-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
EPA-10-0R-JACKS0N-JACKS0NVILLE-WWTW-77
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P. Street
Sacramento, California 95816
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
Regional Administrator
K tV>
Date " ^
-------
PREFACE
On January 14, 1977 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released
for public review a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which
evaluates the environmental Impacts associated with construction of waste-
water facilities for the City of Jacksonville, Jackson County, Oregon. The
decision to prepare an EIS on the City's proposed project was based on an
expected grant application from the City of Jacksonville for construction
grant funding 1n which EPA would provide 75% of the funds required to plan,
design and construct the wastewater system. The EIS for this project was
prepared utilizing the "piggyback" approach which allowed the Draft EIS and
the City's draft Facilities Plan to be prepared concurrently. To complete
the environmental impact evaluation EPA, in joint agreement with the City,
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; and various other supporting documents. The following discussion
summarizes salient points identified in these documents.
The Draft EIS evaluated eight alternatives for solving existing wastewater
problems 1n the City of Jacksonville. Testimony, presented at EPA's public
hearing on February 17, 1977 from Jackson County stated that five of the
alternatives do not comply with the County's comprehensive plan. The five
alternatives are identified as A-l, A-2, C-la, C-2 and D. Based on this
determination and applicable State law, EPA considers Itself bound to
respect the policies and decisions expressed 1n comprehensive plan when
awarding construction grant funds In the State of Oregon. EPA therefore
concludes that alternatives Identified to be in violation of the plan
cannot be considered feasible.
The three remaining alternatives, A-3, B and C-l have been identified as
being compatible with the County's comprehensive plan. Alternative B is,
however, considered by both the City of Jacksonville and EPA as a non-
viable alternative. In a letter to the City's Facilities Plan Consultant,
dated October 4, 1976, the U.S. Forest Service stated that it could use
treated wastewater effluent for its proposed tree nursery but reserved
the right to cancel any agreement with the City upon one years advance
notice. , In addition to the lack of a firm commitment by the U.S. Forest
Service "for the use of the treated effluent proposed in Alternative B,
the cost analysis clearly shows that this alternative is not as cost
effective as Alternatives A-3 or C-l.
Draft EIS costs for Alternatives A-3 and C-l have undergone certain
changes during the review process< Additional testimony received at EPA's
public hearing indicated that project costs presented in the Draft EIS
for Alternatives A-3 and C-l are Incorrect. Because of this testimony,
EPA authorized the City to do additional work to refine the costs for
these alternatives. Before re-cost1ng Alternative C-l, however, EPA
additionally authorized the City to conduct a soils survey of the area
located adjacent to the City's existing sewage lagoons which had been
proposed for spray irrigation under Alternative C-l. The survey, con-
ducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, concluded that the proposed
i
-------
site was suitable for land application of treated effluent. In order to
accurately refine and revise the cost-effective analysis for Alternative
C-l, EPA further directed the City to conduct a land appraisal for the
area required for land application of treated effluent. The results of
the land appraisal concluded the proposed acquisition of 113 acres to be
valued at $252,000 based upon the cost approach method of appraising.
Based on the land appraisal, the City's Facilities Plan Consultant revised
the cost-effective analysis as requested. The revised analysis, presented
on Page 88 in this Final EIS, shows that Alternative A-3 is slightly more
cost effective than Alternative C-l. The total average annual equivalent
cost of Alternative A-3 is $76,637 as compared to $77,424 for Alternative
C-l. A copy of the "Cost Analysis and Real Estate Appraisal" is presented
as Appendix I.
Evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with Alternatives A-3
and C-l are comparable and considered acceptable by EPA. As a result of
the revised cost-effective analysis, the numerical ranking of the social
and economic costs of wastewater treatment and disposal for Alternative
A-3 was revised to number 1 rather than number 2 as shown on Table 24 in
the Draft EIS. Upon this revision, the total numerical rating of Alterna-
tive A-3 is nine as compared to eight for Alternative C-l (See Table 25).
In the area of "Environmental Objectives" of the proposed project, Alterna-
tive C-l receives a better ranking than Alternative A-3 in only one area--
"Provision for the reuse of treated wastewater." EPA does not, however,
view this as a significant environmental impact due to the fact that spray
irrigation proposed in Alternative C-l could have negative impacts because
of the irrigation site's close proximity to the new City of Medford's
Little League Ball Park and the City of Jacksonville.
Considering the need for wastewater facilities and the results of EPA's
environmental evaluation of the eight alternatives, EPA recommends that
Alternative A-3 be constructed by the City of Jacksonville. Alternative
A-3 1s considered to be the best institutionally and environmentally
acceptable wastewater disposal system at the least cost to the citizens of
Jacksonville. It should be noted that this recommendation is concordant
with recommendations received from the City and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
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 state-
ment to be 1n 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 grant award
to the City of Jacksonville as authorized by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Ammendments of 1972 (PL 92-500).
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
SUMMARY ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Objectives ^
Background of Past Events ^
Project and Environmental Objectives ^
Important Issues and Considerations 5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
Physical and Biological Features 7
General Location 1
Study Area '
Topography and Drainage 9
Climate ~
Air Quality j-r
Geology J*
Geologic Hazards
Edaphic Features
Biotic Resources ^
Aesthetic Values 23
Water Resources and Water Quality 23
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions ~4
Archeological Resources 25
Historical Resources 26
Socio-Economic Features 27
Description 27
Population 28
Economy 34
Land Use
Land Use Planning *1
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 55
Introduction ^
Constraints on Alternative Development ^
Regionalization ~7
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Wastewater Management Options
Possible Alternatives 59
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives ^1
The Activated Sludge Process |1
The Aerated Lagoon Process
Land Application for Beneficial Use or Disposal
Treatment Plant Site Options ฐ5
iii
-------
Page
Land Application Site Options 65
Sludge Disposal Options 66
Implementation Options - Financing and
Organization 66
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 68
Population Capacity of Project Facilities 68
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 70
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Annexation (BCVSA) 70
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Lease 73
Alternative A-3 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Annexation with Limited
Service Area 73
Alternative B - Local Treatment and Use of
Reclaimed Water by U. S. Forest Service 75
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use 81
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use (No Growth) 81
Alternative C-2 - Aerated Lagoons with
Spray Disposal 84
Alternative D - No Action Alternative 84
Cost Comparison and Summary 88
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
ALTERNATIVES 91
Introduction 91
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 91
Short-Term Impacts 92
Long-Term Direct Impacts 92
Physical and Biological Resources 92
Social Features 108
Financial Impacts 123
Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project
and Environmental Objectives 129
Summary of the Adverse Impacts of the Alter-
natives 132
V. THE APPARENT BEST ALTERNATIVE 135
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT vs.
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 139
IV
-------
Page
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 141
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIS 143
IX. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 255
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY 257
References 257
Personal Communications 261
XI. APPENDICES
A - Biotic Resources 264
B - Sewage Flows 270
C - Economic Evaluation of Alternatives 272
D - Water Quality Standards for the Rogue
River Basin 275
E - Cultural Background and History of
Jacksonville 278
F - Population Projections and Definition of
an Urban Growth Boundary for the City of
Jacksonville 289
G - Wastewater Analysis by U. S. Forest Service 299
H - Compilation of Air Emissions Based on
Population and an Index of Annual Average
Daily Travel 303
I - Cost Analysis and Real Estate Appraisal 306
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
1 Summary: Estimates of annual particulate
emissions in Jackson County 12
2 Vegetation and land use - City of Jacksonville 20
3 Endangered and threatened vertebrate species 22
4 Jacksonville's population growth in relation
to Medford and Jackson Counties 30
5 1970 age characteristic of Jacksonville 30
6 Visitors to the Jacksonville Museum 37
7 Employment categories: Jackson County and
Jacksonville 37
8 Income distribution for Jacksonville 39
9 Income categories: Jackson County and
Jacksonville 39
10 Jacksonville land use summary 41
11 Average daily traffic counts 43
12 Alternative A-l - BCVSA annexation 72
13 Alternative A-2 - BCVSA lease 74
14 Alternative A-3 - BCVSA, limited service
area 77
15 Alternative B - activated sludge plant and
U. S. Forest Service tree farm 79
16 Alternative C-l - aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use 82
17 Alternative C-la - aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use (no growth) 85
18 Alternative C-2 - aerated lagoons with
spray disposal 87
19 20-year comparison of total and local costs 89
vi
-------
Table
Number
Title
Page
20 Short-term impacts - Jacksonville sewage
treatment alternatives 93
21 Index of motor vehicle air pollutant emissions 101
22 Energy requirements - kilowatt-hours/20 years 109
23 Projected monthly cost per connection and
assessed valuation for the various
alternatives 125
24 City revenue from residential taxes 127
25 Comparative evaluation relating project
alternatives to project and environmental
objectives 131
26 Environmental summary of long-term impacts
of project alternatives for Jacksonville
wastewater disposal 133
27 Economic evaluation of the two most viable
alternatives 137
28 Comments received on Draft EIS 144
29 Public hearing testimony 253
vii
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8
10
16
19
31
33
44
46
48
62
64
71
76
80
83
86
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
The City of Jacksonville and environs
Mean monthly temperature and precipitation
in Medford, Oregon
Soil map - Jacksonville area, Oregon
Vegetation and land use - City of Jacksonville
Jacksonville city limits and proposed urban
growth boundaries
Population projections to the year 2000
for Jacksonville, Oregon
Proposed Jacksonville bypass, Highway 238
Zoning - county area surrounding Jacksonville
Zoning - City of Jacksonville
Pictorial flow diagram of activated sludge
treatment
Pictorial flow diagram of aerated lagoon
treatment
Service area and routing of interceptors -
Alternatives A-l and A-2
Service area and routing of interceptor -
Alternative A-3
Alternative B (use of reclaimed wastewater
by U. S. Forest Service)
Alternative C-l - aerated lagoons with
agricultural use
Alternative C-2 - aerated lagoons with
spray disposal
viii
-------
SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, OREGON
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement; Draft ( ) Final (X)
2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action:
The objective of this project is to provide an institu-
tionally acceptable wastewater disposal system for the citizens
of Jacksonville, Oregon, located 5 miles west of the City of
Medford in Jackson County, Oregon. This Final Environmental
Impact Statement identifies alternatives for providing the city
with wastewater facilities designed both to meet the needs of
the residents of the city and maintain environmental quality.
The City of Jacksonville covers approximately 1,300 acres of
land and has a population of 2,070 (1975 estimate). In 1967,
part of the city was declared a National Historic Landmark.
Since 1973 the City of Jacksonville has had sewer connec-
tion limitations which were imposed by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality because the present treatment facilities
were unsatisfactory for adequate treatment of generated waste.
The City of Jacksonville is surrounded by the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), which provides sewerage
service to the City of Medford and surrounding areas. Jackson-
ville has not become a part of the BCVSA due to the city's past
concern for potentially adverse impacts on its historic charac-
ter as a National Historic Landmark.
In March 1976 the City of Jacksonville initiated a Step 1
grant application to find a means of resolving the waste treat-
ment problem.
ix
-------
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse
Environmental Effects;
The magnitude of the environmental impacts will vary
according to the alternatives proposed. Alternatives A-l
through C represent the hookup to existing or the construc-
tion of new treatment facilities while Alternative D repre-
sents no action.
Short-term impacts such as temporary loss of vegetation,
disruption of wildlife, traffic and utility problems, dust
and aerial pollutants, noise, visual impact, safety hazards,
spoil disposal and water quality impairments will occur in
varying degrees using Alternatives A-l, A-2, A-3, B, C-l, C-la
and C-2. No short-term impacts will be associated with
Alternative D.
The long-term impacts associated with Alternatives A-l
A-2 and A-3 indicate a potential for changes in population dis-
tribution and size, project cost and effects on land use
patterns; the major impacts of Alternative B will be its
effect on groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, archeological
resources, population size and distribution and project cost.
Impacts resulting from Alternatives C-l and C-2 will be similar
except for variations in effect on groundwater and vegetation
and wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative C-la (no growth) will be similar
to those of Alternative C-l except that the magnitude of
effect will be less. Secondary impacts on Jacksonville
resulting from population growth will be minor because of the
no-growth feature of the alternative.
The major impacts involving use of Alternative D would
see a continuation of odor problems, a continued moratorium on
building construction and the likelihood of future action by
the Department of Environmental Quality.
5. Alternatives Considered:
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Annexation. BCVSA would extend the west Medford trunk to
connect to the existing Jacksonville sewage system. Capital
costs $588,000. Average annual operation/maintenance costs
$77,900.
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Lease" A hookup by Jacksonville to BCVSA would nave the same
result as Alternative A-2; however, the financial agreement
would be different. Capital costs $588,000. Average annual
operation/maintenance costs $75,000.
x
-------
Alternative A-3 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
Annexation or Contract With Limited Service Area. The city
of Jacksonville would extend its interceptor to the existing
West Medford trunk operated by BCVSA. A smaller area would
be serviced than under Alternatives A-l or A-2. Capital
costs $416,593. Average annual operation/maintenance
costs $47,616 for annexation or $46,545 for contract.
Alternative B - Local Treatment and Use of Reclaimed Water
by the~U. S. Forest Service. A package-activated sludge plant
would be installed at the site of existing lagoons, and treated
sewage would be piped to a 500-acre U. S. Forest Service
seedling farm and spray irrigated. Capital cost $730,000.
Average annual operation/maintenance costs $35,400.
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons With Adjacent Agri-
cultural Use. Sewage would be treated in aerated lagoons and
disposed of by spraying the treated sewage onto a 77-acre
agricultural site adjacent to the treatment site. Capital
costs $502,000. Average annual operation/maintenance
costs $47,699.
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with Adjacent Agri-
cultural Use (No Growth). Sewage would be treated as with
Alternative C-l and disposed of by its being sprayed onto
50 acres of agricultural land adjacent to the treatment site.
Capital costs $262,000. Average annual operation/
maintenance costs $22,200.
Alternative C-2- Aerated Lagoons with Spray Disposal.
Treatment would be identical to that ot C-l; however, the
disposal site would be on 80 acres of forest land in the hills
to the southwest of Jacksonville. Capital costs $317,500.
Average annual operation/maintenance costs $46,500.
Alternative D - No Action Alternative. This alternative
would involve a continuation of existing conditions in which
sewage would be inadequately treated prior to its discharge
into Daisy Creek. Associated with this alternative would be
a continued moratorium on construction of sewer connections.
6. The Following State, Federal and Local Agencies, as well
as Other Interested Groups, were Invited to Comment on
the Environmental Impact Statement:
xi
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
MEMBERS of CONGRESS
Mark 0. Hatfield James Heaver
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
Robert W. Packwood
U.S. Senate
STATE
Robert W. Straub - Governor Of Oregon
Brad Morris - State Representative District 51
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Department of Environmental Duality
xi i
-------
REGIONAL and LOCAL
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development
Jackson County Health Department
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District
City of Jacksonville
City of Jacksonville Library
City of Jacksonville Planning Department
City of Bedford
City of Central Point
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
INTERESTCD GROUPS and INDIVIDUALS
T. Flatebo and Associates
1000 Friends of Oregon
Northwest Environmental Defense Center
OSPIRG
Oregon Environmental Council
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Southern Oregon Historical Society
National Wildlife Federation
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Public on January 14, 1977.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to CEQ and
the Public on September 27, 1977,
xiii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires that all agencies of the federal government prepare
a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals
for projects that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. NEPA requires that agencies (in this case
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) include in their
decision-making process all considerations of environmental
aspects of proposed actions/ the environmental impacts of the
proposed project and its alternatives, and a discussion of
ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects. The EIS is to be
a "full disclosure" document and must follow specific regula-
tions of the EPA as contained in 40 CFS, part 6, as published
in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72, April 14, 1975.
Because the City of Jacksonville project can be 75 per-
cent funded by the EPA, as a part of Construction Grants
Program authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), it requires NEPA action.
After reviewing the Step 1 grant application from the City of
Jacksonville for the planning and construction of a wastewater
treatment facility, it was determined by the EPA that an EIS
was needed. The decision was based on the potential adverse
effects of future growth on the historical integrity of
Jacksonville, on changes in land use patterns and effects on
agricultural land.
This EIS has been prepared as a "piggyback" document
which allowed the draft EIS and draft facilities plan to
be prepared concurrently. The "piggyback" approach allowed
for an evaluation of a variety of alternatives and an option
to discard those deemed environmentally and socially unsound.
This process also reduced the period of time required to
evaluate and subsequently approve a project since the EIS is
often prepared after a draft facilities plan is drawn up, a
process which tends to lengthen the time needed to select a
final alternative.
Data for this EIS were compiled from various existing
studies of Jackson County and the Cities of Jacksonville and
Medford, field reconnaissance and numerous personal contacts
with involved agencies and individuals. A complete listing
of references appears in the Bibliography.
1
-------
The EIS process encourages public input into the decision-
making process. This EIS is first prepared in draft form and
widely circulated for public comment. Announcements in the
local press and a public hearing were held to solicit res-
ponses .
The results of the public hearing and written comments
received during the 45-day public comment period are presented
at the back of this final environmental impact statement. In
this final EIS, the EPA Regional Administrator has selected
the alternative plan of action acceptable as a grant fundable
project. Final action concerning the grant award for the City
of Jacksonville will be made following a 30-day comment period.
Background of Past Events
Questions and controversies relating to the collection,
treatment and disposal of sewage in the Jacksonville and
Medford area arose prior to the EPA decision to prepare an
EIS on Jacksonville's proposed project.
The City of Jacksonville in 1963 constructed a sewage
collection and treatment system having a design capacity for
a population of 1,600. That design capacity was exceeded in
1970 and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
has limited further connections to the existing system.
In 1966 the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA)
was formed to provide sanitary sewage collection and treatment
facilities on a regional basis. The authority encompasses
approximately 220 square miles of incorporated and unincorporated
land, including the City of Talent. A large portion of the
unincorporated area within the Authority has been divided into
various districts, including West Medford, South Medford, White
City and Westside. Jacksonville is surrounded by the West
Medford Trunk District.
In 1973 the BCVSA submitted an application for planning,
design and construction grant assistance in building an inter-
ceptor for the West Medford Trunk District that would be sized
to support Jacksonville's sewage, which would be transported to
the City of Medford Sewage Treatment Plant. In September 1973
the EPA established that an EIS was not necessary for the proposed
construction of the West Medford interceptor. This interceptor
was constructed and terminates 1.36 miles from Jacksonville.
2
-------
The following is a summary of events from 1973 leading
to this EIS:
Date
January 24, 1974
Event
February 7, 1974
March 28, 1974
August 23, 1974
October 1975
December 19, 1975
March 2, 1976
March 16, 1976
The City of Jacksonville requested that an
EIS be prepared on the proposed BCVSA
project. The city expressed concern about
potential degradation of its historic char-
acter (it is a National Historic Landmark).
A meeting was held with representatives of
Jacksonville, BCVSA, Jackson County and EPA.
The city proposed that they provide their
own sewage treatment with EPA assistance.
EPA indicated, however, that such an alter-
native was likely to be less cost-effective
than the BCVSA project. County represen-
tatives assured the city that zoning along
the interceptor route would restrict develop-
ment and preserve the city's historic values.
EPA notified the city that it felt that the
project was acceptable if the grant was con-
ditioned on the city's acceptance of BCVSA
service.
The State Historic Preservation Office
notified EPA that the BCVSA project would not
adversely affect the city's historic character,
based on a pipeline sized to support 6,000
people.
Construction completed on portion of BCVSA
interceptor to Pioneer Avenue. This leaves
7,200 feet of incompleted line to the Jackson-
ville lagoons. ^ Construction of the remaining
portions was not undertaken because no agree-
ment could be reached between Jacksonville
and BCVSA.
DEQ certified to EPA a Step 1 grant appli-
cation from Jacksonville.
EPA'a Oregon Operations Office recommends
EIS on Jacksonville's proposed project.
EPA notifies City of Jacksonville of EIS
intent. Memorandum of Understanding to pre-
pare joint Facilities/Plan - EIS mailed to
Jacksonville.
3
-------
Date
Event
March 24, 1976
April 15, 1976
April 28, 1976
June 1-15, 1976
June 17, 1976
June 21, 1976
July 6, 1976
City of Jacksonville signs Memorandum of
Understanding. City agrees to "piggyback"
EIS.
Meeting held with representatives of
Jacksonville and EPA to discuss "piggyback"
EIS. Issue paper outlining EPA's environ-
mental concerns delivered.
City of Jacksonville releases Request for
Proposals to potential EIS consultants.
City of Jacksonville selects Jones & Stokes
Associates for EIS preparation and EPA
approves selection.
Meeting with EPA, City of Jacksonville,
T. Platebo and Associates and Jones & Stokes
Associates to discuss Facilities/Plan - EIS
preparation.
EPA's Notice of Intent to prepare EIS
released.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. began pre-
paration of the preliminary draft EIS.
January 14, 1977 Draft EIS released.
February 17, 1977 Public hearing on draft EIS.
January 14 -
February 28, 1977 Review period on draft EIS.
Although the City of Jacksonville hired Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc. to prepare the draft and final EIS, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ultimate responsibility
in the planning and approval of the environmental documents.
4
-------
Project and Environmental Objectives
An important element of any project is its objectives.
Well defined objectives are essential to establishing a
rationale for a project and later to provide guideposts to
determine if identified alternatives are justifiable or viable.
The replacement of the Jacksonville wastewater treatment
and disposal system is deemed a necessity in part because of
institutional requirements that is to meet EPA and DEQ
regulations for wastewater disposal. For the purposes of this
EIS, one facilities objective and four environmental objectives
appeared relevant. These objectives are:
Facilities Objective
- Provide an institutionally acceptable wastewater
disposal system for the citizens of Jacksonville.
Environmental Objectives
- Minimize the adverse environmental effects of waste-
water treatment and disposal.
- Minimize the social-economic costs of wastewater
treatment and disposal.
- Provide for the reuse of treated wastewater.
- Maintain the historical quality of Jacksonville.
Important Issues and Considerations
In the course of preparing this EIS, it became clear that
there were several key issues relating to the proposed sewage
interceptor and disposal system. These issues became evident
after discussions with City of Jacksonville officials, personnel
of various state and federal agencies and from reviewing rele-
vant correspondence.
The issues listed below are to be identified and evaluated
in the Environmental Setting and Environmental Impact sections
of this report. Those issues remaining unresolved and/or of
greater scope than covered in this EIS will be discussed in
Chapter VIII - Issues to be Resolved. Of particular importance
to this project are the following:
1. The impact of the project and/or of subsequent growth
on the historical qualities and integrity of Jacksonville.
5
-------
2. The impacts and ramifications of Jacksonville connec-
ting with a regional sanitary authority.
3. Projected growth in the Jacksonville service area for
each alternative.
4. Response of traffic and circulation patterns to
growth in relation to present and planned roads,
streets and highways.
6
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical and Biological Features
General Location
The City of Jacksonville is located in southwest Oregon
near the City of Medford, Jackson County. Jacksonville is
approximately 170 miles south of Eugene, 32 miles from Grants
Pass and 5 miles west of Medford. The area lies on the
western edge of the Bear Creek Valley at an elevation of
approximately 1,570 feet (Figure 1).
Jacksonville is bordered on the south and west by
mountainous terrain and on the north and east by the flat
margins of the Bear Creek Valley. Most residential and
commercial development in Jacksonville is located in and
around the intersections of South Stage Road and the Jackson-
ville Highway.
Study Area
For purposes of evaluating the various alternatives and
impacts of those alternatives, three service area boundaries
were defined (Figure 1).
Alternative A-1 and A-2 Service Area. A boundary encom-
pass ing~liia]ETynrr^quare~mrrii~wai~deH!ned as the service
area for the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA)
alternative. The interceptor system is sized to include an
area larger than the City of Jacksonville.
Alternative A-3 Service Area. A boundary encompassing
the present City of Jacksonville, the proposed Jacksonville
urban growth areas and a 152-acre corridor of land between
Pioneer AVenue and the existing Jacksonville sewage lagoons.
The interceptor system would be sized to handle Jacksonville,
the proposed urban growth areas and the corridor with F-5
and RR-5 zoning.
7
-------
ALTERNATIVE A-l 8 A-2
SERVICE AREA a
\
-- -
t" '
; c&
Joe ksofL>0
ALTERNATIVE A-
SERVICE AREA
s- f > ^
jg JACKSONVILLE
I
i
'ALTERNATIVE B,C-l,aC-2
SERVICE AREA
1/2 1/4 0
-------
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 Service Area. A boundary
encompassing the City of Jacksonville plus a proposed rela-
tively small urban growth area constitute the service area
for the land disposal and crop irrigation alternatives. The
treatment system would be sized to handle only Jacksonville
and its designated urban growth area. The urban growth area
refers to areas tentatively identified by the City of Jackson-
ville as allowing for future urban development (to year 2000) .
Topography and Drainage
The Jacksonville study area is located on a fan and low
terrace at the western edge of Bear Creek Valley. Elevations
vary from 1,400 to 1,600 feet above sea level. Most of the
study area lies along the eastern margin of the Siskiyou
Mountain range.
The study area is bisected by numerous small streams
most of which are ephemeral and draining in a generally
northeasterly direction toward the Rogue River. Major water
courses in the area include: Jackson Creek, Walker Creek,
Griffin Creek, Horn Creek, Bear Creek, Daisy Creek, Phoenix
Canal and Hopkins Canal.
Climate
The weather in the Jacksonville area is characterized by
hot dry summers and mild wet winters. The annual average
temperature recorded at Medford Experimental Station is 52.4ฐF
and ranges from an average low of 37ฐF to an average high of
71ฐF (Figure 2).
Spring temperatures (April through June) are typically
cool with average daily temperatures in the high 40's to low
50's. Temperatures usually reach their maximum late in July
and continue high through August. During this period, daytime
temperatures average 88ฎF with occasional readings of 100ฐF
or more. The dominance of moist marine air masses provides
for relatively mild fall and winter months with temperatures
occasionally falling below freezing.
Average annual precipitation measured at the Medford
Experimental Station is 21.3 inches per year. The higher,
mountain elevations receive considerably more precipitation,
which can exceed 70 inches per year.
9
-------
TEMPERATURE
/
/ ^
/
/
y
/
i i it i ii iii II
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
-70
i
m
60 S
5
c
2J
m
-50 ง
o
za
m
m
CO
2
40 5
m
z
X
m
H
-30
FIGURE 2. MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE
IN MEDFORD,OREGON (US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
1975).
10
-------
Air Quality
The Jacksonville/Medford area has been characterized as
having a long-term problem of particulate emissions. Federal
primary (health) standards and secondary (welfare) standards
were exceeded in 1970. Since that time particulate air quality
has improved to a point where federal health standards were not
exceeded in 1975; however/ secondary welfare standards were not
met.
The Jacksonville/Medford area is considered to be an Air
Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). The need for an AQMA plan is
now being evaluated. If an AQMA plan is needed, a draft
report will be developed by July 1977 and adopted by July 1978.
During the winter, November through February, temperature
inversion tendencies are high in the Bear Creek Valley? this
phenomenon occurs in part because of the topographical con-
ditions of the area. It is during these winter months that
past violations of air standards have occurred.
Estimates of particulate emissions in Jackson County show
wood processing industries and industrial fuel combustion con-
taminants to be the major source of particulate pollutants in
the county (Table 1). Other major sources stem from slash
burning and motor vehicles.
In August 1976 DEQ began monitoring photochemical oxidants
in the Medford area. Since then, federal standards for oxidant
levels have been exceeded 17 times. The major oxidant sources
appear to be motor vehicles and plywood veneer dryers.
Sulfur dioxide emission standards have never been exceeded
in Jackson County.
Geology
The Jacksonville study area lies on the eastern side of
the Klamath Mountain physiographic division of Oregon on the
western fringe of the Bear Creek Valley. The mountains to the
west of Jacksonville rise 2,000 to 5,000 feet and consist
largely of pre-tertiary strata that have been folded, faulted
and in places intruded by granite rocks and serpentine masses.
11
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY: ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS IN JACKSON COUNTY
Tons/Year Pollutant Emission
Source Particulates
Fuel combustion
Industrial 2,648
Residential/commercial 93
Process loss sources
Wood processing industries 2,178
Food/agricultural, mineral,
chemical 119
Transportation sources
Motor vehicles 526
Off-highway fuel use 24
Solid waste sources
Wigwam waste burners, etc. 346
Miscellaneous area sources
Slash burning 2,213
Other 365
TOTAL 8,512
Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Ober, pers.
comm.
12
-------
Since Jacksonville lies on the edge of the Bear Creek
Valley, a number of geologic formations occur within the
study area.
Recent Alluvium (QAL) - Hie Bear Creek Valley to the east
of Jacksonville consists of recent alluvial deposits resulting
fran the meandering of Bear Creek. These alluvial deposits
make up a majority of the prime agricultural lands of the area.
Applegate Group (Tra) - Much of the land to the west of
Jacksonville is part of the Applegate group. The formation
resulted from folding and metamarphism producing a series of
steeply-dipping metavolcanic and metasedimentary layers.
Hornbrook Formation (Kh) - Portions of Jacksonville lie
on or adjacent to (north and south) the Hornbrook formation.
The rocks were folded and deformed during the late middle
Cretaceous period and lie upon older formations. Gold has been
mined fran conglomerate at the base of this formation in
Jacksonville.
Granitic Intrusive Rock (gd) - A small mass of intruded
granitic rock lies north of Jacksonville. } The oamcnest rock
types are diorite, quartz diorite and granite (Baldwin, 1964).
During 1977 the State of Oregon, Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries, will be preparing a comprehensive geological
survey of Jackson County (Lilley, pers. comm.).
Geologic Hazards
The geologic hazards of the Jacksonville area have not
been well identified. It is expected that during 1977 the
State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,
will comprehensively map the geologic hazards of Jackson
County.
Earthquake Faults. According to the USGS geologic
quadrangle map of the Medford area, no evident or concealed
faults are present in the Rogue Valley or along the immediate
margins of hills west of Jacksonville (USGS, 1956). A more
comprehensive survey of earthquake hazards will likely be
conducted during 1977.
13
-------
Erosion. The soils on most hillsides of 20 percent slope
or greater are considered to have a high erosion hazard. In
the Jacksonville area these consist of Brader, Debenger, Ruch,
Manita, Vannoy and Voorhies soil series. A high erosion
factor means that soil movement is expected to accelerate in
response to rainfall and runoff.
Areas of gentler slopes (1 to 20 percent) generally have
a moderate or low erosion hazard.
Flooding. Flooding can be caused by heavy rainfall and
melting snow or a combination of the two. Stream flooding
is a potential hazard to property along virtually all streams
in the Jacksonville area. The hazard is increased where
residential development borders streams and wherever higher
elevation watersheds are of sufficient size to generate sub-
stantial runoff during storms.
In 1965 the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared an
interim floodplain information report on Jackson County in
which flood hazards on major waterways of the county were
delineated.
Flood hazards were not identified along small creeks
(Jackson, Daisy, Walker) but were shown on the major waterways
such as Bear Creek and the Rogue River.
Mineral Resources. Much of the colorful history of
Jacksonville was due, in part, to the mineral resources
found in the area. Since the discovery of placer gold in
Jackson Creek in 18 51, placer and lode mining has continued
with some interruption to the present day. In addition to
gold, mineral resources in the Jacksonville area include
clay, limestone ฆ and quartz (U. S. Geological Survey, 1956.).
Edaphic Features
According to a U. S. Soil Conservation Service study
conducted in Jackson County in 1974, the Jacksonville area is
underlain by ten soil series Brader, Central Point, Coleman,
Cove, Debenger, Manita, Medford, Ruch, Vannoy and Voorhies.
The patterns of distribution of the soil series are strongly
influenced by parent material and physiographic location. The
soils tend to be grouped into three physiographic categories:
14
-------
ฐ Low Terraces - The moderately well-drained Medford,
somewhat excessively drained Central Point, well-
drained Coleman and poorly-drained Cove soils re-
present soil series of the low terrace areas.
o Fans - Ruch and Manita are well-drained with a
permeability limiting factor.
ฐ HiHslopes ~ The hillslopes consist of well-drained
vannoy, Voorhies, Brader and Manita soils (see
Figure 3).
Virtually all of the soils (except for Central Point
series) have moderate or severe limitations for septic tank
drainfield use. These limitations are due to slow percolation,
restrictive clay layers and in some areas a high water table.
Much of the land to the east-northeast of Jacksonville is
classified for agricultural uses by the Soil Conservation
Service as Class I or II, while the steeper areas directly north
and southeast of the city are designated as Class III and IV.
A majority of the land west of the city is classed IV and VII
or higher.
Soil classes are based on an agricultural capability
system designed by the Soil Conservation System. These classes
are defined as follows:
Class I Soils having few limitations that could restrict their
use.
Class II Soils having moderate limitations that reduce the
choice of plants or that require moderate conservation
practices.
Class III Soils having severe limitations that reduce the choice
of plants, require special conservation practices, or both.
Class IV Soils having very severe limitations that reduce the
choice of plants, require very careful management, or both.
(Soil Conservation Service, 1974)
Biotic Resources
Jacksonville is located in the Klamath Mountain physio-
graphic province of Oregon in the rain shadow of the Siskiyou
Mountains. The summers are warm and dry and evapotranspiration
far exceeds the precipitation of the winter months. Much of
the natural vegetation in the Jacksonville area reflects the
xeric conditions of the area.
15
-------
u y*
NORTH SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 3. SOIL MAP-JACKSONVILLE AREA, OREGON
FROM: USDA.SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
16
-------
SOIL SURVEY LEGEND
City of Jacksonville
Percent
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope
18D Brader-Debenger loams 7-20
38A Medford silty clay loam 0-3
39A Cove clay 0-3
46A Central Point sandy loam 0-3
55B Ruch silt loam 2-7
55D Ruch silt loam 7-15
56B Coleman loam 2-7
58B Ruch gravelly loam, gravelly
substratum 2-7
70B Manita loam 2-7
70D Manita loam 7-20
80E Vannoy silt loam 12-35
8IF Vannoy-Voorhies complex 35-70
North
82F Voorhies-Vannoy complex 35-60
South
17
-------
Vegetation. Much of the Jacksonville study area is in
a "semi-natural" vegetative condition, because most of the
area has been subjected to major human activities such as
logging, clearing, grazing or burning (or a combination of
these).
Agricultural. Portions of Jacksonville lie on the edge
of Bear Creek Valley, much of which is under agricultural
use. Vegetation in the valley is a mosaic of irrigated
pasture, alfalfa, pear orchards, truck crops and riparian
habitat. Uncultivated edges of agricultural lands are typified
by annual grasses such as wheat, grass, bentgrass, brome and
wildrye and weed and forb species such as yellowstar thistle,
yarrow, wild carrot and American vetch.
Riparian. Riparian vegetation along waterways of the
study area is characterized by Oregon ash, black cottonwood,
bigleaf maple, red and white alder, willows and blackberry.
Oak Woodland and Shrub Communities. The hills to the
north, west and south of Jacksonville are vegetated by
deciduous oak woodland California black oak, Oregon white
oak, deerbrush, white-leaved manzanita, poison oak and
birchleaf mountain mahogany and scattered ponderosa pine and
cedar (Franklin and Dyrness, 1969).
The more xeric areas and disturbed sites are characterized
by open grasslands with scattered oak stands and sclero-
phyllous shrubs such as narrow-leaf buckbrush and tanoak.
Mixed Conif er/~Pine Forests. Much of the land on the foot-
hills bordering Jacksonville is vegetated with a diversity of
plant ^ species, while Douglas fir is a dominant species,- ponderosa
pine is present in some areas, along with deerbrush, poison oak
and manzanita.
Appendix A-l identifies the more common vegetation of the
study area, while Figure 4 and Table 2 show the present vege-
tative cover types of the study area.
18
-------
Residential
850 0
Scale In Feet
FIGURE 1I VEGETATION AND LAND USE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
AND THE URBAN GROWTH AREA.
19
-------
Table 2
VEGETATION AND LAND USE CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE AND URBAN GROWTH AREAS
Land Use or
Vegetative Type
Approximate Acres
City of Jacksonville Urban
Growth Area*
Residential
411
12
Grasslands
123
48
Riparian
10
Orchard
3
3
Oak/scrub
256
214
Oak
12
15
Fir/scrub
87
Fir/pine
298
Fir/oak/scrub
74
--
Barren
36
TOTAL AVERAGE
1/274
328
* Urban growth area refers to areas tentatively identified
by the City of Jacksonville as allowing for future urban
development (to year 2000).
20
-------
Fauna. The faunal resources of the Jacksonville area
consist of two major groups freshwater and terrestrial.
Freshwater Fauna, A majority of the streams within the
study area originate in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains and
flow in a northeasterly direction to Bear Creek and thence
to the Rogue River.
Some of the streams in the area include Jackson, Walker,
Griffin, Horn, Bear and Daisy Creeks. Appendix A-3 lists
those fish species most common to the streams of the area.
Terrestrial Fauna. A wide variety of terrestrial wild-
life species are associated with the agricultural, riparian
and oak woodland and shrub communities of the Jacksonville
area. Common birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals are
identified in Appendix A-2.
The black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionis columbianus)
is the most common of the big game mammals in the Jacksonville
area. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis
concolor) occur in the more remote portions of Jackson an3
nearby Josephine Counties.
Band-tailed pigeon (Columbia fasciata), mountain quail
(Oreortyx picta), California quail (Lophortyx californic'us),
mourningdove (Zenaidura macroura) and ring-necked pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus) are found in varying numbers throughout
the region.The ring-necked pheasant, California quail and
mourning dove occur in greatest numbers in the agricultural
areas to the east of the City of Jacksonville.
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. Three species of
wildlife identified by the U. S. Department of Interior C1973)
and the Oregon Wildlife Commission (1975) as endangered or
threatened with extinction, could occur within the project
area. Those animals are listed in Table 3.
Only one species, the northern spotted owl, is likely to
reside in the study area. The other listed species could
occur in the study area for at least part of the year.
21
-------
Table 3
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATE SPECIES
WHOSE DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES THE
SOUTHEAST LINCOLN STUDY AREA
Present Status
Federal1 State 2
Common Name
Scientific Name
fฎR T T E
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
tundrius
X
X
Northern bald
eagle
Haliaetus leucocephalus
alascans
X
Northern
spotted owl
Strix occidentalis
caurina
X
1 Federal Status
FR Federal Register - Species is on the official endangered
species list, Federal Register, June 4, 1973.
T Those species identified by U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United
States.
2 State Status
T Threatened.
E Endangered
Source: Oregon State Wildlife Commission, January 1975.
22
-------
Aesthetic Values
Much of the land surrounding Jacksonville is agricultural,
accompanied by natural vegetation, thus providing a diverse
scenic environment encompassing oak woodland/conifer woodland,
riparian vegetation and agricultural acreage.
The hills and uplands to the west of Jacksonville provide
the major visual setting for the city. In addition, the
location of the City of Jacksonville on the western edge of
the Bear Creek Valley allows for a broad panoramic view east-
ward across the valley to the Cascade Mountain Range.
The City of Jacksonville is an historic landmark because
of the presence of many buildings representative of the era
from the 1850's to the early 1900's. The historic and quaint
nature of Jacksonville attracts many visitors and tourists
to the city each year.
The aesthetic quality of the Jacksonville area generally
results from the maintenance of the historic values of the
city coupled with the natural beauty of the surrounding lands.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Surface Water. The study area contains reaches of three
small creeks Jackson Creek, Walker Creek and Daisy Creek.
Jackson Creek is a perennial creek maintained almost exclu-
sively by agricultural return water during the summer low
flow period. Walker Creek is an ephemeral creek and may cease
to flow during the dry summer months. Daisy Creek is naturally
an ephemeral creek; however, wastewater discharged from the
Jacksonville sewage ponds presently maintains a continuous
flow. These creeks generally react immediately to rainfall
and exhibit peak flows within a few hours of a storm.
The quality of surface waters in the Jacksonville area
varies throughout the year. In streams receiving wastewater
the quality is typically poorest during the low flow summer
months. Jackson, Griffin and Daisy Creeks are representative
of streams that have been degraded by wastewater inflows and
agricultural irrigation return water.
23
-------
Several streamways also receive inflow from septic tanks
and drainfields which malfunction periodically.
Groundwater. Groundwater resources are of somewhat
limited quantity in the study area. Agricultural irrigation
in the Bear Creek Valley places a high demand upon the ground-
water resources. However, groundwater levels have remained
somewhat static because much of the water used for irrigation
subsequently percolates back into the groundwater table. A
combination of agricultural irrigation recharge and natural
accretion has probably prevented overdrafting of the ground-
water resources. However, replenishment of the groundwater
with agricultural return waters has brought about some degra-
dation of the groundwater quality.
Water Use and Supply. The City of Jacksonville derives
its water supply from the City of Medford via an 8-inch
pipeline. Prior to the Use of Medford water, Jacksonville
obtained water from Jackson Creek.
As of 1970, Jacksonville used an average of 289,000 gallons
of water per day to serve a population of 1,600 through 600
service connections. Water from the Medford pipeline is stored
in three reservoirs which have a capacity of 1.26 MG (million
gallons). Water must be pumped to these reservoirs for
storage and then distributed to Jacksonville via a gravity
flow system.
According to the Jackson County comprehensive areawide
water and sewerage plan prepared by Stevens, Thompson and Runyon,
Inc (1973), the present average daily water demand for Jackson-
ville is 0.289 mg, or 181 gallons per capita per day average
consumption. This is somewhat lower than the national average
of 200 gpcd (gallons per capita per day). Per capita water
consumption is expected to continue to increase to 210 gpcd.
With projected increases in population and per capita water
consumption, it will be necessary for Jacksonville to expand
the 8-inch water line to 14 inches and to provide an addi-
tional 1.0 MG storage system.
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions
In 1963 the City of Jacksonville constructed a sewage
collection and treatment system consisting of 7 miles of
8- to 15*-inch diameter sewers and a 2-cell sewage stabilization
pond with approximately 9 acres of surface area.
24
-------
The stabilization ponds were designed for a population
of 1,600 a population size which was achieved during 1970.
The present population (1975) of Jacksonville is estimated to
be 2,070 with approximately 628 customer units connected to
the sewerage system.
The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
established a maximum 5-day BOD loading of 35 pounds per acre
per day for cell lagoons. Under present conditions the present
facilities are being loaded above capacity and DEQ has re-
stricted further connections until a new treatment system can
be provided. DEQ has established in the NPDES permit for
Jacksonville, that the average 5-day BOD shall not exceed
54 pounds per day with a weekly average not to exceed 108
pounds per day and with a daily maximum of 162 pounds.
In June 1973, the DEQ limited the City of Jacksonville to
25 sewer connection permits in order to limit the overloading
of the sewage system. In November 1974, an additional 25
permits were allocated, with a request that existing mal-
functioning septic systems be given priority to connect to
the sewage system.
In April 1976, at the request of the City of Jacksonville,
the DEQ surveyed subsurface disposal systems on South Oregon
Street. As a result of the survey, 9 permits were allocated
to those systems found to be malfunctioning or questionable.
Homes in some portions of Jacksonville are still on septic
systems. Many function properly while others periodically
malfunction because of poor maintenance or the inherent problems
of subsurface sewage disposal in the Jacksonville area.
Appendix B shows the sewage flow for the City of Jackson-
ville for the years 1973 through 1975. The flow data show that
infiltration/inflow is of considerable magnitude during high
rainfall months.
Archeological Resources
Very little archeology study has been accomplished in the
Rogue River drainage basin, particularly in the vicinity of
Bear Creek Valley, the earliest published work was accomplished
by Luther Cressman (1933a> 1933b) in 1931 and 1932 at Gold Hill,
Oregon. He recovered what may be some early flexed burials.
Included among the grave offerings were large obsidian blades
and leaf-shaped projectile points. Later material overlaid the
burials.
25
-------
Wilbur Davis excavated several sites in the Lost Creek
and Elk Creek vicinities in 1967, 1968, 1972 and 1973 (Davis,
1968, 1970, 1974). Davis' work was a forerunner to hydro-
electric dam construction on the two streams. Davis' work
has established a cultural history along the upper Rogue River
extending back at least 6,000 years. Encompassed within this
6,000-year period are four provisionally-defined phases
(Davis, 1974).
The only upland survey published to date in the vicinity
of Jacksonville produced negative results. This was Wilbur
Davis' (1964) survey of the Oregon Caves National Monument.
As stated in the regulations for preparing environmental
impact statements Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72), the EPA
is subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966 and the archeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1974.
For purposes of this EIS, an archeological survey of the
alternative pipeline routes was conducted by David Brauner of
Oregon State University. The results of the survey are pre-
sented in the impact section of this document, while an account
of the cultural background of the early inhabitants of Jackson
County is presented in Appendix E.
Historical Resources
Historical Background. A discussion of the discovery,
settlement and early growth of Jacksonville, Oregon, is pre-
sented as Appendix E of this EIS. A more contemporary look at
Jacksonville is presented as a discussion of the Socio-
Economic Features immediately following this next section, on
the federal and state designation of Jacksonville as an
historic place.
Federal and State Inventory of Historic Sites. In
August of 1967 Jacksonville was dedicated as a National
Historic Landmark, a distinction that led to its being
placed upon the National Register of Historic Places and
making it one of four residential communities to be so
dedicated in the United States. Originally, the historic
area was comprised of and confined to 4-1/2 square blocks
within the downtown area. In 1972, however, the historic
core was expanded to include a majority of doymtown buildings.
Also included was the site where gold was originally dis-
covered near Jacksonville.
26
-------
Socio-Economic Features
Description
The City of Jacksonville is located some five miles west
of Medford in the mid-western portion of Jackson County. It
is readily accessible from a northern exit off Interstate
Highway 5 or by northern and southern routes from within the
City of Medford. There is access from other highway routes,
but access is less direct.
Jacksonville is located in the western portion of Jackson
County on the edge of the Siskiyou Mountain Range. To the
north are rolling hills and agricultural lands, while the
southern boundary is marked by rolling and gently sloping
hillsides; to the east are its prime agricultural lands.
Jacksonville City Government consists of a mayor, the
city council, city administrator, and a planning assistant
supported by Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA)
funds and a clerical staff. Support services include an all-
volunteer fire department whose members are paid a $2.00
gratuity per response to a fire, and a volunteer chief who
receives an annual allotment of $300.00 for his services.
There are three full-time salaried policemen. Equipment can
be dispatched from nearby communities on a need basis.
The evolution of Jacksonville has been that of a bustling
town, prominent in county and state affairs and economically
significant (mid to late 1800s), to one of little or limited
significance (early to mid 1900s), to one of little or limited
significance (early to mid 1900s), and culminating in its
present status as a historical landmark.
The city has strived to maintain this historic image in
part through its architecture. Many of the buildings within
the historic section (downtown) are not original, while
several that can claim originality are thought to be struc-
turally unsound. The effort nevertheless continues to be
made to preserve the historical imagery regardless of the
structural condition of buildings.
Jacksonville's citizenry have a presumed commitment
to preserve Jacksonville's historic character and integrity.
Their primary concerns center around community growth, the
wastewater treatment plans and associated growth, economic
dependence, and outside interference in community matters.
The people of Jacksonville are faced with major divisive
issues over the town's historical preservation and its
potential development in other directions. The majority of
the residents interviewed are not opposed to a slow, well
27
-------
defined, and well controlled growth (Interview: Jacksonville
City Government, Citizen interviews). This majority would
prefer a controlled growth with the maintenance and expansion
of historical features. No isolatable faction or individuals
support wholesale and rapid residential, commercial, industrial,
or other development for the City of Jacksonville.
The community can best be described as a "bedroom
community", one that is dependent upon other areas to provide
jobs for its residents. Housing and property values are in
an acute state in Jacksonville. Although adequate housing
is available, it is very expensive. City government is under-
manned and the tax base is small. Support services consist
of a volunteer fire department and part-time police agency.
The key areas of planning and growth in Jacksonville
proper as defined by city government are: 1) the downtown
core area, 2) the Stage Coach subdivision to the southeast,
3) the northwest trailer court, and 4) the Paradise Ranch
subdivision, also to the northwest. Jacksonville is a con-
glomerate of residential areas including the affluent, the
modest, and the poor. The condition of residential areas
further illustrates the diversity of wealth and attitudes
within Jacksonville's population.
Population
Present Population - Jacksonville. Jacksonville's
population is heterogeneous and consists of the following,
locally defined categories:
1. Native or long-time resident
2. Newcomer active and retired
3. California immigrant active and retired
Although there are no statistics to account for the
percentages of people that comprise these population cate-
gories, Jacksonville claims some 2,07 0 persons in its 1975
population, nearly 2 percent of the county's total of
110,700. The influx of California immigrants presents an
interesting phenomenon in that residents of Jacksonville
have historically thought that Californians were buying all
their lands for residence purposes as well as for speculation.
Research by the Jackson County Tax Assessment Office indi-
cates that this belief was prevalent in the late 1800s and
still persists. No reason is given for this attitude, but
the assessor's office claims this wholesale purchase of such
lands by Californians is not true now, nor has it ever been.
The county shows no large land transactions from out-of-
state buyers. Indications are that most of the buying of
land in and around Jacksonville is done by county or state
residents (Interview: Jackson County Department of Tax
Assessment, 1976).
28
-------
Jacksonville's growth since 1940 has been slower than
that of Medford or the county. Table 4 indicates the
growth of Jacksonville from 1940-1975 in comparison with
that of the City of Medford and Jackson County.
Jacksonville's slower growth is probably attributable
to reduced economic opportunity for its residents. In fact,
Medford has been the chief attraction in terms of county
economic opportunity, while Jacksonville has appealed to
people who desire to live in a rural environment and work
in an urban area.
Jacksonville's age composition shows a slightly higher
percentage of persons 45 years and older than does the
remainder of the county or the state (see Table 5). It is
noteworthy that a slightly higher percentage of people age
65 and over reside in Jacksonville. The largest concentration
of people age 65 and over in the State of Oregon is found in
Lincoln County (18.2 percent). Jacksonville's percentage is
17.9 percent, which is a strong indication of the attractive-
ness of the city as a retirement community. The presence of
large numbers of retirees also represents a unique attitudinal
adjustment for the town. The median age for Jacksonville
residents is 34.6 years, or 4 years higher than the county
median age.
Figure 5 portrays the present city limits of Jacksonville
along with its proposed urban growth boundaries (UGB). An
urban growth boundary is in the process of being designed for
the southeast, north, and northwest sections of the city.
Growth also can be expected along the western foothills, which
already sustain abundant housing. Planners for Jackson
County generally concur with Jacksonville's proposed growth
patterns and plans and would not interfere unless the UGBs
were designed to invade the prime agricultural lands to
Jacksonville's east and toward Medford (Interview: Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, 1976).
Jacksonville's most recent annexations have been to the north
and to the east a trailer park and the Stage Coach sub-
division.
Housing is said to be experiencing a rapid, inflationary
trend in Jacksonville. Presently, a modest three-bedroom
home with a bath and one-half will bring $40,000 on the real
estate market. Some of the less affluent people who work in
Jacksonville are thus forced to locate their families in
trailer parks or in other outlying, less expensive areas
(Interview: Jacksonville City Government, 1976).
29
-------
Table 4 Jacksonville's Population Growth in Relation to Medford and
Jackson County, by Years, 1940-1975.
Numerical
Percent
1940
1950
1960
1970
1975
Change
Change
1940-1975
1940-1975
Jacksonville
761
1193
1172
1611
2070
+1804
+172
Medford
11281
17305
24425
28454
34000
+22179
+201
Jackson County
36213
'58510
73962
94533
110700
+74481
+206
Source: Bureau of Municipal Research and Service, 1958; State of
Oregon, 1974; Jacksonville City Planner, 1976.
Table 5 1970 Age Characteristic of Jacksonville, Jackson County, and
the State of Oregon, in Percentages
Age Category Jacksonville Jackson County State of Oregon
Under 20 33.7(est.) 36.0 37.0
20-44 27.0 39.6 31.0
45-64 21.5 22.2 21.0
65 and over 17.9 12.0 11.0
Source: State of Oregon, 1974; Plambeck, 1975.
30
-------
VI* ซ ft
' -TjipM
v" .!!ฆ..(!..
; !j,:;i!;; j
fi.-it.arJ ^
~ ~up
13
i"-- I ^
' =^-- ks^tr,. pLฃ&r.-
<errr A
SCALE IN FEET ' - ' . NORTH
Figure 5. Jacksonville City Limits
and Proposed Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB)
-------
Present Population - Surrounding Area. For purposes of
this EIS, present population estimates were made for the area
surrounding Jacksonville that constitutes the likely service
area for Alternatives A-l and A-2 (Figure 1). No census data
have been derived from that specific area; however, some
estimates from county census tracts are available. The present
population of the service area is approximately 500 (BCATS
census data; Hogg, pers. comm.) (Figure 6).
Projected Population - Jacksonville. The population
projections for tne City of Jacksonville are presented in
Figure 6. Jacksonville's realizable population growth in
the future will depend upon a host of intervening variables.
Among them are the projected selection of a wastewater treat-
ment plan, the availability of additional housing and asso-
ciated property values, the expansion of city services, and
a more diverse and expanded economic base. Also of importance
is Medford's continued appeal as an employment center for the
county.
The population projections in Figure 6 were derived by
applying a variety of population study techniques. For
example, the estimates made by the Bonneville Power Admini-
stration (BPA) are computed from the County Census District
(CCD) of which Jacksonville is a part. BPA applied trend
findings for past population growth percentages in the CCD to
a population estimator (for Jacksonville) which has been
developed by Portland State University. This technique assumes
that the factors which led to the spatial distribution of popu-
lation in Jackson County in the past decade would continue to
operate in subsequent decades (Interview: Jacksonville Assistant
Planner, 1976).
The preliminary population projections made by the City
of Jacksonville (Figure 6) were based on a variety of assump-
tions bearing on growth policy, regional economic conditions,
desirability of living in Jacksonville and provisions of public
services. The 5 percent growth represents the approximate
historical growth rate of Jacksonville, while the medium and
high projections represent growth rates characteristic of recent
moderate (1968 to 1975) and high (1968 to 1972) population
increases. A more complete description of the assumptions for
population projections is presented in Appendix F.
Jacksonville's largest population surge since 1860
occurred between 1940-1950 when it increased by.56 percent.
Historically, the county and the City of Medford have grown
at much faster rates and have realized larger percentage
increases than has the City of Jacksonville. In all
32
-------
7000
CJ
KjJ
6000
5000
4000
z
o
h
5 3000
ฆD
a.
o
a.
2000
1000
1940 1950
I960 1970 1980
YEAR
1990 2000 2010
2020
FIGURE 6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000 FOR JACKSONVILLE AND THE
SURROUNDING SERVICE AREA.
-------
likelihood this trend will continue for some time into the
future. Medford, therefore/ will continue to be the area's
chief economic attraction, although some people will still
choose Jacksonville for residential settlement. Jacksonville's
continuing desirability for retirement is difficult to project.
The city will probably continue to attract higher percentages
of individuals from age 65 and over even though recreation is
not as much as a factor here as it is in coastal Lincoln
County.
Projected Population - Surrounding Area. The service
area for Alternatives A-l and A-2 encompasses approximately
6,550 acres. Based on the present zoning classifications of
rural-residential and open space development (1 dwelling per
5 acres) for the land, and 3.3 persons per household, a maxi-
mum of 4,323 persons could inhabit the area. Using a 5 percent
growth estimate, the population could reach 1,050 by 1997
(Figure 6). It is unknown whether this total will ever be
achieved because of factors such as 1) potential zoning changes,
and 2) constraints to development such as slope, soil type, etc.
A population approaching 3.3 percent growth (Figure 6) appears
to be a more realistic estimate.
Urban Growth Boundary. As a requirement of the 1973 Land
Use Act, the City of Jacksonville is preparing an urban growth
boundary (UGB). This UGB represents an area outside of the pre-
sent city limits that would allow for projected urban development
to the year 2000. This boundary size is based on a format
established by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) whereby the following factors are considered: 1) retention
of soils with agricultural classifications I-IV (U. S. Soil
Conservation Service); 2) provision of support services such as
sewer and water; 3) a genuine need to accommodate the proposed
population growth; and 4) county coordination and agreement with
the proposed boundary area.
The urban growth boundary as now identified has, in
concept, been approved by the Jacksonville Planning Commission.
The final boundary size has not been established or approved
by Jackson County or LCDC.
Economy
Jacksonville diverges from the general resource economics
pattern of the county in that forest products neither dominate
the employment picture nor do they furnish the income for most
Jacksonville residents. Approximately 125 people in Jackson-
ville are engaged in logging, lumbering or agriculture in or
around Jacksonville.
34
-------
Jacksonville possesses few commercial or industrial enterprises
that serve areas beyond the immediate community, and this worker
category is smaller than might be expected. Some "cottage-type"
industry is developing, largely in the area of enterprises to
attract more tourist dollars. In recent years, Jacksonville
has become a "bedroom community" to Medford with nearly three
fourths of Jacksonville workers deriving their incomes from
Medford payrolls.
Agriculture and Farming. Adjacent to the Town of
Jacksonville are nearly 3,000 acres of Class 1 farmland,
some of the best in. Jackson County. Most of this acreage
is devoted to seed production, alfalfa, fruit orchards,
some pasturage for sheep, cattle and horses, and a few
vegetable crops. Farmlands adjacent to Jacksonville com-
prise about 3 percent of the total cropland in Jackson
County (Interview: Oregon State University Extension Service,
1976).
Most of the farms, with the major exception of an Oregon
State University experimental farm, are family operations.
Some of these farms have been in production for more than a
generation. The major lands in production include those to
the immediate north and east of Jacksonville. According to
1970 data, approximately 1.6 percent of the labor force of
Jackson County was in the farmer and farm manager category,
whereas 8 percent of the work force was involved in agriculture,
including forestry and fisheries. Considering these data to
be reasonably typical of Jacksonville, they would translate
into estimates of a farmer-farm manager population of
12 persons and an agricultural work force of slightly over
55 persons, not including seasonal labor. Actual census or
survey data are lacking, however.
One of the major issues surrounding development in
Jackson County involves the maintenance of agricultural lands.
In Jacksonville this same issue emerges with most people and
agencies articulating a strong desire to maintain Jacksonville's
separateness from Medford. At the same time there is substantial
pressure for development of these lands. Even though Medford
possesses an almost equivalent open space within its municipal
boundaries, the fear of encroachment and urban sprawl is quite
strong. The potential is there for the loss of lands. Within
the past few years open lands have been lost to housing and other
developments, some of which show little or no planning.
35
-------
Commerce and Industry. According to the Oregon State
offices of the Research and Statistics Laboratory, Jacksonville's
manufacturing and processing industries are few and have a small
work force. Data reported for 1976 show 56 persons employed in
logging while petroleum and stainless steel (metal fabrication)
employ only 4 persons.
Other commerce includes a telephone utility, banking and
small business operations, including restaurants and curio
shops. According to a 1974 report by Haynes and Cox, only
7 percent of their survey respondents were actually employed
in Jacksonville. Recomputing their data, by housewife dele-
tion, this places an estimate of the Jacksonville work force
at approximately 500 persons, about 24 percent of whom are
estimated to be employed in Jacksonville. Since the work site
for loggers working for Jacksonville firms is not within the
town per se, it is estimated there is an in Jacksonville work
force of approximately 120 persons, half o? whom are in manu-
facturing or processing of wood products and the other half
in retail or wholesale trade or commercial enterprises.
Tourism. Tourism is a very important activity in Jack-
sonville, but the financial return from visitors is not great.
Pew data are available to indicate the magnitude of the tourist
dollar for Jacksonville. Since Oregon has no sales tax an
accurate tourist revenue assessment, based on retailer's records,
cannot be made.
In the absence of motel facilities in Jacksonville, tourist
traffic surveys are nonexistent. The only data available that
would offer some indication of tourism figures are those provided
by the Jacksonville museum. Those data are presented in Table 6.
Employment. Table 7 shows Jacksonville to have a high
percentage of managerial and administrative personnel, laborers,
and retired persons relative to the county population. Con-
versely, Jacksonville has relatively low percentages of
professional technical, clerical-kindred, craftsmen-kindred,
operatives, service workers and unemployed. The data suggest
a generally affluent population in Jacksonville even through
there is a slightly higher percentage of laborers than for the
whole county. Few Jacksonville residents occupy service-related
positions or lower level organizational positions.
36
-------
Table 6
Visitors to the Jacksonville Museum
Nr. increase
%income
1970
1,092,561
95,173
+8.7
1971
1,187,734
91,518
+7.7
1972
1,279,252
77,963
+6.1
1973
1,357,215
63,215
+4.7
1974
1,420,430
130,014
+9.2
1975
1,550,444
Table 7
Employment Categories: Jackson County and Jacksonville
Jackson County (1970) Jacksonville (1973)
Professional, Technical and Kindred
Workers 13.0% 10%
Managers and Administrators 9.9% 12%
Salesworkers 8.2% 8%
Clerical and Kindred 15.3% 5%
Craftsmen and Kindred 12.9% 9%
Operatives 9.6% 6%
Laborers (except farm) 6.3% 9%
Service Workers 13.2% 6%
Private Household 1.3% 1%
Unemployed 8.5% 2%
Retired 28.6% 34%
~An estimated 20,000 persons in Jackson County were receiving Social
Security in August, 1976. Relative to a workforce of 50,000, the above
computation is made. No adjustment has been made for widow - widower
benefits.
37
-------
Income data reflect the same judgments. Table 8 shows
the income distribution for Jacksonville. Considering that
34 percent of the people represented in the figure in Table 9
are retired, the figures are all the more significant with
respect to affluence. Jackson County data for 1970 are not
fully comparable but show the following in comparison with
Jacksonville.
While the data in Table 9 continue to suggest Jackson-
ville's general affluence, median income data place Jackson-
ville's position at approximately $10,000 per annum as com-
pared to a 1970 figure of $9,624 for Jackson County families.
Adjusting for inflation in the four-year period, but not
accounting for the higher percentage of retirees in Jackson-
ville, the Jackson County median wage is well above
Jacksonville's. A differential of $1,000 is estimated to
have existed in 1975. The conclusion, therefore, is that
Jacksonville manifests proportionately as much poverty and
as many lower income households as the whole county. The
remainder of the Jacksonville population, a substantial
portion, ranges in the middle to upper strata in economic
means and their activities tend to mask the nonaffluent
elements.
As previously mentioned, Jacksonville's labor force
consists of nearly 500 persons, only 12 percent of whom work
in Jacksonville. Including the some 60 other persons
employed by Jacksonville firms, approximately one quarter of
the people living in Jacksonville have an employment base
there. Forty-three percent work in Medford (Haynes and Cox,
1974) and another very small percentage of workers are
employed in other valley towns or work outside the immediate
locale. This pattern has persisted over the past 7 years
insofar as 74 percent of Jacksonville's population has been
stable in the county during the period (Haynes and Cox, 1974).
38
-------
Table 8
Income Distribution for Jacksonville
%
25
20
15
IU
5
0
9%
8%
10%
13%
20%
14%
7%
18%
Less than 3,000-
3,000/yr 4,999
5,000- 7,000- 10,000 15,000- 25,000+ No
6,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 Response
Source: Haynes and Cox, 1974.
Table 9
Income Categories: Jackson County and Jacksonville
Jackson County (1970) Jacksonville (1973)1
0-$3,999 17.03% 16.1%
$4,000-%5,999 12.81% 10.5%
$6,000-$l1,999 45.26% 32.7%
$12,000+ 24.89% 40.8%
1Adjusted to 100% of those reporting Income as "reported by Haynes and
Cox (1974).
39
-------
Land Use
Present Land Use. The majority of lands in and around
Jacksonville are in some form of agricultural use or are in
open space. Slope requirements, drainage, and soil charac-
teristics nevertheless keep many of these open lands from
being suitable for subdivision or for recreational develop-
ment (Interview: Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, 1976).
Land planted in crops is significant; for example, Jackson-
ville's environs claim nearly 3 percent of the total county
lands are in crops (horticulture).
Residential areas of Jacksonville are scattered inter-
mittently in most directions, excluding the east. The most
recent annexations by the city have been to the north and
northeast, but the southern and western foothills show signs
of residential sprawl. The western foothill regions could
sustain quite a bit more residential development before
saturation occurs (Interview: Jacksonville City Engineer,
1976).
Jacksonville's commercial enterprises are very small in
scope and do not offer a wide variety of services to residents.
As a result, most people visit Medford or other communities
for commercial services (Interview: Jacksonville City Govern-
ment, 1976). Jacksonville's commercial services are primarily
confined to the downtown area. Large shopping centers do not
exist.
Industry is very limited in Jacksonville. Table 10 illus-
trates a land use summary based on 1969 statistics. It should
be noted that Jacksonville claims some 22 percent of its lands
to be vacant.
Land outside of but adjacent to Jacksonville falls within
the jurisdiction of the Jackson County Department of Planning
and Development. The assistant planner for the City of Jackson-
ville is currently revising and updating land use policies in
order to conform to the goals and guidelines of the Land Con-
servation and Development Commission (LCDC) as well as enacting
the Citizen Involvement Program. The city assistant planner
has worked periodically with county planners in Medford in an
attempt to anticipate growth demands that may be placed on
Jacksonville in the future.
40
-------
Table 10
Jacksonville Land Use Summary
October 1969
Acres Percentage
Agriculture
429.63
36.25
Vacant
262.63
22.16
Residential
298.86
25.22
Trailer Park
19.57
1.65
Commercial
9.90
.83
Hotel-Motel
.00
.00
Industrial
.36
.03
Utility
.03
.01
Institutional
21.11
1.78
Public
3.56
.30
Schools
16.65
1.40
Park & Recreation
3.56
.30
Streets
119.34
10.07
Total 1,185.20 100.00
(Courtesy Jacksonville Assistant City Planner)
41
-------
Roads and Highways. The City of Jacksonville is trans-
sected by two major highways Highway 238 running from
Medford westerly and northwesterly to Jacksonville and Grants
Pass, and the South Stage Road southeast to Phoenix. Old
Stage Road to Central Point is also a heavily-traveled highway.
The 1975 average daily traffic loads for various points
along the Jacksonville Highway and Old Stage Road are shown
in Table 11. Future highway improvements have been planned
for the Jacksonville Highway because of the heavy traffic
volumes within the City of Jacksonville and on the northern
portion of the Jacksonville Highway to Grants Pass. The pro-
posed Jacksonville Highway bypass north of the city would
virtually eliminate through traffic in Jacksonville thereby
reducing much of the present traffic congestion. The proposed
routing of the bypass is shown on Figure 7.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has also proposed
a highway improvement for the Grants Pass-New Hope Road section
of the Jacksonville Highway. That proposed improvement will
include the portion of the Jacksonville Highway from Harbeck
Road in Grants Pass to the New Hope Road northwest of
Jacksonville (Schwab, pers. comm.).
Pgyfea and Recreation. Numerous state, federal and county
park areas are located within a 20-mile radius of the City of
Jacksonville. The Klamath Mountains to the west of Jackson-
ville are a popular recreation area and, as a result, the U. S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management maintain six picnic
and campground areas.
The State of Oregon maintains three wayside and campground
areas and a 2,000-acre upland game and waterfowl management
area in the vicinity of Jacksonville.
Two recreational facilities are proposed for the Jacksonville
area a recreation trail from Ashland to Jacksonville and the
38 0-acre county administered-Britt Botanical Garden and Arboretum
on the south side of Highway 238 to the west of Jacksonville.
Solid Waste. The collection and disposal of solid waste
in Jacksonville is accomplished by a franchised, commercial (private)
collection service. The "City Sanitary Service" collects refuse
in the communities of Jacksonville, Phoenix, Central Point,
Medford and White City.
42
-------
Table 11
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE
JACKSONVILLE HIGHWAY AND OLD STAGE
ROAD TO CENTRAL POINT
1975 ADT (Average Daily
Location Traffic) All Vehicles
Jacksonville Highway
West city limits of Jacksonville 3,100
0.01 mile east of Oregon Street 4,100
0.01 mile west of 5th Street 5,000
0.01 mile north of California Street 4,400
0.01 mile north of F Street 4,700
North city limits of Jacksonville 4,600
0.01 mile west of Hanley Road 4,100
0.01 mile east of Hanley Road 4,600
Old Stage Road
0.02 mile north of Jacksonville
Highway in Jacksonville 1,700
0.02 mile north of F Street 1,200
North city limits of Jacksonville 940
0.02 mile south of Old Military Road 820
43
-------
NORTH
850
SCALE IN FEET
1700
4
PROPOSED JACKSONVILLE BYPASS, HIGHWAY 238
44
-------
A modified landfill site is located west of South Stage
Road to the south of Jacksonville. This disposal site, known as
the South Stage site, receives waste from the City Sanitary
Service and portions of Pat's Sanitary Service in Eagle Point.
In addition to the franchised use of the site, many members of the
public haul and dispose of their own wastes.
The disposal site was begun in 1962 and is projected to be
used until 1980.
Zoning. Present zoning classifications for the City of
Jacksonville and the service area surrounding the city are pre-
sented in Figures 8 and 9. Legends pertaining to each map
follow.
Future Land Use.1/ Future use designs, constraints and
needs placed upon land are becoming more and more critical as
population pressures increase. These pressures occur not only
because of natural increases in the birth rate, but they also
stem from the whims of people who wish to migrate to what they
feel are more attractive areas for either retirement or living
purposes. Future land use projections thus are subject to a
host of the same intervening variables that impinge upon
accurate population projections. In the majority of cases,
present land use patterns, practices and problems are merely
intensified for the future.
Many of the concepts within the Jacksonville General
Plan have not been formalized. The urban growth boundaries
of the city have not been finalized along property lines.
The planners and Commission are cognizant of this fact,
however. Although the general plan is not intended to be
a rigid instrument, its basic objective is to maintain the
city's historic character while still providing a high degree
of liveability for its residents (Interview: Jacksonville
Assistant City Planner, 1976).
Plans are designed so that the core downtown area, or
older and more congested area of the city, can maintain a
certain historical and aesthetic quality. The General
Plan outlines that continued care be given to this area
simply for added insurance against over-development. The
hillside and additional upland areas to the south and west
Much of this material is derived from the Jacksonville
General Plan. For a more detailed description consult
the General Plan.
45
-------
FIGURE 8
ZONING-JACKSON COUNTY AREA SURROUNDING JACKSONVILLE
-------
LEGEND - ZONING JACKSON COUNTY AREA
SURROUNDING JACKSONVILLE
Open space reserve - 1 dwelling/20 acres
Aggregate resource
Open space development - 1 dwelling/5 acres
Rural residential - 1 dwelling/2.5 acres
Farm - 1 dwelling/5 acres
Rural residential - 1 dwelling/5 acres
Forest Resource
47
-------
00
FIGURE 9
ZONING MAP
CITY OK
JACKSONVILLE
HISTOAC PftCSCRVATfOH WSTWlCT
-------
LEGEND TO JACKSONVILLE ZONING MAP
wg District Minimum Map Symbol and Abbro
Site Aren vip.ted PesiffantiOTi
Eฉ3idential-Farra District 20,000 sq. ft. R-F-20
Re3ldontial-Farm District 40,000 sq. ft. R-F-40
Rosidential-Single Family District 6,000 sq. ft. R-l-6
Residential-Single Family District 8,000 sq. ft. R-l-8
Residential-Single Family District 10,000 sq. ft. R-l*10
Il03idential-Single Family District 12,000 sq. ft. R-l-12
Residential-Two Family District 5*000 sq. ft. R-2
Residential-Multiple Family District 1,300 sq. ft./Unit R-5-1-2
Esaidential-Multiple Family District 2,400 sq. ft./Unit R-5-2ซ*>
Residential-Multiple Family District 3ป600 oqป ft./Unit R-5-3.6
Cocaercial-Retail District C-l
Ccrsarcial Service-Industrial District M-l
49
-------
of the city are designated to be developed with foresight
in order to maintain their scenic quality as a natural
setting. Restrictions are placed on the number of roadways
or streets that can be built and limits are set on the
removal of natural vegetation which would promote erosion
if unchecked. Most of the routine development can occur in
the more level areas of the city, either outside or relatively
close to the city limits. Patterns of growth could continue
with a degree of continuity within these areas (cf. Jackson-
ville General Plan).
Another principal objective is to establish and provide
residential choices for existing and future populations of
Jacksonville. A summary of these recommendations is provided
below:
1. Residential growth is to be encouraged only in a
controlled and orderly fashion from existing areas
to avoid unnecessary and costly parcelization.
2. All residential developments are to be consistent
with the physical environment.
3. Ranges of densities will be provided for designated
residential areas.
4. Types of residential uses will be consistent with
housing densities and character.
5. Zone residential areas are to avoid the intrusion
of other incompatible uses; e.g., industry.
6. Density levels should conform with topographic
constraints.
Commercial areas and future developments represent a
potential problem for Jacksonville in terms of its ability
to maintain the historical character of the downtown area
and attempt to meet the needs of its anticipated population
growth. In order to accommodate any type of population
growth and its demands, Jacksonville will need to significantly
increase its commercial opportunities beyond those that pres-
ently exist; the alternative will be increased dependency on
Medford. The city plan does not reflect the feeling that the
downtown core area is an appropriate locale for commercial
growth. It calls for the maintenance of small scope, tourist-
oriented, commercial enterprises. The plan will call for
locating other, larger enterprises such as shopping centers,
to the north.
50
-------
The General Plan, thus far, makes no real mention of
accommodation of industrial growth either light or heavy
types. It suggests that light industry could possibly be
located in the commercial area with conditional uses.
The future demand and need for public facilities has
also been identified in Jacksonville. Schools, parks,
emergency support services, and other agencies and institutions
will need to be expanded.
One of the city's most critical needs will be to expand
its highway arterials to avoid congestion, not only from
residents but also from traffic posed by tourism. This is
to include not only primary thoroughfares, but those which
are secondary. Expanded width and the inclusion of community
sidewalks will be vital in some residential and subsequent
commercial areas. Measures should be taken to make roadways
as efficient as possible without detracting from appearances.
Land Use Planning
Land use planning in Jacksonville and Jackson County is
undertaken by the City of Jacksonville and the county level
planning authority. The local planning authorities in the
State of Oregon are established by the 1973 Land Use Act. By
the provisions of this act, all local city or county planning
jurisdictions are required to develop and maintain comprehen-
sive land use plans which conform with adopted statewide
planning goals.
State Authority. The 1973 Land Use Act established the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
The commission consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor and subject to approval by the legislature. Each
commissioner is appointed to a four-year term of office but
may be removed for cause by directive of the Governor. No
member is allowed to serve on the commission for more than two
full terms (SB 100, 1973, ORS> Ch. 197.5).
Following its creation in 1973, LCPC began the. task pf
formulating a series of comprehensive statewide planning goals
to be used in coordinating local planning efforts throughout
Oregon. After conducting a series of public hearings and
reviewing existing state land use planning goals, a series of
14 goals with accompanying guidelines for compliance were
adopted by this cdmiftiasion on January 1, 1975* An additional
5 goals were later adopted which related to the Willamette
River Greenway and the coastal zone, bringing thetotal
number of statewide goals to 19. All local planning
51
-------
authorities were then directed to produce comprehensive land
use plans and to submit them to LCDC by January 1, 1976f for
commission review. By law, local planning authorities
who fail to meet the required deadline can have their planning
responsibilities carried out for them, at local expense, by
the LCDC planning staff. Those local authorities unable to meet
LCDC1s deadline may be allowed extensions, provided that
evidence of satisfactory progress in completing their compre-
hensive plans is provided.
In November 1976 the City of Jacksonville requested and
was granted a planning extension until January 1, 1977 and was
given until January 1979 to submit a final plan to the LCDC.
The County of Jackson was also given a planning extension
until January 1, 1977, with a plan due date of January 1981.
The authority of LCDC includes coordinating the statewide
planning effort and granting planning and siting permits to
individuals or public agencies for land use activities of
statewide significance. Activities which may be of statewide
significance are defined in the 1973 Land Use Act as follows:
1) the planning and siting of public transportation facilities;
2) the planning and siting of public sewerage systems, water
supply systems and solid waste disposal sites and facilities;
and 3) the planning and siting of public schools (Oregon
statutes related to comprehensive land use planning, ORS,
Ch. 197.4).
Local Planning Authority. Local planning responsibilities
are undertaken by the City of Jacksonville and Jackson County.
City of Jacksonville. Planning for the City of Jackson-
ville is accomplished by the Planning Commission and the city
planning staff. The planning staff has been working to fulfill
the city's requirements for land use planning within and
directly adjacent to the city limits.
County Authority. A planning commission consisting of
nine members from various geographic locations in Jackson
County is appointed by the County Board of Commissioners, each
to serve a four-year term. The Planning Commission has authority
to recommend adoption of plans and zoning ordinances in the
county, while the County Board of Commissioners has the sole
responsibility to adopt comprehensive land use plans and zoning
ordinances for its jurisdiction. A County Planning Director is
designated by the commission to oversee the operations of the
Planning Department and serve as the chief administrative arm
of the County Planning Commission.
52
-------
At the present time, Jackson County has a comprehensive
plan that was adopted by the planning commission in June 1972
and endorsed by the Board of Commissioners in July of that
year. The zoning ordinance was adopted in 1973 and the Sub-
division Ordinance in 1959. A revised comprehensive land use
plan, as defined by SB 100, for Jackson County is not yet
completed. However, it is scheduled to be finalized in
January 1981.
53
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Introduction
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency rules and regula-
tions for the preparation of an EIS (CFR, part 6) require that
alternatives to a proposed project be developed, described, and
objectively weighed when significant resource tradeoffs are
involved. During the preparation of this Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), a number of alternative projects were
evaluated in conjunction with the preparation of a Facilities
Plan by T. Flatebo & Associates. In this EIS, information
and data are submitted to allow an independent comparison of the
environmental and financial cost differences among the available
alternatives without nominating one alternative for implemen-
tation. The reasons why an alternative is selected as the best
must be objectively determined and stated in detail, and the
information needed for this determination will not be available
until after the public hearing.
At the present time, construction within the City of
Jacksonville is restricted by controls on new sewer connections
issued by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. This restriction was imposed because the design capa-
city of the existing sewage treatment lagoons is presently being
exceeded. In addition, the treatment lagoons discharge to Daisy
Creek, and this is a violation of the Proposed Water Quality
Management Plan, Rogue River Basin. The City of Jacksonville's
existing NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
prohibits the direct discharge of treated wastewater to Daisy
Creek after July 1, 1977.
Constraints on Alternative Development
In the conjunctive development of project alternatives,
by the EIS and Facilities planning Engineers, there were cer-
tain institutional constraints imposed upon facility selection
and cost of implementation. The principal constraints influencing
the development of alternatives for the City of Jacksonville
are:
1. PL 92-500 - Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
2. EPA Secondary Treatment Information, Federal Register,
Vol. 38, No. 1959, August 17, 1973.
55
-------
3. EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines, Federal
Register, Vol. 39, No. 29, February 11, 1974.
4. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Standards.
5. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
and EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit.
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, assigns EPA responsibility for the
establishment of waste discharge criteria for all federally-
funded wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, PL 92-500
provides three dates by which wastewater treatment facilities
must meet certain effluent quality criteria. By July 1, 1977,
all municipal treatment facilities should be capable of pro-
ducing an effluent which meets EPA secondary treatment require-
ments. By July 1, 1983, all municipal treatment facilities
should be providing treatment to a level referred to as "Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology" (BPWTT). An EPA goal is
that by July 1, 1985, municipal wastewater treatment facilities
will reach a condition of zero discharge of pollutants.
Although this latter requirement is generally undefined and the
nature of any future actions uncertain, the general definition
of pollutant should be considered as any material in a discharge
which adversely affects the beneficial uses of receiving water.
The EPA "Secondary Treatment Information" defines effluent
quality requirements for achieving secondary treatment and thus
compliance with PL 92-500. The requirements for secondary
treatment stipulate effluent concentration limits for biological
oxygen demand, suspended solids and pH. The secondary treatment
definition was recently revised to exclude fecal coliform bacteria
limits (Federal Register, Vol. 41).
The EPA "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines" provide
a uniform method for calculating the cost of wastewater treat-
ment projects, and they have been used as a portion of the cost
evaluation in this EIS. These guidelines delineate the planning
period to be utilized in the alternative evaluations, the ele-
ments of cost which must be included, the method of handling
prices for various components of the system, the interest rate
which must be utilized, the service life of various facilities,
and salvage value to be utilized for the proposed works. The
guidelines provide a uniform method for comparing the cost of
various alternatives for a given project, as well as the cost
of any given project in the state. Therefore, while the
monetary costs developed in the Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines
may not always represent the "true cost" of a project, they do
approximate the cost and present a uniform method for comparing
alternative projects.
56
-------
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has established minimum water quality requirements for
receiving waters of the state. These criteria are contained
in Section 11010 of OAR Chapter 334, and they state, in
general, that the highest and best wastewater treatment should
be provided and that the control of waste discharge shall in
every case be the best practical method. In February 1976,
the DEQ completed a Proposed Water Quality Management Plan,
Rogue River Basin, to comply with EPA requirements (PL 92-500,
303) for performing comprehensive basin planning for all river
basins in the state. This document summarized and discussed
existing water quality data, water quality standards, and
nutrient problems, among other subjects. The only discussion
of alternative projects pertained to past reports and no
attempt was made to develop any new alternative.
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality and
the EPA must review and certify all NPDES permits for waste-
water discharge. The purpose of an NPDES permit is to establish
specific effluent and receiving water quality requirements which
must be met by a treatment plant facility. In formulating
alternatives, only those that will meet the probable NPDES
requirements are considered feasible. It should be noted that
each wastewater discharger must possess a NPDES permit prior
to discharge, and each permit is prepared to respond to the
particular discharge situation.
Regionalization
The objective of a regionalized system is to provide the
most cost-effective method for collection, treatment, and dis-
posal of wastewater. It should be understood that regionalization
does not imply or require that only one treatment facility be
utilized, or that an entire area must be sewered, but rather
that planning must be done for an entire region, and not on a
piece-meal basi's. The term "cost-effectiveness" comprises
three very important costss monetary or dollar costs, environ-
mental costs, and social costs. One other equally important
factor in considering alternatives is that of meeting federal
and state water quality standards and treatment requirements.
Within this chapter, only monetary costs are considered since
subsequent chapters describe the environmental and social impacts
of the project alternatives. Typically, environmental and social
costs are not monetary but judgmental. The cost-effective project
is that project which is judged to have the lowest overall mone-
tary, social and environmental cost.
57
-------
Several advantages can be obtained by regionalization
economy of scale in construction, operation and maintenance/
wider distribution of costs, one operating authority for treat-
ment facilities, treatment process efficiency control, easier
inclusion of new residential and commercial developments into
the system, and ability to plan for a basin or area as a whole.
The principal disadvantage of regionalization is that local
governments or agencies often must enter into joint powers or
other agreements that extend local responsibilities beyond
individual member control. Regionalization in this case encom-
passes relationships between the City of Jacksonville and the
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
At the present time, overall water consumption within the
city is about 180 gpcd (gallons per capita per day). Thus,
average water consumption is somewhat less than the national
average, which is about 200 gpcd. A typical trend in non-
industrial areas is for about one half of the water purchased
to be utilized outdoors for lawn and garden irrigation, car
washing, and other uses. The remaining half is utilized in-
doors, mostly nonconsumptively, and on a national average
results in a sewage generation rate of 90-100 gpcd. Records
for the City of Jacksonville indicate that summer wastewater
flows average about 80 gpcd, or somewhat less than the national
average, even though this is the peak tourist season.
During the winter months the average per capita flow is
about 135 gpcd, indicating that the sewerage system is accruing
additional flow called infiltration/inflow. Infiltration is
characterized by seepage of groundwater into pipes due to
poor joint construction, cracked pipes or joints, whereas
inflow enters through manhole covers, ground drains and house
roof drains connected to the sewer. Infiltration/inflow is
typically highest during the rainy season, and infiltration is
greatest during high groundwater conditions. The quantity of
infiltration/inflow depends to a large extent on the size of
the sewer system, the "tightness" of the collection system,
and whether roof drains are connected to the sewer system.
For the Jacksonville system, it would be anticipated that
once the excessive infiltration-inflow is corrected, the overall
quantity should fall in the general range of 10-20 gpcd, making
the average winter wastewater production about 100 gpcd, not the
135 gpcd calculated.
58
-------
Rather than comparing on a per capita basis, another
method is to compare average daily summer and winter flows.
This information is presented in the following table for years
1973, 1974, and 1975. The summer months are May through
September and winter months are January through April and
October through December.
Summer
Winter
Percent Xncrease
of Average Daily
Year
Average Dally
Flow, Gallons/Day
Total Rain-
fall, Inches
Average Daily
Flow, Gallons/Day
Total Rain-
fall, Inches
Winter Flow Over
Summer Flow
1973
112,477
1.22
136,165
17.68
22.8
1974
120,261
0.32
187,396
18.77
59.8
1975
131,712
2.03
180,401
12.73
37.0
Average
of 1973-
1975
121,483
1.19
1(8,654
16.39
38.8
As shown, an average increase of winter flow over a summer
flow of 3 8.8 percent occurred over a 3-year period.
The City Engineer has indicated that all of the existing
collection system was installed in 1964 under one contract,
and that all joints in the collection system are tight. Flow
measurements taken during the winter of 1975-1976 at 10 key
manholes located throughout the city indicated flow increases
between wet and dry winter conditions (rainy vs. dry) of any-
where between 130 percent and 400 percent. Since that time
more than 12 manhole covers have been raised, which will
probably lessen the quantity of inflow during the winter of
1976-1977. In addition, the City of Jacksonville is initiating
an analysis to determine sources of infiltration and inflow.
Based upon summer month water usage, it appears that water
conservation measures to reduce sewage flow are not an issue
because both water use and wastewater production are below the
national average. The high rate of infiltration/inflow may
require that remedial measures be taken.
Wastewater Management Options
Possible Alternatives
During the preliminary analysis of wastewater treatment/
disposal alternatives a wide range of wastewater management
alternatives were considered. Of these alternatives some were
identified as being non-viable and were eliminated from further
consideration in the Facilities Plan. The alternative concepts
that were screened out initially and the reasons for doing so
follows
59
-------
1. Local Orchard Irrigation. A requirement of EPA's
Construction Grants Program is that land application of
treated effluent must be considered as one means of meeting
the 1983 and 1985 goals of PL 92-500. Use of reclaimed water
for orchard irrigation initially appeared desirable primarily
because many existing orchards could use additional water
supplies/ and also because there are many potentially farmable
parcels of land which do not now have sufficient water for such
a purpose.
The use of treated wastewater for orchard irrigation was
dismissed because of the method of irrigation presently utilized.
When orchards are irrigated, there is no control of the tailwater
(runoff). Any resulting tailwater is simply discharged into
nearby creeks, which then carry it to the next lower elevation
irrigation canal. While this practice is now considered accept-
able, it would not be acceptable if reclaimed water were used
for irrigation. The principal reason this practice is not
accepted relates to public health considerations and the inability
of the city to control the ultimate destiny of the water initially
used for orchard irrigation.
2. Percolation Pond Disposal. In many parts of the
western United States treated wastewater is percolated to
groundwater basins, a practice which not only results in a
low cost method of disposal, but also beneficially recharges the
groundwater basin in a majority of situations. For percolation
ponds to perform satisfactorily, the soil must be of a rela-
tively high permeability and the depth to the groundwater table
should be in the range of 15 to 20 feet. Although the soil in
the general vicinity of the treatment facility is marginally
suitable for percolation, the shallow depth to groundwater was
the principal reason for dismissing this alternative from
further consideration. In much of the area near the existing
lagoons, the depth to groundwater is so shallow that alfalfa
can be grown without surface irrigation. In order to gain a
greater depth to groundwater, a pond would have to be located
at a higher elevation than the valley floor, and in these areas,
rocky, impermeable strata are found beneath the overlying allu-
vium. Thus, there was no general area determined suitable for
percolation ponds.
3. Direct Creek Discharge. Under certain conditions, an
acceptable form of effluent disposal is by direct discharge
to a water course. An important criterion in permitting such
discharge is the amount of dilution which is afforded by the
water course. In some situations, if sufficient dilution is
not available, direct discharge may still be suitable if a
high quality effluent is produced, and then filtered prior to
60
-------
discharge. In the case of the City of Jacksonville, any direct
discharge would be to Daisy Creek, which, although it probably
provides sufficient dilution during the winter months, is
essentially dry during the summer months if no wastewater is
discharged.
The screening out of this alternative disposal concept
was based primarily upon probable adverse public health
situations which could be expected in the urbanizing area
downstream of the probable discharge location. In addition,
such a discharge would violate both the Basin Water Quality
Control Plan and the city's present NPDES permit.
4. Evaporation. Although normally not a beneficial
use of a water resource, it is possible to evaporate treated
wastewater as a method of disposal. This concept was screened
from further consideration because of the relatively large area
of land required. Using an average annual evaporation rate
of 35 inches and an average annual precipitation rate of 20
inches, a required evaporation surface area of 357 acres would
be required in 1996. Since roughly 5 percent of additional
land area would be required for dikes, an estimated 375 acres
would be required. Since the only feasible location for ponds
of this magnitude would be the flat valley floor, the majority
of which is Class 1 farmland, the concept was eliminated from
further consideration.
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Each of the treatment and disposal concepts, considered
feasible after the initial technical and environmental screening,
is briefly described to acquaint the reader with their general
characteristics. The two processes which will be considered are
activated sludge and aerated lagoon treatments. Two separate
disposal alternatives considered are land application for
beneficial use of reclaimed water and land application solely
as a form of effluent disposal.
The Activated Sludge Process
Activated sludge treatment uses bacteria to decompose the
organic matter in sewage (Figure 10). During this process the
bacteria convert the organic matter into more bacteria, i.e.,
multiply in number and mass, and some mass must be removed
from the process in a form called sludge. Following removal
from the liquid portion of the process, sludge is first
treated by maintaining it for a lengthy period without a
food supply in order to reduce its volume; it is then de-
watered using a sand drying bed and, when dry, transported to
a disposal area.
61
-------
LIQUID
HANDLING
d?-
'.'AGE JLLS
ฃ #
.AIR
ฃ
RAW
SEWAGE
SOLIDS
HANDLING
&
5^
<5>
&
&
/
&
AIR
/. \i -*ฆ
~
-------
The Aerated Lagoon Process
This treatment process consists of using two separate ponds,
one for aeration and one for sedimentation {Figure 11). in the
aeration pond, which has floating mechanical aerators driven by
electric motors, bacteria grow and convert organic matter to
more bacteria, as in the activated sludge process. The second
pond is required for sedimentation of suspended bacteria and
further stabilization of wastewater by algae. Sludge must not
be removed from the process, as it is all biologically destroyed
due to the relatively long detention time. Occasionally, once
every ten to twenty years, the lagoons must be dewatered to
remove an accumulation of grit and humus soil.
Land Application for Beneficial Use or Disposal
Treated effluent, from either the activated sludge or the
aerated lagoon processes, can be applied to land for beneficial
use or disposal. The method of application is essentially
dependent on the ultimate objective as well as physical and bio-
logical factors involved. Three basic land application approaches
have been set forth by EPA (1973) irrigation, overland flow
and infiltration-percolation..
Irrigation. This is the most widely used type of land
application in the United States. There are three basic methods
of effluent irrigation spray, ridge and furrow and flood. The
type of irrigation system to use depends upon soil drainability,
topography, economics and the crop involved (Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975). For crops which are utilized directly
by the consumer without intermediate processing, public health
considerations preclude use of sprinkler application or any
method where direct contact is possible with the edible portion
of the crop. Many studies have been conducted by the State of
California relative to the possible airborne transmission of
pathogens or virus by sprinkler application, and these studies
indicate such transmission to be possible only within a very
short distance. Prevention of public health problems is accom-
plished by providing a buffer zone, fencing and by excluding the
public from contact areas.
Overland Flow. This method of disposal consists of flowing
wastewater over land having limited drainability and a slope of
2 to 6 percent. The wastewater is utilized by vegetation and
some evaporation and percolation occurs; however, because of
runoff the remaining wastewater must be discharged by another
means. Because of the limited permeability of the soil, ground-
water will not be affected by this method (Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1973).
63
-------
SPRAY DISPOSAL
FIGURE 11: PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF AERATED LAGOON TREATMENT
-------
Infiltration-Percolation. With this method of application,
wastewater may be applied either by spreading or spraying.
Because effluent can infiltrate at a high rate, less land is
required for the same volume than for the two other alternatives
(Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). The rate of applica-
tion is governed only by the ability of the soil to evaporate/
percolate the effluent. Land used for a pure disposal appli-
cation is normally marginal land, and quite often is land which
is too hilly or remote for other uses. Most water is lost
through percolation and evaporation.
Treatment Plant Site Options
Should the City of Jacksonville proceed independently of
the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), there is
only one location considered feasible for a treatment facility.
This is the location of the City of Jacksonville's existing
treatment facility, which is located south of the Jacksonville
Highway, about 1,600 feet west of its intersection with Hanley
Road and north of Daisy Creek.
Should Jacksonville participate with BCVSA by either
lease or annexation, the treatment facility would be the exist-
ing City of Medford treatment plant which is located near
White City and discharges directly to the Rogue River.
Land Application Site Options
Three site options are considered feasible for land appli-
cation, two for beneficial use application and one for disposal
application. One beneficial application site is owned by the
U. S. Forest Service, which is in the process of developing a
seedling farm. This site occupies an area of about 250 acres
and is located on the general northwest corner of Hanley Road
and Ross Lane. The Hopkins Canal forms the northeast boundary.
This site is presently used for cattle pasturage.
Another site for possible beneficial application is a
77-acre parcel of land immediately across Daisy Creek and
southeast of the existing City of Jacksonville treatment
facility. If this site were utilized, it would be used to grow
alfalfa under a controlled irrigation program operated by the
city. The site is presently utilized to grow alfalfa.
The only feasible site selected for application solely
for disposal is an 80-acre parcel located above and southwest
of the existing county landfill. This site is vegetated with
a mix of oaks, fir and pine.
65
-------
Sludge Disposal Options
The disposal of sewage sludge is necessary whenever acti-
vated sludge wastewater treatment is employed. A number of
options are possible for the alternatives requiring sludge
disposal.
Direct Land Disposal. This option would involve disposing
sludge directly onto a land area. The sludge is usually plowed
under when dried. Land disposal would be suitable for alterna-
tives involving activated sludge treatment.
Incineration. Sludge incineration is a means of reducing
the volume of sewage sludge to an ash or small volume of sludge.
The residue must ultimately be disposed of in a landfill or
onto farmland. There are several methods of incineration
multiple hearth, flash-drying and fluidized bed. With adequate
dewatering (to approximately 30 percent solids) the process can
be self-sustaining, without the need for supplemental fuel except
for warmup and heat control (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1972).
When using raw sludge in a multiple hearth or fluidized bed
system, the heat necessary for incineration can be obtained from
combustion of volatile matter in the sludge.
Landfill Disposal. A sanitary landfill can be used for the
disposal of stabilized or unstabilized sludge. The most likely
location would be at the South Stage site south of Jacksonville.
That site is approximately 2 miles from the existing sewage
lagoons.
Sludge Dewatering and Drying. The most commonly used
method is to spread wet sludge on a bed for drying. The dried
sludge is transported to a farmland disposal site, landfill
site, or is made available to the public for use in gardens and
flowerbeds. Drying beds are now utilized at the regional
treatment plant.
Implementation Options Financing and Organization
A variety of facilities may be required for implementation
of the alternative projects.- a wastewater treatment facility,
an outfall to land application sites, land application sites,
an interceptor sewer, and pumping stations. The questions
listed below may be as important to some city residents as the
technical and environmental aspects of the project.
66
-------
1. How will new facilities be paid for?
2. How will the cost of required facilities be allo-
cated to residents within the city?
3. How will the facilities be operated?
There are various ways to accomplish the above actions,
and they should be dealt with in detail before a project becomes
operational. These subjects are discussed at a general level
of detail in the following text and should be kept in mind while
reviewing the alternatives and their environmental and social
impacts.
First, how will the facilities be paid for? This project,
as a part of EPA's Construction Grants Program, is eligible
for 75 percent federal funding of treatment facilities, pumping
stations and interceptor pipelines. The remaining 25 percent is
the local share and would have to be paid for by the city. It
should also be noted that land and right-of-way purchase is not
em eligible cost and would not be paid for with EPA grant funds.
The 25 percent local share of treatment, interceptor, and
pumping facilities will probably be financed by general obli-
gation bonds sold by the city, bonds which would be repaid by
money collected from ad valorem (property) taxes, and possibly
a portion of the montKTy sewer service charge. Usually, however,
a lower interest rate can be obtained if the bonds are repaid by
only ad valorem taxation and this is a commonly followed procedure.
General obligation bonds must be approved by voters within the
city and are limited by Oregon State Statute to 13 percent of the
assessed valuation of the city.
Secondly, how will the cost of required facilities be
allocated? As discussed, the 25 percent local share of
treatment, outfall, interceptor, and pumping facilities is
generally paid for by ad valorem taxes and this would be
allocated according to the assessed valuation of the property
in the city. Allocation of operation/maintenance costs would
be governed by Federal Guidelines for Revenue and Repayment
programs, but since Jacksonville has no major industry, they
would most likely be allocated uniformly on a per connection
basis.
Thirdly, how would, the various proposed facilities be
operated? Should either lease or annexation to BCVSA be selected,
BCVSA would assume responsibility for operation/maintenance
of all new facilities constructed as a part of this project
and, in the case of annexation, would include operation of
67
-------
Jacksonville's collection system. Should facilities be con-
structed to serve only Jacksonville, the facilities would be
operated by the city, requiring at least one full-time
operator and probably one part-time operator. The city would
also be responsible for the operation of all land application
areas, except the alternative using the U. S. Forest Service
seedling farm. At this site the Forest Service would take
delivery of the effluent and assume the operating
responsibility.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Jacksonville presently owns and operates an
existing stabilization pond treatment facility. This facility
consists of two ponds which are operated in series, the total
surface area of the ponds being about 9 acres. Prior to dis-
charge to Daisy Creek chlorine is added to the pond effluent
in order to provide disinfection. This treatment facility was
constructed in 1963 in conjunction with the sanitary sewer system
and payments will be required on the bonds until 1987.
The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority provides sewerage
service to a 220-square mile service authority. The sewage
is treated at the 10 mgd Medford treatment plant. This plant
operates using the activated sludge process, and discharge is
to the Rogue River. It is anticipated that this plant will
be expanded to 20 mgd in 1977 and 30 mgd in 198 5.
Population Capacity of Project Facilities
For purposes of sizing the various project facilities,
two population projections were utilized.
Alternatives A-l and A-2. For two of the "A" alternatives
which discharge to the BCVSA TAlternatives A-l and A-2), the
required interceptor extension of the West Medford Trunk from
its present terminus at Pioneer Avenue and the Jacksonville
Highway would be sized not only for Jacksonville, but also for
those areas that are presently within BCVSA that drain naturally
toward the Pioneer Avenue terminus. Although the interceptor
would be sized greater than required for Jacksonville alone,
Jacksonville would pay only for a pro rata share based on flow
if the project selected is for Jacksonville to lease capacity
from BCVSA. Based on 80 gpcd and a peaking factor of 2.5 and
an infiltration/inflow of 50 gpcd, the 24-inch interceptor is
sized for an estimated design flow of 5.24 mgd, which is
expected to provide capacity for 20,960 people. The 15-inch
portion of the interceptor will have a design flow of 2.13 mgd.
68
-------
The peaking factor is based on the projected highest
instantaneous flow for the sewerage system. Interceptor systems
must be designed to handle the peak load flows (which usually
occur in the morning and in the evening) rather than the average
flow.
Alternative A-3. For the third "A" Alternative - A-3, the
pipeline capacity from Jacksonville to Pioneer Avenue will be
designed to handle the 7 percent growth projection for Jackson-
ville (5,300 people by 1997) plus a projected population of 561
in the corridor between Pioneer Avenue and the existing Jack-
sonville sewage ponds.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2. For those alternatives that
provide capacity tor only the City of Jacksonville the various
project facilities will be sized on the basis of a projected
7 percent growth. Based on a 7 percent growth, the 1997 popu-
lation would be 5,300.
Facilities are projected to be sized as follows:
Sized to serve needs
Facility - until year
Interceptors 2027
Pumping stations
Wet wells 2027
Pumps 1997
Treatment facilities 1997
Outfalls 2027
Land application sites 1997
These facility components are planned to provide capacity
for the projected population until the year shown above.
For pumps, treatment facilities, and land application sites,
a 1997 population of 5,300 people could be accommodated. For
interceptors, outfalls, and pumping station wet wells, a 2027
population of approximately 9,500 could be accommodated.
69
-------
Alternative C-la (no growth). This alternative will have
facilities designed to support the 1975 Jacksonville population
of 2,070. The aerated lagoons will have a design capacity of
0.25 mgd, which based on 8 0 gallons of wastewater per capita
per day (plus peaking factor of 2.5 and an infiltration/inflow
of 50 gpcd) could support a population of 2,500 or approximately
430 more than the 197 5 population.
Theoretically, if no further population growth occurs
within the city, the facilities could serve the needs of
Jacksonville for an indefinite time period.
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative A-l - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Annexation (BCVSA)
Using this alternative, the City of Jacksonville would annex
to the BCVSA. BCVSA would extend the West Medford Trunk to
connect to the City of Jacksonville the existing BCVSA sewerage
system. The existing lagoons would be removed, the land regraded
to its original form and probably sold. Extension of the West
Medford Trunk from its present terminus at Pioneer Avenue and
Jacksonville Highway would require 4,800 feet of 18- and 24-inch
pipe and 2,400 feet of 15-inch pipe. The probable alignment of
the West Medford Trunk extension and the location of the existing
BCVSA facilities which would be utilized are shown on Figure 12.
The capacity of this new pipeline would be 2.13 mgd in the
15-inch section where it connects to the existing Jacksonville
system and 5.24 mgd in the 24-inch section where it would
connect to the existing West Medford trunk at Pioneer Avenue.
At a flow generation rate of 80 gpcd this pipeline could
serve 8,520 people where it connects to the Jacksonville system
and 20,960 people where it connects to the existing West Medford
trunk.
The capital costs of implementing Alternative A-l,
assuming construction begins in 1977, are estimated to be
$588,000, as shown in Table 12. The average annual operation/
maintenance costs are $77,900, which would be collected directly
by BCVSA at a rate of $3.80 per connection per month.
70
-------
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
URBAN
GROWTH
BOUNDARY
JACKSONVILLE
CITY LIMITS
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 12 Service Area and Routing of Interceptors for
Alternatives A-l and A-2 (Annexation or Lease with BCVSA)
-------
Table 12
Alternative A-l
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Annexation
Item
Cost Life,
Dollars1 Years
Salvage Value
Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor
102,000 50
61,200
West Medford Trunk
extension
476,0002 50
285,600
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility
10,000
42,500
Total construction cost
588,000
Salvage value at year 20
346,800
Existing site -
salvage value
42,500
Total capital cost
588,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
77,900
1 Costs above do not include $187,113 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2 This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
72
-------
Alternative A-2 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority Lease
In this alternative, the City of Jacksonville would con-
tribute raw sewage to the BCVSA system, as in Alternative A-l,
but the city would not be a member of BCVSA. The city would
be required to purchase capacity in the existing Bear Creek
interceptor and share in the construction costs of the West
Medford Trunk extension. The existing lagoon treatment
facility would be abandoned, the site regraded and the land
would be sold.
The differences between a lease arrangement and annexa-
tion to BCVSA relate not only to the methods used for payment
of capital and annual costs, but also to maintenance of the
Jacksonville sewerage collection system. Relative to capital
cost differences in a lease arrangement, capacity purchase
in the Bear Creek interceptor would have to be paid in a lump
sum, rather than on a larger term annual payment method.
Operation/maintenance costs in a lease arrangement must be
paid to BCVSA monthly by the City of Jacksonville, while, if
Jacksonville annexed, these costs would be included in BCVSA*s
monthly user charge, which would be collected by BCVSA directly
from the user. Another difference concerns maintenance of
Jacksonville's existing collection system, which would be done
by the city in a lease situation; it would be done by BCVSA if
the city is annexed to BCVSA and the cost would be included in
the BCVSA monthly charge.
The capital costs of lease or annexation are the same,
$588,000, as shown on Table 13. Average annual costs are
estimated to be $75,000, and would be collected by the city
as a monthly charge.
Alternative a-3 - Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
(BCVSA) Annexation with Limited Service Area
Alternative A-3 is comparable to Alternatives A-l and
A-2 except that the sewerage service area was reduced to
include only: 1) the present City of Jacksonville (1,274
acres); 2) the proposed Jacksonville urban growth areas
(328 acres); and 3) a 152-acre corridor of land between
Pioneer Avenue and the existing Jacksonville sewage lagoons.
This corridor is defined as a 300-foot setback from the
interceptor plus existing developments. The City of
Jacksonville would extend its interceptor, which presently
73
-------
Table 13
Alternative A-2
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Lease
Item
Cost,
Dollars1
Life,
Years
Salvage Value
Dollars
Capacity purchase in
Bear Creek interceptor
102,000
50
-61,200
West Medford Trunk
extension2
476,000
50
285,600
Abandonment of existing
treatment facility
10,000
0
42,500
Total construction cost
588,000
Salvage value at year 20
346,800
Existing site
42,500
Total capital
588,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost9
75,000
Costs above do not include $187/113 bond payoff on
existing lagoon system.
2 This is the City of Jacksonville's pro rata share of a
total estimated construction cost of $600,000.
Breakdown of operation and maintenance costs is as
follows: Bear Creek interceptor, $500/year; West Medford
Trunk, $11,400/yearj Kirtland pump station, $10,500/year;
treatment, $31,700/year; and Jacksonville sewer system,
$20,900/year.
-------
terminates at the sewage lagoons, to connect to the headworks
of the existing 30-inch West Medford trunk operated by
BCVSA. The West Medford trunk presently terminates at
Pioneer Avenue. BCVSA would participate in this extension.
The existing sewage lagoon site would be drained, regraded
and sold.
The extension of the Jacksonville interceptor from
the sewage lagoons to Pioneer Avenue will require 7,535
feet of 15-inch pipe. The probable alignment of the
extension and the service area are shown on Figure 13.
The main difference between Alternative A-l and'A-3
interceptors is in pipeline size and thus, long-term
service capacities.
This 15-inch pipeline could convey 2.7 mgd (4.2 cfs),
while the expected wastewater flow will be 1.46 mgd (2.3
cfs). It will serve the projected 1997 Jacksonville
population of 5,300 plus a projected population of 561 in
the corridor between Pioneer Avenue and the existing Jackson-
ville sewage ponds.
The existing capital cost of implementing Alternative A-3,
assuming construction begins in 1977, is estimated to be
$416,593, and the average annual operation/maintenance costs
are $47,616 for annexation or $46,545 for contract. (See
Table 14). These costs were developed for the pipeline sizes
suggested by BCVSA. Reduction in pipe size to 15 inches
would not significantly change the cost estimate. Under this
alternative, the City of Jacksonville would annex into the
BCVSA for sewerage services based on a contractual agreement.
The details of such a contract have not been determined at
this time.
Alternative b - Local Treatment and Use of
Reclaimed Water by U. S. Forest Service
In this alternative the City of Jacksonville would install
a package activated sludge treatment plant at the site of the
existing treatment lagoons. Effluent from the treatment plant
would be stored at the plant site until required for use at
the U. S. Forest Service seedling farm. An estimated 9 acres of
storage pond having an initial storage volume of 29 mg would
be required. This would be accomplished by use of the two
existing lagoons. To meet 1997 quantity requirements 24 acres
of storage ponds having a storage capacity of 77 mg would be
needed. To accomplish this, additional storage ponds having
a surface area of 15 acres would be constructed.
75
-------
-------
Table 14
Alternative A-3
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Annexation
or Contract With Limited Service Areai
Item:
Cost
Dollars:2
Life
Years:
Salvage Value
after 20 years:
Capacity purchase in
BCVSA interceptor
102,000.-
50
61,200.-
West Medford Trunk
Extension
221,275.-
50
132,765.-
Abandonment of
existing facilities
10,000.-
Total Construction Cost
333,275.-
Salvage Value after 20
years
193,965.-
Existing Site Salvage
Value
416,593.-
42,500.-
25% Engr. Capital Cost
83,318.-
Total Cap Cost
416,593.-
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
Annexation
47,616.-
(Contract)
(46,545.-)
1 Revised for 15 inch (4.3 cfs) pipeline.
2 Costs above do not include $187,113 bond payoff on existing lagoon
system.
77
-------
Treated and chlorinated effluent will be delivered to the
seedling farm by gravity, using 11,200 feet of 12-inch diameter
pipe. The Forest Service has indicated that water could be
utilized at a rate of 750,000 gallons per day between June 1
and October 1, and at occasional rates as high as 3.4 mgd
when it is used for frost protection during the fall and spring.
The Forest Service has indicated that the seedling farm
will be completed by 1978, The farm irrigation method is ex-
pected to be spray irrigation, and the percolating water will
be collected by tile underdrains located at an approximate
depth of 6 to 8 feet. Most of the water volume collected by
the tile underdrains would be reused in order to lessen overall
water requirements, but some of the water would have to be dis-
charged to a nearby creek to prevent salt buildup within the
system.
The Forest Service has indicated a desire for the highest
quality reclaimed water available, and this is the principal
reason for selecting an activated sludge plant rather than
using aerated lagoon treatment. Tests are presently being
conducted by the Forest Service to determine the compatibility
of wastewater from the existing lagoons with requirements of
a seedling farm. Although results are not available, no
problems are anticipated because the wastewater originates
entirely from domestic and commercial activities and there is
no industrial influence.
Sludge disposal would consist of drying liquid sludge on
a drying bed and transporting dried sludge to the sanitary
landfill site south of Jacksonville or by making the sludge
available for public use.
The capital cost of implementing Alternative B, assuming
construction begins in 1977, is estimated to be $73 0,000 as
shown on Table 15. The average annual operation/maintenance
costs are expected to be $35,400. Figure 14 shows the location
of facilities which would be required to implement Alternative B.
78
-------
Table 15
Alternative B
Activated Sludge Package Plant and
Discharge to U. S. Forest Service Tree Farm1
Item
Cost,
Dollars
Life,
Years
Salvage Value
Dollars
Operation building,
W. Lab.
15,000
25
3,000
0.425 mgd activated
sludge plant
325,000
20
0
Chlorination pond,
W. equip.
22,000
20
0
Expand existing lagoons
for storage
54,200
50
32,500
Fence, roads, landscape
10,000
50
6,000
11,200', 12" diameter
outfall
133,000
50
79,800
Total construction cost
559,200
Salvage value at year 20
121,300
Sites and easements
31,000
31,000
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent
139,800
Total capital cost
730,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
35,400
1 If this alternative is used, there is an additional cost
related to sewage services for landowners outside of
Jacksonville that is not included. These users could
connect to the BCVSD interceptor that terminates at
Pioneer Avenue.
79
-------
US. FOREST
SERVICE
TREE NURSERY
SITE
(250 ACRES)
yK
NORTH
1250
SCALE IN FEET
2500
gure 14. Alternative B (use of reclaimed
wastewater by U. S. Forest Service).
80
-------
Alternative C-l - Aerated Lagoons
with Adjacent Agricultural Use
In this alternative an aerated lagoon would be constructed
at the existing plant site, and the existing lagoons would
be converted to storage/stabilization ponds. Effluent from
these storage ponds would be utilized to irrigate alfalfa grown
on a 77-acre site just across Daisy Creek to the south of the
treatment plant site. Figure 15 shows the location of the
required facilities.
The aerated lagoon to be constructed would have a surface
area of 0.8 acre. No sludge would be created in the process#
although the aerated lagoons and the storage ponds may have to
be cleaned every 10-20 years. The reclaimed water used to irri-
gate the alfalfa would be applied by sprinkler irrigation, and
provision would be made to prevent any tailwater runoff from
the site by returning any potential runoff back to the storage
lagoons. Wells would be installed to monitor the groundwater
level under the irrigation area. The city would operate the
entire system, but would contract for harvesting of the alfalfa.
Because satisfactory effluent quality could be achieved
using aerated lagoons, activated sludge treatment was not con-
sidered in this alternative. In addition, the cost of using
an activated sludge treatment would be considerably greater
than would the use of aerated lagoons.
The capital cost of implementing Alternative C-l, assuming
construction begins in 1977, is estimated to be $502,000, as
shown in Table 16 The average annual operation/maintenance
cost for operation of the Jacksonville sewerage collection
system, the treatment facilities, and the agricultural irriga-
tion area is $4 7,699; an estimated $8,500 would be returned
to the city annually from harvesting of the alfalfa.
Alternative C-la - Aerated Lagoons with
Adjacent Agricultural Use (No Growth)
This alternative is essentially identical to C-l, except
that the facilities would be sized to handle the existing popu
lation of Jacksonville, with very little capacity for addi-
tional growth. The facilities location will be as shown in
Figure 15.
81
-------
Table 16
Alternative C-l
Aerated Lagoons with Adjacent Agricultural Use
Item
Cost,
Dollars
Life,
Years
Salvage Value,
Dollars
Operation building,
W. Lab.
15,000
25
3,000
0.425 mgd aerated lagoon
system
40,800
20
0
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
20,000
20
0
Chlorination equipment -
1st 10 years
2nd 10 years
5, 000
5,000
10
10
0
0
Pumping station
10,000
20
0
Fence, roads and landscaping 20,000
50
12,000
Agricultural land site
preparation (includes
return water system)
36,000
30
12,000
Sprinkler system
43,300
20
0
Monitoring wells
5,000
20
0
Total construction cost
200,000
Salvage value at year 20
27,000
Sites and easements
252,000
252,000
Contingencies and
engineering, 25 percent
50,000
Total capital cost
502,000
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
47,699
82
-------
OO
U>
PROPOSED
SPRAY IRRIGATION
SITE
NORTH
1425
2850
ฆH
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 15. Alternative C-l and C-la (aerated lagoons with
adjacent agricultural use)
-------
Costs of this alternative will be less than those for
Alternative C-l because of the smallness of the required treat-
ment capacity and the fact that less land (50 acres vs. 77 acres)
will be necessary for disposal.
The capital cost of implementing Alternative C-la will be
$262,000 as shown in Table 17. The average annual operation/
maintenance cost will be $22,200.
Alternative C-2 - Aerated Lagoons with Spray Disposal
This alternative is identical to Alternative C-l, except
for the use of the effluent. In Alternative C-2, effluent
would not be utilized beneficially but would simply be dis-
posed of Cn 80 acres of forest land located to the southwest
of the county landfill (Figure 16) .
Treatment would be in a 0.8-acre aerated lagoon and
stored in the existing lagoons when spray disposal is not
feasible. From the storage lagoons effluent would be pumped
through an 8-inch diameter, 9,600-foot long outfall to the
disposal area. Large impulse type sprinklers would be
utilized in the disposal area, and provisions would be made
to prevent runoff from the disposal site. The city would
own and operate the disposal system in order to provide
satisfactory operation.
The capital cost of constructing the entire system in
1977 is estimated to be $317,500 as shown in Table 18.
Average annual cost to operate the treatment and disposal system
as well as the city's sewerage collection system would be
$46,500.
Alternative D - No Action Alternative
In this alternative no action would be taken to solve
existing treatment and disposal problems. No facilities
would be constructed and discharge to Daisy Creek would
continue. Probable consequences of this alternative would
be violation of effluent quality stipulation in the city's
NPDES permit, and the initiation of enforcement proceedings
by EPA and/or the State of Oregon. In all probability this
would mean that punitive actions could be taken by the various
state or federal agencies, coupled with a prospect that
Jacksonville might lose any federal aid funds which might now
be available. Odor problems at the treatment facility would
continue and perhaps worsen. The present ban on new connections
would in all likelihood remain in effect.
84
-------
Table 17
Alternative C-la
AERATED LAGOONS WITH ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL USE NO GROWTH
Cost
Life
Salvage Value
Item
Dollars
Years
After 20 Years
Operation building with lab
15,000.-
25
3,000.-
0.25 mgd aerated lagoons
30,000.-
20
0
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
10,000.-
20
0
Chlorination equipment
10,000.-
10+10
0
Pumping facilities
8,000.-
20
0
Fence, roads, landscape
8,000.-
50
4,800.-
Prepare site for irrigation
20,000.-
30
6,660.-
Sprinkler system
33,000.-
20
0
Monitoring wells
3,000.-
20
0
Total construction cost
137,000.-
Salvage value
14,460.-
Land (50 acres)
125,000.-
125,000.-
Total capital cost 262,000.-
Annual operation and mainte-
nance cost 22,200.-
-------
00
o>
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 16. Alternative C-2 (aerated lagoons
with spray disposal).
-------
Table 18
Alternative C-2
Aerated Lagoons with Spray Disposal
Item
Cost,
Dollars
Life,
Years
Salvage Value,
Dollars
Operation building,
W. Lab.
15,000
25
3,000
0.425 mgd aerated lagoon
40,800
20
0
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
10,000
20
0
Chlorination equipment
5,000
10
0
5,000
10
0
Pumping station and
controls
15,000
20
0
Fence, roads and landscape
10,000
50
6,000
Outfall to disposal area,
9,600' of 8" pipe
81,600
50
49,000
Disposal site preparation
31,000
20
0
Sprinkler system
41,000
20
0
Total construction cost
254,000
Salvage value at year 20
58,000
Sites and easements
40,000
40,000
Engineering and con-
tingencies, 25 percent
63,400
Total capital cost
317,500
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
46,500
87
-------
Cost Comparison and Summary
Two methods can be utilized to compare the overall costs
of the proposed alternatives:
1. Total equivalent annual cost to construct and
operate over 20 years.
2. Local equivalent annual cost to construct and
operate over 20 years.
Equivalent annual cost represents the summation of annual
operation/maintenance costs and the annual principal and
interest payments to retire the construction bonds. In the
case of item 1 above, this number is somewhat misleading
because it treats the 75 percent capital cost funded by the
federal grant as though interest must be paid to retire a bond.
Thus, the second method is perhaps the more realistic method
from which to evaluate projects, and certainly gives a truer
picture of actual local costs. A comparison of both total and
local equivalent annual cost is presented in Table 19. As can
be seen, Alternative C-l is the least expensive monetarily,
regardless of the method of comparison utilized. Appendix C
presents a more detailed comparison of these costs.
88
-------
Table 19
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND LOCAL COSTS*
Average Annual Equivalent Cost
Alternative
Total Cost
Basis, $/Year
Local Cost
Basis, $/Year**
A-l
118,600
79,800
A-2
115,700
76,900
A-3
76,637
49,116
B
97,600
49,400
C-l
77,424
52,800
C-la
37,200
20,000
C-2
72,700
51,700
* In the case of Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 sewage
services for land between Jacksonville and Pioneer Avenue
is not provided. If this area were to be sewered, there
would be an additional cost.
** Local cost is the equivalent annual cost of capital facili-
ties after subtracting federal grant, plus the annual
operation/maintenance costs.
89
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OP THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Central to the evaluation of the proposed viable alterna-
tives are the various environmental impacts that result. In
this chapter, both beneficial and adverse impacts are identi-
fied. Primary attention is given to those factors most evi-
dently affected by the proposed actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements [40 CFS, Part 6,
6.304(c)] require that primary and secondary environmental
impacts, of short- and long-term duration, be evaluated. This
EIS identifies the short-term, long-term direct and long-term
secondary impacts related to all project alternatives.
"Primary impacts are those that can be attributed
directly to the proposed action.... If the action
involves construction of a facility, such as a sewage
treatment works..., the primary impacts of the action
would include the environmental impacts related to
construction and operation of the facility and land
use changes at the facility site.
"Secondary impacts are indirect or induced changes.
If the action involves construction of a facility, the
secondary impacts would include the environmental
impacts related to:
i) Induced changes in the pattern of land use,
population density and related effects on air
and water quality or other natural resources.
ii) Increased growth at a faster rate than planned
for or above the total level planned by the
existing community." (Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 72, part III)
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Many of the impacts of the wastewater treatment and dis-
posal project occur regardless of choice of any particular
alternative plan. These common impacts come about as the
result of general construction and development activities
and operation of the system.
91
-------
Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are, as the name implies, a short and
definite period of impact, usually from the start of construe
tion until completion of the project. Such impacts can
usually be effectively mitigated. Common short-term impacts
and mitigation measures are presented in Table 20.
Long-Term Direct Impacts
Long-term direct impacts result from the construction,
location and/or operation of the facilities and generally
remain in force for the life of the project or longer. The
time span may be from 20 to more than 50 years. These impacts
tend to be on or near a facilities site or pipeline route or
in the area of wastewater disposal. Some impacts are generally
common to all alternatives in that the magnitude of variation
in degree of impact among alternatives is small. These impacts,
do not greatly influence the selection of a recommended plan
from among the alternatives even though the impact may be signifi
cantly adverse.
For ease of understanding, the following long-term impacts
have been divided according to major areas of concern
physical and biological resources, social features and financial
considerations.
Physical and Biological Resources
The following list indicates those physical and biological
resource impacts to be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Water resources,- quality and quantity
- Geologic and flood hazards
- Soils
- Air quality
- Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife
- Aesthetics
- Archeological
- Energy
92
-------
Table 20
Short-Term Impacts
JACKSONVILLE SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The direct short-term impacts of this project are related to construction activities.
These impacts are relatively minor in effect and magnitude and in most cases the adverse
impact can be effectively mitigated. The impacts considered, their mitigation and our
judgment of the relative level of effect are given in the following matrix.
Alternatives
Short-Term Impacts "TFT. A-2 A-i B C-l C-la C-2 D Recommended Mitigation Measures
Tertparary lose of
vegetation
-
-
""
+
0
o Replant after construction or allow for natural
regrowth of shrubs and trees,
o Vegetation adjacent to pipelines should be flagged
cnr fenced to keep vegetative destruction to a
minimum.
Disruption of wildlife
-
-
-
+
0
0
+
0
o Vegetation stripping for the pipelines should
occur during the late sutmer or fall months
when nesting birds are not present.
Construction-related
traffic
+
+
+
+
* +
-
+
0
o Construction should occur, if possible, during the
fall periods when traffic volume is lower.
Utility service
disruption
-
D
o Advance notice of anticipated utility disruption
should be given,
o If a lengthy period of disruption is necessary,
utility bypasses should be provided.
Disruption of through
and local traffic
+
+
+
**
0
o Barricades and flagmen should be posted as neces-
sary to guide traffic through construction zones,
residents in area should be notified as to location!
nature and duration of construction.
Oust
-
0
o Keep soil wetted dewn in construction area.
Increased potential
soil erosion
+
0
o If possible, construction should be done during
the drier months of the year,
o After construction, exposed soil areas should be
reseeded using grasses native to the area.
Brployment
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
0
o None necessary.
Economic activity
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
0
o None necessary.
Safety hazard
+ฆ
*ฆ
+
-ฅ
+
0
o All open trenches should be covered or fenced at
the end of each work day.
o All construction equipment should be secured
against unauthorized use.
IBGBDs
Minor adverse lnfiact
+ Moderate adverse injpact
B Beneficial impact
0 Nb change from present
93
-------
Alternatives
Short-Term Impacts A-l A-2 A-3 B C-X C-la C-2 P Recommended Mitigation. Measures
Aerial pollutants
0
o All vehicles and equipment should be fitted with
appropriate pollution control devices that are
properly maintained.
Visual inpact of
construction equipment
and construction site
+
+
+
ฆf
0
o Equipment should be stored in a designated area.
All litter should be picked up.
o Fence or otherwise screen construction
maintenance area.
Spoil disposal
o Disposal of spoil material from the pipeline
should be coordinated with other ongoing projects
needing fill material.
Stockpiling and
storage of spoil
-
-
-
-
0
o All spoil material not needed for backfilling
should be ratoved fran the pipeline route or
spread over the surface and seeded.
Increased noiaa
+
+
+
+
+ 0
o All equipment should have mufflers, properly
installed and maintained,
o Construction activities should be limited to
daylight hours.
Water quality
(streams)
0
0
0
+
0
o Construction activities in streanways should be
limited to low flow periods,
o Care should be taken not to discharge petroleum
or other pollutants into stream.
Temporary blockage
of streanways, increased
turbidity and distur-
bance of fish life.
0
0
0
+
0
o Construction should occur during low flow periods
(late stirrer) and when anadranous fish popu-
lations would be least affected.
94
-------
Water Resources - Quality and Quantity.
o The construction of a waste disposal system will
improve the quality of water in area streams.
Under present conditions, wastewater from the Jacksonville
sewage lagoons discharges into Daisy Creek and thence into
Jackson Creek. During the summer months the wastewater and
agricultural return flows comprise virtually the entire source
of water in Daisy Creek. Under such conditions/ the quality
of water in the creek does not meet DEQ standards during summer
flows. Suspended solids and BOD are often above acceptable
standards (DEQ evaluation of permit compliance, 1975).
The construction and operation of any of the alternative
treatment and disposal options will eliminate wastewater flow
to Daisy Creek. Such action is expected to result in compliance
with DEQ water quality requirements.
Improvement in Daisy Creek water quality represents a
benefit to downstream users by improving water quality.
The no action alternative will result in continued viola-
tion of DEQ water quality requirements and adversely impact
the beneficial uses of the stream.
o The construction and operation of a wastewater dis-
posal system will reduce flows in Daisy Creek.
During 1975, wastewater flows to Daisy Creek from the
sewage ponds varied between 114,000 to 295,000 gallons per
day and for the 12-month period averaged 174,000 gallons per
day. During the dry summer months this wastewater discharge
represents nearly the entire flow in Daisy Creek.
Construction and operation of any of the alternatives
will result in a reduction of flow in Daisy Creek. The
effects of such a flow reduction are expected to be minor.
Under natural conditions, Daisy Creek was ephemeral
maintaining a flow only during the winter months.
Alternative D, No Action, would result in the contin-
uation of discharges to Daisy Creek and additional flows
in future years. The no action alternative would be in
violation of the NPDES permit issued by DEQ.
95
-------
o Impact on groundwater from land disposal of
wastewater.
Pour of the alternatives, B (U. S. Forest Service land),
C-l, C-la (sites near existing sewage lagoons) and C-2 (site
at county landfill), represent disposal options utilizing
spray irrigation.
Under existing conditions, many portions of the Bear
Creek Valley have experienced rising groundwater levels
because of increased irrigation of crops. This is perched
groundwater which lies atop clay layers in many areas. In
areas around Jacksonville the median depth to groundwater is
10 to 14 feet and usually higher during the rainy months.
The quantity of wastewater for Alternatives B, C-l and
C-2 is projected to average 160,000 gallons per day in 1976,
318,000 per day in 1987 and 424,000 in 1997. Alternative
C-la (no growth) will likely average between 160,000 gallons
and 212,000 gallons (1976 population x 100 gallons per capita
per day).
The impacts on groundwater at the various alternative
sites will be as follows:
- Alternative B ( U. S. Forest Service land) The
sewage effluent from the activated sludge plant will
be blended with irrigation water in a 1:5 ratio during
the summer months and a 1:21 ratio for fall and spring
application and sprayed on 240 acres of land. Irri-
gation needs will amount to 780,000 gallons per day (gpd)
from June through September and 3.4 million gallons per
day (mgd) during the fall and spring. No water will be
utilized during the winter months. The ratio of waste-
water to irrigation water will change as wastewater
quantities increase. The 1997 ratios of wastewater
to irrigation water are projected to be 1:1.8 in the
summer and 1:8 in the winter.
The application of water on the 250 acres will not affect
groundwater on the site because the Forest Service is
planning to install a subsurface drainage, runoff col-
lection system and sump, thus drainage would be recycled.
- Alternative C-l (site near sewage lagoons) Much of
the 77-acre site is underlain by Medford soils;
however, several veins of restrictive Cove soils criss-
cross the site. The Cove soils are characterized by
a perched water table, which often surfaces during
the wet winter months. These soils also form "dikes"
to lateral water movement, causing high water table
conditions even in adjacent Medford soils.
96
-------
The application of wastewater at this site may create
a high water table during the winter months, although
during early years of operation this will likely be of
little impact due to the small quantity of water
applied. The application water quantities projected
for 1987 and 1997 could cause a more substantial rise
in the perched groundwater.
Alternative C-la (site near sewage lagoons) The
soils site description as presented above for Alterna-
tive C-l also applies to C-la. The major differences
in impact will be that only 50 acres of land will be
necessary for Alternative C-la, and the quantity of
wastewater applied over the 20-year life of the project
will not increase substantially. The impacts on the
water table during the later years of operation will
not be as great as would occur under Alternative C-l.
Alternative C-2 (county landfill) This alternative
site has a slope ranging from 7 to 35 percent and has
a combination of Brader loam and Vannon silt loam.
Depth to groundwater is greater than 6 feet; however,
upon hitting the clay subsoil water tends to move
laterally downslope. If the combination of precipi-
tation and spray disposal was excessive, water could
outcrop downhill from the disposal site or cause a
rising water table.
This could cause problems wherever physical structures
such as roads and buildings would be involved.
Complete soil surveys would be necessary at the disposal
site to determine groundwater movement. Problems of
overloading the holding capacity of soils during the wet
winter months could be alleviated by storing wastewater
in holding ponds.
Flood and Geologic Hazards.
o Damage to treatment facilities due to flood or
geologic hazards.
The potential for damage to treatment facilities as a
result of physical damage from earthquakes or subsurface
flooding is slight.
There are no known active or concealed earthquake faults
in the vicinity of Jacksonville.
97
-------
Potential flood hazards exist at all streams within the
study area. Unusually high stream discharge could cause
damage to sewage lines crossing Daisy Creek (Alternatives
C-l, C-la and C-2) and Jackson Creek (Alternative B).
In order to reduce the potential for such damage, the
facilities should be designed to avoid physical damage, i.e.
they should be designed to withstand the consequences of
100-year storm flooding. In all alternatives the disposal
pipelines should meet strong leakage requirements following
construction to help ensure against groundwater infiltration.
Soils.
o Impact on soils from the application of wastewater.
Soils will be impacted from application of wastewater
in three of the alternatives.
- Alternative B The U. S. Forest Service land is
underlain by Central Point and Kubli soils. At the
present time, the U. S. Forest Service is preparing
a detailed soils grid of the site to determine areas
of restriction or limitation for growing nursery
stock or draining irrigation water.
- Alternatives C-l and C-la The C-l site is 77 acres
of flat land south of the sewage lagoons. The site
for Alternative C-la is essentially the same except
that only 50 acres of land are necessary. Soils include
Medford, Manzanita, Ruch and Cove series. The Cove
series occurs as veins throughout portions of the
site. This soils series is restrictive in terms of
irrigation potential. These areas of Cove soil will
represent a potential problem for irrigation.
The remaining soils have good permeability and
suitability for irrigation.
A comprehensive soils survey conducted on the site by
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service concluded that
the proposed 77-acre irrigation site is suitable for
wastewater disposal. The results of th?it survey are
available at the EPA Portland, Oregon and Seattle,
Washington offices and at the office of the Jackson-
ville City Manager.
98
-------
In all likelihood storage ponds will be needed to
hold wastewater for some time during the winter months.
Even during other times of the year there may be a gap
between the rate and continuity1 of wastewater produc-
tion and the ability of the land to accept the appli-
cation of effluents.
Under both alternatives- the wastewater is projected to
be applied over 50-acre areas at the rate of 1 inch per
week loading. With such a- low application rate there
are not likely to be any problems with soil clogging due
to sodium buildup or biological- slimes. As waster-
water flows increase/ as the population of Jacksonville
increases/- the rate and area of application will need
to: be changed to reflect the quantity changes.
Alternative C-2 The soils oir the C-2 alternative
site above the landfill consist of Manzanita, Brader
loam and Vannon silt loam. All soils have good
permeability with a slope varying from 7 to 35 percent.
There are no known areas of restrictive soils; however,
a complete survey should be conducted to establish
locations of any such soils and to determine the exact
location for spray disposal. With the projected low
application rate of wastewater,- soil erosion or slumping
problems are not expected to occrurv
Air Quality.
o OdoT.
Under normal working conditions, none of the alternatives
is expected to create major odor problems. The proper engi-
neering design, combined with the proper operation of waste-
water treatment facilities, would control the production and
release of odors to concentration levels not detectable beyond
the treatment facility boundary.
Alternatives A-l, A-2, and A-3 will ndt produce odors in the
Jacksonville area since no new treatment facilities will be
located there. In a proportional sense the odor is transferred
to the BCVSA plant.
In Alternative B, secondary-treated wastewater will be
stored in holding ponds for a short time. To eliminate the
chance of odor production, partial disinfection and pond aera-
tion should be provided after secondary treatment. The activated
sludge plant associated with this alternative should be located
a sufficient distance from residential areas to avoid odor
complaints. There should be no detectable odor associated with
spray irrigation of the blended, secondary-treated wastewater.
99
-------
Alternatives C-l, C-la and C-2 will consist of land dis-
posal of secondary-treated wastewater from aerated lagoons.
In a properly operating aerated.lagoon system, odors should
be negligible. Spray disposal with wastewater which has been
secondarily treated and chlorinated will have little odor
impact. In the event of a malfunction of treatment processes,
Alternative C-2 will have less of an odor impact on residential
areas than will C-l and C-la.
Alternative D (no action) will result in a continuation
of periodic odor problems associated with the present lagoon
treatment system. While there are no sensitive stationary
receptors in the immediate area surrounding the lagoons, odors
are often evident from the Jacksonville Highway.
o Regional air quality.
None of the alternative wastewater facilities will create
direct adverse effects on the regional air quality. Instead,
the major impacts on air quality will result from increased
socio-economic development in Jacksonville. Added population
growth, as well as increased tourist traffic, will result in
increased highway vehicular emissions from off-highway sources
(utility engine and construction equipment emissions) and open
burning of trash such as wood and landscape refuse.
Because Jacksonville (and the entire Medford area) lies
within an air quality maintenance area (with regard to particu-
lates and oxidants) future population growth will have a signifi-
cant impact on air quality relative to vehicular emissions
(Table 21). The projected air emissions from mobile sources as
shown in Table 21 are based on a 7 percent population growth
(5,745 by the year 2000) for Jacksonville, a 5 percent growth
for the rural area, a combination of the two, and a population
assuming the capacity of the interceptor system (see population
projections in Appendix H).
Alternative A-3 is designed to handle a 1997 population
of 5,861 people which is comparable to the projected year
2000 population for the city of Jacksonville (see Appendix H,
page 182). Therefore, the expected air pollutant emissions
resulting from population growth under Alternative A-3 are
judged to be comparable to the "city mid-range" estimates
for the year 2000 as presented in Table 20.
100
-------
Table 21
INDEX OF MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Area and
Vehicle Emissions2 (Pounds Per Day
Population
Vehicle Miles
Carbon
Total
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Year
Basis
of Travel1
Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Oxides
Oxides
Particulates
1975
City Mid-Range
30,000
4,041
582
317
15.2
39.0
Study Area - Low
37,248
5,017
723
394
18.9
48.4
Study Area - High
37,248
5,017
723
394
18.9
48.4
1980
City Mid-Range
40,686
2,781
484
323
17.9
42.2
Study Area - Low
49,740
3,399
592
395
21.9
51.5
Study Area - High
87,114
5,954
1,037
691
38.4
90.3
1985
City Mid-Range
51,318
1,776
305
272
21.5
46.4
Study Area - Low
62,190
2,153
370
329
26.1
56.2
Study Area - High
136,986
4,741
815
725
57.4
124
1990
City Mid-Range
61,968
1,544
260
273
26.0
54.6
iฆ
Study Area - Low
74,652
1,860
313
329
31.3
65.8
o
M
Study Area - High
186,870
4,655
783
824
78.3
165
1995
City Mid-Range
72,606
1,809
304
320
30.4
64.0
Study Area - Low
87,102
2,170
365
384
36.5
76.8
Study Area - High
236,742
5,898
992
1; 044
99.2
209
1997
City Mid Range
76,866
1,915
322
339
32.2
67.8
Study Area - Low
92,088
2,294
386
406
38.6
81.2
Study Area - High
256,686
6,395
1,075
1,132
108
226
2000
City Mid-Range
83,262
2,074
349
367
34.9
73.4
Study Area - Low
99,564
2,408
417
439
41.7
87.8
Study Area - High
286,608
7,140
iป 201
1,264
120
253
NOTES: Based on population projections and per capita travel index from Appendix H.
1 Assuming an average one-way trip length of 6 miles.
2 Using projected national average vehicle emission factors from U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976, Table D.7-1. 1990 emission factors used for 1995-2000 period.
-------
If the population of Jacksonville were to follow a no
growth pattern (Alternative C-la), pollutant emissions from
vehicular sources in Jacksonville would decrease greatly.
The total effect on the regional air resources of no population
growth in Jacksonville, however, would be difficult to assess.
Because air resources are a regional consideration, there will
be other factors involved in determining the ultimate air quality
of the basin, one of the most significant being population
growth in the areas surrounding Jacksonville and Medford.
Table 21 shows the impact on air quality if the population
of the surrounding rural area were 1,050 people (1997 projected
population) or 12,410 people (population based on interceptor
size). The ultimate population will be dependent on a number of
factors, among them allowable zoning, economic conditions,
desirability of the area, etc.
Vegetation and Terrestrial Wildlife.
o The construction of sewage facilities will impact
vegetation and attendant wildlife.
Sewage facilities require land and the removal of some
native vegetation. This removal of habitat will affect
wildlife both directly and indirectly. Subsurface dwelling
and sedentary mammals, amphibians and reptiles at facilities
locations will be destroyed during construction. Some birds,
mammals and reptiles that periodically use facilities sites
might be excluded from this use.
- Alternative A-l, A-2 and A-3 The proposed interceptor
connecting the Jacksonville sewerage system to the
existing West Medford Trunk line will, for a portion
of its length, parallel existing roadway (Jacksonville
Highway). Impacts on vegetation and wildlife along
this length of sewer line will be minor. For the remain-
der of its length, the interceptor will parallel Daisy
Creek and a fallow field.
- Alternative B Portions of the pipeline from the
sewage lagoons to the U. S. Forest Service land, will
parallel Hanley Road before following fencelines and
crossing cultivated fields and Jackson Creek. Impact
on vegetation and wildlife along Hanley Road will be
102
-------
negligible; however, portions of the route through and
adjacent to cultivated fields and riparian vegetation
will have more significant impact. Riparian habitat
is among the most valuable to wildlife. The impacts
of this pipeline route could be reduced by rerouting
to parallel existing roadways or to previously dis-
turbed areas. Paralleling Hanley Road for the entire
distance would require use of a pumpstation.
- Alternative C-l and C-la A wastewater distribution
system for irrigation of agricultural land at Site C-l
and C-la would have an insignificant impact on vegetation
and wildlife.
- Alternative C-2 The pipeline to disposal Site C-2
will border fencelines, cross existing cultivated
fields and grazing lands and foothill areas of oak/
fir/pine mixed woodland. Following pipeline construc-
tion, much of the vegetation is expected to regrow;
however, a somewhat open right-of-way will be maintained
for maintenance.
- Alternative D Under the no action alternative there
will be no additional impact on terrestrial vegetation
and wildlife resources.
The most significant impacts on vegetation and wildlife will
result from subsequent population growth in Jacksonville and the
surrounding service area. While the land to the north and west
of Jacksonville is considered poor agricultural land, it is valu-
able to game and nongame wildlife. Because the majority of
future development will likely be away from good class agricul-
tural land, the upland areas will probably be used more and more
for residential development. This residential growth will cause
a reduction in deer winter range and habitat for other upland
game and nongame species.
The degree of impact on this wildlife habitat will depend
on the ultimate population, direction of population growth, and
state and county policy decisions regarding resource management.
The maintenance of present zoning (one dwelling per 5 acres)
in the area surrounding Jacksonville will do a great deal to
ensure the maintenance of upland habitat.
Alternative C-la (no growth) would cause little or no
secondary impact on vegetation and wildlife within the City
limits of Jacksonville. Much of the land now supporting wild-
life is likely to continue that function.
103
-------
o Rare, endangered and threatened speoies.
The three species deemed rare, endangered or possibly
threatened are either seasonal visitors to the study area or
occur primarily in habitats outside of the facilities area.
o Impacts on natural vegetation resulting from applica-
tion of wastewater.
Four of the alternatives (B, C-l, C-la and C-2) would
result in the application of wastewater onto vegetated areas.
- Alternative B This site is presently fallow in some
portions and used for cut and baled hay on others.
The U. S. Forest Service will be planting coniferous
seedlings and spray irrigating with a blend of irri-
gation and wastewater. Because this site is presently
disturbed and will be disturbed in the future and does
hot support native vegetation, the impacts of waste-
water will be insignificant.
- Alternatives C-l and C-la The site for these alter-
natives is also cultivated (alfalfa hay) and when irri-
gated will also be used to grow alfalfa. The impact of
wastewater application on natural vegetation will also
, be considered insignificant.
- Alternative C-2 This alternative site is presented
vegetated with a mix of oak, pine and fir. Previous
studies on the effects of applying wastewater to wood-
lands have shown a favorable response of vegetation
to irrigation up to about 1 inch per week (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1976). Vegetation receiving 2 inches of waste-
water per week showed reduced growth due to excessive
soil moisture. In some areas of the United States,
minerals such as boron and constituents such as total
dissolved solids, chlorides, sodium and heavy metals
can affect crops or irrigated vegetation. The quality of
effluent water from Jacksonville is expected to be
satisfactory for land disposal and to be low in boron
(a major influencing factor on vegetation), sodium,
chlorides and heavy metals.
The application of wastewater will likely result in
some vegetative changes, with those species requiring
moist environments being favored and eventually domi-
nating some of the more xeric species.
104
-------
Aesthetics.
o Aesthetics impact.
The impact on aesthetics for all alternatives will be minor.
The activated sludge plant for Alternative B would be
located in the vicinity of the existing sewage lagoons off of
the Jacksonville Highway. The plant would be set back enough
from the roadway to reduce visual impact. The planting of
trees and scrubs around the facility would eventually screen
the plant from view.
Holding ponds for'Alternative B and aerated lagoons for
Alternatives C-l, C-la and C-2 would be raised by a dike system
slightly above the natural land contour. The facilities should
not be visible from the road. The addition of landscaping with
vegetation native to the area would provide a screening of dike
areas and other low structures.
The spray irrigators for Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2
will look much like those presently used for agricultural use.
The major impact on aesthetics will result from the
secondary influences of population growth. The open agricul-
tural lands to the east and the wooded hillsides to the west
and north represent the focal points of the Jacksonville
setting. The future trend of residential development will
probably be toward the surrounding hills and away from the
more valuable agricultural lands.
Alternatives A-l, A-2, A-3, B, C-l and C-2 will all have
an effect on aesthetic values of Jacksonville, with A-l and
A-2 exerting a greater impact on the ;lands surrounding the
city.
The greatest impact on aesthetic values from Alternative
A-3 will occur along the Jacksonville Highway, from Pioneer
Avenue to the eastern boundary of the City of Jacksonville.
The likelihood of major impacts on aesthetic quality are
greatly diminished with Alternatives C-la and D because of
the growth-limiting features of each.
105
-------
Archeological.
o Impact of the various alternatives on archeological
resources.
- Alternative A - No apparent impact on cultural
resources.
- Alternative B - Alternative B would require the construc-
tion of 11,200* of pipeline between existing sewage
lagoons and U. S. Forest Service property north of Ross
Lane. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed line was
traversed by the archeologist. No cultural resources
were encountered between the sewage lagoons and the line
paralleling Hanley Road. The line leaves the road along
the eastern boundary of section 41 and heads north,
proceeding to Horn Creek. The line then parallels Horn
Creek between the boundary of section 41 and Ross Lane.
A major archeological site (site designation pending)
was discovered beginning at the intersection of section
41 (east boundary) and Horn Creek. The site parallels
both sides of the stream channel on the property of
the Oregon State University Experimental Agricultural
Station and continues in a northeasterly direction into
the adjoining Heffernan property.
Heavy crop cover on the Heffernan property paralleling
Horn Creek did not allow direct surface observations.
Discussions with the Heffernans and people at the experi-
ment station about cultural resources along Horn Creek
suggested either the presence of numerous small sites or
a single large site paralleling the old channel.
The impact of the proposed pipeline on these archeo-
logical resources can be mitigated by: 1) Continuing
the pipeline down the section 41 boundary following
Redwood Drive, then down Ross Lane to the spray applica-
tion site. By relocating the line away from an old
stream channel, the likelihood of encountering cultural
resources lessens. Such a relocated route would need
to be surveyed for cultural resources. 2) Mitigate
impact on archeological sites through excavation by
professional archeologists. If the route along Horn
Creek is selected for construction with no route change,
excavation of several archeological sites may be manda-
tory. The cost of these excavations could exceed $80,000.00
106
-------
plus a significant delay in construction of the sewage
line. 3) Relocating the pipeline route along Hanley
Road for its entire length.
The 250-acre tree nursery (spray irrigation site) was
not surveyed for archeological resources; however, it
is understood that the U. S. Forest Service is in the
process of conducting a field reconnaissance.
- Alternatives C-l and C-la - A complete archeological sur-
vey of this spray irrigation site south of the sewage
lagoons was not conducted and informants did not know of
any archeological materials havinq ever been recovered from
this area. The likelihood of encountering archeological
sites on this area is low, but a systematic archeological
survey would be required should this option be selected.
- Alternative C-2 - Alternative C-2 entails the construction
of a 9600' pipeline from existing sewage lagoons to a
land application site near the present Jacksonville land
fill site. The proposed pipeline route was walked by
the archeologist with negative results. However, dense
grass cover along 50 percent of the route limited surface
observations. As with Alternative C-l, informants knew
of no archeological sites along this pipeline. The land
application site was not surveyed.
Based on limited surface reconnaissance and informant
testimony, no cultural resources will be impacted by
this pipeline. The land application site would be
surveyed if this alternative is selected.
A grant condition of the project chosen would be to mini-
mize the impact on archeological resources.
No surface reconnaissance is absolute. The likelihood that
several archeological sites lie buried within alluvial deposits
is high. During construction, shbuld any archeological materials
be encountered, archeologists from Oregon State University or
the State Historic Preservation Office in Salem should be notified
and construction halted on that section of linQ immediately.
Prompt action will be taken by the archeologists to minimize
construction delays.
107
-------
Energy.
o Impact of consumptive use of energy
All alternatives, except the no action alternative, will
have an impact upon energy consumption. Alternative C-2 will
require the greatest amount of energy because of the require-
ment for pumping large amounts of effluent to the hillside
disposal area (Table 22).
Energy requirements for Alternatives C-l and C-la are
identical, while Alternative B represents the least requirement
of energy consumption for the alternatives because no pumping
will be required.
Social Features
The following list indicates those social impacts discussed
in the subsequent text:
- Population growth
- Land use
- Land use planning
- Traffic
- Water supply
- Quality of life and social well being
- Historical value and integrity
- Historic landmark
- Cumulative effects
Population Growth.
o Impact on population.
For purposes of this discussion, population growth and
future land use will be considered within the same topic
category since they tend to overlap and are similar in scope.
Alternatives A-l (annexation with BCVSA) and A-2 (lease
with BCVSA) provide sewage services to a much larger geographic
area than Jacksonville. Sewering of lands outside Jacksonville
would be expected to result in a greater density of habitation
and thus stimulate growth in this locality.
108
-------
Table 22
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
KILOWATT-HOURS/20 YEARS
Alternative Treatment Pumping Total
A-l UK* UK UK
A-2 UK UK UK
A-3 UK UK UK
B 3,226,600 0 3,226,600
C-l 4,204,800 876,000 5,080,800
Ola 4,204,800 876,000 5,080,800
C-2 4,204,800 4,380,000 8,584,800
* UK = Unknown.
109
-------
The selection of Alternatives A-l and A-2 would result in
the construction of a pipeline (sized at 15, 18 and 24 inches
in diameter) from the existing 15-inch Jacksonville line to
the terminus of the 30-inch West Medford Trunk at Pioneer
Avenue. The 24-inch pipeline could service an ultimate popu-
lation equivalent to 20,943 people, based on peak wastewater
flow of 250 gpcd. While Jacksonville will be responsible for
a pro rata share of interceptor use, the remaining capacity of
the pipelines will be designed to support portions of the West
Medford Trunk District of BCVSA surrounding Jacksonville on
the north, south and west (see Figure 9).
The flow and equivalent population capacities of pipe-
line segments are as follows:
Flow Potential Population
Capacity Pipeline Can Serve
24-inch pipeline; Pioneer
Avenue to Hanley Road
intersection 5.24 mgd 20,943
15-inch pipeline; existing
Jacksonville interceptor,
Jacksonville to sewage
lagoons plus new section to
Highway 238 2.13 mgd 8,533
The interceptor pipeline from Jacksonville as now sized
at 15 inches could serve a population of 8,533 people, about
3,200 more than projected under 7 percent growth.
Jacksonville encompasses 1,274 acres and has a popu-
lation of 2,07 0 or 1.6 persons per acre. Population projec-
tions of 5,300 for 1997 on 1,602 acres (present Jacksonville
limits plus the urban growth boundary area) would increase
the density to 3.3 persons per acre.
According to the existing zoning classification (one
dwelling per 5 acres), a maximum of 4,323 people could inhabit
the service area surrounding Jacksonville. Based on the pro-
jected size of the interceptor from Pioneer Avenue to Hanley
Road, the A-l, A-2 service area capacity (total capacity minus
Jacksonville capacity) will be capable of handling a population
of 12,410 people, or approximately 8,087 more than the projected
zoning capacity. In order to achieve such a population in the
service area, a zoning classification change will be necessary.
110
-------
The projected 1997 human population to be served by-
Alternative A-3 is 5,861. Sewerage service capability is
based on a 1997 population of 5,300 in the City of Jackson-
ville and the designated urban growth boundary, and 561
in the corridor between Pioneer Avenue-and the existing
Jacksonville sewage ponds. The proposed pipeline would
also have the capacity to serve larger populations as
shown in the following table:
Flow ฆ. Potential Population
Capacity Pipeline Can Serve
15-inch pipeline; 1.46 mgd 10#800
Pioneer Avenue to
existing Jacksonville
interceptor
Population density in Jacksonville and the urban growth
area would increase from 1.6 persons per acre to 3.3 per
acre. The density of that portion of the service area
between Pioneer Avenue and the sewage ponds.could increase
from 2.4 persons to 3.7 persons per acre.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 are proposed to support only
population growth in the Jacksonville urban growth boundary.
By the design of the facility capacity, the growth of the
population is expected to be more confined (to that area
within the City of Jacksonville and urban growth area) but
not necessarily at a slower rate than that of Alternative A-l
or A-2.
Alternative C-la (no growth) represents an alternative
which will allow support of bnly the existing population of
Jacksonville. The 1975 population was estimated to be 2,070*
and the plant design of 0.25 mgd of wastewater will support
a population of not mote than 2,500 people (based on 100
gallons of wastewater per capita per day). The population to
be supported under Alternative C-la is expected to be confined
to existing City of Jacksonville boundaries and it will not
be necessary to incorporate the urban growth boundary.
* Note: New population estimates recently made by Portland
State University place the 1976 population at 2,120.
Ill
-------
Alternative D (no action) is presently and would continue
to be restrictive for population growth. Residential and
commercial establishments are now denied permits for sewerage
hookup because of the inability of the present disposal system
to properly treat and dispose of a greater waste volume.
The no action alternative would continue this situation and
thus restrain growth and maintain the present population.
o Impact on population distribution.
Alterriatives A-l and A-2 would allow for a broader dis-
tribution of population throughout the service area (Figure 9)
and could provide sewerage for any population growth in the area.
While there is a long-term potential for growth in that part
of the service area surrounding Jacksonville, the immediate
and most rapid distribution of growth would probably occur
within the Jacksonville urban boundary because: 1) present
city zoning allows for residential development; 2) the city
is plotted for residential use; 3) Jacksonville has an existing
wastewater collection system which would allow for almost
immediate hookup; 4) present zoning surrounding Jacksonville
allows only for density of one dwelling unit per five acres;
5) the area surrounding Jacksonville is not sewered; and
6) sewering at the present zoning would probably be too costly
to implement.
Changes in zoning classification in parts of the service
area outside Jacksonville could accelerate the rate of develop-
ment in this area. Such a zoning change would be the only
means of achieving a population of 12,410 (population capacity
of the interceptor) since under the present zoning only a maxi-
mum of 4,323 people could reside in the area. Although the
extent of rezoning is unknown at this time, one can presume
that at some time in the future, it could result in the popu-
lation shown above. The size of the present population in
this part of the service area is estimated to be 500 people.
Using Alternative A-3, a majority of future growth in
the sewage area will be within the city limits of Jacksonville,
its designated urban growth boundary, and the corridor area
from the sewage ponds to Pioneer Avenue. When the buildable
land within those areas is filled, future urban population
growth will probably continue outside of the city Units.
112
-------
With Alternatives C, C-l and C-2, a majority of future
growth in the service area will be within the city limits
and the designated urban growth area. At a future time when
buidable land is eliminated in Jacksonville, growth outside
of the city limits will probably accelerate.
Alternative C-la will result in the maintenance of the
existing population distribution within the City of Jackson-
ville. Because the population will not expand, the buildable
land within the city limits will remain as open space. While
this alternative would have a major impact on the population
distribution of the City of Jacksonville, it will have only a
minor effect on the area surrounding the city. Population
growth in that area could still occur whether or not Alter-
native C-la is implemented.
Alternative D essentially limits any new development in
Jacksonville. Surrounding areas that can support a sub-
surface (septic tank and leach field) system could continue
to increase population in response to other growth stimulants.
Development will probably occur wherever soils and slope are
not limiting to septic systems and land splits occur to bring
parcel size into the 5-10 acre range.
All alternatives will require Jacksonville to expand
its other city services. Expanded population will call for
expansion of water, police and fire services. There is, for
example, a 4-hour period during the night in which there are
no police on duty. Fire protection will have to be expanded
in terms of both men and equipment. Insofar as growth will
probably mean a higher per household occupancy, per capita
increases in taxes for Jacksonville are anticipated.
Land Use.
o Impact on land use patterns.
The major impact upon land use in the Jacksonville area
relates to increased residential growth. Jacksonville pres-
ently attracts many retired individuals, and people in the
30 to 40-year age category comprise the bulk of the commuting
populations. With the construction of a new waste disposal
system, sewerage will no longer represent a constraining
factor.
113
-------
The greatest potential impact on land use would derive
from tie-in with Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Sewerage for lands outside of Jacksonville could result in
zone changes permitting denser residential development on these
lands. Conceivably, this could affect the rate of growth in
Jacksonville by transferring some of the basic residential
growth potential to the outlying lands.
Alternative A would aid in turning vacant and other
lands already planned for such use into residential and com-
menrcial lots or other developments. While 22 percent of the
area of Jacksonville is in vacant lands, not all of this is
usable. There are some vacant lands north of the downtown
area that are relatively flat and could be developed rather
easily and economically. Others are not as suitable for
development, and unless land use constraints are overcome,
these lands will likely remain undeveloped. Because of the
combined land use changes in Jacksonville and the surrounding
service area, Alternatives A-l and A-2 are considered to have
the greatest impact.
Although restrictive zoning is now in effect on agri-
cultural lands surrounding Jacksonville, there will probably
be a continued diminution that will probably happen regardless
of any wastewater treatment. Presently, there are some large
agricultural parcels for sale around Jacksonville, but because
of soil limitations, they have been for sale for quite some
time. The sale price and taxes vs. possible use will ulti-
mately determine the future of these parcels.
While the capacity of the interceptor system in Alter-
natives A-l and A-2 is such that substantial population growth
could occur within the service area, it is unlikely that this
growth will occur in the prime agricultural lands east of
Jacksonville. The LCDC has a policy and guidelines relating
to the preservation of.agricultural land. Both the City of
Jacksonville and Jackson County are directing their planning
effort toward identifying and preserving agricultural lands.
Other land use changes occurring because of a growing
population and residential developments will be the growth
of commercial enterprises and the possibility of some light
industrial operations. The degree of development of sur-
rounding land, as well as that in Jacksonville is expected to
influence commercial development. Accordingly, even under
strict zoning regulations, Jacksonville may have some problems
preserving its historical quality unless it maintains a
ceiling limitation on commercial and industrial operations.
If historical preservation does not keep pace with other
growth, it is expected to be diminished in importance.
114
-------
The Alternative A-3 interceptor line from Pioneer Avenue
to Jacksonville will result in pressures to convert existing
agricultural uses to residential uses of land immediately
adjacent to the interceptor system. In the scope of Alter-
native A-3, development could be limited by an agreement
between Jacksonville and BCVSA to 300 feet either side of the
interceptor. However, the ultimate use of that land will
depend upon the land use policy of Jackson County and
decisions made by the County Commissioners and the LCDC.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 will not have the immediate
impact of Alternative A upon land use practices outside the
Jacksonville service area. Alternative B, the tie with the
U. S. Forest Service seedling farm, will have impacts upon
land use depending upon additional land requirements for the
winter time storage of effluent and the siting of the 11,200-
foot line. Presently, the Forest Service is not certain of
its actual water quantity and quality needs for irrigation
and/or frost protection. Although it has irrigation rights,
use intensities may change in the future, thereby requiring
Jacksonville to store wastewater if less is needed at any
particular time. The total concept of the alternative is to
recycle resources by putting treated effluents into a bene-
ficial use.
Alternative C-la (no growth) will have a major impact on
the land use patterns within the City of Jacksonville. In
essence, this alternative will result in the maintenance of
existing uses. The present mix of residential, commercial
and agricultural uses is likely to remain. This alternative,
however, will have little impact on the future use patterns
of lands outside the Jacksonville city limits.
115
-------
Land Use Planning.
o Impact on land use planning.
Very little change is anticipated countywide in terms of
zoning or land use practices, regardless of alternative
selection. The county is considering taking steps to zone
lands between Medford and Jacksonville under a more restric-
tive agricultural designation in order to assure its continued
open character. The City of Jacksonville is in the process of
preparing a more comprehensive general plan and framework.
The county zoning pattern to the west of Medford is
designated Farm Residential (F-5) which has many permitted
and conditional uses and which, for the most part, provides
for an area where agriculture can be operant without intrusion
by conflicting uses. The county intends to maintain, if not
improve, this zoning requirement.
Because of the large service area involved, Alternative
A-l and A-2 will require an immediate planning effort in order
to assure a proper and controlled direction of growth.
Although contemplated changes in zoning are not reported, one
must assume that social-political pressures will increase to
rezone the areas outside of Jacksonville for residential use.
According to the goals and guidelines of LCDC, an urban
growth limit must be identified by the Cities of Jacksonville
and Medford. This limit allows for urban development of less
than 1 acre/dwelling unit within the boundary. The development
of the service area surrounding Jacksonville to accommodate a
population of 12,410 people would be contrary to efforts to
identify an urban growth limit.
The maintenance of present zoning (1 dwelling/5 acres),
particularly for Alternative A-3, would ensure that urban
growth limits would be maintained.
Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 are not expected to
significantly impact the present course of zoning and land use
planning because the area of effect is generally restricted to
Jacksonville. If no action is taken then the city must con-
tinue to dispose of its effluent into Daisy Creek and to find
a solution to lift the DEQ moratorium on building permits.
The present course of planning for the community is not predi-
cated on almost zero growth, thus the selection of this
alternative would probably require new planning objectives;
Because the city must serve its present and anticipated popu-
lation adequately, the choice of no action would have a great
impact on community planning.
116
-------
o Compliance with Statewide Planning Goala.
The statewide (LCDC) goals judged to be directly applicable
to this project were analyzed.
- Goal 2 Land use planning.
"City, county, state and federal agency and
special district plans and actions related to land
use shall be consistent with the comprehensive
plans of cities and counties and regional plans
adopted under ORS 197.705 through 197.795."
Neither the City of Jacksonville nor Jackson County has
prepared final comprehensive plans; consequently, conformance
of this project with Goal 2 cannot be determined. The city
and county have commented on the alternatives via letters to
EPA included in chapter VIII.
- Goal 3 Agricultural lands.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 would not be in conformance with
either the planning or implementation guidelines of this goal.
Alternative A-3 may not be in conformance with planning guide-
line 1 - "urban growth should be separated from agricultural
lands by buffer or transitional areas of open space", or imple-
mentation guideline 2 - "extension of services, such as sewer
and water supplies into rural areas should be appropriate for
the needs of agriculture, farm use and non-farm uses established
under ORS 215.213".
- Goal 4 Forest lands.
It is unknown what portion of the project service area
constitutes "forest lands", because the comprehensive plan,
which would identify these lands, has not been completed.
- Goal 5 Open spaces, scenic and historical areas and
natural resources.
The identification of lands for open space, natural
resources, scenic and historic areas under the County and
City of Jacksonville comprehensive plans has not been accom-
plished, i.e., the comprehensive plans are not completed.
However, since the City of Jacksonville is a registered
national historic landmark, it is therefore necessary that
Guideline A.4 be carried out, that is, to determine the
"carrying capacity" of the Jacksonville area which would pro-
vide for the maintenance of the recognized historic value.
117
-------
Furthermore the implementation of Guideline B-6 appears
necessary "Significant natural areas that are historically...
unique, outstanding or important...should be inventoried and
evaluated". Meeting these guidelines is considered the respon-
sibility of the city and county through comprehensive planning.
- Goal 6 Air, water and land resource quality.
Alternative D (no action) would conflict with Goal 6 "to
maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the state".
Alternatives A-l and A-2 would violate planning guideline
A. 2.
- Goal 11 Public facilities and services.
This 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".
Alternatives A-l and A-2 appear in conflict with planning
guidelines 1, 2 and 4 which relate to coordinating public
facilities with urban boundaries and providing levels of public
services in rural areas appropriate only for rural use.
Alternative C-la (no growth) and D (no action) do not
conform to planning guidelines 3 and 4 "Public facilities
and services in urban areas should be provided at levels
necessary and suitable for urban uses", and "public facilities
services in urbanizable areas should be provided at levels
necessary and suitable for existing uses...".
- Goal 14 Urbanization.
Alternatives A-l and A-2 would be in conflict with this
goal as related to the definition and maintenance of the urban
growth boundary. Alternative A-3 would appear to be in
satisfactory compliance.
118
-------
Traffic.
o Impact from traffic and circulation patterns.
A secondary impact of sewerage facility development and
subsequent residential development will be an increase in
traffic loads on the road systems within, entering and leaving
Jacksonville.
Daily traffic loads within the center of Jacksonville
often create problems and conflicts with other activities.
Present highway development plans indicate that a bypass of
Highway 238 is planned north of the City of Jacksonville.
Such a bypass would greatly reduce through-traffic loads in
the center of the city. There should be no conflict
between this proposed wastewater treatment project and
those future transportation projects proposed by Oregon
Highways.
Any future population growth within and adjacent to the
city will create additional traffic problems, particularly
along main roads such as Fifth Street, California Street and
South Stage Road.
Any subsequent residential development in Jacksonville
and along the eastern service area corridor under Alternative
A-3 will cause an increase in traffic loads, particularly on
the Jacksonville Highway (238) and its lateral streets within
the City of Jacksonville, the county and West Medford.
Even with the no growth alternative (C-la), traffic
problems are likely to increase in Jacksonville due to pro-
jected increases in tourist traffic and as a consequence of
travel by Jacksonville residents.
Water Supply.
o Impact on available water supply.
The City of Jacksonville is presently facing the problem
of an inadequate water supply and distribution system. The
8-inch pipeline now supplying Jacksonville storage reservoirs
will require upgrading in order to properly handle the demand.
Future population growth in Jacksonville will require an
adequate water supply. Although the city presently derives
its water from the City of Medford, increasing demand for
water from that source may make future procurements difficult,
particularly if substantial population growth occurs in portions
of the West Medford and Westslde Trunk Districts to the east
and north of Jacksonville.
119
-------
The water supply and distribution system will require
upgrading, even with the no growth alternative (C-la), because
of the present inadequacy of the system. Coupled with this
problem is the likelihood of an increase in per capita con-
sumption of water.
Quality of Life and Social Well-Being.
o Impaat on the quality of life.
Any development to serve the needs of existing and future
populations of an area should be considered with respect to
its long-range impacts upon the quality of life and social
well-being of the population of Jacksonville.
One of the major difficulties in all stages of planning
arises through attempts to mirror the community's preferences
and attitudes.
Quality of life, or a general state of happiness or
contentment, is defined here as a subjective degree of satis-
faction or dissatisfaction regarding the totality of a
person's existence. Social well-being, a person's state of
health, economic condition, etc., implies an objective and
specifiable measure of a person's life situation. Quality of
life and social well-being are quite different phenomena;
one may increase to the detriment of the other (cf. Smith,
1973; and Hogg and Honey, 1976).
During the course of preparation of this EIS, inferences
were drawn from the several short conversations with individual
citizens and their notions of the quality of life in Jackson-
ville, and from observations in the field.
It is inevitable that a replacement wastewater system,
regardless of the alternative selected, will mean growth for
the city. If growth can be reasonably managed, then the
residents of Jacksonville could possibly sustain a fairly
harmonious balance between their present quality of life and
social well-being. If, for example, the city is annexed by
BCVSA and growth occurs randomly and rapidly, the situation
may be the reverse. While social well-being might be enhanced,
quality of life could be impaired. Although commercial and
residential expansion may increase the social well-being for
a few persons, the overall quality of life for most could
diminish. For a segment of the population, diminished quality
would mainly occur from the city losing its historical integrity.
The chief short-term, economic beneficiaries would be the
owners of undeveloped land, operators of commercial outlets,
and other investors within the primary service areas.
120
-------
All situations that deal with long-range planning efforts
call for a close scrutiny of quality of life and social well-
being factors. In this case, Medford's growth is also a
consideration. As Medford grows and expands its industrial
and commercial base and attracts people for employment, more
individuals may seek out Jacksonville and the surrounding area
as a residential escape from the urban setting.
o Impact on historical value and integrity.
Growth in Jacksonville and the surrounding service area,
for all practical purposes, is certain to occur. When and at
what stage of population growth an adverse impact can be
expected on the historical quality of the city is now
indeterminable. However, in all likelihood, the historical
character of Jacksonville will still remain as a focal point
when the population reaches 5,300 at about 1997.
The maintenance of the small-town character of Jackson-
ville and its registered historical sites will be determined
to the greatest extent by the direction and type of popu-
lation growth. The city now has distinct boundaries and is
the focal point for Highway 238 travelers from Jacksonville
or Grants Pass. This is maintained by the open space surround-
ing the city.
With Alternatives A-l and A-2, there is a greater potential
for growth in and around Jacksonville because of the large
capacity of the interceptor system. The degree to which this
growth is realized will be dependent on factors such as zoning,
economics, desirability of settlement, and the availability of
support services such as water.
With Alternative A-3, the development of residential
areas along Highway 238 from Pioneer Avenue to Jacksonville
would have the most significant impact on the autonomy of
Jacksonville. The distinct eastern boundary represented
by open space and low density residential development will
be significantly reduced as residential growth proceeds
along the Jacksonville Highway. However, the maintenance
of Farm Residential (F-5) zoning (a minimum of one dwelling
per 5 acres) in that corridor could contribute toward
maintaining an open space appearance. Growth in the cor-
ridor and the Jacksonville urban area could dilute the
historical value and integrity of Jacksonville. The degree
of this effect is generally one of personal opinion, and
thus, one that should be decided by residents through their
governmental processes.
121
-------
Because of the smaller capacity of facilities under
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2, the impact on the area's his-
torical value is likely to be less. However, even these
alternatives could adversely affect the historical quality
of the area if direction is unregulated or if Jacksonville
loses its boundaries by encompassing urban growth in the
county.
The opportunity to maintain the historical value and
integrity of Jacksonville will be present with Alternative
C-la (no growth). Because the population will be maintained
at its present level, population growth of the City of Jackson-
ville will be less of a factor in adversely affecting his-
torical quality.
o Impact on Jacksonville as an historic landmark.
The impacts of alternatives on the status of Jacksonville
as a National Historic Landmark are quite indirect. It is
unlikely that the official and legal designation of the com-
munity will not be affected, unless the present historical
features are allowed to go into decline, or are removed as
a result of residential or commercial development.
The impact instead, will come in terms of the creation of
any imbalance of residential-commercial growth and historical
preservation. People presently feel that the amount of pre-
servation is in balance (Haynes and Cox, 1974), and are not
strongly committed to the idea of increasing expenditures for
greater preservation. Residential and commercial growth
therefore, especially that to be stimulated by Alternatives
A-l and A-2, are likely to diminish the relative significance
of that preservation which has already occurred.
Cumulative Effects.
o Cumulative impacts of the Jacksonville project
associated with BCVSA.
Although the City of Jacksonville and the BCVSA are con-
sidered separate legal entities, the effect of providing
sewerage service will not be limited to the City of Jackson-
ville Sanitary Authority boundaries, but instead will have
an impact on each other.
122
-------
The BCVSA is now preparing an EIS on providing sewerage
service to the 5,200-acre Westside Trunk District, which lies
north of the City of Jacksonville and the West Medford Trunk
District. Although the District contains only 500 residences
(approximately 2,000 people), projections call for rapid growth
over the next 50 years. While present zoning and the compre-
hensive plan allow for a total buildout population of 9,000
people, projections indicate that by the year 2000 the district
will contain 6,200 people and by the year 2026, 17,300 people,
with more than 8,000 of that population inhabiting the southern
portion of the district.
The increase in population of Jacksonville, the West
Medford Trunk District, and the Westside Trunk District will
also increase traffic loads on existing roads and eventually
will require that surface streets and main arteries be up-
graded to support the additional use.
Increases in population will create a demand for
utilities electricity, water and natural gas and for
community services in the area police and fire protection,
street maintenance, and solid waste collection and disposal.
Because of increasing demand (by Jacksonville and by some
parts of the Westside Trunk District) water may become a
particularly important factor in the future growth and
development of the area. There will likely be an increase
in school enrollment.
Changes in land use will occur within the trunk districts
and in Jacksonville. Land now as open space and covered with
natural vegetation or agricultural crops and supporting wild-
life species will be changed to a residential land use. Other
areas of open space may become commercial.
Financial Impacts
The following list indicates those financial impacts to
be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Project financing
- Related financial effects
- Property values
- Building construction
123
-------
Project Financing.
o Impact of project financing.
Data provided T. Flatebo and Associates constitute the
basis for evaluating financial impacts of the various
alternatives. Analyses of local costs vs. total costs are
presented in Appendix C.
Table 23 identifies the projected cost per month per
connection and the likely assessed valuation per $1,000 for
1977, 1987 and 1997.
Costs per month will be low for all alternatives because
the sewage collection system (which typically represents a
major expense) is already installed.
Related Finances.
o Related financial impacts.
Other city services must keep pace with sewer program
development if inordinate future costs are to be avoided.
The city's water system is cited as barely adequate for
residential needs and inadequate for fire protection.
Expansion and renovation of schools will be needed and new
requirements for storm sewers and sidewalks will be generated
as a consequence of population gains. Factors affecting
public finance will be equivalent to real and anticipated
population growth plus adjustments for inflation and interest.
The city's tax base will probably have to be expanded
from its present $1.83 per thousand dollars of property value.
Present underdeveloped services will require expansion for any
projected population increase in Jacksonville. Either greater
densities of people, markedly higher valued property, or an
increased tax rate will be required. To serve the anticipated
growth, a combination of these circumstances will be necessary
in order for the costs per connection to be relatively stable.
124
-------
Table 23
PROJECTED MONTHLY COST PER CONNECTION AND
ASSESSED VALUATION FOR THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
Item
Date
A-l
A-2
A-3
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
Monthly cost per
connection
Assessed valuation
per $1,000
1977
1977
1987
1997
$3.80
0.83
0.45
0.31
$3.66
0.83
0.45
0.31
$3.80
$1.73
0.82
0.45
0.31
$1.34
0.44
0.24
0.17
$2.21
0.30
0.16
0.11
$2.26
0.36
0.19
0.13
-------
Property Values.
o Impact on property values.
Property valuation has increased dramatically in Jackson-
ville since 1971. The total assessed valuation of residential
and commercial property in that year was 7.21 million dollars
compared to a 1976 valuation of 17.9 million dollars. The
valuation increase in this period thus amounts to over 10
million dollars and an increase of 148 percent. A decrease
in rates per $1,000 valuation has occurred over the same period
but by no means to the same extent. Rates in 1971 were $5.57
per $1,000 valuation and in 1976 the rate was $1.83 per $1,000
valuation (City of Jacksonville), a decrease of 67 percent.
Relative taxes!./ per $1,000 valuation therefore have decreased
by nearly 50 percent, or by slightly over 7 percent per
annum since 1971.
Decreases in tax rates per $1,000 valuation may not con-
tinue to occur at the same rate relative to total assessed
valuation increases. Table 23 shows city revenues since
1969 as a result of the inverse trends.
The data in Table 24 show no dramatic per capita property
tax increases in Jacksonville in the past five years. City
revenue from residential taxes has decreased by 17.2 percent
over the same period. The number of Jacksonville's commercial
accounts has decreased by 18 percent since 1971, while the
number of residential accounts has increased by 25 percent.
Determining the impacts of the various alternatives on
property values is difficult and at the best judgmental. In
all likelihood, the availability of sewerage facilities as
provided by Alternatives A-l, A-2, A-3, B, C-l, C-la and C-2 will
result in an increase in property values throughout Jackson-
ville. Property values would probably increase more under
Alternative C-la because no growth would, in essence, create
a "sellers market". The influence of a "building moratorium"
by DEQ has been clearly evident. Property values have in-
creased and housing is in great demand. Such would also be
the case under Alternative C-la. No growth would provide
assurances of a small-town atmosphere in close proximity to
a growing commercial and residential area.
With Alternatives A-l, A-2, A-3, B, C-l and C-2, property
values will also increase, but probably at a slower rate than
they would under C-la.
126
-------
Table 24
Year City Revenue from Residential Taxes City Residential Taxes Per Capita
1971 $33,825 $19.00
1972 23,940 12.50
1973 26,564 13.42
1974 25,775 12.45
1975 36,537 17.78
1976 28,012 13.53
Residential and commercial tax assessment data provided by Jackson County
Department of Assessment and Taxation
127
-------
In all probability, property valuation assessments would
increase in response to the market value of the property and
the greater services needed as populations increase.
Building Construction.
o Impact on building construction.
Under present conditions, residential and commercial
construction is constrained in Jacksonville. This is due
to the present restrictions that DEQ placed on sewer hookups.
All of the project alternatives, A-l through C-2, will
provide sewage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to
remove the hookup restrictions. The lifting of the hookup
ban will result in the completion of homes in which construc-
tion was started but not completed due to the ban, and an
increase in the number of new housing starts.
Alternative D (no action) will lead to a continuation
of present restrictions and the virtual elimination of
housing starts except for those where soils are suitable for
installation of subsurface (septic system) disposal systems.
128
-------
Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project and
Environmental Objectives
Project Objective. As stated in the introduction, the
overall project objective is to "provide an institutionally
acceptable wastewater disposal system for the citizens of
Jacksonville". This requires compliance with all environ-
mental and social-economic policies and standards of Oregon
and the Environmental Protection Agency that pertain to
wastewater treatment and disposal. Not all project alternatives
appear to be institutionally acceptable alternatives. While
each alternative can be implemented and meet the NPDES permit
requirements, several have been judged to violate state goals
and objectives or are not in compliance with the Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan (see impact section entitled
"Compliance With Statewide Planning Goals" and letters of
comment). Alternatives B, C-l, C-la and C-2 must be designed
to prevent treated sewage from entering surface waterways or
contaminating groundwater.
Alternative D (no action) would be unacceptable because
of the inability of Daisy Creek to assimilate wastewater during
the low flow months.
Table 25 shows hov? alternatives compare with each other
in meeting this project objective.
Environmental Objectives. Four environmental objectives
were identified in the introduction:
1) Minimize the adverse environmental effects of waste-
water treatment and disposal.
Alternatives A-l, A-2 and A-3 represent the alternatives
that best meet this objective. The placement of 7,200 feet
of pipeline along existing roadways and on disturbed land
will have a minor short-term impact on the service area
environment. In the long term, urban development in the
service area could convert significant portions of agricul-
tural and open land to other uses.
Alternatives B, C-l and C-2 are second best due to the
greater length of the pipelines of B and C-2 and the potential
for soils and groundwater problems from wastewater application.
2) Minimize the social-economic costs of wastewater
treatment and disposal.
129
-------
With any project that becomes the responsibility of the
citizens of a community and a tax-supported service, there
is a need to minimize social and economic costs. None of
the alternatives will represent major tax burdens on the
present or projected populations of Jacksonville. The major
differences between the alternatives selected to meet this
objective lie in the potential for population growth (Table 25).
3) Provide for the reuse of treated wastewater.
Alternatives A-l, A-2 and A-3 will not allow for the
immediate reuse of treated wastewater, while Alternatives
?' C-la would permit such a use for tree farm spray
irrigation of alfalfa. Alternative C-2 would permit the
spray disposal of wastewater with limited opportunity for
direct reuse (Table 25).
At some future date treated wastewater from the Medford
regional plant could be beneficially reused.
Alternative D would not provide for reuse of wastewater.
4) Maintain the historical quality of Jacksonville.
This is a very broad objective which relates to more than
the influencing factors of the sewage treatment system. The
major influencing factor will be associated with the rate and
direction of population growth in Jacksonville and surrounding
lands.
Because of the land use planning and other influencing
factors involved, it is questionable to what degree the
historical quality of Jacksonville will be affected.
Alternatives C-la and D will have the least effect on
historical quality because each will represent limitations
on population growth.
Under all alternatives, population growth could affect
the historical values of Jacksonville from outside the city
limits, regardless of which avenue the city chooses to take
in terms of future population growth.
130
-------
Table 25
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION RELATING PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES TO PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
A-l A-2 A-3 B C-l C-la C-2 D
Project Objectives;
Provide an institutionally
acceptable wastewater dis-
posal system for the citizens
of Jacksonville. 3-4 3-4 1 2 2 3-4 3 4
Environmental Objectives:
Minimize the adverse
effects of wastewater treat-
ment and disposal. Ill 22 224
Minimize the social-
economic costs of waste-
water treatment and
disposal. 331 32 2 34
Provide for the reuse of
treated wastewater. 443 11 134
Maintain the historical
quality of Jacksonville. 332 22 121
LEGEND:
1 Best
2 Second best
3 Limited
4 Fails
131
-------
Summary of the Adverse Impacts of the Alternatives
The adverse impacts of the various alternatives
are summarized in Table 26 and as follows.
Alternative A-l - Annexation to BCVSA
There will be no major long-term impacts to the physical
or biological resources resulting from the actual construction
of the pipeline from Jacksonville to BCVSA. The major impacts
on these resources will result secondarily from the subsequent
development of vacant lands, both within the Jacksonville city
boundaries and in the service area surrounding the city.
Major social impacts include increased population, changes in
land use quality, detraction from the historical character and
aesthetic quality of Jacksonville, increased traffic resulting
from growth effect on regional air quality and increased costs
of sewage and other public services.
Alternative A-2 - Lease from BCVSA
The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those
associated with Alternative A-l. Costs of this alternative
will be slightly less than those in Alternative A-l.
Alternative A-3 - Annexation with BCVSA With Limited
Service Area
The direct impacts of this alternative would be much
the same as those associated with Alternative A-l. The
major secondary impacts will result from the conversion of
vacant land within the City of Jacksonville and along the
Highway 238 corridor from Pioneer Avenue to the Jackson-
ville city limits. Costs of this alternative will be less
than those in Alternatives A-l and A-2.
Alternative B - Wastewater Application on
uป S. Forest Service Land
The potential impacts on archeological resources represent
a major concern, while effects on groundwater vegetation and
132
-------
Table 26
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OP LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES FOR JACKSONVILLE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Alternatives
A-l A-1 A-3 B C-l C-la C-2 D
Impacts
BCVSA
Annexation
BCVSA
Lease
BCVSA
Annexation
w/Limited
Service
USFS
Nursery
Crop
Irrigation
Crop
Irrigation
(No Growth)
Landfill
Spray
Disposal
e
o
-r-4
*>
O
<
o
2
Improve stream water quality
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
0
Reduce flows in Daisy Creek
U
u
U
U
V
U
U
0
Impact groundwater
0
0
0
A
A
-
-
0
Flood and geologic hazard
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
Impact on soils from waste-
water application
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
Odor
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
+
Regional air quality
A
A
A
A
A
-
A
0
Vegetation and wildlife loss
-
-
-
A
-
-
A
0
Rare and endangered species
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effects on natural vegetation
from application of
wastewater
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
Aesthetics
A
A
A
-
-
-
-
0
Potential impact on
archeological resources
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
Consumptive use of energy
U
U
U
-
A
A
+
0
Population size
A
A
A
A
A
-
A
+
Population distribution
+
+
A
A
A
+
A
-
Land use patterns
A
A
A
-
-
+
-
-
Land use planning
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Traffic and circulation
patterns
A
A
A
A
A
-
A
-
Water supply
A
A
A
A
A
-
A
-
Quality of life
0
U
U
U
0
0
U
0
Impact on historical integrity
A
A
A
-
-
-
-
0
Impact on historic landmark
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Project financing
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0
Property values
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
u
Impact on building construction
B
B
B
B
B
+
B
LEGEND
+ Major impact
A Moderate impact
- Minor impact
0 No impact
B Beneficial impact
U Unknown
133
-------
wildlife and air quality will be moderate. Minor impacts
include flood hazards, soils, odor, air quality, rare and
endangered species, vegetation and aesthetics. This alter-
native accommodates less growth than Alternatives A-l and
A-2 and represents the least costly of the alternatives.
Alternative C-l - Irrigation of Crops
This alternative will potentially result in a moderate
impact on local groundwater. The impacts on flooding, soils,
odor, vegetation, wildlife and aesthetics will be minor.
Alternative C-la - Irrigation of Crops (No Growth)
The short-term, adverse impacts of this alternative will
be of minor consequence. Because of the low quantity of waste-
water to be applied, the impacts of local groundwater will be
minor, as will be the impacts on soils, flooding, odor, vege-
tation and wildlife. Because of the no growth nature of this
alternative virtually all impacts will be of less consequence
than those of other alternatives.
Alternative C-2 - Spray Disposal Above the Landfill Site
Impacts on groundwater, soils, air quality, natural vege-
tation and aesthetics will be minor. There will be a minor
potential for flood or geologic hazards. A moderate impact
will occur on vegetation and wildlife as a result of pipeline
construction. Socio-economic impacts will be minor.
Alternative D - No Action
Adoption of the no action alternative would continue to
result in violation of the Environmental Protection Agency
and DEQ wastewater discharge requirements, would result in
continuous odor problems with the existing lagoon system,
and bans on hookups to the sewerage system would be continued.
134
-------
V. THE APPARENT BEST ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Review and Selection
The seven alternative plans and the No Action plan were
described, discussed and evaluated in relation to the natural
and human environment comprising the Jacksonville area.
Several environmental impacts and social issues were found
to be important and relevant to the selection of an im-
plementable project. All of these were discussed in detail
in the foregoing text.
Of the alternatives considered, four are considered
viable in the sense of implementability:
o Alternative A-3: Annexation or contract with Bear
Creek Valley Sanitation Agency and tie-in with the
interceptor at Pioneer Avenue.
o Alternative B: Local treatment and use of reclaimed
water by U. S. Forest Service.
o Alternative C-l: Aerated lagoons with disposal for
adjacent agricultural use.
o Alternative C-la: Aerated lagoons with disposal for
adjacent agricultural use (no growth).
Several major constraints further reduced the number of
viable options. Alternative B was determined to be the most
costly (total capital cost, $730,000) and the least reliable
due to options of the U.S.F.S. for contract cancellation.
Alternative C-la was judged to be in conflict with Statewide
Planning Goals and the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
The two remaining alternatives, A-3 and C-l were evaluated
in greater detail by EPA from a cost and technical feasibility
standpoint.
The soils on the disposal site for spray irrigation
(Alternative C-l) were evaluated in detail by the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service. They reported that the soils are
capable of handling spray irrigation. The soil survey report
is available for review at either the Portland, Oregon office
of the EPA or at the office of the Jacksonville City Manager.
135
-------
Appendix I presents the reanalysis of costs and portions
of a real estate appraisal conducted on the property considered
for irrigated agriculture under Alternative C-l. The complete
report (appendices plus photographs) is available at the EPA
office, Portland, Oregon. Based on the analysis of property cost
cost and capital cost (Table 27), it was judged that Alternative
A-3 (annexation or contract with BCVSA) would be the most cost-
effective alternative. Furthermore, the development of Alter-
native A-3 with a 15-inch interceptor and a limited service
area (Jacksonville City limits + proposed urban growth boundaries
+ the corridor from Jacksonville to Pioneer Avenue) would not
deter maintenance of the historical integrity of Jacksonville.
While Alternative A-3 does not allow for the immediate
reuse of treated wastewater, it is anticipated that wastewater
reclamation will be undertaken at the Medford Regional plant
at some future date. Furthermore, under C-l, the reuse of
treated wastewater would have some potential negative impacts
(odor, groundwater resources, etc.) because of the close
proximity of the spray irrigation site to the new City of
Medford's Little League ballpark and the City of Jacksonville.
Because Alternative A-3 overall provides the best in-
stitutionally and environmentally acceptable wastewater dis-
posal system for the least cost to the citizens of Jacksonville,
it stands as the alternative acceptable for grant funding by
EPA.
136
-------
Table 27
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE TWO MOST VIABLE ALTERNATIVES:
TOTAL CAPITAL
Item:
Interest
Factor :
A - 3
C - 1
Capital Cost
1.000
416,593.-
502,000.-
Interest during
Construction
1.000
14 ,500.-
17,000.-
Salvage Value
0.30454
-101,570.-
-84 ,967.-.
Total Present Worth
329 ,523.-
434 ,033.-
Average Annual
equivalent cost
0.08807
29,021.-
38,225 .-
Annual Operation and
Maintenance
47 ,616 .-
47,699.-
Annual Net Return
from Sale of Crops
- 8,500.-
Total Average
Annual Equivalent Cost
76 ,637.-
77,424.-
-------
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
VS. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The present discharge of inadequately-treated wastewater
into Daisy Creek represents a short-term use that adversely
affects the long-term productivity and value of Daisy Creek,
its beneficial uses and its receiving waters.
The principal beneficial effect on surface water of
using Alternatives A-l through C-2 is the alleviation of water
quality impairment related to the discharge of inadequately-
treated wastewater to Daisy Creek.
Alternative D (no action) would allow for the continuation
of this problem and impairs the use of Daisy Creek for any
beneficial uses.
While Alternatives A-l through C-2 would remove the adverse
water quality problem, new impacts would result from the con-
struction of a waste treatment system. These impacts relate
to increased taxes and service charges, increased consumption
of natural resources and the likelihood of a greater popu-
lation growth within the City of Jacksonville and surrounding
area.
The implementation of either Alternative A-l, A-2, A-3, B,
C-l or C-2 would represent a tradeoff for meeting waste dis-
charge requirements while providing for a varying level of
future population growth since all of the above alternatives
are designed to support additional growth. For Alternatives
A-l, A-2, A-3, B, C-l and C-2, Jacksonville will be committed
to a population growth of approximately 7 percent per annum.
In addition, the rural service area surrounding Jacksonville
will be committed to a growth rate which will be dictated in
part by land use and zoning decisions set forth by state and
local governing bodies.
Alternative C-la represents a provision for maintenance
of the present population and historic character of Jacksonville,
with a commitment to established land use patterns and popu-
lation distribution within the city limits.
139
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
With all alternatives except no action, there will be
minor and major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
renewable and non-renewable resources. Significant commit-
ments of general irrecoverable resources, i.e., time, building
materials and energy, will be required during construction of
any of the treatment alternatives.
After construction, operation of the treatment plant will
require irrecoverable resources such as time, chemicals, energy
and maintenance materials.
The secondary effects of population growth will result in
the conversion of open, natural land to urban development,
reduction in air quality, increased use of water, electricity,
petroleum products, timber and food, and increased demand for
social services. If growth occurs in a reasonably well con-
ceived manner, none of these effects are forecasted to be
significantly adverse.
141
-------
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS
This section contains letters of comments from individuals and
groups to the City of Jacksonville draft EIS. Those letters which
commented directly upon the draft EIS have been reproduced in this
document. Wherever a response is required of EPA to the letter,
a response page follows that letter.
The following table is a listing of the comment letters re-
ceived during the 45-day review period, the page in this chapter
on which they can be found, and a general category listing of
their contents. Comment categories are shown in an attempt to
indicate those aspects of the proposed action about which the
commentors were most interested and concerned. This may serve to
direct the interested reader to those sections of the document
which he may wish to restudy.
In addition to those letters which comment on specific areas
within the draft EIS, EPA received numerous letters voicing
opinions on the project. Because these letters do not directly
comment upon the draft EIS nor do they require a response from
EPA, they are not reproduced in this document. A listing, however,
is included in table form which separates letters into categories
of support or opposition to wastewater treatment facilities for
the City of Jacksonville. We have attempted to point out areas
with which these letters were most concerned. A brief summariza-
tion of the issues raised most frequently has been included after
this table.
On February 17, 1977 at the Jacksonville Elementary School,
EPA held a public hearing on the City of Jacksonville draft EIS.
The hearing was attended by approximately 79 people of which 11
read testimony into the official record. A question and answer
session, after the presentation of testimony, was also a part of
the hearing and is included in the hearing record. Because of
the length of the official hearing record and the costs involved,
we have not reproduced the document for the final EIS. A table
is provided, however, listing the speakers and the areas in which
they were most concerned. Letters and petitions received at the
public hearing have been included into the hearing record. A
summary of the testimony, letters and petitions follows the
public hearing table. The Public Hearing Record is available
for public scrutiny at the office of the Jacksonville City
Manager, EPA's Oregon Operation Office, Portland, Oregon and
EPA's Region X Office, Seattle, Washington.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region X wishes to express
its appreciation to all commenting agencies, groups and individ-
uals for the time and effort spent in reviewing the draft EIS.
All comments were presented to the Regional Administrator and
were considered by him in EPA's decision making process.
143
-------
Date
Reed
Table 28
Comments Received on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
EIS
PAGE
From NO.
13
cr
C71
C
c
c
fC
*o
c
rQ
C
o
3
Q
O
CL
oQ
JC
ซ/>
c
o
V.
o
Q.
to
c
s.
>
00
a
ai
CO
>>
u
o
Q_
fO
c
fO
t/)
ฉ8
>>
L.
a>
c
QJ
a
T3
3
ro
3
O
*0
(U
zn.
c
c
a
i.
L_
0)
U)
a>
i_
Q_
O
&-
0)
>1
CT
O
o
4->
TJ
-g
C
3
O
i.
o
c
o
-------
Table 28 (Continued)
Comments Received on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Date
Reed
From
EIS
PAGE
NO.
to
O
0>
>
01
c
c
10
2
oซ
"O
c
<0
3
o
o
a. >
o
&.
o
c
o
S.
o
Q.
ซ/)
C
<0
k.
10
e
cu
+->
I/)
>
00
Q
cu
00
u
o
CL
o
L-
QJ
"D
0>
>ป
o>
&-
aป
c
rt
C
c.
a
o
"D
3
C
o
is*
<0
3
U
r-
<
C
C
a
i-
u
a>
a:
a
u
3
S-
<
s.
cu
V>
a>
u
a.
s.
o
in
ai
r-
k.
a;
jr
v>
&
o
0
01
e>
01
+->
f0
2
*D
C
3
O
s.
CD
c
o
01
C7>
0>
State Department of
Fish & Wildlife
166
State Historic
Preservation Office
165
2/28
Stagecoach Properties, Inc.
200
3/1
1000 Friends of Oregon
196
S 3/11
Jackson County Oregon
172
3/17
City of Jacksonville
186
1/24
Anthony Netboy
238
2/4
Dale L. Staib
2/17
Ralph & Ruth Lawrence
3/4
Robertson E. Collins
2/17
John Witteveen
223
222
X
243
203
-------
Table 28 ( Continued)
Comments Received on Draft
to
>,
*->
cn
c
r-
c
c
fO
a>
V-
r
C
o
tn
E
>
U
r
ซ/
c
o
r1
fO
4->
M
O
fO
a
Jr
&.
o
rป
4ซ>
03
>
U
&
1/7
Date
Reed
Environmental Impact Sta
From
tement
EIS
PAGE
NO.
Costs
A1ternati ve
r
<0
3
Cr
i-
0>
ra
3
Q_
c;
to
ZD
"O
c
(0
3
a
o
a.
-o
f-
3C
eO
JC
u.
Growth
4-J
*0
J-J
S-.
o
Q.
CO
C
H3
h
Soils
+J
1/1
>
IT
U
r
4-3
C
a
tA
Aesthetics
o
CL
03
fc-
O)
*o
u.
Energy
a
on
c
03
o
"O
3
CO
oo
0
-C
4->
a;
s:
Air Quality
Recreation
c
o
p
-M
o
3
J-
4->
i/>
C
o
o
Agriculture
C
t
c
51
o
a;
i-
CL
a
r
i-
O
1/1
r
2C
Fisheries
Geology
Groundwater
Vegetation
3/10
Curtis & Margaret Nesheim
216
X
X
X
3/11
&
3/15
John Witteveen
206/209
211
X
X
3/11
Mr. & Mrs. Dale 01 sen
219
X
X
3/12
John L. Sullivan
221
X
X
X
X
3/8
Oregon Environmental Council
226
X
2/14
Richard Hein
231
X
X
X
2/17
Bardo Institute
240
X
X
"
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
February 23, 1977
ER-77/22
Mr. 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:
We have reviewed your draft environmental statement for Waste-
water System, City of Jacksonville, Jackson County, Oregon and
offer the following comments for your consideration in complet-
ing the final statement.
General Comments
The document adequately describes fish and wildlife resources
in the project area and possible project impacts on them. Se-
lection of either project alternative A-l or A-2 would achieve
comparable results in minimizing adverse effects on fish and
wildlife habitat resulting from project wastewater treatment
and disposal methods.
It would be helpful if scale were shown on project maps to per-
/ mit accurate comparison of physical features within the waste-
water disposal system service area.
According to the Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Location Sys-
tem (MILS) file, there are 13 known mineral occurrences in the
wastewater system area. Mineral industry output has come from
several gold placers and one clay operation. However, these
) occurrences are not identified in the report, nor on maps. Pro-
per identification of mineral occurrences would lead to more
adequate consideration of minerals in the planning process. No
known mineral industry activities would be adversely affected
by the project.
RECEIVED
^ TLB 2 5 1977
147
-------
The statement could be strengthened by including baseline water
quality data on Jackson, Griffin and Daisy Creeks. These streams
are representative of those degraded by wastewater inflows and
irrigation return water.
Since the Jacksonville Historic District is listed on the "Na-
tional Register of Historic Places," procedures of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800) should be consulted
for procedural compliance. The statement indicates that the
project will affect the historic district. If so, the next step
required by 36 CFR 800 is a consultation between the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Oregon State Historic Preser-
vation Officer to determine whether or not the effects are ad-
verse. Progress in complying with these procedures should be
reported in the final statement.
The Medford Division, Rogue River Basin Project, a Bureau of
Reclamation study, could serve the functions o.f irrigation, water
quality control, recreation and fish and wildlife in the central
portion of the Rogue River Basin. Stream improvement measures
have been identified for several streams in the area, including
Jackson and Walker Creeks. Both of these flow through the pro-
posed service area of Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority. The
Environmental Protection Agency may wish to consider that report
(Medford Division, Rogue River Basin Project Feasibility Report -
June 1967; and the Status Report - April 1976) in their prepa-
ration of the final environmental statement. Bureau of Reclama-
tion planning staff would be available for discussion, if necessary.
Specific Comments
I Page ix, Table of Contents. National Wildlife Federation should
|not be listed as a Federal agency.
Page 13, Flooding. In view of the potential flood hazard along
nearly all project area streams, the text should include more
specific information concerning frequency and magnitude of flood-
ing, especially along reaches of Daisy Creek receiving wastewater
discharge from the Jacksonville sewage ponds.
Page 56. Since existence of many leaks has been demonstrated
by infiltration of large amounts of ground water, the potential
for exfiltration from present sewer lines and resultant ground
water pollution should be assessed.
We appreciated the opportunity to review the statement.
Sincerely yours,
Charles S. Polityka
Regional Environmental Review Officer
148
-------
Response to Comments of U. S. Department
of the Interior, February 23, 1977
1. Changes made as suggested.
2. Additions made as suggested.
3. Additions made as suggested.
4. Please see letters from the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the State Parks and Recreation Office.
5. Comment noted.
6. Correction made.
7. No data on flooding of the small streams (i.e., Daisy,
Jackson and Griffin Creeks) exist. See text pages 13 and 14.
8. Comment noted.
149
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
16th Floor, 1220 S. W. Third Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
February 24, 19 7 7
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 44 3
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement
for the City of Jacksonville, Jackson County, Oregon (EPA-
10-OR-Jackson-Jacksonville-WWTW-76). We have no comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft.
Sinnere]v.
State Conservationist
cc:
Office of the Coordinator of Environmental
Activities, USDA, Washington, D.C. (1)
Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C.(l)
Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, D.C. (5)
RECEIVED
FEB 2 8 1977
150
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
1133 South Riverside, Suite 5, Medford, Oregon 97501
January 26, 1977
Donald P. Dubois
Attn, of: M/S 443
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sir:
We have comments on the draft EIS on pages 13, 14 and 17 for
your consideration.
Donald Vandervelden
District Conservationist
encl; Draft EIS City of Jacksonville
DJV
151
-------
Response to Comments from the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service, January 26, 1977
1. Changes made as requested.
152
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: FEB 2* m
subject: Review of Draft EIS on the Jacksonville, Oregon
Regional Administrator
Region X
Attn: Roger Mochnick
EIS Section M/S 443
The comments of the Office of Water Program Operations on the
subject EIS are attached. Should any of the issues raised by these
comments require clarification, please contact John Hill, Chief,
Environmental Evaluation Branch at 245-3054.
Attachment
(WH-548)
RECEIVED
MAR 3 la//
EPA Fo., ป 3 ?0 I, I Rcป. 3 76
153
-------
Office of Water Program Operations
Comments on the Draft EIS
for the Jacksonville, Oregon
Wastewater Treatment System
We question the sizing of the interceptor for the alternatives
which call for connection with the Medford treatment plant. This
interceptor would serve not only the city of Jacksonville, but also the
surrounding area within the watershed.
The interceptors are sized for a year 2027 capacity (50 year period).
The projected 2027 population for the city of Jacksonville is 9500, using
a 7% growth rate. The surrounding area, based on existing zoning, can
accommodate 4, 323 people. On page 33, the 1997 population for this area
is estimated to be 1050. Even if the 4323 population is reached by the
year 2027, the total service area population would be 13, 823. Despite
this, the 24 inch interceptor is sized for a population of 20, 943. On page
104, the admission is made that a zoning classification change would
be necessary to achieve this population level.
The EIS should discuss the rationale for sizing the interceptor for
the population of 20, 943, particularly since one of the main reasons
for the preparation of the EIS is the potential impacts on land use
patterns. Also based on the proposed amendments to the Cost
Effectiveness Guidelines (42 FR 6841, February 4, 1977), we
recommend that the sizing of the interceptors be based on the
assumption that the pipes will be flowing at half depth at the 20
year staging period.
Minor Comments
1. The reference to the EPA document on page 61 should be for the
year 1975, not 1973.
2. Figure 11 on page 62 should not show a percolation pond since this
was dismissed as an alternative on page 58.
3. The last line on page 103 should read 7. 0 percent rather than
0. 7 percent.
154
-------
Response to Comments from the Office of
Water Program Operations/ February 28, 1977
1. Comments noted. An alternative (A-3) using a smaller-
sized pipeline has been presented in an addendum
(February 8, 1977) to the Draft :EIS.
2. Changes made as recommended.
3. The purpose of Figure 11 is to provide a visual
explanation of some options available with aerated
lagoon systems where it would be possible to implement
either percolation ponds or spray disposal.
4. Change made as recommended.
155
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PORTLAND DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 2946
PORTLAND. OREGON 97303
NPPEN-ER
1 March 1977
Richard P. Thlel, 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:
My staff has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement
entitled wastewater Treatment System for the City of Jacksonville,
Oregon, and we have no comments to make. Our review was conducted
with respect to the Corps responsibilities for flood control,
navigation, and hydroelectric generation.
Sincerely yours
L. J. STEIN
Chief, Engineering Division
156
RECEIVED
MAR 4 1977
EPA-F'S
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
REGION X
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING
1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
January 26, 1977 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
RECEIVED
JAN 2 8 1977
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P. E,, Chief ppซ
Environmental Impact Section MS/443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
120Q Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Our office has completed reviewing the draft environmental impact
statement for the proposed sewage treatment facility in Jacksonville,
Oregon.
One of the environmental objectives mentioned at the beginning of the
draft EIS is the preservation of the historic character of Jackson-
ville. Under alternatives A-l and A-2 the sewage systems could
accommodate a town population of 8,533 before reaching capacity. In
August 1974 the Oregon State Historical Preservation Office notified
the EPA that a sewage pipeline supporting a population of 6,000 would
permit the town to retain its historic character. This discrepancy
of more than 33% between the population figures accommodated under
alternatives A-l and A-2 and those suggested by the Historical Pre-
servation Office would, thus, jeopardize the unique character of the
town.
To evaluate the various alternatives from the standpoint of social and
health services, it is essential to know at what point new or additional
community services would have to be provided and when this level would
be reached under the several proposals.
Population projections for the year 2000 contained in the appendix
indicate that additional school facilities would be necessary somewhere
between a 5% and 7% growth rate. Under the former growth rate, present
facilities would be adequate until the end of the century while the
latter rate would probably require additional facilities. What is the
school population figure which would mandate new buildings? Would this
figure be reached at different times under alternatives A-l and A-2, B,
and C-l and C-2?
157
-------
Richard A. Thiel
-2-
No mention is made of hospital or health services in the draft
statement. Have local authorities made any projections concerning
what population level would require local hospital facilities and
what funding sources would be available for such a project?
The population of Jacksonville, 65 years old and over, is 17.9% -- more
than 50% greater than the Oregon state average. Will senior citizens
on a fixed income be able to afford the increased taxes necessary to
support the additional public services demanded by a three to four fold
increase in the town population?
We would appreciate any consideration you could give to the above
questions and concerns in your future planning for the Jacksonville
sewer system.
Sincerely;
V'\ . | x x ' I ( i
ฆ '< ^
David P. Miller
Regional Environmental Officer
158
-------
Response to Comments from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, January 26, 1977
1. An additional alternative (A-3) was presented in an
addendum to the Draft EIS (February 8, 1977) which
would be capable of accommodating a smaller population
than would be possible under Alternatives A-l or A-2.
2. The present school enrollment is 319 students. With a
5 percent growth rate, new intermediate school facilities
would be needed in 2 years, and in 1 year with a 7 percent
growth. New primary school facilities would be needed in
4 years assuming a 5 percent growth and 2-1/2 years assuming
a 7 percent growth.
Plans have been made for some time to relocate the inter-
mediate school with the primary school on one site. The
bond issue for new construction is scheduled for
November 1977.
3. Hospital and health services at Medford are judged to
be adequate. Jacksonville has no plans to provide
medical services.
4. The cost of additional services (in the form of higher
taxes) is one major factor that must be considered by
the Jacksonville city government and constituents.
159
-------
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
January 31, 1977
Mr. 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
RECEIVED
FEB 3 1S77
EPA-r"m
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This is in response to your request of December 29, 1976 for comments
on the draft environmental statement (DES) on the wastewater treatment
system for the City of Jacksonville, Oregon. A review of our
correspondence files indicates that the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation was informed by letter from John Vlastelicia, Director,
Oregon Operations Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
dated October 29, 1974, of the actions to be taken by EPA to ensure
that any effects of this undertaking would be avoided. Furthermore,
by letter of December 19, 1975 Mr. Vlastelicia advised the Council
that that portion of the subject project that would affect Jacksonville
had been delayed for further study and that EPA would ensure its
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) once the additional
studies were completed.
However, the subject DES does not demonstrate compliance with Section
106 as detailed in the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800). Furthermore, it is noted
that the DES identifies the comments of the Oregon State Historic
Preservation Officer of August 23, 1974 made with respect to the earlier
study, but that it does not recognize his letter to EPA of December 12,
1974 in which he states that his earlier comment may have been premature
and requested additional information on the subject undertaking.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, Federal agencies must, prior to the approval of the expenditure
of any Federal funds on an undertaking or prior to the granting of any
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 1 5, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
160
-------
Page 2
January 31, 1977
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Jacksonville Historic District
license, permit or other approval for an undertaking, afford the
Council an opportunity to comment on the effect of the undertaking
upon properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
While the DES identifies that the subject undertaking is for
Jacksonville, a property included on the National Register, it does
not identify whether it will cause an effect on the National Register
property. If the National Register property is not affected by the
undertaking a section detailing this determination must appear in
the statement. However, if the National Register property is affected
the statement must contain an account of the steps taken in compliance
with Section 106 and a comprehensive discussion of the contemplated
effects on the property. The "Procedures for the Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800) detail the steps a Federal
agency must take to determine effect and to comply with Section 106.
Therefore, until the Council has been provided further information
with regard to the undertaking's effect on the Jacksonville Historic
District it considers the DES to be incomplete in its treatment of
historical, archeological, architectural and cultural resources. To
remedy this deficiency, EPA should provide the Council with a report
detailing the steps it has taken or proposes to take in compliance
with Section 106.
Please contact Brit Allan Storey of the Council staff to assist you
in completing this process as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely yours,
c *-
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office
of Review and Compliance
161
-------
Response to Comments from the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, January 31, 1977
As a result of EPA's evaluation of the environmental impacts associated
with proposed wastewater facilities for the City of Jacksonville, the
decision has been made to recommend Alternative A-3 to provide the City
with the needed services (See pages i-ii). A discussion of Alternative
A-3 can be found on Page 73 in this Final EIS in addition to Figure 13
which illustrates the proposed interceptor sewer line route. After a
review of the potential impacts associated with Alternative A-3 and
numerous site visits to the area proposed for interceptor construction,
EPA has determined that this alternative will have no direct effect on
any historic buildings or property listed on the National Register. In
addition, an archaeological survey was conducted for each of the evaluated
alternatives. The survey concluded that Alternative A-3 would have no
impact on any cultural resources. A copy of this survey was sent to the
Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review on October 8,
1976. By receipt of this Final EIS, EPA is requesting additional review
from the SHPO. If the SHPO recommends measures to mitigate any effects
forseen to be adverse as a result of the proposed project, EPA's project
engineer will contact both the grantee and the SHPO to discuss the scope
and grant eligibility of such measures.
162
-------
Executive Department
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION
240 COTTAGE STREET S.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310
February 16, 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:
Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental
Impact Statement for State of Oregon review and comment.
Your draft was referred to the appropriate state
agencies. Department of Land Conservation and Development,
State Highway Division, State Department of Forestry, and
State Department of Fish and Wildlife offered the enclosed
comments which should be addressed in preparation of
your final Environmental Impact Statement.
We will expect to receive copies of the final state-
ment as required by Council of Environmental Quality Guide-
lines.
Re: Wastewater System, City
of Jacksonville
PNRS #7701 4 070
Sincerely
Donald L. Jones
Administrator
DLJ:lm
enclosures
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 IS7
EPA-P-'S
163
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
Leslie Lehmann, Coordinator Phone: 378-3732
STATE A-95 REVIEW ADDENDUM
APPLICANT: City of Jacksonville
PROJECT TITLEWastewater System
PNRS ง: 7701 4 070
March 3, 1977
The State Clearinghouse has.received additional comments
from State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
subsequent to our conclusion letter of February 16, 1977 f
please see copy(ies) attached for your attention.
Additional Clearinghouse comments:
RECEIVED
MAR 7 1977
EPA-C|C?
fad Please consider this letter and enclosure(s) an addendum
to our previous letter.
O A copy of this letter and enclosure(s) should be forwarded
to the federal funding agency as required by OMB A-95.
If you have questions please contact the State Clearinghouse at
the above address and telephone number.
164
-------
oregon Project notification and review system
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
Ph: 378-3732
P N RS STATE REVIEW
Project #77m 4 070 Return Date: FEB 11 *i
ENVIRONMENTAL 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
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
(X ) 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 Htsrrtfic. PซesekvmcN OfFice weeds r/voRe
e>M sftscmc Kcores Mป> listv&mce- ofilBfi.
/ Tt> ftSSeVS THE PHYSIMI IMffiCT- OfJ HISTORIC HxJ/LbiAit-S
HMv'iacfJMHfJT, Jfi'jGcwiLir is both a NutiokIAI-
HvSTtRic. /s,a)C fi frlffrieiOhL. Re6|i c
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 LC/;:iv Y;r-*T
Ph: 378-3732
P H R S STATE REVIEW ' ' 5 1
Project #: 7701 ^ 0 7 Q Return Date: *
ENVIRONMENTAL TMPACT 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
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( X) 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed review of the City of
Jacksonville, Draft Environmental Statement and offers the following
comments.
The construction of Alternative C-la-Aerated Lagoons with Adjacent
Agricultural Use (No Growth) would have the least impacts to fish and
wildlife.
Our major concern is the accelerated rate at which we continue to loose
our fish and wildlife habitat to other uses. With the establishment of
a larger wastewater disposal system, urban sprawl will be accelerated and
more upland game, big game winter range and non-game habitat will be
permanently lost.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 1977
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTOCATJON AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
toOAL r,t, -
f-.-l/T'' . .
Intergovernmental Relations Division
24 0 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 I . '3 3 io/7
Ph: 378-3732
p N R S STATE REVIEW
Project #: 7701 4 070 Return Date: FEB 11 -3
F.MVTRONMF.NTAT. TMPftCVT 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
{ ) 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 Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
Approximately 420 acres of forest land will be removed from
timber production by the year 2000, plus whatever lands may
be planted to timber species.
Considering the short-fall in Oregon's anticipated future
timber supply, this Department believes the conversion of
these lands is unfortunate and should be avoided if possible;
however, we realize there are no reasonable alternatives if
the community is to expand.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 1977
rpซ
Agency
Uj
167
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ฆ ฆฆฆ -
Intergovernmental Relations Division ' !,v J 3 ;-7-.
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
Ph: 378-3732
PURS STATE R FV I F W
Project #; 7701 ^ 070 Return Date: FEB 11
ENVTRONMENTAT. TMPACT REVTEW 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
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
(^i ) 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
1-J7-77
G-*t~7y /%*
J5cr?'?is< V/c'& c/s7Xy
/
. icrvv,
Oe. dAjjtxv&A i
flu 4 OlitK
AfleA..
6*ฃ ฆpo'Vec3f*ซX
JLfcv. -4&je. E>> t ( OJL I f
Kcne. Slu. wwv\t uA"
sVซ3tซ&.
E C E I V E D
ENVIRONMENTAL
SECTION
,ifiw 17 m
Referred to
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 15/7
Agency
(llial:,,
-------
Response to Comments from the State Historic
Preservation Office, February 11, 1977
1. The proposed pipeline routes for the various alternatives
have been presented in the figures in the Alternatives
section of the EIS. Specific location of the interceptor
would be provided for the chosen alternative under the
Step 2 design phase.
Response to Comments from the Oregon
Department of Fish and Game, February 11, 1977
1. Comment noted.
Response to Comments from the Department
of Forestry, February 11, 1977
1. Comment noted.
Response to Comments from Oregon
State Highways, February 11, 1977
1. Comment noted and addition made to text.
169
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ITMENT OF ~ "
LAND CONSERVATJONInt^r^overnInental Relation8 Division
r-~ ~> Cottage Street SjE* , Salem,:Oregon 97310
Li*"- PUR S STATE REVIEW
Project #: 77 Q ] 4 07 0 Return Date: CTQ 1 1
F!NVI RONMENTAL 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 abov.e return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
sx 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
x-fc eSSev-ปV\cA -VVvcvY -W\e. V-ปna\ ฃ\S cxv-ia\\iexi*c.V\ orop^C^ci
v\ , aAVe*v\a^w/e*; A - ^ cw\d A - 2. oJovAdl v\oV
ccvwpi^ ujAU -VW^ocAs. uie, cx\oo v^tW Vo
^WxTporVcx^c.e. cฃ c\os,^\v^ Cx>o\rcVv-CxaV'va.c^ ~VW_
w V cv,Vj \ v <5.V% vv\ cฃ "3^C.VCS,av\;\J\\\ vAi\l^v cm/'aI CXvyJ
4W , o _ O J 1
&\ TacVr^vV CfcvA CV Vi*vฃ \\l^\a,V\.
PWu.U vvoVo. a\tcC "VWaA: c^pp/twai? ^Iuol, pVO^ecA V-wMO
coo wV.^ "WcCY: \\ CO vpVV'W*\Uo
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 1977
FPA-HS
Agency k ma
-------
Response to Comments fromvLand Conservation_and
Development Commissionr February ll, 1977
1. Additions made as requested. Please see pages 117-118
Also see Position Statement by Jackson County Board of
County Commissioners.
171
-------
Jackson County Oregon Erv2:"s
COUNTY COURTHOUSE / MEDFORD, OREGON 97601
March 11, 1977-
...o \ .\1077
*
fViป. Of **
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 - 6th AVenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Gentlemen:
Attached is the Jackson County Board of Commissioners'
position statement on the Jacksonville EIS, dated December
6, 1976. The statement more clearly describes the County
position and was approved by the Board on March 11, 1977.
In addition to our own statement, you will also find a
report by our senior soil scientist Steve Maurer and
William Dierix, registered sanitarian on the County staff.
Sincerely,
MISSIONERS
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 1977
EPA-PI ซ;
CND:mj
Enclosure
172
-------
March 11 , 1977
JACKSON COUNTY POSITION STATEMENT ; i 7;
' j ป ,
ON U,U
-------
1) THE EXTENSION OF PU3LIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES SHOULD BE COORDINATED
WITH PLANNED URBAN EXPANSION.
2) PROVISION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO PRESENTLY UNSERVED AREAS SHALL
NOT OCCUR UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN A DETERMINATION THAT SUCH AREAS ARE
PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING DENSITIES ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT SUCH
SERVICES.
3) PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO PROVIDING SERVICE TO VACANT LAND CONTIGUOUS
TO LAND ALREADY RECEIVING URBAN SERVICES.
4) WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF REASONABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICES AND COSTS,
NEW WATER AND SEWAGE LINES SHALL NOT PASS THROUGH PRIME AGRICULTURAL
LAND.
5) ALL FUTURE WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH OTHER
URBAN SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADEQUATE ROADS, FIRE
PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, AND STORM DRAINAGE.
Due to the oversizing of the A-l and A-2 alternates beyond the planned densities,
they conflict with policy 1. Furthermore, there has been no determination that
the area is physically capable of sustaining such densities as policy 2 requires.
The land application alternates generally do not conflict with the stated policies.
The "no growth" C-la alternate does not serve growth projections of the study area
and is, thus, deemed to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternate C-2
(forest application) seems to have numerous technical problems which could result
in conflicts with water quality concepts (see attached memo from Dave Maurer).
The long term reliability of the land application systems can be questioned. The
Jackson County Health Department and the Jackson County soil scientist both have
raised some questions about land application since numerous other variables of
ground water, soils, nutrient content, rainfall, all affect successful operation
of the system (see attached rneros).
The no action D alternate does not address the actual current need and, thus,
conflicts with water quality objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
None of the alternates have been thoroughly coordinated with needs for other
public services. This results in a potential conflict with policy 5. However,
current efforts of the City and County in updating Comprehensive Plans will
ultimately address this issue, and thus, represents no significant foreseeable
problem at this time that cannot be overcome in the future.
Alternate A-3 will pass through agricultural lands and will still be oversized.
These potential conflicts will be litigated, however, as Jackson County meets
compliance with State goals.
CONCLUSION
After full evaluation of the alternates with policies and goals identified herein
and others within the Comprehensive Plan, the County believes only alternate C-l
most clearly satisfies the stated Plan policies and LCDC goals, however, alternate
A-3 will likely be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan when compliance is
met with State goals in 1979 or earlier. As such, it represents a reasonable
alternate in the County's opinion. Furthermore, alternate B also represents a
reasonable alternate if it can be proven to be a practical long-term solution given
the physical and contractual variables present in the concept.
174
-------
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - JACKSON COUNTY
3ob Brltzman
David K. Maurer, Senior Soil Scientist
March 1, 1977
Jacksonville Draft Environmental Impact Statement
After careful review of the subject document, I will make the
foli owIng comments regard Ing on I y treatment and dIsposaI a Iter-
natlves which Involve surface disposal.
3- U.S. Forest Service Land
After activated sludge treatment, effluent would be used
for irrigation supplement on a 250 acre tree nursery. It
will also be used for "hardening" of trees in fall and
spring. The Forest Service will drain irrigation water and
recycle It through the use of sumps. However, due to salt
build-up, some water will have to be dumped Into a stream.
Certain water quality standards will have to be met.
I will assume the Forest Service has technically worked out
the feasabllity of the proposed irrigation program.
C-1 - Aerated lagoons with agricultural use
The sewage would be treated by an aerated lagoon and holding
ponds. Treated effluent would then be used to spray irrigate
a 77 acre site, see attached SCS soil map.
Soils on the site and approximate percentage of the total
area are: 39A - Cove clay -25% or 19 acres
4A and 38A - Medford silty clay loam - 75% or 58 acres
The critical question Is: Is this an adequate area to properly treat
the effluent without adverse envIronmentaI (water quality) effects,
assuming proper system design? The following will attempt to answer
that question.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
175
-------
MEM-3AN0UM
March 1, 1977
Page Two
Subject: Jackson/ille Draft Env i ron*nenta I Impact Statement
Ths poorly trained Cc/e clay and It's very slow permeability make
It not suitable. It r,y opinion, for this use. Therefore, only the
53 acres of Medforc silty clay loam will be considered for this use.
Water balance and total nitrogen balance are of critical concern.
Technical Bulletin EPA-433/9-75-00 provided guidelines for making
these determinations.
Maximum allowable ron+hly application rates (water balance) were
computed using and assuming the following:
1) Evapotranspiration was found using PET rates. Table 6A,
"Trie Climate of the Rogue Basin" by Sternes (Nat'I. Weather Service).
2) Tarcolation" is loosely defined in the bulletin. However, it
appears to be roughly equivalent to water supplying capacity.
A ccnserv3ti . = estimate of 14 inches was used. This is assuming
a nigh water table depth of 43 inches. Water table may be higher
especially *-ere the Cove clay surrounds the Medford soil.
3) Precipitati d-. was found on Table 3, "The Climate of the Rogue
3csin" (wettest /ear in 10 years).
It w3S founi tnat t'-e average low application rate for 3 wet months was
about 9 inches and t!".9 average high application rate was about 18 inches.
Assuming the average per person rate of effluent generated per day of
100 gallons, enough area to handle the projected growth Is indicated.
This means that the site is in the "ballpark".
Concerning total nitrogen balance, using the amount of total Kjeldahl
nitrogen snown in the Forest Service test results, Appendix G of EIS
and assuming the concentration was high due to sampling In late summer
anc assuming that aeration will cause a slight reduction due to volatiza-
tion j-i toral nitrogen, tot=l nitrcten concentration of lagoon effluent
will be approxi-r.atel > 10.5
176
-------
MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1577
Page Three
This equates, using the r.ixirr-j-n predicted population, to approximately
280 pojnds of nitrogen per acre/per year. Alfalfa has a nitrogen up-
take rate of approximately 250 (155 to 220) pounds per acre per year,
rescue has a nitrogen uptake rate of approximately 275 pounds per acre.
Therefore, it is felt that with monitoring the ongoing application
rate is reasonable providing corrections are made if necessairy.
You asked rr,e about the one inch per week applicate rate given in E.I.S..
This rate is actually not sufficient to handle the projected population
even if applied on trie full 77 acres all year round. I guess It is a
very rough estimate. However, the answer to the critical question (Is
there enough area for adequate treatment?) is yes, if the system is
designed anj maintained properly. (This also applies to alternative
C-la since mat involves rs growth).
C-2 - Aerated I a:con5 with spray disposal
Treatment *zj\2 ;e tre sarป as in C-l but the effluent would be
sprayed or. an 31 zzre area above the Jacksonville Solid Waste
Disposal site.
Soils in the approximate area, as shown in the SCS Resource Date
Booklet, are:
% of the Area Acres Soil Map-Unit & Name % Slope
45 35 18Q, Brader-Debenger loams 7-20
30 24 IrfclW'VSI'Vea of 2"7
disposal site)
15 12 80E, Vannoy silt loam 12-35
5 A 32F, Voorhies-Vannoy complex 35-60 South
5 (Dan above disposal site
Due to a r.edi-~> to rapid rjrtoff, moderate to severe erosion hazard, and
a relatively low water holding or water supply capacity of these soils
it is felt that trns alternative is not feasible.
177
-------
MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1977
Page Four
Summary
Alternatives B, C-1 and C-la appear to be technically reasonable.
No consideration was given for the need for drainage In the Cove
clay areas. (Alternative C-l, C-la)
Alternative C-2 does not appear to be technically reasonable.
Concerning the E.I.S itself, it did not sufficiently describe the
soil resource as a treatment medium, and it's limitations. The
Jacksonville soil m3p was not an accurate duplication of SCS maps.
All data in this memo was gathered from various references. No
on-site examinations were made. Many assumptions and estimates
W3re used. Therefore, it should not be considered extremely detailed
or accurate.
David K. Maurer
Senior Soil Scientist
DKM:mc
178
-------
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - JACKSON COUNTY
TO: Robert Brltz=san
FROM: William R. Dieriex, R.S.
DATE: 3-1-77
SUBJECT: JACKSONVILLE ESVIROIMEXIAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEW
From an eaviconQe&tal health standpoint* the alternatives A1, A2, and A3
would tend to be the aost acceptable. Our reasoning here is essentially that
connection to the existing valley-wide sewerage system and centralized treat-
ment and disposal tends to rerove the potential for localized sewage disposal
problems. This also allovs for a broader base to support the expense of any
more sophisticated treatment that may be required in the future.
Alternative (B) would be considered as the second most desirable approach because
it permits developnent of a =ore acceptable quality effluent for irrigation or
surface disposal. Alternatives C-l and C-1A would also be considered generally
acceptable. Due to our exceptionally varied soil conditions in Jackson County,
I would feel more confident about any of the land application proposals after
specific site evaluations by Jackson County Soil Scientists. I feel that they
are most faailiar with our soils and could best relate to the potential for satur-
ation and erosion problems and the potential contamination of waters during peak
rainfall periods. Any surface disposal system opens the potential for nuisance
complaints related to ineffective control of the effluent quality*winds, unusual
rainfall or other variables.
Alternative C-2 and D are the least desirable alternatives. The problem with C-2
is the disposal of all the city's effluent above the current landfill site. The
potential here is two-fold. First of all, the drainage from the lands above the
179
-------
Jacksonville Environmental Impact Statement Review
Page 2
landfill site might include areas that would allow surface drainage into Daisy
Creek and thereby through downtown Jacksonville. Secondly, the very nature of
a landfill is that excessive application of water might create a leachate problem
or erosion through the filled area. Alternative (D) is no solution at all and
leaves those homes in the city currently on septic systems without any hope of
resolution of any problems that may now exist or that may develop in the future.
In brief, we can support proposals A-l, A-2, A-3. We can support with some reser-
vations alternative B, C-l, C-1A. We cannot support either C-2 or D.
Please call if we may be of any further assistance in regard to this matter or if
you need further clarification.
Very truly yours,
Williaa R. Dieriex, R.S.
Public Health Sanitarian
WRD:ac
180
-------
11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
GOAL:
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.
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 re-
quirements of the urban, urbanizable and rural areas to be
served. A provision for key facilities shall be included in
each plan. To meet current and long-range needs, a provision
for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert
waste, shall be included in each plan.
A TIMELY, ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT ARRANGEMENTrefers to a
system or plan that coordinates the type, location
and delivery of public facilities and services in a
manner that best supports the existing and proposed
land uses.
RURAL FACILITIES AND SERVICESrefers to facilities and
services which the governing body determines to be suit-
able and appropriate solely for the needs of rural use.
URBAN FACILITIES AND SERVICEStefers to key facilities and
to appropriate types and levels of at least the following:
police protection; fire protection; sanitary facilities;
storm drainage facilities; planning, zoning and sub-
division control; health services; recreation facilities
and services; energy and communication services; and
community governmental services.
GUIDELINES;
A. PLANNING:
1. Plans providing for public facilities and services should
be coordinated with plans for designation or urban bound-
aries, urbanizable land, rural uses and for the transition
of rural land to urban uses.
2. Public facilities and services for rural areas should be
provided at levels appropriate for rural vise only and
should not support urban uses.
3. Public facilities and services in urban areas should be
provided at levels necessary and suitable for urban uses.
4. Public facilities and services in urbanizable areas should
be provided at levels necessary and suitable for existing
uses. The provision for future public facilities and
services in these areas should be based upon: (1) the
181
-------
time required to provide the service; C2) reliability
service; (3) financial cost; and (4) levels of service
needed and desired.
5. A public facility or service should not be provided in
an urbanizable area unless there is provision for the
coordinated development of all the other urban facilities
and services appropriate to that area.
6. All utility lines and facilities should be located on or
adjacent to existing public or private rights-of-way to
avoid dividing existing farm units.
7. Plans providing for public facilities and services should
consider as a major determinant the carrying capacity
of the air, land and water resources of the planning area.
The land conservation and development actions provided for
by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of
such resources.
B. IMPLEMENTATION:
1. Capital improvement programming and budgeting should be
utilized to achieve desired types and levels of public
facilities and services in urban/ urbanizable and rural
areas.
2. Public facilities and services should be appropriate
to support sufficient amounts of land to maintain an
adequate housing market in areas undergoing development
or redevelopment.
3. The level of key facilities that can be provided should
be considered as a principal factor in planning for
various densities and types of urban and rural land uses.
4. Plans should designate sites of power generation facilities
and the location of electric transmission lines in areas
intended to support desired levels of urban and rural
development.
5. Additional methods and devices for achieving desired types
and levels of public facilities and services should in-
clude but not be limited to the following: (1) tax
incentives and disincentives; (2) land use controls and
ordinances; (3) multiple use and joint development prac-
tices; (4) fee and less-thari-fee acquisition techniques;
and (5) enforcement of local health and safety codes.
6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program
to assign respective implementation roles and responsi-
bilities to those governmental bodies operating in the
planning area and having interests in carrying out the
goal.
182
-------
3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS
GOAL;
To preserve and maintain, agricultural lands.
Agriculture lands shall be preserved and maintained for
farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agri-
cultural products# forest and open space. These lands shall
be inventoried and preserved by adopting exclusive farm use
zones pursuant to ORS Chapter 215. Such minimum lot sizes as
are utilized for any farm use zones shall be appropriate for
the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enter-
prise within the area.
Conversion of rural agricultural land to urbanizable land
shall be based upon consideration of the following factors:
(1) environmental, energy, social and economic consequences?
(2) demonstrated need consistent with LCDC goals; (3) unavail-
ability of an alternative suitable location for the requested
use; (4) compatibility of the proposed use with related agri-
cultural land; and (5) the retention of Class I, II, III and IV
soils in farm use. A governing body proposing to convert rural
agricultural land to urbanizable land shall follow the pro-
cedures and requirements set forth in the Land Use Planning
goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions.
AGRICULTURAL LANDin western Oregon is land of predominantly
Class I, II, III and IV soils and in eastern Oregon is
land of predominantly Class I, II, III, IV, V and VI
soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification
System of the United States Soil Conservation Service,
and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking
into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing,
climatic conditions, existing and future availability of
water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use
patterns, technological and energy inputs required, or
accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes which
are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken
on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as- agri-
cultural land in any event.
More detailed soil data to define agricultural land
may be utilized by local governments if such data permits
achievement of this goal.
FARM USEis as set forth in ORS 215.203 and includes the non-
farm uses authorized by ORS 215.213.
183
-------
PLANNING
Urban growth should be separated from agricultural lands
by buffer or transitional areas of open space.
Plans providing for the preservation and maintenance of
farm land for farm use, should consider as a major deter-
minant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water
resources of the planning area. The land conservation
and development actions provided for by such plans should
not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Non-farm uses permitted within farm use zones under ORS
215.213(2) and (3) should be minimized to allow for maximuj
agricultural productivity.
Extension of services/ such as sewer and water supplies
into rural areas should be appropriate for the needs of
agriculture, farm use and non-farm uses established under
ORS 215.213.
Services that need to pass through agricultural lands
should not be connected with any use that is not allowed
under ORS 215.203 and 215.213, should not be assessed as
part of the farm unit and should be limited in capacity
to serve specific service areas and identified needs.
Forest and open space uses should be permitted on
agricultural land that is being preserved for future
agricultural growth. The interchange of such lands
should not be subject to tax penalties.
184
-------
Response to Comments from Jackson County Board
of County Commissioners, March 11/1977
1. Comments noted. The EPA has required that a complete
soils survey be conducted of the land disposal site
for Alternative C-l and C-la. Please see the report
of that survey in Appendix I.
Please see Page 117 regarding compliance with State
Planning goals.
185
-------
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
P. O. BOX 7
JACKSONVILLE. OREGON 07S30
March 17, 1977
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue RECEIVED
Seattle, Washington 98101 , 1
i ,AR u 1 13/1
Attention: Mr. Roger Mochnick, Acting Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
The following position statement on the City of Jacksonville Facilities
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement is hereby being submitted
by the undersigned elected City officials.
ALTERNATIVE "B"
Local treatment by an activated sludge treatment plant and use of
reclaimed water by U.S. Forest Service.
Position: Alternative "B" requires the construction and maintenance
of a sludge treatment plant; maintenance of a nine acre
storage area for the treated effluent, construction & maintenance
of 11,000 feet of 12 inch diameter pipe to a U.S. Forest
Service Tree farm, the use of which can be terminated on
one years notice. He therefore find this alternative unacceptable.
ALTERNATIVES C-l, C-la, and C-2
Areated lagoons with adjacent agricultural use or spray disposal.
Position: 1. Alternatives C-l, C-la, and C-2 offer no guarantee
for a long term solution to a sewage disposal problem
because of the continuously changing environmental and
water quality requirements being imposed in today's society.
2. The alternatives could be the most expensive Jacksonville
ever did because:
a. Cleaning of sedimentation from lagoons usually requires
hauling to a processing plant.
b. The lagoon system will have to be continually expanded.
c. Additional properties will have to be acquired.
d. Maintenance and service of the system by a qualified
sanitarian will be a future expense.
e. The cost of compliance with the continually changing
environmental and water quality requirements will
be prohibitive.
Therefore, wo find these alternatives to be economically unacceptable.
186
page 1
-------
Alternatives, continued
ALTERNATIVES A-l and A-2
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA)
Annexation or lease
Position: These alternatives were considered because of the economy
of serving a natural drainage area. However, it appears the county
planning and others feel that this is not in compliance with certain
goals and guidelines.
ALTERNATIVE A-3
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) within the Urban Growth
Boundary. (Annexation or Contract to be negotiated.)
Position: Alternative A-3 is a long term solution at a reasonable
cost and provides for the orderly development of Jackson-
ville within the proposed urban growth boundaries.
Alternative A-3 supports an established regional sanitary
sewer collection and disposal system within the valley.
The growth expected within our corporate limits and pro-
posed urban growth area will not destroy the historical
values of Jacksonville. There are two commissions set
up and designed to protect this historical character.
We therefore propose and accept Alternative A-3 as being
the most economically and environmentally compatible
solution to the sewer problem in Jacksonville.
page 2
187
-------
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
PHONE (503) 779-4144 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. WE0FOR0, OREGON 9750J
February 17, 1977
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental impact Section, M/S 443
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The following position statement on the City of Jacksonville
Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement has been
approved by the Board of Directors of the Bear Creek Valley
Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) for presentation at the Public
Hearing on February 17, 1977, to be conducted by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA).
General Comments:
We understand and appreciate the importance of the decisions
which must be made by the citizens of the City of Jacksonville
in solving their waste treatment problems. Our primary purpose
in submitting this statement is to present what we consider
pertinent facts either not mentioned in the Facilities Plan
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), or which
have been presented in the documents in a manner which does
not allow proper interpretation upon which to base a con-
sidered decision.
We cannot understand why there were no discussions with the
BCVSA Manager during preparation of the DEIS. There was no
review made of BCVSA's operating policies, financial policies,
current agreements with other entities, etc., which would
have a definite effect on the content of the DEIS, especially
in the case of the A Alternatives.
We know of the concern which many Jacksonville residents have
of maintaining the city's separation from the developed area
west of the City of Medford and of controlling development
both in amount and type. What must be realized, however, is
the following:
1. The Do-nothing Alternative (D), if followed, will
result in legal or financial sanctions against the city which
will be unfair and costly to the citizens of Jacksonville.
188
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
February 17, 1977
Page 2
2. The No-growth Alternative (C-la) is impractical be-
cause there is a growth rate in existence that cannot be
ignored. It would, in essence, continue the moratorium on
building which presently exists and would in effect, render
all undeveloped land in the city valueless to the owners.
One can visualize the resulting legal actions which will be
taken upon removal of development rights without compensation.
3. All the other alternatives including A-l, A-2, A-3,
B, C-l, and C-2 could allow buildout of property within the
present city limits and within proposed urban growth bound-
aries. This development, however, is under the control of
the city through elected officials and appointed representa-
tives and is, therefore, subject to the wishes of the majority
of the voters in the city. Each of these alternatives would
have the same effect on growth within the city.
4. Concerns have been expressed about development in the
area between the lagoons and Pioneer Avenue if Alternatives
A-l, A-2, or A-3 are chosen for funding. These concerns are
most probably based on the following rumors:
a. BCVSA has caused uncontrolled development in
the valley because of its sewers going into undeveloped
areas.
b. Sewers going through farmland place financial
pressure on owners which causes them to take agri-
cultural lands out of farm uses.
The actual facts are as follows;
a. There are 102 new structures connected to all
of the sewers constructed by the BCVSA. This has oc-
curred since 1971 along the 56 miles of sewers con-
structed by the BCVSA, and represents a population of
approximately 347 people.
b. The BCVSA does not assess farmland unless there
is a dwelling on it that can be served by the sewer,
then only an area of one-half acre is assessed. If
there is no dwelling, no assessment is levied.
We submit that based on the preceding facts, the above
rumors are untrue. Control of growth is attained through
189
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
February 17, 1977
Page 3
planning and strict zoning practices rather than by with-
holding needed utilities services. A sewer, in itself, from
Pioneer Avenue to the lagoons will not cause the area be-
tween Jacksonville and Pioneer Avenue to develop. if the
area is zoned "Exclusive Farm Use" as proposed by LCDC, this
would further prevent development of agricultural lands in
this area.
5. Development of the area around Jacksonville, out-
side the present city limits, as envisioned by the Facilities
Planning Engineer in Alternatives A-l and A-2 is impractical
and virtually impossible without extending the present city
sewer and water systems. If Alternative A-l (annexation) is
chosen, the BCVSA would extend the same commitments to Jack-
sonville as it has to the City of Talent. Those commitments
provide that the BCVSA promptly extends appropriate sewer
service to areas developed by the city. Annexation to the
BCVSA would leave all options available to the City of
Jacksonville for planning and development. Foothills de-
velopment may be preferred by a majority of the citizens
of Jacksonville, rather than development on the valley floor.
Of course, with Alternative A-2 (contract) the city
would retain its control over development in the areas around
Jacksonville.
Summarizing these general comments, we feel Alternatives
A-l, A-2, and A-3 will not cause loss of control by the
city or stimulate any more development than Alternatives
B, C-l, and C-2.
Comments on Financial Analysis of Alternatives:
There are two primary reasons why we disagree with the fin-
ancial analysis. First, is that it is impractical to attempt
to compare a pipe line with a treatment facility, and sec-
ondly, that a twenty-year analysis period will not give a
true picture of capital costs. We realize that there are
EPA guidelines for comparing alternatives but if following
the guidelines will not give a true comparison, exceptions
should be taken with explanations noted. The reasons we
disagree are as follows:
1. Sewers, property installed, have a useful life that
is unknown considering the rubber ring seal presently avail-
able and new methods of grade control and construction
190
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
February 17, 1977
Page 4
inspection. Fifty years is commonly used as a minimum life
and a maximum life could be well over one hundred years. To
compare costs for a twenty year period is not appropriate.
2. To say that sewers have a salvage value in twenty
years is meaningless. It certainly would not be reasonable
to dig up a sewer in twenty years and salvage the pipe, in
addition, a sewer in twenty years may very well be worth more
than it was when new and certainly just as serviceable.
For the reasons above, we would suggest that a more reasonable
basis of comparison of capital costs would be to compare costs
over a fifty-year period, assuming service lives as given in
the Facilities Plan are correct, and totalling costs over the
fifty-year period. Such a comparison results in Table I which
is attached to this letter.
A review of the Table will show that either of the A Alter-
natives are less expensive over the long run than Alternatives
B, C-l, and C-2. Also, Alternative A-3 is less expensive than
C-la. We submit that this Table is a more meaningful com-
parison of Alternatives than the methods used in the Facil-
ities Plan.
This comparison is obviously not complete without a discussion
of the operating and maintenance costs (O&M) associated with
the various alternatives. The Facilities Plan analysis shows
O&M costs of the A Alternatives approximately double the costs
of the other Alternatives. It appears strange that under
Alternative A-2, and we assume it holds for A-l and A-3, that
O&M to the Jacksonville collection system is} projected at
$20,900 per year and treatment charges at $31,700 per year,
a total of $52,600, while totals for O&M for B, C-l, and C-2
are $35,400, $36,000 and $46,500 respectively. No breakdown
is given as to how O&M costs are calculated for other than
the A Alternatives. We strongly suggest that the EPA should
request a detailed analysis of these O&M costs because they
have a tremendous effect on the results of Appendices C-l
and C-2 which show the A Alternatives as being much less cost-
effective on a comparison of average annual equivalent costs.
We seriously question the results of the financial analysis.
Comments on the Feasibility of Alternatives:
Extreme caution should be exercised in comparing Alternatives
because the possible actions which may be taken by regulatory
191
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
February 17, 1977
Page 5
agencies and others in the future have not been adequately
investigated in either the Facilities Plan or the DEIS and
could have a profound impact. For example:
1. What avenues are available if Alternative B is
followed and the U.S. Forest Service decides that they do
not desire to continue use of the effluent or require a
higher quality effluent? This Alternative could be obsolete
in a relatively short period of time.
2. Detailed soil analyses and water table investiga-
tions are not noted as having been accomplished for Alterna-
tives C-l and C-2.
3. What are the consequences if treatment facilities
are not operated as efficiently as possible as is the case
in many smaller cities?
4. Impacts have been determined without adequate in-
formation being available as noted in many instances in the
DEIS.
5. An example of what can happen is exemplified in the
current Ashland/Talent situation. The City of Ashland is now
involved in discussions with the City of Talent and the State
DEQ on the effect of dumping their treatment plan effluent
into Ashland Creek and the future effects if Talent is to
use Bear Creek as a source of drinking water. Ashland could
conceivably face a required improvement of effluent quality
after recently spending approximately $1.5 million, or a dis-
posal of effluent somewhere other than in Ashland Creek.
These same types of problems could face the City of Jackson-
ville if the B or C Alternatives are followed.
Final Comments and Recommendations by the Board of Directors
of the BCVSA:
We feel very strongly that the only really feasible alterna-
tives involve connection to the Regional System. It is noted
in the DEIS that regionalization only implies that planning
must be done for an entire region - we disagree. Four cities,
the county and the BCVSA have joined together in solving the
problem of cleaning up pollution in the Bear Creek Valley.
This is true regionalization with all the attendant economies
and cooperative approaches to mutual problems.
192
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
February.17, 1977
Page 6
We also strongly oppose the disposal of effluent in areas
where it could have an effect on water quality in the valley.
$318,000 is being spent through the federally-funded EPA 208
Water Quality Program on improving water quality in the Bear
Creek Valley. All of the streams are polluted and posted
against recreational use. It does not appear wise to further
jeopardize water quality by utilizing treatment plant effluent
in areas adjacent to population concentrations and area water-
ways .
We do not agree with the design criteria used by the Engineer
in Alternative A-3. Experience has shown that the per capita
flow and infiltration and inflow allowances used in the de-
sign are inadequate and could result in overloading during
the expected life of the trunk extension.
In summary, we feel that there are, in effect, only two al-
ternatives: connecting into the Regional System and cooperating
with all other entities in the valley; or, retaining the treat-
ment capability by the City of Jacksonville with all the at-
tendant unknowns and uncertainties. Having open lagoons in
the area is certainly not aesthetically pleasing to travelers
visiting the City of Jacksonville and the areas adjacent to
the lagoons, such as the new Little League baseball fields.
If one of the A Alternatives is selected for funding, we
would suggest that a conference be arranged immediately in-
volving EPA, City of Jacksonville and BCVSA in an attempt to
reach an agreement in principle as to matters of mutual con-
cern that will arise by these alternatives.
Very truly yours,
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
Robert Dunn, Chairman
Board of Directors
RD: gm
Attachment
193
-------
CAPITAL COSTS TO CITY OF JACKSONVILLE , 9
FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE - 50 YEAR PERIOD ' c
YEARS
0 TO 20 25 30 40 5ฃ TOTALS
A-l $555,500 NO ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS $555,500
A-2 $555,500
NO ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS
A-3
$448,700
NO ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS
B
$730,000
325,000
15,000
325,000
Est. 10,000
Est. 10,000
to
UJ
335,000
335,000
>
C-l
$394,500
5,000
5,000
15,000
5,000
5,000
40,800
36,000
40,800
J
10,000
41,000
10,000
to
-------
Response to Comments from the Bear Creek
Sanitary Authority/ February 17, 1977
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. Comment noted.
4. 1. Other markets for reclaimed water would need to be
explored, i.e., agricultural use.
2. See Appendix I for soil analyses.
3. The plant would be required to meet the NPDES
permit requirements.
4. Comment noted.
5. The land disposal alternatives would be approved only
following assurances that water quality degradation
would not occur.
6. The per capita flow and infiltration/inflow allowances
are based on the sewage flows generated during 1973,
1974, and 1975.
195
-------
lOOO FRIENDS OF OREGON
ADVISORY BOARD
Tom McCall, Chairman
Portland
Eric W. Allen, Jr.
Medford
Ray A. Atkeson
Portland
Martin H. Buchanan
Milton-Freewater
Elizabeth C. Ducey
Portland
John D. Gray
Portland
Olann L. Jackson
Medford
Hector Macpherซon
Albany
Pat Straub
Salem
Hall Templeton
Portland
Thomas Vaughan
Portland
Mrs. Robert C. Warren
Portland
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Wade Newbegin, Jr., President
Clackamas
Allen Beteman, Vice President
Klamath Falls
Elizabeth K. Johnson Secretary
Redmond
Joe D. Kershner, Treasurer
Portland
Claudia Burton
Salem
Steven H. Corey
Pendleton
John E. Frohnmayer
Portland
Alfred A. Hampson
Portland
Peter McDonald i
Wilsonville J
Jeffrey L. Rogers
Portland
George Thompson
Neskowin
Martin T. Winch
Bend
Henry R. Richmond, III
Director
March 1, 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
Re: DEIS, City of Jacksonville, Oregon
Wastewater Disposal System
Dear Mr. Thiel:
1000 Friends of Oregon submits the following
comments on the DEIS for the City of Jacksonville's
wastewater disposal system.
We find that alternatives A1 and A2 would
violate the state-wide Urbanization and Agricultural
Lands Goals. The DEIS does not adequately discuss
the impact of Alternatives Al and A2 on urban sprawl
and farmland.
I. Alternatives Al and A2 Would Violate the
Urbanization Goal
The state-wide Urbanization Goal requires cities
and counties to establish urban growth boundaries
around incorporated areas to separate urban and ur-
banizable land from rural. Lands inside the urban
growth boundary are available over time for urban
density development. Lands outside the urban growth
ooundary are 'rural lands:"
"Rural lands are those which are outside
the urban growth boundary and are:
(a) Non-urban agricultural, forest or
open spaces land or
(b) Other lands suitable for sparse
settlement, small farms, or acreage
homesites with no or hardly any
public services, and which are not
suitable, necessary or intended for
urban use." 660 Oregon Admin. Rules,
Division 10, Definitions
RECEIVED
MA.? 2 19//
cpA.r"*
196
519 SW 3RD AVE. - SUITE 407 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE: (503) 223-4396
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
March 1, 1977
Page two
The Urbanization Goal limits urban development to areas
within urban growth boundaries. The Goal directs development
toward areas where public facilities and services are already
available or can be provided economically. Development on
rural lands must be "sparse settlement, small farms or acreage
homesites with no or hardly any public services * * * " 660
O.A.R., Division 10, Definitions.
The City of Jacksonville has not yet adopted an urban
growth boundary. However, Jacksonville has a proposed boun-
dary under consideration which would include approximately
1600 acres.
Alternatives Al and A2 would provide service to an area
of approximately 6,550 acres. Clearly, most of this area lies
outside the area contained within Jacksonville's urban growth
boundary. Assuming Jacksonville will adopt the boundary under
consideration or one nearly coterminous with it, most of the
area in the Al and A2 service boundary would be "rural land"
as defined above.
Extension of municipal sewerage services to areas within
the Al and A2 service boundaries would stimulate urban density
development outside Jacksonville's urban growth boundary on
"rural" lands. Service to rural areas is directly contrary
to the purpose of the Urbanization Goal to control urban growth
and keep the cost of public facilities and services down.
The key to an effective urban growth boundary is "demon-
strated need." The Urbanization Goal states that establish-
ment of an urban growth boundary must be based upon, among
other factors: "Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range
urban population growth requirements . . . . " Chapter 660
OAR, Division 10, Goal #14. Jacksonville's urban growth boun-
dary must be based on a demonstrated need for undeveloped land
to accommodate population anticipated in 20-25 years.
Jacksonville's present population is 2,070. City limits
currently contain 1,274 acres. The projected population for
the Jacksonville area in 1997 is 5,300. The projected 1997
population density within the urban growth boundary is 3.3
people/gross acre. Thus, Jacksonville has a "demonstrated
need" for 1,600 acres within its urban growth boundary.
Using this same analysis, Jacksonville would have to anti-
cipate 21,615 people in the area by 1997 in order to demonstrate
a need for 6,550 acres within its urban growth boundary. Clearly,
Jacksonville does not need and does not want as much land within
its boundary as the Al and A2 service area includes.
197
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
March 1, 1977
Page three
The proposed sewerage system should not serve areas
outside Jacksonville's urban growth boundary.
II. Alternatives A1 and A2 Would Violate the
Agricultural Lands Goal
The Agricultural Lands Goal reads, in part: "Agricul-
tural Lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use."
"Agricultural Land1 is defined as: "in Western Oregon ...
land of predominantly Class I, II, III and IV soils ... as
identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of
the United States Soil Conservation Service ..." OAR Ch.
660, Division 10, Goal #3.
The Agricultural Lands Goal must be read together with
the Urbanization Goal. A city may include "agricultural land"
within its urban growth boundary if it can demonstrate a need
which can only be accommodated by that land. That "agricul-
tural land" may then, over time, be converted to non-farm,
urban use. But "agricultural land" outside urban growth boun-
daries, i.e., "rural agricultural land," must be preserved
for farm use unless an exception to the Goal is taken.
The service area of alternatives A1 and A2 contains "ag-
ricultural land." Although the U. S. Soil Conservation Service
has not yet completed a detailed soils inventory for the Jack-
sonville area, S.C.S.'s General Soil Map shows the majority
of the service area to be "good soil suitable for agriculture"
(predominantly CLasses I, II and III soils).
Extension of sewer service for new non-farm uses to
"agricultural land" outside Jacksonville's urban growth boun-
dary would violate the Agricultural Lands Goal.
CONCLUSION
Alternatives Al and A2 would violate the state-wide
Urbanization and Agricultural Lands Goals. The DEIS does not
adequately address the adverse impact on farmland on the
Jacksonville area and efforts to contain urban sprawl.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA-IO-OR-
JACKSONVILLE-WWTW-76.
^ ^ Very truly yours,
Richard P. Benner Richard Larsen ^
Staff Attorney Assistant
RPB:mlr
cc: City of Jacksonville
Board of Commissioners, Jackson County
William Young,Director, Department of Environmental
Quality
Harold F. Brauner, Director, Department of Land
Conservation and Development
198
-------
Response to Comments from 1000 Friends
of Oregon/ March 1, 1977
1. It is agreed that Alternatives A-l and A-2 would violate
Statewide Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands and Goal 11 -
Public Facilities and Services, as do Alternatives D
(Goal 11; A, 3, 4) and Alternative B (Goal 11; A, 6).
Please see comment responses to Jackson County Board of
County Commissioners and to Land Conservation and
Development Commission.
199
-------
StaqecoacA tie*. *)ซ&.
LAND DEVELOPER -- RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
ASHLAND, JACKSONVILLE. WHITE CITY
P. 0. BOX 57U
Jacksonville, Or. 97530
February 28, 1977
Richard R. Tkiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S UU3
U.S. Envirmental Protection Agency, Region X ncCtiVED
1200 Sixth Avenue MAD n 1Q77
Seattle, Wash. 98101 ,>,MK 0 l3'/
Res EPA-10-OR-JACKS0N-JACK0NSVILLE-WWTW-76 EPA-PJS
Dear Mr. Ihiels
After reading the Material contained in the Environmental Impact Statement
and having attended the public hearing, we would like to present you with our
comments concerning the waste water treatment system for the City of Jacksonville.
Our firm is the developers of Stagecoach Hills subdivision located to the
south of East California Street within the city limits of Jacksonville. The
property involves a total of 125 acres of which approximately 30 acres have been
platted and developed over the past 10 years. The property is hilly and wooded.
It is served by sewer and water provided by the City of Jacksonville. The
average home contains approximately 2,000 square feet with an average value of
~50,000.
Shortly after Unit #3 was platted and developed with streets and utilities
paid for by us, the City of Jacksonville and the Department of Environmental
Quality placed a moratorium on sewer connects. This was five years ago and re-
mains in effect today. As a result, lot sales have virtually come to a standstill.
We feel that the logia&l solution to the sewer problem in Jacksonville is
found in Alternative A-l or Alternative A-3. Either of these alternatives would
provide the City of Jacksonville with adequate water waste disposal both for the
present and in the long-range planning. In addition the alternatives would pro-
vide the most expeditious way of immediately solving an untenable waste disposal
problem that now exists in Jacksonville. It is both physically and econdimicllly
unhealthy to attempt to control growttyty purposely providing substandard waste
water treatment. Further it is financially unsound for the City of Jacksonville
-------
Page 2
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S UU3
February 28, 1977
to attempt to solve their waste water disposal through a lagoon or other
local means when a regional system is available to the City.
Very truly yours,
\
!
. '' ฆ
>ฆ
Kenneth H. Johes
President
KHJ:lj
201
-------
Response to Comments from Stagecoach Properties/ Inc.,
February 28, 1977
1. Comments noted.
202
-------
WITTEVEEN STUDIO
BOX 600 JACKSONVILLE ORE 97530
17 Feb 77
To: Donald P. Dubois, Administrator, Region 10 EPA
from: John Witteveen
Subject: Jacksonville Water - Waste Treatment and Management Proposal
1. Jacksonville has no comprehensive plan. The present General Plan is inadequate
to meet present day conditions in some areas. It also fails to address the important
goal of protecting adjacent farm land from development pressures. .
2. Jackson County has no plan to assure protection of farm lands. Developmental
pressures have seriously jeopardized some of the remaining class I, II, III, and IV
soils in the valley.
3. To support #2, I point out the action by the county commissioners on last July^
wherein they amended the plan to conform to the later coning ordinance because "the
(4la.nning commission was probably wise to adopt the easier method".
4. The July 8 action by the county practically destroyed any serious protection for
the best farm lands and fails to meet the guidelines and goal 14 of the LCDC .
5. A-l and A-2 are strictly the HEJESA boundary line projections and do not meet
the county weak standards. And we see in the Westside Trunk matter alluded to on
page 112 that the BCVSA is attempting to force upon the county its total saturation
projections.
6. The urban growth boundary projected.in B, C-l and C-2 are arbitrary boundaries
set by the county and have NOT been subject of any serious hearings before the people
of Jacksonville.
7. The present drought and the serious potential consequences to the #1 economic
resource of the area, agriculture, certainly point up the disastrous effect of any
solution that will allow for land divisions that will increase the population. Many of
us in planning and certainly the DEQ are aware of an endemic water shortage problem in
this area that the present situation only highlights. In a water quality conference I
attended in 1972 the DEQ representative pointed up this matter. It has since been sup-
ported by the local water master.
8 . Jacksonville has a water problem -- page 109 -? Medford people are /Ewith good
reason becoming restive at supplying the outlying areas with water that promotes
growth and pressures on their streets. For example, the present efforts of Medford
to increase the width of Stewart Avenue. This is unquestionably to meet the pressures
of development caused by the South Medford Trunk, which the EPA subsidized.
9. Ever\ since the working up of the DlilS there has been a great increase in traffic on
238 to Jacksonville caused by the West Medford trunk. There does not seem to be
money available to improve highways let alone provide for a freeway type arterial that
would be needed to accommodate the growth projections presently contemplated.
10. Jacksonville's internal water problem is serious now as you point out on page 109
(last paragraph). You have not addressed yourself to any consideration of possible
needed internal pipe size adjustments to meet growth. An honest appraisal of internal
203
-------
contfhued page 2
To: D. P. Dubois
from: John Witteveen
17 Feb 77
lines would show the potential for many serious^ and costly problems. I believe
that a rough cost projection should be made to let the people of Jacksonville
know what they are getting into here. I also think that a recently installed
water line on the south side does not meet state standards. I am looking into
this since 1 believe that the pipe is transij^e and the state standards as I recall
them require metal.
11. Hie south and west sections of the present city limits encompass some steep
slopes and very tenuous soil conditions. (See USD A survey of Jacksonville soils).
Development of these areas --as permitted by present zoning -- would post a
dangerous runoff problerxj. and pollution of this water going into Daisy and Jackson
Creeks could cause a problem equal to or even more serious and costly than the
sewerage treatment problem.
12. Generally there has been a piecemeal approach to these many problems
caused by expanding sewage treatment facilities and the total tax cost to the
people is NOT clearly stated. There has been a skirting of regulation Z by pub-
lic bodies that would certainly bring severe action if tried by a private party.
13. When one couples the air quality problem with the water and sewer problems
of the area plus the state energy problem and thelogistics of the isolation factor
of the Rogue Valley it seems very hard to rationalize any expenditure of federal funds
to promote growth in this entire valley.
14. Finally, people are getting fed up with subsidizing developers and land specu-
lators who profit and leave and then let the community solve the problems of water,
sewer, police, fire and schools. I certainly plan to fight any attempt to saddle
growth costs on a community still paying for the EXISTING sewer system and
water systems.
JW
tv
204
-------
Response to Comments from John Witteveen/
February 17/ 1977
1. The City of Jacksonville is in the process of finalizing
Urban Growth Boundaries as required by state law. It
is assumed that once the Urban Growth Boundaries have
been established, urban services will be provided only
to those areas defined as urban areas and that* according
to the statewide urbanization goal, lands outside of the
Urban Growth Boundaries will remain rural.
2. It has been recognized in the EIS that the proposed
Urban Growth Boundary has not yet been adopted.
3. Comments noted.
4. The recognition of the present water problem is judged
to be adequate. It is beyond the scope of this EIS to
determine pipe sizing and cost requirements for up-
grading the Jacksonville water system.
5. Comments noted.
6. Comments noted.
205
-------
JOHN WITTEVEEN
POST OFFICE BOX 600
JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 97530
idea
A study that I have made convinces me that theadra of a regional sewer authority such as
the BCVSAhas come to full circle. Time has indicated that the rosy short term benefits
cont emplated haye been replaced by long term, serious disastrous effects.
First the concentration of waste matter into one large treatment facility means that large
quantities of treated water and material are discharged into the river at one point source.
This action places an insurmountable t ask on the natural effects of flow diffusion of the
river.
chlorine
The consequence of great quantities of treated water laden with rijdxKXJts and other treatment
vehicles is showing up in the lower Mississippi delta region. Here the concentration of these
chemicals is posing a growing health hazard. One recalls that it was the chief poison gas
used in world war one. As I recall it was quite effective on soldiers, and they are people.
The sludge is stored for long periods, dewatered, and then disposed of. This concentration
of treated sludge will benefit a certain area then. BUT it robs the larger area of this ben-
eficial material.
Second. Local treatment plants would spread the beneficial use of the water by having it
available inmany areas without the need for expensive pipelines to distribute it. As spelled
out in the DEIS for the Jacksonville project the aerated lagoon system also has eliminated
the problem of sludge.
The "on land" disposition has the great --and vital-- advantage of allowing the water to be used
by people then used for irrigation before finding its way back to the rivers. This system most
aaaBira^&aaidhsisalf) assuredly will make an important contribution to alleviating the serious and
endemic water shortage in the area.
In both the United States and abroad serious efforts are being made to perfect the use of algae
to treat waste water. It is being used successfully in California and in Isreal. Of course,
some grant hungry groups wont want to look into this--no chance to bury the economy and
efficiency in Ivory Tower gobblydegook.
AND, iftftax all of these beneficial consequences of on land disposal are not sufficient to
convince you let me point up the Jacksonville connection cost. On page 148 of the DEIS - -
appendix C-l there is proposed a solution to the Jacksonville problem that will cost just a
little over one third of the cost of joining BCVSA.
You are the responsible elected officials of Jackson County. One of your duties is to protect
the taxpayers of it. Now, if it developsas it certainly does here--that there is a solution
to the sewer problem that is both beneficial to all of the people and at jr the same time would
cost only a little over one third of the BCVSA route I ask you again, halt all BCVSA on
line proposals and explore the possibility of on land solutions. You owe it to the people who
elected you.
Now, what about growth? Very simple. The same table shows a C-1 proposal. This would
allow for a 100% plus population increase. It could be added to C-la with only the cost of
irrigation expansion. So let the developers pickup up the additional 33, 100 plus a share of the
cost of the original project.
You owe it to the people who elected you to stop the BCVSA rip-off!!! Please do it NOW.
Act, do not just observe.
John Witteveen
206
-------
JOHN WITTEVEEN POST OFFICE BOX 600 JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 97530
March 10, 1977
To;
Jackson County Commissioners,
Again, I ask you to make a thorough investigation of BCVSA.
I suggest that in it you may find a scandal as serious as Homestake Mining or Equity Funding
or, better yet like the recently exposed Medicaid and Medicare rip-offs.
As Ipoint out in the attached DEIS on the Jacksonville connection BCVSAisxx- is
Expensive--it costs almost 3 times more than an efficient "on land" system to solve the
same problem !!!!!!!
Maintenance and operation almost 3 and 1/2 times cost of local system.
Monthly cost is 3.80 compared to 1.08 for local system.
Table C-l on page 148 of the DEIS really tells it "like it is" on the bottom line-
Total annual equivalent cost BCVSA 83,000 local system 20,000. This is the real story--
BCVSA would cost well over 4 times as much as local treatmentl!!!!!
And that is on present treatment of XX&XX BCVSA method. It may have to be replaced by a doggone
sight more expensive tertiary treatment soon.
Do not bufthe 50 year gambit. Look at the Jacksonville case. People JfitflgyK bought a
system in 1963--in 1971 it was out of date.
Look at it this way. No sensible businessman would ever buy a project that would take
50 years to break even.
YOU, the County commissioners can show your responsiven ess to your constituents by
refusing to certify that these projects--both Jacksonville and Weatside comply with the
really non-existent comprehensive plan.
All you have to do is *kb tell the truth, really.
Thank
Look at it this way--If you were testifying in a court action could you say, under oath,
that Jackson County has a COMPREHENSIVE plan d\at correlates all of the services and
goals and guidelines of the LCDC?
207
-------
Appendix C-l
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - LOCAL COST
Item
Interest
Factor
A-l
A-2
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
Total capital
cost 1.000
Local share
capital cost 1.000
Interest during
construction
Salvage value 0.30454
Total present
worth
Average annual
equivalent cost. 0.08807
Annual operation
and maintenance
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
735,000
183,800
22,500
-148,100
58,200
5,100
77,900
735,000 730,000 349,500 262,000 317,500
183,800 182,500 98,600
22,500 22,400 12,100
58,200 158,500
5,100 14,000
75,000 35,400
52,700
4,600
36,000
8,500
65,500 79,400
9,000
-148,100 -46,400 -58,000 -42,500
2,800
9,700
-29,800
32,000 59,300
5,200
22,200 46,500
5,000
83,000 80,100 49,400 32,100 20,000 51,700
-------
JOHN WITTEVfE N
P.O. BOX 600
JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 97530
March 11, 1977
Mr. Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region X
Seattle Washington, 98101
RECEIVED
ซWR 16 1877
Subject; Addenda to Jacksonville waste disposal DEIS EPA 910/9-76-034
Dear Sir,
I am addressing this to you with the request that it be referred to the proper parties
for inclusion in the records.
I enclose several addenda to my statement of February 17* I wish to emphasize
especially the following 2 points.
1. Please see item 8 attached. Here you will note that the Urban Growth Boundaries
used to prepare the DEIS have nor been studied or subjected to hearings as required by the
LCDC (Goal 1). Since the boundaries thus have no legal standing: standing this wouldemphasize
my contention that C-la is the only alternate that would have lawful substance. Also the best
one given the fact that 4 of the members of the Jacksonville city council are associated with
the construction business.
2. The County Commissioners voted to accept A-3 and C-l this moring in spite of
my plea to consider the matters proposed in the attached addenda.
The reasoncomments had to be submitted by March 15.
I note on page 2 of the DEIS that a 45 day comment period is to be allowed. I had intended
to seek signatures on an informal petition after asking the Commissioaws to ask for further
time.
Hiey wouldn't but now (March 11) there is not time to seek public response.
Sir, as one who has been actively involved in questioning the cost benefit of the regional
sewer system I appreciate this DEIS. I plan to, and I know many other recipients will also* ^
We have wanted to have* a true cost comparison that would show these figures in parallel.
As a landmark, at least here in Oregon, it really points up the fallacy of the regional
sewer plan being cost effective. I am suggesting that the regional authority could be changed
to be a specialist department that could assur that all plants would be properly maintained
and not be allowed to go overload*
As you may have been informed the water resources of the area are overcommitted now.
Cit, Mr. Dave Hendrix, watermaster. So it does not seem to be in any way cost effective to
build sewers and have no water to put in them.
Thank you, and pardon the rough typing, my secretarty, wife is out of town.
209
-------
JOHN WITTEVEEN POST OFFICE BOX 600 JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 97530
Addendum to my statement re Jacksonville waste disposal DEIS EPA 910/9-76-034
PLANNING.
I'm sure that you are fully aware by this time that there is no comprehensive plan for Jackson-
ville and Jackson County.
The pulling and hauling leaves one with the feeling that the sewer authority does in fact do the
planning. Check South Medford, WestMedford the West Side trunks, and now Jacksonville.
Oregon law places the planning responsibility on a duly formed planning body . NOT BCVSA.
ORS 92.044 requires that all essential services be co-ordinated before land may be subdivided.
On highway 238 east of the Hanley Road intersection there is being installed a multi-diamond
Little League Ball Park. A check with the planning dept. on March 9 indicates that no sanitary
facilities or water has been provided at this time. Here we have a fine example of the type of
situation that is commonplace. Build the project and hope that water and sewer will be provided
by some guiding angel. It appears from contacting the watermaster that the planning dept makes
little effort to use knowledge of water resources.
his
Impact.
Based on the summary on page 125 alternate C-la is the logical and most cost effective proposal.
It is least costly to the taxpayersboth local and thru federal grant money.
It is most effective in that it
1. provides for a beneficial use of the water.
2. minimum impact on the community.
3. removes a potential health hazard.
4. gives the people of the community time to decide on how much growth they want thru
effective planning
e
Table C-l am. on page 122 for the first timVreally spells out the fact that the regional sewer
authority is a horribly inefficient and ineffective and damned expensive solution to waste
treatment. It certainly is a wasteful handling of a resource whose real scarcity is only now
becoming apparent. I have been trying to pinpoint this comparison for some years now. This
DEIS makes it clear. And based on the fact that Medford is even looking at the waste treatment
disposition and the need for the second phase of the treatment system the quoted BCVSA figure
is most certainly going to be way low.
Mr. Charles F. Luce, former chairman, National Water Commission, states in an article in
the February 1977 issue of the 1000 Friends of Oregon Newsletter:
"If the Nation is to achieve wise and iefficient use of its water resources, the identifiabledsKkxx
beneficiaries of water service should be made to pay the cost of providing the benefits they
receive."
COST BENEFIT
Capital cost BCVSA J36 $735,000 (A-l)
Local system C-la $262,000
Annual Maintainence BCVSA
& operation
77,900
$ฎcปbix
Local system costs 36% of BCVSA about 1/3 !
Capital cost saving of 64%
Local system
$22, 200 local system cost
about 29% of BCVSA
MKK9GX
Monthly Cost BCVSA (A-l) $3.80
C-la (local system ) J$ 1.08 again about 30%
of BCVSA
When coupled with the important on land use benefits of local irrigation it becomes obvious
that the ONLY cost benefit practical solution is C-la. > , <./
210 - John Witteveen
Again, thanks for a very enlightening experience. And I feel sure that many of us will retain
our copies of the DEIS as an absorbing document
-------
JOHN WITTEVEEN
POST OFFICE BOX 600
JACKSONVILLE, OR. 4& 97530
March 15, 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington, 98101 RECEIVED
Subject DEIS--EPA 10 Jacksonville waste water treatment DEIS Dec. 1976. MAR 2 1 1877
Mr. Roger Mochnik, Acting chief, EIS rrป *.*"ป
Deqx Sir,
I cannot reconcile the average monthly cost as determined from table 22, page 114
with thefigure shown on page 148 appendix C-l
Table 22 shows monthly cost per connection under C-la to be 1.08, or about 13.00 a year.
Appendix C-la page 148 shows an annual operational and maintenance cost of 22,200.00,
Based on a load of 650 connections this figures out to 26.46 per connection per annum orabout
$2.20 a month per connectiin. This after deducting the $5,000.00 annual net return on crop.
Can you please reconcile these figures for me?
I would also point out a second item. On page 120, first paragraph a statement is made
that none of the alternatives will result in a major tax burden on the people of Jacksonville.
I do not feel that this is a correct statement for the following reasons:
1. Talk of a new high school is in the works. Any increase in population will mandate action
in this area.
2. The highways to Jacksonville238 and Ballinger Lane - Stewart avenue are now showing
signs of over travel. And the road departments are finding trouble maintaining present roads
without adding other routes.
3. With development of the south and North hillsides a major storm sewer project will be
needed.
4. As the DEIS points out the present water system is barely adequate. Poor past engineering
could make the updating of the system expensive.
5. A neighboring community - Eagle Point found quite an impact after the had made the
commitments. City taxes rose to 9.98 pet thousand. When one compares that with Jacksonvilles
1.83 I am sure that there would be a really dramatic impact.
Finally Mr. Robertson collins shared with me his copy of the Honey-Hogg report. It certain-
ly seems to address itself to concerns in my previous comments to you. And especially the
need for for time to get the true picture of impact and costs to the citizens of Jacksonville.
Any action without this procedure would be contrary to Oregon statutes mandating citizen
input on thesse matters .
c
Jacksonville is a signifigant part of Oregon's history. I would anticipate that the EPA
would consider any project that could have adverse impact on the city and its people who live
there because they love it.
.Any JSewer Droject that would accomodate growth could have a very serious impact on
the whole Rogue Valrey in view of serious water shortages.
I v , ; t
211 ' ''' v *
-------
Dear Carol,
The County Commissioners have an "inward directed" attitude to correct too.
In this Jacksonville matter the County has made a decision on urban growth boundaries then
like Edie Amin has said "you like". Hiere has been no effort on either the county or the city
so far to get citizen input.
So now your whiz kids come up with a cave-in to BCVSA and say this is it, period?
Again, how can the county decide urban growth boundaries for Jacksonville in direct conflict
with state statutes--(Senate Bill 10, 1969--Senate bille 100, 1973.
John Witteveen
ton; Bacon Siphon and
Sewage proposal
at Jacksonville
The Jackson County Plan-
ning Commission has reached
a conclusion on the proposed
alternatives for solving
Jacksonville's sewage dis-
posal problems, ftecom-
mendations will be made to
the County Board of Com-
missioners that:
The construction of
reated lagoons with adjacent
agriculture use of the treated
sewage "most clearly
satisfies the stated plan
policies and'Land Conserva-
tion and Development Com-
mission goals."
Annexation to the Bear
Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority with a limited ser-
vice area is thought likely to
be in compliance with the
comprehensive plan when
compliance Is met with state
goals.
This alternative was not
presented to the public by the
Environmental Protection
Agency in time for planning
commission study before a
Feb. 17 EPA hearing.
The planners have stated
that that local treatment and
use of reclaimed water by the
U.S. Forest Service also
represents a reasonable
alternative if it can be proven
a practical long-time solo*
tion. The water would be used
at the Forest Service tree
farm between Hanley and Old
Stage Roads.
The Forest Service has said
that its position on the ttse of
the water is that there are
certain limitations such aa,
that if chemicals In the water
become unmanageable, an
agreement with the city can
be cancelled on a year'
notice.
The County Commissioners
have until Tuesday to agree or
disagree.
ปr
ป t
in I
;
* I
\K< i ฆ TI
212
-------
JOHN WITTEVEEN
Jackson County has 3 natural resources. Agriculture, Forest and Tourists. The growing awareness
of the need to protect resources shows up in the stores and in the builders figures as he
quotes on a new home.
c
You have a significant interest in Jacksonville as the largest property owner
The permanent green belt will solve the problems of providing food for the population, pleasure
for the senses, and an efficient use of a scarce resourcewater.
t
It would seem that here we have a logical and imperative need for green belys. Remember
how it was a few years ago? Farms all around the city and a beautiful sunday afternoon at a
park?
Nostalgia, which is only learning from history, can be useful.
213
-------
The citizens of Jacksonville have had no input on any "growth boundaries"
1. consequently you cannot certify that it complies with the LCDC goal no. 1
2. Jacksonville has no comprehensive plan that integrates sewer, water, streets and
other critical services to the general plan and zoning ordinance. Again, how can you
certify that this project does comply with ano-existant plan?
* : ca
.Cv-ived scholastic honors at , i
a.. <*, Brunswick, Me. ' fcf
p\
ProipMf ป ok* fire board candidate* u
Those Interested In running for ฆ petition on the ฃ
Procpect Rami Fire Protection Dtstrtct bonrtf m aqfod, '
to attend a meeting at 7:90 p.m. Monday in the polic
Ubrป7 ฆ *,*; ?
Jacksonville will review boundariei '
The Jacksonville city Council and Plamtfag Coroanta-
tlon have agreed that more Information from citizens Is
needed before urban growth boundariaa are established.
Material already compiled wiU be discarded and a new
start made. A meeting date will be set
Eagle Point Council approved license
Hw application by Kenneth Fisher and Jefcn Pellegrto.
new owners of the Town and Country Market, for a
package sales liquor license has received approval from
the council. State approval will be needed also.
Program will feature Bear Creek
John La Riviere, of the SOI water quality task force,
will present a preliminary report on Bear Creek's water
quality at a meeting of the Jackson County chapter of the
Isaac Walton League at 7:30 p.m. Monday In the Red
Cross Building, AO Hawthorne St., Medford. The public is
invited.
* j 77
214
-------
Response to Comments from John Witteveen,
March 11/ 19TT
1. It was recognized in the Draft EIS that the Urban Growth
Boundaries have not been adopted.
Response to Comments from John Witteveen,
March 15/ 19T7
2. Your computation is correct. The figure of $1.08 was
mistakenly derived by applying the projected 1987 popu-
lation of 3,975 persons (1,7 06 connections) under a
7 percent per annum increase rather than the projected
population under no growth (650 connections). With
Alternative C-la, the monthly cost per connection will be
$2.21 rather than $1.08.
3. It was judged that by themselves, none of the alternatives
would represent a major tax burden. The list of potential
projects the city might undertake is endless, all of which
would contribute to tax increases.
4. Comment noted.
215
-------
260 Coachman Drive
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
March 10, 1977
Mr. Roger Hochnick
EPA
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RECEIVED
MAR 14 19??
Dear Sir:
This is in reference to the Jacksonville, Oregon,sewer situation which was
discmssed at your public hearing in Jacksonville, February 17, 1977s
At this point, we would strongl" urge you to refra5n from making any
decision at this time for the following reasons: Jacksonville does not
yet have a comprehensive plan, and it does not appear that it will have
in the immediate future. The people of Jacksonville are not yet well
enough informed of the various alternatives to make a decision. As a
result, thpy will vote down any bond issue placed before them.
The socioeconomic study by Hogg/Henajr is deficient in several respects,
yet it does seem to arrive at a striking conclusion: that construction of a
major sewage disposal system would be premature at this time, despite the
existing Hater quality problem. The study acknowledges that the project will
induce growl',h which would not otherwise occur, and that such growth will
profoundly alter Jacksonville's historic character is recognized by us; the
consensus in Jacksonville is that such rapid growth is undesirable. The study
further found that the people of Jacksonville have not been adequately in-
formed about the growth-inducing potential of the project- that the project
will force a growth pattern on the community which will likely be inconsistent
with the plan when it is adopted. In short, the report strongly suggests that
Jacksonville is just not ready for this project.
216
-------
A conclusion appears on page ฃ0 of the Hogg/Honey report: "More tine and
on wastewater disposal systems. The city must be given ample time to do a
public preferences,"
Ore further comment: we gathered from the statements of one of your people
at the public hearing that he was not convinced of the validity of the
historic aspect of Jacksonville at this tine. He is either hard to con-
vince or very uninformed. Jacksonville was delared a National Historic
Landmark by edict of the Federal Government. That is also the principal
factor in the livability of the city.
economic resource should" bo'alloted to the issue before a decision is made
more thorough" evaluation of its land resource, growth potentials, and
Very truly yours,
ฆurtis Vlesheim
Margaret Nesheim
217
-------
Response to Comments from Curtis and Margaret Nesheint/
March 1Q# 1977
Comment noted.
218
-------
March 11,. 1977
Enviromental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attn: Richard Tbiel
Subject: Jacksonville, Oregon sewage problem
Dear Mr. Thiei:
I am writing to you with ray suggestions and comments concerning the
Jacksonville sewage problem. The problem is an obvious overloading
.rf the present lagoon system which creates an even more serious problem
as far as X and many of the residents of my street are concerned. The
odor* from ths ponds is so offensive on Winema way that I literally
cannot open my bedroom window at night. If something is not done soon
I will be forced to sell my house and move, if in fact I can sell it
with the odor that Is present most all of the day and night. I would
be forced to file suit against the city of Jacksonville to recover any
loss I nay encur on the sale plus general damages.
I would not be so upset except news reports indicate that the city may
elect to do nothing about the problem because of a fear that either
connecting to BCVSA or installing their own plant nay creat a rush of
new construction in Jacksonville, a thought that is not very popular
in the city.
I don't understand why the city is trying to regulate growth by the size
o" the sewer line or system. The only sensible way to regulate growth
is by planning, soiling, and building uoretorium, not by the pipe size
to the sewer plant.
The city owning and operating it's own sev7er plant doesn't appeal to
rae, as there is really no suitable place - round Jacksonville that is
not oriented to homes and people. I can not remember a sewer plant
that doesn't have some odor at sometime and I for one would object to
any sewer plant and or lagoon system near my home.
The only sensible solution to the problem is to connect to the regional
system, (BCVSA) and once and for all be done with the problem. The
city of Jacksonville has a right away from the exsisting ponds to the
Jacksonville along Daisy Creek next to the new Med ford Little
League Fields which was exchanged for some road usage rights for the
Little League.
RECEIVED
MAR 1 7 1977
EPA-pic;
219
-------
The only real objections to this regional concept appears to be polit-
ical and childish. Both objections are ridicules and should have |\o
bearing on the path that the ciy of Jacksonville must take to prevent
any further uollution of the air.
The situation as it is now stands, is unbearable. A solution must be
reached now! The connection to the BCVSA system appears to be final
and the most e^aiAitous way of solving the problem for all concerned.
Thank you for your interest and we hope for an early correction of
the problem.
i!r. and Mrs. Dale Olsem
149 V/inema way
Jacksonville, Ore
220
-------
P. 0. Box 362
Jacksonville, Ore
March 12, 1977
Mr. Roger Mochnick
"E .v,k,
1200 6th Ave.
RECEIVED
MAR 1 7 1977
Seattle, Washington
98101
EPA-HS
Dear Sir:
I wish to comment on the alternatives listed in
the Environmental Impact Statement draft for the city
of Jacksonville, Oregon, ฑb regard to the solution of
their waste water preblems.
I feel the alternatives A.-1 and A-ง proposals to
connect to the BCVSA are undesirable to the city due to
the high cost of joining and maintainance. Also I feel
that it would have an adverse impact, due to rpf>id growth,
9>n the historical quality of Jacksonville. The city
would have an added "burden of paying off the bonds and
interest on the present งฎwer system. Bondst^ftat are
now "being retired from interest and a portion of the
monthly sewer charge. We would lose local control of
our sewer system.
Alternative "BM, Wastewater application on Forest
Service land seem3 a "bit risky,/ I am referring to
*fr. Donald Smith, Forest Supervisor's letter of Oct.4,
1976, in which he stated th'vt the forest Service re-
served the right to cancel out within one year should
the chemical content "become unmanageable, '"his nay not
be a problem but evidently there is such a possibility.
Alsternative C2 - A feinted Lagoons with spray dis-
posal, I feel is more acceptable than A-i and A-2.
However, I would question the wasting of a potential
resource that could be used to irrigate farm land,
thus returning some revenue to the city.
Alternatives CI and Cla are the more desirable
in my opinion with Cla being more acceptable to the majority of
citizens of Jacksonville.
Respectfully yours,.
Peoidant of J'viUe l|, years
221
-------
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 1977
February 17, 1977
EPA-F'S
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
Gentlemen:
After reading the information documented from
studies made for the City of Jacksonville to dispose
of waste water:
It seems the most feasible solution to the problem
would be annexation to the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority.
This alternative would have advantages of having
longer life of 50 years and complete maintenance of the
sewer system inside of Jacksonville boundaries.
A lease may leave an option that could be terminated
and would not maintain the system inside the boundaries
of Jacksonville.
The other alternatives seem to have many risk factors
due to the unpredictable future:
Changing environmental regulations in the future.
A possible problem of maintaining an acceptable
water quality control for irrigation or spray
systems.
There seems to be many phases with a short-term life
such as 10 - 20 - 25 years incorporated in the irrigation
and spray systems. Also these would be dependent on energy
sources, whereby BCVSA would be gravity flow into an established
system with a treatment plant all ready in use.
222
-------
ftlcHMD R.Tftiecchief
ฃTWฑ RC/iMEHTA<- IMPQct SECTION
DtM AMI, THIEl ;
1 HAVE JUS7 COMPLFT&D READING THE"
ENVIRONMENTAL JMfiQcT STA7E^ENT) AMD FEET
COMPETED TO WRITE TO you RE6A RD IN6 ITS
CQH7EP\T. WE THAI HEREIN '!JyiLuE'^HSOl
THE QUH1N T small. TCiViiA 77V 0 S PHEflE THAT
EXIST HERE AHD ME All TO /)U'ARE OF T
CoM?i-E*IT1 OF THE Pf!0&lEMS THAT PRESENTS
TH^JTRS^cu^ JTN RE&AtJD To U.A%TEH'A7ฃ'R PISPO'^QU
2F1T WERE ONLY THE Pftot3i. tAl CF u/ASTEU/A-TEft
DISPOSAL IT Li'OHUfy ($E~ AldCU EASIER TO R&AcH
A DECISION, 6UT TM7 J~S HOT THE O? V.- WERE,
WE A fiE FACED U '-l TH TH6r PROSPECTS O F UNffEsT
RfilNED POPULATION GflOuUTH.AND C,iic, 50
I AM SUITING you TO OCICEMl PREFERENCE TO
Alternative c-j/t this.^ctemawe in /m
Opinion js THE BE^T FoR Jacksonville 17 P/fcfv
GNTS the
-------
VJLl To WdT [2>ฃuฃl oPMenTAc fiasco rp/fT
Has Q>eFei-c- so aiwY OTPฃ~l\ Small tcujhs.
HO. /rAIWftOfl/lldfrtMC IMPACT Sl47irMet\T(iฃ:P. .4, 1/0/T-?&>-csh)
)j/=hi sjncEuii icms,
224
-------
Response to Comments from Mr, and Mrs. Dale Olsem,
March 11# 1977"
Comments noted.
Response to Comments from John S. Sullivan,
March 12# 1977
Comments noted.
Response to Comments from Ralph and Ruth Lawrence,
February 17, 1977
Comments noted.
Response to Comments from Dale Stait,
February 4, 1977
Comments noted.
225
-------
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
2637 S. W. Water Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97201
COMMENTS OP THE OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONI1ENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT, SEWAGE DISPOSAL
PROJECT, CITY OP JACKSONVILLE
March 8, 1977
The Oregon Environmental Council is pleased to have, an opportunity
to comment or the DEIS for the Jacksonville project'. Tp supplement
pur in-house review, we solicited the assistance of r*r. Jon Deason,
former County Commissioner for Jackson County, whose term of office
expired at the end of 1976. His record of dedication to sound land
use planning, his unfailing accessibility to the citizens of Jackson
County, and his grasp of the cross-currents of popular feeling in
the county have made his assistance invaluable. Mr.- DeasonTs comments
follow:
The simple strength of the environmental impact, process is the
requirement that the solution to a problem be selected only
after looking at it from all possible viewpoints. This is not
the normal process of the individual mind. It is certainly not
the process that has dominated consideration of Jacksonville's
sewer problems to date. The diversity of strongly held opinions
and the resulting polarization have led in the opposite direction
When the Oregon Environmental Council asked-me to review and
comment on the draft EIS, I jumped at the. chance. Here is an
area where the EIS process can prove itself as an invaluable
tool for problem solving. Here is also an area where the EIS
process can fail completely. I firmly believe that the EIS
must weigh public opinion equally with cost and physical impact.
As a county commissioner, I came into close and sometimes
acrimonious contact with this strong and diverse public
opinion. It is within this frame of reference that I have
reviewed-the alternatives.
GENERAL CONTENTS
I found the draft EIS to be generally well written and pro-
fessionally done. The one exception is in the section headed
ECONOMY. fiach of the subsections (AGRICULTURE & FARMING.
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, and EMPLOYMENT) (pp33-37) appear to have
been written by different people who did not check with each
other. These sections may not actually contradict each other,
J but lacking the normal flow of standard terminology and
statistics, they appear to. Here are some examples:
(1) ECONOMY- "almost half of the local Jacksonville work
force is engaged in logging or lumbering. A nearly
equal number of people work in agriculture around
Jacksonville, but do not necessarily live there."
(p.33)
(2) AGRICULTURE-: & FARMING "estimates of a farmer-farm
226
-------
PAGE 2
Jacksonville DEIS
manager population of 12 persons and agricultural work
foi?ce of slightly over 55 persons." (p.3*0
(3) CORHEF.CE ft INDUSTRY-". . .this places an estimate of
the Jacskonville work force at approximately 500 persons,
about 12% of whom are estimated to be employed in Jackson-
ville ." (p.35)
COrffffiRCE & INDUSTRY-'.'... it is estimated, that there
ilsf'in'Jacksonville a work force of approximately 120
persons, half of vrhom are in manufacturing or processing
of wood products and the other half in retail or wholesale
trade or commercial enterprise." (p.35)
An EIS is still regarded by many as a threatening and confusing
collection of jare-on. The above sections will not help resolve
that belief.
ALTER! I AT IVES
The alternatives divide into two basic categories: (1) hook-up
to the regional sewer system (BCVSA) and (2) recycling the
effluent. Both entail advantages and disadvantages insofar as
the environment,cost, risk and other factors are concerned.
The fact that they balance as closely as they do, puts a high
probability on public opinion in Jacksonville as being'the
deciding factor. Because of this, I would like to see the
following points of.public opinion in Jacksonville mbre openly
discussed in the EIS:
(1) There is a strong belief that the approaches, to the
.city will be destroyed by strip development. There is
very little trust that county zoning will prevent it.
(2) There are strong anti-BCVSA feelings in Jacksonville.
^3)t There is fear th;.t hooking up to BCVSA will remove
control of growth along the line.
CU) There is a segment that favors growth and commercial
development, with the only' control being private enter-
prise. This group is clearly in conflict with sentiments
recorded above. It is interesting to note that even this
group has some distrust of BCVSA, mainly for cost reasons.
(5) There are strong anti-County feelings in Jacksonville,
for reasons too numerous j to list, .^'any are historic.
Some people resent the outside control* others fear the
lack of control. Most county politicians do not go to
.Jacksonville.
/
227
-------
PAGE 3
Jacksonville DEIS
ALTERNATIVES A-l, A-2, A-3 (BCVSA Annexation or lease)
Of these three hook-up alternatives, A-3 by far best meets the
unique combination of needs for Jacksonville. The specific
contract for.a limited service area (A-3) relieves growth and
zoning fears'. The 15-inch pipe relieves some anti-BCVSA fears.
A-3 best spealcs to the urban growth boundary and Jacksonville's
autonomy issues.
ALTERNATIVE C-2 -Aerated Lagoon with spray disposal.
There are two serious problems with this alternative that in
my opinion should remove it from consideration. First, as the
EIS points out, there could be down-hill runoff problems.
Second, there would be a high use of energy to pump the effluent.
This is both costly, and wasteful of a limited resource.
ALTERNATIVES C-l & C-12-Aerated Lagoon with Adjacent Agricultura
Use. This could be a viable solution, but from the limited
soil and ground water data, I would fear a risk of failure by
saturation or chemical buildup.
ALTERNATIVE B-Local Treatment and Use of Reclaimed Water by
Forest Service. Of the three recycling alternatives, this
appeals, best. (1) The flow would be gravity. All pumping,
monitoring of chomical buildup and maintenance of mechanical
systems would be done by the Forest Service under strict
guidelines. (2) The Forest Service needs the water.(Note
that alternatives C-l, C-la and C-2 essentially dispose of,
rather than use the water).
These benefits of Alternative B m^st be balanced with a frank
admission of the risks, The Forest Service has made it clear
that it would r.ot take the water if there is a boron or o*;her
chemical problem. Thus the city would have to treat the water
to Forest Service Standards or risk shut-off, in which case
the city would have an immediate and serious problem.
CONCLUSIONS
This EIS raises several interesting and important issues about
sewerage disposal.- There is the issue of recycle-and-use,
versus treat-and-discharge. There is the specific issue of
cost and other impacts on a small town. There is a third issue
that must be addressed concerning the existing BCVSA regional
sewer system. This system was designed to serve a large and
growing area. Vfhat is the responsibility of Jacksonville to
this system?
I enjoyed reviewing the EIS. I rejoice in not having to make
the final decision.
) c 1 \ f \
228
-------
PAGE 1
Jacksonville DEIS
The Oregon'Environmental Council adds its somewhat less
cautions endor?:: ft .of Alternative B. _Water is a scarce
and precious commodity in this, thirsty valley. j\: plan which
recycles waste water and puts it to productive u6e is in-
novative and imaginative. This could be a sufficiently
yaluab-e prototype to warrant whatever precautions pust.be
taken by Jacksonville' to ensure tl-.-.t the waste water meets
standards set by the Forest Service. The savings available
to the Forest Service throuoh this plan, rather-than having;
to. purchase irrigation water for the new tree nursery should
be- sufficient to .warrant its close cooperation with Jackson-
ville Authorities to ensure success ;of the plan. We hope that
this.alternative 'will be selected.
ELB /eft
229
-------
Response to Comments from the Oregon Environmental
Council/ March 8, 1977
1. Changes to text were made as necessary.
2. The subjects you wish discussed are, as you noted,
public opinion. Consequently/ they constitute issues
that are often perceptual and without using extensive
survey techniques difficult to portray as data. The
intent of the EIS is to provide sufficient factual infor-
mation to make informed judgements in regard to individual
opinions.
230
-------
To: City of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
/ad: U. S. 2nvironr-iental Protection Agency
Eocion X
roadie, Vfarrh. 9ol01
Attn: Donald P. Dubois
Deer !'r. Dubois:
I cm writing this in re^f-rd to the Environ.- entnl Impact Stctor.ent in
refnrd to the Jacksonville Serrate Fi-oble-i, dated D.vce^bcr, 1976.
This is eone-v/hat incomplete on Impact f-.nd Cost fr.ctors end I tvill go
into this, one step at a tine, stm-tin^ vdth the misconception of
cost tmd ending up on ^hvironrcntnl I-r.pp.ct, o.ntf finally, Livability
in tho Conniujiity.
Starting with Pซฃe &> alternative r.-l !t A-2 Service Area, ell this land
north and west of Jacksonville City Units. This is ironed 0SR5 - OSR 20
03R40 end 0SP160. So tliis is in no verty on the feasibility list for con-
sideration end alternative B, C-1GC2 "ovvlco Area ''oni;iฃ ,fap, parje 47,
ficure 9 is incorrect as the Y/cstnont Height on the Para Dice Ranch is
I lioted es R-l-6. This should be R-F-40 as the entire Fura Dice Ranch
area consisting of 85 acres inside the city limits hos a deeded re-
striction of a niniiaun of one acre, also it should be noted the Para Dice
Ranch Development has no plans for a regular cevrer need at this tiiricand
for sonฉ tine to come. City water is available and all buildings are
placed on from one to five acres and pare usinฃ septic tanks and have no
need for severs at this ti::.e.
(rU,i /ฆ % ^
i vU'*
February 14# 1977 1 (1
VJ") {}*ฆ'
231
-------
IT EI 2
I ttIII now go to Pace 70, Table 12 alternative A-l BCVSA annexation
The cost of 735.000 ia in error. The coat of engineering ha3 been
duplicated ao the 735.000 should show leag 147.000 or a corrected coat
of 5S8.00Q. How as I look at the figure of the ejunusl operation and
nraintenance coat of 77,900 tbio eeen3 reasonable enough, and could not
be ratched by the City of Jacksonville and this seens the way to go.
This could quite likely be loss as the Par a Dice Ranch Development,
a land araa of 65 acres has no interest in sevrer service and will not
heve for sonio tire to oone.
ITEM 3
Pare 72 - table 13 - A-2 BCVSA
This would be quite lilcely the sane as A-l, coat 5ฃฃ,000, with one exception.
I"intonajiCQ. This ia Hated as 75.000. This figure is quite low as the City
vroulil not be able to maintain the sower for leas t'nnn #0,000 por year, so in
all practicality, A-2 should be the saro A-l snd the Ccfpitll Cost for a 50-year
lifetime would be 53S.OOO. As we look north of the Jacksonville City liraits
vre have a pear orchard end cast a ne\7 pear orchard, thftn the Little League
ballpark and exclusive farm. This eoens the nost attractive and practical
vny to ฃo.
-------
ITE/f 4
Page 75 - Table 14 - alternative 13
.Activated sludro pncka.?ฉ plant and discharge to U.S. Forest Service tree
farm. Total capital cost 730.000. This figure la low. The 11.200 feet
of 12" diameter outfall line would cost no less than 169.000 In place of
133-000 or a total of 765.000.
Sites and easonent3 should be 60.000 Instead of 31.000. This totals up
to 734.000. Added contingencies v.411 bring the estimate to 300.000.
As cone to annual operations end maintenance costs this Is certainly
out of i_orportion. Here the city has 426.200 in capital cost of build-
ing and equipment, fences, and so on. A. standard nalntenenca cost figure
of 10? per year is notnal.
Here we have 42.620. So we can now odd 42.620 to a sub total of 35.400
and case up with an operations and i^-lntenance cost of 76.020. Again,
Operations ft Maintenance is about the ss.
-------
ITEM 5
Fage 77 Table 15 - alternative C-l
Irrigation of 77 acres of alfalfa. Here we have a total capital coat of
394.500 end annual operations, and maintenance cost of 36,000. This
r^aln ia a low estinate as the 200.000 equipment at 10> is 20. OOOpovrar
for p-^pinr estimate 2.000 Labor 30.000 or en operations expense and
:r,drvtennr.ee cost of 52.000.
ilcrr aฃain we have a ZD-yezr plan end cc/--pared to the 50-year plan of BCV3A
this alternate C-l would cost 700.000 in a 50-year period.
Kere we have no sludge removed so it is quite likely we could end up with
a trace rineral buildup and a^ain be left without a feasible and "usable
system. This could happen within 2 or 3 years, not forgetting possible
contamination of wells end other soils.
Also this statement about precautions being" tn'ren aa runoff would be
avoided and wells would be installed to r.onitor the groundwater level
umJer the irrigation area. At this point there is no co.Tnittment r.ade
as to.what would happen should ground vrnter he undesirable or at a high
level. Would we then ฃo to tho expcnce of annexation to DC7"A? This
should be spelled out.
234
-------
itsm 6
Page SO - Fi
-------
Final Comments and Answers
Article by J. E. Greaves and E. G. Carter of the Agriculture Experiment
Station in Utah discovered that both eracronification and nitrification
usually are at their highest when the soil contains 60 percent of its
water-holding capacity; increasing moisture to 80 percent reduces nutri-
fication to 10 percent, arraonification to 44 percent and nitrogen fixation
to 90 percent.
And again, overset soil fats, waxes end re3ins
The hericelluloses and celluloses rot irore slowly. Carbon, dioxide and
water are only partially fercaented and renain as organic acids.
Again in Washington County Sludge application.
Here again, the qucstion:will long-term application of sludge cause an
accujaulation of heavy metals such aa zinc, lead and ntercury that will
become toxic to plants?
Mike Cropp - Washington County. One 40 acre field that was seeded to
clover was ruined by the sludgejescessive salts in sludge may have been
toxic to the clover.
236
-------
Response to Comments from Richard Hein,
February 14, 1977 "
1. The zoning map on page 48 represents the most recent
depiction of City of Jacksonville zoning and is con-
sidered to be accurate. Any questions you may have on
zoning should be directed to the City of Jacksonville.
2. These changes were made in the addendum to the Draft
EIS, page 72 and in the Final EIS.
3. Changes have been made as necessary.
4. The costs of these alternatives were derived by
T. Flatebo and Associates/ Inc., the facilities
plan engineers. The costs were based on the best
available information for equipment, materials, land,
etc. It is recognized that inflation will likely be
a factor for any construction in the future.
237
-------
Mr* *H>chiifd 9.
ANTHONY NETBOY
POST OFFICE BOX 4SO RECEIVED
JACKSONVILLE. OREGON 97830
PHONE (BOS) 809-1973 |^j
January 22, 1977 "
This is my comment on the draft environmental impact statement for a waste-water
system to be located in the city of Jacksonville* Oregon, Jackson County, Oregon.
This comprehensive report on solutions for providing Jacksonville with an adequate
sewer system does not, in my opinion, take adequate account of the history and
character of the community, a national historic landmark, one of the few in the
state. This landmark status has been achieved because Jacksonville has more authen-
tic functioning Victorian buildings, many 100 years old, both residential and commerc-
ial, than any city in the state except Portland. The attitude of the citizens of
Jacksonville towards their town and their future is well expressed on pages 26-27:
The majority of the residents are not opposed to a slow, well defined, and well
controlled growth. This majority would prefer a controlled growth with the
maintenance and expansion of historical features. No isolatable faction or
individuals support wholesale and rapid residential, commercial, industrial
or offrier development for the city.
This well-phrased statement is the key to any consideration of ways to solve
the sewer problem and the allied water supply problem that is ignored in the ฃ1^*
The people of our town want to retain the charm and rural atmosphere; they do not
want developers moving into the foothills to build ticky-tacky housing. Ihey wish
to keep Jacksonville a community of one-family homes witiyio more trailer courts,
no factories of any kind except small craft shops, no more shopping centers. They
do not wish their town to become(tfaceless city like Central Point, Eagle Point,
Phoenix, Talent, etc.
The many people who have moved here in recent years do not want development
in the usual American sense because they have fled from places in Oregon, California
and elsewhere that aee suffering from this phenomenon--and many of the old-time
residents agree with them. '.'hat they do not want is a sewer system to support
6,000 persons, or triple the present population, that wiuld bring with it additional
traffic, schools, gas stations, shopping centers, flimsy housing developments,
and the social problems that accompany growth. Therefore there is no basis whatso-
ever for the statement on page 3 of the iilii attributed to the State Historic Preser-
vation office that "the 3CV3A project would not adversely affect the city's character."
VJhy this office should make such a ridiculous and untrue statememt is beyond my
belief. The historic landmark status would be in jeopardy if this kind of growth
should befall the city--such status ean easily be lost if the designated historic
district's integrity is lost.
In view of all these considerations the Environmental Protection Agency should
abandon consideration of Alternatives A-l and A-2, which clearly the people do nflt
want, as it would inspire excessive and rapid growth. Indeed, it is questionable
whether under the law that governs your operations EPA can finance a plan that in effect
would sewer valuable farmland and take it out of production--as you are planning to
do in promoting the BC/SA's scheme to extend its West Medford sewe r into the country-
side.. Congress, I believe, did not authorize your agency to destroy needed farnland
for the sake of permitting villages to grow into small towns and small towns into
eities, mostly for the benefit of builders and developers. Jacksonville people
want none of this; nor can they afford it.
238
-------
Netboy
page 2
In the Light of what I have 'said, Alternative C-la seems to be the best solution
to the city's sewer problem, aerated lagoons with adjacent agricultural use*
I would like to point out an important misconception on page 35. The statement
that "while tourism is a very important activity in Jacksonville" "the financial
return from visitors is not 3reat" is ridiculous. There were 130,000 visitors to
the Museum in 1975. These are the people who keep the downtown merchantsthe gift
shoppes, liquor store, candy stores, art galleries, and even the bakery and delicat-
essengoing; without the historical attractions the downtown areitwould wither on
the vine, as it did before the era of Victorian restoration* I have not seen any
data on the economic impact of this visitation but it is safe to sajr that^ per capita
spencOng by visitors averages $3*00 to ?5f00, or $390iป.000"$650,QOO,F<'"rials is a sub-
stantial sum.
Finally, I think the wording in the final sentence of Appendix 2, "Jacksonville,
today, is once again marked for population growth, but the attraction is of a different
nature," should be qualified. We cannot stop all growth but we want the slow, careful
kind that preserves the unique charm and liveability of the city. We do -not want
greedy developers to move in, as they have in surrounding towns, to build barrack-
like apartment dwellings, such as the so-called "planned unit development" ( locally
called ''Garbage Dump Estates" because it would overlook the landfill) which the city
council has given approval to in concept (an approval which we think is illegal as it
violates the city's comprehensive plan).
We want toe SPA to hel^fetain the intrinsic qualities of the city, not help to
destroy them by financing projects like the BCVSA hookup that is eagerly sought by
a small aroup of local property owners and builders but is anathema to the majority
of the residents.
Thank you for considering these comments.
liincerely yours,
hr. Tปichard Thiel, chief
Srivironmental Impact Section
EPA
seattie, Wash.
239
-------
February 17, 1977 University of the OWE Mind
/ BARDO Institute
' 810 north Fifth Street - Box 264
Jacksonville, Oregon 07530
URANTIA
29. v;e propose the application of our collective educations
TrTd intelligences towards the resolution of Jacksonville's water
and sewage problems.
Specifically; we suggest the use of the existr-nt sewage pools
with'The reveral adjoining tracts of lend as a primary recourse
for a biological garden.. This Includes a town zoo and botanical
greenhouses. The eewsge would be used directly to support the
growth of r.any kinds of living creatures.
Sani tation; our staff will perform the rioroMological analyses
of the human sewage end monitor the suecops in converting our
excreta into soil* It is well known that human feces can be used
to trow a rich variety of plants, including ones good for our
consumption.
Agriculture; the biological garden would provide r-n example' of
Fow~to make the transition from morx-tyj ic to r> ulti :C5 c agriculture.
It would provide seeds for local inhabitants.for Rare and
end angered^Oregon tpeoies of animซls end pi ants,/would find a
refuge wih,Gcin this framework. V.rork of a healthy'f-nd satisfying
kind would be provided in terras of gardens for children of all
ages.
Ecology; Fundamentally, we human beings cat and so doing defecate.
Tfie" issue hence is cleaning up our own backyard. If every tine
we urinate we waste 5 gallons of water we get droughts. Both
livuid and solid wastes need to be cycled into our local eco-
systems. A rightuseness of the plumbing is essential. Urine
should be diliited 3-fold and put on home gardens (particularly,
cabbage family of plants). Solid wastes should be composted
with a mixture of soil, leaves, sawdust and lime (1:2:1:2:0.1).
Then the mixture should be watered;fortunately soil will arise
in a few weeks. Those with less interest or ingenuity in these
matters can still sigjffificsntly help in the balancing of the
doings of our days.
Government; If the doctor and the teacher, the preacher and the
major," the policeman and the retired engineer, the writer and
the housewife would get together with the artist and the scientist
for a few meetings, then we can figure it out.
Time; The future includes tomorrow, ten yeas from now, the next
century {which is a new Age), on to infinity. Our childrens
childrens children deserve a beautical healthy world in which to
know themselves. Jacksonville is an his6orical town and with
vision it could indeed make history.
A3 en Charles Venet
Linda Cornn? Stlvester
OAn Patrick Horris
Alan Mitchell Kaouler Fh.D.
Solar and Undiscovered fuels; libra Systems end the Cultivation of life ; To Further PEACE ON EARTH
-------
Hn-s /t/jyove P<-7~ >v:
Tlzrrff , -v
^yau/y .'I fgu&--> ฆ'*
^; S~& ฐ^Cijt.^isL'i. 'U f'^-~-C^l^ ^>\.C )
ฃ>'H'-VW .'^ 7U ^rv ^Y .C^4U\.
* - ^ ' * ; -\ ฆ /, J
y^-f < ~7'-^ ฃVu.%w-j xL*- "7?: :i
/
-j y;: *v-^_
. ///./. - ./^"^t*i.\__'.
;-^u/7" 7>-c ฆป*-< i-3- 7
. 4 -ssL /z^'i.UU. w-^ฃo t-rC-O-.
./ /
241
-------
Response to Comments from Anthony Netboy,
January 22, 1977
1. The State Historic Preservation Office has not yet
established a position regarding any of the alternatives
set forth in this EIS. Their earlier position is not
relevant to this EIS.
2. Tourism does undoubtedly have an economic impact on
Jacksonville; however, the majority of those tourist
dollars go to Medford where overnight and eating accom-
modations are provided.
Response to Comments from the BARDO Institute,
February 17, 1977
Comments noted.
242
-------
ROBERTSON E. COLLINS
JACKSONVILLE, OREGON 97530
MARCH *ป, 1977
CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION
M/S kkl U. S. EPA, REGION X
1200 SIXTH STREET
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
DEAR SIR:
AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE QUITE A BIT TO SAY ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT YOUR OFFICE PREPARED FOR THE SEWER PROBLEM IN JACKSONVILLE,
OREGON.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: I AM A TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. I AM ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY
IN AMERICA. I AM FREQUENTLY CALLED IN AS A CONSULTANT AND LECTURER ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN SMALL TOWNS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY: ONE OF THE"
TOP PEOPLE IN PRESERVATION IN THE WEST. JOHN FRISBEE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FOR THE NATIONAL TRUST IN SAN FRANCISCO WOULD BE THE TOP. I AM OLD
ENOUGH TO BE HIS FATHER, BUT PROUD TO BE HIS PROTEGE. ASK WES UHLMAN,
MAYOR OF SEATTLE, ABOUT ME.
AND NEVER MAKE THE MISTAKE OF FILING ME AWAY AS SOME CRANK. I AM A VERY
PROGRESSIVE PERSON. I HAVE HELPED NUMEROUS SMALL TOWNS PRESERVE THEIR
HISTORY AND GROW IN THE PROCESS. OVER THE PAST 1*ป YEARS I HAVE DONE AS
MUCH AS ANYONE TO MAKE JACKSONVILLE GROW. IF THERE ARE CULTURAL AND
ECONOMIC VALUES IN JACKSONVILLE TODAY, I HAVE DONE AS MUCH AS ANYONE TO
IDENTIFY THE CULTURAL QUALITIES AND TO CREATE THE ECONOMIC VALUES.
THE STORY OF JACKSONVILLE IN THE LAST 1 YEARS IS THE STORY OF THE
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
TODAY JACKSONVILLE IS ONE OF THE THREE MAJOR TOURIST SITES IN SOUTHERN
OREGON, (CRATER LAKE, SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL AND JACKSONVILLE.)
BUT NOW WE ARE THREATENED BY THE RIP-OFF ARTISTS WHO WANT TO CASH-IN THE
TREASURE. PEOPLE WHO LACK THE VISION AND THE WILL TO PROTECT OUR PATRIMONY
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS HAVE CHARGED YOU TO PROTECT
THE CULTURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THIS COUNTY. IN JACKSONVILLE,
IT SEEMS TO ME, YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THE REASONS FOR YOUR OWN EXISTANCE,
IGNORED YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES, IGNORED YOUR OWN CONSULTANTS, AND
FAILED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
RECEIVED
AJAR 7 1*77
243
EPA-PIS
-------
PAGE 2
FOR NOW, I WANT TO TALK ONLY ABOUT YOUR IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE CONTENT
OF YOUR PUBLIC PRESENTATION. I AM NOT COMMITTED TO ANY ONE OF THE
ALTERNATIVES DESCRIBED. IT IS TERRIBLY PREMATURE FOR ANYONE TO DISCUSS
ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE BASIC INFORMATION FOR MAKING SOUND
IMPACT JUDGEMENTS IS SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE.
THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PROCEEDED SO FAR ALREADY, WITHOUT BASIC INFORMATION,
IS MY REASON FOR WRITING.
THERE IS A SEWER PROBLEM IN JACKSONVILLE. THERE IS A WATER PROBLEM.
A TRAFFIC PROBLEM. AND AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROBLEM.
BUT YOUR PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE DEVELOPED TUNNEL VISION. (OR SHOULD WE SAY
PIPE VISION IN THIS CASE?)
JACKSONVILLE IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC SITES AND PLACES.
MORE THAN THAT, IT IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK. TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY,
IN THE CATALOGING OF OUR NATIONS CULTURAL ASSETS, JACKSONVILLE HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED AS HAVING SUPREME IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE IMPORTANCE COMES OUT OF OUR HISTORIC PAST; THE RECOGNITION IS NOT JUST
A BRONZE PLAQUE. WHAT IS BEING RECOGNIZED IS THE FACT THAT THIS PART OF OUR
NATIONS PAST MUST BE PROTECTED SO THAT IT WILL BECOME ALSO A PART OF OUR
NATIONS FUTURE.
( I AM STUNNED AND DISAPPOINTED THAT I WOULD HAVE TO Bfc LECTURING A FEDERAL
AGENCY THAT CALLS ITSELF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN THIS FASHION.)
THERE ARE 1200 OR SO NATIONAL LANDMARKS. THERE ARE FEWER THAN 10 NATIONAL
LANDMARKS THAT ARE DISTRICTS WHERE PEOPLE STILL LIVE. THE VIEUX CARRE IS
A NATIONAL LANDMARK. PARTS OF CHARLESTON, SAVANNAH AND ANNAPOLIS ARE
NATIONAL LANDMARKS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE COUNTRY LIKE JACKSONVILLE,
OREGON. JACKSONVILLE REPRESENTS A SINGULAR ENSEMBLE OF RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL 19TH CENTURY BUILDINGS AND RURAL SPACES, INTACT, STILL USED,
IN PRIVATE HANDS.
I IMAGINE IF THERE WERE SEVEN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF BIRDS LIVING IN
JACKSONVILLE, EVERYONE WOULD MOBILIZE ALL KINDS OF ACTION TO PROTECT THEM.
PUT THEM ON AN ENDANGERED BIRD LIST, CREATE A WILDLIFE PRESERVE. WELL
JACKSONVILLE IS A RECOGNIZED ARCHITECTURAL PRESERVE. IT HAS NEVER SEEMED
SO ENDANGERED AS IT DID THURSDAY NIGHT WHEN YOUR PEOPLE WERE DESCRIBING
YOUR SEWER STUDY.
AT THE PUBLIC MEETING, NOTHING IN THE WHOLE EVENING EQUALLED THE FIRST FEW
MINUTES WHEN ONE OF,YOUR PRIME EXPERTS SAID, "WE ALL HAVE HAD TROUBLE
DESCRIBING "HISTORIC QUALITIES"". I MAY NOT HAVE HIS QUOTE EXACT. CHECK
THE TRANSCRIPT, AND ALSO MY COMMENTS TO HIM.
TO REPEAT THOSE COMMENTS: HISTORIC QUALITIES ARE RATHER CLEARLY DESCRIBED
BY THE NATIONAL REGISTER OFFICE, THE NATIONAL LANDMARK OFFICE AND THE
PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
I AM NOT SURPRISED YOUR MAN DIDN'T KNOW. BUT HE SHOULD KNOW HOW TO FIND
OUT. AND THIS LACK OF BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORIC AREA SHOULD
244
-------
PAGE 3
BE PART OF THE EIS. ACTUALLY NO ONE KNOWS. NOT ME. NOT THE CITY
OFFICIALS. NOT THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON. NO ONE.
BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SURVEY OF THE LANDMARK AREA! I CANNOT
SAY THERE IS AN IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC QUALITIES AND YOU CANNOT SAY THERE
IS NOT, BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF US HAS THE BASIC FACTS UPON WHICH WE
COULD MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC REPORT MADE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO THE FACT THAT THE
BASIC SURVEY WORK OF THE HISTORIC AREA HAS SIMPLY NEVER BEEN UNDERTAKEN.
THERE SHOULD BE A SURVEY MADE OF THE TOWN TO SPOT, RESEARCH, DESCRIBE,
PHOTOGRAPH AND CATALOG THE BUILDINGS AND SPACES IN THE LANDMARK AREA AND
ON ITS PERIMETERS.
THIS SURVEY SHOULD THEN BE EVALUATED BY PRESERVATION EXPERTS.
BASED ON THIS SURVEY, ORDINANCES SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND ADOPTED THAT WILL
DESCRIBE A PROTECTIVE PROCESS FOR WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND AND EVALUATED.
A LOCAL COMMISSION SHOULD BE CREATED THAT WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
THIS ORDINANCE. QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE DEFINED AND
INCLUSION OF EXPERTS FROM THE OUTSIDE, IF NONE ARE AVAILABLE LOCALLY, SHOULD
BE PROSCRIBED.
THIS COMMISSION SHOULD THEN PREPARE GUIDELINES AND PUBLISH CRITERIA THAT
WILL ASSURE THE PROTECTION AND THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDMARK AREA.
ONCE ALL THIS IS DONE, YOUR PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC QUALITIES
AND STATEMENTS ABOUT IMPACT OR LACK OF IMPACT OF FEDERAL DOLLARS COULD BE
MADE.
8UT NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN JACKSONVILLE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A
SURVEY OR AN EVALUATION. ONLY A TINY SECTION OF THE TOWN IS UNDER A
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL HAVE GENERALLY IGNORED OR
UNDERCUT THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. A SAD TALE. THE LANDMARK AREA
AROUND THE CORE IS ONLY COVERED BY A WEAK DESIGN APPROVAL ORDINANCE.
BUT IT IS A FACT YOU CANNOT IGNORE. YOUR OWN SOCIO-ECONOMIC REPORTS NOTE
THIS. AND YET YOU DARE TO PUBLISH A STATEMENT THAT EVALUATES IMPACT ON
THE HISTORIC AREA, EVEN RATES ALTERNATIVES FROM ONE TO SlXi I AM DYING
TO SEE THE WORK PAPERS ON THAT!
WE WILL BE RETURNING TO THESE SUBJECTS IN FUTURE LETTERS.
ITEM: THE CHARTS TALK ABOUT MONTHLY CONNECTION COSTS FOR THE VARIOUS
ALTERNATIVES. BUT, IN MEDFORD, BESIDE THE MONTHLY CHARGES, THERE WERE CHARGES
FOR "NEW" AREAS JOINING BCVSA. THESE WERE NOT MENTIONED. PLEASE CLARIFY.
ITEM: THE JACKSONVILLE CITY MANAGER SAID THE PRESENT JACKSONVILLE SEWER
SYSTEM WAS BUILT FOR 1600 PEOPLE. THE MORATORIUM WAS PUT ON AT ABOUT 1730
PEOPLE, AS I RECALL. HE REPORTED WE NOW HAVE 2030 PEOPLE USING THE SEWER.
AND THE OWNERS OF LAND DOWN-STREAM ARE THREATENING TO SUE BECAUSE OF THE
RUN-OFF ODOR.
245
-------
PAGE A
PLEASE SEND ME THE CORRECT FIGURES ABOUT THE MORATORIUM COUNT AND THE
PRESENT COUNT.
WHO ALLOWED THE GROWTH AFTER THE MORATORIUM?
DID YOUR OFFICE KNOW THAT CONNECTIONS WERE BEING MADE AFTER THE MORATORIUM?
DID YOU APPROVE THEM? DID YOU CONCUR?
I THINK YOU OR THE STATE DEQ OFFICE CREATED THIS PRESENT RUN-OFF PROBLEM.
ITEM: YOUR PEOPLE SAID THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
THEY ALSO SAID, "NO GROWTH" WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
PLEASE EXPLAIN CLEARLY WHY THE EPA WOULD MAKE THESE STATEMENTS.
ITEM: THERE WERE A FEW REFERENCES TO THE IMPACT OF THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
ON LOWER IMCOME PEOPLE. PLEASE AMPLIFY.
ITEM: YOU SAY YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE TOURIST
INDUSTRY IN JACKSONVILLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SALES TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING?
THERE ARE FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS ON HOW TO LOCATE, TRACE AND EVALUATE
TOURIST DOLLARS: IT IS EASY. IT IS DONE ALL THE TIME. TOURISM IN OREGON
IS A MAJOR INDUSTRY. I AM SHOCKED AT YOUR STATEMENT. IT MAKES ME QUESTION
YOUR CONSULTANTS AND YOUR OWN ABILITY TO REVIEW THEIR WORK.
BILL PATTON AT THE OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION IN ASHLAND
CAN TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT AND WHO HAS DONE IT PROFESSIONALLY FOR HIM.
ITEM: 1. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE STUDY
TO DATE.
2. PLEASE TELL ME THE SOURCES OF THESE FUNDS.
3. AND HOW HAS THE MONEY BEEN SPENT? YOUR TIME, JONES 6 STOKES,
AND ANY AND ALL SUB-CONTRACTORS TO YOU OR TO JONES AND STOKES.
*~. ARE ALL THE PAPERS AND WORK-PAPERS IN YOUR OFFICE?
ITEM: I HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC REPORT AND I FEEL THAT
THERE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DELETING OF SOME OF THEIR BASIC
CONCLUSIONS WHEN YOUR PUBLISHED STATEMENT WAS PREPARED. IF YOU CARE TO
COMMENT ON THIS FEELING OF MINE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT; IF NOT, I WOULD
UNDERSTAND.
NOW, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME FULLY THE NEXT STEPS YOU PLAN.
I INTEND TO REGISTER EVERY KIND OF OBJECTION AND IN EVERY POSSIBLE DIRECTION.,
I NEED TO KNOW YOUR TIME SCHEDULE. FROM NOW ON, I WANT TO BE NOTIFIED OF
EVERY DEADLINE YOU HAVE FOR REVIEW OR ACTION.
I HOPE I HAVE HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD SUFFICIENTLY TO HAVE YOUR ATTENTION.
NOW, LET US TRY TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE. IT IS A ROLE I PREFER.
1. THE CITY MUST GO THRU THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION STEPS OF SURVEYING,
EVALUATING, LEGALIZING, OPERATING AND PUBLISHING.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SPEND FEDERAL DOLLARS IN OR AROUND A NATIONAL LANDMARK
WHERE THIS BASIC WORK HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES AND
246
-------
PAGE 5
FOOLING THE PUBLIC.
MAYBE YOU COULD PROVIDE THE MONEY TO FUND THIS PRESERVATION SURVEY WORK.
IT IS FUNDAMENTAL. IT IS SQUARE-ONE FOR YOU AND FOR THE CITY AND YOU HAD
BOTH BETTER JUMP BACK FROM YOUR UNTENABLE PLACES IN SQUARE-NINE AND DO
THIS BASIC WORK.
THERE ARE OTHER CHORES, BUT YOU WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BASIC INFORMATION TO
BEGIN PREPARING AN EIS FOR A NATIONAL LANDMARK DISTRICT. AND MOST OF THE
OTHER PROBLEMS AND OPTIONS WOULD BEGIN TO FALL INTO PLACE.
2. YOU AND THE CITY HAD BETTER TAKE A SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN
THE CITY. IT MIGHT SAVE YOU A LOT OF MONEY. THE LAST ONE INDICATED
PEOPLE DID NOT WANT THE TOWN TO GROW. THE WAY THEY VOTE ON SCHOOLS AND
BONDS, I WOULD SAY THAT WAS STILL TRUE. BUT YOU HAD BETTER FIND OUT FOR SURE.
YOUR OWN CONSULTANT ADVISED YOU TO DO THIS AND DEPLORED THE LACK OF DIRECTIVE
AND FUNDS TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS.
IT IS SILLY TO TALK ABOUT $500,000 SEWER PLANS AS EVEN BEING CONCEIVABLE
IF THE SURVEY POINTS OUT THE PEOPLE SIMPLY WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THEM.
3. YOU HAD BETTER FIND OUT THE EXACT SCOPE OF THE HEALTH AND ODOR PROBLEM
AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
AND THEN DETERMINE WHO ALLOWED THIS HEALTH AND ODOR PROBLEM TO DEVELOP. WAS
IT THE DEQ FOR ALLOWING NEW CONNECTIONS AFTER THEY HAD ORDERED A MORATORIUM?
WAS IT YOUR OFFICE? WAS IT THE CITY OFFICIALS FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN OR
OPERATE THE PRESENT PLANT PROPERLY?
YOU HAD BETTER FIND OUT. AND FAST. THERE IS A POTENTIAL HEALTH DANGER. THERE
IS A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE DETERMINED AND A LIABILITY TO BE CONSIDERED.
k. YOU OR THE CITY SHOULD FUND A STUDY TO ANALYZE THE PROPERTY VALUES IN
JACKSONVILLE AND EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 HAS SOME'TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT NEW BENEFITS FOR
PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS
ARE STILL BEING WRITTEN, BUT MR. JERRY ROGERS CAN GIVE YOU A COPY OF A
PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT. MR. ROGERS IS ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE OF
ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240. THE NATIONAL
TRUST IN WASHINGTON HAS ALSO RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE
IMPLICATIONS FROM THEIR COUNSEL.
THE BASIC SURVEY ET AL THAT I DISCUSSED MAY WELL BE REQUIRED BEFORE BENEFITS
ARE AVAILABLE IN JACKSONVILLE, BUT WHATEVER THE FINAL REGULATIONS, IT WILL
HAVE A DRAMATIC BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN JACKSONVILLE AND A CHANGE
IN THE CITY'S FUTURE.
5. THE ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE AN EVALUATION OF THE TOURIST INDUSTRY
TO THE CITY, IF NOT A SEPARATE STUDY SHOULD BE MADE.
7
-------
PAGE 6
6. I WOULD WONDER IF THE MEAT RENDERING PLANT IN JACKSONVILLE ISN'T A
SINGULAR PROBLEM FOR A LAGOON SEWER SYSTEM? IT IS THE ONE BUSINESS IN
TOWN THAT IS PUTTING A UNIQUE AND DIFFICULT EFFLUENT INTO THE SYSTEM. I
WONDER IF LAGOON SYSTEMS CAN TOLERATE THAT KIND OF INPUT OVER THE YEARS?
7. YOU SHOULD GET LEGAL OPINIONS ON THE "NO ACTION" AND "NO GROWTH"
ALTERNATIVES.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD FUND A STUDY ON THIS. YOUR PEOPLE STARTED IT BY
MAKING FLAT OUT STATEMENTS THAT BOTH ARE ILLEGAL.
YOUR MAN SAID THAT A "NO GROWTH" ACTION BY THE CITY WOULD CONSTITUTE A
"TAKING" FROM THE OWNERS OF PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND AND THAT THESE
OWNERS COULD SUE THE CITY FOR DAMAGES. HE ALSO SAID "NO GROWTH" HAD BEEN
RULED ILLEGAL BY THE COURTS. PLEASE PROVE J FURTHER, YOUR PEOPLE AND OTHERS
KEPT SAYING THAT THE'NO ACTlON'POSITION WAS ILLEGAL. I ASSUMED THEY
MEANT THAT THE DEQ OR YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW THINGS TO STAY AS THEY ARE. BUT
THEY CONTINUED TO SAY THAT THE CITIZENS OR THE CITY ITSELF WOULD BE LIABLE.
SEPARATELY, I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT YOU SHOULD PIN-POINT JUST EXACTLY WHO
DID CREATE THE PRESENT OVERLOAD AND RUNOFF PROBLEM SO ANY SUIT CAN BE
PROPERLY DIRECTED.
I THINK YOUR PEOPLE OWE THE CITIZENS AN APOLOGY FOR IMPLYING DANGERS OF
LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS. I AWAIT YOUR EXPLANATION EAGERLY, BUT BETTER,
WOULD BE A PULL STUDY OF THESE FASCINATING AND COMPLICATED PROBLEMS.
8. THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLEARER, SIMPLER, FULLER, EXPLANATIONS OF THE
COSTS TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. THE TOTAL COSTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT COSTS
THEY CAN EXPECT FOR SCHOOLS, WATER, ROADS, ETC.
9. AND (BUT NOT FINALLY, I AM SURE TO THINK OF SOME MORE AND HOPE YOU
WILL TOO), THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLEAR REVIEW OF THE WATER PROBLEM. IF I
UNDERSTAND IT, THE PIPE BRINGING WATER FROM MEDFORD IS AT CAPACITY.
SO, IF THERE IS TO BE AN ENLARGED SEWER, THERE HAS TO BE AN ENLARGED
DELIVERY PIPE OR INCREASED STORAGE IN TOWN AND MORE PUMPING CAPACITY
FURTHER, THE PRESENT IN-CITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. AS I HEAR, HAS CERTAIN
DEFICIENCIES OR LIMITS. AND THE CONTRACT FOR WATER FROM MEDFORD ONLY GOES
TO 198^1 WHAT DOES MEOFORD FORESEE FOR JACKSONVILLES GROWTH? IT SEEMS
TO ME THIS AGAIN, IS ALL BASIC INFORMATION.
SO FAR, YOUR APPROACH, THE DEQ'S APPROACH AND THE CITY'S APPROACH TO
JACKSONVILLE'S PROBLEM HAS BEEN LIKE A MAN WHO CAREFULLY PLANS WHAT CLOTHES
HE WILL WEAR WHEN HE GETS OFF THE AIRPLANE IN LONDON, BUT HAS NOT YET
FIGURED OUT THE AIRPLANE SCHEDULES AND HAS NOT BUDGETED MONEY FOR THE
TICKET OR FOUND OUT THAT HIS WIFE IS BUYING CLOTHES FOR PARIS !
AGAIN, I DO WANT TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE. IT WOULD SEEM THE FIRST THING TO DO
IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE PRESENT "NO ACTION" POSITION CAN BE EXTENDED WHILE
ALL THIS PLANNING AND RESEARCH IS BEING DONE. WHOEVER CREATED THE HEALTH
PROBLEM, SHOULD BE PIN-POINTED TO PAY FOR THE TEMPORARY CORRECTIVE STEPS.
AND THEN, WE ALL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO .
248
-------
PAGE 7
JACKSONVILLE IS A SENSITIVE PLACE. A VALUABLE PLACE - CULTURALLY AND
FINANCIALLY. IT CALLS FOR TENDER AND PROFESSIONAL CARE. IT HAS HAD AND
WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE NATIONAL ATTENTION. LET US DO SOMETHING FOR THE
FUTURE OF JACKSONVILLE THAT WILL ENHANCE IT'S VALUE AND IT'S NATIONAL
REPUTATION.
MY TELEPHONE IS 505-66^-3313 OR AT HOME 503-899-1888.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
CC: DAVE TALBOT, SHPO, SALEM
ERIC ALLEN, EDITOR, MEDFORD
DEQ, SALEM
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JONES 6 STOKES - SACRAMENTO
HOAG S HONEY - CORVALLIS
LCDC - SALEM
HENRY RICHMOND - 1000 FRIENDS - PORTLAND
ROY BASHAW - ATTORNEY - MEDFORD
JAMES BIDDLE, PRESIDENT NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION -
WES UHLMAN, MAYOR - SEATTLE
JOHN FRISBEE - NATIONAL TRUST - SAN FRANCISCO
BILL PATTON - OSFA - ASHLAND
WILLIAM MURTAGH - KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER -
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ROBERT GARVEY, DIRECTOR - PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL
ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
JAMES REDDEN - OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL - SALEM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARK HATFIELD
BOB PACKWOOD
JIM WEAVER
GOVERNOR ROBERT STRAUB
HORCE J. SHEELY - NATIONAL LANDMARKS OFFICE - N.P.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
249
-------
Response to Comments from Robertson Collins,
March 4, 1977
1. It is recognized that there has not been a survey of the
historic resources of Jacksonville. For a national
landmark, such a survey certainly appears to be an asset
for adequate community planning. It seems that this
responsibility falls into the hands of the local and
perhaps state entities. The sewage program cannot
properly perform comprehensive community planning.
2. Under Alternatives A-l, A-2 and A-3, Jacksonville would
be considered as a "new area" hookup to BCVSA. The costs
of such an arrangement appear in cost tables on pages
74 and 77 under "Capacity Purchase in Bear Creek
Interceptor".
3. In 1973, a moratorium was placed on hookups to the
Jacksonville system.
June 8, 1973 - DEQ authorized 25 additional hookups,
which were used by the city.
Nov. 4, 1974 - DEQ authorized an additional 25 hookups,
of which the city used 22, reserving
3 for an emergency.
In 1976, an additional 7 failing/inadequate systems on
South Oregon Street were allowed to hookup. The present
total number of hookups is approximately 635.
4. The no action alternative would be unacceptable because
continued discharge to Daisy Creek would violate state
law.
No growth is not "illegal" per se (such a determination
would require a court decision); however, it would be in
conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
5. The projected financial impact (in terms of the monthly
cost and the likely tax per $1,000 of assessed valuation)
appears in Table 23 on page 125 of this Final EIS. It
can probably be concluded that any additional expenses
for lower income groups would represent an additional
burden.
6. Comment noted.
250
-------
The original budget allocations of the Jacksonville job:
Engineering T. Flatebo & Associates $10,000.00
Jacksonville administrative expenses 240.00
EIS preparation 15/356.00
Because of changes in the scope of work, costs for the
EIS have exceeded the original estimate. The expenditures
to date for the EIS are:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 12,000.00
Thomas Hogg & William Honey, OSU 4,659.00
Don Owen & Associates, Sanitary Engineer 2,901.69
David Brauner, Archeologist, OSU 663.80
The costs for engineering have also risen over the
original estimate. The sources of these funds are 75
percent EPA and 25 percent City of Jacksonville.
All papers and work papers are at the offices of the
contractors and subcontractors.
The socio-economic material that was not included in the
Draft EIS was neither arbitrarily nor capriciously deleted.
The material was edited and presented in the Draft EIS in
a manner that covered the subject and met the format
requirements of an EIS. In addition, much of the material
deleted was based on unsupported observations, suppositions
and opinion by the authors and in EPA's judgement not
suitable for the EIS. An intensive social-economic survey
would be required to quantify many of the local opinions.
Copies of this socio-economic report are available for
review at the EPA office/Seattle and at the office of
Robert Gray in Jacksonville.
The steps following the Draft EIS are as follows:
a. March 15, 1977 - Close of comment period for Draft EIS
b. March 15, 1977 to September 1, 1977 - Preparation of
Final EIS.
c. Print and distribute Final EIS which will include the
decision for funding by the EPA and an analysis of
the apparent best alternative.
d. Comment period of 3 0 days following distribution of
final.
e. Final funding decision within 7 days of final 30-day
comment period.
f. Begin project.
251
-------
10. Such a survey will be the responsibility of the City of
Jacksonville. The establishment of the need for the
survey must also be made by the city.
11. Comment noted.
12. The Department of Environmental Quality has established
the moratorium. Since the 1973 moratorium, the City of
Jacksonville requested that an additional 50 hookups to
the sewer system be allowed.
13. See comment 10.
14. A meat rendering plant could indeed represent a singular
problem. Anytime waste materials that are high in
proteins are added to a sewage system, the likelihood for
odor problems is increased.
15. See comment 4.
16. Comment noted.
17. It is recognized by the City of Jacksonville authorities
that a new water system will be (and is now) a necessity,
whether or not the population of Jacksonville increases.
The lack of adequate water pressure at certain times has
constituted hazard to fire safety. Please see the
Jackson County Comprehensive Areawide Water and Sewerage
Plan - April 1973.
252
-------
Date
Reed
Table 29
Public Hearing Testimony
Speakers
General
Tone
Costs
Alternatives
Water Quality
Land Use Plannino
Population
Fish & Wildlife
Growth
c
o
A3
S-
o
Q
C
TO
1
_ ...
Soils
on
+j
a
Qi
CO
Aesthetics
Federal Policy
Enerqy
Sludae DisDOsal
Health & Sanitation
Air Quality
Recreation
Construction Impacts
Agriculture
Drinklnq Water
Historic Preservatioi
Fisheries
Geology
Groundwater
Vegetation
2/17
Tiiii Adizinski
Supports
X
X
Bob Britzman
Supports
X
X
X
X
Richard Miller
Supports
X
X
X
X
X
253
Richard Hein
Opposed
X
X
X
X
X
John Witteveen
Opposed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alvin J. MinshalT
Supports
X
X
X
Bob Hardy
Opposed
X
X
Dick Niedermeyer
Supports
X
X
X
Dale Staib
Supports
X
X
Alan Mitchell Kapuler
X
Robertson Collins
X
-------
Public Hearing Summary
On February 17, 1977, the Enviromental Protection Agency
held a public hearing on the draft Environmental Impact State-
ment for the proposed City of Jacksonville wastewater treatment
system. The hearing was conducted at the Jacksonville Elemen-
tary School and was attended by about 79 people. Because of
the length of the official hearing record and the costs in-
volved, we have not reproduced the document for this final
EIS. A table is provided, however, which lists the speakers
and the specific areas in which they were most concerned.
The Public Hearing Record is available for review at the
Jacksonville City Manager's Office, and EPA's Region X Office,
Seattle, Washington.
The eleven speakers presenting verbal statements for the
hearing record were largely concerned with costs of alterna-
tives, population growth and historic preservation, county
planning and zoning, lack of an adopted urban growth boundary,
ancillary facility needs which accompany growth (i.e. water
system, roads, etc.) and the status of the present sewage
system.
A variety of opinions were expressed as to the alterna-
tive systems available. Bob Britzman, Planning Director for
Jackson County, indicated that a preliminary review of the
alternatives revealed that 5 of the alternatives would not
comply with the County Comprehensive Plan. These were Alter-
natives A-l, A-2, C-la, C-2 and D (see "Comments and Response
to the Draft EIS").
Mr. Richard Miller of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
Authority read excerpts from a written position statement
approved by the Board of Directors of the Bear Creek Valley
Sanitary Authority (see "Comments and Responses to the Draft
EIS").
Mr. John Witteveen addressed the ramifications of added
population growth in Jacksonville - need for an upgraded
water system, roads and other related facilities (see "Comments
and Responses to the Draft EIS").
EPA wishes to thank each of the participants at the public
hearing for expressing their views and concerns. Additional
information as a result of the hearing has been added to this
final EIS. The hearing record along with all other comments
were considered by EPA in formulating the recommendation
contained in the Preface to this document.
254
-------
IX. UNRESOLVED ISSUES
During the course of this environmental impact analysis,
it became clear that there are numerous questions and issues
relative to the Jacksonville wastewater treatment project.
Several important issues were identified in the introduction
of this report and analyzed and discussed further throughout
the report. Issues that could be dealt with in the facilities
planning activity were addressed. Resolutions to several of
the issues are institutional rather than technical and they
must await further political and social action. The following
important issues must be dealt with by the responsible city,
county and/or state officials having responsibilities in
Jacksonville and Jackson County.
1. An unresolved question relates to the definition
of a reasonable population projection for the City
of Jacksonville. This cannot be established until
the following information is collected: 1) a
current land use survey of the city on contiguous
urban growth area showing current residential
densities; 2) a buildable land survey of this area
to find out potential infilling capacity for resi-
dential uses; and 3) the current and proposed water
supply capacity of the water system.
2. How would the population capacity of the BCVSA
interceptor in Alternatives A-l, A-2, and A-3
relate to the ultimate allowable population
(based on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan)
in the West Medford Trunk District surrounding
Jacksonville?
255
-------
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Baldwin, E. M. 1964. Geology of Oregon. University of Oregon,
Edwards Brothers, Inc. 165 pp.
Beckham, S. D. 1971. Requiem for a people - the Rogue Indians
and the frontiersmen. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Berreman, Joel V. 1937. Tribal distribution in Oregon. Memoirs
of the American Anthropological Association. No. 47.
Bertrand, G. A. and J. M. Scott. 1973. Checklist of the birds
of Oregon. Oregon State University, Museum of Natural
History. 17 pp.
Burcham, M. B. 1940. Scott's and Applegate's old south road.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 41(4): 405-423.
Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1952. A field guide to
the mammals. Houghton Mifflin Co. 200 pp.
Cline, G. G. 1974. Peter Skene Ogden and the Hudson's Bay
Company. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Colvig, W. M. 1906. Indian wars in southern Oregon. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 4(3): 227-240.
Cressman, Luther. 1933. Aboriginal burials in southwestern
Oregon. American Anthropologist, new series vol. 35.
. 1933. Contributions to the archaeology of Oregon;
final report on the Gold Hill burial site. University of
Oregon Studies in Anthropology, bulletin 1, no. 1.
Davis, Wilbur. 1964. Archaeological survey of Crater Lake
National Park and Oregon Caves National Monument, Oregon.
Report submitted to the National Park Service. University
of Oregon, Eugene.
1968. Archaeology of the Lost Creek Dam Reservoir.
Pinal report to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
1970. Lost Creek archaeology, 1968. Final report
to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
1974. Lost Creek archaeology, 1972. Final report
to the National Park Service. MS, Corvallis.
257
-------
Farnum, W. D. 1956. The development of an Oregon County,
1852-1890: mines, farms and a railroad. Pacific
Historical Review, 25(1): 29-46.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dryness. 1969. Vegetation of
Oregon and Washington. U. S. Forest Service research
paper PNW80. 216 pp.
Gaston, J. 1906. Genesis of the Oregon railway system.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 7(2): 105-132.
Gill, F. B. 1924. Oregon's first railway. Oregon Historical
Quarterly, 25(3): 171-235.
Haines, F. D. 1959. The Jacksonville Cannonball: the history
of the Rogue Valley Railway, 1890-1925. Pacific Northwest
Quarterly, 50(4): 144-154.
Haynes, M. C. and K. Cox. 1974. An economical-statistical
analysis of citizen attitudes with regard to city services,
growth, historical preservation and tax revenues in
Jacksonville, Oregon. Unpublished research activity,
Southern Oregon College, Ashland (mimeographed).
Hogg, T. C. and W. D. Honey. 1976. Dam the river: the
proposed Days Creek Dam and the human ecology of the
South Umpqua River Basin, Oregon. Dept. of Anthropology,
Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State
University, OWRRI #43, Corvallis (in press).
Jackson County. 1968. A plan for parks and recreation, Jackson
County.
Jackson County. Planning Commission. 1972. A summary of the
comprehensive plan for Jackson County, Oregon. Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, Medford.
1973. Zoning ordinance for Jackson County, Oregon.
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development, Medford.
1976. Jackson County comprehensive plan, Jackson
County Department of Planning and Development, Medford (map).
Jacksonville (City of). [n.d.] General plan (mimeographed).
1969. Demographic data (mimeographed).
1976. Part A - Facilities plan, municipal waste
treatment works, draft copy. Compiled by T. Flatebo and
Associates, Jacksonville.
Johansen, D. O. and C. M. Gates. 1957. Empire of the Columbia -
a history of the Pacific northwest. Harper and Brothers,
New York.
258
-------
Maloney, A. B. 1940. Camp sites of Jededian Smith on the Oregon
coast. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 41(3): 305-323.
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers. 1976. Report - hand application of
wastewater in the Salinas-Monterey Peninsula area.
Mullen, J. 1906. Prom Walla Walla to San Francisco, 1862.
Oregon Historical Quarterly, 4(3): 202-226.
Nunis, D. B. (ed). 1968. The Hudson Bay Company1s first
fur brigade to the Sacramento Valley: Alexander McLeod's
1829 hunt. Sacramento Book Collector Club, Sacramento.
Oregon (State of). 1974. Population projections for Oregon.
Economic Services Section, Salem.
1974. Resource atlas, Jackson County, Oregon.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis,
prepared by Marilyn Ruttle.
1976. Labor force trends, Jackson County, Oregon.
Department of Human Resources, Employment Division (mimeographed).
Oregon. Bureau of Municipal Research and Service. 1964.
Employment forecast 1962-1985, Jackson County, Oregon.
University of Oregon, Eugene.
, 1964. Industrial land use, Bear Creek urban region,
Jackson County, Oregon; University of Oregon, Eugene.
1958. Population of Oregon cities, counties and
metropolitan areas 1850-1957, a compilation of census
counts and estimates in Oregon. Information Bulletin 106,
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Oregon. Department of Environmental Quality. 1976. Proposed
water quality management plan for Rogue River Basin. 74 pp.
Oregon. State Highway Division. 1976. Preliminary six year
highway improvement program - July 1, 1976 to June 30, 19 82.
Oregon. State Water Resources Board. 1969. Oregon's long-
range requirements for water: general soil map report
with irrigable areas Rogue drainage basin. Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University and U. S.
Soil Conservation Service.
Palmer, Joel. 1847. Jpurnal of travels over the Rocky Mountains
to the mouth of the Columbia RiVer made during the years
1845 and 1846..., J.A, and U.P, James, cinciBnati. Reprinted
in Early Western Travels 1748-18*46, vol. 30, AMS Press Inc.
New York, Rueben Thwaites, ed.
259
-------
Peterson, r. t. 1961. A field guide to western birds. Houghton
Mifflin Company. 309 pp.
Sargent, A. A. 1921. A sketch of the Rogue River Valley and
southern Oregon history. Oregon Historical Quarterly,
22(1): 1-11.
Sapir, Edward. 1907. Notes on the Takelma Indians of southwestern
Oregon. American Anthropologist, new series, 9:2.
Schaeffer, Claude. 1959. Indian tribes and languages of old
Oregon country. Map prepared for the Oregon Historical
Society*
Scott, L. M. 1917. The pioneer stimulus of gold. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 18(3): 147-166.
Smith, C. L. 1973. Social well-being: problems and prospects,
draft prepared for the conference on "The social well-being
quality of life dimensions in water resources and development".
Logan, Utah (mimeographed).
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and
amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co. 279 pp.
Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, Inc. 1973. Jackson County comprehensive
areawide water and sewerage plan. 218 pp.
1973. Solid waste management plan - Jackson County,
Oregon.
Sutton, Jack and Lee Pinkham. 1961. The golden years of
Jacksonville - a pictorial walking tour. Bulletin
Publishing Company in cooperation with the Southern
Oregon Historical Society and the Siskiyou Pioneer Sites
Foundation, Grants Pass.
Tucker, W. P. 1932. Social history of Jackson County. Oregon
Historical Quarterly, 33(4): 313-317.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Jackson County, Oregon -
flood plain information - interim report. Portland, Oregon.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Population, employment
and housing units projected to 1990. Bonneville Power
Administration.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Evaluation of land
application systems. Technical Bulletin-EPA-430/9-75-001.
182 pp.
1976. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors.
AP-42, Parts A and B, second edition.
260
-------
1973. Recycling municipal sludges and effluents
on land. National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges. 244 pp.
1973. Survey of facilities using land application
of wastewater. Office of Water Program Operations.
U. S. Geological Survey. 1956. Geologic quadrangle maps of
the United States - Geology of the Medford quadrangle.
Map GQ 89.
U. S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
1975. Climatological data - Oregon. Volume 81.
U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Land use planning
and community development, soils - Jacksonville, Oregon.
Walling, A. G. 1884. History of southern Oregon comprising
Jackson, Josephine, Douglas, Curry and Coos Counties.
Compiled from the Most Authentic Sources. Published
by A. G. Walling, Portland.
Winther, 0.0. and R. D. Galey. 1940. Mrs. Butler's 1853 diary
of Rogue River Valley. Oregon Historical Quarterly,
41(4): 338-366.
1950. The old Oregon country - a history of
frontier trade, transportation, and travel. Stanford
University Press.
1956. The great northwest, second edition.
Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Personal Communications
Anonymous informants, Jacksonville, Oregon.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
Blankenship, Tom. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon.
Bogar, Larry. Floodplain management, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Oregon,
Carter, Glen. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon.
Cobo, Ted. Rogue River National Forest, U. S. Forest Service.
261
-------
Gildow, Robert. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon.
Gustafson, Gary. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Salem, Oregon.
City of Jacksonville, Mayor, City Administrator and Assistant
Planner.
Jackson County Department of Planning and Development.
Jackson County Department of Tax Assessment.
Jones, Terry. City of Jacksonville, Planning Department,
Jacksonville, Oregon.
Kingsley, Wayne. Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Lilley, Robin. Planner, Jackson County Planning Department,
Medford, Oregon.
Ober, Doug. Air Quality Engineer, Department of Environmental
Quality, Portland, Oregon.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Jackson County, Oregon.
Schwab, Thomas. Planner, Oregon Department of Highways, Salem,
Oregon.
Shay, Ron. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,
Oregon.
Swift, Earl. Principal, Jackson Public School, Jacksonville,
Oregon.
U. S. Forest Service.
Vandervelden, Don. District Conservationist, U. S. Soil Conservation
Service, Medford, Oregon.
Werner, Richard. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Roseburg,
Oregon.
262
-------
XI. APPENDICES
Appendix A
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
Appendix B
Appendix C
C-l
C-2
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
- Biotic Resources
Common flora of the Jacksonville area
Common terrestrial vertebrates of the
Jacksonville, Oregon area
Common freshwater and anadromous fish of
the study area streams
Correspondence from the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife
- Sewage Flows
- Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
Local cost
Total capital
- Water Quality Standards for Rogue River Basin
- cultural Background and History of Jacksonville
- Population Projections - City of Jacksonville
- Wastewater Analysis by U. S. Forest Service
- Compilation of Air Emissions Based on Population
and an Index of Annual Average Daily Travel
- Soil Survey report for land disposal of wastewater
Alternative Site C-l
263
-------
APPENDIX A
Biotic Resources
264
-------
Appendix A-l
Common Flora of the Jacksonville Area
Common Name
Oregon white oak
Ponderosa pine
Idaho fescue
bluebunch wheatgrass
pine bluegrass
black oak
Douglas fir
wildrye
yarrow
Oregon ash
black cottonwood
red alder
willow
blackberry
deerbrush
white-leaved manzanita
poison oak
bigleaf maple
Scientific Name
Quercus garryana
Plnus ponderosa
Festuca idahoe'nsis
Agropyron spicatum
Poa scabrella
Quercus kelloggii
Pseudotsuga menzTesii
Elymus sp.
Achillea millefolium
Fraxinus latifolia
Populus""trichocarpa
Alnus rubra
Salix sp.
Rubus sp.
Ceanothus integerrimus
Arctostaphylos viscida
Rhus diversiloba
Acer macrophyllum
265
-------
Appendix A-2
Common Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Jacksonville#
Oregon Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Mammals
Townsend mole
California mole
Pacific mole
shrew mole
Pacific shrew
vagrant shrew
little brown bat
long-eared myotis
Yuma myotis
California myotis
big brown bat
black bear
raccoon
longtailed weasel
mink
striped skunk
spotted skunk
coyote
bobcat
California ground squirrel
western gray squirrel
deer mouse
Oregon vole
house mouse
Scapanus townsendi
S. latimanus
S. orarius
Neurotrichus gibbsi
Sorex pacificus
S. vagrans
Myotis lucifugus
M. evotis
M. yumanensis
M. californicus
Eptesicus fuscus
Ursus americanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
M. vison
Mephitis mephitis
SpllozaTe putorius
Canis latrans
Lynx rufus
Citellus beecheyi
Sciurus grisens
Peromyscus maniculatus
Microtus oregoni
Mus muscuius
Birds
great blue heron
green heron
black-crowned night heron
mallard
pintail
cinnamon teal
American wigeon
wood duck
turkey vulture
red-tailed hawk
Cooper's hawk
marsh hawk
American kestrel
California quail
ring-tailed pheasant
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Nycticorax nycticorax
Anas platyrtynekos
A. acuta
A. cyanoptera
Mareca amerxcana
Aix sponsa
Cathartes aura
Buteo jamaicensis
Accipites cooperli
Circus cyaneus
Falco sparverius
Lophortyx californicus
Phasiamus colchicus
266
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
American coot
killdeer
band-tailed pigeon
mourning dove
barn owl
great horned owl
belted kingfisher
red-shafted flicker
horned lark
tree swallow
barn swallow
scrub jay
common crow
starling
brewer's blackbird
dark-eyed juneo
white-crowned sparrow
Furliea americana
Charadrius vociTerus
Columba fasciata
Zenaidura macroura
Tyto alSa
Bubo virainiamus
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes cafer
Eremophila alpestris
Iridoprocne bicolor
Hirundo rustica
Aphelocoma coerulescena
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Sturnus vulgaris
Euphaqus cyanocephalus
Juneo hyemalis oreganus
Zonotrlchia leucopnrys
Amphibians
Pacific giant salamander
long-tailed salamander
rough-skinned newt
ensatina
tailed frog
boreal toad
Pacific treefrog
red-legged frog
bullfrog
western pond turtle
Dicamptodon ensatus
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Tarlcha"granulosa
Ensatina eschscholtzi
Ascaphus truei
Bufo boreas
Hyla regilla
Rana aurora
Rana catesbeiana
fclemmyo marmorata
Reptiles
western fence lizard
northern alligator lizard
Pacific rubber boa
Pacific gopher snake
common garter snake
Oregon garter snake
western rattlesnake
Sceloporus occidentalis
Gerrhonatus coeruleus
Charina bottae
Pituophis melanoleucus
ThamnopHTs sirtalis
T. couchi
Crotalusviridis
Note: For more detailed data on flora and fauna of the Rogue
River area, see "Fish and Wildlife Resources of the
Rogue River Basin, Oregon and their Water Requirements",
Oregon State Game Commission, 1970.
267
-------
Appendix A-3
Common Freshwater and Anadromous Fish
of the Study Area Streams
Common Name
Scientific Name
Pacific lamprey*
Black-nosed dace
Long-nosed dace
Redside shiner
Squawfish
Coho salmon*
Chinook salmon*
Cutthroat trout*
Steelhead trout*
Buffalo sculpins
Staghorn sculpin
Lamptera tridentata
Rhmichthys atratulus
R. sp.
Richardsonius balteatus
Ptychocheilus' oregonensis
Oncorhynchus kisutch
0. tshawytscha
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Enophrys bison
Leptocottus armatus
* Anadromous
268
-------
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE
Appendix A-4
79f6
3140 N.E. STEPHENS STREET, ROSEBURG, OREGON 97^70 PH. 672-654*-
Kr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, California 9581^
Dear Kr. Ives:
In answer to your letter of July 19, regarding an EIS for the City of
Jacksonville on a proposed wastewater treatment facility. There are
no "key wildlife areas" such as pristine irarshes or primitive lakes
nor do I know of any endangered speices that inhabit the area. My
main concern as a wildlife manager is the rate at which we are(losing
our upland gamebird habitat and deer winter ranges to housing develop-
ments, concrete highways and in general urban sprawl.
The west hills of Jacksonville is classed as critical deer winter range
and the agricultural land to the east of the city is prime pheasant,
quail and mourning dove habitat. With the connection of the city of
Jacksonville to the BCVSA or the establishment of a large waste water
facility, urban sprawl will be accelerated and .more game habitat will
be lost at a more rapid rate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comr.ent during the preparation of the
environmental impact statement.
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
July 29, 1976
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Werner
District Wildlife Biologist
269
-------
APPENDIX B
Sewage Flows
270
-------
APPENDIX B
SEWAGE FLOW - CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
1973
1974
1975
Month
Monthly
Uotal
Average
Daily
Monthly
Rainfall
Monthly
Total
Average
Daily
Monthly
Rainfall
Monthly
Total
Average
Daily
Monthly
Rainfall
Notes
Jan.
4,082/000
131,698
1.98
9,371,000
302,000
4.32
4,839,000
156,000
2.64
Feb.
3,484,000
124,428
.54
5,466,000
195,214
2.78
5,666,000
202,000
2.64
Mar.
3,870,000
124,864
1.58
7,840,000
252,903
3.76
9,052,000
292,000
3.97
Apr.
3,568,000
118,900
.76
6,175,000
205,030
1.70
5,847,000
195,000
1.27
May
3,991,000
125,516
.45
4,036,000
130,193
.22
4,460,000
144,000
.24
June
3,402,000
113,400
.06
3,841,000
128,000
0
4,186,000
139,000
.38
School out
July
3,274,000
105,613
.04
3,583,000
115,806
.10
4,037,000
130,000
.22
School out
Aig.
3,491,000
112,612
.03
3,534,000
114,000
0
4,023,000
129,000
.54
School out
Sept.
3,051,000
101,700
.64
3,406,000
114,000
0
3,446,000
114,000
.65
Oct.
3,292,000
106,193
2.79
3,222,000
104,000
1.17
3,606,000
116,000
2.21
Nov.
4,471,000
149,033
7.01
3,834,000
127,000
1.13
4,116,000
137,000
Dec.
6,524,000
210,451
3.02
3,820,000
123,000
3.91
5,119,000
165,000
-------
APPENDIX C
Economic Evaluation of
Alternatives
272
-------
Appendix C-l
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OP ALTERNATIVES - LOCAL COST
Item
Interest
Factor
A-l
A-2
A-3
B
C-l
C-la
C-2
Total capital
cost 1.000
Local share
capital cost 1.000
Interest during
construction
Salvage value
Total present
worth
Average annual
equivalent cost 0.08807
Annual operation
and maintenance
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
588,000 588,000 416,593 730,000 502,000 262,000 317,500
147,000 147,000 104,148 182,500 125,500 65,500 79,400
22,500
22,500 14,500 22,400 17,000
9,000
1,900
1,900 1#500 14,000
5,100
8,500
5,000
9,700
0.30454 -148,100 -148,100 -101,570 -46,400 -84,967 -42,500 -29,800
21,400 21,400 17,078 158,500 57,533 32,000 59,300
2,800 5,200
77,900 75,000 47.616 35,400 47,699 22,200 46,500
79,800 76,900 49,116 49,400 52,800 20,000 51,700
-------
Appendix C-2
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - TOTAL CAPITAL
Interest
Item Factor A-l A-2 A-3 B C-l C-la C-2
Capital cost
1.000
588,000
588,000
416,593
730,000
502,000
262,000
317,500
Interest during
construction
1.000
22,500
22,500
14,500
22,400
17,000
9,000
9,700
Salvage value
0.30454
-148,100
148,100
-101,570
-46,400
-84,967
-42,500
-29,800
Total present
worth
462,400
462,400
329,523
706,000
434,033
228,500
297,400
Average annual
equivalent cost
0.08807
40,700
40,700
29,021
62,200
38,225
20,000
26,200
Annual operation
and maintenance
77,900
75,000
47,616
35,400
47,699
22,200
46,500
Annual net return
from sale of
crops
8,500
5,000
Total average
annual equiva-
lent cost
118,600
115,700
76,637
97,600
77,424
37,200
72,700
-------
APPENDIX D
Water Quality Standards for the
Rogue River Basin
275
-------
41-080 SPECIAL WATER QUALITY AND WASTE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ROGUE RIVER BASIN.
(1) Special Water Quality Standards. Th^ provisions of this sub-section shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of the General Water Quality Standards contained in Section 41-025,
except where this subsection imposes a conflicting requirement with the provisions of Section
41-025, this sub-section shall govern. No wastes shall be discharged and no activities shall
be conducted which either alone or in conjunction with other wastes or activities will cause in
the waters of the Rogue River Basin:
(a) Organisms of the Coliform Group Where Associated with Fecal Sources (MPN or
equivalent MF using a representative number of samples.)
(A) Mainstem Rogue River from the point of salt water intrusion, approximately
R.M. 4, upstream to Dodge Park, river mile 138.4, and Bear Creek; average concentrations to
exceed 1000 per 100 mi 11iliters, except during periods of high surface runoff.
(B) Rogue River above Dodge Park and all unspecified tributaries, average
concentrations to exceed 240 per 100 milliliters, except during periods of high surface runoff.
(b) Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.). Dissolved oxygen concentrations to be less than 90
percent of saturation at the seasonal low, or less than 95 percent of saturation in spawning areas
during spawning, incubation, hatching, and fry stages of salmonid fishes.
(c) pH (Hydrogen Ion Concentration). pH values to fall outside the range of 7.0 to 8.5.
(d) Turbidity. (Jackson Turbidity Units, JTU). Any measurable increases in natural
stream turbidities when natural turbidities are less than 30 JTU, or more than a 10 percent cum-
ulative increase in natural stream turbidities when stream turbidities are more than 30 JTU, except
for certain short-term activities which may be specifically authorized by the Department of
Environmental Quality under such conditions as it may prescribe and which are necessary to accom-
modate essential dredging, construction, or other legitimate uses or activities where turbidities
in excess of this standard are unavoidable.
(e) Temperature. Any measurable increases when stream temperatures are 58ฐ F. or
greater; or more than 0.5ฐ F. increase due to a single-source discharge when receiving water
temperatures are 57.5ฐ F. or less or more than 2ฐ F. increase due to all sources combined when
stream temperatures are 56ฐ F. or less, except for short-term activities which may be specifically
authorized by the Department of Environmental Quality upon such conditions as it may prescribe and
which are necessary to accommodate legitimate uses or activities where temperatures in excess of
this standard are unavoidable.
(f) Dissolved Chemical Substances. Guide concentrations listed below to be exceeded
except as may be specifically authorized by the Department of Environmental Quality upon such
conditions as it may deem necessary to carry out the general intent of Section 41-010 and to
protect the beneficial uses set forth in Table 11.
-------
mg/1
Arsenic (As)
0.01
Barium (Ba)
1.0
Boron (Bo)
0.5
Cadmium (Cd)
0.003
Chloride (CI)
25.0
Chromium (Cr)
0.02
Copper (Cu)
0.005
Cyanide (Cn)
0.005
Fluoride (F)
1.0
Iron (Fe)
0.1
Lead (Pb)
0.05
Manganese (Mn)
0.05
Phenols (totals)
0.001
Total dissolved solids
100.0
Zinc (Zn)
0.01
(2) Minimum Standards for Treatment and Control of Wastes. All wastes shall be treated,
prior to discharge, in accordance with the following:
(a) , Sewage Wastes.
-J (A) During the period of low stream flows (approximately June 1 - October 31 of
each year), secondary treatment resulting in monthly average effluent concentrations not to exceed
20 mg/1 of 5-day 20ฐ C. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 20 mg/1 of suspended solids or equiva-
lent control.
(B) During the period of high steam flows (approximately November 1 - May 31 of
each year) a minimum of secondary treatment or equivalent shall be provided and all waste treat-
ment and control facilities shall be operated at maximum efficiency so as to minimize waste dis-
charges to public waters.
(C) All sewage wastes shall be disinfected, after treatment, equivalent to
thorough mixing with sufficient chlorine to provide a residual of at least 1 part per million after
60 minutes of contact time.
(D) More stringent waste treatment requirements may be imposed, especially in
headwater and tributary streams, where waste loads may be large relative to stream flows.
(b) Industrial Wastes.
(A) Industrial waste treatment, requirements shall be determined on an individual
basis in accordance with the provisions of Sections 41-010, 41-015, 41-020, 41-025, and 41-030.
(B) Where industrial effluents contain significant quantities of potentially
toxic elements, treatment requirements shall be determined utilizing appropriate bio-assays.
-------
APPENDIX E
Cultural Background
by
David Brauner
and
History of Jacksonville
by
Thomas C. Hogg and William D. Honey
Oregon State University
278
-------
Cultural Background. The first Europeans to enter the
Bear Creek drainage basin found the region occupied by a
people collectively referred to as the Takelma. The Takelma
occupied the upper and middle Rogue River drainage basin and
the drainages of the major tributary streams. The single
exception was the Applegate Creek drainage inhabited by
Athapascan speakers.
The Takelma were most easily distinguished from their
neighbors linguistically. The language of the Takelma,
referred to as "Takelman" (Berreman, 1937), was a Penutian
language unintelligible to Athapascan speakers to the west,
other Penutian speakers to the north and east, and Hokan
speakers to the south (Berreman, 1937; Sapir, 1907? and
Schaeffer, 1959). Takelman speakers were divisible into two
groups referred to as the upper and lower Takelma. The
distinction was primarily linguistic, i.e., different dialects,
but cultural distinctions were apparent (Berreman, 1937; and
Sapir, 1907).
The Upland Takelma occupied the Bear Creek drainage
basin, territory east of Table Rock to the crest of the
Cascades, and the adjacent banks of the Rogue River (Berreman,
1937 and Sapir, 1907). Since the Jacksonville locality was
probably inhabited by Upland Takelma prior to the advent of
the Euro-American, the following discussion will concern only
this group. Unless otherwise cited, the following information
was derived from Berreman (1937) and Sapir (1907).
Politically the Takelma were not a tribe. The highest
level of political organization achieved was autonomous band
organization. The bands were generally small, composed of
closely related families. The band leader or headman was
selected on the basis of wealth and prestige. The headman
was not selected for life nor was the position hereditary.
This individual was generally not a peacetime headman.
The pre-European lifeway of the Takelma was dramatically
disrupted in the early 1850s. The discovery of gold and
secondarily the presence of good agricultural and timberland
brought a tidal wave of Euro-Americans into the Rogue River
drainage. A number of inexcusable atrocities were perpe-
trated on the hative populations in 1852 and 1853. Any
retaliation on the Indian's part was met with even greater
brutality by the Euro-Americans. Full-scale war thus resulted
between the "Rogue Indians" and Euro-Americans. As a result,
aboriginal settlement patterns and social organization were
effectively terminated by late 1853. * For a detailed account
of the plight of the Takelma, see ieckham (1971). Decimated
by warfare, the few surviving Takelma were removed to the
newly established Siletz Reservation on the Oregon coast in
1855, thus ending over 6,000 years of Native American occu-
pation in the valley of the Rogue."
279
-------
Among the Takelma social stratification was apparent.
Four classes of people were recognized: rich, commoner, poor
and slaves. The class system was not hereditary. Everyone
except slaves could better his position in life. Marriage
was generally band exogamous. Marriages were prearranged
between families and a bride price was paid. The sororate
and levirate were probably practiced.
Takelma bands were named after the location of their
principal winter village. The villages were generally
located along the Rogue River or one of its major tributaries.
Characteristic of the winter villages were durable semi-
subterranean plank houses. The houses were large rectangular
structures. Their floors were dug two to three feet below
the existing ground surface. The walls were made of upright
pine planks supported by four corner posts and cross beams.
Most structures had a gable roof with a central smoke hole.
Access was gained through a side entryway.
Winter villages were abandoned in the early spring in
favor of less permanent upland camp sites. Crude brush
structures generally served as shelters in the summer camps.
The central-based, wandering settlement pattern charac-
teristic of the Takelma was dictated by the availability and
location of exploitable resourcess Acorns, camas and fish
were the staple foods of the Takelma. Acorns were gathered
in early spring, pulverized and cooked into a meal. Camas
roots were gathered during the spring and early summer, baked
in earth ovens, and stored as a winter staple. Other favored
plant foods included cherries, sunflower seeds, tarweed,
madrona and pine nuts. A form of tobacco was apparently
cultivated by the Takelma and smoked.
The principal sources of protein for the Takelma were
the salmon and trout. Fish could be taken in large quantities
during the late summer and fall in the various river systems.
Fish were taken in nets, speared and caught with hook and line.
Crawfish and river mussels were also recovered from the river
systems but only as dietary adjuncts. Among the terrestrial
animals deer and elk were the preferred exploitable species.
Few ethnographers fail to report, with ethnocentric disdain,
the Takelma's liking for insect larvae and grasshoppers.
One of the apparent distinctions between the Upper and
Lower Takelma was the Upper Takelma's greater reliance on
terrestrial resources. Fewer good fishing localities in the
latter's territory necessitated this adaptation. The Upper
Takelma are characterized as shorter in stature than their
downriver counterparts and technologically less advanced.
They were also supposedly quite warlike, preying on the Lower
Takelma for slaves. Slaves were supposedly sold to the Klamath
and Shasta groups.
280
-------
History
Introduction
The history of Oregon, just like the history of the Pacific Northwest,
1s one of people laying claims to the land, minerals, and other natural
resources. Within Oregon's political boundaries lie numerous major river
basin systems. Each basin possesses unique characteristics which distinguish
1t from others, including contiguous basins. These distinguishing features
come in the form of different topographical characteristics, varieties of
flora, fauna, and other environmental characteristics such as soils, hydrology,
etc. Although it can be argued that basins possess more commonalities than
uniqueness in terms of their ecological components, one also must consider
a more subtle portion of their composition which comes in terms of their human
occupation and the history of their development.
Northwestern history often discloses that motivations for Euro-american
settlement in Oregon were quite dependent upon the environmental suitabili-
ty of a particular river basin and the economic security it represented.
Some basins possessed soil more advantageous for agricultural endeavors than
others; some possessed more navigable waterways that created expedient trade
routes; some were more desirable in terms of their forest or mineral resources;
and many were not immediately desirable because of their relative isolation.
More often than not a combination of factors were operant to structure set-
tlement motives (cf. Hogg & Honey, 1976). The case here in point is the Rogue
River Basin, Oregon, which was characterized by relative isolation and non-
navigable waterways making any subsequent trade very difficult; but which
contained land suitable for agriculture on a smaller scale than that of the
Willamette or even the contiguous Umpqua basin.
The Rogue's most attractive feature was the mineral resource which it
harboredgold. Its presence contributed to a very rapid settlement of the
valley and to the development of an historically important community of Jack-
sonville. Jacksonville's population and economic importance was to decline
at nearly the same rate at which it grew and a mineral based economy was soon
to give way to an agrarian lifestyle. Nevertheless, the community of Jack-
sonville did play a significant role in the history of the Rogue River Basin
as well as a large portion of Southern Oregon. Herein 1s contained a discus-
sion of Jacksonville's significance in Rogue River Valley history. The two
must be discussed in the same context 1n order to provide a larger context
for assessing Jacksonville's significance.
281
-------
Period of Discovery
The first Europeans to sight portions of the Pacific Northwest were
the Spanish in the mid 16th century. In the same century the English
also sailed off the Northwest's coastal shores. Both nations reappeared
periodically in the next few centuries, and were subsequently joined by
the Russians in the 18th century. By the late 1770's, English, French,
Russians and Americans began laying claim to the Northwest, while the
Spanish chiefly confined their interests south of the 42nd parallel.
The various European and American interests exploring the Northwest
possess one commonality--the search, discovery, and control of natural
resources that would serve as an efficient basis for exploitation and
establishment of claim to vast portions of yet unchartered territory.
In addition to the unclaimed land, in the Northwest, the most immediate-
ly noticeable resource was the sea-otter and other fur bearing animals,
which were in great demand in other portions of the world. Eventually
the pursuit of these animals led inland where other resources were dis-
covered and exploited. Thus the hinterland traders, trappers, and explor-
ers eventually contributed to the settlement of this entire new country.
Period of Fur Trade
The first known trading and trapping expeditions to enter Oregon
Territory were those of the Pacific Fur Company in 1811-13 and the North-
west Company in the year 1818. The Northwest Company continued their
expeditions for five years. After their reorganization with the Hudson's
Bay Company in 1823, the trade continued until resources were virtually
exhausted. The impact of the early trappers and traders upon this new
land should not be underestimated. Many regions such as the Rogue Valley
attracted these individuals who subsequently mapped and chartered vast
drainages and opened the way for the later and more permanent settlers.
Once the Columbia region was opened, a natural corridor was available
to the Willamette, Umpqua and, later, the Rogue Valley. Areas such as
the Rogue were not as accurately documented as the Willamette, It can
be assumed, however, that individuals involved in the historical connec-
tions of both areas contributed to the cartographical knowledge to be
of later use.
282
-------
The first significant Euro-American activities in the confines of
the Rogue River Basin were those connected with Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1826 and 1827 Alexander McLeod penetrated into the Umpqua from the
Willamette corridor and on into the Rogue on a journey which ended in
the Sacramento Valley. He was leading what is now termed the "Umpqua
Brigade", a portion of Peter Skene Ogden*s main expeditionary force camped
at Fort Vancouver (CIine 1974:83).
The furrier activities in the Rogue were not as great as they were
in other portions of western river drainages. McLeod reported that while
the beaver was rather abundant, trappers' and soldiers' rapport with the
aboriginals was not favorable. Their exploration continued, however,
and they mapped and explored along the Rogue and Applegate Rivers and
on Into the Klamath Drainage. McLeod's accounts concerning early furrier
activities in the Rogue are hard to verify and this is attributed to lost
correspondence between McLeod and Hudson's Bay Company (cf. Nunis 1968).
In March of 1827, Peter Skene Ogden crossed over the Siskiyou Moun-
tains from the Klamath Basin and penetrated deep into the Rogue's hinter-
land. Ogden spent some time trapping for furs before continuing north
to Fort Vancouver (Beckham 1971:27). In later years many other individ-
usals became involved and contributed to the "opening of the Rogue Coun-
try" (Beckham 1972). The importance was therefore substantial to creat-
ing new interest 1n the Rogue Basin.
Period of Reprisal
Circumstances that would culminate in the Rogue River Indian Wars
began as early as 1828 when the Jededlah Smith Expedition clashed with
coastal Indian groups. This incident is the first recorded and documented
conflict between Indians and whites in southern Oregon (Colvig 1902:230).
As more and more settlers began to Infiltrate the Rogue in search of furs,
land for colonization, and routes of travel opposition from aboriginal
groups became more apparent and critical. By 1846, penetration of whites
into the Rogue Basin became synonymous with confrontations with.abori-
ginals. In 1850, Joseph Lane, the territorial governor of Oregon, was
encouraged to take action against the Indians of that region (Beckham
1971:43).
283
-------
'In 1851, miners and settlers gained more and more control over the
basin and the aboriginals began to actuate to retrive their control (cf.
Beckham 1971). To effectively resist white encroachment into their lands,
aboriginal groups were forced to consolidate. From 1851-1853 conflict
grew immensely and many individuals came into historical prominence from
their direct or indirect involvements in the region's wars. Although
treaties were initiated from time to time throughout the period of 1851
to 1855, these were not successful. The year 1856 found the consolidated
Rogue groups either heavily dispersed or annihilated to such small num-
bers they could no longer effectively resist the whites. Most were taken
to the Siletz Reservation and on May 29th of 1856 the last remaining Rogues
surrendered their lands.
Period of Settlement: The Rogue Basin
As Joel Palmer passed from the Umpqua into the Rogue Valley in 1846
he noted that, while it was similar to the Umpqua in its beauty, it was
smaller in size and much more difficult to pass due to larger mountains
(Palmer 1847:191-192). In the late 1840's when the choicest lands of
the Willamette had already been claimed, areas such as the Umpqua and
Rogue began to receive the overflow of those looking for permanent settle-
ment. Reasons for settling the northwest varied somewhat; however, chief
among motivations were the development of land for agriculture and ani-
mal husbandrysuch was the case in the Willamette Valley. As the afore-
mentioned spillover began to occur, settlers moved south. Some moved
Into California and others chose sites 1n the Rogue Valley. Movement
proved difficult until the 1850's when Scott and Applegate initiated the
"South Road" (cf. Burcham 1940).
Settlement and progress was delayed in the Rogue because of its rel-
ative isolation. Later, however, its attractivess came from an extremely
different source, a resource in gold. As early as 1848, miners began
moving into California 1n the quest for gold; by 1850 it was gold that
brought people into Southern Oregon and as a result towns were established.
One such place was Jacksonvillethe first permanent settlement in what
is now Jackson County.
284
-------
Period of Growth: Jacksonville
What stimulated the growth of Jacksonville was not its agricultur-
al potential or its timber, 1t was its mineral wealth. Gold was first
discovered in southern Oregon in 1849 at Table Rock. Mining activities
took up some two years later (Scott 1917:150). The discovery and the
mining of gold brought vigorous life to boom areas such as Jacksonville,
and this, in conjunction with the South Road facilitated settlement in
the Rogue Valley (cf. Winther 1950).
In December of 1851, James Cluggage and John R. Pool located the
first mining claim in Jacksonville. These initial diggings took the form
of placer or streambed mining. By 1852, a few hundred settlers migrated
into the Rogue and Jacksonville areas. While the primary emphasis was
originally on gold mining, agriculture and animal husbandry were engaged
Tn, but to a lesser extent (Tucker 1932:313). In 1852 Henry Kipple and
J. R. Pool began laying out the physical townsite of Jacksonville. In
February of that year the town's first general store appeared along with
a sort of organized law and order. A sawmill also appeared near Ashland
Creek. Population of the growing Jacksonville was estimated at over 1,000
persons. From 1853- 1854 schools, churches, and mail service began for
Jacksonville. At this same time Peter Britt opened his first studio (Haines
1967). By 1855 Jacksonville had the distinction of having its own news-
paper, The Table Rock Sentinel, and a jail. During 1853 gold was discov-
ered in other portions of the Rogue Basin: Applegate Creek, Coqullle,
and the upper Rogue tributaries (cf. Scott 1917). From 1851-1900 the
area surrounding Jacksonville yielded some $35,000,000 in gold (Colvig
1902:230).
Gold was not a localized phenomena; in fact, its generalized distri-
bution throughout the Northwest and other portions of the country provided
an added stimulus for settlement and for the development of mercantiling
and transportation. Although gold played an important part in the growth
of Jacksonville and other portions of southern Oregon, by 1860 fanners
and ranchers were becoming more commonplace and were playing a more im-
portant role in the economy. Steadily the miners were coming to be re-
placed as rapidly as they had their beginning. Some remain even today,
1n search of other minerals like silver.
285
-------
Initially, Jacksonville was dependent upon a "home economy." Min-
ers and farmer-ranchers developed a reciprocity in trading; each was high-
ly dependent upon the others' wares. As late as 1862 the system was still
in effect. A large part was due, of course, to the Rogue isolation.
The Willamette Valley had by now developed much more sophisticated trans-
portation and trade networks. It was a definite economic advantage for
settlement (cf. Mullen 1902). In the heighth of the gold rush, Jackson-
ville and other portions of southern Oregon were largely dependent upon
overland supplies via California and Crescent City. Wagon freighting was
greatest in the Rogue Valley since its waterways were not navigable and
since the railroad had not yet made its appearance in many parts of the
Pacific Northwest. Eventually overland trade was initiated from the Wil-
lamette Valley. In spite of the great distance and difficult terrain, the
Rogue proved to be an eager market (Winther 1950:138).
The earlier transportational devices were pack trains in the 1850's,
and eventually, wagons in the 1860's. Jacksonville maintained its import-
ance for a number of years as a nucleus for trade and settlement. Stage
lines appeared in 1861 which linked Jacksonville to California and the
Willamette Valley (cf. Winther 1950).
City improvements began for Jacksonville in the 1860's. Grading
graveling of streets and sidewalks marked the first real efforts at com-
munity improvements, in addition to a host of new buildings and enterprises
(cf. Haines 1967). The U.S. Postal Service now offered mail on a regular
basis via Wells Fargo and Company.
During the 1870's agriculturalists in the Rogue began producing items
for export since the depletion of miners were no longer creating heavy
demand locally for their wares. Jacksonville was beginning to lose its
importance, its population was declining, and the coming of the railroad
was to signify its commercial demise.
Final Period: Attempts at Revitalization
The railroad had much to do with reshaping the economic and social
order of many communities. Jacksonville, as well as other parts of the
Rogue Basin, had for the most part felt the deprivation associated with
286
-------
geographical isolation. At the time the Oregon and California Railroad
reached the Rogue Valley it was experiencing financial hardships. This
in combination with the decreasing economic and social importance of Jack-
sonville, and its being removed from the main rail line, led to the de-
cision to bypass Jacksonville. The decision raised protest from the res-
idents of the community but to no avail (Haines 1959:144-145). Thus the
railroad, in conjunction with the depletion of ore reserves, was soon
to reduce Jacksonville not only in size but also significance. By 1890
Jacksonville's growth had ceased and the railroad had served to accentu-
ate the decline (Farnum 1956:43).
Jacksonville's one last attempt to reshape its economic order and
importance came in 1890 through efforts to establish its own railroad
to connect with the main line to the east; however, it never realized
any significant success. Subsequently, the town began losing its busi-
ness among the now well-developed agrarian economy. A newly formed com-
munity called Medford was now realizing the importance and prestige that
was once Jacksonville's.
From the 1890's Jacksonville supported a very important agricultural
market, in conjunction with that of the remainder of Jackson County.
It continued to grow, but prosperity of the gold mining days was never
again realized. In 1912 more local Industry was attracted which made a
new type of axle for automobiles (cf. Haines 1967). Its population by
1920 was some 489 persons. Jacksonville, today, is once again marked
for population growth, but the attraction is of a different nature.
287
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OREGON OPERATIONS OFFICE
1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET
fORTtAND, OREGON 97205
10000
OCT 8 1976
Mr. Edward Long
State Historic Preservation
Re: City of Jacksonville
C-410498
Oregon State Highway Division
Highway Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
Dear Mr. Long:
As part of the EPA's preparation of the draft environmental impact
statement for the City of Jacksonville, an archaeological survey
of the various project alternatives was conducted. The survey was
conducted by Mr. David Brauner, Oregon State University. The
following are results of the survey:
Alternative A no impact
Alternative B - three options of which two require additional
surveys.
Alternative C - additional surveys needed on spray irrigation
site.
Alterntiave C-2 - no impact but additional surveys needed on
spray irrigation site.
As you may note, the surveys are Incomplete. However, with your
concurrence, the EPA will insure that a complete survey is conducted
once an alternative has been selected. The survey will be completed
prior to the initiation of design.
If you have any specific questions, please call me at 221-3250.
Sincerely yours,
William J. Sobolewski
Project Officer
cc: City of Jacksonville
T. Flatebo
Jones & Stokes Associate, Inc.
DEQ
288
-------
APPENDIX F
Population Projections and Definition of an Urban
Growth Boundary for the City of Jacksonville
289
-------
CITY OF JACKSON VIL.IJK
P. O. BOX 7
JACKSONVILLE. OREGON 97530
July 20, 1976
T. Flatebo and Associates
P0 Box 849
Jacksonville, OR 97530
Dear Mr. Flatebo:
Here is the outline of work that I have done with the county on the urban growth boundary
(UGB) for the City of Jacksonville.
I The urban growth boundary concept
1) It is a boundary area outside the present city limits allowing for urban develop-
ment (less- than 1 acre/dwelling unit) to the year 2000.
2) Vacant land within the city should be encouraged to be developed before expanding
outward. Thus it would be phased expansion or growth.
3) The city does not have to annex the land within the UGB.
4) The line must be within the constraints outlined in LCDC Goal 14, Urbanization:
(a) retention of USDA/SCS Class I-1V soils in agriculture
(b) provision of support services, in particular sewer and water
(c) a genuine need to accommodate the proposed population growth
(d) county coordination and agreement with the boundary area
5) Ultimately, the line will be precisely set along legal property lines. The
county will appropriately zone the areas inside and out the UGB area to guide urbanization
to the designated areas.
II The work I have done to date along with Robin Lilley, the county planner assigned to
the job.
1) From county sources we mapped the areas outside the city limits as to:
(a) soil type, SCS land capability classifications
(b) slope
(c) present county zoning
(d) present land uses
(e) county comprehensive plan designations
2) I made three population projections (low St, medium 7%, and high 9%) based on
various assumptions as to growth policy, regional economic conditions, desirability of
living in Jacksonville, and provision of public services. The assumptions and projections
are enclosed.
3) On April 14 Robin and I held introductory meeting jointly open to both the
Jacksonville Planning Commission and City Council to explain the UGB .concept and present
the background maps.
4) Two work sessions were held with two members of the Planning Commission, one
member of the Council, the the City Administrator to work on the placement of a tentative
UGB line.
5) A conceptual UGB line was presented to the Planning Commission on May 6. This
was approved by the Commission. A map showing the UGB is included.
6) On July 19 I presented the UGB work to our Citizens Advisory Committee on Planning.
III There is still musch work to done to finalize the boundary along property lines
1) I need to do a buildable land survey within the city limits to get a more accurate
idea on how much growth and at what densities the city can accommodate. This will be
completed by the end of December of this year.
2) Population projections will also be completed by that time.
3) The city through the comprehensive planning process, including citizen participation:
290
-------
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
P. O. BOX 7
JACKSONVILLE. OREGON 97S30
page 2
needs to develop growth policies to hook up with the UGB process.
4) Generally, the sequence of events with county coordination for the UGB is pre-
sented in a county outline entitled "Countywide Urbanization Plan". We are presently
starting Phase II. The outline is enclosed.
5.) The whole process should take lh years to complete.
I hope this information will be of help to you. Unfortunately our time frameworks do
not really match up, but I hope that it will at least be consistent.
Sincerely,
- ซ-v v j
Terry Jones
Planning Assistant
end.
cc: John Ives, Jones and Stokes
291
-------
Jacksonville Urban Growth Boundary and Population Assumptions
Methodology:
Project various rates of growth (straight.line)
5% low (close historical 'growth rate)
7% medium
9% high
to the
p ar
'000
List assumptions for each rate
1) growth policy
2) regional economic condition;;
3) desirability or demand for livinn
4) public service availability
a. schools
b. water
c. sewer
in Jacksonville
Points to keep in mind
the relationship between
the relationship between
the relationship between
(the conjunction of
d i f f o r o n't donsiI:it>ซ and la ml consumption
density and demand
growth and the character of the area
open space land)
LCDC constraints
retention of CJ ass J-IV agricultural land
maximum efficiency of. Land use;; within and on the fringe of urban
area
Low Projection
Continuation of population trend from 1960-75
As sumptions.
DGrowth Policy
General continuation of present density of development (low)
and maintainence of unofficial open tipnee (vacant lots and larcrelots) .
3)Regional Economic Conditions
Continuation of regional oco-'mic co.nd i. ti
-------
Medium Projection ^
(Continuation of trend from 1968-75
-as sumptions:
1) Growth Policy
encouragement of additional development at relativley higher den-
sity than present. Some unofficial open space lost from the efficiency
of development.
2) Economic
Some improvement on economic conditions. Timber industry either
less dominant in economy or diversified to such a degree that employ-
ment stability is define^tly increased, unemployment is reduced.
3) Desirability
The City is assumed to be desirable to a wider range of people.
New residents young to old, some children.
4) Public Services
a. Schools
slightly higher demand than present. Projected needs should
be examined as to financing capability and 549C school policy.
b. Water
Expand present system, examine financing capability, etc.
c. Sewer
Expand present system, examine finacing capability, etc.
High Projection
-continuation of trend from 1968-72? (during sewer hook up availability)
-assumptions:
1)Growth Policy
Active encouragement of new development at higher density than
present. Significant in-town open space lost duo to infilling.
2)Economic
Significant improvement. Primary industry (timber or other)
has stable employment. Unemployment significantly reduced from present.
3)Desirability
Assumed to be desirable to wide range. New residents of all types,
greatest increase in young with children.
4) Public Services
a. Schools
Much higher demand than present, consider financial capabilities.
b. Water
Much higher demand th.in present:., etc.
c.. Sewer
Much higher demand than present, etc.
2*3
-------
^ JACKSONVILLE FOPVUAT\ON PROJECTIOMS
I
Tooo
- hioH
booo
-------
-------
Soil
ahp
? -i-O I.,.'J J i.
L PK"~^---7p.2 H iVrBC f-i
*. ' * ปปi>!
Pf-/ r i -T-'g
I ป* '(
ป-.
:::'-:^vX:';'.;'.
-------
II ฆ'
.60IL
!
J
it rc --i
I JQ
-.-K
ฆ'.S5-T
D
4. _ '
_ซ_< ' _ <
rrrjnf
TTr fejJtc3
Filial
pf^.ip56i>"Q:^nr.
* i-*-
&
3
"ranit
8
K
\
*ซซ**
ซ
ซ
:::::::
"ฆSSS**"
ป
::::::
!
>...ซ52sJฃ
m hhhhs
- "ilHIZiii ii ! ??? #ง *
! HsHHiiiHiSH S
*?~~XXIS.ISIl
ซซซ> #>
}*.
/Pi
w s sz
L_.
ซซ
ซ*
s.c.
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
Wastewater Analysis by U. S. Forest Service
299
-------
United State9 Department or Agriculture
FOREST SERVICE
Fio
-------
2
Therefore, in summary, the alternative that treated effluent be piped by
the City of Jacksonville to the proposed Forest Nursery site for irriga-
tion is acceptable to the Rogue River National Forest* The project
would be mutually beneficial to both the Forest Service and tho City.
We look forward to working with you on this project, if it is accepted
DONALD H. SMITH
Forest Supervisor
301
-------
UMPQUA RESEARCH COMPANY
^WuIei an J lx *Z7ticlinology
P. O. Box 79 J * Telephone (503) 863-5732
626 N.E. Division Street Myrtle Creek, Oregon 97457
TEST RESULTS
NAME Rogue River National Forest ATTNJohn Brazier
Gerald V. Coloml
David F. Putnar
Date /S-16-76
/
AnnRFSS 333 W. 8th St., Medford, OR 97501
Phoenix Canal
.Date Reported 9-16-76
\
\
TEST
SOURCE
Road
Treatment
Plant
DATE TESTED
Site 4
/
Site 5
-SAMPLE #
UNITS
60826-4
>
-5 -
PH
pH Units
7.7
7.4
<
SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY
y mho/cm
183
340
r
ALUMINUM. Extractable
mg/liter
0.7
ฆ
0.3
\
ARSENIC, Extractable
mq/liter
<0.01
1
<0.01
\
1
BORON * Total
mg/liter
0.33
j
0.60
CALCIUM, Extractable
mg/liter
19.85
f
18.61
\
IRON, Extractable
mg/1iter
0.67
*
0.26
i
MAGNESIUM, Extractable
mg/liter
10.13
;
8.64
i
1
MANGANESE, Extractable
mg/1iter
0.11
f
0.13
i
f
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
mg/1iter
0.4
\
11.5
!.
FILTERABLE RESIDUE
mg/1iter
24
\
59
SELENIUM, Extractable
mg/1iter
<0.002
<0.002
!
COPPER, Extractable
mg/1iter
1
0.01
i
ZINC, Extractable
mg/1iter
i
; 0.07
t
i
0RTH0 PHOSPHOROUS
mg/1iter
\
6.7
t
SODIUM, Extractable
mg/1iter
\
44.0
t
/
ฆ
\
\
, /
\
\
i
" \
%
/
s V
/
/
~Unable to run Boron on extractable metals sample
APPROVED BY C~X t C-
/jovcnd {,
-------
APPENDIX H
Compilation of Air Emissions Based on Population
and an Index of Annual Average Daily Travel
303
-------
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
Year
City of
Jacksonville1
Rural Portion
of Project
Study Area2
Total Study
Area
low Projection3
Total Study
Area
Hiqh Projection1*
1975
2,070
500
2,570
2,570
1980
2,807
625
3,432
6,011
1985
3,541
750
4,291
9,452
1990
4,276
875
5,151
12,894
1995
5,010
1,000
6,010
16,335
1997
5,304
1,050
6,354
17,711
2000
5,745
1,125
6,870
19,776
NOTES:
1 Mid-range projection (7.09 percent annual grcwth rate).
2 Based on holding capacity set by current zoning, 5.0 percent annual
growth rate.
3 Total of first two columns.
** Based on capacity of interceptor connecting the study area to the
regional treatment plant; assumes utilization of full capacity by
1997 and necessary changes in study area zoning.
304
-------
INDEX OF ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL
(trips per day)
Index of Local Travel1
Local of Tourist Travel2
Index of Total Travel
Population Projection Basis
Population Projection Basis
Population Projection Basis
Year
City
Mid-Range
Study Area
Low
Study Area
High
City
Mid-Range
Study Area
Lew
Study Area
High
City
Mid-Range
Study Area
Low
Study Area
High
1975
4.400
5,463
5,463
600
745
745
5,000
6,208
6,208
1980
5,967
7,295
12,777
814
995
1,742
6,781
8,290
14,519
1985
1,521
9,121
20,091
1,026
1,244
2,740
8,553
10,365
22,831
1990
9,089
10,949
27,408
1,239
1,493
3,737
10,328
12,442
31,145
1995
10,649
12,775
34,722
1,452
1,742
4,735
12,101
14,517
39,457
1997
11,274
13,506
37,647
1,537
1,842
5,134
12,811
15,348
42,781
2000
12,212
14,603
42,036
1,665
1,991
5,732
13,877
16,594
47,768
NOTES: Based on population projections shewn in the previous table and on 1975 traffic count data for Highway 238
west of 5th Street in Jacksonville.
1 Assuming constant 2.13 trips per person, based on 1975 data for Jacksonville.
2 Assuming tourist travel remains a constant percentage of local travel (13.64 percent) based on 1975 data for
Jacksonville.
997-479
-------
APPENDIX I
- EPA Letter to Jacksonville
- Cost Analysis
- Real Estate Appraisal
306
-------
* 'ฆ
%
UJ
o
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
<" ป r i-, o n operations orriCE
lito S. W. MORRISON STREET, RM. 3 1 O
Si
PORTLAND. OREGON 17209
*ฃHY lO
ATTN OF:
10000
1377
Honorable Clara H. Wendt
Mayor, City of Jacksonville
City Hall
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
Re: City of Jacksonville
C-410498-01-2
Dear Mayor Wendt:
Before we can adequately prepare our recommendation to the final
environmental impact statement, a complete soils survey of alternative
C-l must be accomplished. Though we realize this survey is normally
done as part of Step 2 design phase, we are authorizing the work
now during the Step 1 facilities planning. The soils survey should
include an analysis of the type of soils, drainage patterns, crop
suitability, and type of effluent application (i.e. irrigation using
spray, ridge and furrow, and flood, overland flow, or infiltration -
percolation). The results of the survey should also determine whether
a subsurface drainage system is necessary. Once the survey has been
completed, a revised cost-effectiveness analysis comparing alternatives
C-l and A-3 should be made.
In order to complete this environmental impact process, it is requested
that you expedite completion of the survey. If you have any specific
questions, please contact me at 221-3250.
Sincerely yours,
A *
William J. Sobolews'ki
Project Officer
cc: DEQ
Roger Mochnick, EPA, Seattle
I. Flatebo
'"""Jones & Stokes & Assoc.
307
-------
M-enfeo in
.. DRCOON
wabhinoton
CALIFORNIA
T. Flatebo and Associates
Civil enqineerb and land surveyors
(503)
P. a. Box 84*
flS noiith Fifth *tiปt
Jacksonville, Dicodn ป7S3D
torlicv tlatcbo, p. e.
BV9-QOOO
KURT e. WEAVER
BJ9-7B45
ALBERT W. QANDT
July 5, 1977
Mr. William E. Gildow
Construction Grants Specialist
Dept of Environmental Quality
1234.SW Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
Re: W.Q. Jacksonville
C - 410478
Dear Bill:
Enclosed follows a copy of the property appraisal for
Alt. Clf a revised pipeline estimate from BCVSA, and
a cost-effective analysis by me for alternatives A-3
and Cl.
BCVSA re-estimated the pipelines. This made a considerable
difference. Also, the land appraisal for C-l came out higher
than I had used in my previous comparison.
We also looked into billing cost and general administration
costs. BCVSA's earlier figures did include this but
not Jacksonville's.
I hope, this is the information you need and that a decision
will be forthcoming soon.
Should you have any questions, please call.
IฎHH Hf|
JUL 7 1977 U
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Environmental Quality
308
-------
All;'. A-3 Connecting to BCVSA (REvised)
Install"IV"(4.i crs) pipe ฑrom existing lagoons to the West Medford
Trunk at Pioneer Ave. (7535 feet).
Jacksonville ultimate population 1998 -
Population along line
- 5300
1050
61^
Cost Breakdown:
Item;
Cost
Dollars:
Life
Years:
Salvage Value
after 20 years:
Capacity purchase in
BCVSA interceptor
102,000.-
50
61,200.-
West Medford Trunk
Extension
221,275.-
50
132,765.-
Abandonment of
existing facilities
10,000.-
Total Construction Cost
333,275.-
Salvage Value after 20 vrs
193,965.-
Existing Site
Salvage Value
416,593.-
42,500.-
25% Engr. Capital Cost
83,318.-
Total Cap Cost
416,593.-
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
Annexation
47,616.-
''Contract;
\ /
(46,545.-)
309
-------
Alt. C1 Aerated Lagoons with Adjacent Agricultural Use (Revised)
Item:
Cost
Dollars :
Life
Years :
Salvage Value
Dollars :
Operation building,
W*. Lab.
15 ,000.-
25
3,000.-
0.425 mgd aerated lagoon
system
40,800.-
20
0
Modify existing lagoons
for storage
20,000.-
20
0
Chlorination equipment -
1st 10 years
2nd 10 years
i i
. .
o o
o o
o o
*
in m
10
10
0
0
Pumping station
10 ,000.-
20
0
Fence, roads and landscaping
20,000.-
50
12,000.-
Agricultural land site
preparation (includes
return water system)
36,000.-
30
12 ,000.-
Sprinkler system
43,300.-
20
0
Monitoring wells
5 ,000.-
20
0
Total construction cost
200 ,000.-
Salvage value at year 20
27 ,000.-
Sites and easements
252,000.-
252,000.-
Contingencies and
engineering, 25%
50 ,000.-
Total capital cost
502,000.-
Annual operation and
maintenance cost
47 ,699.-
310
-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION of ALTERNATIVES :
TOTAL
CAPITAL
Item:
Interest
Factor :
A - 3
C - 1
Capital Cost
1.000
416,593.-
502,000.-
Interest during
Construction
1.000
14 ,500.-
17,000.-
Salvage Value
0.30454
-101,570.-
-84 ,967.-
Total Present Worth
329,523.-
434,033.-
Average Annual
equivalent cost
0.08807
29,021.-
38,225.-
Annual Operation and
Maintenance
47,616.-
47,699.-
Annual Net Return
from Sale of Crops
- 8,500.-
Total Average
Annual Equivelant Cost
76,637.-
77,424.-
-------
C. VaNDAGRIFT, M.A.I. S.R.E.A.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISER AND ANA| VซT
July 1, 1977
28 No. Oakbali Art.
Midiob, Omgom 97501
Tilithohi 77V-1666 (codi soa)
The Honorable Clara Wendt
Mayor, City of Jacksonville
City Hall
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
Subject: Appraisal of Hueners property, 4610 Bellinger
Lane, Jackson County, Oregon
Dear Mayor Wendt:*
Pursuant to your request, I have made an inspection and an ap-
praisal of the above captioned property for the purpose of
estimating market value in fee simple title as of June 2, 1977#
of the property in its entirety, the remainder property, and
the proposed acquisition.
The subject property is located easterly of the City of Jack-
sonville approximately one-half mile on the northerly side of
South Stage Road and Bellinger Lane. Its address is 4610
Bellinger Lane.
The property in its entirety consists of approximately 285
acres, the proposed acquisition consists of 113 acres, more or
less, leaving a remainder of approximately 172 acres. The
subject property is improved with a single family residence,
three barns, and miscellaneous outbuildings.
Inspection of the property was made June 2, 1977. Property
transactions have been investigated and an opinion has been
formed as to the highest and best use and the estimated market
value of the subject property.
Based upon my study of the property and my knowledge of values
in the area, it is my opinion that the estimated market value
as of June 2, 1977* in fee simple title of the subject property
in its entirety was:
n\
SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($615,000) "
The remainder property;
THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($363,000)
312
-------
The proposed acquisition:
TWO HUNDRED H FTY-TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($252,000)
este^nbLeep^opertvaLd ?ฃ* + nฐ ?resฎnt or contemplated'inter-
est _n x,ne property and that my fee for making this appraisal
is not predicated upon the value of the property. aPPraisal
Your attention is invited to the attached appraisal inf,
The appraisal is made subject to the limiting conditions set
forth in the appraisal report. ions set
Very truly yours.
Cap C. Vandagrift, M.A.I., S.R.E.A
CCV: mb
313
-------
APPRAISAL REPORT
of
Hueners Property
^610 Bellinger Lane
Jackson County^ Oregon
Prepared for
The Honorable Clara Wendt
Mayor, City of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Oregon
Date of Appraisal
June 2} 1977
By
Cap C. Vandagrift, M.A.I., S.R.E.A.
28 North Oakdale Avenue
Medford, Oregon 97501
314
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
intboduction
Title Page i
Table of Contents ii
Summary of Salient Pacts and Conclusions iii
Statement of Limiting Conditions iv
description, ANALYSES, AND CONCLUSIONS
Purpose of the Appraisal 1
Identification of Property 1
Assessed Valuation and Taxes 1
Area and Local Data 2
Land Description 2
Improvements 5
Zoning 8
Highest and Best Use 8
Cost Approach 8
Comparable Sales Approach 13
Income Approach .... 13
Correlation and Analyses of Indicated Values 13
Certification 14
ADDENDA *
Copy of Engineer's Map 15
Soil Map 16
Description of Soil Classifications 17
Plat Map of Subdivision Adjacent to a Lagoon 25
Photographs Showing Proximity of Houses to Lagoons 26
Comparable Market Data Location Map 32
Market Data 33
Copy of Aerial Photo of Subject Property 4l
Photographs of Subject Property 42
Qualifications of the Appraiser 5^
* NOTE: Addenda is not included in this report; available
for review at EPA offices in Portland and Seattle.
315
-------
sUKKARY OF SALIENT PACTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Owner:
2. Date of Valuation:
3. Land Area:
U. Improvements
Records indicate Ernest A. and
Marie Hueners and Albert E.
and Louise Hueners
June 2, 1977
Before acquisition: 285 Ac.
Remainder: 172 Ac.
Proposed acquisition: 113 Ac.
Single family residence, three
barns, and miscellaneous out-
buildings
5. Highest and Best Use:
6, Cost Approach:
7. Comparable Sales Approach:
8. Income Approach:
9. Estimated Market Value:
Agricultural subject to trans-
ition into rural residential
sites
In entirety:
Remainder:
Proposed acqui-
sition:
$615,000
$363,000
$252,000
Inadequate data to compare
property in its entirety; how-
ever, comparable sales data
was used in the Cost Approach
as an indicator of land value
Inadequate data to develop
Fee value in En-
tirety:
Remainder:
Proposed acqui-
sition:
$615,000
$363,000
$252,000
316
-------
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS:
1. Title to the property is assumed to be marketable.
2. No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for legal
matters, especially those affecting title to the prop-
erty.
3. No legal description v;as furnished. The subject prop-
erty has been identified by tax lot numbers assigned
by the Jackson County assessor's office.
4. It is assumed that information obtained from various
property owners and county records as to purchase
and/or selling prices is reasonably correct.
5. The boundary lines of the property as portrayed on the
subject map furnished and as set forth in the Jackson
County assessor's records are assumed to be reasonably
correct, as is the map furnished of the proposed ac-
quisition.
6. It is assumed that the southwesterly 250 feet of the
proposed acquisition will be used for a buffer zone be-
tween the subject property owner's remainder and the
area to be sprinkled from the sewer lagoons. It is
also assumed that appropriate plantings will be made
in the buffer zone to screen the subject remainder from
the proposed acquisition.
7. This appraisal is made subject to the requirements of
the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Con-
duct of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
8. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed
by the Bylaws and Regulations of the American Institute
of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of
Real Estate Boards. Neither all nor any part of the
contents of this report (especially any conclusions as
to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm
with which he is connected, or any reference to the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the
M.A.I, or R.M. designation) shall be disseminated to
the public through advertising media, public relations
media, news media, sales media, or any other public
means of communications without the prior written con-
sent and approval of the author.
317
-------
DESCRIPTION, ANALYSES3 AND CONCLUSIONS
318
-------
jyaPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL:
irjje purpose of this appraisal is to estimate market
value of the subject property as of June 2, 1977, in
its entirety, the remainder property, and the proposed
acquisition.
KAKKET VALUE is defined as the highest price estimated
in terms of money which the property will "bring if ex-
posed for sale in the open market by a seller who is
willing but not obligated to sell, allowing a reason-
able time to find a buyer who is willing but not ob-
ligated to buy, both parties having full knowledge of
all the uses, to which it is adapted and for which it
is capable of being used.
IDENTIFICATION OP PROPERTY:
The property is known as the Ernest A. and Marie Hueners
and Albert E. and Louise-Hueners property, 4610 Bel-
linger Lane, Jackson County, Oregon.
The subject property is identified by the Jackson County,
Oregon, assessor's records as Tax Lot 3500, Township 37
South, Range 2 West, Section 28, and Tax Lot 300 in
Township 37 South, Range 2, West, Section 33* both in
Code 49~30.
ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAXES:
Tax Lot 3500, Township 37 South, Range 2 West, Section
28, in Code 49-30, Account No. *J9800-0, consists of
approximately 72.76 acres according to the assessor's
records. It is under special assessment and appraised
at $14,900 and has no improvements.
Tax Lot 300, Township 37 South, Range 2 West, Section
33* in Code 49-30, Account No. 49929-2, consists of
approximately 202.24 acres according to-the assessor's
records. It is under,special assessment and appraised
at $32,510 for the land/ $12,380 for the improvements,
making a total appraised value of Tax Lot 300 of $44,890
The total appraised value for both tax lota is $59*790.
The taxes on Tax Lot 3500 for 1976-77 are $251.85.
The taxes on Tax Lot 300 for 1976-7fare $1,393-26.
1
1 319
-------
AREA AND LOCAL DATA:
The subject property is located approximately one-half
mile easterly of the City of Jacksonville -which has a
population of approximately 2,100. it is three miles,
more or less, westerly of the westerly city limits of
the City of Medford which has a population of approxi-
mately 3^>000 and is the county seat of Jackson County,
Oregon. Jackson County has a population of approxi-
mately 108,000.
In the immediate area of the subject property are agri-
cultural lands, rural homesites of various sizes, and
horoesites within the City of Jacksonville, a slight
distance southwesterly of the subject property. North-
erly of the subject property are the Jacksonvi lie sewer
lagoons. Immediately westerly of the subject property
is an orchard as is immediately easterly of the sub- .
ject property.
The economy in the Jackson County area appears to be
good and an increased demand for land in the rea of
the subject property would be anticipated.
LAND DESCRIPTION:
In Its Entirety
The subject property in its entirety consists of
approximately 285 acres of which 187> plus or minus,
are farm land. Of the 187 acres of farm .land there
are approximately 36 acres of irrigated l-r-d.
The topography of the subject land is lev;-i. to roll-
ing. On the higher elevations of the subject land
which is not tilled are natural oak treer. and some
brush.
Included in the Addenda of this appraisal report is
a copy of a soil map prepared by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, also de-
scriptive matter in regard to the various types of
soils on the subject property. - .
The subject property has approximately 1,050 feet
frontage on the northeasterly side of South Stage
Road and approximately 2,200 feet frontage on the
northerly side of Bellinger Lane. Access to the
building and service area is by a graveled, single
lane, drive off Bellinger Lane.
2
320
-------
There is a Medford Irrigation District canal which
enters the subject property approximately. 650 feet
northerly of its southeasterly corner, meanders
in a northwesterly direction, then in a westerly
direction, leaving the roost westerly boundary of the
subject property approximately 100 feet southerly
of the northwesterly corner.
Curry Creek flows across the subject property from
its westerly boundary to its easterly boundary, It
enters the property approximately one-quarter mile
easterly and 250 feet northerly of the northwest
corner of Section 33 and generally flows in a
easterly direction.
Mr. Albert Hueners said their water rights are lo-
cated just northerly of Curry Creek; however, they
apply their water southerly of Curry Creek.
The Medford-Jacksonville "water line runs in a east-
west direction across the subject property southerly
of Curry Creek. The owner of the subject property
has the right for one connection for domestic use,
which presently serves the subject residence.
The shape of the subject property can be best under-
stood by referring to. the copy of the aerial photo
or the map of the subject property included in the
Addenda of this appraisal report.
Remainder Property
The subject remainder consists of approximately 172
acres which is all dry land with no Irrigation water
rights. Of the 172 acres, there are approximately
20 acres lying southwesterly and-parallel to the
proposed acquisition for a depth of approximately
250 feet which, in the opinion of the appraiser,
would be affected by the acquisition.
In order for the appraiser to form an opinion as to
whether the proposed acquisition and tentative use
would affect the remainder property, the appraiser
investigated six sewer lagoon systems from which
they sprinkle irrigate contiguous lands. The six
investigated are located at Sherwood, Culver, Mil-
ton-Freewater, Sutherlin, and Eagle Point. Oregon '
and Redding, California.
The one at Sherwood, Oregon, is located in a fam-
ing area and does not have a close proximity to any
3
321
-------
residence to indicate if it affects contiguous prop-
erties.
The one at Culver, Oregon, is located within approxi-
mately one-half mile of the City of Culver and no
damage to contiguous properties has been indicated.
The installation at Milton-Freewater is removed from
any populated area, giving no indication.
The installation at Sutherlin, Oregon, is in the
northeast quadrant of Interstate 5 and the main
street through Sutherlin. The water is pumped from
the main plant to a lagoon system which is located
in the center of the golf course, and from the lagoon
system it is used as sprinkle irrigation for the golf
course. They have received no complaints, nor have
they received complaints from golfers who are using
the golf course.
The installation at Eagle Point is quite removed
from residences and there was no indicator here
either.
The lagoon system located at Enterprise, California,
which is immediately contiguous and southf oterly of
Redding, California, is located just westerly"of a
subdivision. Just southerly of the lagoons the
land is sprinkler irrigated from the lagoons. In
talking to realtors in the area, they have had no
resistance to buyers purchasing properties in said
subdivision. However, I talked to Mr. Esmond,
Manager of the Enterprise Public Utilitit Company,
and he said they get a slight odor from the lagoons
when there is algae on the lagoons. He also stated
that if they sprinkle the land to the point that
there are puddles formed on the irrigated meadow,
they also get a slight odor from this. He stated
that they have had no complaints from contiguous
property owners other than the fact that ohe lagoons
seem to be a hatching point for nats, and said nats
do drift into the subdivision area.
Between the lagoons and the sprinkled area there is
heavy brush and trees on the buffer area. Mr.Es-
mond stated that if it were not for the heavy brush r
and trees there would no doubt be a heavier migra-
tion or drifting of the nats from the system into
the subdivision area.
In order for the reader of this report to understand
the Redding system I have included in the Addenda
4
322
-------
of this appraisal report a plat map showing the
subdivision; the location of the lagoons and the
sprinkled area; and photographs of the lagoon, the
buffer area, and the heavy brush and trees between
the sewer system and the subdivision residences.
On said map I have indicated some sales of lots
ฆwithin the subdivision. It appears that if said
sales were adjusted for time, there is no great'
noticeable difference in market value of the lots
contiguous to the buffer zone compared to those
across the street. Also, I have taken pictures of
residences located in the subdivision and backing
up to the buffer zone. It appears that the price
range of said residences range from approximately
$50,000 up to $70,000-$80,000.
It was concluded by the appraiser that some affect
ฆwould be created to the property immediately con-
tiguous to the proposed acquisition by additional
insects that would be developed..from the,, sewer
system. Also that there would "be some psychological
effect on some tentative purchasers, and that there
v/ould be an interim period between the acquisition
of the proposed acquisition until such time that
adequate trees and brush could be planted and
grow to the point that they would adequately screen
the remainder of the subject property from the
proposed sewer system.
It was concluded that approximately 20 acres con-
tiguous to the southwesterly side of the proposed
acquisition for a depth of approximately 250 feet
would be affected approximately 20 percent.
Therefore, damage has been assigned to this portion
of the remainder on that basis.
The balance of the land in the remainder would re-
main the same as in the before situation.
Proposed Acquisition:
The proposed acquisition consists of approximately
113 acres of which 36 acres, plus or minus, are
irrigated. Said acreage would be further described
as it was in the Before Value.
IMPROVEMENTS:
Property in its Entirety;
5
323
-------
The subject house consists of approximately 1,376
square feet with two attached porches. According
to the courthouse records it was constructed in
1912. It is of wood frame construction, has rock
and wood foundation, horizontal wood siding, and
metal roof covering.
The rooms consist of a living room, dining room,
two bedrooms, one and one-half baths, kitchen,
dinette, and porch.
The residence has been very well maintained for its
age and the appraiser has assigned it a depreciated
value.
The garage-utility building is immediately westerly
of the subject residence. It is approximately
lS'xSS1, or 576 square feet, of which 180 square
feet, more or less, is a utility room. This build-
ing has been assigned a depreciated value also.
The single garage located northwesterly of the
residence is approximately 20' x 12'^ or 2U0 square
feet. It has a rock foundation, dirt floor with
wood plank on each side of the drive area, wood
frame construction, horizontal wood siding, and
corrugated metal roof covering. This building also
has been assigned a depreciated value.
The cellar or cooler is approximately 9it,x9ฅi, or
90 square feet. It is of concrete and tile, ap-
proximately four feet of the building is below
ground level and approximately six feet above, and
the roof structure is wood frame with corrugated
metal roof covering. This building has been as-
signed a depreciated value.
It is the opinion of the appraiser that if the sub-
ject property were used to its highest and best use
that the above-mentioned buildings generally would '
be the major buildings that would have value with
the following buildings having a utility value to
the residence if the property were used to its high-
est and best use. In other words, it is the opinion
of the appraiser that the major portion of the
following listed improvements would be overimprove-
ments and possibly one barn and one shed would be
retained with the existing residence.
The additional buildings consist of:
Shed, approximately 24'x37' or 884 square feet
6
324
-------
Barn located northerly of the residence -which
is approximately 67,x32' or 2,144 squajre feet
A small rahed southeasterly of the residence
which is approximately 8'xl2' or 96 square feet
An old cabin with attached porch which is approx-
imately 27'xl2' or 324 square feet
An old milk house approximately l6'x22' or 352
square feet
An old stable approximately l4'x20f or 280
square feet
A 2-story pump house approximately 12'xl2' or
144 square feet
A poultry building approximately 60'x24' or
1,440 square feet . _ . . .
An outhouse approximately 4'x4' or 16 square feet
A barn southwesterly of the residence that is
32'x28' or 896 square feet with an attached
shed which is 29'xlS1 or 522 square feet
A concrete stock tank approximately ll'x20l
and 3 feet deep
The westerly barn, including the attached sheds,
is approximately 9*130 square feet
Granary approximately 26'x32' or 832 square
feet
A diesel pump with 250-gallon underground storage
and a gas pump with 550-gallon underground
storage
Septic system
Domestic water from the Medford-Jacksonville
water line and is piped to the residence. Also
there is a spring located near the westerly
side of the subject property northwesterly of
the residence.
It is felt that the improvements listed above added
approximately $5*000 in utility value to the subject
residence and miscellaneous buildings immediately
around it with the major portion of them being an
overimprovement if the property was used to its
highest and best use.
The appraiser has a more complete description of all
the above-mentioned improvements in his file if
7
325
-------
needed; however, photographs of the subject im-
provements are included in the Addenda of-this ap-
praisal report.
Remainder Property:
The subject improvements would be the same as in
the Before Value.
Proposed Acquisition:
There are no improvements in the proposed acqui-
sition or affected by the proposed acquisition.
ZONING:
The subject property is zoned FR~5ป
HIGHEST AND BEST USE:
It is the opinion of the appraiser that
and best use of the subject property is
cultural use subject to transition into
ential tracts of various sizes.
COST APPROACH:
Land - Property in its Entirety
It was difficult to find sales comparable in size
to the subject property that had a close proximity
to the subject property. Thirteen sales -were lo-
cated which had a relatively close proximity to
the subject property but they were all smaller in
size than the subject. From the 13 sales the ap-
praiser selected four which he felt were most com-
parable to the dry land and related them on an
acreage basis. Said sales are set forth in the
Addenda of this appraisal report.
Sale No. 1 - Sold in January of 1977* consisted of
23.6 acres, and sold for approximately $1,500 an
acre. It has been the experience of the appraiser
that the upward trend has been approximately 10
percent per annum; therefore, a plus adjustment
was made for date of sale. The sales property had
been mined over the major portion of it and its
topography was inferior to that of the subject
property and a plus adjustment was assigned. The
sales property was much smaller than the subject
the highest
for agri-
rural resid-
8
326
-------
property and a minus adjustment was assigned. The
sales property had inferior access and a plus ad-
justment was assigned. After adjustments the
value indicated for the subject per acre was ap-
proximately $2,083.-
sale No. 2 - Sold in May of 1975# consisted of 38
acres, more or less, and sold for approximately
$2,207 an acre. It required a plus adjustment for
date of sale. It was much smaller in size than the
subject and required a minus adjustment. After
adjustments indicated a value of $2,004 an acre.
Sale No. 3 - Sold in January, 1977. It consisted
of approximately 20 acres and sold for $3*500 an
acre, plus or. minus. It required a plus adjust-
ment for date of sale. It was much smaller than
the subject and required a minus adjustment for
size. After adjustments indicated a value of
$2,659 311 acre.
Sale No. 4 - Sold in November of 1975* consisted
of 39.^ acres, and sold for $1,332 an acre. It
required a plus adjustment for date of sale.
Its access was inferior to that of the subject
property as the subject had direct frontage on
public roads whereas the access to the sales prop-
erty was a long narrow lanej therefore, a plus
adjustment. After adjustments the value in-
dicated per acre for the subject land was approx-
imately $1,935.
The following sales were related to the subject
irrigated land:
Sale No. 5 - This sale was in September of 1975.
It consisted of approximately 14.65 acres and sold
for $2,389 an acre, plus or minus. It required a
plus adjustment for date of sale and a minus ad-
justment for size. Its topography was inferior
to that of the subject property, considering the
subject property in its entirety, and a plus ad-
justment was assigned. After adjustments the
value indicated per acre for the irrigated land
was approximately $2,473.
Sale No. 6 - Sold in November of 1973# consisted of
22.07 acres, and sold for approximately $1,812 an
acre. It required a plus adjustment for date of
sale and a minus adjustment for size. After ad-
justments indicated a value ot $1,880 an acre.
9
327
-------
Sale No. 7 - This sale was in February of 1976. .It
consisted of approximately 97.00 acres and sold for
$2,763 an acre, plus or minus. It required a plus
adjustment for date of sale and a minus adjustment
for size. After adjustments indicated a value of
approximately $2,5*J1 an acre for the irrigated land.
Sale No. 8 - Sold in August, 1976. consisted of 20.00
acres and sold for approximately $2,700 an acre.
It required a plus adjustment for date of sale and
for topography, a minus adjustment for size, and
after adjustments indicated a value of $2,338 per
acre.
A comparable sales map is set forth in the Addenda
of this report showing the location of the subject
property and the proximity of the sales data to the
subject property.
Correlation and analyses of the dry land sales is
as follows:
Sale No. 1 is immediately contiguous to the sub-
ject property on its northwesterly side, also
is a recent sale. Sale No. 2 was felt to be a
good indicator; however, it sold in 1975 although
it did require few adjustments. Sale No. 3
seemed to be inconsistent with the balance of
the sales. Sale No. b was felt to be a good
indicator, however, it required a heavy adjust-
ment for the access.
It was concluded that the value indicated for
the subject dry land was approximately $2,000
an acre.
Correlation and analyses of the irrigated land sales
is as follows: !
Sales No. 5j 7ป and 8 were felt to be the best
indicators. Sale No. 6 was not consistent with
them and was an older sale. Sale No. 7 "was felt
to be one of the best indicators, be.i ng one of
the larger acreages.
It was concluded that the value indicated for
the subject irrigated land was approximately
$2,500 per acre.
Land - Remainder Property
The remainder land will consist of 17' acres total.
10
328
-------
All ^ dry land. It is felt that 1^2
acres of it will be the same as before, or $2,000
aii *acre. As previously discussed, it is the opin-
iorf of the appraiser that there are approximately
20 tacres immediately southwesterly and contiguous
to the proposed acquisition for a depth of approxi-
mately 250 feet that will be affected by the acqui-
sition, and its value would be reduced to approxi-
mately $1,600 an acre.
7-ป>nd - Proposed Acquisition
The. proposed acquisition consists of approximately
113 acres, consisting of 36 acres of irrigated
land which has been assigned a value of $2,500 an
acre and approximately 77 acres of dry land which
has been assigned a value of $2,000 an acre.
It'is"the opinion of "the appraiser that there are
approximately 20 acres immediately southwesterly
of the proposed acquisition for a depth of approxi-
mately 250 feet that will be affected approximately
20 percent of its value, or approximately $400 an
acre, because of reasons previously discussed.
Improvements
Property in its Entirety
It is the opinion of the appraiser that the
buildings that will add value to the land would
be the house, garage and utility building, north-
westerly garage, and the cellar-cooler and the
septic system and domestic water system. The
other miscellaneous outbuildings wouEld have a
utility value that could be used with the main
residence. Therefore, the appraiser has assigned
a depreciated value to the improvements he felt
. . that added value to the land.
Remainder Property
The improvements on the remainder will be the
same as they were in the before value or the
property in its entirety.
Proposed Acquisition
2ftere are no improvements in the proposed ac-
quisition. ' A
11
329
-------
Summation of Cost Approach
Property In Its Entirety
Land 285 Ac.ฑ total
36 Ac. irrigated @ $2,500 $ 9ฐ,000
249 Ac. balance @ $2,000 498,000
Total land $588,000
Improvements
House 1376 SP @ $12 $ 16,512
Garage & Utility
576 SF @ $3 1,728
Garage 240 SF @ J>3 720
Cellar 90 SF @ $3 270
Septic system 1,000
Domestic water 2,000
Misc. outbuildings 5,000
Total improvements
Total land and improvements
Rounded to $615,000
27,230
$615,230
Remainder Property
Land 172 Ac.- total
152 Ac. dryland @ $2,000
20 Ac. dryland
damaged @ $1,600
Total land value
Improvements
$304,000
"32.000
Same as in Property in its
Entirety
Total land and improvements
Rounded to $363,000
Proposed Acquisition
Land in Taking 113 Ac.+
36 Ac. irrigated @ $2,500 $ 90,000
77 Ac. dryland @ $2,000 154,000
Damage to Remainder
20 Ac. @ $2,000 = $40,000 x 20#
Total proposed acquisition
12
$336,000
27,230
$363^30
$244,000
8.000
$252,000
330
-------
Estimatedmartetva)ue of the subject prop-
erty in its entirety indicated by the Cost -
approach ... ..... ... *..... $6l5j000
Indicated^market value of the Eemainder
by the Cost Approach # , . . ... , . $363 000
^nซ?*it?nI^ฃkeJv.VAlue- of the proposed
acquisition by the Cost Approach $252,000
COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH:
^Rie appraiser was unable f n i ,,
parable to the subiect ^ sales that were com
a similar location. Therefo^^ +ฃ JS entlJfty having
Approach was not developed. Comparable Sales
INCOME APPROACH:
There was inadequate data to properly develop the In
come Approach. y x
CORRELATION AND ANALYSES OF INDICATED VALUES;
There was inadequate data to properly develop the
Comparable Sales Approach and the Income Approach,
therefore, the Cost Approach was developed using com
parable land sales and relating them on an acreage
unit value basis to the subject land. To this was
added the depreciated value of the improvements.
It was concluded that the Cost Approach was the best
indicator and that the value indicated was:
Property in its Entirety
Remainder
Proposed Acquisition
13
331
-------
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that I have personally inspected the
subject property; that I have personal knowledge of
the sales of other properties in the area; and that
the statements contained herein and upon which opinion
of value herein was formulated are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have no in-
terest, present or contemplated, in the subject prop-
erty and my fee is unrelated to my estimate of value.
This appraisal has been made in conformity with the
Standards and Rules of the American Institute of Real
Estate Appraisers.
It is my opinion that the estimated "market value of
the subject property as of June 2, 1977, is as
follows: * ^ '
Property in its Entirety
SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($615,000)
Remainder Property
THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($363,000)
Proposed Acquisition
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($252,000)
Cap C. Vandagrift, M.A.I., S.R.E.Ai
14
332
------- |