City
Talent
Public Services
Street patterns and design
are not adequate. Local
water districts have ques-
tionable ability to increase
service. Sewer service
is available.
Public local water district
but pipe sizes are too small.
Uncertain ability to increase
water supply. Sewer is
available.
Public water and sewer
service is available. City
is currently planning to
solve long-term sewer capa-
city constraints. School
system has capacity.
Public sewer & water pro-
vided through former army
base system. BCVSA plan-
ning to rehabilitate sewer.
Water through Medford.
Furtuer avialability depend-
ent on Medford policy.
Public sewer available
through BCVSA. Water is
constraining service. Pur-
chase water from Talent
Irrigation District. Water
system currently being
expanded through a HUD grant.
Land Availability
Few large parcels remain un-
developed. Area has been
cut into 1-5 acre, long
narrow lots.
Few large parcels remain un-
developed. Area has been cut
into 1-5 acre long, narrow lots.
Large parcels are available
within and outside city limits.
City will annex adjacent pro-
perty and provide services.
Large land tracts are avail-
able. Industrial use is top
priority. No incorporated
city, so cannot offer increased
services through annexation.
Land available on outskirts.
City not particularly favorable
towards annexation.
Attitudes Toward Growth
City of Medford would like
county to limit growth in
this area.
City of Medford would like
county to limit growth in
this area.
Strong local pro-growth pos-
ture. Seek to cooperate with
developers.
Residential areas have been
well-planned. County seeking
moderate level of growth.
Residential caters to moder-
ately priced homes and mobile
homes.
In past was pro-growth.
Recent change of direction
towards no-growth posture.
Amenities
Not as close to industrial
employment as some other
areas. Suburban setting.
Not as close to major indus-
trial employment as some
other areas. Suburban setting.
Close to new industrial areas.
Outskirts of urban area close
to recreational facilities.
Good retirement area. School
availability. •
Close to industrial area, but
maybe too close. Good market
for low to moderate priced
housing. Well planned and
executed enviromaent.
Not as close to employment as
northern area. No commercial
services. No change in downtown
over past few years. Small-town
atmosphere.
-------
TABLE 20 (Continued)
COMPARATIVE GROWTH POTENTIAL
City or Sub-Area
Phoenix
Gibbons Acres
Public Services
Public sewage treated at
regional plan. Public watei
through municipal wells.
Water availability will be
future constraint.
Along BCVSA Interceptor.
No public water supply.
Water one of major growth
constraints.
Land Availability
Large tracts available
outside city limits. City
will generally annex if
requested.
Large tracts of available
land. -
Central Point
Public sewer and water
service available to meet
long-term needs; however,
both systems require
upgrading.
Very little land available
within existing city limits.
Urban growth boundary
includes extensive areas to
the east and southwest of
the city. Willing to annex.
East/Northeast
Medford
Public sewer and water.
Available through City of
Medford.
Large parcels of land avail-
able within city limits or
adjacent and available for
annexation. Good site for
suburban subdivisions.
Westslde Trunk
District
Public sewer available
through BCVSA. No public
water. Public water may be
available to north area if
annexed to Central Point.
With exception of agricul-
tural land, most of valley
floor cut into small (1-5)
acre parcels. Large par-
cels remaining in steeper
part of foothills and i
fringes of existing>devel-
opment.
Attitudes Toward Growth
Amenities
Non-committal attitude towards
growth. Not seeking growth,
but will not turn it down.
Amenable area. Farther from
northern industrial areas.
Much new activity in down-
town commercial area.
County not anxious to promote
growth so far away. Much
pressure for mobile home parks
and lower income housing. Most
is outside of Central Point
urban growth boundary.
Not highly amenable area.
No schools close by. No
commercla1 services.
Fairly strong growth position.
Willing to annex and provide
services to adjacent areas.
Close to industrial job
locations. Site of new
county fairgrounds. Adjacent
to freeway access.
City of Medford plans for this
to be their future major growth
area.
Amenable area with good
services. Close to industrial
sites. Good area for suburban
development.
North area within Central Point
urban growth boundary and city
will encourage growth there.
County wants to maintain rural/
suburban atmosphere in south
portion.
Close to industrial job loca-
tions. Amenable sites due to
proximity of foothills. Mixed
rural uses.
-------
on the Westside Trunk District has been somewhat modified by the inclusion
of the northern portion of the district within the proposed Central Point
urban growth boundary.
o Amenities
The major advantage appears to accrue to those areas which are close to the
North Medford-White City industrial employment centers, but have retained
a scenic or rural character. Both Central Point and Eagle Point share
those characteristics, and much of their growth has been attributed to
those factors. The Westside Trunk District is considered to be high in
amenities due to its proximity to both job locations (North Medford,
White City or central Medford) and the natural beauty of the western foot-
hills, However, it is not as close to the major recreational areas as
are those communities farther to the east.
In relationship to the other residential areas adjacent to Medford, the
Westside Trunk District ranks high in amenities and low in the provision
of public services. The availability of developable land and current
attitudes toward growth both indicate the continuation of a moderate pot-
ential for growth. Construction of the proposed public sewerage system
would increase the growth potential of the project area unless growth
were constrained by either local planning policies or the availability of
water. If a public sewerage system were constructed within the project
area, it is probable that the area's competitive advantage over other
areas would increase over the short-term.
The major factors in the Westside Trunk District's long-term potential
for growth are the availability of an expanded water supply and future
planning policies of Central Point and Jackson County. If the supply of
public water in the project area increases relative to other unserved areas,
growth could increase at a rapid rate. However, as long as other urban-
izing areas within the county have adequate public services, the Westside
Trunk District would not be expected to experience higher rates of growth.
Area Economy
The year 2026 design capacities supplied in the Westside Trunk District
Facilities Plan assume that the existing major parcels of agricultural
land would remain in farm use. The highest population densities would
occur, for the most part, in areas presently designated for suburban or
rural residential use. As the project area continues to grow, with or
without sewer, growth can be expected to increase the pressure for the
conversion of agricultural land. As long as county taxing policies
recognize the lower tax paying ability of farm land, and farmers continue
to raise economically viable crops, farming should continue on the remaining
large parcels within the Westside Trunk District.
o Adverse
Construction of the proposed project would result in increased costs to
local homeowners due to construction assessments and hook-up fees. The
66
-------
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority financial plan differentiates between
typical residential lots, large undeveloped acreage, commercial and insti-
tutional uses, and exclusive farm or F-5 farm land. The approximate assess-
ment rates applied to each of those uses is detailed in Appendix C. Assess-
ment costs for a typical 1/2 acre residential lot could range between $2,000
to $2,500. This cost does not include the construction of the individual
sewer line from the residence to the lateral, which cost must also be borne
by the property owner.
It can be assumed that local property valuations would increase slightly due
to connection to a public sewerage system. Those parcels which are currently
receiving a 25 percent discount due to unsuitability for septic tanks would
lose that discount when sewer service became available to the site. This
would be offset, however, by the increase in usability of the site.
Land Use Plans and Policies
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1972 and proposed to
direct County land use policy to the year 2000. The County is currently
revising the plan to comply with LCDC goals, and to reflect recent changes
in county growth patterns and policies.
The County Comprehensive Plan currently shows the Westside Trunk District
as a future mix of rural and suburban residential uses and agriculture.
The plan densities assume that sewer service would not be available
during the planning period. In recent discussions, County officials have
indicated that increased densities might be desireable to provide.for
growth beyond the year 2000. A straight line projection of past growth
rates indicates that the County build-out capacity of 9,000 could be
reached by the year 2007, approximately 30 years from now. It is expected
that provision of sanitary sewer service would cause long-term increased
pressure to decrease the minimum lot sizes presently allowed within the
suburban and rural residential areas.
Continued urbanization of the Medford region will undoubtably result in
the conversion of lands with Class I-IV soils. A previous county exten-
sion agent and numerous pear growers have indicated that almost 3,000
acres in Jackson County are currently in pear orchards which are not
suited for agricultural use, even though the soils may be Class I-IV.
Medford's location in the center of the valley means that any expansion
into adjacent areas will, in most cases, promote the conversion of
agricultural land to urban/suburban uses. Although planners agree that
development in the foothills would be preferable, in many instances the
cost of providing public services to those areas maybe prohibitive.
Although much of the land on the valley floor within the Westside Trunk
District falls within Class II-IV soils categories, large portions of it
have been partitioned into 1 to 5 acre parcels, and are no longer viable
farming units. The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and the design den-
sities presented in the Facilities Plan, both assume that the areas which
have already been partitioned will remain in residential uses. Although
the design densities generally do not project future growth within the
agricultural areas, it is possible that construction of the proposed
67
-------
sewer system could cause pressure for the conversion of that land. County
planning policies could withstand that pressure. The specific areas in which
pressure for agricultural conversion could occur depend upon the service
areas delineated by the separate alignments. Potential service areas will
be discussed in the following section.
The relationship of the proposed project to the four applicable Statewide
Planning Goals is described as follows:
Goal #3, Agricultural Land
The construction of the proposed project would allow parcels of Class I-IV
soils within county rural and suburban residential zones to be converted to
residential uses. In almost all instances this land has been previously
committed to urban or urbanizing uses as a result of being parcelled into
lots of less than 10 acres in size. The effects of the individual align-
ments are discussed in the following sections.
Goal #6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
By lessening the amount of wastewater which contaminates local drainage
ditches and waterways, the proposed project would improve the quality of
water resources as mandated by Goal #6. By providing sewerage service,
future development would not "threaten to violate state or federal
environmental quality statutes, rules or standards. (16)"
Goal #11, Public Facilities and Services
Local planning officials have not indicated that construction of the proposed
project would violate the intent of Goal #11. In fact, the urban develop-
ment currently planned for the northern portion of the project area could
not occur without the provision of a public sewerage system.
Goal #14, Urbanization
The proposed urban growth boundary for Central Point indicates that sewer
service would be provided to the northern portion of the project area. If
county planning officials maintain the current zoning within the southern
portion of the project area, construction of the proposed project should
not cause urbanization beyond that indicated in the county comprehensive
plan.
o Adverse
Secondary. It is expected that county planning officials would experience
long-term pressure to convert agricultural land to residential land where
the two uses abutt. This pressure may be especially severe in the areas
south and west of the existing Westwood (Neidermeyer) Subdivision. However,
the 8" pipe which would serve this area would constrain any future develop-
ment, since wastewater collection capacity would be severely limited.
The extension of sewer service into the Westside Trunk District completes
the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority's plans to provide service to the
area west and south of Medford. In addition to these three projects, the
68
-------
City of Jacksonville is currently preparing a Facilities Plan to initiate
expansion of their sewerage facilities. Combined, these four projects
would provide public sewerage service to much of the area south of Central
Point and north of Phoenix, bounded on the west by the foothills and on the
east by the City of Medford. The phasing of the West Medford project
would curtail service to the areas west of Jacksonville until the need for
those services is established. At one time, much of the land within those
sewer districts was productive farm land. As Jackson County and the Medford
area grew, many of the large farms were partitioned into smaller parcels
and sold for rural and suburban residential use. Much of this area is
characterized by small tracts of land interspersed with larger farming
operations. The cumulative impact of these projects would undoubtably
be to create pressure for conversion of some of the smaller, less pro-
ductive tracts to residential uses. This would be particularly true where
previous parcelization resulted in farms too small to be economically
viable. The remaining large farm units should withstand this pressure
if county and state policy continues to discourage conversion of those
large tracts. The major constraint to growth in those areas, is, without
question, strong local planning policies and implementation.
Public Facilities and Services
Water
If future growth is to occur within the Westside Trunk District as projected
within the Facilities Plan, a solution must be found to the area's water
supply limitations. Construction of the proposed wastewater collection
system would, in the short-term, alleviate portions of the water availability
problem by enhancing the quality of the existing ground water supply. In
the long run, however, it is doubtfull whether this action would totally
solve the water quantity problems.
It is assumed that public water will be supplied to the northern portion of
the project area that falls within the proposed Central Point urban growth
boundary. The purpose of urban growth boundaries is to indicate those areas
which will in the future have a full range of urban services. Central Point
has indicated that they are willing to provide water service to those areas
within their proposed urban growth boundaries, as those areas annex to the
city. Annexation must be accomplished before water service can be provided
due to current Medford Water Commission policy. The Commission, in an attempt
to control development, will not extend water service beyond its current
service boundaries, as defined by the city limits of the jurisdictions it
presently provides with water. If the Central Point proposed urban growth
boundaries prove to be realistic, and residents of the northern portion of
the Westside Trunk District request annexation to the city, public water
should be supplied to them. The Medford Water Commission currently con-
trols adequate water to supply the needs of that area.
Adequate water supply in the southern portion of the project area is,
however, questionable. The Facilities Plan projects that approximately
4,000 people would live in this area by the year 2026. It is estimated
69
-------
that approximately 1,000 people presently reside in the area, all of whom
receive water from the existing ground water supply. Although there is no
current information on the quantity of available ground water, local agency
personnel do not believe that the supply is sufficient to provide the addi-
tional pumping capacity that would be necessary to supply the additional
3,000 residents. This is particularly true for the densities projected
for the lower foothills. Ground water in the foothills is currently limited
in supply, and expensive to locate since deep wells must be drilled through
the existing granite.
It would then appear that in order for the projected growth to occur, a
public water supply would be necessary. Currently two options exist for
supplying this water: 1) receipt of water from the Medford Water Commission,
or 2) formation of a local water district. Each of these options is dis-
cussed below:
1) Medford Water Commission: Under current Medford Water Commission
policy, this area could not be annexed into the Water Commission service
district. If Jackson County were to indicate that they wanted a public
water supply in the area, it is possible that the county could convince the
Commission to make available the necessary water. It is generally believed
that this would not occur within at least the next 10-15 years, perhaps
longer.
2) Formation of a local water district: Formation of a local water
district has been discussed frequently within the Westside Trunk District.
The major area of concern is acquisiton of a water supply source. Neither
of the local irrigation districts are believed to have sufficient available
water to meet the supply needs, and therefore are not considered to be
likely sources. This condition could change, however, if the demand for
irrigation water were to show a substantial decline. The availability
of local water rights in sufficient quantity to allow construction of a
reservoir higher in the foothills is not known, but could provide a pot-
ential source. In addition, local community wells could also provide a
potential source of limited amounts of water. It is apparent that no one
source (with the exception of the Medford Water Commission) would be
sufficient to provide a public water supply for the southern portion of
the Westside Trunk District. It is possible that further exploration of
potential water sources, or a program to utilize water from a variety of
sources, would provide sufficient water to meet the needs of the projected
residents. At the present the feasibility of the formation of a local
water district is unknown.
In the long run, it is certain that construction of the proposed project
would increase the pressure for public water service within the Westside
Trunk District. Whether this need will be met, or whether lack of a pub-
lic water supply system will constrain future growth, must be decided by
local residents and government officials.
Sewer
If all households within the Westside Truck District were to connect im-
mediately to the proposed trunk line, an additional 200,000 gallons per
70
-------
day of untreated wastewater would be delivered to the Medford Treatment
Plant for treatment. The plant contains sufficient excess capacity to
accept and efficiently treat that amount of additional wastewater. The
quality of the effluent discharged into Rogue River would not be af-
fected by the proposed project.
Schools
The Medford schools within the project area currently have sufficient
excess capacity to accommodate limited future growth in the project
area. The Westside Elementary School is currently the smallest school
in the Medford district, and district officials realize that it may re-
quire expansion at some time in the future. Although the cost of sewer
construction would Increase the operating costs of the school, it would
not be an excessive burden on district finances.
o Adverse
Primary. Construction of the proposed sewerage system would cause short-
term disruption to traffic within the project area.
Secondary. The existing project area roads are probably not adequate
to meet the needs of the population identified within the Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan. If future growth would occur to either meet
or exceed that level, road improvements would be required. It is as-
sumed that since Jackson County has adopted zoning to allow for future
growth, that they have accepted some future responsibility for provision
of streets to serve at least 9,000 residents. If water service became
available to the project area so that an increased population could be
served, the road system could be adversely effected. Sufficient growth
to cause such effects could only occur as a result of the joint pro-
vision of sewer and water services.
If growth occurs within the Central Point urban growth boundary as now
projected by the city, the Central Point School District could be se-
verely affected. The schools that would serve the project area are
currently at capacity. Future growth within the northern portion of
the project area would require the school district to make extensive
capital improvements in order to accommodate additional students.
Archaeological/Historical
o Primary
During the construction of the proposed sewer project, buried archaeo-
logical materials could be discovered. If this should occur, an arch-
aeologist should be notified immediately to provide an assessment of
the value of the materials. The Oregon State Historic Preservation of-
fice has determined that no adverse effects would occur as a result of
the project. (Appendix A ).
71
-------
Site specific, secondary effects of the proposed project upon historical
resources of the project area will be discussed in the following section.
The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office has determined that no
adverse effects would occur as a result of the project. (Appendix A).
Air Quality
o Adverse
Primary. The construction of the proposed wastewater collection system
would cause temporary, localized air pollution. Construction machinery,
earth movement and traffic detours and stops would increase suspended
particulate concentrations, vehicular exhausts and noise pollution in
the area. Such increases in air quality degradation would only occur
during working days, allowing for favorable dispersal of concentrations
during off hours. Adequate wind conditions could minimize all effects
of the construction on the airshed. These construction effects would
be very short-term in nature.
Secondary. The potential for high levels of air pollution in the Med-
ford airshed is considered serious. As the area continues to grow, air
pollution is expected to increase in magnitude. The Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality estimates an increase in total suspended par-
ticulates from 23 tons per year in 1976 to 32 tons per year in 1985 and
38 tons per year in 1995. The Medford region, including the Westside
Trunk District is currently undergoing a detailed Air Quality Mainten-
ance Analysis conducted by the Department of Environmental Quality. When
completed, this study will provide a more precise picture of projected
trends in air contamination and possible mitigative measures.
The increased growth that may occur within the project area, due in
part to the construction of the proposed project, would cause an increase
in traffic related air pollutants. These pollutants, primarily carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides, would be residential, mobile sources. They
would not add to the existing particulate problem.
Surface Water Quality
o Beneficial
Secondary. The construction of the proposed project would eliminate the
discharge of significant amounts of sewage effluent into the surface
waters within the Westside Trunk District. The creeks, irrigation chan-
nels, and drainage ditches would experience less pollution, and poten-
tial pathogenic contamination via these waterways would be reduced.
Because high fecal coliform counts result from both residential and
agricultural uses, it is not possible to determine the individual effect
of halting the drainage of septic tank effluent into the surface waters.
It does not appear that conversion to a public wastewater collection
system would be sufficient to clean up area surface waters. The extent
to which residential and agricultural uses are contaminating the surface
waters is currently being investigated in the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments 208 planning study. Hopefully this report will provide
72
-------
guidelines for limiting agricultural pollution sources, so that both
causes of surface water contamination can be halted.
Construction of the proposed project would make higher standards of surface
water quality possible. - In addition, any effect the project would have
on lowering fecal coliform counts would assist in removing a potential
public health hazard from the area.
o Adverse
Primary. Surface water directly adjacent to the trench route would ex-
perience Increased turbidity and bank disturbance during construction
of the trunk line. This would be a temporary impact, and repair work
to the water banks would reverse the impact. Such impacts would presum-
ably be minimal. Long-term impacts could occur where the trunk line
crossed a canal or water ditch. If the sewer pipe were to be in
direct contact with moving water, any ruptures and subsequent leaking
of the sewage line would adversely affect the water quality of that
water system until the failure was amended.
Secondary. Increased development in the Westside Trunk District could
have secondary effects on surface water quality. The conversion of
land from natural or cultivated vegetation to impermeable surfaces
would affect runoff patterns and rates. Human activity in the area
would change the quality characteristics of the receiving waters and
thus affect stream biota.
Groundwater Quality
o Beneficial
The potential for future pollution of the aquifer due to septic tank
effluent would be eliminated by construction of the proposed project.
The removal of all septic tank effluent from the area would eliminate
a substantial amount of the contamination of the sub-soils, and thus
would negate the possibility of such contaminants ever reaching the
aquifer.
Vegetation/Wildlife
o Beneficial
Secondary. Construction of a wastewater collection system within the West-
side Trunk District could eliminate a portion of the contaminants which
are now reaching Jackson and Griffin Creeks. Measurable improvements in
the water quality of those streams could increase their value as wildlife,
habitats.
o Adverse
Primary. Short-term disturbance of vegetation along construction routes
would be anticipated. Site specific effects due to the construction of
specific alignments will be described in the following section.
73
-------
Secondary. The conversion of vacant land to residential uses, as allowed
by construction of the proposed project, would eliminate specific habitat
for some wildlife species, particularly in the lower foothills/woodland
area. The simplification of a woodland or riparian environment, as
caused by future residential development, could have long range adverse
effects on a local environment. Diversification in plant and animal
species associations is the key to a strong and stable eco-system. If
the woodland and riparian areas were to experience considerable alter-
ation of their natural constitution, a general degradation of the local
natural environment could be anticipated. This degradation would appear
not only in specific areas as native species were eliminated, but also
in general areas where the ecological balance was upset and the aesthetic
quality was lost.
Energy
All alternatives would, in varying degrees, have an impact upon energy
consumption. The construction alternatives would require the greatest
energy requirements, while the "no action" alternative would have no
energy requirements, unless mitigation measures such as septic tank
repair were enacted. A comparison of energy requirements for the specific
alternative alignments can be found in the following section.
Short-term Resource Use vs. Long-term Productivity
Economic, social and environmental systems are seldom static, but can
usually be viewed as a continuum moving from what they were in the past,
to what they will be in the future. A significant concept in the eva-
luation of effects is: what effect does a potential project have upon
those trends? Does the project slow down, or speed up the trend, or
does it move the trend in another and different direction? In this
particular case, the construction of the proposed project would continue
the local and regional trend of conversion from agricultural to residential
uses. This trend has been visible in the project area since the 1940's
and has accelerated, especially in the northern portion, over the last
15 years. The trend would be further accelerated by the construction of
this proposed public wastewater collection system.
The construction of the proposed project would allow future commitment
of land to residential uses, thus potentially foreclosing future use of
land for agricultural uses. However, because much of the project area
has already been committed to residential uses, it is possible that that
future option has previously been foreclosed.
The long-term water quality within the project area would be improved as
a result of the proposed project. Although construction of a sewerage
74
-------
system would not alleviate all local water quality probems, it would be
the first major step towards the long term goal to provide an environ-
ment free from public health hazards.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments
Construction of the proposed project could potentially result in a
slight lowering of the local ground water table. This would likely be
noticeable only in the existing more densely developed subdivision
tracts and would not be expected to result in changed well water con-
ditions. Since the existing domestic water is supplied by local wells,
the present situation constitutes water "recycling" whereby much of the
water now being withdrawn from the water table is returned by the subsurface
drainage of septic tank effluent. Some of this recycled water has been
found to be of poor quality and to present a public health hazard as it
reaches the surface waters. This proposed sewerage project would reduce
and/or eliminate the groundwater quality problem by diverting the water
to a discharge point in Rogue River following treatment. It would
significantly reduce the potential for groundwater and surface water
related public health problems which now exist in the Westside Trunk
District.
The commitment of money, labor, energy and materials into the construction
of the proposed project would allow future commitment of land to residential
uses. (Local mineral resources including sand and gravel would be utilized
during construction. The quantities needed for this project would not signi-
ficantly deplete the total area resource.) The cost of provision of the
proposed wastewater collection system would range between $800,000 and
$1,000,000 depending upon the specific alignment. The commitment of those
monetary resources must be weighed against the costs of the existing and
future public health hazards, as well as the cost of maintaining vacant
land that is not presently suitable for agricultural uses, or usable for
residential purposes.
Mitigating Measures
Most short-term impacts of the proposed project could be mitigated by
the methods described in Table 21. Mitigation of long-term effects is
discussed below.
o Biological Systems
Since the trunk line would be constructed primarily under the existing
road system, long-term effects to the biological systems would be minimal.
All crossings of the irrigation canals would be specifically designed
and constructed to alleviate any possibility of breakage and subsequent
direct flow of raw sewage into those ditches.
o Socio-Economic Systems
The financing and assessment program currently in use by the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority is a mitigating measure of major importance,
75
-------
since it does not burden existing farm land. The financing method
assesses farmland (land zoned for Exclusive Farm or F-5) on the basis of
the residence located on the parcel. Assessments on the remainder of
the property are deferred until such time, if ever, that the use of the
property changes. The assessment policy also allows for deferments on
the basis of "financial hardship". These deferments are generally
granted to residents on a low, fixed income, if requested. The assess-
ment method is described in further detail in Appendix C.
TABLE 21
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
Short-term Impact
Mitigating Measures
Temporary loss of
vegetation
Traffic or utility
service disruption
Dust
Soil Erosion
Safety hazards
- Replant after construction or allow for natural regrowth
of shrubs and trees.
- Vegetation adjacent to pipelines should be flagged or
fenced to keep vegetative damage to a minimum.
- Advance notice of anticipated disruption should occur.
- Barricades and flagmen should be posted as necessary
to guide traffic through construction zones; residents
in areas should be notified as to location, nature and
duration of construction.
- Keep soil wetted down in construction area.
- If possible, construction should be done during drier
months of the year.
- After construction, any exposed soil areas should be
reseeded using grasses native to the area.
- All open trenches should be covered or fenced at the
end of each work day.
- All construction equipment should be secured against
unauthorized use.
Aerial Pollutants
- All vehicles and equipment should be fitted with
appropriate pollution control devices that are properly
maintained.
Visual impact of con-
struction equipment
Increased Noise
- Equipment should be stored in a designated area. All
litter should be picked up.
- All equipment should have mufflers, properly installed
and maintained.
- Construction activities should be limited to daylight
hours.
Water Quality
(Streams & Irrigation
Canals)
Construction activities in any streams or irrigation
canals should be limited to low flow periods.
Care should be taken not to discharge petroleum or
other pollutants into surface waters.
Archaeological Impacts
If any archaeological sites are uncovered, work should
be stopped until an archaeologist has been notified.
76
-------
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
As shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13, three alternative alignments have
been proposed for providing wastewater collection within the Westside
Trunk District. Although each of these alignments would generally serve
most of the project area, there is a significant difference in the
relative ease of service to specific areas. Therefore, although each
alternative could provide service to most of the district, specific
service areas would be determined by the placement of laterals.
Lateral placement would be primarily dependent upon ease of service,
cost, and demand for service. Alternative alignments can then be evaluated
on the basis of cost of construction and operation, as well as potential
lateral location.
Another evaluation criteria relates specifically to the potential con-
version of agricultural land to residential uses. The Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area east of Hanley Road and the
area south of Ross Lane should remain in agricultural use. (The Elk
Farm parcel is not included in this analysis since its purchase by the
Forest Service commits it to a long-term agricultural use which is not
totally dependent upon market conditions.) If pressure to convert that
land to residential uses is to be avoided, then priority may be given to
alternative alignments which would either prohibit service to those
areas, or would decrease the feasibility of such service.
Each of the three alignments will be evaluated individually on the basis
of the land use, historic preservation, energy consumption and biological
impacts that are specific to that alignment.
ALTERNATIVE 2A
GRANT/BEALL/ROSS ALIGNMENT
Alternative 2A would follow the alignment shown on Figure 11. The
construction, operation and maintenance cost of this alignment, as
measured for the life of the project, would be approximately $830,000.
Because the project area generally slopes to the northeast, lateral
service could be provided most inexpensively to those areas west of the
proposed alignment or adjacent to the southern portion of the alignment.
Therefore, this alignment would provide easy service to the existing
development, the foothills area, and the proposed Forest Service tree
nursery. In order to provide service to the area substantially south of
Ross Lane, or east of Alignment 2A, a relatively large lateral would be
required to run the length of Hanley Road. Construction of such a
lateral is not expected due to substantial LID costs, and non-conformance
with local planning policies.
Land Use Impacts
Alignment 2A would provide cost effective service to the land generally
west of the alignment. This route would serve the presently developed
77
-------
areas, and allow for future growth west of the Forest Service property,
including the foothills. All of the areas shown within the Central Point
proposed urban growth boundary could be served by this alignment. Con-
struction of this alignment would encourage lateral development in the
presently developed areas and the foothills.
Selection of this alternative would discourage construction in the area sub-
stantially south of Ross Lane and east of Hanley Road, due to significantly
increased construction costs. The 8" pipe which would be located at the
terminus of the project along Ross Lane provides sufficient capacity to
serve the existing households, but does not provide capacity for future
development in the parcels to the south. In order to serve the area to
the east of Hanley Road, an extensive lateral system would be required.
These increased construction costs should serve to protect that area from
urban encroachment. By not providing service to these two areas, this alter-
native would not create conversion pressures on the agricultural lands that
Jackson County wishes to preserve.
Historic Preservation Impacts
Construction of this alignment would not create urbanizing pressures in
the area of the Aaron Chamber's house. However, if lateral service were
provided adjacent to the Old Stage Road homes, it is possible they could
be subject to development pressures.
Energy Consumption Impacts
Utilization of energy would be required in the construction of the pipe
materials, consumption of fuel oil, and placement of the trunk line. No
long term energy commitments would be required since the system would
function on the basis of gravity flow.
Biological Impacts
Alternative 2A routes through the proposed U. S. Forest Service tree
nursery south of Sylvia Street to Ross Lane. This area is currently
an important breeding ground for the ring-necked pheasant. Construction
activities could cause a temporary disruption to that wildlife habitat.
Because the alignment would be restricted to a narrow strip, no signifi-
cant impact is expected. If construction occurs after the construction
of the Forest Service facilities, the habitat may have already been dis-
rupted .
A large California black oak is located at the point where the alignment
leaves the Forest Service property to meet Ross Lane. This oak is an
important habitat for local perching birds, as well as being aesthetically
pleasing. Proper alignment of the proposed trunk line could prevent any
disruption to this tree.
Mitigating Measures
Recognition of the historic character of the sites identified along Old
Stage Road by both Jackson County and the Oregon Register of Historic
Places could alleviate pressure for conversion of those homes. In
addition the 1 to 5 acre lot sizes specified for the area in which they
occur are sufficient to protect those homes from future residential ex-
pansion .
7S
-------
Construction specifications would require that the California black oak
located along Ross Lane be protected from disruption during construction
of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE 2B
HANLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
Alternative 2B is outlined on Figure 12. The construction, maintenance
and operation cost of this alternative for the life of the project is
expected to be approximately $960,000. Construction of this project
would allow gravity flow sewers to be constructed in all areas west of
the alignment. It would decrease the costs of providing laterals south
of Ross Lane, as well as east of Hanley Road.
Land Use Impacts
Construction of Alignment 2B would provide feasible gravity flow service
capability to most of the land within the project area since it is located
close to the eastern boundary of the district. Pressure to convert pre-
sently zoned agricultural land to residential uses would be most intense
with the construction of this alignment. In addition, this alternative
provides efficient service to the major parcels of Class I-IV soils,
which are expected to be placed in an EFU zone at the completion of the
county's comprehensive planning program.
Historic Preservation Impacts
Construction of this alignment could result in pressure to increase the
housing density along Hanley Road. Any movement in that direction could
potentially effect the maintenance of the Aaron Chamber's house.
Energy Consumption Impacts
Utilization of energy would be required in the construction of the pipe
materials, consumption of fuel oil, and placement of the trunk line. No
long-term energy commitments would be required since the system would
function on the basis of gravity flow.
Biological Impacts
The construction of Alignment 2B would occur entirely within the existing
roadway and would cause no significant biological effects.
Mitigating Measures
Recognition of the Aaron Chamber's house by Jackson County and the
National Register of Historic Sites could potentially protect the home
from degradation.
79
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2C
OLD STAGE ROAD ALIGNMENT
Alignment 2C is outlined in Figure 13. The construction, operation and
maintenance cost of this alignment is estimated to be approximately
$1,050,000. The increased cost of this alignment is due to the construction
of the three pump stations that are necessary to carry wastewater up hill
from the existing developments to the trunk line in Old Stage Road. These
pump stations would require operation and maintenance throughout the life
of the sewer.
Alignment 2C provides low cost, gravity flow service to a smaller portion
of the project area than do the other two alignments. In order to provide
wastewater collection service to those areas east of the alignment, pump
stations or extremely long laterals would be required. This would have the
effect of decreasing the demand for such service because of high costs.
Land Use Impacts
Alignment 2C would provide the most feasible sewer service to the area
west of Old Stage Road and the portion of the project area which falls
within Central Point's proposed urban growth boundary. Gravity service
would not be available to the agricultural lands east of the alignment or
south of Ross Lane. In addition gravity sewer service would not be available
to many of the existing households which are located in the current rural
residential zones east of Old Stage Road. Selection of Alternative 2C would
severely restrict service to most of the agricultural land within the project
area; however, it would also restrict service to many of the rural residential
homesites as well.
Historic Preservation Impacts
Construction of Alignment 2C would occur in Old Stage Road adjacent to
the three identified Old Stage Road homes. Pressure to convert those
could potentially occur.
Energy Consumption Impacts
In addition to the energy consumption that would occur during construction,
a long-term commitment of energy resources would be required for the
operation and maintenance of the proposed pump stations.
Biological Impacts
Large specimens of California black oak, Oregon white oak, Pacific
madrone, ponderosa pine and incense cedar line the western portion of
Beall Lane, Old Stage Road and the upper portion of Ross Lane, often
forming partial canopies over the streets. The construction of the
trunk line could potentially damage the root systems of some of those
trees.
Mitigating Measures
Construction of Alignment 2C would be routed to protect the root systems
of the large trees identified along Beall Lane, Old Stage Road and Ross
Lane.
80
-------
SUMMARY MATRIX
The following matrix summarizes the effects of the "no action" and
construction alternatives. These Impacts are measured as either major,
moderate, minor, or no Impact.
TABLE 2 2
SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Grant/Beall Hanley Rd. Old Stage Rd.
No action Alignment Alignment Alignment
Impacts 2A 2B 2C
- Continued degradation of
ground water quality + N N N
- Continued degradation of
surface water quality + N N N
- Potential problems with
operational reliability NA N N -
- Impact on air quality N N N N
N N N N
Impact on archaeological
resources
- Impact on historical
resources
- Vegetation and terres-
trial wildlife loss
- Consumptive use of energy
- Pressure for conversion
of agricultural lands
- Financial impact on
local property owners
+ Major Adverse
0 Moderate Adverse
Minor Adverse
N No Adverse Impact
N N
81
-------
The most significant difference between the three alternative align-
ments - Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C - relates to the areas which
could easily be served by each alignment. Ease of service is closely
tied to cost, and those alignments which increase the cost of serving
certain geographic areas may restrict service to those areas. Alignment
2B, which places the major trunk line along Hanley Road, would provide
gravity service to most of the project area. The majority of the agricultural
lands within the project area could be easily served by this alternative,
increasing the pressure for conversion of that land to residential uses.
Alternative Alignment 2A would allow service to the developed lands
within the project area, as well as those lands slated for future development
within the local comprehensive plans. Cost of service to the areas
planned for continued agricultural uses would be increased, since the
trunk line would generally be placed west and north of those areas.
Alternative Alignment 2C would result in the most restrictive service,
since gravity flow would not be available to the existing developments
adjacent to the Westside Elementary School. Construction of this align-
ment would increase the cost of service to some areas planned for development
in the local comprehiensive plans, in addition to areas planned for
agricultural preservation.
None of these three alignments would result in significant adverse
impacts to air quality, vegetation, wildlife or historical and archaeological
resources.
As shown in Table 22, selection of a no action alternative would continue
the current degradation of water quality in both the ground water and
surface waters of the project area. Short-term impacts due to construction
would be alleviated, however, long-term water quality impacts would
continue.
82
-------
SECTION IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed project was
made available to a wide range of federal, state and local agencies, as
well as local individuals, for review and comment. This section includes
copies of the letters received from all reviewers, and responses to the
comments or questions that they raised. Table 23 lists the written
comments that were received by the Environmental Protection Agency and
Indicates whether a response to the letter was necessary; and if so,
whether a change in the text was made, or if the comment was answered
elsewhere. Copies of each of the letters received are also included,
with responses to the letters comments appended to each letter. Table
24 lists the issues addressed in each of the response letters that were
received.
In addition to written comments, oral comments were heard at a formal
public hearing on both the Facilities Plan and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. This hearing was conducted by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency on January A, 1977 at the Westside Elementary School
which is located within the project area. Comments from local agency
staff members and citizens were responded to at that time. An official
transcript of the public hearing is on file at Region X Environmental
Protection Agency offices in Seattle, Washington.
83
-------
TABLE 23
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Agency/Indivldual
Comments Noted
No Response
Necessary
Portland District,
Corps of Engineers X
Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District X
USDA, Soil Conser-
vation Service X
Mr. & Mrs. Harry LaFever X
U.S. Dept. of Housing
& Urban Development
U. S. Dept. of the
Interior
Mrs. Charlotte Peterson X
Response
Indicated
in FEIS Text
Response Indicated
on Comment Letter
in this Section
X
X
Jackson Co. Health
Department
State of Oregon-Soil &
Water Conservation Comm.
(JCSWCD)
State of Oregon Dept.
of Fish & Wildlife
Division of State Lands
LCDC
X
X
X
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Jackson County
Planning Commission
84
-------
TABLE 24
Comments Received on Draft
Envi ronmental Impact Statement
oj
>
e
a>
Date
Reccfi
Froln
EIS
Page No.
•P
V)
o
u
<0
3
cr
k.
a;
4->
Q
0)
CO
Q)
uy
a>
c
£>
o
D_
<0
S_
a;
-a
o
>»
cn
t-
a)
s-
u
0)
OC
u
(O
o.
e
u
S--
c
o
u
S-
(U
s.
a>
i/>
a>
u
a-
o
4->
(/)
X
o
s-
0)
>
a
o
$-
w
it
S
-a
c
3
o
s-
C3
ai
e»
a>
1/11 U.S. Department of
Agriculture
1/12| Department of Housing and
Urban Development
1/20
U.S. Department of Interior
1/28| Corp of Engineers
Portland District
1/24) Intergovernmental Relations
Di vision
Soil & Water Conservation
Commission
Fish & Wildlife
Division of Lands
Land Conservation and
Development Commission
12/ Advisory Council On
29 Historic Preservation
1/11 Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District
X
85
-------
Comments Received on Draft
Environmental Impact
Date
Recdl
From
EIS
Page No,
• 1/11J Jackson County - Board
of County Commissioners
1/13| Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority
1/24J Jackson County Health Dept.
l/ioj Edwin C. Frost
1/11I Mr. & Mrs. Harry LaFever
1/131 Charlotte Peterson
a
XXX
-------
Response to Written Comments
1. Mr. & Mrs. Harry LaFever
Response: Comments noted.
2. Department of the Army, Portland District, Corps of Engineers
Response: Comments noted.
3. U. S. Department of the Interior
Comment: Demand on local resources of stone or sand and gravel should
be recognized and considered under "Irreversible and Irretrievable Re-
source Commitments."
Response: This comment has been noted and the text has been changed
to reflect the use of gravel resources in the construction of the
proposed project. The quantity of gravel needed would not signi-
ficantly deplete local mineral resources.
Comment: "The statement would be strengthened by including more
specific data on flow characteristics and water quality of streams
draining the project area, especially on those reaches containing
high fecal coliform levels."
Response: The statement includes all available information on the
streams that flow through the project area. Unfortunately no addi-
tional data exist.
Comment: "The statement should indicate the potential in terms of
the population dependent upon septic tanks and wells, and the total
number of such facilities in operation. These data in turn could
be used to estimate the magnitude of impacts on the water table
through the complete cessation of the "recycling" through septic
tanks."
Response; Local and state agency water resource personnel were
reluctant to include any estimate of such a decrease in the "re-
cycling of wastewater" or its effects on the local watertable.
They felt that any such estimate would be so broad as to be unuseable
for analytical pruposes. For that reason, such an estimate is not
included in the statement.
Comment: "Local recreation agencies should be notified of the re-
creation enhancement features."
Response: Comment noted and referred to Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority, the local project sponsor.
87
-------
Comment: Mailing list corrections are needed.
Response; The Environmental Protection Agency has made the
necessary corrections to the mailing list.
Comment: "The geology section would benefit from careful revision."
Response: Revisions to the geology section have been made based
on Department of Interior comments.
Comment: "Clarity and brevity of the geologic description could be
maintained by including a generalized geologic map and cross section.
Areas of potential geologic hazards could also be indicated on the
geologic map."
Response: Since no geologic hazard areas have been specifically
mapped within the project area, inclusion of a geological map does
not appear to be warranted.
Comment; "There appear to be numerous mispellings of scientific
names in Appendix B."
Response: Appendix B has been reviewed and mispellings corrected.
4. Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
Response: Comments noted.
5. Department of Housing & Urban Development
Response: Comments noted. See pages 67-68 of FEIS text.
6. Charlotte Peterson
Response: The reviewer is referred to Appendix C of the FEIS for
the discussion on BCVSA assessment procedures applicable to large
lot homesites and agricultural land.
7. Jackson County Health Department
Response: All comments have been noted in the text.
8. State of Oregon Soil & Water Conservation Commission - (Jackson
County Soil & Water Conservation District)
Response: Although the textual discussion in the DEIS is referenced
to soils associations, soils are mapped and analyzed by individual
soils series based on information provided in the applicable OR-1
and Soil Interpretation for Oregon forms. The most pertinent soils
data relates to agricultural capability and septic tank suitability.
The mapping and analysis of these issues have been prepared based
on individual soils series data which is the most detailed data
available. We believe the level of detail provided in the current
discussion is sufficient to address the questions raised in the DEIS.
88
-------
9. State of Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Response; Comments noted.
10. Division of State Lands, State of Oregon
Response: Comments noted.
11. Land Conservation & Development Commission, State of Oregon
Comment: "It is critical that remaining agricultural lands not
be threatened by futher encroachment of urban sprawl."
Response: EPA has added a grant condition (outlined in the FEIS
preface) which addresses the preservation of agricultural land.
The grant condition reads as follows: "the grantee agrees that
connections inconsistent with agricultural zoning will not be
allowed for sewerage service to those areas traversed by the pro-
posed trunk line through lands designated as agricultural by the
county's comprehensive plan. Any existing residences which are
located within 300 feet of the proposed wastewater system (will
be required to hook-up to the proposed trunk line.) If additional
structures requiring sewerage service are allowed by Jackson County
to be constructed, hook-up to the sewerage system is required."
Comment: "Population projctions for the project area are based upon
existing comprehensive plan and zone designations and densities.
Revisions to city and county plans and ordinances in response to
the statewide planning goals could substantially alter or invali-
date these estiamtes."
Response In response to calculations prepared by Jackson County
Planning Department the design population has been reduced from
17,400 to 13,000. As Indicated in the preface to the FEIS, the
design of selected alternative 2A is being modified to reflect
that lower future population figure.
Comment: "Statements made in the DEIS that remaining large farm
units in the area will remain economically stable should their
owners choose to continue farming are inconsistent with the intent
of this goal (Goal 3 - Agriculture).
Response: The text has been modified to reflect this comment.
However, it should be pointed out that some of those parcels are
not now zoned for exclusive farm use. Therefore, until Jackson
County takes such action, those parcels could be divided into 2k -
5 acre parcels in conformance with the current zoning designations.
89
-------
Comment^ "The DEIS does not presently include any specific discussion
of adverse or beneficial impacts of alternatives on agricultural lands."
Response; The reviewer is referred to the discussion of land use
impacts for each alternative alignment.
Comment: "Four of the twelve statewide planning goals are identified
and listed as being'applicable. It is also stated that these goals
will be utilized in analyzing the alternatives. Unfortunately, this
is never done."
Response: Compliance with the four statewide planning goals identified
as applicable to this project is not discussed individually for each
alternative. However, it is a factor in the analysis of impacts under
the following headings: land use, air quality, water quality, and
public facilities and services. Portions of these sections have been
revised to more clearly reflect that analysis.
Comment: "Neither the section on alternatives nor the subsections on
mitigating measures even mention the possibility of alternatives to
septic tanks and sewers."
Response: The alternatives reviewed in the DEIS reflect the final
alternatives as they are outlined in the Facilities Plan. The
reviewer is referred to that document for a discussion of the alter-
native selection process.
Edwin G. Frost
Comment: The decomposed granite soil in this area percolates very
rapidly. In my estimation it is an ideal soil for septic tank operation.
Response: As referenced in the preface to this Final EIS, numerous
wastewater problems have been reported within the project area, including
the specific area in the vicinity of the Westside School. In many portions
of the project area, the Department of Environmental Quality and the
Jackson County Sanitation Department consider the soils to be generally
unsuitable for septic tank operation.
Comment: Item 2 - For the future, sewers would encourage further develop-
ment and increased population in the subdivision and surrounding area.
Current county zoning and local popular opinion definitely stand against
such a trend. The surrounding agricultural lands and our current way of
life should be protected against further encroachment.
Response: The 8" pipe capacity to the Niedermeyer subdivision are&s has
been chosen deliberately to limit the amount of growth which can be accommodated
south of Ross Lane. The mechanism for protecting agricultural land is the
Jackson County comprehensive plan which is currently being updated. Before
the proposed project receives federal funding, Jackson County must certify
90
-------
that the project is in compliance with the county comprehensive plan
including county and state mandates to preserve prime agricultural
land.
Comment: Item 5 - Westside School appears to be the only plausible
reason for extending a sewer trunk south from Beall Lane.
Response: The writer is referred to the preface of this FEIS for
a discussion of septic tank failures in the area south of Beall Lane.
Comment: Item 8 - The public meeting at Westside School on January A
showed evidence of strong sentiment among individuals against the
construction of a sewer in this area.
Response: A review of the legal transcript of the referenced meeting
indicated that the general public response was mixed, and indeed was
stronger in support of the project. Many individuals were present at
the meeting to ask questions and receive information, and did not go
on record either supporting or opposing the project.
Comment: Item 9 - It is my understanding that assessment cost for
sewerage for my lot on Niedermeyer Drive (approximately 150 x 150)
would be approximately $3,000.
Response; The individual household cost of sewer provision have not
yet been established. The BCVSA assessment process outlined in Appendix
C would be used to determine individual service costs.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Comment: "The council has expressed concern about the effect that
the construction of public wastewater facilities in the vicinity
of Jacksonville, Oregon would have on the rural setting of the
Jacksonville Historic District. However, we are unable to find
in the DEIS any evidence that such consideration has been given in
the planning for the Westside Trunk District. Therefore, the council
requests additional information which will explain any effects the
proposed undertaking might have on that National Register property."
Response; Correspondence from the State of Oregon Historic Preser-
vation office is included within the DEIS which indicates that no adverse
impacts are expected to occur as a result of the construction of the
proposed alternative. The project has been designed to provide the
greatest capacity to the northern section of the district. An 8" line
will be constructed to serve the Neidermeyer subsivision, which is the
most southerly extension of the proposed project. This 8" line would
not provide sifficient capacity to serve the agricultural land to the
south and west, therefore it is not expected to result in any further
conversion of agricultural land in proximity to the Jacksonville
Historic District.
91
-------
14. Jackson County
Comment: "The projected infiltration rate of 200 g.p.d.p.c. could
be used a a growth contingency factor, allowing for population growth
to greatly exceed the intended plan densities. This oversizing has
not been substantiated within the Facilities Plan or Environmental
Impact Statement."
Response: As indicated in the preface to the FEIS, EPA has accepted
the 200 g.p.d. standard due to the high groundwater conditions that
exist within the project area. This allowance is within the sewer
design criteria used by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
and manuals of practice of ASCE and WPCF.
Comment: Alternative 2B does, in fact, conflict with the agricultural
concepts of the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore cannot be construed
to comply with the plan if it were the selected alternative.
Reponse: For the reason stated in the above comment, Alternative
2B was not considered to be a viable alternative.
Comment; The design population of 17,400 exceeds the plan buildout
population estimate of 13,000. This assumes that plan densities will
be increased sometime after the 1985 planned date of the comprehensive
plan. While this would appear logical, it is also possible that density
reductions could occur, thus the project would be over-designed. There
is no evidence now to suggest that a reduction is likely, however."
Response: As indicated in the FEIS preface, the design capacity for
the selected alternative 2A has been revised to 13,000.
Comment: Urban growth boundaries have not been approved, as yet, for
Central Point. Changes in these boundaries could affect the ultimate
sizing of the trunkline.
Response: Throughout the FEIS the urban growth boundaries under dis-
cussion are consistently referred to as "proposed urban growth boundaries."
In addition, BCVSA continues to be involved in the local process of identi-
fying specific urban growth boundaries.
15. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Comments noted. No response necessary.
92
-------
kjL- Ci (1 C J J.
r --1 <''-'• 6> A- uWvm''
Received
JAN 11 1977
ypre Cf ^ ^
Vy^t- d^tc J^ /•--<*- ^ c-{_\^ ^—A' ^ "x A ^/ l?s-n.
_> e^\K.c ~- v_ .*.«.. ,<.(.1-1... c~,
(0 v.
r
ft C^* w' l'') ft ^. »-l-1V.A '.'
it'.a.. arth.J'U ^ U.^n.^1 Ju**Ju A'+M^ V,.-../ ¦•
Af -6u fM—JUa^% fcl-to'- yci/r '<*-
J-^c J..y % /fy. /'• " , , ^ ^ -fr
»»-«-•*_' C*~> ^ ^~~ L^,v»" v_ tt"J^
/* Vs/L f "£i-c -c^-* /fl-c . te-i'X' -i^-t-4+J | , 0 j
--£*-*-
"8*~; Ll- ^ fyt.Jp'¦ ^t^J./ -L^ z2^/
t 1 «-* W 1 •- -
•/
cL*'^>-n t. - A »*
^^XjC -c .
A^-.L^i'-,- ,^-TJ., tz.u. .o-n^
£ cc tt-£ o. 6.1 *- yCi"~e >jf~ ^Ma_
Y'fc- ^1'~* (L+iJJ It# £&> , 1' rj
UE. Ctl y^'f ^
~t£ X-^ C-Atrt^.-c--^-1 -*-*£" '
-^7 r^^n^xj li yfr X/^ "•
v-,!^ ^
V^>A-C— , -< *-» —tjM~>\.< *-
^t-f" C-trv-^~ ci >-/¦ ~tU. stl^
r*L .
.-(r ,/j ^ .-v. t;- (¦/ ^ *
*- ^ - cA(u
^e-a-n
jf7L n 6^-
.'y
'V ^ ^'v_/ p<~-r-r/ ,<2-C>.i*-c^
-tl-fTt C.^f ^I Vt «.—«
^'-*- "/^-rt. t<-i. ft -'^-rt.. ^T-C' <-«- v
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
POMTLANO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
r o mon l«4*
PORTIANO. ORCOOH *?»•
NPPEN-KR
19 January 1977
Richard R. Thlel, P.E.
Chief, Envlronaental lapact
Section, M/S 443 "PCEfVEO
U.S. Envlronaental Protection Agency, JAN „ o
Region X " ""
1200 Sixth Avenue pa* —.
Seattle, UA 98101 tKA-PI«J
Dear Nr. Thlel:
The draft envlronaental lapact statement (EIS) for the tfestslde Trunk
District, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, which you furnished our
North Pacific Division Office, has been referred to this District Office.
We have reviewed the statement and offer the following coaswnts for your
consideration.
The Corps of Engineers supports the proposal to construct a wastewater
collection systea In the Westside Trunk District. Hater quality enhance-
ment la one of the purposes for the Corps' Rogue River Basin Project,
constating of Lost Creek, Elk Creek, and Applegate Daas. Cooperation
between the Federal government and local governments In the Rogue Valley
la necessary if this enhancement purpose Is not to be jeopardised.
As stated In the draft EIS for the tfestslde Trunk District, unless correc-
tive action la taken, further degradation of domestic ground water supplies
and the surface waters of Griffin and Jackson Creeks can be expected ss
residential use of the area grows. Because these two atreaas flow Into
Bear Creek, a primary tributary to the Rogue River, Increased effluent
discharge would be detrlsantal to Rogue River water quality. The Corps
believes that a responsible stance aust be taken by local government to
acci—mlate anticipated residential growth without aacrlficlng water
quality and potentially jeopardizing Federal water resource development
efforts In the baaIn.
NPPEN-EB
Richard K. thlel
19 January 1977
Alignment configuration for the wastewater collection system should be
determined through an analysis of costt growth-inducing 1upsets
(especially conversion of agricultural lands to residential use), com-
pliance with local coaprehenslve land use plans. State-wide goals, and
water quality effects.
We appreciate this opportunity to review and cosnent on the draft statement.
Sincerely yours,
U J. STEIN
Chief, Engineering Division
-------
United States Department of the Interior ^ ^
Fief < FM
. , OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
•£Vt4 J
PAC IC NOKTIIlliSl KH.ION
P.O. Dos *621, Portland, Oregon
-------
Page 37, Geology — This section, though brief, does include recogni-
tion of geological hazards. The balance of the section, however, would
benefit froa careful revision. The reference to radical alteration of
the landscape through the continuing processes of erosion and deposition
is scarcely relevant within the tlae span of the proposed action. The
paragraph following seem to iaply that the predominant rock-type of the
area, granodlorlte, changes to granite In some areas, and sandstone in
others. Clarity and brevity of the geologic description could be wln-
talned by Including a generalised geologic aap and cross section* Areas
of potential geologic hazards could also be Indicated on the geologic mp.
Page A-7m Appendix B — There appears to be numerous misspellings of
scientific oases in this section.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and coiwent on this document.
Sincerely yours,
I*- Charles T. Hoyt
Special Assistant to the Secretary
RCGUE RIVER VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
3ta« MCftWIMAN ROAO *¦"•> MKOrOKO, Off COON 97S01 <> AftCA COOK I03-I«4t«*0
January 5. 1977
RECEIVED
Mr. Richard R. Thle!
Chief of Environmental Impact Section H-S*l*l3
U.S. - E.P.A. - Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RE: Comments on proposed West Side
trunk sewer - Bear Creek Valley
Sanitary Authority
Dear Mr. Thiel;
For many years, the Irrigation districts have been accused, by the City
of Hedfnrd and others, of transporting polluted waters within their Facilities
and distributing said waters through out the valley.
As you are also aware, the area has been designated as a 208 Planning
area. Recent results of the monltering of waters In our area also confirm
that the waters of Jackson Creek, Griffin Creek and other tributaries, are
in fact, being polluted by septic effluents, entering these tributaries.
The District, In past years, has made every attempt to have the fall-
ing septic tanks removed or remedied, by working with the Jackson County
Health Department and the D.E.Q., In our area. The results have been less
than satisfactory to the District. In many cases the exact cause of effluents
entering the District facilities could not be pin-pointed as to the point of
origin, and in others, due to lot size or other reasons, could not be corrected.
In some cases, persons living adjacent to the District facilities have
piped the ovpr-flow from their septic tanks directly Into the District fac-
ilities or streams. In other cases, persons with water rights for Irrigation,
irrigate directly over their systems, forcing the effluents out Into their
run-off water that may be recaptured by the District and used again for Irr-
igation by others.
For these reasons, the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District Is In favor
of the proposed sewer truck line proposed by the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority. We do feel that when said trunk line Is completed. It would
have a marked effect on the reduction of septic effluents now entering the
waters of the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, and would also
enhance the environment of tHe area.
Sincerely yours,
Oifa
Otto Bohnert, Chairman
Board of Directors
Rogue River Mil ley Irrigation District
JAN 11 1977
Cp«
cc: Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
-------
mR-'
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
AKCAOE PLAZA SVILOlNG, 133! SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON *1101
January 10, 1977
(CGKM X 1*4 nr_rt.r meprm ro«
Office of Community 10D M/S 317
Planning 6 Development
Richard X. Thlel, P. B., Chief
Emriron—ntal Impact Section, K/S 443
0. S. Eavlronentil Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Thiel: JAN 12 137?
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Westslrie Trunk District
Jackson County, Oregon
We have reviewed the Statement submitted with your November 12, 1976
letter.
The proposed action Is the construction of a wastewater collection
system for the residents of the Westside Trunk District, which is
located southwest of the City of Central Point, Jackson County,
Oregon.
The Impact Statement makes an analysis of the project to the State
planning goals; however, we cannot tell from the Statement if the
proposed facility will be consistent with the present comprehensive
plan, aa adopted by the County, or if the project would be compat-
ible vith comprehenalve plans being developed to meet State goals.
We suggest that the final statement clarify this relationship.
With exception of the above concern, we see no objection to the pro-
posed project.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
f
Sincerely, /
, JXobert C. 'icslla - " /
yAssistant Regional Administrator
MU OrFICES
l»0«*rk*NO. ORF.iO<*.U*TTLC. »4|MimTO«
hlfll Oflktf
Anchont*, Alsih* - Mn, |Mw - Wa*M*«ton
3168 Ross Lane
Central Point, Oregon
Jan 10,1977
U.S. EnTlrom»ntal Protection Ar»ncy
1200 6th ATe.
H/S 443
Attention: Ho"«r Mochnlch
Seattle Tnshincton 98101
Dear Sir:
On January 4th, I attended the public hearing on the *est Side
Trunk District prepared by the BnTlrnmental protection A cfttle on year around. Our children are active in beef, horse,
nnl r.itbit 4-H clubs end we would like to have it regain this way.
nth the developeaent of the truck Una up to West Side school
or aloni? the eastern border of our property, it has been inferred
thnt the nssecceaent would be prohibitive without forcing us to
r»11 off thnt section. It appears the trunk line would solve
the problem of the sewerage of the ^estsldr School and a few
select houpes but on the other hand would create mora probleas
with respect to water supply, air pollution, and housing
1«Telorients on the agricultural land.
It would be pppreclated if I would recieve the final copy of the
report i>s it will cone out in March.
Sincerely,
¥rs. Charlotte Peterson
RECBVED
.'AN 13 1977
PPA.trt«»
-------
LESTER N. WRIGHT, H.0., N.P.H.
HEALTH OFFICER, 01 RECTOR
III) MAPLt OlOVt Ntw, MiOfOtO, OtCOOM. «7M1
January 19, 1977
Hr. Roger Hochnlck
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, UA 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
On January 10, we received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Westslde Trunk District in Jackson County, Oregon.
We have had a chance to review the document and would like to make the
following contents:
Page 3. Jackson County Health Department does not have records on
septic tank permit applications and cannot be listed as a source of
information for "approximately 50Z of all requests for septic tank
permits within the Westslde Trunk District are denied".
Page 35, "Air quality". The State Department of Environmental Quality
ham indicated that the Medford area does have a photochemical oxydant
polution problem. Historically, suspended particulate matter has been an
air quality problem in the Rogue Valley* however, recent test results
have prompted the Department of Environmental Quality to Include photo-
chemical oxydanta in their air quality management plan.
Page 46, "Ground mater". We have reason to believe that some of the cement tile
wells, in the Reidermeyer (westwood) subdivision area have been changed
to steel casings. He do not believe that this was universally done, or that
the problem has hasn eliminated.
If you have any queations concerning our coaments, feel free to contact our
office.
Sincerely. /
Steven F. Boedlghelaer, R.S. j
Supervising Sanitarian
Jackson County Health Dept.
SFBtjdf
RECEIVED
JAN 2 4 1977
CPA.C"!
r i - ¦> k J i s t. ' i !" . i ; ¦ . Tj
md "raft O-.yirer. ont-il I >it "H ".it
nt. ¦ ry 3, 1 "H Staff "Vp-.,i - 3
i -'IUHr w S-W.L EE r.JVtH TO Cfi:;Si "JCTI0M OF IIAff R «» SR.Wi: FACILITIES VilllCII A!(h
rlCuIskd 3Y txisrnir. co::oniOiB, os for vbiicm hoi: is a iutuse ;;ei o as lm iirn nu
3Y TliF i'ACK'OH COMIITY COKPKHII ;,?!7E PLAN.
Fxisting ilciisitics of dev.-lofient Oil soils whirh are lar'jely unsuitable for 0.1-
sitc svjitic systems ap»ear to satisfy the criteria of iiiis policy.
uniuij 1 he constraints of rcasc:.aci t t^iatcRiir. ruAcucis a:ji» coses, urn whir
A:.'0 StVACK I UltS SHAM. :!Qr PASS filRCi'.H PRIME AIIUaiLlURAI. I AMD.
IVsi'jK al twnalives ?A and 2C satisfy tin's policy. A1 In native ?3 v.ould be in
conflict with this policy.
p^orcmo watfr A;:n si hi:r claims shall uhuliwo lco::omic and i.;;vipo;,"ifhtal iiwact
ASSFSSMflTS WHICH Ii.'CLL'HIi IIJOIPFCf flTCUS OH LAUD USC ANO HI'.ni'?.CE CAPABILITIES.
An •jssossr.ent was prepared which Identifies possible iuyacls of each of the throe
al tenia Live routes and a "no action" alternative. Indirect effects .ire outlined.
Increased growth pressures are expected until zyning densities .ire reached.
Depending on line location, there will he some additional grcv/th pressure placed
on aijricul tural lands.
Compliance ?nd Posltf on Stjtcnwit: At face value, the project rppen-s to comply with
the stated "Imi policies, and this co..j>lies with the Comprehensive Plan. There are,
however, a f:w areas where future c jtion should ba exercised. These are:
A) The projected infiltration rite Of ZOO g.p.d.p.c., could he used as n y-.j;-;!h
contingency factor, allowing for ;op'i'! "tioii •jrov.-tli to yteatly e/ceed tlie intended
Plan densities. This overswir.g has r.ot hren substantiated v.-i Mi in the facilities
Plan or Fnv1rotv?c»tal lupact Stttc-icnt.
B) Alternative 7B r'oes, in fact, conflict with the •igricnltiir.il coir.cpts of the
Ce:.iprel'e«-,s ive PI,in, ¦•'.nd there'ero cer-.ot be construed to cc;ij>ly uitli liie ri.>n if
it were the selec'-d alterative.
C) The design p'pnlat ion of 17, *">0 t>>v.s»«ls 'he Man bull (tout population esLiwite
of 13,010. This ih.t PlJn ^niitios v.ill he incrrvA!.-' x-' "i't:;? after the.
ms plowed ."ate of the Co.-j>rch-:nsive I'l.-n. '.":iile this •.-.wild «.j';r;ar lexical, it
is i»1so pe-isihla tMt density 1 cr'-ct'-M-.s c.>nld th'is the pruject v.^uld lie
¦> !eiir ,-il. Ti c• 0 is no f nrv; to sv st Ih-t a rcd-iction is IHely, li<-
D) 'Ji b^n 'jh ' • -.ldaries l.r.vj rot t "11 .':pjiroved,
-------
Executive Department
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION
240 COTTAGE STREET S E . SALEM. OREGON 97310
January 20, 1977
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
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Re:Westside Trunk District
PNRS #7612 4 370
Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental
Impact Statement for State of Oregon review and comment.
Tour draft was referred to the appropriate state
agencies. State Soil and Water Conservation Ccmraission,
State Department of Fish and Wildlife,Division of State lands,
and Department of Land Conservation and Development offered
the enclosed concerns which should be addressed in prepara-
tion of your final Environmental Impact Statement.
We will expect to receive copies of the final state-
ment as required by Council of Environmental Quality
Guidelines.
Sincerely,
Admini strator
DU: lm
enclosures
RECEIVED
.'AN 21 w/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFSCATION ANDp
STfllE CLWIKCIIOKE " 8,9I6
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon SOIL AND WATER
Ph: 378-3732 CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PNRS SJLAJLE REVIEW1
Project I: 7612 4 370 Return Rate: l-M-11
EMVTPnHHENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review.
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT DvUXlU*'
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
Nr
We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
The Jackson SDCD comental
'"The soils section Is so poorly done that it should be renritten. Soil
( associations should not be used for a detailed report of this type, rather
each soil should be described and Soil Interpretations for Or<>gon forms used.
\ These forms are readily available in Medford. The report is being returned with
| notations and nils statements crossed out.
Agency
$$0-tL' l By t Oj, /. fj.
99
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
JAN 6 1977
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
Ph: 378-3732
P » « s nut ifvifi
.. 761 ? h 370 Return Date: (-74-77
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review.
2. 0MB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
caI1 the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project, does not have significant environmental impact.
(X ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( ) Wo suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed review of the Uestslde Trunk District,
Draft Environmental Statement, and offers the following conents.
The construction of Alternative 2B: Hanley Road Alignment would have the least Impacts
to fish and wildlife.
The following areas of concern need to be mde a part of the project during construction.
1. Preventive aeasures Bust be taken to stop turbid waters fro* entering any waterway.
He reciiMtnil a settling pond or collecting basin be constructed If any problem
develops.
2. Fill-removal permit be obtaloed when crossing streams in the area. We recommend
that ln-water work be made June IS to September 15 to protect the fish and
wildlife resource.
3. Removal of vegetation along construction route be kept at a minimum.
Agency Jkoh «. UMdhu
1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION 1/3/77
100
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM .
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE , r 2 fj ,??G
fl"5!LED
Project
Intergovernmental delations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 9731(1
Ph: 378-3732
UU ntp Q197&
ELH R & S T ft T F. REVIEW division of state lands
7612 h 370 Return Date: Mf-n
FNVT ROMMKNTAI. IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review.
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, pleasn
cal 1 the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( 1—f^The environmental impact is adequately described.
( ) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
/
we urge the applicant to apply for state^ill k"*8 °f th® water4"V(s),
well in advance of construction rtf Jm °r rraow»I pennits
project delays. J* PreVent
be obtained from the Division of Stat °r e need for Permits may
Street, Salem, OR 97310. ££ 3^-1^ at 1445 "ate
Thank you for the opportunity to ™nt on this project.
Agency
By
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE -
,:v : i /;
. Ov'< Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
r Ph: 378-3732
*0^ PHRS STATE REVIEW
Project t: 7A1 ? ^ 370 Return Date: I"/*/' 77
EMVTRONMF.NTAI. T MP ACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response Is required to all notices requesting environmental review.
2- OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENV1 ROM MENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Pinal Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
Sec. o.WokcVc1^. ccfoxsvic .
Agency
t-CGC I-I2-V
PROJECT I 7612 4 370
The Ore-yon Department of Land Conservation and Development
has several comments and concerns relative to the Westside Trunk
District DEIS. We remain very concerned that this proposed
project be developed and implemented in accordance with the
statewide planning goals. The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
(BCVSA), as the sole grant applicant and lead agency, is bound by
Oregon statutory authority (ORS 197.185) to plan in accordance
with these goals. He are also concerned that this project be
closely coordinated with the mutual establishment and adoption
of an urban growth boundary for Central Point-by both that city
and Jackson County. As mentioned in the DEIS, both Jackson County
and Central Point are currently revising their planning programs
in order to comply with the statewide planning goals (ORS 197.175).
In addition to the adoption of an urban growth boundary, all
agricultural lands outside the adopted urban growth boundary must
be protected from urban development. Therefore, it is critical that
remaining agricultural lands not be threateded by further encroach-
ment of urban sprawl. BCVSA will need to work closely with both
the city and county to insure that project plans do not conflict with
the revised comprehensive plans and ordinances which will incorporate
the statewide palnning goals. Essentially, we do not feel the DEIS
goes far enough in addressing the statewide planning goals as a
basis for project development and alternative consideration. The
following points are of particular concern:
1. Page 17 - Population projections for the project area
are based upon existing comprehensive plan and zone
designations and densities. Revisions to city and
county plans and ordinances in response to the statewide
-------
102
Page 2
planning goals could substantially alter or invalidate
these estimates.
2. Page 18 - The statewide planning goal (No. 3 - Agricul-
ture) should make it abundantly clear that all agricultural
lands shall be preserved and maintained consistent with
ORS Chapter 215 (EFU zone). Statements made in the DEIS
that remaining large farm units in the area will remain
economically stable, should their owners choose to con-
tinue farming, are inconsistent with the intent of this
goal. Jackson County will soon be implementing EF0
zoning protection to those remaining parcels in the project
area that warrant it (i.e. all Class I-IV soils outside
adopted urban growth boundaries). The LCDC goal exceptions
procedure must be utilized by the county if identified
agricultural lands cannot be protected by EFO zoning
provisions.
3. Paragraph 101 (6) (4) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) establishes a federal policy to preserve
Important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our
national heritage and maintain, wherever possible an
environment which supports diversity and variety of
Individual choice.
A recent memorandum from the Council on Environmental
Quality (August 30, 1976) regarding analysis of impacts
on prime and unique farmland in Environmental Impact
Statements, states that the above policy should be
understood to include highly productive farmlands. It
further states that efforts should be made to assure
that such farmlands are not irreversibly converted to
other uses. Accordingly, EDA has drafted a special
condition for prime and unique agriculturrl lands. It
will ensure that the grantee must provide evidence that
the project will not have significant primary or sec-
ondary adverse impact on, not directly or indirectly
cause any irretrievable conversion of prime or unique
agricultural lands, as defined by SCS. This condition
will soon be attached to any LPW project grant.
We feel that this project certainly way have potential
for significant secondary adverse impacts which may
directly or indirectly contribute to irretrievable con-
version of prime agricultural lands. Therefore, this
condition should be considered applicable and be applied
In the final EIS. The DEIS does not presently Include
any specific discussion of adverse or beneficial impacts
of alternatives On agricultural lands.
4• Pages 19-20 - Four of the twelve statewide planning
goals are identified and listed as being applicable.
It is also stated that these goals will be utilized In
analyzing the alternatives. Unfortunately, this is
never done.
5. Pages 35-36 - The section dealing with air quality is
already based upon outdated information. Such statements
as a) The existing air quality in the Medford area is
not considered serious; and b) The most serious problems
result from high levels of particulate matter, not
-------
Tage 4
necessitating constraints on vehicular useage, are no
longer valid given recent findings that gaseous emissions
also exceed standards.
6. Page 57 - Neither the section on alternatives nor the
subsections on mitigating measures even mention the
possibility of alternatives to septic tanks and sewers.
This is a very serious oversight because alternative
sewerage disposal systems may eventually offer a viable
solution to existing and future problems.
Me look forward to consideration of our comments in the final
E1S. It is essential that all affected agencies and citizens work
together to Meet pollution standards while retaining agricultural
lands and overall liveability.
GG:cg
VI3/7 7
1 uri/fl i, M-rfori-^yr-r ijr
; f-iirord, iir" ''750?
•inn <¦, 1 '177
"'r Gorier : !or-hni P'f, lil'/V
1 ?i*10 ^ixLh Avr
io, onim
Hi>rn«iHi is my st.-itPmont which I rnqfi'St tie » -il" .1 nf record
-ind in connection with tl>p linvirnnwntal cipact St.it.»-
nrnt concorriinq the .\'estside Triin't liist.rict, .Mr^son (Zoiinty, nrr.
I do not foci that. the cost of construct inn of a trnn'1 litw?
r»f :!oad ]•*?=*¦»T" r\rto'i"-itp*1 y to v.trr.in*- t*v
expenditurr* of Federal Funds.
i do not. feel that the Itear Creek Valley Sanitation Authority
should obligate themselves with t*inds to cnwr this =i\w i-ort.
of the pronosi»d trunk lines that it will impose a hardship op Ht
riC:VrjA economically, and to all their patrons.
I do not feel that this sewer should bo rammed down the throat': 'if
those who do not need it or want it, and force them to ta'r.o it
to justify the Westside School situation. Tho school should lat.e
carp of their own problems the name as any other school con-
struction proqram. 'l"hey could very easily buy a few acres of t.'«.'
farmland hp longing to Homer Conger and relieve his problem, i-nlni-jc-
their drainfiold and relievo thoir own prohlems.
Thp decomposed granite soil in this area percolates very rcpMJy.
In my est.jmatin it is an idpal soil for septic lank oppr.it. ion. .<•
Iiavr a oood slope to the mortheast. and wido oi>on farm l;>nd in ' I.'•
direction.
Thp residents of this area are happy with the situation nr, it
and wp arc not contributing t.o anyones probl.pms around nn. if you
ran givr> inp any evidence to thp contrary 1 will bp plPased to
apologize for my error in statement.
l r*»rsonr* 1 ly i?,-itnpn i gned for establ i shroent f 1 r lf'VS/* ltpfo»*o it f'
up for vote, I still support it as an overall valley cono-pt wherever
snweraqe is neodpd. J t*?lieve it is needed in the neall Uino ¦"*rcn,
i would support its construction there, hut j will exert effort
to defeat thp project if it is extended to this aroavbore it is not
justif iablp.
Ap additional alternative must bo included before it is brought to a
vote if you expect the project to be accepted.
Inspect fully.
i.rivin . Frost
RfCBVEO
JAN 10 1977
rp».r—
-------
STATKi'lENT
TO '-.'HOl-l IT ! iA V CUNCK'tN:
1 have? lived for morn than 11 years just one block from the center of
the Niertormeyer sub-division. I have heard many rumors concerning
polluted wells in thy subdivision prior to the time that j moved in
to the arss in 1965. I have never boon able to substantiate any of
those rumors on a first person basis. 1 had my own well tested on
an annual basis for several years. Since it lias never shown any evi-
dence of pollution 1 have discontinued the test 5.. 1 have never had any
problems concerning water, wells or septic tank during the 11 years.
'•y house well, which is 30+ feet deep,was adequate For watering the
lawn until 1067. At that tine, in order to expand my landseapinq arid
~o initiate a family vegetable garden, i dug a shallow irrigation well
(11 ft deep) to the lop of the dry hard-pan layer. This veil lias been
adequate to water my entire yard and vegetable garden since that time.
The two wells are approximately 00 feet apart.
it is my understanding that tlx? dry hardpan layer underlies the entire
subdivision and effectively seals surface water from the ground below.
Th" soil above the hardpan is basically decomposed granite through
which water percolates rapidly, while the ground ljelow is relatively
dry. The early water problems in the subdivision appear to have bt-en
caused by lack of understanding of the soil structure, by puncturing
the hardpan strata, arid by improper sealing off of well casings, etc.
These problems appear to have been solved and 1 am not aware of any
such problems existing in the area during the past 11 years, if any
potential water problem exists i would expect it to be a lack of ade-
quate water for household use. t believe that this possibility lias
been the limiting factor in population growth and development in the
area, and that it would be aggravated by the construction of sewers.
There are a considerable number of shallow irrigation wells in the
subdivision, jf all waste water were diverted to sewers these shallow
we lis would probably run dry by mid summer, creating an increased load
on house wells. The water table in my shallow well drops to about one
foot.. above the hardpan through August and September. of each year.
1 bel i<»ve my situation and circumstances to be fairly representative
and avoraqe for all residents of the subdivision. i personally believe
that construct.ion of a sever to serve the subdivision to be entirely
unnecessary and undesirable for the following reasons:
1. The current status of the subdivision does not require or
indie.it.e a need for severs.
2. For the future, sewers would encourage further development and
incre,iredpopn.1.ation in the subdivision and surrounding area. Current
County lior.inq and local, popular opinion definitely stand against such
a trend. The surrounding agricultural lands and our current way of
life should be protected aqainst further encioachment.
3. Sewers would eliminate the recycling of our waste water through
shallow wnlls for irrigation purposes, thus eliminating veqetable
gardens and reducing shrubbery and lawns.
4. Current population in the sultdivision does not justify the cost
of a 'ever trunk rrom Heall Uine across open aor icul tura 1 and forest,
service land. Very few other homos in the surrounding area and the
hillside above uld Stage i!oad are close enough to the proposed trunk
line or to each other to warrant, the construction of lateralr or
line-; for individual service.
5. West.side Schoolappears to be I be only plausible reason for
extending a sewer trunk south from De;>1l l.ane. The NieJ^rmeycr Sub-
division would provide the only significant support insofar as as
additional connections are concerned. This small subdivision ¦hould
not he expected to support the whole cause for West.side School.
ft. The real I l.ane area, and northward, appears to be in real need
of sever service. There is adequate population to support it and
Central Point, desires to annex the atea. That area should not he ex-
pected to to support the costs for construction of the trunk to
'VeitsMe School, which is outside their own «cW_»ol district..
7. Adequate sewaae disposal for Westside School is of course to b<
desired. However, it can surely be provided more economical1y by some
other means than constructing n trunk 1 ine from lieall Lane, other
sewage disposal systems are available and should he financed by t he
school district at large, not by a small subdivision or by the Heall
lane area.
H. Tho p'lhl i.c meeting at Westside School on .lanunry 4 showed evi-
dence of strong sentiment among individuals against the construction
of a sewer in this area., Wien i asked the audience if anyone knew
of any existing problems or requirements in the Niedermeycr Ana, or
if anyone desired sewerage in t.he area, there were no replies.
9. It is my understanding that assessment, cost for sewerage for
my lot on Nidermeyer Drive (app 150 x 150) would be approximately
$1000. Cost of installation from property line to house could cost
another $500. Monthly service charge is currently JT.no per ffuvily.
This total direct cost prorated on monthly payments over 20 years
at 7,.. interest on the descending balance due figures out at approxi-
mately $27,00 per month. Increased assessed value of improvements on
my home (tho $3500 above) would result in increased taxes of mere than
$3.00 per month, bringing the total to more than $30.00 per ino«*th.
That means f would be paying a dollar a day ror «-he next twenty year-:
for something 1 dont need and dont want. ^11 other resident-: or the
subdivision would be subject to approximately the same ctri" '¦ inee
all lots are approximately the same size.
In view of the above 1 feel that I must exert all possible effort
toward preventing tlie construction of the sewer trunk. At the iann
time I believe that the una11 lane area should not he deprived of
the sewer, if they ho desire.
I consider that the planning at this point has been inadequate, it
has not provided sufficient alternatives, ^additional alternative
should bo provided and given adequate consideration before a -'"Cision
is made. That alternative should be a trunk line which would termi-
nate somevhore on rieall l^ne.
Siqned this r>th day of Tannary, 1177
i:d(.-in i-'. Frost
1 HO4 .v iederrneyer !Jr
.iedford, ore 97502
-------
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Deccaber 27, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief RECEIVED
Biwtrraiaannl Inpact Section, M/S *43 DEC 2 " 1976
U.S. Enviroraental Protection Agency, Region X "
1200 Sixth Avenue FPA-Cic;
Seattle, Kuhington 96101
De*r Mr. Thlcl:
This la in response to the Envlronaental Protection Agency's (EPA) request
of November 12, 1976, for co—BUts on the draft envlromental statement
(DES) for the Westslde Trunk District wastewater system, Jackson County,
Oregon. Pursuant to lta responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of
the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council has
reviewed this DES sod Is unable to determine whether this document ade-
quately daaonstratea compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f, ss aaended, 90 Stst. 1320),
as laplcasnted by the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800).
As the CPA's enrlroeaental staff Is no doubt svare fron previous cor-
respondence oi^lSest Medford Trunk Project, the Council has expressed
concern about the effect that the construction of public waatewatar
facilities in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Oregon would have on the
rural setting of the Jacksonville Historic District, a Rational Historic
Landmark and a property included in the national Register of Historic
Places. The Hlatorlc District was designated a Landmark on the basis
of its esrly history ss a gold-mining and later an agricultural center
which has retained wnch of Its nineteenth century character. The laple-
aentatlon of such waatewater disposal service could result In the urbaniza-
tion of the rural agricultural lands adjacent to the Jacksonville Historic
District, causing s draaatic chsnge In the historic setting. By letter
of October 30, 1974, John Vlastellcla, Director, Oregon Operations Office,
CPA, forwarded to the Council environmental documentation for the nearby
Hast Medford Trunk Project in which the EPA clearly recognized this problem
and proposed a conditioned grant to the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
"By Halting the size of the Interceptor, induced growth In the
rural areas between Jacksonville and suburban Medford can be
prevented. Frequently, Interceptors that are constructed Into
The Comment it m independent nnit of the Execntirr Branch of the Federal Goirrnment charged by the Act of
October M, 1966 to dvilt the President and Confirm in the field of Historic Preservation.
Page 2
Deceaber 27, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thlel
Vestside Trunk District
or through rural areaa will induce land use changes (usually
residential developasnt) thst sre Inconsistent with compre-
hensive plans as well as the present rursl character of an
area. By reducing the alee of the Interceptor, as In this
case, such growth csn be United or prevented entirely."
However, we were unable to find In the DES any evidence that such consi-
deration has been given in the planning for the Westslde Trunk District.
Although not Identified on the naps Included In the DES, It would sppesr
thst the Jacksonville Historic District abuts the Westslde Trunk District.
Therefore, the Council requests additional information which will explain
any effects the proposed undertaking might have on that Rational Register
property.
It is noted on page 29 and again on page A-4 of the DES that EPA has deter-
mined that there will be no adverse effects on historic or archeologlcal
properties. Pursuant to Section 800.4 of the "Procedures for the Protection
of Historic and Cultural Properties" such determinations are aade in con-
sultation with the State Hlatorlc Preservation Officer and appropriate
supporting doc Mentation forwarded to the Council for review.
Until the Council has received clarification as to the proposed under-
taking'a effect on the Jacksonville Historic District and adequate documenta-
tion supporting EPA's determination of no adverse effect, or been afforded
an opportunity to comment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, ss saended, the Council considers the DES to be
incomplete.
Should you have any questions or require any additional aaslatance, please
contact Brit Allan Storey of the Council staff at P. 0. Box 25085, Denver,
Colorado 80225, telephone number (303) 234-4946.
Sincerely yours,
f '
7
v Louircrwall
Aaslstant Director, Office
of Review end Coapllance
cc: Sheldon Meyers, Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Jackson County Oregon
COUNTY COURTHOUSE > MEOFOMO. OREGON »/S0»
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMIMSStONCflS
Comrms«ioner« OMca 776-7231
JAN 101377
WCe Of FEDERAL AffAli
Donald P. Dubois .
Regional Administrator
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington 98101
January 6, 1976
Re:
Draft EXS Westside Trunk District
(EPA-10-OR-Jack son-BCVSA-INT-7 6
Dear Mr. Dubois:
In response to your invitation for comment on this draft
Environmental Impact statement we forward two statements.
Principal study responsibility was given to the Department
of Planning and Development, which presented a report brought
to us on recommendation of the County Planning Commission.
That statement is attached as Exhibit "A".
As a result of hearing testimony at your January 4 local
meeting and deliberations of the Planning Commission, County
Commissioner Carol Doty makes an additional statement which
is summarized as Exhibit "B". The Board of Commissioners
forwards both for response by the project applicant and your
agency.
Until the project route is ultimately decided upon, we cannot
give direct certification on compliance with the existing
comprehensive plan. Please advise us as soon as you are
prepared to announce an actual project route.
Vours sincerely,
JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Isabel H. Sickels, Chairman
IHS:mj
Attachments
RECEIVED
JAN 11 1377
cc: Dick Miller, Manager
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Dorothy Simpson, Chairman
Planning Comiission
Exhibit "A" to comment on Westside Trunk District
At face value, the project appears to comply with
the stated Plan policies, and thus complies vith
the Comprehensive Plan with the exceptions noted
below.
These arc:
A) The projected infiltration rate of 210
g.p.d.p.c., could be used as a growth con-
tingency factor, allowing for population
growth to greatly exceed the intended Plan
densities. This oversizing has not been
substantiated within the Facilities Plan or
Environmental Impact Statement.
B) Alternative 2B does, in fact, conflict
with the agricultural concepts of the Compre-
hensive Plan, and therefore cannot be construed
to comply with the Plan if it were the selected
alternative. The other alternates may still
have some lessor effect on agricultural lands.
C) The design population of 17,'00 exceeds the
Plan buildout population estimate of *,000. The
Central Point Growth Boundardy, if approved an
proposed, would include an additional population
of 9,000. Combined, the 13,000 population is
still somewhat short of the design population.
This assumes that Plan densities will be increased
sometime after the 1985 planned date of the County
Comprehensive Plan. While this would appear
logical, it is also possible that density reductions
could occur, thus the project would be over-designed.
There is no evidence now to suggest that a reduction
is likely, however.
D) Urban growth boundaries have not been approved,
as yet, for Central Point. Changes in these U>und-
aries and related densities could affect the ultimate
sizing of the trunk line.
-------
jacnSQii oC'. ii'y r t;sioh
' i •' i 1 ErORT
'.i-ij "'lie: January 3, 1 'J/7
S:'.j.-ct: Review of Vests ide Trunk District t.'astewafc-r Facilities Plan and
Draft Environ^ 'tilal Impact Stat :.T nt
Propose I By: Roar Crook Volley ? i r, i t i ry .'uthor i ty
R«:vicv 1'iU-nt: Recently accept; d review policies i<3-.?ntify procedure for evaluation
of sewer projects. These proct-'ums are fcetnj followed in this instance and require
that ¦ '.o Planning Ceuinission establish a position slaUwnt on Hie subject. This
st.it';•• nl ' - Oiild focus en the j>io;.-otrd project's cc- pliance or ron-conipliance with
I!,? T" ;ri,:sive Plan. This d.-N- ,.jit is then the !>isis Tor presentation to the
E.P.A. s; ou-nr.-fd publ ic r-;in. Tv.o copies of i he facilities plan at" available
in the Ooparl:.nit office for r.' mission u?e, should fui ther review he desired.
The prciinsr.il trunk line varies in size frcm 8" to ?/" and connects to the existing
tower Rear Creek Interceptor (Exhibit 1-1). I'*in ind lateral sewer lines will eventually
be constructed to provide service to residents after construction of the trunk line.
Trunk lir.e c ecities are designed at ICO gallon per d;y per capita, plus 200 gallons
ior d:;y . "-r capita for infiltration. The design life jf the systam is 50 years.
f/hi'jiss V-1, V-?, u'id Y-3 define three ».llernate !.»•??ns of sewering the district with
a 1 : 'n ¦' ' ':i' 1 . tie.
ProiECt •¦."'-d_: Ti.e '..'fr,': ^ater Plnn =.::d "nvirw-ntM fws'-'.-nt i'Jt-itifies III." follow-
ing '.•.••iiditiiins i.'iiich <• ;;;.-ort the :c_d f-.r the project:
A) ViproxinUely ?,rtO peopl; reside in the area.
3) ;:o pjljl ic su.ers exist. All ..".s^'.ator is disiosed of l.y septic t-.nks and
drainfields.
C) Soil suitability for septic t.i;-'*s is poor in - ny sections of the district
{'.-a r>.l,ibit 111-?).
0) l!i_;h w-,!.er table oemrs in . ..is.
F.) Jackson -i.(J Griffin Cre'Ss i,f ¦¦ .•.¦¦led '. 1' ¦!' q'! ¦' 1 i; y criteria.
1) Vii: --je ditches, irri'j-':'.5or. and stari.lir.j iv.i. r are being c.int.'niir.aled
with 'f.ilic tank effluent in e V:.ions.
¦Vsl > i'le Trunk Dist. V.'astiir r-clliti.s Flan
. .u.-i Ti-.tfi. rnvit/i ;.,ntal ! .^uct c.' .t
J.i ii l.y 3, 1977 Staff Report P :! - ?.
G) Tests of wells have shown c/i-'-.-oce of yiomv'v.-ater con'..tmieitif>n, «;s|HH:i.illy
in sliallow wells.
II) Records indicate .ipproxii.itely SOX of .ill r. v:,:sts for sr-;.'tic t.'r.ks arc
denied due to unsuitabil ity of soils and .:xi.:'.te of a high v..t .r table.
Area_ Characteristics: The trunk district area is nearly ef|>ially divided into residen-
tial, agricultural and undeveloped land, t'xhibit 111-4 shows tt? (."ironlril.ion of
residences. The easterly one-third area is primarily pasture, jrain r.d iji.iss seed
production.
An estimated 604 dwellings exist v.-i:S>in the district with -"i i sl: ?d ?,i'00 pMpulai:-.n.
Based on current zoning of the area ~nd the Plan map designations, the ultimate popula-
tion is expected to be ai.out 4,CC0 persons for the area lying om':si 'e of the Crnlral
Point Grovfth Boundary. Another 9,000 persons can be accomodated within that portion
of the Central Point Growth Boundary lying within the trunk district. Ihe design
year population for the combined area is 17,400 . This asst::.i s tV: Cc: prehensive Plan
projection period is shorter than the 50 year trunk district pl-rmii-j p.,riod. Compre-
hensive Plan designations are shown in Exhibits 1V-7A and IV-?R,
Co'iipivhrnsj'/e Plan Cowpl iance^: The following Coi pr: l.fusive Plan ; •)• ic"• ¦"s apply to
the subject project:
EXTF.iiSlOH OF PUBLIC SERVICES .'NO FrCILlTlES SI'OUI.D RE COO^Di::*,:!.-) •¦•Mill PIJWD
UitBAH L'XPAHSiOH.
A portion of the project area lies within the proposed Central r,int Hruvitli Round,uy.
Said area v.vuld be served by this pioj'-ct.
HASTE HAHAGEKENT SERVICES M.O rACII.ITIES ... I1KLU0IIK f.l':AGr, O'AISAOE AiSD R'lllSF.
DISPOSAL SHOULD BE IMPROVED f "D ?XPAi!OtO AS ;irCi;'.S.».«V TO i.Cti ""01 AlE fllF ;.'f I OS Of
coij ;m i;ii;ag i tants .
This project has been initiated in response to a . .-tiHon frr» 10 ,..-op: rly ownrrs
in the area.
SF'd/.GE SYSTK'.S At® SOI. 10 l':>SfE DISPOSAL SUES SXJ'IO !?E I'.C:.. 0, D;!fi I), AND
IIAKJfAIKEO Ifl A THAT KILL TlOT OtCKAOE CtiV'.JC-riMnfil. f'.-UTY.
Hie cnvii oni.setal a^SfSS'Xint addresses issues s.id provides «U:i • •liv^s and iiili.'i:.;i.o
leisures to :-ike tl.e project v;.-p<»tible with liie enviroir>.;nt.
. .'.OPOSI D KATCR AND SI.,,:V,E I *.C11 IVitS S:'.ML RE i!l C0:S'0a!-i.':-;r.F. "CM S SET 1 f i.I
iil filE LAND USE FIF»!»T OF THE CC-M:5a'E.-,1 ilSIVE PL.%'1 TOR .1Af ::S0:i f C.'ilV.
T!:e | ioject is designed to rjioly serve "s'lburt-rn" •••«d "rural reiidential" rlassili-
i.'lions. To lllis ex! .a-it, find t !.r e/::.-.it I'l.'t . i.y |.iipiitir, "Mllrr tir.n
s' 1 d I'l in ft?nsities, it is i ¦'li'.iv'ile to concl 'e 1h.it '.!;e ;. is serving the
i ,i .lit of Hi? land use el ' 't. ."-ji i' ul; :n e ./ill j-i.i.r.illy t .lifrctd by t!m
...ji-ct, e ; . ial ly if a! jr ?C is - 1T r ¦ :• j ..-n. i'l'., '.t -ivei ¦- :;"j
' i.' ¦..•i.'jii .
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
16th Floor, 1220 S. W. Third, Portland, Oregon 97204
January 7, 1977
Mr. Richard R. Thlel. P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Wests1de Trunk District -
Jackson County, Oregon (EPA 910/9-76-032)
Dear Mr. Thlel:
Ue have reviewed your draft environmental Impact statement for the
Westslde Trunk District, Jackson County, Oregon and have no conments.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft.
Sincerely yours,
RECEIVED
Gu/w. Nutt
State Conservationist
cc:
Office of the Coordinator of
Environmental Activities, Washington, D.C.
Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
EPIV-Cir;
108
-------
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
FOOTNOTES
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Management
Plan for Rogue River Basin, February, 1976.
Personal Communication, Local Agricultural Specialists, August, 1976.
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commission, Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines, January, 1975.
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commission, Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines, January, 1975.
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commission, Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines, January, 1975.
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commission, Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines , January, 1975.
Personal Communication, Jackson County Sanitarians Office, August,
1976.
Personal Communication, Jackson County Department of Public Works,
August, 1976.
Personal Communication, Bob Lee, Medford Water Commission, July,
1976.
Personal Communication, Bob Lee, Medford Water Commission, July,
1976.
Personal Communication, Dr. John Fagan, Archaeologist, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Portland District, July, 1976.
Personal Communication, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
July, 1976.
Personal Communication, Steve Boedighiemer, Jackson County Health
Department, August, 1976.
Personal Communication, Jackson County Sanitarian's Office, Dave
Maurer, July-August, 1976.
Personal Communication, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
September, 1976,
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commision, Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines, January, 1975.
109
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Endangered
Plants and Animals of Oregon, Volumes I-IV, Corvallis, Oregon,
1966-1974.
Anderson, John, Oregon State Employment Division, Personal Communication,
August, 1976.
Baldwin, E. W., Geology of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 196A.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Proposed Sanitary Sewer Plan
and Specifications for the West Medford Trunk District, prepared
by CH2M Hill, Corvallis, Oregon 1971.
Beckham, Stephen Dow, Requiem for a People: The Rogue Indians and the
Frontiersman, Norman, Oklahoma, 1971.
Berreman, Joel V., Tribal Distribution in Oregon, Memoirs of the American
Anthropological Associaton, No. 47, 7-65, 1937.
Bohnert, Otto, Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Bureau of Business & Economic Research, University of Oregon, Oregon
Economic Statistics 1970, Eugene, Oregon, 1971.
Cannon, Dale, Westside Trunk District Facilities Plan Project Manager,
CH2M Hill, Personal Communication, July-August, 1976.
Carstensen, Bob, Director, Jackson County Department of Public Works,
Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University,
Population Estimates, Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities,
July 1, 1975.
, Population Projections for
Oregon and It's Counties 1975-2000, Population Bulletin, CPCR
Series P-2 #2, February, 1976.
Central Point, City of, Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 26, 1973.
, Revised Comprehensive Plan, 1976.
, Planning for Land Use, 1969.
Coor, John, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Personal
Communication, August, 1976.
Corday, Clifford, Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Davis, Wilbur, Salvage Archaeology of the Lost Creek Dam Reservoir
Final Report, Report of Oregon State University to the National
Park Service, Corvallis, Oregon, 1968.
110
-------
Dixon, R. B., The Shasta, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History, Vol. XVII, Part V, pp. 381-498, 1907.
Fagan, Dr. John, Archaeologist, Portland District, Corps of Engineers,
Personal Communication, July, 1976.
Flanagan, George, Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Follansbee, Julia A. Report of Survey of the Pacific Power and Light
Company 500 KV Transmission Line from Malin, Oregon to Medford,
Oregon, 1975.
Gibbs, Jeff, Project Manager, 208 Planning Study, Rogue Valley Council
of Governments, Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Holt, Catharine, Shasta Ethnography, Anthropological Records, Vol. 3,
No. 4, pp. 299-348, 1946.
Holzworth, G. C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for Urban
Air Pollution Throughout Contiguous United States, Environmental
Protection Agency Division of Metereology, 1971.
Hostick, Gary, Rough Draft, Fish and Wildlife Checklist for Jackson and
Josephine Counties, Rogue District, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 1976.
Howsley, Richard, Director, Rogue Valley Council of Governments,
Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Ingels, Lloyd G., Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford University, 1965.
Jackson County Department of Planning & Development, A Report and Study
of Urban Growth for the Central Point Area, Medford, April, 1976.
, Comprehensive Plan
for Jackson County, June, 1972.
, Draft Resource
Inventory for Greater Bear Creek Basin, Prepared for the Rogue
Valley Council of Governments, 208 Program, July, 1976.
, Zoning Ordinance
for Jackson County, April, 1973.
Jackson County Department of Public Works, Standards and Specifications
for County Roads, August, 1976.
Jackson County Extension Office, Value of Agricultural Production, 1975.
Ill
-------
Jackson County Health Department, Personal Communication, Steve Boedigheimer
and others, August-September, 1976.
Jackson County Overall Economic Development Planning Committee, Progress
Report, 1970.
Jackson County Sanitarian's Office, Personal Communication, Dave Maurer &
others, July-August-September, 1976.
James, Robert, Medford Irrigation District, Personal Communication,
August, 1976.
Kroger, John, Jackson County Department of Planning & Development,
Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Lee, Bob, Director, Medford Water Commission, Personal Communication, August,
1976.
Lilly, Robert, Jackson County Department of Planning and Development,
Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Lowenberg, Vincent A., Alternative Strategies for Economic Development.
Jackson and Josephine Counties, State of Oregon, Department of
Economic Development, Portland, Oregon 1975.
McBee, Jim, Mayor, City of Central Point, Personal Communication, August,
1976.
McCartney, Opal, Jackson County Assessor's Office, Personal Communication,
August, 1976.
McKenzie, Stewart, U. S. Geological Survey, Personal Communication, August,
1976.
Maurer, David, Jackson County Soils Scientist, Personal Communication,
July, 1976.
Medford, City of, Bear Creek Valley Sewerage Survey, April, 1967.
Miller, Richard 0., Manager, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Personal
Communications, July-August, 1976.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Local Climatological
Data, Annual Summary With Comparative Data, Medford Area. 1975.
Neuman, Thomas M., Final Report on Archaeological Salvage, Emmigrant
Dam Reservoir, Rogue River Project, Oregon. Report to the National
Park Service, 1959.
112
-------
Oregon Department of Environmental Qaulity, Personal Communication, Ed
Quan, August-September, 1976.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Management Plan
for Rogue River Basin, February, 1976.
Oregon State Employment Division, Records of past employment trends in
Jackson County, 1955-1976.
Oregon State Highway Commission, Bear Creek Area Transportation Study,
Volume I, Factual Data Base, Salem, 1967.
, Bear Creek Area Transportation Study,
1985 Transportation Plan, September, 1972.
Oregon State Land Conservation & Development Commission, Statewide Planning
Goals & Guidelines, January, 1975.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Planning for Tomorrow in Jackson
County, Oregon, 1968 Long-Range Planning Conference Report,
Corvallis, Oregon 1969.
, Community Development Project,
Resource Atlas, Jackson County, Oregon, Corvallis, 1974.
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone, Population and Household Trends in
Washington, Oregon and Northern Idaho, 1975-1990, Portland, 1976.
Peck, M.E., A Manual of the Higher Plants of Oregon, Portland, 1941.
Pitney, Bill, Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Personal
Communication, August, 1976.
Porn, Richard, Oregon State Department of Economic Development, Personal
Communication, August, 1976.
Randall, W.R., R. E. Keniston and D.N. Bever, Manual of Oregon Trees and
Shrubs, Corvallis, 1975.
Regional Development Center, Southern Oregon College, Population,
Employment & Income, Jackson County, Oregon;
Volume I Population Trends, 1940-1972
Volume II Population, Projections to 1985
Volume III Employment Patterns
Volume IV Income Distribution
Ashland, Oregon, 1975.
Robinson, J. H., Availability and Quality of Ground Water in the Medford
Area, Jackson County, Oregon, U. S. Geological Survey Publication,
1971.
113
-------
Sapir, E., Notes on the Takelma Indians of Southwestern Oregon, American
Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. IX, No. 2., pp. 251-75.
Sawyer, Harold, Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, Personal
Communication, August, 1976.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Interpretations for Oregon, OR-Soils-I.
Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation
with Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, General Soil Map With
Soil Interpretations for Land Use Planning, Jackson County, Oregon,
February, 1974.
Southern Oregon Economic & Community Development Conference, 1974
Conference Proceedings, Ashland, 1974.
Strahl, Paul, Medford School District, Personal Communication, September,
1976.
Tachini, Paul, Central Point School District, Personal Communication,
September, 1976.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census
General Social and Economic Characteristics, Oregon, PCI-CE9, Oregon,
Issued February, 1972.
Weaver, Curt, Jackson County Department of Planning and Development,
Personal Communication, July-August, 1976.
Werner, Rick, Field Biologist Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Personal Communication, August, 1976.
Young, Ron, Central Point City Manager, Personal Communication, August,
1976.
114
-------
APPENDIX MATERIALS
-------
APPENDIX A
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES
A-l
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY
Archaeological Resources
The archaeological resource inventory was conducted by Julia A. Follansbee,
Archaeologist. Prior to conducting the archaeological survey of the proposed
project, ethnographic and archaeological literature from the area was
examined to determine which kinds of archaeological resources could be
expected. The site survey files of the museum of Natural History at the
University of Oregon were inspected to determine where previously located
resources were in relation to the project area. Archaeologists who had
done previous work in this area were contacted in order to determine where
sites would most likely be encountered. In addition, local collectors
and personnel in the Jacksonville Museum were interviewed for similar
information during the field study.
The field work for the survey consisted of a walkover reconnaissance of
each alternative of the proposed project in accordance with the specifi-
cations of Program Guidance Memo No. 52 of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Since the area has been severely altered by residential and agri-
cultural development, which may have destroyed existing surface sites, a
particular effort was made to inspect areas which could provide clues
as to the whereabouts of buried sites. These included areas along road
cuts, ditch fills from canals and areas along deeply eroded creek banks
(although the banks have also been altered for agricultural purposes).
Historical Resources
The historical resources survey was prepared by Robert Fink, Historian.
Specific attention was given to an architectural survey of the project
area, since a number of nineteenth century residences exist within the
described area. A given structure's history was researched by contacting
the county assessor's office and conducting interviews with local old
times in the project area. A title search was prepared for the Aaron
Chamber's house because of the structure's relative antiquity (1865) and
its associated history.
Generally the method employed in this historical survey was to study
the historical record of the area as provided by accepted texts and dis-
sertations. Next, county records were researched along with older property
maps. Local persons were interviewed, either in person or via the telephone,
for their recollections of the area's historical development. Finally,
several visits to the project area were made.
A-3
-------
lf'030
OCT 6 1976
i'.r. Edward !.cag
State Historic Preservation Office
Oregon State hlyJway division
Ul.jhway Building
Salt!!?, Oregon 07310
Re: 3 CVS A ('Jsstslde Trunk)
C-410527
'2car fir. Long:
As , r;rt of the EPA's preparation of the tlraft ••uvl ro:»»?»ental Ir-.pact
statement for the Tear Creek V-illey Sanitary Authority (WestsIde
Trunk District), an historical/archaeological survey of the area
s i-culd he appreciated.
If you have any specific questions, please call rn> at 221
Sincerely years.
Willi an J. fohole -ski
froject Officer
cc: i3r!0
Ci^M-hill, Ccjrvallis
'xhz
.1 : i! 1/vli: 1 ~/C/7t
-------
Department of Transportation
PARKS AND RECREATION BRANCH
525 TRADE STREET S.E.. SALEM, OREGON 97310
October 7, 1976
Willi am J. Sobolewski
Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
1234 SW Morrison St.
Portland, OR 97205
Dear Mr. Sobolewski:
Our office has reviewed the historical survey and draft
archeological survey prepared for the Westside Trunk District
Facility Plan Environmental Impact Statement. In our opinion,
the surveys were conducted in a highly professional manner
and the areas of history, archeology and architecture were
adequately addressed.
To protect the cultural features of the area, we suggest
that the recommendations of the surveyors be followed. If
the r<_i.omniendations are followed, it is our opinion that the
guidelines under the federal statutes dealing with cultural
resources will be followed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
' N f < J ' 1
\jk) f r -
^ ^ y-
Paul B. Hartwig
Historical Programs Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
RS: ko
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
BIRD AND MAMMAL SPECIES
A-7
-------
BIRD SPECIES
r—1
«
t-i
r-H
to
4J
+J
c
(ft
"O
H
3
e i
S3
-------
Bird Species (Cont.)
Common Name Scientific Name
rH
tfl
rH
1-
«0
3
•H
4-1
4-1
c
T5
r-H
B
C
s
-------
Common Name
Bird Species (Cont.)
Scientific Name
iH
<0
rH
U
m
a
Tl
4J
4-1
e
•a
tH
a
to
c
a
V
•H
CO
a
TJ
U
rH
•H
¦H
tO
T3
co
p.
O
60
0)
«H
O
< .
OS
es
ft
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Golden-crowned kinglet
Ruby-crowned kinglet
White-headed woodpecker
Cedar waxwing
Northern shrike
Loggerhead shrike
Starling
Solitary vireo
Warbling vireo
Orange-crowned warbler
Nashville warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Townsend's warbler
Black-throated gray warbler
Common yellow throat
Yellow-breasted chat
MacGillivray's warbler
Hutton's vireo
Polioptila caerulea
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Dendrocopos albolarvatus*
Bombycilla cedrorum
Lanius excubitor
Lanius ludovicianus
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo solitarius
Vireo gilvus
Vermivora celata
Vermivora ruficapilla
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica auduboni
Dendroica townsendi
Dendroica nigrescens
Geothlypis trichas
Icteria virens
Oporornis tolmiei
Vireo huttoni
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wilson's warbler
Wilsonia pusilla
X
X
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
X
X
X
X
Western ineadowlark
Sturnella neglecta
X
X
X
Redwinged blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
X
X
X
Tri-colored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
X
X
X
Brewer's blackbird
Euphagus cyanocephalus
X
X
X
Brown-headed cowbird
Molothrus ater
X
X
X
X
Northern oriole
Icterus bullockii
X
X
X
Western tanager
Piranga ludoviciana
X
X
X
X
Black-headed grosbeak
Pheucticus melanocephalus
X
X
X
X
Luzuli bunting
Passerina amoena
X
Purple finch
Carpodacus purpureus
X
X
X
Cassin's finch
Carpodacus cassinii
X
House finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
X
X
X
Pine siskin
Spinus pinus
X
X
American goldfinch
Spinus tristis
X
X
X
Lesser goldfinch
Spinus psaltria
X
X
X
Rufous-sided towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
X
X
X
X
Savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwdtchensis
X
X
Lark sparrow
Chondestes grammacus
X
Dark-eyed junco
Junco oreganus
X
X
X
X
Chipping sparrow
Spizella passerina
X
X
X
Harris sparrow
Zonotrichia querula
X
White-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
X
X
X
Golden-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia atricapilla
X
Yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
X
X
A-ll
-------
Bird Species (Cont.)
Common Name
Evening grosbeak
White-throated sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Song sparrow
Scientific Name
Hesperiphona vespertina
Zonotrichia albicollis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Melospiza melodia
A-12
-------
MAMMAL SPECIES
i-H
U
"5
o
u
£
w
-o
05
u
CO
a
c
r-5
•o
0
Common Name
Scientific Name
go
<
0)
cc
•H
oc
0
3
Oppossom
Didelphis marsupialis
X
X
X
X
Trowbridge's shrew
Sorex trowbridgii
X
Ashland shrew
S. triginirostris*
X
Pacific shrew
S. pacificus
X
X
Wandering shrew
S. vagrans
X
Dusky shrew
S. obscurus
X
X
Shrew mole
Neurotrichus gibbsii
X
X
Broad-footed mole
Scapanus latimanus
X
X
Townsend's mole
S. townsendii
X
X
Coast mole
S. orarius
X
X
Pa 11 id bat
Antrozous pallidus
X
X
X
X
Townsend's big-eared bat
Plecotus townsendi
X
X
X
X
Silver haired bat
Lasionyctris noctiuagans
X
X
X
Hoary bat
Laziurus cinereus
X
Big brown bat
Eptesicus fuscus
X
X
X
X
Fringed myotis
Myotis thysanodes
X
X
X
X
Long-eared myot is
M. evotus
X
X
X
X
Long-legged myotis
M. volans
X
X
X
X
California myotis
M. californicus
X
X
X
X
Small-footed myotis
M. leibii
X
X
X
X
Red bat
Laziurus borealis
X
X
X
X
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
X
X
Little brown myotis
M. lucifugus
X
X
X
X
Mexican free-tailed bat
Tadarida brasiliensis*
X
X
X
X
Brush rabbit
Svlvilagus bachmani
X
X
X
X
Snowshoe hnre
Lepus americanus
X
Black tail hare
Lepus californicus
X
Mountain beaver
Aplodontia rufa
X
X
Yellow-pine chipmunk
Eutamius amconus
X
X
Townsend's chipmunk
E. townsendii
X
X
X
Yellow-bellied marmot
Marmota flaviventris
X
X
Calif. Beechy Ground squirrel
Spermophilus beecheyi
X
X
X
X
('.olden-mantled ground squirrel
Spermophilus buteralis
X
X
Western gray squirrel
Sciurus griseus
X
X
X
X
Douglas' squirrel
Tamiasciurus douglasii
X
X
Northern flying squirrel
Claucomys salerinus
X
X
Botta pocket gopher
Thomomys bottae
X
X
X
X
A-13
-------
i-H
CO
3
4-1
rH
3
u
]
iH
W
ft
4-1
c
01
•u
a
CO
•H
U
fm4
•o
c
<0
M
CO
Vu
a
o
Common Name
Scientific Name
c>o
<
t-i
OS
:§
Mazama western pocket gopher
Thomomys mazama
X
X
X
X
Harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys megalatis
X
Deer mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
X
X
X
X
Dusky-footed woodrat
Neotoma fucipes
X
X
Bushy-tailed woodrat
Neotoma cinerea
X
X
X
California red-backed vole
Clethrionomys californicus
X
Montana vole
Microtus montanus
X
California meadow vole
Microtus californicus
X
X
Townsend's vole
Microtus townsendii
X
X
Long-tailed vole
Microtus longicaudus
X
X
Richardson's vole
Microtus richardsoni
X
X
Oregon vole
Microtus oregon
X
X
Northern pocket gopher
Thomomys talpoides
X
Norway rat
Rattus norvegicus
X
X
X
Black rat
Rattus rattus
X
X
X
House mouse
Mus musculus
X
Western jumping mouse
Zapus princeps
X
Pacific jumping mouse
Zapus trinotatus
X
Porcupine
Erethizon dorsatum
X
Red fox
Vulpes fulva*
X
Gray fox
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
X
Coyote
Canis latrans
X
X
X
Black bear
Ursus americanus
X
X
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
X
X
X
X
Ringtail
Bassariscus astutus*
X
X
Marten
Martes americana*
X
Fisher
Martes pennanti*
X
Long-tailed weasel
Mustela frenata
X
X
X
Short-tailed weasel
Mustela erminea
X
X
X
Badger
Taxidea taxus
X
Striped skunk
Mephitis mephitis
X
X
X
X
Spotted skunk
Spilogale putoris
X
X
Mountain lion
Felis concolor
X
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
X
X
Black-tailed deer
Odocoileus hemionus
columbianus
REPTILES
X
X
Western fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
X
X
X
Sagebrush lizard
Sceloporus graciosus
Southern alligator lizard
Gerrhoriotus multicarnatus
X
X
X
X
Northern alligator lizard
Gerrhoriotus coernleus
X
X
X
X
Western skink
Eumeces skiltonianus
X
X
X
X
Rubber snake
Charina bottae
X
X
Common garter snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
X
X
X
X
Ring-necked snake
Diadophis punctatus
X
X
Sharp-tailed snake
Contia tennis*
X
Racer
Coluber constrictor
X
X
X
X
Gopher snake
Pituophis melanoleucua
X
X
X
X
Western rattlesnake
Crotalus biridus
X
X
A-14
-------
Reptiles (Cont.)
Common Name
Western pond turtle
Western toad
Pacific tree frog
Foothill yellow-legged frog
Red-legged frog
Bui Ifrog
Long-toed salamander
Northwestern salamander
Pacific giant salamander
Rough-skinned newt
Del Norte salamander
Black salamander
Siskiyou mountain salamander
Clouded salamander
Tailed frog
Cascades frog
Spotted frog
Scientific Name
Clemmings marmorata
AMPHIBIANS
Bufo boreas
Hyla resilla
Rana boylei
Rana aurora
Rana catesbeiana
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Ambystoma gracile
Dicamptodon ensatus
Tarlcha granulosa
Plethodon elongatus
Aneides flavipunctatus*
Plethodon stormi*
Anneides ferreus
Ascaphus truei*
Rana cascadae
Rana pretiosa (threatened)
A-15
-------
APPENDIX C
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
FINANCING & ASSESSMENT METHODS
A-17
-------
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
EXAMPLE - SANITARY SEWER PROJECT ASSESSMENTS
COST BASIS: PROJECTED AVERAGE COST OF PROJECTS TO JUNE 1977
Assessment Rates:
1. Primary Benefited Area = 10.Ot per square foot
2. Secondary Benefited Area = 0.1 per square foot
3. Trunk Development Area = 1.5$ per square foot
4. Service Connection = $375 per service connection
Service Connections will be installed from the main sev/er in the
right-of-way to the approximate easement or front property line
of the property served.
Building sewer lines are not included as part of the sewer assess-
ment and are to be installed by the property owner.
A Sewer Connection Permit is required before installation of the
building sewer line. The permit fee is $20 which includes pro-
cessing of the permit and on-site inspection of the line by
BCVSA personnel.
The sewer service charge for residential use is $3.80 per month.
A-19
-------
Page 2
Case I - Typical Residential Lot (Approximately 1/2 Acre)
SECONDARY ASSESSMENT LIMIT
NOT TO EXCEED 500' FROM
FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
SECONDARY BENEFITED AREA
PRIMARY ASSESSMENT LIMIT
PRIMARY BENEFITED AREA
SERVICE CONNECTION
(ACTUAL LOCATION SPECIFIED BY PROPERTY OWNER )
SEWER ASSESSMENT
1. Primary Benefited Area
2. Secondary Benefited Area
3. Trunk Development Area
4. Service Connection
TOTAL SEWER ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT-
QUANTITY RATE
150 x 100 = 15,000 Sq.Ft. $0.10
50 x 100 = 5,000 Sq.Ft. 0.001
150 x 100 = 15,000 Sq-.Ft. 0.015
1 Connect $375
AMOUNT
$1,500.00
5.00
225.00
375.00
$2,105.00
Installment Payment Options:
1. 240 equal monthly installments of $16.32.
Interest at 7% on the unpaid balance.
Total interest charges in 20 years $1,811.80.
2. 40 semi-annual decreasing installments at 7% on unpaid balance.
First payment $126.31. Last Payment $54.27.
Total interest charges in 20 years $1,510.48.
A-20
-------
Page 3
Case II - Large Undeveloped Acreage (Approximately 16% Acres)
Property does not meet the zoning criteria for exclusive farm or F-5
zones as defined by Jackson County Zoning Ordinances and Oregon State
Law.
>200'
SECONDARY BENEFITED AREA
PRIMARY BENEFITED AND
TRUNK DEVELOPMENT
AREA BEING ASSESSED
In this case, 'all of the primary area with the exception of 22,500 square
feet will be deferred of primary benefit assessment until the property is
more fully developed. The area deferred is assessed for secondary benefit.
SEWER ASSESSMENT
1. Primary Benefited Area
2. Secondary Benefited Area
3. Trunk Development Area
4. Service Connection
ASSESSMENT-
QUANTITY RATE
150 x 150 = 22,500 Sq.Ft. $0.10
350 x 1200 = 420,000
150 x 1050 = 157,500
577,500 Sq.Ft. 0.001
150 x 150 = 22,500 Sq.Ft. 0.015
AMOUNT
$2,250.00
577.50
337.50
$3,165.00
Installment Payment Options:
1. 240 equal monthly installments of . $24.54.
Interest at 7% on the unpaid balance.
Total interest charges in 20 years $2,724.60.
2. 40 semi-annual decreasing installments at 7% on unpaid balance.
First payment $189.91. Last payment $81.69.
Total interest charges in 20 years $2,270.75.
A-21
-------
Page 4
Case III
Commercial; Industrial; Planned Unit Residential;
Multiple Dwellings, Schools, Churches, and Hospitals (Approximately 1 1/3
Acres)
200
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
TRUNK DEVELOPMENT AREA
(INCLUDES PRIMARY BENEFITED AREA)
PRIMARY BENEFITED AREA.
o
300'
STREET
ISO
MAXIMUM
MAIN SEWER
SERVICE CONNECTION (ACTUAL LOCATION SPECIFIED BY PROPERTY OWNE^
SEWER ASSESSMENT
1. Primary Benefited Area
2. Trunk Development Area
3. Service Connection
TOTAL SEWER ASSESSMENT
Installment Payment Options:
1. 240 equal monthly installments of $44.77.
Interest at 7% on the unpaid balance.
Total interest charges in 20 years $4,969.80.
2. 40 semi-annual decreasing installments at 7% on the unpaid balance.
First payment $346.51. Last payment $149.23.
Total interest charges in 20 years $4,143.56.
ASSESSMENT
QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT
150 x 300 = 45,000 Sq.Ft. $0.10 $4,500.00
200 x 300 = 60,000 Sq.Ft. 0.015 900.00
'I Connect $375 375.00
$5,775.00
A-22
-------
Page 5
Case IV
Property meets zoning criteria for exclusive farm or F-5
zones as defined by Jackson County Zoning Ordinances and
Oregon State Law.
600'
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
I2QQ*
150
MAX.
' r
«• ~
150
&
PRIMARY BENEFITED AND
TRUNK DEVELOPMENT
AREA BEING ASSESSED
o
MAIN SEWER
STREET
o
o
o
t
BUILDING SEWER LINE
==0
o
SERVICE CONNECTION
(ACTUAL LOCATION SPECIFIED
BY PROPERTY OWNER )
In this case, if a dwelling does not exist on the property the
Authority shall defer assessing any portion of the property.
SEWER ASSESSMENT
1. Primary Benefited Area
2. Secondary Benefited Area
3. Trunk Development Area
4. Service Connection
TOTAL SEWER ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT-
QUANTITY RATE
150 x 150 = 22,500 Sq.Ft. $0.10
150 x 150 = 22,500 Sq.Ft. 0.015
1 Connect $375
AMOUNT
$2,250.00
337.50
375.00
$2,962.50
Installment Payment Options:
1. 240 equal monthly installments of $22.97.
Interest at 7% on the unpaid balance.
Total interest charges in 20 years $2,550.30.
2. 40 Semi-annual decreasing installments at 7% on the unpaid balance.
First payment $177.75. Last payment $76.76.
Total interest charges in 20 years $2,125.66.
A-23
-------
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 73-8 AS AMENDED
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS
SCHEDULES, RATE SCHEDULES, PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES
TO DETERMINE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES, PROVIDING FOR
TEMPORARY SERVICE AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND
PENALTIES FOR DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.
SECTION 1. MONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES. All sewer
users within the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority shall
pay a monthly sewer service charge to the Authority in
accordance with the service classifications and rate schedules
determined by the Regional Rate Committee and Board of Directors
of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority as in this Ordinance
established.
SECTION 2. SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS.
A. Residential: Rate Schedule A shall apply to each
dwelling having one or two dwelling units, two single
family dwellings with one ownership on one building
site and all dwelling units regardless of their
grouping or number which receive separate billing
for sewer service charges.
B. Mobile Home Parks and Planned Unit Residential: Rate
Schedule B shall apply to dwelling units situated
within any area or tract of land having a sewer con-
nection and where sewerage collection pipes are ex-
tended to two or more planned dwelling units; or
spaces occupied or designated, offered or made avail-
able for occupancy by mobile homes, travel trailers
or motor homes. Mobile homes, travel trailers and
motor homes are defined as vehicles with or without
motive power which are designed, used or intended for
use as a place of human habitation, or as eating,
sleeping or living quarters or any combination thereof.
A-24
-------
A space is defined as the individual location having
a sewer hook up for each such vehicle. Monthly
sewer service charges for the development will be
incorporated in one billing directed to the manager
or other person, partnership or corporation respon-
sible for the management and operation of the entire
development.
C. Multiple Dwellings: Rate Schedule C shall apply to
apartment houses, multiple family dwellings, motels
providing permanent and semi-permanent housing, and
all other multiple dwellings not included under other
residential classifications.
D. Commercial, Hospitals, Churches and Schools: Rate
¦r
Schedule D shall apply to all sewer users not in-
cluded in the "residential" classification, the
"mobile home parks and planned unit residential" clas-
sification, the "multiple dwelling" classification,
"industrial" classification or "recreational vehicle
waste-dumping station" classification.
E* Industrial; Rate Schedule E shall apply to all es-
tablishments classified as industrial users in ac-
cordance with Ordinance No. 4 of the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority.
F. Recreational Vehicle Waste-Dumping Station: Rate
Schedule F shall apply to all establishments which
are connected with the sewage collection system and
accept liquid waste dumped from holding tanks of
recreational vehicles such as travel trailers, motor
homes and campers, where such wastes pass into the
collection system of the Sanitary Authority, regard-
less of whether the wastes are accepted by the op-
erator of the waste-dumping station with or without
charge.
A-25
-------
Section 3. RATE SCHEDULES.
A. Schedule A:
(1) Monthly Rate: $3.80 per dwelling unit.
Schedule B: A total of the following per month:
(1) A base charge of $2.50 per dwelling unit or
occupied mobile home space.
(2) A base charge of $0.72 per developed and un-
occupied mobile home space.
(3) Gallonage: $0.20 per lr000 gallons of water
delivered to the premises as determined in
Section 5 of this Ordinance.
c* Schedule C: A total of the following per month:
(1) A base charge of $2.50 per dwelling unit.
(2) Gallonage: $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water
delivered to the premises as determined in
Section 5 of this Ordinance.
D. Schedule D: A total of the following per month:
(1) A base charge of $2.50.
(2) Gallonage: $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water
delivered to the premises as determined in
Section 5 of this Ordinance.
E. Schedule E: A total of the following per month:
(1) A base charge of $2.50.
(2) Gallonage: $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water
delivered to the premises as determined in
Section 5 of this Ordinance.
(3) Extra strength charge: $0.10 per 300 ppm of
Biological Oxygen Demand as defined in Ordinance
No. 4 of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth-
ority, or fraction thereof, in excess of the
first 300 ppm of Biological Oxygen Demand, per
1,000 gallons of water delivered to the premises.
A-26
-------
For the purpose of this schedule, determination
of the amount of Biological Oxygen Demand shall
be made by the Regional Rate Committee for such
purpose; but if no such agency is designated or
if it fails or refuses to make a determination,
then the said determination shall be made by the
Manager of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary. De-
termination of the amount of Biological Oxygen
Demand shall be determined for the month during
which industrial processes occur at a maximum
level. Said determination shall be made on an
annual basis unless otherwise directed by the
Regional Rate Committee or the Manager of the
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
F. Schedule F: A total of $9.00 per month per each
dumping facility in addition to other sewer charges
as may be applicable in the above schedules for
commercial or industrial sewer service to the location.
SECTION 4. MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE: The minimum monthly
charge for each user classified under Schedules B, C, D, and
E shall be not less than the Schedule A monthly rate.
SECTION 5. DETERMINATION OF QUANTITIES FOR ESTABLISHING
GALLONAGE RATES:
A. Schedules B, C and D Accounts: The quantity of water
delivered to premises is defined as the average
monthly water consumption as metered during the months
of December, January and February, which immediately
precede the 12-month period being billed; provided,
however, that in the case of schools, churches and
hospitals, water delivered is defined for the purpose
of Schedule B accounts as that water consumption av-
eraged for the months of January and February immed-
iately preceding the 12-month period being billed.
The average water consumption as in this section es-
tablished shall be revised during the following 12-
A-27
-------
month period if the type or scope of development
changes during said period. Such revision shall be
determined by the Manager in proportion to the degree
of property development change.
B. Schedule E Accounts: The quantity of water delivered
to the premises is defined as the actual monthly water
consumption as metered monthly. In the event that
water consumption metering is not feasible, the quan-
tity of water delivered shall be estimated by the
Manager of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
SECTION 6. TEMPORARY SERVICE. If application for service
is made with an expected duration of said service of less than
90 days, standard connection permit procedures and fees will
apply together with the rate schedules in this Ordinance pro-
vided. In addition, a temporary service fee in the amount
of $9.00 shall be charged for each 90-day period or part
thereof of such temporary service.
SECTION 7. UNCOLLECTIBLE AND DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.
The owner of property served by the public sewer of the Bear
Creek Valley Sanitary Authority shall be responsible for all
sewer service charges incurred therefor. Sewer service
charges together with unpaid fees and charges levied in
accordance with this Ordinance and Ordinance No. 4 of the
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority may be collected in
accordance with Section 16-04 of said Ordinance No. 4, in
addition, the Manager of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority is authorized to make such collections in accordance
with Oregon Revised Statutes 450.880 by certifying said
unpaid amounts to the Jackson County Assessor for collection
on the tax rolls. Certification shall be made for all unpaid
accounts when any portion of the amount becomes 90 days or
more in arrears. A penalty of $10.00 or 10 percent of the
unpaid account may be added to the unpaid sewer service charge
when any portion thereof becomes delinquent 90 or more days
and shall be added to the account and included to the amount
A-28
-------
certified to the Jackson County Assessor pursuant to
Oregon Revised Statutes 450.880.
DATED: July 21, 1976.
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
Dunn ;^hairman
Board of Directors
ATTEST:
Richard 0. Mil
Manager
Ordinance No. 73-8, November 21, 1973
First Revision, Ordinance No. 74-1, January 16, 1974
Second Revision, Ordinance No. 76-4, July 21, 1976
A-29
------- |