United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
EPA-10-OR-JACKSON-Ashland-WQMP-7S
EPA 910-9-79-059A
Water July 1979 EPA 910/9-79-05$^
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Reeder Reservoir
Maintenance Operations
An Element of the Rogue Valley
Water Quality Management Plan
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REEDER RESERVOIR
MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS
An Element of the Rogue Valley
Water Quality Management Plan
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance from
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Re spon s ib ls->.0 f f i c ia 1:
^-f "— —
^pTiala P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
Date
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
A
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
m.
UJ
O
T
JUL 1 S 1979
REPLY TO ..
ATTN OF: M/S 443
To: All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and implementing Federal regulations, I am forwarding for
your review and comment this draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the City of Ashland Reeder Reservoir maintenance operations. The
Rogue Valley Council of Governments has requested approval by EPA of
the proposed operations as an element of the Rogue Valley Water Quality
Management Plan, under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act of 1977.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will announce the availability
of this document in the Federal Register on Friday, July 27, 1979,
initiating a forty-five day review and comment period. If you have
any comments on this draft EIS or wish to provide additional information
for inclusion in the final EIS, we would appreciate hearing from you
before the close of the comment period on September 10, 1979. All
comments received will be used by EPA personnel in evaluating the effects
of approving the proposed plan element. Please send your comments,
or requests for additional copies of the draft EIS to:
Additional copies of this document are also available for review at
the Ashland Public Library, Gresham and Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland,
Oregon, and in the EPA Region 10 Library, Seattle, Washington.
EPA Region 10 will hold a public hearing in Ashland, Oregon concerning
the draft EIS and the environmental impacts associated with the proposed
plan. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 23, 1979 at
7:30 p.m., at Ashland High School, 201 South Mountain, Ashland, Oregon.
All parties are invited to attend.
Roger K. Mochnick M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 9
Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Constraints 10
National Environmental Policy Act 10
Clean Water Act of 1977 11
DEQ Water Quality Standards 11
DEQ Waste Discharge Permit 11
Presidential and Congressional Actions and
Agreement Between USFS and City of Ashland 12
CHAPTER 2 - REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT 15
Introduction 15
Bear Creek Basin 15
Topography 15
Geology 19
Soils 19
Climate 20
Hydrology 20
Water Quality 24
Vegetation 32
Wildlife 33
Anadromous Fisheries of Bear Creek 34
Life History Characteristics and Resource Needs 34
Relationship of Salmonid Fishery to Stream
Hydrology 36
Man-Made Changes Affecting the Anadromous Fishery 39
Field and Laboratory Analysis of Stream Gravels 43
Ashland Watershed 47
Hydrology 47
Erosion and Sedimentation in the Ashland Watershed 54
Analysis of Catastrophic Sediment Inflows 62
CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES 65
Alternative 1 - Spring Draining and Sluicing 65
Alternative 2 - Dredging During High Stream Flow 66
Alternative 3 - Fall Draining and Sluicing 67
Alternative 4 - Drain Reservoir for Entire Rainy Season 68
Previously Evaluated Alternatives 69
Debris Basins 69
Allocation of Sediment Storage Space 70
Stream Flow Bypass 72
Downstream Settling Basins 72
i
-------
Page
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VIABLE
ALTERNATIVES 75
Impacts Common to All Alternative Plans 75
o Construction impacts of modifying the water
supply intake on Ashland water supply 75
o Operational impacts with modified water supply
intake 76
o Construction impacts of modifying the sluice-
way outlet from Reeder Reservoir 77
o Operational impacts with modified sluiceway
outlet 80
o Economic impacts of modifying the water supply
intake and modifying the sluiceway outlet 80
o Plow quantity impact due to Reeder Reservoir
draining 81
o Channel aggradation due to eroded materials
from Ashland watershed 81
o Siltation of City of Talent municipal water
supply intake 82
o Effects on recreation use and aesthetics 83
o Impact on irrigators 83
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 - Spring
Draining and Sluicing 84
o Practical considerations 84
o Impact on water quality 88
o Impact on anadromous fisheries 100
o Water supply impacts 103
o Economic impacts 104
o Other impacts 105
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 - Dredging
during High Stream Flow 106
o Practical considerations 106
o Water quality impacts 108
o Anadromous fisheries 109
o Water supply 110
o Safety 111
o Economic impacts 111
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 - Fall
Draining and Sluicing 112
o Practical considerations 112
o Impacts on water quality 112
o Impacts on anadromous fisheries 113
o Water supply impacts 115
o Economic impact 117
ii
-------
Page
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 - Drain
Reservoir for Entire Season 117
o Practical considerations 118
o Water quality impacts 118
o Anadromous fisheries 119
o Water supply effects 119
o Flood protection 119
o Economic impact 119
Environmental Impacts of Cleaning Following
Catastrophic Sediment Inflows 120
o Water quality impacts of cleaning following
catastrophic sediment inflows 121
o Fisheries impacts of cleaning following
catastrophic sediment inflows 123
o Impact of cleaning following catastrophic
sediment inflows on irrigation users 123
o Other impacts of cleaning following catastrophic
sediment inflows 124
CHAPTER 5 - EPA DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 127
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 128
Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment vs.
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 128
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 129
CHAPTER 6 - ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 131
o Sediment carrying capacity 131
o Relative importance of Ashland Creek as a sediment
contributor to Bear Creek
o Quantification of fisheries impacts due to
sedimentation 132
o Management of Ashland watershed to minimize
sediment production 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135
References 135
Personal Communications 141
APPENDICES
A - Oregon State Water Quality Standards for the
Rouge River Basin
B - DEQ Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit
C - USDA Cooperative Agreement for the Purpose of
Conserving and Protecting the Water Supply of
the City of Ashland, Oregon
D - Environmental Criteria Guidelines
143
155
163
167
iii
-------
SUMMARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REEDER RESERVOIR
MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS
AN ELEMENT OF THE ROGUE VALLEY
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Type of Action: Administrative
Date Available to the Public: June 1979
Description of Project
The City of Ashland, Oregon operates Reeder Reservoir
to provide a domestic water supply for the city. The reservoir
must be periodically cleaned to remove accumulated debris
and sediment that flows into the reservoir, primarily during
periods of heavy runoff. The reservoir is presently drained
in the early spring of relatively wet years, and sediments
are sluiced through the reservoir outlet to be carried downstream
in Ashland Creek into Bear Creek, and eventually into the
Rogue River. Water quality violations and degradation of
fisheries habitat result. On two occasions, in 1964 and
1974, sediment inflows were so great that the city could
not sluice, and instead elected to dredge sediments and dis-
charge the slurry back to Ashland Creek below the dam. The
1974 dredging, conducted from late May to early July 1974,
drew many complaints from downstream water users along Bear
Creek and destroyed virtually the entire year's spawn of
salmonid fishes.
As part of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments'
(RVCOG) Water Quality Management Plan, the City of Ashland
proposes to continue the spring sluicing of Reeder Reservoir
on an as-needed basis.
iv
-------
The purpose of this EIS is to provide information which
EPA will use to make a decision approving or disapproving
the Reeder Reservoir element of the Rogue Valley Water Quality
Management Plan, and which should assist the City of Ashland
and other local decision makers in taking steps to resolve
identified water quality problems in Ashland Creek and Bear
Creek. The EPA decision will be made following receipt of
written comments in response to this draft EIS and after
analyzing oral testimony from the public hearing. The decision
will be finalized after release of the final EIS and an additional
period for public review and comment.
Conclusions
Certain conclusions are evident from the analyses in
this EIS. This portion of the SUMMARY provides a brief over-
view of major study findings and conclusions.
Prior to 1956 the City of Ashland reportedly sluiced
relatively small amounts of sediment from Reeder Reservoir
each year. In 1956 the U. S. Forest Service (USPS) initiated
multiple use management of the Ashland Creek watershed, including
construction of new roads, timber harvesting, and development
of a ski area. These activities increased the volumes of
sediments tributary to Reeder Reservoir by a factor of about
3 to 10 times the estimated pre-1956 levels. Reeder Reservoir
traps nearly all of these sediments. When the reservoir
is cleaned, an unnaturally high sediment concentration is
released into Ashland Creek, with adverse effects on downstream
beneficial uses, which include municipal water supply, irriga-
tion, fisheries, recreation, and aesthetic quality. This
EIS focuses on the ways in which reservoir cleaning can be
accomplished while minimizing adverse impacts.
The Ashland watershed is not the only contributor of
sediments in the basin. Neil Creek contributes granitic
sediments, and nongranitic sediments are produced by other
creeks and by return flows from agricultural lands. It is
not known what proportion of total sediments in Bear Creek
originate in the Ashland watershed. However, when Reeder
Reservoir is cleaned it becomes the most visible contributor
of sediment to Bear Creek by releasing large quantities of
sediment for short periods, increasing sediment loadings
in Ashland and Bear Creeks by several hundred percent.
The movement of sediments is a complex function of sedi-
ment size, stream morphology, water velocity and depth, and
flow duration. Sediment will move in suspension in the water
and as bedload along the bottom of the stream. The higher
the flow the greater the carrying capacity of each unit volume
of water. Thus, the highest flows carry the vast majority
of sediments. However, actual quantification of the sediment
v
-------
carrying capacity of Bear Creek was considered by EPA to be
beyond the scope of this EIS and has not been attempted.
For this reason many of the impact assessments are based
on prior observations and general relationships rather than
on detailed calculations.
When sediments are introduced into the Bear Creek system,
their impact on beneficial uses depends in large part on
what time of year they enter relative to each beneficial
use and how long they remain in the streams. The rate at
which sediments are introduced relative to stream flow volume
may also be a factor in severity of impact.
This sediment residence time is dependent in large part
on whether sufficient high stream flows occur for a long
enough period to flush the material on through to the Rogue
River. The highest flows are most likely to occur in Bear
Creek between the first part of December and the end of April.
Irrigators generally use water from April 15 to October 15.
Salmonid fish are most dependent on the stream from
December to July (most critically January through May) and
recreation and aesthetic uses are most heavy in summer. Muni-
cipal water supply use by the City of Talent occurs all year.
The greatest conflicts from reservoir cleaning are likely
to occur with the salmonid fishes and municipal water supply
with lesser conflicts with irrigation, recreation and aesthetics.
The four alternatives evaluated in this EIS are restricted
as to discharge time to between November 15 and March 31
by a discharge permit issued by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). Within that period, the four
alternatives would discharge at different times and potentially
at different rates. Thus, the focus of the EIS is on those
differences as they affect beneficial uses, particularly
as measured by water quality and fisheries effects, and on
the loss of stored water from Reeder Reservoir during cleaning
as it affects the city's water supply.
As part of the EPA decision, one of the four following
reservoir cleaning alternatives may be recommended to the
RVCOG for incorporation into the Water Quality Management
Plan:
o Continuing the present spring draining and sluicing.
o Using a dredge to remove and discharge sediments
to Ashland Creek during periods of high stream flow.
o Draining and sluicing in the late fall.
o Draining in the late fall and leaving the reservoir
empty and the outlet open until early spring.
Each alternative is likely to be implemented every other year,
on the average, except fall draining with the outlet open
all winter, which would be implemented each year.
vi
-------
Spring sluicing releases the sediments to Ashland and
Bear Creeks in February or March of years with above-average
snow accumulations in the Ashland watershed. Higher than
normal flows are also likely in Bear Creek in such years,
so that the sediments may have a good chance to move on through
to the Rogue River with spring runoff. However, at least
some of this movement may occur during the irrigation season,
and most of the movement coincides with the most critical
time for the salmonid fishes.
Fall sluicing releases the sediments in November or
December, giving the material a statistically greater chance
to move on through to the Rogue River prior to the critical
time for salmonid fishes and prior to irrigation season.
However, with fall sluicing, it is not possible to deliberately
select a year with relatively high stream flow. Thus, during
a dry year the material sluiced in the fall could remain
in Bear Creek even longer than for spring sluicing. In wet
years, however, fall sluicing would have a lesser impact
on the salmonid fishery if high flows occurred early enough
to cleanse Bear Creek prior to the critical period.
Dredging would release the sediment during periods of
higher than median stream flow, assuming practical constraints
on dredging during stormy periods can be overcome. The dredge
discharges are likely to stop and start, and may release
sediments at any time from November 15 to March 31. The
high flow periods are most likely to occur in January, February
and March, relatively similar to the timing of spring sluicing.
Under these conditions at least some of the sediment would
be moving through Bear Creek during critical times for the
salmonid fishes, and perhaps during irrigation season. In
dry years, which could occur following a large sediment inflow,
it may not be possible to discharge any sediment if stream
flow does not reach permissible levels. Sediments from a
major storm may thus have to be carried over in the reservoir
until the opportunity for dredging occurs within the time
and flow constraints.
Fall draining of Reeder Reservoir and leaving the sluiceway
outlet open all winter would result in some incidental sluicing
during draining, and would allow some sediment to pass through
the reservoir within hours of its entry. During extreme
floods, however, (which also produce the greatest amounts
of sediment and debris) the sluiceway outlet is likely to
become obstructed, retaining these high sediment volumes
in the reservoirs, and requiring their later removal as in
one of the other alternatives. Also the new reservoir at
the Winburn site in the Ashland watershed, assumed to be
part of this alternative, would also need to be drained and
sluiced at a time when Reeder Reservoir was full. This sediment
would in turn have to be flushed on through Reeder Reservoir,
probably in the fall when Reeder Reservoir is drained pursuant
to this alternative. Most sediment released under this alter-
native is likely to enter Bear Creek at the same time as
for fall sluicing.
vix
-------
Regardless of when these releases occur from the various
reservoir cleaning alternatives, water quality violations
will occur. Turbidity and sediment loadings will increase
in violation of DEQ standards, and will remain high through-
out cleaning and for a month or more later in Bear Creek.
Total organic nitrogen levels will increase during cleaning,
returning to normal within days of completion.
Standards for stream bottom deposits are also violated
by the sediments, and the adverse effects last until after
the sediment has been washed on through the stream system
by high flows. This may require from a month or so to more
than a year, depending on the quantity of sediment and hydrologic
conditions.
With higher stream flows, however, the degree to which
turbidity, sediment loading and organic nitrogen levels exceed
the standards is proportionately lessened. Higher flows
provide greater dilution, and also result in higher natural
background levels against which the violations are measured.
Thus, among the four alternatives dredging has the greatest
potential for reducing the severity of water quality violations,
since discharge would only be permitted during periods of
high1 stream flow. Spring sluicing in years with a substantial
snowpack would help ensure high flows later in the spring,
but not necessarily during cleaning. Fall sluicing would
likely occur during relatively low stream flows, with the
greatest proportionate impact on pollutant levels. Fall
draining with an open reservoir outlet would theoretically
pass sediments during high flows, but when the outlet of
Reeder Reservoir becomes blocked by flood flows and when
Winbum Reservoir is sluiced, the time of release of these
sediments would follow one of the other three alternatives.
High turbidity during the presence of salmonid fishes
increases mortality by suffocation and abrasion, may inhibit
migration of adults and fry, and deposits sediments that
make stream gravels unsuitable for spawning. Abrasion and
covering of stream organisms by sediments eliminates sources
of food, further increasing mortality. The adverse conditions
persist until sufficient stream flows flush sediments through
Bear Creek and the aquatic habitat can recover.
Among the four alternatives, fall sluicing would have
the least adverse impact on the salmonid fishery and aquatic
habitat during years when storms occur early in the winter
and flush sediments through Bear Creek prior to January.
Hydrologic records indicate this to be a relatively infrequent
occurrence, however, and in any event it is not predictable.
Sediments sluiced in the fall are more likely to remain
in Bear Creek through much of the critical periods of the
salmonid species in most years.'
viii
-------
Dredging is likely to discharge during the critical period
for the salmonid fish, although since discharge only occurs
during high stream flow the sediment may have a better oppor-
tunity to pass through the system sooner. Also, a major sediment
inflow to Reeder Reservoir might be released over several
subsequent years, rather than all at once, as with other
alternatives. Since quantification of sediment movement
is beyond the scope of this EIS, the degree to which these
differences would benefit or adversely affect the fishery
is unknown.
Spring sluicing would release the sediments during the
most critical period for the fish. While higher than normal
spring runoff would occur, the degree to which this might
lessen the adverse impacts on the fishery is unknown.
Fall draining with the reservoir outlet open all winter
would have a more frequent (yearly) discharge, with less
sediment volume each year. However, the cleaning of sediments
from major floods and from Winburn Reservoir would impact
the fisheries as described for one of the other alternatives,
depending on when and how it is removed from Reeder Reservoir.
The impacts of the four alternatives on water availability
for the City of Ashland vary significantly. Spring draining
and sluicing with an above-average snowpack in the watershed
virtually assures that Reeder Reservoir will refill from
snowmelt and provide the necessary stored water for the summer
months. Dredging does not require draining, and would use
only a small proportion of stored water to flush dredged
sediments down Ashland Creek into Bear Creek. Fall draining,
however, requires Ashland to assume the risk that about 20
percent of the time rainfall and snowfall will be insufficient
to refill Reeder Reservoir, posing a substantial probability
of water shortages and water rationing in the following summer.
Fall draining with the outlet open all winter assumes that
a new water supply reservoir would exist to prevent shortages
from occurring.
Thus, fall draining and sluicing has potential substantial
adverse impacts on water availability for the City of Ashland,
while the other three alternatives would have no such adverse
effects.
Irrigators may be affected adversely by sediments from
Bear Creek silting up diversion structures, settling out
in irrigation canals and clogging pumps. This is less likely
when greater amounts of sediments have been flushed on through
Bear Creek prior to April 15.
The City of Talent operates a water supply intake in
Bear Creek that might have to suspend operation during cleaning
of Reeder Reservoir due to high nitrogen levels, and due
to sediments clogging the intakes.
ix
-------
Many of the adverse impacts identified for cleaning of
Reeder Reservoir cannot be fully mitigated by any of the
viable alternatives. Removal of the sediments from the creek
system would largely mitigate nearly all of the impacts,
although this is not considered a viable alternative by
EPA.
From a practical standpoint, spring draining and sluicing
is an established practice previously selected by the City
of Ashland for its practicality. It is also the least costly
alternative. Dredging has been implemented twice previously,
although at higher cost than sluicing.
Operation of a dredge in periods of high stream flow
may mean working in wind, waves, rain or snow in the middle
of Reeder Reservoir, a hazardous situation. Freezing of
the reservoir surface may damage the dredge if it is not
removed. Also, the city may have difficulty recruiting qualified
dredge operators for relatively few days of work each winter,
and with no work is some years. Finally, the city believes
dredging to be only partly effective based on prior experience,
necessitating draining and sluicing every 3 to 4 years.
Fall sluicing may run the risk of insufficient flows
to sluice the reservoir, although it may be possible to sluice
at lower flows at slower rates. Otherwise practical, except
for its adverse effects on water supply, it would be slightly
more costly than spring draining and sluicing.
Fall draining with the outlet open all winter, and
with Winburn Reservoir constructed, would also be practical.
It is also the most expensive due to the cost of the dam.
However, within the next decade the City of Ashland will
probably need to develop a new water supply or take steps
to limit total water consumption. Thus, the dam may be required
just to meet the city's growth and may eventually exist regardless
of the reservoir cleaning alternative selected. This would
probably make fall sluicing a more acceptable alternative
by mitigating adverse impacts on Ashland's water supply.
From an economic view, total annual costs of alternatives
have been estimated in 1977 dollars. The following table
summarizes these costs:
Alternatives Average Annual Cost
1. Spring sluicing $23,900-$26,3000
2. Dredge during high stream flow ?50,200
3. Fall sluicing $45,400-$47,800
4. Fall draining, open through winter $209,000
The costs include labor, equipment rental or purchase, estimated
fishery losses, water revenues lost, and dam and pipeline
construction costs, as appropriate.
x
-------
Regardless of which of the foregoing alternatives is
implemented, the findings of this study support the recom-
mendations of Montgomery Engineers (1977) that the City of
Ashland add new water supply intakes at the reservoir, and
enlarge the dam's sluiceway outlet and improve the trash racks.
These modifications would improve the protection of the city's
water supply from disruption by major sediment inflows and
allow greater flexibility in cleaning accumulated sediment
during high stream flow and after floods in the watershed.
The cost of modifying the intake and sluiceway outlet,
including a feasibility study, is estimated at about $215,000
(1977 dollars). If the recommended modifications had been
in place in 1974, it is likely that the impacts of subsequent
cleaning operations could have been reduced.
Distribution of the Draft EIS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Region 6
Rogue River National Forest
Soil Conservation Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Geological Survey
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Office
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
xi
-------
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Mark O. Hatfield
Robert W. Packwood
James Weaver
A1 Ullman
Les AuCoin
Robert Duncan
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate
STATE AGENCIES
Office of the Governor
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon State Forestry Department
City of Ashland
City of Central Point
Jackson County
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Meford Irrigation District
Rogue Valley Irrigation District
Talent Irrigation District
Medford Public Works
National Wildlife Federation
League of Women Voters
City of Ashland Library
LOCAL AGENCIES
ORGANIZATIONS
xii
-------
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group
1000 Friends of Oregon
Izaac Walton League
Southern Oregon Timber Association
Southern Oregon State College
Sierra Club
INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Larry Cauble
Mr. Cliff Cordy
Mr. Tom Davis
Mr. Phil Deupree
Mr. Miles Hill
Mr. Bub Hinkle
Mr. Francis Jacquemin
Mr. James Ragland
Mr. Harvey Seeley
Mr. Alvin Thompson
MEDIA
Ashland Daily Tidings
Medford Daily Tribune
Availability of Draft EIS
It is anticipated that notice of availability of this draft EIS
will be published in the Federal Register on July 27, 1979. The
above listed agencies, organizations, and individuals are invited
to comment on the draft EIS.
xiii
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires all federal agencies which propose actions that
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these
actions. The EIS is intended to be a "full disclosure" of
impacts which would result from a project or action, and
must follow specific guidelines established by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). It is not the intent of NEPA
that alternatives be evaluated and a plan selected or rejected
on the basis of environmental considerations alone, but rather
that the planning process consider all significant environmental,
social, and monetary costs.
The RVCOG prepared and submitted to EPA an areawide
waste treatment management plan for the greater Bear Creek
Basin, pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. EPA
approved the plan, but has deferred action on additional
208 elements, including the element that embodies the cleaning
of Reeder Reservoir, which is operated by the City of Ashland
for water supply purposes. Past cleaning operations have
resulted in potentially significant impacts on* water quality,
fisheries and downstream irrigators. As a result, EPA has
determined that an EIS must be prepared on the cleaning of
Reeder Reservoir prior to approving that element of the 208
plan.
The EIS process was initiated in May 1978, with a meeting
at the city offices in Ashland to discuss Reeder Reservoir
and the preparation of an EIS. Attendees at this and at
subsequent meetings included representatives of EPA, RVCOG,
the City of Ashland, USFS, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and EPA's EIS consultants, Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc. Meetings were held in, Ashland again on August 29, 1978
and October 2, 1978, to agree on the scope of study for the
EIS. A workshop was held at city offices in Ashland on January
16, 1979 to discuss the alternative cleaning methods that
had been defined. A workshop discussion of the preliminary
evaluation results was held in Medford on April 20, 1979.
Additional public input will be sought at a formal hearing
on the Draft EIS in July 1979.
The purpose of this EIS is to provide information which
EPA will use to make a decision approving or disapproving
the Reeder Reservoir element of the Rogue Valley Water Quality
Management Plan, and which should assist the City of Ashland
and other local decision makers in taking steps to resolve
9
-------
identified water quality problems in Ashland Creek and Bear
Creek. The EPA decision will be made following receipt of
written comments in response to this Draft EIS and after
analyzing oral testimony from the public hearing. The
decision will be finalized after release of the Final EIS
and an additional period for public review and comment.
This EIS evaluates four major alternative cleaning methods
for Reeder Reservoir, and explores the impacts and issues
related to each. One of these alternatives may be recommended
to the Rogue Valley Council of Governments by EPA for incor-
poration into the Water Quality Management Plan, together
with conditions, recommendations, or suggestions relating
to rate and quantity of sediment discharge.
Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Constraints
There are a number of legal, regulatory and institutional
constraints which directly affect the operation and cleaning
of Reeder Reservoir. These include the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Clean Water Act of 1977, Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality Water Standards
for the Rogue River Basin, and a DEQ waste disposal permit
issued to the City of Ashland in September 1978. Other con-
straints include Congressional and Presidential actions,
and an agreement signed between the City of Ashland and the
USPS in 1929.
National Environmental Policy Act
According to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA all proposed
federal projects or actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment must include a detailed statement
on the following:
1. The environmental impact of the proposed action.
2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be implemented.
3. Alternatives to the proposed action.
4. The relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and thfe maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.
10
-------
Clean Water Act of 1977
The EPA is charged with administering the Clean Water
Act of 1977, formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1956 (FWPCA). Under Section 208 of the act,
EPA is required to prepare and enforce minimum water quality
standards for the nation, and is also responsible for approving
plans and programs to control "nonpoint" source pollution.
Under Section 208 the state must identify regions with
"substantial water quality control problems" and authorize
a single organization to operate "a continuing areawide waste
treatment management planning process". The RVCOG has been
designated to conduct control studies within the Rogue River/
Bear Creek Basin to provide the background for water quality
management planning. Their 208 planning program includes
municipal waste treatment, agricultural nonpoint sources,
urban storm runoff and silvicultural nonpoint sources. The
Water Quality Management Planning Program sponsored by the
RVCOG has been developed to enable the residents of Rogue
Valley to determine how they will meet the 1983 federal stan-
dards of "fishable and swimmable" waters in the area's streams.
EPA reviews the water quality management plan elements pre-
pared pursuant to Section 208 of the act, and may approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove them. This EIS is intended
to provide information leading to an EPA decision on the
Reeder Reservoir maintenance element of the RVCOG plan.
DEQ Water Quality Standards
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
is responsible for establishing and enforcing basinwide water
quality standards for the Rogue River Basin (Appendix A).
According to the standards, water quality in Bear Creek shall
be managed to protect the beneficial uses of the stream waters,
including domestic and industrial water supply, irrigation,
anadromous salmonid passage, spawning and rearing, resident
fish and aquatic life, and water contact recreation and aesthetic
quality.
DEQ Waste Discharge Permit
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued
a waste discharge permit to the City of Ashland in September
1978 (Appendix B). The permit restricts the discharge of
accumulated reservoir sediment from Reeder Reservoir to Ashland
Creek for the period of November 15 to March 31. The permit
requires the City of Ashland to monitor the reservoir cleaning
operation and collect data on a daily basis during the opera-
tion on the quality of sediment discharged, settleable solids,
suspended solids and turbidity.'
11
-------
The City of Ashland is also required to cooperate with
the USFS to develop an Ashland Creek watershed management
and monitoring plan as outlined in the city/USFS Memorandum
of Understanding revised on October 7, 1977.
Compliance conditions of the permit also include the
requirement that the City of Ashland, by December 31, 1978,
"prioritize and establish implementation time schedules for
recommendations involving the operation of Reeder Reservoir
included in the 'City of Ashland, Oregon, Water Resources
Management Plan and Facility Study', October 20, 1977".
It is expected that this requirement will be met in the fall
of 1979, following completion of this EIS.
Presidential and Congressional Actions and Agreement Between
USFS and the City of Ashland
The Ashland watershed has served as the water supply
for the City of Ashland since the early 1880s. In 1893,
18,500 acres of the federally-owned watershed were proclaimed
a preserve by President Grover Cleveland to protect the
city's water supply. In 1906 and 1907 President Theodore
Roosevelt added substantial acreage to the "Ashland Forest
Preserve" by proclamation. Congress added further land in
1920 as part of PL 137.
Protection of the watershed now seemed assured. By
the early 1920s the City of Ashland was realizing that the
growing water needs of the city would exceed the availability
of stream flow in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek
at low flow periods. Studies of storage on Ashland Creek,
diversion from Neal Creek (now Neil Creek) and use of Talent
Irrigation District (TID) water were undertaken. In 1928,
Hosier Dam was constructed below the confluence of the East
and West Forks of Ashland Creek, forming Reeder Reservoir
with a capacity of 28,000,000 gallons.
In 1929 the City of Ashland and the Secretary of Agri-
culture entered into an agreement to protect and conserve
the city's water supply (Appendix C). The agreement provides
for: (1) input from the city regarding safeguarding of the
city's water supply prior to timber cutting and removal,
(2) consideration for preserving the volume and purity of
the city's water supply, (3) limitation of livestock grazing
in the watershed, (4) improvement of the watershed forest
through methods of silviculture and forest management, and
(5) protection of the watershed in connection with adjoining
national forest lands. Both parties reserve the right to
terminate the agreement at any time, provided all obligations
under the agreement up to the date of termination have been
met. The agreement is still in force.
12
-------
In 1936 PL 642 was passed which provided "that when
the Secretary of Agriculture finds that merchantable timber
may be cut without detriment to the purity or depletion of
the water supply..." that it would be harvested. No action
to harvest timber was taken until 1955, when the watershed
was placed under multiple use management. Prom 1956 to 1963,
40 to 45 miles of logging roads were constructed, and between
1958 and 1965 approximately 1,000 acres were logged. In
1960, 180 acres were developed as the Mount Ashland Ski Resort,
which opened in 1964. In total about 10 percent of the water-
shed was disturbed by these activities.
Unfortunately, the granitic soils in the watershed are
very susceptible to erosion, as evaluated by a U. S. Forest
Service in-house study in early 1956, prepared by Mr. John
Arnold. Changes in amounts of eroded materials deposited
in Reeder Reservoir following inauguration of multiple use
management confirm this analysis.
Before 1955 the annual sediment cleaning of Reeder
Reservoir involved the flushing of less than 4,000 cubic
yards of granitic sediments into Ashland Creek; however,
starting in the early 1960s greater and greater volumes of
sediment were removed, especially following the major
storm events of 1964 and 1974. These two storms produced
approximately 60,000 and 122,000 cubic yards of sediment,
respectively (Montgomery, 1977; ODFW, 1974).
13
-------
Chapter 2
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
The Ashland watershed is located in Jackson County in
southwestern Oregon, about 15 miles southeast of the City
of Medford, and about 10 miles north of the Oregon-California
border (Figure 2-1). The two main streams in the Ashland
watershed are the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek, which
meet at Reeder Reservoir. Below Hosier Dam, which impounds
the reservoir, Ashland Creek flows north for about 4 miles
through the City of Ashland to the confluence with Bear Creek
(Figure 2-2).
The watershed area is about 14,400 acres (22% square
miles) in size, of which about 12,500 acres (193$ square
miles) is tributary to Reeder Reservoir (Figure 2-3).
The watershed is steeply sloped and heavily forested,
ranging in elevation from 2,800 to 7,500 feet above sea level.
The watershed is located entirely within the Ashland stock
granitic batholith which is more than 18 miles long from
north to south and 10 miles wide (Wells, 1956). The soils
produced from the granitic bedrock are coarse in texture,
and are relatively thin, averaging 6 inches to 1 foot in
depth, and are very susceptible to weathering and slope
erosion.
The climate of the area is characterized by mild, wet
winters and hot, dry summers, with most rainfall occurring
between October and April, averaging 20 inches per year in
the Bear Creek Valley and 25 to 40 inches per year in the
higher elevations. Ashland Creek is a tributary to Bear
Creek which flows into the Rogue River, and into the Pacific
Ocean near Gold Beach.
Bear Creek Basin
Topography
The Bear Creek Valley is located on the western slope
of the Cascade Divide, which forms its eastern border. The
western rim of the valley is formed by a ridge of the Klamath
15
-------
FIGURE 2-1
-------
-------
FIGURE 2-3
ASHLAND WATERSHED
Ij* —-^j^^WATER^^MEN^LANT|
DRAINAGE
AREA
BOUNDARY
I
-------
Mountains, separating the Bear Creek and Applegate River
drainages. Valley elevations run from 1,140 feet near the
mouth of Bear Creek to 2,000 feet in the area of the City
of Ashland. The valley is narrow at its upper end and widens
as it approaches the Rogue River (RVCOG, 1976) .
Geology
The Bear Creek Valley is eroded with shale and sandstone
bedrock. It is flanked on the west by steep ridges of granitic
and metamorphic bedrock and on the east by moderately sloping
sedimentary and volcanic terrain (Schlicker, 1970).
A geologic map of the Medford Quadrangle, Oregon-Cali-
fornia (Wells, 1956) shows that the Ashland stock batholith,
which is approximately 110 square miles in area (Schlicker,
et al., 1970), forms the southwest border of the valley from
near Siskiyou Pass at its upper end to a point 3 miles north-
west of the City of Ashland along Bear Creek. Prom there
to the Rogue River the valley is bordered on the southwest
by a mixture of sedimentary, metamorphic and volcanic rock
formations including sandstones, shales, conglomerates and
basalts. The northeastern border of the valley is formed
by a 3- to 5-mile wide band of sedimentary rocks from Siskiyou
Pass to the Agate Desert north of Medford which includes
sandstones, shales and conglomerates (Wells, 1956; Schlicker,
et al., 1970).
Soils
The soils of Bear Creek Valley are quite diverse because
of the variety of sedimentary, metamorphic, volcanic and
granitic rock types from which they are formed. On the north-
eastern side of the valley the upland soils are moderately
deep clay and clay pans derived from volcanic and sedimentary
rocks. On the southwest side of the valley the upland soils
are derived from a mixture of metamorphic and sedimentary
bedrock, and quartz diorite or granite, mainly from the Ashland
stoick batholith. These soils are moderately deep, medium
to fine textured, and moderately deep, coarse textured and
highly erodible soils, respectively. The soil of the valley
bottom is very deep, medium to coarse textured alluvium developed
over gravel deposits. These alluvial soils make up a majority
of the prime agricultural lands of the Bear Creek Basin (Wells,
1956; RVCOG, 1976; Jones & Stokes Associates, 1977).
19
-------
Climate
The Bear Creek Basin has a moderate climate and marked
seasonal differences. Damp, cloudy and cold weather is
common from November through March due to the influence of
marine air, with average minimum temperatures dropping just
below freezing in December and January. During the late
spring, simmer and early fall months prevailing continental
winds aloft produce warm, dry and sunny weather (RVCOG,
1976).
The annual average temperature recorded at the Medford
Experiment station is 52.4°F. Monthly averages range from 37°F
to 71°F (U. S. Department of Commerce, 1975).
The coastal mountains to the west and south act as a
rain shadow for the valley and result in relatively light
annual precipitation in the valley floor, falling mostly
during the winter months. The average annual rainfall for
the Medford Experiment Station is 21.3 inches per year. The
higher mountain elevations surrounding the valley may receive
as much as 70 inches per year (U. S. Department of Commerce,
1975). Snowfall is limited mostly to the surrounding moun-
tains during the winter, providing runoff during the spring
and early summer months. The average length of the growing
season is 170 days, from April 30 to October 17.
Hydrology
Under natural conditions the seasonal flow pattern in
Bear Creek and its tributaries reflects precipitation
patterns and snowmelt patterns for the area with the highest
flows usually occurring during the late winter and spring
with the streams becoming intermittent or dry at lower
elevations during the late summer and early fall (RVCOG,
1976). Intensive irrigation has modified stream flow in
the basin since at least the early 1900s. Completion of
Emigrant Dam in 1924 further modifed the hydrology. Summer
releases from Emigrant Dam, combined with imports from other
basins, now provide year-long flows in Bear Creek, which
previously was nearly dry toward the end of most summers.
Both seasonal stream flow patterns and the total volume
of flow through Bear Creek and many of its tributaries have
changed significantly since the USGS began gauging flows
of Bear Creek at Medford in 1917. As shown in Table 2-1.
the average yearly flow in Bear Creek at Medford! has nearly
doubled since the 1920s. The greatest percent increase and
most consistent increase in mean monthly flows has occurred
20
-------
Table 2-1
COMPARISON OF MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS IN CFS
ON BEAR CREEK AT MEDFORD
(USGS Gauge 14357500)
Hater Tears
Months
Mean
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May.
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Annua
1916, 1921-19241
9.85
28.5
71.1
112
220
173
152
125
54.8
10.4
2.39
3.31
80.2
1927-1940
16.2
27.6
52.4
52.2
153
173
167
108
40.5
8.89
9.47
11.6
68.3
1941-1950
21.3
47.8
119
219
215
159
171
141
92.3
19.3
15.8
13.5
103
1951-1960
46.5
70.5
215
333
410
299
201
146
91.9
25.7
20.9
27.7
157
1961-1970
56.5
75.9
273
311
183
156
216
162
92.3
55.1
57.5
52.5
141
1971-1977
44.3
90.3
147
325
175
331
289
186
101
58.2
68.5
76.3
158
1916, 1921-
1977
32.4
57.1
146
216
228
207
195
139
75
27.6
27.4
29.3
115
% change between
1916, 1921-1924
and 1971-1977
+350
+220
+110
+190
-20
+92
+90
+49
+84
+460
+2800
+2200
+97
1Prior to construction of Emigrant Reservoir.
-------
during the dry season, from July through October in response
to water management practices to meet irrigation demands
which have developed within the basin. The supplemental
irrigation flows are provided by releases of stored water
from Emigrant Reservoir, and as much as 80,000 acre-feet
of water transferred each year into the Bear Creek Basin
from Fourmile Lake, Howard Prairie Lake, and Hyatt Reservoir
within the Klamath Basin, and additional water from McDonald
Creek in the Little Applegate Drainage Basin (RVCOG, 1976).
The apparent increases in mean monthly flows during
the winter months may reflect increased runoff within the
basin due to land use changes including urbanization, road
building, stream channelization, and extensive agricultural
development. Reduced infiltration, more rapid runoff response,
and reduced evapotranspiration may all result from land use
changes. Undoubtedly, some of the differences between the
various periods also reflect normal hydrologic variations.
For instance, mean February flows exhibit a wide variance
during the decades for which data are presented. However,
the trend toward greater total streamflow at Medford, parti-
cularly during the summer months, is obvious.
A similar trend in flood peaks also seems to have developed.
Emigrant Reservoir provides some attenuation of flood flows,
even though flood control is not a purpose of the dam. However,
these flood attenuation properties are not evidenced when
reviewing the occurrence of peak floods in Bear Creek. Based
on 62 years of record {1916 through 1977), three-quarters
of the greatest observed peaks have occurred in the most
recent 31 years of record. This indicates that increased
runoff due to land use changes has probably raised the flood
hazard on Bear Creek.
A frequency-discharge curve was developed from USGS
data for Bear Creek at Medford, using annual flood peaks
between 1916 and 1977. Records were available for each year,
although the data cover periods both before and after the
1924 completion of Emigrant Lake, which regulates part of
the watershed. Also, irrigation diversions and land uses
have changed during the period, resulting in a curve (Figure
2-4) of limited utility.
Land use and flow modifications in the basin seem likely
to continue. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation is
currently conducting a feasibility study for further flow
augmentation in Bear Creek during the irrigation season.
At this time, flow augmentation is being considered primarily
for potential benefits to recreation and the salmonid fishery,
including problems of fish passage over the diversion dams
in Bear Creek during low flow periods (Walker, pers. comm.).
22
-------
FIGURE 2-4
FREQUENCY - DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
BEAR CREEK AT MEDFORD, OREGON 1916-77 USGS GAGE NO. 14357500
FREQUENCY, YEARS
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
100,000
m
IL.
o
-------
Bear Creek has 16 tributary streams, 8 draining from
each side of the valley (Figure 2-2). On the southwest side
of the valley between Talent and the Rogue River/ Bear Creek
receives Wagner, Anderson, Coleman, Griffin, Jackson and
Willow Creeks, all of which drain from metamorphic or sedi-
mentary bedrock with the exception of Wagner and Willow Creeks.
The upper reaches of Wagner Creek drain about 4 square miles
of the northwestern portion of the Ashland stock granitic
batholith, and the headwaters of Willow Creek drain about
2 square miles of a granodiorite bedrock area just west of
Central Point at the lower end of the valley. Ashland Creek
drains about 24 0 square miles of the north-central portion
of the granitic batholith (City of Ashland, 1974), and Neil
Creek and its tributaries (Tolman and Clayton Creeks) drain
approximately 15 square miles of the northeastern part of
the batholith (Wells, 1956; Oregon State Forestry Department,
1967).
On the northeast side of the valley from its upper
reaches to the Medford area, Bear Creek receives Emigrant/
Walker, Gaerky, Butler, Meyer, Kenutchen, Payne and Larsen
Creeks, all of which drain sedimentary and volcanic bedrock
areas (Wells, 1956; Oregon State Forestry Department, 1967).
Neil, Emigrant, Ashland and Wagner Creeks, plus Emigrant
Reservoir and many smaller streams are used to supply
irrigation water for the Bear Creek Basin, and this is
supplemented by water supplied from outside the basin by way
of a system of transbasin canals, tunnels and natural
drainage ways. The Talent, Medford and Rogue River Valley
Irrigation Districts operate interconnected irrigation
canal systems which transport water primarily by gravity
flow. Within and between districts many small streams and
canals, and Bear Creek itself, are used to distribute the
irrigation waters. Many small irrigation diversions are
made from tributaries of Bear Creek, and three major diversions
are made from Bear Creek to supply the Talent, Phoenix and
Hopkins Canals (LaRiviere, 1977).
Water Quality
Water quality in Bear Creek is generally good. Persistent
turbidity, the presence of nutrients, and occasional coliform,
dissolved oxygen and temperature increases are the major problems.
The following discussion of water quality in the Bear Creek
Basin is based primarily on information provided in The Water
Quality Of Bear Creek and the Middle Rogue River Basins,
by John LaRiviere, 1977.
Suspended Sediment arid Turbidity. Large concentrations
of suspended sediments m streams may adversely affect the use
of water for beneficial purposes such as domestic, industrial
and agricultural supply, and can be abrasive to organisms
24
-------
inhabiting the stream (LaRiviere, 1977). High turbidity
levels associated with low levels of suspended sediment may
also suffocate fish and other aquatic life, and exclude sun-
light, thereby restricting the growth of both benthic and
planktonic algae, which are important to the food chain (USGS,
1971).
DEQ has adopted standards limiting turbidity and bottom
sludge or sediment deposits in the Bear Creek Basin. There
is no specific standard for suspended sediment. The DEQ
water quality standard for turbidity is a maximum increase
of 10 percent over natural background levels, "... except
for certain specifically limited duration activities which
may be specifically authorized by DEQ under such conditions
as it may prescribe and which are necessary to accommodate
essential dredging, construction, or other legitimate uses
or, activities where turbidities in excess of this standard
are unavoidable." The DEQ water quality standard for bottom
deposits stipulates that the formation of any organic or
inorganic deposits on the stream bottom which are harmful
to fish or other aquatic life, or are injurious to public
health, recreation or industry shall.not be allowed.
Suspended sediment is a weight per volume measurement
of the matter suspended in the water column which may consist
of organic or inorganic materials including soil particles,
silt, sand or aquatic organisms. Turbidity is a measure
of the cloudiness of water, or the extent to which light
passing through water is reduced due to suspended materials
(APHA, 1975). High turbidity levels are usually associated
with high concentrations of suspended sediments, although
when colloidal suspensions of fine clay particles produce
high turbidity levels, corresponding suspended -sediment con-
centrations may be low (LaRiviere, 1977).
Suspended sediment and turbidity levels within the Bear
Creek Basin vary both seasonally and from stream to stream
and are highest during winter peaJc flow periods (Figure 2-5) .
High levels of suspended sediments and turbidity are found in
the main stem of Bear Creek and its associated irrigation
canals, and these levels generally increase in a downstream
direction. High concentrations of suspended sediments are
indicated by the buildup of fine sediments behind diversion
dams, over and within channel gravels, and along the irrigation
canals. Granitic soil deposits in the upper reaches of Bear
Creek are carried through the complex irrigation system during
the irrigation season, and the major source of this sediment
is believed by the RVCOG to be the erosion of the fraqile
granitic soils of the Ashland stock batholith. Although
the Ashland Creek watershed may be a major source of these
sediments, granitic sediment occurs in large amounts in Neil
Creek, which drains part of the Ashland stock batholith.
The upper reaches of Wagner Creek may also contribute granitic
sediments to Bear Creek. Nongranitic sediments are produced
in other creek watersheds, as well as on the valley floor.
25
-------
^O/vr
HLy
a^tE%0"cENTRA
ST AT ton HOIK*
BEAR CREEK BASIN
1975-1976
SUSPCKOCO SCOMCHr (*§/l J
4
6 ftUftflV*'*4** 4<
SAStt) iarN°H~P0lNf*SS*t£NT
• ose^X*$^
— Lor>^
-------
High levels of turbidity in Bear Creek and the irrigation
canals during the irrigation season appear to be caused by
clay soils which originate from the eastern side of the basin
and the valley floor. The fine colloidal clay particles
enter the system as a result of irrigation practices, watershed
erosion and canal bank erosion. Due to the natural variability
of turbidity levels within the basin, the many factors which
contribute to it, and the complex flow patterns within the
irrigation system, the DEQ turbidity standard of a maximum
increase of 10 percent over natural background levels is
difficult to apply to nonpoint sources (LaRiviere, 1977).
No standard violations have been identified, except for vio-
lations during the cleaning of Reeder Reservoir.
The buildup of sediments within the main stem of Bear
Creek and in the interconnected system of irrigation canals
adversely affects irrigation operations. The accumulation
of sediments in Bear Creek also results in the compaction
and burying of stream gravels, eliminating valuable salmonid
spawning and rearing habitat. Both of these conditions violate
the DEQ water quality standards for bottom deposits.
Temperature. Water temperature is a key regulator of
biological activity in aquatic environments. Stream tempera-
tures may vary diurnally, seasonally and with flow volumes.
Temperature is one determinant of the organisms present as
well as their distribution, rate of growth, and development
(Hynes, 1970). When sufficient nutrients are present, high
water temperatures may stimulate the growth of nuisance aquatic
vegetation, encroaching on channel gravels and contributing
to sediment buildup in the streambed.
Due to the large natural variability in stream tempera-
tures within the Bear Creek Basin, DEQ has set point source
discharge temperature limits according to the existing back-
ground temperature of the receiving stream (DEQ, 1976). No
tempetature increases are allowed when stream temperatures
are 58°F or greater. No more than a 0.5°F increase due to
a single source discharge is allowed when stream temperatures
are 57.5°F or less, or a 2°F increase due to all sources
combined when stream temperatures are 56°F or less (LaRiviere,
1977) .
The streams and canals within the Bear Creek Basin all
exhibit temperature variations that reflect changes in seasonal
ambient air temperatures. Summer water temperatures usually
exceed 68°F making Bear Creek unsuitable as habitat for salmon
and steelhead from June to September. The diversion of water
during the irrigation season also increases water temperatures
by 5° to 9°F due to low stream flows, increased water surface
area, and the absorbing and retaining of heat by suspended
sediment and planktonic material (LaRiviere, 1977).
27
-------
Dissolved Oxygen. Dissolved oxygen levels in stream
systems are dependent on the physical, chemical and bio-
chemical activities which are occurring and are important
to the survival of most aquatic organisms. The oxygen content
of stream waters is a key indicator of water pollution levels
due to organic waste discharges since oxygen is used in the
biological breakdown of organic materials in the stream environ-
ment.
In small turbulent streams the oxygen content of the water
is normally near or above the 100 percent saturation level;
however, in slow-moving, sluggish streams DO levels may
frequently drop below 100 percent saturation due to the
respiratory demands of aquatic organisms and the accumulation
of dead organic matter. The solubility of oxygen in water
varies inversely with the temperature, leading to lower
concentrations of dissolved oxygen at 100 percent saturation
during the warm summer months (Hynes, 1970).
Depleted oxygen may be replaced by the photosynthetic
activity of aquatic plants or by absorption of atmospheric
oxygen in riffles and waterfalls. Diurnal peaks in DO levels
may result from the photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Low DO levels adversely affect fish and aquatic invertebrates
on which they feed# and the depletion of oxygen can lead
to the development of anaerobic conditions with associated
odor and aesthetic problems (LaRiviere, 1977).
DEQ standards for DO in Bear Creek and its tributaries
require a minimum of 90 percent saturation during the summer
low flow period and 95 percent saturation in spawning areas
during spawning, incubation, hatching and fry stages of the
salmonids found in the basin, which occur primarily during
the winter and spring (DEQ, 1976).
A monthly survey of DO saturation levels in Bear Creek
and its tributaries during 1975-1976 as part of the RVCOG
"208" program revealed that DO levels are generally in com-
pliance with the established standards; however, occasional
violations of the 90 percent saturation standard during the
summer in Griffin, Crooked, Hansen, Anderson and Neil Creeks
indicated that some summertime DO problems may exist, due
to the nutrient loading of the streams from agricultural
runoff, although the extent of the problem has not been deter-
mined (LaRiviere, 1977).
pH. pH is a measure of hydrogen ion activity or the
acidity or alkalinity of water, and is measured in standard
units with pH 7.0 being neutral on a scale of 0 to 14 from
acidic to basic. The photosynthetic activity of aquatic
plants uses carbon dioxide, and streams with large growths
28
-------
of aquatic vegetation may experience diurnal pH values as
high 9.0.
The water quality standards established by DEQ for pH
are 6.5 to 8.5, which is the range characteristic of most
natural waters in the United States. The waters of Bear
Creek and its tributaries tend to be alkaline (above 7.0),
and more than half the stations sampled as part of the RVCOG
"208" program recorded pH values in excess of 8.5 on one
or more occasions. Since they often correspond to peaks
of DO they were attributed to the photosynthetic activity
of aquatic plants (laRiviere, 1977).
Nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus are two of the
primary nutrients utilized by aquatic plants. The natural
source of these nutrients in streams is rainfall, surface
runoff and bank erosion. Drainage from agricultural lands
also produces large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus
as does domestic sewage effluent. Nutrient loading of streams
causes excessive growth of aquatic vegetation which in turn
may cause fluctuations in DO and pH values that may adversely
affect fish and aquatic invertebrates.
There are no specific water quality standards established
by DEQ for these nutrients.
Data provided by the RVCOG "2 08" water quality sampling
program indicate that nitrogen and phosphorus.concentrations
in Bear Creek and its tributaries are high as compared to
the more natural conditions exhibited in Emigrant Creek,
above the reservoir. The specific nutrients sampled included
organic and inorganic nitrogen, total orthophosphate and
total phosphorus (LaRiviere, 1977).
Although sufficient data are not currently available
to assess its effects, nutrient loading of the Bear Creek
Basin during the irrigation season may be a key factor contributing
to the summertime DO and pH problems which have been identified
by the RVCOG "208" sampling program. High nutrient levels
may cause the excessive growth of aquatic vegetation, leading
to periodic oxygen depletion and high pH levels which threaten
the aquatic life of the streams.
Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) enters the
stream from many natural sources including rain water and
the decomposition of organic material, and man-caused sources
including industrial and municipal waste treatment facilities
and runoff from urban and agricultural areas. Waste discharges
from the Ashland sewage treatment plant were found to increase
organic nitrogen levels in Bear Creek due to the limited
dilution capacity of the receiving stream during low flow
periods. The inorganic nitrogen concentration in Bear Creek
increases steadily downstream. Although this same downstream
29
-------
trend continues, there is an overall decrease in these con-
centrations during the irrigation season, indicating that
some inorganic nitrogen is being removed from the water by
the growth of aquatic plants and agricultural crops
(LaRiviere, 1977).
The levels of organic nitrogen observed seem to follow
a pattern similar to that described for 'inorganic nitrogen,
with a progressive increase downstream and a slight decrease
during the irrigation season. The highest levels of organic
nitrogen recorded were on Ashland Creek during February and
March, corresponding to the period of sluicing of Reeder
Reservoir. These high levels were probably due to the buildup
of organic materials on the bottom of the reservoir. (LaRiviere*
1977) .
Both total phosphorus (TP) and total orthophosphate (PO4)
concentrations showed a downstream increase in Bear Creek,
partly due to the influence of effluent from the Ashland
sewage treatment plant. All of the tributary streams, with
the exception of Ashland Creek, showed an increase in PO4
levels during the summer months, which may be, in part, due
to irrigation return flows.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria are
common to the intestinal tracts of man and other warm-blooded
animals, and their presence in water indicates contamination
by fecal materials, as well as the possible presence of patho-
genic organisms.
DEQ standards do not specifically address fecal coliform
bacteria, but rather set a concentration limit for total
coliform bacteria of 240 per 100 milliliters, except during
periods of high natural surface runoff.
LaRiviere (1977) found that all sampling stations in
the Bear Creek Basin recorded fecal coliform concentrations
greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters on one or more occasions
during the year, with the exception of the two stations on
Emigrant Creek. Due to persistent violations of the DEQ
fecal coliform standard the Jackson County Health Department
has identified several of the streams in the basin as health
hazards, including Bear, Jackson, Griffin, Crooked, Carson,
Wagner, Coleman and Neil Creeks. Although enough data are
not available to define the exact cause of the bacterial
contamination, LaRiviere (1977) assumes that part of the
problem is due to failing septic drainfields or illegal dis-
charge of septic tank effluent to surface waters. The com-
plexity of the irrigation system within the basin makes it
impossible to accurately trace the sources of the bacterial
contamination.
30
-------
Other Parameters. According to LaRiviere (1977) the
following water quality parameters do not occur at sufficient
concentrations in Bear Creek to create obvious water quality
problems: total dissolved solids, lead, mercury, oil and
grease, pesticides, and biological oxygen demand.
Adequate Water Quality Standards. Water quality standards
are established to provide a basis for maintaining water
quality at a level sufficient to protect the beneficial uses
of a stream under natural conditions (EPA, 1976). The bene-
ficial water uses established by DEQ for the mainstem of
Bear Creek are given in Appendix A and include public domestic
water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock
watering, anadromous fish passage, spawning and rearing,
resident fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, fishing,
boating, water contact recreation, and aesthetic quality.
The existing standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
pH, turbidity and bottom sludge deposits are adequate to protect
the beneficial uses of the stream relative to those parameters.
However, during "... specifically limited duration activities
which may be authorized by DEQ ... through the issuance
of waste discharge permits, ... to accomodate legitimate
uses ..." the water quality standards for temperature, turbidity
and bottom sludge deposits may be waived, ^resulting in a
potential for adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of the stream.
Water quality standards for coliform bacteria and nutrients
in Bear Creek are insufficient to adequately protect the
beneficial uses of the stream from point sources of discharge
or are nonexistent. The coliform bacteria standard established
by DEQ for Bear Creek to monitor and guard against pathogenic
organisms is a "total coliform" measurement, rather than
a specific measure of "fecal coliform" organisms, which indicates
contamination by fecal material and the possible presence
of pathogenic organisms. Since other organisms of the coliform
group which are not associated with fecal material are included
in a "total coliform" count, an accurate determination of
the possible presence and abundance of pathogenic organisms
in a water supply cannot be made using a "total coliform"
measurement such as employed in the DEQ standard (EPA, 1967).
Also, the DEQ standard of 1,000 organisms per 100 milliliters
is five times that of the 200 per 100 milliliters measure
suggested by EPA (1976) for bathing waters.
Nutrient loading of Bear Creek and its tributary stream
due to sewage effluent discharge and agricultural runoff
is suspected as the major cause of aquatic vegetation growth
31
-------
within the basin streams. The growth of aquatic vegetation
adversely affects DO and pH levels during low flow periods
and is a nuisance in the irrigation canals. The growth of
algal and rooted aquatic vegetation may also adversely affect
aesthetic and recreation uses. At present there are no DEQ
standards for regulation of nutrient levels in the Bear Creek
Basin (LaRiviere, 1977).
Application of water quality standards to nonpoint source
pollution presents particular difficulties. Increases in
turbidity, suspended sediment and temperature levels within
Bear Creek which may adversely affect the beneficial uses
of the stream have all been attributed to nonpoint sources
of activity within the basin, including silvicultural practices
in the Ashland watershed, agricultural runoff, and operation
of the basin irrigation system (LaRiviere, 1977). Due to
the widespread nature of the nonpoint source activities,
however, it is difficult to distinguish their effects from
changes in natural background levels of water quality within
the basin and to identify specific sources of pollution.
Since the standards for these parameters require the demon-
stration of a deviation from "natural background levels",
due to an "identifiable source", their enforcement is very
difficult (DEQ, 1976) . Beneficial uses may be jeopardized
in the absence of such enforcement.
Vegetation
Bear Creek Basin is on the eastern edge of the Siskiyou
ecological province of southwest Oregon and northern California'
The native plant communities of the area include the coniferous
forests of the Ashland watershed and surrounding ridges,
oak savannah and grasslands in the foothill areas, mixed hard-
wood bottom land communities on the valley floor, and cotton-
wood-willow floodplain vegetation along Bear Creek and its
tributaries (USDA, 1975). The forest, woodland and riparian
plant communities reduce surface runoff rates and increase
infiltration rates, contributing to subsurface flow. In
this way the vegetative cover acts to reduce flooding and
erosion of the soils in the watershed (Kittredge, 1948).
Much of the native vegetation of the foothill and valley
areas has been removed and replaced by cultivated crops,
orchards, pastureland and grassing areas. As a result much
of the vegetation in the valley is a mosaic of irrigated
pasture, alfalfa, orchards# truck crops and riparian habitat
along the stream drainages. Uncultivated edges of agri-
cultural lands are typified by annual grasses such as bent-
grass, brome and wild rye, and weed and forb species such as
yellowstar thistle, yarrow, wild carrot and American vetch.
32
-------
Mixed Conifer/Pine Forests. The mountainous areas
along the southwest side of the valley/ such as the Ashland
watershed, are dominated by Douglas fir with ponderosa pine
and cedar present in some areas, along with deer brush,
poison oak and manzanita. These are generally the areas
that have been subject to forest management.
Oak Woodland and Shrub Communities. The foothill areas
of the valley contain California black oak, Oregon white oak,
deer brush, white-leaved manzanita, poison oak and birchleaf
mountain mahogany, as well as scattered ponderosa pine and
cedar (Franklin and Dryness, 1969).
Riparian. The vegetation of the floodplain areas is
dominated by dense thickets of black cottonwood and willow.
Scattered white alder trees are often present, as well as an
occasional big-leaf maple and Oregon ash. The native under-
story includes a variety of species such as herbaceous sage-
brush, blue wild rye, cattail and horsetail' however, in many
areas the Himalaya blackberry has been introduced and readily
becomes the dominant understory species (USDA, 1975).
Wildlife
A wide variety of wildlife species is associated with
the plant communities of the Bear Creek Basin.
The black-tailed deer is the most common of the big
game mammals in the area, and the black bear and the mountain
lion occur in the more remote portions of the basin. Game
birds found in the area include the band-tailed pigeon, mountain
quail, California quail, mourning dove and ring-necked
pheasant (Jones & Stokes Associates, 1977).
The riparian plant community provides nesting and feeding
habitat for many species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians
and fish. Local terrestrial species found in the habitat
include 113 birds, 50 mammals and 10 reptiles. Aquatic species
found associated with the riparian habitat include 41 aquatic
birds, 5 mammals, 2 reptiles, 7 amphibians and 17 fish (Cross,
1975; Ballard, et al., 1975; Hostick, 1976).
Threatened or Endangered Wildlife. Three species of
wildlife, identified by the U. S. Department of the Interior
(1973) and the Oregon Wildlife Commission (1975) as endangered
or threatened with extinction, could occur within the Bear
Creek Basin. These include the American peregrine falcon,
northern bald eagle, and northern spotted owl. Both the
peregrine falcon and the bald eagle have been observed flying
33
-------
in the valley area, and the northern spotted owl is suspected
to nest in the mountainous areas along the southwest side
of the valley (Hostick, pers. coram.).
Anadromous Fisheries of Bear Creek
The Rogue River basin has historically supported some
of the largest runs of anadromous salmonids on the west coast
of the United States. As part of the Rogue River system.
Bear Creek and its tributary streams have served as spawning
and nursery areas for fall run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawyscha), coho or silver salmon (0. kisutch), sea-run
cutthroattrout (Salmo clarki), and summer and winter run
populations of steelhead trout (S. gairdneri) (ODFW, 1964).
Because of this, the Bear Creek cTrainage is considered to
be a sensitive aquatic habitat in which successful anadromous
fish production is dependent on a quality environment (Haight,
pers. comm.).
Life History Characteristics and Resource Needs
At present the only anadromous salmonids which inhabit
the Bear Creek Basin are fall run chinook and coho salmon, and
summer and winter steelhead trout. Critical periods for the
key life history stages of these anadromous salmonids and
their physical resource needs are described in the "Environmental
Criteria Guidelines" given for each species in Appendix D.
The criteria are based on information provided by the ODFW
and additional literature on the biology of anadromous fishes.
The activity/life stage dates given in the criteria charts
for each species are used to identify periods during which
the fish may be especially vulnerable to environmental changes.
The indicated time periods may vary from year to year due
to shifting climatic conditions which cause changes in stream
flow volume, velocity, temperature and other environmental
factors.
Steelhead Trout. The steelhead fishery is composed of
both summer and winter run steelhead. About 550 summer
steelhead enter Bear Creek and move up into its tributaries
(if access is available) beginning in December and January
as flows in the drainage are increasing, and spawn in
suitable gravel bottom areas from late December through
March. A total of approximately 25 miles of summer steelhead
rearing habitat exists in 13 of the tributary streams
entering Bear Creek (Table 2-2). Incubation of the eggs
in the gravel beds lasts from late December to May, and
emergence of the newly hatched fry occurs from March through
May. As water levels drop and temperatures increase during
34
-------
the late spring, most of the young fry move down from the
tributary streams into the mainstem of Bear Creek and
on into the Rogue River where water flows and temperatures
are suitable, remaining in the river for 1 to 3 years before
migrating to the ocean. If access is available, some of
the young seek out suitable summer water temperatures by
moving up into the upper reaches of some of the perennial
streams such as Walker, Frog and Neil Creeks in the southern
part of the Bear Creek Basin. These streams are the only
ones which still have sufficient summer flows to provide
rearing areas for young salmonids (Haight, pers. comm.).
Winter run steelhead, which number about 300, move up
into Bear Creek beginning in February; spawning occurs from
late March through May, and is limited to the 27 miles of
the mainstem of Bear Creek (Table 2-2). In years when suffi-
cient late spring flows occur, winter run steelhead also
spawn in the tributary streams (Haight, pers, comm.). Incuba-
tion of eggs lasts from late March through July, emergence
of fry occurs from April to July, and the young move downstream
to the Rogue River or up into the headwaters of the tributary
streams. When tributary flows decrease in late summer and
early fall, the young may have to move downstream into Bear
Creek to survive, and ascend into the tributary streams again
in the late fall when stream flows begin to rise. The young
fish remain in fresh water from 1 to 3 years before migrating
to the ocean.
Environmental conditions conducive to steelhead trout
production in the Bear Creek Basin include minimum depths
of at least 0.5 feet, water velocities of 1-^3 fps, and tempera-
tures from 43 to 55°F. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels of
7 ppm are necessary for normal growth, and channel gravels
with less than 20 percent fine sediments content are required
for spawning, egg development, fry emergence and rearing
of the young. Although steelhead can clear individual 2-
to 3-foot barriers when a jumping pool of sufficient depth
is present, single barriers with no downstream jumping pool
or multiple barriers in a close series should be no greater
than 1 foot to permit fish passage (USDA, 1977). Water depths
of at least 0.6 foot and velocities of less than 8 fps are
also necessary for fish passage.
Coho Salmon. Although steelhead are heart^ and somewhat
adaptable to man-made changes in water quality and stream
flow characteristics, coho salmon are very sensitive to such
changes. As a result, coho salmon now occur in only limited
numbers in the Bear Creek drainage even though many of the
tributary streams historically provided spawning and rearing
habitat. Adult coho salmon enter Bear Creek during November
35
-------
and December, and spawn from November through January throughout
the 27 miles of the mainstem (Table 2-2) and in some tributary
streams if access is available. Emergence of fry occurs
from February through April. The young remain in their spawning
streams until the following spring when they migrate to the
ocean (Haight, pers. comm.).
Environmental conditions conducive to coho salmon pro-
duction in Bear Creek are similar to those described for
steelhead trout.
Chinook Salmon. The remnant chinook salmon run in Bear
Creek begins around the first of October if flows are adequate,
with spawning beginning during the latter half of October
and continuing through December in the lower 7 miles of Bear
Creek from Talent to the Rogue River (Table 2-2). Incubation
of eggs lasts until late March. The fry emerge during February
and March, and soon migrate to the ocean (Haight, pers. comm.).
The environmental needs of chinook salmon in Bear
Creek are generally similar to those described for steel-
head trout, although the larger body size of chinook
salmon requires a minimum of 0.8 foot of water depth for
adult passage and spawning.
Summary. In summary, the salmonid species seek habitat
in the tributaries to Bear Creek all year, and in the mainstem
of Bear Creek from about October through July. The steelhead,
coho salmon and chinook salmon follow different natural time
tables, with the greatest fish populations inhabiting Bear
Creek from about January through May, coinciding with the
periods of highest natural streamflow. From October through
July, and especially from January through May, sufficient
flows must be available for the in- and out-migration of
adults, as well as smolting juveniles on their way to the
ocean. Stream habitat with sufficient water depth, flow
and temperature as well as suitable spawning gravels must
also be available for spawning, the rearing of the young,
and their movement up into tributary headwater streams or
down into the Rogue River where summer water temperatures
are suitable. A summary of the critical life history stages
of the salmonids of the Bear Creek Basin are presented in
Table 2-3.
Relationship of Salmonid Fishery to Stream Hydrology
The life history characteristics and resource needs of
anadromous salmonids when in the Bear Creek Basin are
intimately related to its natural, unregulated stream
flow regime. High winter and spring flow volumes affect
adult passage, spawning, egg development, and rearing of the
36
-------
Table 2-2
ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF ADULT SPAWNING SALMONIDS
IN THE BEAR CREEK DRAINAGE
(Based on Stream Habitat Inventory ODFW, 1970)
OJ
-vj
Sunmer Steelhead
Winter Steelhead
Coho Salmon
Miles of
Miles of
Miles of
Number
Available
Number
Available
Number
Available
of
Rearing
of
Rearing
of
Rearing
Stream
Fish
Habitat
Fish
Habitat
Fish
Habitat
Bear Creek
0
0
300
27
60
27
Willow Creek
20
1
Jackson Creek
30
2
Griffin Creek
40
1.5
Larsen Creek
20
0.5
Coleman Creek
15
0.5
Wagner Creek
75
2
Meyer Creek
30
1
Ashland Creek
50
5.5
Neil Creek
75
5
Clayton Creek
10
0.25
Bnigrant Creek
75
3.5
Walker Creek
100
3.5
Frog Creek
10
1
Total Fish
550
300
60
Chinook Salmon
Number
of
Fish
50
Miles of
Available
Rearing
Habitat
50
-------
Table 2-3
CRITICAL PERIODS FOR THE LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS WHICH OCCUR IN THE MAINSTEM OF BEAR CREEK
Estimated Number of
Species
Spawning Adults
Adult Passage
Spawning
Egg Incubation
Rearing
Summer Steelhead
550
Dec-Mar1
Dec-Mar1
Dec-May1
All Year2
Winter Steelhead
300
Feb-May
Mar-May
Mar-Jul
All Year2
Coho Salmon
60
Nov-Dec
Nov-Jan
Nov-Mar
All Year
Chinook Salmon
50
Oct-Dec
Oct-Dec
Oct-Mar
Mar-Jun
Smolt Passage
Mar-May
Mar-May
Mar-May
_ 3
(fall run)
1 Tributaries.
2 Bear Creek in late summer and fall, in tributaries rest of year.
3 In Rogue River.
-------
young and juvenile outmigration directly by providing water
of adequate depth, velocity, temperature and dissolved
oxygen content. Habitat suitability for spawning, egg
development, and rearing of the young is also affected
indirectly by high winter and spring stream flows which
scour the streambed, keeping the gravels loose and free of
fine sediments, and removing riparian vegetation from the
stream channel.
The quality of salmonid habitat in streams that have
controlled flows is often seriously degraded due to the
compaction of gravels resulting from the accumulation of
sediments and the encroachment of riparian vegetation into
the stream channel (Barracco, 1977). Compaction of stream
gravels with fine sediments reduces or eliminates the
intergravel spaces, adversely affecting the success of
salmonid egg incubation and hatching and the emergence and
rearing of the fry (Phillips, 1971? Shumway, et al., 1964;
Sheridan, 1962). Successful; development of the eggs
requires a subsurface flow through the spawning gravels to
supply the needed oxygen (5-7 ppm) and remove metabolites.
After hatching the sacfry or alevins must have open space
in the gravel to emerge. Once the fry have emerged, they
use the gravel space for cover and feeding before moving to
pool areas as juveniles. Intergravel spaces also serve
as habitat for many of the aquatic insects on which young
salmonids feed while in fresh water (Cordone and Kelley, I960?
Phillips, 1971).
During the summer months under natural conditions the
mainstem of Bear Creek and the lower reaches of its tri-
butary streams was historically often dry or nearly so, and
juvenile salmonid rearing habitat was limited to the upper
reaches of the tributary streams where natural water temperatures
were suitable.
Man-Made Changes Affecting the Anadromous Fishery
Since the early 1900s, agricultural and urban development
in the Bear Creek Valley has significantly altered the
physical environment. With the construction of Emigrant
Reservoir in 1924, Reeder Reservoir in 1928, and the heavy
irrigation, municipal and industrial water demands which
have developed in the basin, the natural flow patterns of
Bear Creek and its tributaries have been changed dramatically,
altering flow volumes, water quality and stream morphology
(ODFW, 1964; DEQ, 1977). As a result of these changes plus
the effects of agricultural practices, logging, road building,
gravel mining, urbanization, and municipal and industrial
sewage productions, much of the salmonid spawning and nursery
habitat in the Bear Creek drainage has been degraded or eliminated
(ODFW, 1970; Haight, pers. comm.).
39
-------
As a result of land use changes within the basin, sediments
contributed by tributary streams and the flushing of Reeder
Reservoir have built up in Bear Creek, especially in its
lower reaches, eliminating salmonid habitat (Haight, pers.
com..). The more constant flow regime, particularly the
maintenance of summer flows at levels much higher than historic
values, has also encouraged vegetation encroachment on the
streambed, with consequential decreases in stream gravel
areas.
The operation of the complex irrigation system within
the Bear Creek Basin from the first of April to the end of
October may have a number of adverse effects on the salmonid
fishery. Diversion structures may interfere with the move-
ment of the salmonid species into the tributary streams or
out into the Rogue, and reduced streamflow below diversions
may increase predation. Adverse water quality changes also
affect the fish.
Releases from Emigrant Reservoir, irrigation return
flows, elevated water temperatures and high nutrient levels
from agricultural runoff and municipal sewage effluent provide
conditions conducive to the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The growth of the aquatic vegetation binds the stream channel
gravels, thus degrading the quality of salmonid spawning and
juvenile rearing areas within Bear Creek and the tributary
streams. Summer flows in Bear Creek also provide suitable
habitat for warmwater fish species such as black bass, black
crappie and sunfish which feed on juvenile salmonids (Haight,
pers. comm.). High turbidity levels throughout the irrigation
season may also have an adverse affect on adult and juvenile
salmon in the Bear Creek Basin (ODFW, 1970).
Three major irrigation diversions are operated along
Bear Creek, with significant effects on summer creek flow
during the irrigation season. Figure 2-6 illustrates these
effects on relative streamflow along Bear Creek. These condi-
tions may act to inhibit the upstream movement of winter
steelhead in Bear Creek during April and May. The ODFW has
found that all three of the diversion dams have a significant
adverse effect on the upstream migration of winter steelhead
during years when flows are low (Jennings, pers. comm.).
The placement of irrigation diversion structures on
both the mainstem of Bear Creek and its tributary streams
also presents partial barriers to the upstream movement of
adult salmonids during fall, winter and spring spawning migra-
tions and the upstream movement of juvenile salmonids to
stream headwater rearing areas during the spring and summer
months (ODFW, 1970) .
40
-------
FIGURE 2-6
TYPICAL FLOW PROFILE
BEAR CREEK
WELAnV£mpfsCHAF^i^
RIVER MILE
-L£OEWD-
APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER
NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH
NOTE: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY & RURAL NON - POINT
SOURCES IN THE BEAR CREEK BASIN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON.
JOHN LaRIVIERE, 1977.
41
-------
Although the ODFW has not investigated the effects of
the operation of the irrigation system on the outmigration
of salmonid smolts, the complex flow patterns within the
system may cause an increase in travel time of salmonid smolts,
resulting in an increased time of exposure to high water
temperatures within the system and predation from birds and
warmwater fish. Before entering the saltwater environment
juvenile salmonids must undergo a physiological change known
as smoltification. This process cannot be completed nor
can the smolt condition be maintained at water temperatures
above 59°F (15°C) (Zaug, Adams and McLain, 1972). Since
mean monthly temperatures in Bear Creek at Medford approach
59°F (15°C) in May (RVCOG, 1976), a delay of the outmigration
of juvenile salmonids during this period may cause desmolti-
fication and prevent successful outmigration.
A 1970 Stream Habitat Inventory of the Bear Creek
Drainage (ODFW, 19701 identified fish habitat losses due
to man-made changes. Damage to stream habitat within Bear
Creek included chemical pollution from orchard spraying and
domestic sewage, siltation of the streambed and high turbidity
throughout the 27 miles of stream due to land use practices
and 14 miles of man-caused channel changes and 10 miles
of stream bank habitat destroyed. A survey of the tributary
streams also revealed a general destruction of fish habitat
due to man-made changes. Identified were 22 miles of chemical
pollution due to orchard spraying, 11 miles of man-made channel
changes, 6 miles of stream bank habitat destroyed, 39.5 miles
of streambed silted, 62.5 miles of high turbidity due to
land use practices and 4 miles of man-caused channel drying.
Sediments originating in Ashland Creek are a contributing
factor in turbidity and siltation during sluicing or dredging
of Reeder Reservoir, and sediments discharged from the reservoi*
may remain in Bear Creek for some period thereafter. The
effects of dredging Reeder Reservoir following the 1974 flood
on the salmonid fisheries of Bear Creek were documented in
the Upper Rogue District Monthly Report, August 1974 for
the ODFW:
"The bed of Bear Creek between the mouth of Ashland Creek
and the Jackson Street diversion in Medford is choked with
decomposed granite, up to 10 inches deep in areas, following
dredging of Reeder Reservoir by the City of Ashland. Four
100-yard sections of stream were examined on August 1 and 2,
and steelhead fry were found to be absent, as are most species
and age classes of insects."
Based on field sampling conducted during 1974, the ODFW
concluded that virtually all of the fall chinook, coho salmon
and winter steelhead spawn was lost due to sediment release
42
-------
from Reeder Reservoir. Summer steelhead fry survived until
they returned to Bear Creek in the summer as flows in the
tributaries decreased. They died after reentering Bear Creek
(Haight, pers. comm.). Although no sampling was conducted
subsequent to 1974, it is assumed by the ODFW that the silting
of the mainstem of Bear Creek had a residual adverse impact
on salmonid production within the basin, although the duration
and magnitude of the impacts is not known (Jennings, pers.
comm.).
Salmon and steelhead reared in the Bear Creek Basin
are caught by both sport and commercial fishermen in the
ocean and the Rogue River (Bear Creek is not open to fishing
for these species [Jennings, pers. comm.]). The economic
losses to commercial and sports fishermen due to the virtual
elimination of salmonids spawned in Bear Creek in 1974 was
calculated by the ODFW using their 1975 Economic Data Catalogue
(Table 2-4). The ODFW's 1970 estimate of the number of adult
spawners (escapement) within the Bear Creek system, and
established catch-to-escapement ratios, were used to estimate
the number of fish of each species lost from the sport and
commercial fish catch for one year. These values were then
used to estimate an economic loss of $67,468 in 1975 dollars.
Field and Laboratory Analysis of Stream Gravels
A stream gravel analysis was conducted in March 1979
to determine the gravel size composition in potential or
actual spawning areas in Bear Creek. The information was
used to assess the suitability of the stream gravels as
salmonid spawning and rearing habitat at the time the sampling
was done. Since these samples were taken three years following
the most recent cleaning of Reeder Reservoir, they were not
expected to relate to any impacts from that source.
Information available in the literature on salmonid
biology indicates that the production of salmonids in freshwater
streams is affected by the quality of the gravel substrate
(Coirdone and Kelley, 1961; Phillips, 1971; Iwamoto, et al. ,
1978). As is indicated in the Environmental Criteria Guidelines
for steelhead, coho salmon and Chinook salmon, gravel substrate
composition directly affects spawning, egg incubation, emergence
of the fry, and disposal and rearing of the young. Spawning
gravel for salmonids should range between 0.5 and 6 inches
in diameter, and contain fewer than 20 percent fine sediments
less than 0.84 mm in diameter. Accumulated sediments smaller
than 0.84 mm (0.03 in) in diameter in channel gravels have been
shown to smother eggs and inhibit the development and emergence of
43
-------
Table 2-4
ECONOMIC
LOSSES OF THE ANADROMOUS SALMONID FISHERY IN THE BEAR CREEK
BASIN
DUE TO THE
1974 DREDGING OF REEDER
RESERVOIR
(based on
information provided by
the ODFW)
Estimated nunber
Estimated nunber
Nvnber of adult
of fish lost
Booncmic value
of fish lost
Eoancmic value
fish estimated to he from the sport
of sport catch
frun the ocm-
of OCTTmercial
returning to
catch due to
losses due to
mercial catch
catch losses due
spawn in 19741
1974 sedi-
1974 sediment
due to 1974 sedi-
to 1974 sedi-
Stream
Species
(escapanerrt)
ment discharges
discharges
ment discharges
ment discharoes
Bear Creek
Chinook Salmon
50
72
$ 7,318
177
$2,994
(fall run)
Ooho Salmon
60
87
785
213
315
Winter Steelhead
300
180
22,176
Willow Creek
Sumter Steelhead
20
10
1,241
Jackson Creek
Sumter Steelhead
30
15
1,861
Griffin Creek
Sumter Steelhead
40
20
2,483
Larsen Creek
Surer Steelhead
20
10
1,241
Oolaian Creek
Sumter Steelhead
15
7
869
Wagner Creek
Sumter Steelhead
75
37
4,592
Meyer Creek
Sutmer Steelhead
30
15
1,861
Ashland Creek
Sumter Steelhead
50
25
3,102
Neil Creek
Sumter Steelhead
75
37
4,592
Clayton Creek
Smmer Steelhead
10
5
621
Bnigrant Creek
Sunner Steelhead
75
37
4,592
Walker Creek
Sumter Steelhead
100
50
6,204
Frog Creek
Sumer Steelhead
10
5
621
TOTALS
960
612
$64,159
390
$3,309
1 Based on ODIW 1970 stream habitat inventory counts.
-------
newly hatched fry (Iwamoto, et al., 1978). Sediments as
large as 8.5 mm (0.34 in.) in diameter have also been shown
to degrade rearing habitat by filling the intergravel spaces
used as cover by both young salmonids and the aquatic insects
on which they feed (Iwamoto, et al., 1978).
With the assistance of the ODFW, a total of 6 sample
sites was selected along Bear Creek and on Emigrant and Neil
Creeks which contained actual spawning sites (redds) or were
judged to be potential spawning areas. Three gravel samples
each about 1.5 liters in volume were taken in the spawning
gravel areas at each site to a depth of approximately 7 inches
using a cylindrical steel soil sampler 4 inches in diameter
and 9.5 inches long, including 2%-inch curved blades projecting
down on either side. The maximum spacing between the blades
was approximately 2 inches, restricting the narrowest diameter
of the largest rocks collected to a maximum of 2 inches.
A sieve analysis was performed in the laboratory to determine
the particle size distribution of each sample. The percent
by weight of three separate particle size ranges in each
of the samples was calculated and the average of these values
for each of the 6 sample sites is presented in Table 2-5.
The proportion of fine sediments in Bear Creek less
than 0.84 mm, which may adversely affect salmonid egg develop-
ment and fry emergence, exceeds the critical 20 percent level
at Station 4 just above Ashland Creek. Relatively high
levels of fine sediments are also found at Station 3 below
Ashland Creek and at Station 5 in lower Neil Creek, where
values are twice those found in Emigrant Creek. These data
indicate that Neil Creek, which drains part of the eastern
slope of the Ashland stock batholith, may contribute significant
amounts of fine granitic sediment to Bear Creek.
As expected, there was no indication of a fine sediment
contribution from Ashland Creek at the time of sampling,
since the granitic sediments originating in the Ashland water-
shed for the last three years have been retained in Reeder
Reservoir.
Larger fines within the range of 0.84 and 8.5 mm have
been found in the spawning areas of undisturbed streams in
concentrations as high as 33 percent (Burns, 1970), and fry
emergence success, cover and food production has been shown
to be affected at levels between 40 and 50 percent (Iwamoto,
et al., 1978; Lantz, 1969).
The proportion of sediments within this range (0.84—
8.5 mm) reported for Bear Creek show no consistent downstream
trend. However, a peak value of 47 percent in lower Neil
Creek, and a value of 4 0 percent in Bear Creek at Talent
indicate marginal habitat.
45
-------
Table 2-5
PARTICLE SIZE COMPOSITION OF STREAM GRAVELS IN BEAR CREEK
ILLUSTRATED AS PERCENT BY WEIGHT
Particle Size Categories (rem)
>8.5 8.5-0.841 <0.841
Station (.34 in) (.34 - .03 in) (.03
1. Bear Creek at
confluence with
Jackson Creek 56 32 12
2. Bear Creek at
Central Point 61 27 12
3. Bear Creek at
Talent 43 40 17
4. Bear Creek at
Mountain St. (Ashland)
upstream of confluence 47 32 21
with Ashland Creek
5. Neil Creek 37 47 16
6. Emigrant Creek 56 36 8
46
-------
In general, the data developed from the sampling indicate
that at the time the sampling was done, that of those areas
sampled, the only salmonid spawning and rearing areas adversely
affected by the presence of excessive amounts of fine sediments
were in lower Neil Creek and in Bear Creek above Ashland Creek.
Marginal salmonid rearing habitat conditions were also indicated
just below Ashland Creek in Bear Creek at Talent. Since
the most recent silting of the mainstem of Bear Creek due
to the flushing of Reeder Reservoir occurred in the spring
of 1976, it may be concluded that the residual adverse impacts
of that silting did not extend beyond a 3-vear period.
Ashland Watershed
Hydrology
The hydrology of Ashland Creek is an important factor
in evaluating the cleaning of Reeder Reservoir. Creek flows
relate to the physical cleaning process, the city's water
supply, and movement of sediments. An attempt has been made
to present the known data on creek flows, illustrating the
flow regime of the stream in normal, flood, and low stream
flow periods.
The USGS has published daily stream gauge records for
two gauging stations on Ashland Creek above Reeder Reservoir.
Gauge 14353500 is located on the East Fork of Ashland Creek
0.1 mile above the diversion dam, upstream of Reeder Reservoir.
Gauge 14353000 is located on the West fork of Ashland Creek
0.3 mile upstream of the city's point of diversion for water
supply. There are no diversions of water or impoundments
on the streams upstream of the gauges. The gauges have developed
20 water years of record, including 12 years (September 1924
to January 1933 and December 1974 to the present) of daily
flows (with a few estimated periods) and 8 years (water years
1954-1960 and 1963) of annual peak flow data.
The area tributary to the East Fork is 8.14 square miles,
to the West Fork 10.5 square miles. Average flow tributary
to the East Fork gauge is 8.19 cfs (5,930 AFY), to the West
Fork gauge 7.99 cfs (5,790 AFY), based on water years 1925-
1932 and 1976-1977. Median flows are about 5 cfs for each
fork.
Below the gauges, the City of Ashland diverts water
for municipal water supply purposes. The diversion can be
made from Reeder Reservoir at Hosier Dam, or at each of
the diversion structures on the East and West Forks. The
47
-------
diversions and Reeder Reservoir significantly modify down-
stream flows in Ashland Creek. The only reported gauging
of the watershed other than the East and West Forks occurred
from July to November 1913 on Ashland Creek at Ashland,
probably at or near U. S. 9 9.
The City of Ashland maintains records of reservoir levels
diversions to municipal use, and limited records of releases
to Ashland Creek from the dam and from the water treatment
plant. Although these records could provide some estimates
of flow in Ashland Creek below Reeder Reservoir for some
periods, no attempt has been made to do so for this study*
since the records are not continuous and omit high flow periods.
Figure 2-7 illustrates flow-duration relationships for
the East Fork of Ashland Creek, based on USGS records of
mean daily flow. Given the similarities in flows between
the two forks, the curve also closely represents conditions
on the West Fork. The median flow for each fork is approxi-
mately 5 cfs. Minimum recorded flows are 0.47 cfs on the
East Fork during the freeze of March 14, 1977, and 1.3 cfs
on the West Fork", recorded on August 29, 1931 and again on
September 8 and 9, 1977. Other than the 1977 freeze, the
previous low flow on the East Fork was 1.0 cfs on several
days in 1931.
The base flow (continuing flow in the absence of recent
rainfall) of each fork appears relatively reliable following
years of normal and near-normal rainfall. The lowest combined
summer inflow into Reeder Reservoir, during the 1931 drought,
was 2.3 cfs, about one-fourth of the combined median flow
of 10 cfs. Freezes can have a more dramatic effect on stream-
flow for periods of several hours to several days.
Peak flood flows are less well documented than the low
flow extremes. The 1974 flood, believed to be the greatest
since at least 1900 (USGS, 1977), has been variously classified
as a 30-year event (HUD, 1979) and an 800-year event. A
discharge of 5,630 cfs was estimated for the East Fork, and
4,780 cfs for the West Fork, both on January 15, 1974.
The USGS indicates that the peak discharges from the
January 1974 flood were estimated by the slope-area measure-
ment method, using a visible high-water mark, and that the
peaks were believed exagerated by releases from debris accu-
mulating and forming dams and then breaking upstream. Ed
Fallon of the City of Ashland confirms that, during the night
of the flood, city crews were deflecting debris from the
Reeder Reservoir spillway, but abandoned their positions
upon hearing thunderous sounds in the distance, believed
to be the debris dams giving way. Later inspection of abrasion
48
-------
FIGURE 2-7
FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR
EAST FORK ASHLAND CREEK, USGS GAGE 14353500
BASED ON WATER YEARS 1926-32, 1976-77
USING AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS
50 —i
PERCENT OF TIME EXCEEDED
49
JONES 6 STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
to trees above the East and West Forks stream channels, and
the presence of a great quantity of trees, stumps, branches
and other debris in the reservoir further confirm that the
measured flow was probably increased to a great degree by
debris carried along as part of the crest of the flood (Fallon
pers. comm.).
An estimate of flow depth over the Reeder Reservoir
spillway was made by the city. The application of weir
discharge formulae led to later estimates of about 1,330 cfs
by the city (Fallon, pers. comm.), far less than the peak
inflow of over 10,000 cfs estimated by USGS. A second estimate
of flow over the dam of a quantity closer to 2,000 cfs was
reportedly made by the Corps of Engineers during their involve-
ment in emergency repair work following the flood, but the
Corps files in Portland yielded no confirmation of any such
estimate. In any event, the inflow into Reeder Reservoir
was certainly far greater than the estimated peak outflow
of 1,330 cfs. Reeder Reservoir greatly reduced the downstream
effects of this flood, removing debris, reducing peak flood
flow rates and thereby preventing a potential disaster in
Ashland. (Even when full, the reservoir retards flood flow
as the water level rises over the spillway. A high rate
of inflow lasting for several hours or less may spill over
the dam at a lower rate for a day, for instance.)
HUD (1977) has prepared a preliminary flood insurance
study of the City of Ashland that presents some hydrologic
analyses relative to Ashland Creek. Log-Pearson Type III
analyses, prepared for that study by USGS, based on 18 years
of record, were used to develop flow-discharge relationships
for the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek, along with
other streams in their study area. From these frequency
analyses, drainage area versus peak flow regression equations
were developed to describe the frequency-discharge
relationships as a function of watershed area. These equations
were then applied to streams where gauging stations did not
exist, but where frequency-discharge relationships were required
for study purposes. This included Ashland Creek at the city.
Further, the HUD study cites the estimated 1,331 cfs
discharge over Hosier Dam during the 1974 flood, and fits
it into the computed discharge curve for Ashland Creek as
a 30-year event. This methodology is inappropriate, since
the regression equation is only applicable to an essentially
unregulated watershed. Reeder Reservoir moderates all flood
events, and is known to have substantially reduced the peak
flow rate in the 1974 flood.
50
-------
Montgomery indicated that the recurrence intervals of
the 196 4 and 197 4 appeared to be from 20 to 50 years, based
on the history of major floods for the Rogue River at Grants
Pass, per Wilson and Hicks, 1975 (Montgomery, 1977). They
further indicated that more detailed flow frequency data
are not available. A more detailed explanation of their
conclusion as to the frequency of these two floods is not
given.
In order to determine the frequency-discharge relation-
ships of Ashland Creek downstream from Reeder Reservoir it
would be necessary to model reservoir inflow, available storage
and resulting discharge through an adequate period of year£
with known data, including extreme events. No such modelling
has been accomplished to date. This would be beyond the
scope of this EIS and results would be of little benefit.
However, it is evident that the response time between rainfall
and peak runoff is less in the East and West Forks than in
Ashland Creek below Reeder Reservoir due to the storage effects
of the dam. Thus, a rainstorm with more sustained rainfall
at a lower intensity than in 1974 might cause a greater discharge
from Reeder Reservoir than 1,330 cfs while producing much
lower peak flows on the East and West Forks. At present
there is no factual basis for classifying the frequency of
the 1974 discharge from Reeder Reservoir.
In an attempt to develop frequency-discharge relation-
ship curves for Ashland Creek, the USGS Portland Office,
on request of EPA's consultants, Jones & Stokes Associates,
again prepared Log-Pearson Type III flood frequency analyses
for the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek using the 20
years of peak flood flow data available at the time of this
study. The results, Figures 2-8 and 2-9, show basically
similar curves, with the East Fork having slightly higher
discharges at given frequencies. The curves are essentially
the same as those developed for the HUD study.
The plotted position of the 1974 flood peaks indicates
a frequency range of once in about 800 years. Considering
that this event was the most severe since disturbance of
the watershed, and that runoff volumes were substantially
affected by debris, the 1974 event probably does not repre-
sent a once in 800 years recurrence of rainfall runoff. In
general support of this, the city indicates that four relatively
major floods have occurred since about the 192 0s: One event
in December 1947 and January 1948, one in December 1955,
one in December 1964 and the January 1974 event. While the
197 4 flood was the greatest the others were not significantly
less (Fallon, pers. comm.). Only the 1974 flood volumes
have been estimated.
51
-------
FIGURE 2-8
FREQUENCY - DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
EAST FORK ASHLAND CREEK NEAR ASHLAND, OREGON I9E5-77 USGS GAGE NO. 14353500
FREQUENCY, YEARS
2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500
EXCEEDANCE PROB, PCT(NORMAL SCALE)
SOURCE: USGS, /978
-------
FIGURE 2-9
FREQUENCY - DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
WEST FORK ASHLAND CREEK NEAR ASHLAND, OREGON 1925-77 USGS GAGE NO. 14353000
FREQUENCY, YEARS
Ol
co
100 200 500
10,000
1,000
100
80 70 5 0 3 0 20 10 5
EXCEEDANCE PROB, PCT(NORMAL SCALE)
SOURCE¦¦ USGS, 1978
JONES 6 STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
If reliable frequency-discharge relationships could
be compared to past records of flood peaks on Ashland Creek,
it would be possible to develop better predictions of the
probability of sediment inflows to Reeder Reservoir. However,
the available stream gauge data cover relatively few years
and omit most of the major flood events. Thus, the hydrologic
information necessary to estimate a relationship between
streamflow and sediment volumes is lacking.
Erosion and Sedimentation in the Ashland Watershed
The problem of sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir as a
result of erosion in the watershed has been addressed by
Montgomery (1977), the USFS (1974), Hicks (1975), Wilson
and Hicks (1975), and others. The Montgomery study (1977)
developed estimates of erosion in the watershed
which correlate reasonably well with estimates of sediment
quantities physically removed from Reeder Reservoir since
the dam was completed in 1928. Being the most specific
information available, it is used in this report as a basis
for analysis.
Wilson and Hicks of the USFS (197 5) prepared a study
of the sources of sediment inflow to Reeder Reservoir. They
concluded that the sources of most sediment in the watershed
were natural, rather than man-caused. Their study encompassed
the January 1974 flood. They estimated that 122,000 cubic
yards of sediment were deposited in the reservoir by the flood,
and from measurements of road failures and scarring, that
41,400 cubic yards were derived from these mass wasting
sources. Their study points out that erosion is a continual
process, and that eroded material is always present near and
within the stream channels, awaiting the next flood with
sufficient energy to move it. Thus, the remaining 88,600
cubic yards were assumed to have been in stream channel
storage, having been eroded from largely natural sources
in the 1960s and early 197 0s. Originally, the study ascribed
95 percent of this 8 8,600 cubic yards to natural sources,
and 5 percent to man-made sources. Hicks conducted further
studies and, in 1977, revised his estimates to 7 0 percent
natural, 30 percent man-made.
Montgomery (1977) reviewed and critiqued the Wilson
and Hicks study, noting that surface erosion of the road
surface was of major importance, but had not been accounted
for. Montgomery further indicated their opinion that study
of a one-year period might not be adequate to define sediment
sources.
54
-------
Montgomery proceeded to develop a methodology of modelling
mass erosion and surface erosion on a year-by-year basis,
relying substantially on work by Walter Megahan at the USFS
Intermountain Range and Experiment Station in Idaho. Montgomery
categorized sediment sources in such a way as to be able to
assign rates to various sources. Their Table 5-4 and
Figure 5-4 are reproduced to show the volumes they derived.
They noted that the table and figure illustrate initial erosion
of material, and do not represent its movement into Reeder
Reservoir. Modelling of the movement of material was rejected
as . . not possible with existing information."
The USFS took issue with the Montgomery methodology
in a lengthy letter of comment on May 4, 1977. Among the
many comments, the USFS indicated that Montgomery did not include
the contribution of stream channels to the sediment volumes.
The USFS comments were considered by Montgomery prior to
publication of their final report in October 1977.
The actual sediment inflow to Reeder Reservoir was also
estimated by Montgomery from a variety of sources. Table 5-2
from Montgomery (1977) illustrates the reported removals.
Figure 5-2 (ibid) shows the rainfall events, watershed
changes and sediment problems in context.
Several conclusions result from the prior studies and
available data on the Ashland watershed.
o Peak sediment inflow to Reeder Reservoir accompanies
peak flows
o The activities accompanying the initiation of
multiple use management of the watershed in 1956
increased erosion and sediment inflow to Reeder
Reservoir
In 1970, the USFS conducted a general functional
inspection culminating in a moratorium on timber harvesting
beginning that year. In 1973, the USFS began managing the
watershed under an interim management plan developed in 1973.
That plan was prepared pursuant to a recommendation by the
Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality that:
"Until the U. S. Forest Service prepares a water quality
and quantity management plan for the Ashland Creek Drainage
Basin to show that the City of Ashland water supply will be
fully protected:
a) That no further ski facilities be developed in the
Ashland Creek watershed and that the planned expansion
of present ski facilities be denied.
55
-------
TABLE 5-4
SURFACE AND MASS EROSION BALANCE FOR THE
TOTAL ASHLAND CREEK WATERSHED
Year
Natural
Watershed
Erosion
Road Surface
Erosion Base
Load
(due to O&M)
Road
Prism
Surface
Erosion
First Year
Road Prism
Surface
Erosion
Second Year
Road cut/fill
Surface Erosion
Base Load
Ski Area
Surface Erosion
Mass Soil
Move-
ment
(USFS)
Timber
Harvest S.E.
150 ( lOyrs.)
400 ( lOyrs.)
Total Surface
and Mass
Erosion*
by Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1955
500
3,500
20
4,020
1956
500
3,500
20
60
4,080
1957
500
3,500
2,360
20
125
6,505
1958
500
4,600
2,360
200
20
190
7,870
1959
500
5,600
2,360
200
50
250
8,960
1960
500
6,700
2,360
200
70
310
10,140
1961
500
7,700
2,360
200
100
375
11,235
1962
500
8,800
2,360
200
120
440
12,420
1963
500
9,800
2,360
200
150
500
13,510
1964
500
10,900
2,360
200
170
7,100
30,000
560
51,790
1965
500
11,900
200
200
2,320
625
15,745
1966
500
11,900
220
2,320
610
15,550
1967
500
11,900
200
2,320
590
15,510
1968
500
11,900
180
2,320
580
15,480
1969
500
11,900
160
2,320
570
15,450
1970
500
11,900
140
2,320
550
15,410
1971
500
11,900
120
2,320
540
15,380
1972
500
11,900
100
2,320
520
15,340
1973
500
11,900
80
2,320
510
15,310
1974
500
11,900
60
1,200
41,400
490
55,550
1975
500
11,900
60
1,200
480
14,140
1976
500
11,900
60
1,200
470
14,130
11,000
207,400
18,880
1,600
2,320
31,580
71,400
9,345
353,525
>
c/>
2
3
Q.
o
n
o
7T
f
r-»¦
-n
=r
d
CL
353,500 = Total material eroded 1955 - 1976 by surface and mass erosion processes.
* This column represents the total volume of material eroded through surface erosion and mass soil movement by year - however, it does
not represent input to Reeder Reservoir - Routing of material is not possible with existing information.
SOURCE: Montgomery, 1977.
-------
YEARS
ESTIMATED ASHLAND WATERSHED
SURFACE AND MASS EROS/ON
YEARS 1955-1976
SOURCE: Montgomery, 1977. FIGURE 5'4
57
-------
Ashland Creek Watershed
TABLE 5-2
REEDER RESERVOIR
REPORTED SEDIMENT REMOVAL HISTORY
Years
Sediment Removed,
cubic yards
Information
Source
Before 1956
1200 cy/yr average from upstream
debris basins
Shaw (1956)
1956- 1963
No data - but increasing amount
(say, 10,000 cy/yr)
City Staff (1977)
1966- 1967
60,000 cy dredged from reservoir
Lund(1974)
City Staff (1977)
1968- 1972
Up to 20-30,000 cy by sluicing from
reservoir (say 20,000 cy/yr avg)
DEQ (1973)
City Staff (1977)
1973
70,000 by sluicing from reservoir
DEQ (1973)
City Staff (1977)
1974
122,000 cy by truck and dredge
City Staff (1976)
USFS (1976)
1975
5000-7000 cy by sluicing
(say, 6000 cy)
City Staff (1976)
1976
68,000-78,000 cy by sluicing
(say 70,000 cy)
City Staff (1976)
Earth Sciences (1976)
1967- 1976
TOTAL
428,000 cy
Rough estimate from
above.
1956- 1976
TOTAL
508,000 cy
Rough estimate from
above.
SOURCE: Montgomery, 1977.
58
-------
ASHLAND WATERSHED CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATED TO EROSION
Year 'Weather Conditions
Watershed Activity
Sediment Problems
1920 - 1928: Dam built; 850 ac ft reservoir
(1.4 x lO^cy)
1930-
1940-
12/47-1/48: heavy rain 8" total
(USFS 1975)
1950-
1955 - 12/55: Flood, 11" rain in Dec-Jan
(Shaw 1956, USFS 1975)
1940-1956: 7 fires in watershed;
minimal mancaused disturbance
1956: Began construction of
40* miles of road, which con-
tinued until 1960's. (USFS, 1977)
1958: began clear cut and partial
cut logging (USFS, 1975)
Before 1956: annual sediment
was about 1200 cy/yr in up-
stream basins, plus a relatively
small amt. sluiced from main
reservoir (Shaw, 1956; City
staff, 1977)
1960-
12/62: 2" rain in Dec., after 7.2" in
Oct, causes storm damage (USFS,
1975)
12/64: big flood, with 7" rain in Dec,
3" on Dec 22 (USFS, 1975)
1965-
1963: completed most road con-
struction; 37.3 miles, 270+ acres
(USFS 1977)
1964: open ski area; 183 acres
1965: most logging and
thinning completed-1000 acres
(USFS, 1975)
1962: sediment inflow in Dec
flood (USFS, 1975)
1963:
1964: big sediment inflow in
Dec flood (City staff, 1976)
1966-67: dredged 60,000+ cy
(Lund, 1974; City staff, 1977)
6/69: 2" rain storm (USFS, 1975)
1970-
1969: moratorium on logging
and road construction (USFS),
(1975)
1968-1972: sluiced 20,000-
30,000 cy each year (DEQ,
1973)
1/74: big storm; 10" rain in 2 days
in Ashland (USFS, 1975)
1973: sluiced 70,000 cy (DEQ,
1973)
1974: dredged and trucked
122,000 cy (City staff, 1976)
1975: sluiced 5000-7000 cy
(City staff, 1976)
1976: sluiced 70,000 cy (City
staff, 1976)
•Note: rainfall records are for Ashland
FIGURE 5-2
SOURCE: Montgomery, 1977.
59
-------
b) That no further recreational developments be made in
the Ashland Creek watershed.
c) That no more logging or road building be conducted in
the Ashland Creek watershed.
d) That no mining be allowed in the Ashland watershed."
In the USFS interim plan, the following "implementing
decisions" are set forth.
o No further road construction until existing roads,
including Tolman Creek Road, are brought up to
acceptable USFS standards
o Recreation, except for skiing, will not be encouraged,
camping and off-road vehicles will be prohibited,
but the ski area expansion will proceed unless
"reliable information is developed that indicates
such expansion will adversely affect Ashland's water
supply."
o Grazing will not be authorized without city consent,
and if fencing is needed to exclude livestock on
adjacent lands from the watershed, the city will
provide the fencing and the USFS will issue a use
permit
o No wildlife habitat improvements will be undertaken,
and hunting and fishing will be allowed, not encouraged
o The USFS will request that the watershed be withdrawn
from mineral entry
The USFS has taken steps to correct erosion problems
by revegetation, slope stabilization, road maintenance, and
retaining structures. Road fills subject to washout have
in some cases been replaced by "storm resistant fords". Road
drainage has been revised. Slopes have been stabilized by
mulching, revegetation and armoring with rock. Retaining
walls and log check dams have been constructed to intercept
sediment. These measures appear to have reduced the risk
of catastrophic erosion and sediment movement compared to
the 1964 and 1974 floods.
The USGS and City of Ashland are currently negotiating
an agreement to cover future management of the watershed.
Details will not be available until the agreement is negotiated
and this is anticipated soon.
60
-------
It is expected that the final agreement between the USFS
and the city will be more protective of the watershed than
the interim plan would appear. Future logging and road
construction, other than stabilization efforts, appear
unlikely. Expansion of the Mount Ashland Ski Area is also
unlikely. Some roads may be put to bed. The USFS believes
that some activities are necessary in the watershed, however,
such as developing covered fuel breaks to control fire in
the watershed.
As a result of improved management practices, erosion
rates and sediment inflows to Reeder Reservoir are likely
to decrease in the future, assuming no new or continued disturbances
of watershed soils. The low pre-1956 erosion rates will
probably never be attained again. And, even in those times,
Reeder Reservoir had to be drained and sluiced to remove
sediments from natural origins. Thus the cleaning of Reeder
Reservoir will continue to be necessary if the city is to
maintain the water supply function of the reservoir. However,
the quantities of sediments that may be encountered are
difficult to predict.
It is possible, however, to establish some likely ranges
of future sediment inflows based on Montogomery's work. The
estimated average annual sediment inflow to the reservoir
prior to 1956 was estimated as about 1,200 cubic yards per
year, prior to watershed disturbance. Based on the 1956-
1976 period (21 years), 508,000 cubic yards of material were
removed from Reeder Reservoir, or 24,190 cubic yards per
year. This period included inflow from the 1964 and 1974
events, and is likely the upper limit. Using Montgomery's
Figure 5-4, and assuming that future mass failures will be
minimized by corrective measures, an annual erosion volume
of 14,000 cubic yards per year, with gradual declines, could
be postulated. However, it is important to note that while
the 21-year erosion estimate of 353,000 cubic yards is reasonably
close to the estimated material removal of 508,000 cubic
yards during the same period, about 30 percent of the material
removed is unaccounted for. Adjusting the 14,000 cubic yards
per year to include this 30 percent would bring the average
annual quantity to about 18,200 cubic yards per year, declining
slowly. The sediment inflows would occur on an unpredictable
basis, with the majority entering Reeder Reservoir during
peak floods. It is likely that a single future flood could
contribute a large percentage of these sediments in relatively
few hours, and that sediment inflows at other times would
be minimal. Thus, the application of "average" figures is
misleading in that average events are unlikely to occur.
However, for estimating costs and other evaluation purposes,
it may be possible to assume average annual sediment inflows
of 18,000 to 24,000 cubic yards per year with occasional
one-year peaks below the nearly 200,000 cubic yards removed
after the 1974 event, and some years of very little sediment
inflow.
61
-------
Analysis of Catastrophic Sediment Inflows
The City of Ashland has historically been faced with two
categories of operations relative to cleaning Reeder Reservoir:
normal and catastrophic. The annual draining and sluicing
that routinely occurred through 1963 could certainly be
termed "normal". The 1964 and 1974 floods, which blocked the
sluiceway outlet and prevented draining and sluicing until
a significant amount of dredging could be completed, can
be considered catastrophic. Indeed, the 1974 flood brought
sediment up to the bottom of the water supply outlet in
Hosier Dam. Had the sediment been deeper, it could have
blocked the intake or damaged facilities at the treatment
plant, forced the closure of the pipeline, and left the
city without a potable water supply for several days or
weeks. (The plant was closed briefly by flows in Ashland
Creek in the 1974 flood.)
Any event which would close both the sluiceway outlet
and the water supply outlet is decidedly catastrophic. Any
event which closes the sluiceway outlet could force the city
to undertake special operations to reopen it, such as occurred -
in 1964 and 197 4. Such events will also be considered as
catastrophic for purposes of analysis in this document.
Normal reservoir cleaning operations can be accomplished
at times and by methods corresponding to the individual
alternatives selected for analysis in this EIS. But cleaning
operations following catastrophic events may not be possible
within the methods and time constraints embodied in the
alternatives. For instance, in 1974, dredging operations
continued into the irrigation season, and the sluiceway
opening still remained plugged until 197 6, except briefly
in 1975 during attempts to sluice.
The question next arises as to whether each alternative
should be evaluated as to its suitability for use following
catastrophic events, and as to its downstream impacts resulting
from reservoir cleaning under such conditions.
One solution to this question lies in the recommendations
of the Montgomery report (1977). In that document it is
recommended that the sluiceway outlet and the water supply
outlet both be modified to protect against blockage and to
provide added flexibility in drawing reservoir water for
treatment. If the water supply outlet were to be modified
with additional intakes at higher elevations against the dam
face and each be protected by trash racks, it is unlikely
that the most catastrophic situation of blockage of the water
supply intake could ever occur.
62
-------
If the sluiceway outlet were to be enlarged to 48" in
diameter from its present 24" diameter as recommended, and
a trash rack capable of mechanical or hydraulic cleaning is
installed, the sluiceway should be much easier to open,
even following a 1974-type event.
The costs of the improvements are indicated by Montgomery
to cost from $75,000 to $100,000 for additional water supply
intakes, and about $100,000 for sluiceway outlet modifications.
The feasibility study to determine whether the sluiceway
outlet can be safely modified might cost $10,000 to $20,000.
The above costs are in 1977 dollars.
With these two improvements implemented, a catastrophic
event becomes much less likely. However, at present the
city has no definite plans to implement these recommendations.
Therefore, this document will include the impact of extra-
ordinary cleaning operations, using available data from the
cleaning operations following the 1974 flood as the primary
basis of analysis.
63
-------
Chapter 3
ALTERNATIVES
Several alternative ways to remove sediments from Reeder
Reservoir have been identified. Each satisfies the objective
of removing accumulated sediments from the reservoir, or
preventing their accumulation. The first set of alternatives
examined would pass the sediments through the reservoir into
Ashland Creek below the dam at various rates and times. These
alternatives reflect the current practices of the city of
draining and sluicing the reservoir in early spring; the
recommendation of Montgomery Engineers that the city cease
draining and sluicing, converting to dredging; reverting
to pre-1940s practice of draining and cleaning the reservoir
in the fall; and draining the reservoir for the entire rainy
season, along with a supplemental water supply, to enable
the city to maintain adequate water service.
A second set of alternatives is also addressed. These
alternatives are options evaluated and rejected by Montgomery
Engineers. They are not considered viable by EPA at this
time. Two of these involve removal of sediments from the
Bear Creek system, one requires permanent allocation of sediment
storage in Reeder Reservoir, and one consists of a bypass
around the reservoir for sediment-laden flows.
Each of these alternatives is discussed in some detail
in this section. Costs are presented for the four viable
alternatives. A 20-year cost evaluation period is used since
this would be about the estimated useful life of a dredge.
Alternative 1 - Spring Draining and Sluicing
The City of Ashland could continue to drain and sluice
Reeder Reservoir, following the practice begun in 1929, soon
after the dam was constructed. Since the 1940s this draining
and cleaning has taken place in the spring to minimize conflicts
with water supply requirements. This practice involves draining
the reservoir completely every few years, sluicing sediments
through the outlet at the bottom of the dam, and allowing
stream flow to carry the sediments downstream.
65
-------
When a decision to drain and sluice is made, based on
information that sediment is present and that the snowpack
in the watershed is adequate to refill the reservoir when
it melts later in the spring, the reservoir is drained over
a 4- to 5-week period. The reservoir bottom is then sluiced
with pressure hoses on a round-the-clock basis for 2 to
4 -weeks to remove sediment. The outlet is then closed, and
the reservoir is allowed to refill from spring runoff.
As part of this alternative, the water supply intake
at the dam would be modified as recommended by Montgomery
to allow intake at several elevations in the reservoir, and
the sluiceway outlet would be enlarged and trash racks improved,
also as recommended by Montgomery.
The cost of Alternative 1 is estimated as follows, based
on data from Montgomery (1977) and the City of Ashland (1976) .
The cost of the feasibility study was assumed at 15 percent
of construction cost.
Sluiceway outlet modification study $ 15,000
Modification of sluiceway outlet 100,000
Modifications of water supply intakes 100,000
Sluicing1 99,600
Total equivalent capital cost $314,600
1Present value at 7 percent interest of sluicing 24,000 cubic
yards per year for 20 years.
Alternative 2 - Dredging During High Stream Flow
The City of Ashland could purchase a floating dredge
which would remain in Reeder Reservoir, and be operated to
clean the reservoir during periods of high runoff. The dredge
would discharge a sediment-water slurry to Ashland Creek
just downstream of the dam. This option was recommended
by Montgomery (1977) as the preferred choice for the city.
It should be noted that dredging is not 100 percent
efficient in removing sediments in the bottom of the reservoir
since they are not readily visible, but can only be detected
by survey. Thus, dredging probably will not preclude the
continuing need to drain and sluice the reservoir, although
this would become less frequent. Future floods are likely
to result in debris accumulation, preventing dredging in
66
-------
those areas where stumps, logs and boulders become concentrated.
The city staff believes draining for inspection, debris removal
and sluicing of those sediments not reached by the dredge
would initially be required after 3 to 4 years. Repeat
drainings would be required in future years, with the interval
depending on debris and sediment volumes, which are functions
of flood flows, and depending on the success of the dredging.
Draining and sluicing would take place as described in Alter-
native 1.
Modification of water supply intakes and enlargement
of the sluicing outlet would also be implemented as recommended
by Montgomery.
The cost of Alternative 2 is estimated based on data
from Montgomery (1977), the City of Ashland, and an assumed
study cost of 15 percent of construction costs. The division
of costs between dredging and sluicing is based on an assumed
75 percent effectiveness of dredging, with the remaining
25 percent being removed by sluicing.
Sluiceway outlet modification study
Modification of sluiceway outlet
Modification of water supply intakes
Dredge purchase
Dredging1
Sluicing2
Total equivalent capital cost
$ 15,000
100,000
100,000
350,000
63,600
24,900
$653,500
2Present value at 7 percent interest of dredging for 20 years,
based on $6,000 per year operating and maintenance costs,
per Montgomery, 1977.
2Present value at 7 percent interest of sluicing 6,000 cubic
yards per year (average) for 20 years.
Alternative 3 - Fall Draining and Sluicing
The City of Ashland could continue to drain and sluice
Reeder Reservoir, but could do so in the fall after November 15
rather than spring, reverting to the practice followed prior
to the late 1940s. This timing would result in the discharge
of sediments to the Bear Creek system prior to the winter
rains, providing a better opportunity for them to be washed
on through the Rogue River and into the ocean by high stream-
flow.
67
-------
The cost of Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1
and is repeated as follows:
1Present value at 7 percent interest of sluicing 24,000 cubic
yards per year for 20 years.
Alternative 4 - Drain Reservoir for Entire Rainy Season
Recognizing that Reeder Reservoir does not generate
sediments, but merely traps sediments that flow into it, one
approach could involve returning the timing of sediment
flows to a more natural condition. This would consist of
draining Reeder Reservoir each fall, leaving it empty until
near the start of the irrigation season. Any flood flows
or freshets during this period would pass through the
reservoir and, with their sediments, maintain a more natural
timing of sediment loads.
However, this option would leave the city without fall
and winter storage for water supply, virtually ensuring short-
ages in water supply during low flow periods and freezes,
both of which are quite common.
This option would only be practical if some supplemental
water becomes available to Ashland during fall, winter and
early spring. For purposes of evaluation, it is assumed that
a new water supply reservoir would be constructed within the
Ashland watershed, at the Winburn Site on the West Fork of
Ashland Creek, as evaluated by Montgomery Engineers. Con-
struction of this new dam was recommended by Montgomery (1977)
as part of a program to meet the increasing water demands
of the city. (It should be pointed out that this EIS is not
intended to evaluate the construction and operation of this
reservoir, but only to evaluate this alternative operational
scheme of Reeder Reservoir with Winburn Reservoir in place.)
Under this alternative, Ashland would drain Reeder
Reservoir each fall following the irrigation season,
probably in conjunction with the first fall rains. As
storms brought sediments into Reeder Reservoir the stream
flow would theoretically flush it on through into Bear
Creek as if no reservoir were present. In reality, the
Sluiceway outlet modification study
Modification of sluiceway outlet
Modification of water supply intakes
Sluicing1
$ 15,000
100,000
100,000
99,600
Total equivalent capital cost
$314,600
68
-------
reservoir would provide some flood attenuation, and the sluice-
way outlet might be susceptible to clogging by debris. Modi-
fication of the outlet as recommended by Montgomery and the
presence of Winburn Dam should largely alleviate this problem.
The cost of Alternative 4 is estimated from data by
Montgomery (1977) as follows:
Winburn Dam, including pipeline
to West Fork Diversion Dam $4,590,000x
Sluiceway outlet modification study 15,000
Modification of sluiceway outlet of
Reeder Reservoir 100,000
Modification of water supply intakes
in Reeder Reservoir 100,000
Total $4,805,000
1City anticipates 50 percent grant for Winburn Dam, reducing
city share to $2,025,000, and total cost of alternative to
$2,240,000.
Previously Evaluated Alternatives
In addition to the foregoing alternatives Montgomery
Engineers evaluated several other options, discarding them
in favor of a recommendation of dredge with discharge into
Ashland Creek just downstream from Reeder Reservoir. Neither
EPA, DEQ, RVCOG nor the City of Ashland consider these alter-
natives to be viable. Each of these alternatives is presented
and discussed below. The discussion from the Montgomery
report is quoted in its entirety, followed by further discussion
and evaluation.
Debris Basins
"The use of upstream basins which would act as settling
ponds to accumulate sediment requires construction of dams
at sites with substantial storage capacity and provisions
for removal of the accumulated solids. Such sites were found
to be very limited in the Ashland Creek watershed. Due to
the limited access in the area and the lack of an appropriate
site, there is no advantage for installation of debris basins
separate frcm Reeder Reservoir" (Montgomery, 1977).
It is probable that acceptable sites for debris basins
could be located on the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek.
For instance/ the two diversion dams just upstream from
69
-------
Reeder Reservoir act as limited debris basins now, although
suspended sediments and floating debris pass through without
settling. During the 1974 floods, the diversion dams were
filled and surcharged by boulders, gravel, sediment and debris.
These accumulations were subsequently removed from the water-
shed tributary to the dam at considerable expense.
The amount of storage that would be required for sediment
and debris is substantial. Peak events could contribute
over 100,000 cubic yards. The 1974 flood contributed an
estimated 170,000 cubic yards. To handle a peak event roughly
equivalent to the 1974 flood, debris basins with at least
10 percent of the storage volume of Reeder Reservoir would
be needed. These would have to be cleaned each year by clam-
shell dredge, dragline or conventional excavation methods.
(Obviously, sluicing it downstream would only transfer the
problem to Reeder Reservoir and be self-defeating.) Excavation
from debris basins may be less costly than excavating in
Reeder Reservoir and also would preclude having to drain
the reservoir.
The cost of removing, hauling and disposing of such
sediments, either in debris basins or Reeder Reservoir, would
be quite expensive. For instance, excavation following the
1974 floods, with no significant hauling and no disposal,
cost Ashland about $5.50 per cubic yard. This compares with
costs less than $.40 per cubic yard for sluicing in 1976.
Adequate disposal locations would also have to be found,
or acceptable uses developed to preclude materials ending
up back in Ashland or Bear Creek, if this is the objective
to be met by this alternative.
In conclusion, the option of debris basins would only
be desirable if it is found necessary to remove the sediments
from the Ashland-Bear Creek system, if it were more cost-
effective to mechanically remove and haul sediments from
debris basins than from Reeder Reservoir, and if suitable
sites could be located.
This option was apparently rejected by Montgomery due
to the lack of a defined need to remove sediments from the
creek system, and due to relatively high cost.
Allocation of Sediment Storage Space
"Storage in the Ashland Creek system is needed for seasonal
regulation of the creek flews and to meet the city's water
demands. Higher dams and larger reservoirs to permit allocation
of storage space for permanent sediment accumulation, similar
to that designed for water storage, were evaluated but found to
be impracticable given the physical limitation of the available
sites" (Montgomery, 1977).
70
-------
Using Montgomery's estimates of sediment removal from
the reservoir as being about equal to sediment inflow, it is
possible to estimate how long Reeder Reservoir could provide
sediment storage space. First, however, it must be pointed
out that each unit volume of sediment stored in the reservoir
replaces an equivalent unit volume of water storage. Further,
at the time the sediments rise above the service outlet (which
is only 20 feet above the reservoir floor), the water storage
usability of Reeder Reservoir is immediately and totally lost.
If the Montgomery recommendations to provide service outlets
at several higher elevations were implemented, this sudden
loss of water storage could be postponed.
The total volume of Reeder Reservoir is estimated at
790 acre-feet at the elevation of the spillway crest. This
is a volume of about 1,27 5,000 cubic yards. Based on average
annual sediment inflow of about 18,000 to 24,000 cubic yards
per year, Reeder Reservoir would be totally filled level
with the dam in about 53 to 70 years. The reservoir would
lose its water storage benefits many years prior to these
estimated times.
Of course, if management techniques in the watershed
reduce sediment yields, then these estimated times would be
longer. Also, variations in hydrologic patterns and the
occurrence of extreme events could significantly alter these
estimates. For instance, the 1974 storm was estimated to
have caused an 800-year frequency flood (USGS, 1978) and
this single event yielded sediment equivalent to about 13
percent of the storage volume of Reeder Reservoir. It is
not inconceivable that another severe flood could, in one
several-day period, use a noticeable portion of the Reeder
Reservoir volume.
Further, once the reservoir has filled with sediments,
new inflows will then pass through the reservoir and on
downstream into Ashland and Bear Creeks as if no reservoir
were present at all.
This alternative essentially implies abandonment of
Reeder Reservoir as a water storage-water supply facility
at some time during the next few decades, with continued
reduction in water storage in the interim. It was rejected
as an unacceptable alternative. Construction of new reservoirs
with allocation of sediment storage volume likewise does not
appear to be a reasonable option, given the relatively rapid
sediment movement now occurring, and the high cost of dam
construction.
71
-------
Stream Flow Bypass
"The largest sediment volumes are produced during flood
flows. Therefore, in order to bypass the sediment around
Reader Reservoir the capacity of the bypass would have to be
equal to such flood flows. A canal or pipeline with the capability
to handle peak runoff during floods would need to be over
12 feet in diameter and about 3/4 mile long, with major diversion
works on both forks of Ashland Creek. Regardless of the physical
and economic feasibility of the bypass, the concept would entail
the loss of much of the water needed to fill the reservoir
for suitmer storage, making this alternative impracticable"
(Montgomery, 1977).
This alternative requires that flood flows be removed
from the East and West Forks of the creek when maximum runoff
occurs, and that about 2/3 mile of conduit, sized for the
largest floods, be constructed alongside or within Reeder
Reservoir. The construction of the conduit or canal would
probably exceed $1,000,000 and be very difficult to operate
and maintain once completed. The physical and economic
feasibility are indeed questionable.
While this alternative would pass sediments on through
the reservoir area as if there were no dam, its high cost
and feasibility problems appear ample cause for rejection.
Downstream Settling Basins
"Downstream settling basins were evaluated relative to containing
the dredged volumes of sediment frcm Reeder Reservoir. Pre-
liminary consideration also was given to diverting the flow of
Ashland Creek during normal sluicing operations, but was
considered not to fce feasible, as the reservoir can no longer
be emptied from a water resource standpoint. Consequently,
consideration was only given to containing the dredged volumes
in settling basins.
"The dredge has the capacity to discharge 1,000 cy of
sediment a day over a 16-hour period. This would equate to
40,000 to 120,000 gallons of dredged slurry per day, depending
upon the efficiency of the dredging operation. Table 6-2 shows
the potential slurry volumes for various sediment accumulation,
assuming 10 percent solids and 90 percent water.
72
-------
Table 6-2
POTENTIAL SLURRY VOLUMES FROM DREDGING
Sediment Accumulations
Slurry Volumes
3,000 cubic yards
10,000 cubic yards
50,000 cubic yards
240,000 gallons
800,000 gallons
4,000,000 gallons
"The slurry would have to be conveyed in a pipeline or in
Ashland Creek to sane point where it could be put into a settling
basin and dried. Following drying, it would have to be removed
for land disposal or possible reuse.
"The size of the settling basin to contain 4,000,000 gallons
of water would be approximately 514,000 cubic feet; the solids
would be 51,400 cubic feet. Since the settling pond would
collect rainfall at approximately 20 inches per year, you could
not have more than 1 cubic foot of slurry per square foot of space
and still achieve drying through evaporation. Consequently, the
size of the settling pond for 50,000 cubic yards of sediment
removal would be over 12 acres. It would also be necessary
to have additional capacity for higher than average rainfall
years or potential for larger volumes of sediment. Consequently,
a settling basin (s) of approximately 15 to 18 acres would be
required. Total land acquisition would require approximately
20 to 25 acres, depending on the site conditions. The basic
problem with this alternative is the accuracy of the numbers
developed, because the solids to slurry percentage could vary
widely from our estimate of 10 percent, and the volumes of
sediment to be rervoved are estimates based upon only a few
actual measurements.
"No potential sites exist for settling basins frcm Reeder
Reservoir to Lithia Park or in the iitmediate vicinity of Ashland.
The social and environmental problems associated with siting
settling basins in the Ashland area would be major.
"Consequently, it is reccrrnended that until considerably
more information exists on the actual dredge solids percentage
and accurate data of annual sediment accumulations, this alter-
native cannot be evaluated. It is felt that a minimum of 10
years of reliable data be available on the annual sediment
accumulation following the proposed watershed managanent plan"
(Montgomery, 1977).
73
-------
Variations of the downstream settling basins are possibl
whereby a slurry pipeline could be constructed from Reeder
Reservoir to lands near Bear Creek north of Ashland, and
ponds constructed in this area. The design of a slurry
pipeline able to withstand the abrasion of the sediments
would be a challenge and, if blocked, removing the jam would
be difficult or perhaps impossible.
If this approach could be made practical and pond sites
located and financed, the ponds could discharge to Ashland
Creek or Bear Creek after settling some predetermined
percentage of solids, for instance 90 percent. Accumulated
rainwater could likewise be discharged. The discharges would
be regulated by a new DEQ permit. Ponds smaller than those
assumed by Montgomery could then be used, and the material
could be dried in piles adjacent to the ponds and used as a
source of fill or construction material, depending on its
nature.
If it is deemed necessary to remove the sediments from
Ashland and Bear Creeks, this option might bear further
consideration.
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
This section of the EIS identifies and evaluates the
changes or impacts that result from cleaning Reeder Reservoir.
Four alternatives that would discharge the sediments into
Ashland Creek immediately downstream from the dam are con-
sidered viable and are evaluated as to their effects. These
viable alternatives are:
o Spring draining and sluicing
o Dredging during high stream flow
o Fall draining and sluicing
o Drain reservoir for entire rainy season
In addition, the effects of cleaning following catastrophic
sediment inflow are presented.
It should be kept in mind that without Reeder Reservoir
the same quantity of sediments would be tributary to Bear
Creek, since they originate from man-induced disturbances
and from natural sources within the watershed. The dam impounds
these sediments, and the cleaning operation then releases
them into the stream in unnatural concentrations relative
to stream flow. Therefore, the impact evaluation emphasizes
the timing-related variations between alternatives, as well
as the absolute impact of the sediments being contributed
to the Ashland Creek-Bear Creek system.
Mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts
are also presented where appropriate. Some mitigation measures
are costly, impractical under present situations, or beyond
the control of the city. These are noted at appropriate
locations.
Impacts Common to all Alternative Plans
Certain impacts are common to all of the alternatives,
and are addressed at this point to avoid redundancy. These
include the effects of modifying the water supply intake
structure and the sluiceway outlet.
o Construction impacts of modifying the water
supply intake on Ashland water supply
75
-------
The Montgomery study (1977) recommends additional water
supply intakes in the dam to enable water to be withdrawn
from the reservoir at additional levels for water supply
purposes. The reservoir would have to be drawn down for instalia_
tion of the new riser pipes, trash racks and inlet gates.
At most times release of virtually all of the stored water
in Reeder Reservoir to make the necessary modifications would
have an adverse effect on the amount of water available to
the city for water supply purposes. If the reservoir were
drained in the late spring, summer or fall, it would most
probably not regain sufficient stored water to supplement
low summer stream flow, or to supplement low stream flow
during freezes. Without being able to draw on stored Reeder
Reservoir water, the city's sole supply would be stream flow,
which can drop to less than half of the city's water demands.
This adverse impact can be mitigated by selecting a
relatively wet spring to drain the reservoir, and construct
the water supply intake modifications. This is consistent
with the current practice of evaluating the snowpack prior
to draining for reservoir cleaning. In such years the runoff
from snowmelt later in the year can be depended upon to refill
the reservoir by early summer, preventing any shortfalls in
water supply.
The modification of water supply intakes, and the accom-
panying draining of the reservoir, will require the city
to use the intakes at the East and West Fork Diversion Dams
for water supply until the reservoir has again filled above
the supply intake of the dam. This situation is typical
of times when the city cleans Reeder Reservoir, although
it may result in some turbidity in the raw water supply to
the treatment plant during freshets in the streams. The
water treatment plant is capable of adequate filtration to
provide safe and high quality water for the domestic water
supply even with turbidity, although filters must be cleaned
more frequently.
Other construction impacts include augmented stream
flow on Ashland Creek below the dam while the reservoir is
being drained, about 15 cfs greater than the stream flow
would normally be, and lasting for about 4 weeks; increased
traffic on the unpaved road to the work site, with some minor
dust an'" air pollutant generation; and some exposure of con-
struction workers to the safety hazards of working high on
the dam, an impact that can be mitigated by adequate safety
precautions.
o Operational impacts with modified water supply
intake
76
-------
If the water supply intake is modified as recommended
by Montgomery, the city will have reduced turbidity in its
raw water supply. This would reduce loads on the filters
at the treatment plant, allowing longer filter runs between
cleaning, reducing the cost of water treatment, and reducing
expenditures for treatment chemicals. This benefit would
accrue by virtue of the city being able to take water from
three different levels, as compared to only one level at
present. Turbid waters entering the reservoir often stratify
by density, a function of temperature and turbidity. The
city could select the least turbid level to supply raw water
to the treatment plant. The option of drawing from the up-
stream diversion dams would also remain.
Under catastrophic sediment inflow conditions such
as those in 1964 and 1974 the water supply intake has been
in danger of blockage. In 1974 sediment was deposited right
to the bottom of the intake. If additional intakes are provided
at higher levels, the threat of blockage would be removed
(unless the lowest intake were left open throughout a major
storm). With proper operation, this modification would provide
a significant protection to the city's water supply, and
would greatly reduce the urgency of immediate sediment removal
following a major flood. The timing of eventual sediment
removal could then be scheduled on a nonemergency basis to
minimize downstream impacts. Such a modification would be
a significant step toward eliminating the threat of "cata-
strophic" occurrences threatening the city's water supply.
o Construction impacts of modifying the sluiceway
outlet from Reeder Reservoir
The Montgomery study (1977) also recommends enlarging
the sluiceway outlet at the bottom of Hosier Dam and modifying
the trash racks to permit hydraulic or mechanical cleaning
from the top of the dam. In order to accomplish such a modifi-
cation, the dam must first be evaluated to be certain that
it can be modifed. A detailed structural analysis and a
dam safety inspection would be needed to determine whether
this is physically and economically feasible (Montgomery,
1977) .
The modifications would involve physical removal of
part of the concrete around the present sluiceway outlet,
enlarging the opening to perhaps 6 feet in diameter. Steel
dowels would be drilled into the existing structure. A pipe
liner would be placed through the center of the enlarged
opening, and the space between the dam structure and the
liner filled under pressure with high-strength concrete.
Trash racks and operating hardware would be installed, and
then the reservoir could be refilled.
77
-------
The complexity and difficulty of construction would
probably require several months. The reservoir would first
have to be drained and cleaned, and then all stream flow
diverted from the sluiceway outlet. Such a diversion could
be accomplished by constructing a small coffer dam in the
reservoir and pumping intercepted flows over the dam or through
the water supply intake, discharging to Ashland Creek upstream
from the water treatment plant. This would probably need
to be done during the summer to reduce the chance of a flood
overtopping the coffer dam and damaging the construction
work.
By performing the construction in the summer, and with
Reeder Reservoir empty, the city would be required to depend
totally on stream flow in the East and West Forks of Ashland
Creek throughout the construction period, and probably until
the following spring. Since streamflow is often less than
water demands, water use by city residents would have to
be cut back until stream flow increased and Reeder Reservoir
refilled.
This inability of the City of Ashland to rely solely
on stream flow to meet water supply needs is graphically
illustrated in Figure 4-1. The curved line shows the median
July stream flow for both forks, and the horizontal lines
show water demands for the peak day (highest one-day demand
of the year) and the average July day (July is the month
of highest demand). Figure 4-1 shows that the city would
only have about a 44 percent chance of meeting peak day water
demand from stream flow, and only a 57 percent chance
of meeting average July day water demand from stream flow.
There is at least a 10 percent chance that the amount
of water actually available on a July day would be less than
half of the normal daily demand.
To the extent that stream flow falls short of demand,
usage must be decreased. If it is not, the system would
physically run out of water at higher elevations in the city,
preventing fire-fighters from extinguishing fires, and possibly
damaging and contaminating the water supply pipelines, a
public health hazard would result.
The city could probably provide ample water for indoor
uses and prevent these adverse effects by prohibiting all
outside water uses, including lawn and garden irrigation
on a one-time basis to complete the construction. Selection
of a wetter than normal year for the construction would mitigate
the water supply impact, but might increase the chances that
the construction area would be inundated by high flows.
78
-------
FIGURE 4-1
FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR
EAST & WEST FORKS ASHLAND CREEK
FOR JULY, COMPARED TO CITY WATER DEMANDS
PERCENT OF TIME EXCEEDED
SOURCE"USGS GAGES 14353000 AND 14353500 FOR
WATER YEARS 1926 - 32 AND 1975-77
JONES £ STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
The adverse water supply impact would also be partly
mitigated by the new (summer 1979) intertie that delivers
a supplemental supply to the water treatment plant from Talent
Irrigation District facilities. While this water is treated
by the city, it is designated for irrigation use only, and
may not be available for domestic use. If the city were
to develop another alternate water supply in future years,
then this impact might be totally eliminated.
Short-term construction impacts, including increased
stream flow during reservoir draining, increased traffic
on the unpaved road, with dust and motor vehicle exhaust
generation, and safety hazard exposure of workers would occur.
These impacts are similar to those described for the modifi-
cation of the water supply intake, except that they would
be of longer duration.
o Operational impacts with modified sluiceway
outlet
A modified sluiceway outlet would assist in cleaning
Reeder Reservoir, particularly following catastrophic sediment
inflows. A larger opening, lacking the present taper, and
protected by a larger trash rack with remote cleaning capa-
bilities, would allow the city to open the outlet much more
easily, facilitating cleaning at the desired times and reducing
the risk of a dangerous debris jam in the tapered section.
The city would also be able to work at higher flows than is
possible at present. (The rate of cleaning is largely limited
by manpower and equipment, and greater flows do not necessarily
imply faster cleaning.)
o Economic impacts of modifying the water supply intake
and modifying the sluiceway outlet.
Modification of the water supply intake was estimated
to cost from $75,000 to $100,000 by Montgomery Engineers.
Modification of the sluiceway outlet, if found feasible,
would cost an estimated $100,000, not including the feasi-
bility study, estimated by Jones & Stokes to cost about $15,000.
Based on a 1977 population estimated at 14,500, the modifications
would have per capita costs as follows, based on 1977 conditions-
Item
Cost
Population
Per Capita Cost
Modify water supply
intakes $100,000
Modify sluiceway
outlet $100,000
Feasibility study $ 15,000
14,500
14,500
14,500
$ 6.90
$ 6.90
$ 1.03
Total
$14.83
80
-------
These costs could be recovered through increased charges
for water on a one-time basis, or spread out over several
years.
o Flow quantity impact due to Reeder Reservoir draining
The draining of Reeder Reservoir, an action embodied
in each alternative, increases the quantity of flow in Ashland
Creek below the reservoir during the reservoir draining process.
The reservoir is usually drawn down over a 4- to 5-week period,
and, if full at the start, the stored water will create about
a 15 cfs increase in flow if released evenly throughout a
4-week period. Considering a median stream flow of about
10 cfs, the added 15 cfs would bring the total flow to about
25 cfs, as a typical example. Thus, instead of 10 cfs in
Ashland Creek, the total flow during reservoir draining might
increase to 25 cfs. Natural flow in Ashland Creek can be
expected to exceed this flow rate about 20 percent of the
time. If natural stream flow into the reservoir were to
increase during draining, the rate of draining would be slowed,
unless the city increased the discharge rate, which is not
normal practice. No adverse impacts of flow increases due
to draining are identifiable. The increased flow is likely
to increase the donstream movement of the larger stream gravels.
In Bear Creek, the effects would be less noticeable.
o Channel aggradation due to eroded materials from
Ashland watershed
A substantial volume of sediment is yielded from the
Ashland Watershed each year, and an annual average of 18,000
to 24,000 cubic yards is estimated to be likely in the future,
subject to wide annual variations in response to normal hydro-
logic variations. This sediment ranges in composition from
fine silts to coarse gravels, with size distributions presently
unknown. The fine silts will be carried in suspension down-
stream into the Rogue River and into the ocean. The larger
particles are likely to settle out as the slope of the stream
system gradually flattens in a downstream direction. This
settling, or sedimentation, will also vary with flow volume,
stream velocity and stream geomorphology. It is possible
that some or much of this material can settle out along
Bear Creek, raising the elevation of the channel bed, and
raising the stream surface relative to adjacent ground. If
these new sediments become a permanent part of the channel
bed and are not eroded out, a situation that can occur through
binding by streamside vegetation and reduced flood flows,
then aggradation (raising) of the streambed occurs.
81
-------
It is not presently known whether channel aggradation
is occurring along Bear Creek. Following the 1974 flood
and reservoir cleaning, significant sediment accumulations
were obvious in Bear Creek, and on Ashland Creek above its
confluence with Bear Creek. Some of this was mechanically
excavated from the creeks and from irrigation canals fed
by the creeks, but it is not known if the remainder was eventually
flushed through the system or incorporated as part of existing
stream gravels. It is believed that most of the fine sediments
were flushed through the creek system. The March 1979 testing
of stream gravels tends to substantiate this.
However, it is not known if the coarser sediments contri-
buted by Ashland Creek, or other tributaries of Bear Creek
in other years, were also washed on through the stream system,
or if they have been gradually accumulating.
The volume of sediments supplied by Ashland Creek alone
is sufficient to contribute to aggradation. The sudden dis-
charge of sediment in unnatural concentrations relative to
stream flow would tend to maximize the opportunity for the
material to be bound into the channel by vegetation, parti-
cularly if discharged in a year of relatively low stream
flow.
Aggradation could also be expected to adversely affect
fish habitat by changing the shape of the stream channel,
encouraging growth of riparian vegetation, and increasing
the percentage of fine sediments to the detriment of salmonid
species. These concerns are addressed in Chapter 2, and
later in this chapter with the impact discussions on each
alternative. If aggradation is occurring, it may be necessary
to identify and quantify the sources of sediment as to tri-
butary, and take steps to prevent a significant flood hazard
from developing due to a rise in stream elevation relative
to surrounding ground.
A reconnaissance study to determine the occurrence and
rate of aggradation would be an appropriate study for pursuit
through the local 208 program. If it shows positive results,
and a continuation of aggradation would appear to create
flooding problems, a more in-depth study of the sources of
sediment, stream morphology, and possible mitigation measures
should be undertaken. Mitigation measures might involve
the removal of sediments from Ashland Creek and/or other
major sources.
o Siltation of City of Talent municipal water supply
intake
82
-------
The presence of sediments in Bear Creek due to the cleaning
of Reeder Reservoir, regardless of cleaning method, is likely
to further reduce the usability of the City of Talent's
new water treatment plant. Opened in December 1978, the
plant takes water from about 10 feet deep in the gravels
below Bear Creek, treats it, and pumps it into the City of
Talent water supply system. Although the plant has a one
million gallon per day design capacity, it has been unable
to operate for more than four to six hours at a time without
fine sediments from Bear Creek increasingly reducing percolation
through the gravels and forcing the plant to shut down for
a few hours. Modifications to the intake are underway which,
it is hoped, will reduce the effects of fine sediments on
the intakes. Increases in the turbidity and sediment loadings
from Reeder Reservoir are likely to aggravate this problem,
possibly reducing the amount of water available to the City
of Talent.
During times of high organic nitrogen levels in Bear
Creek during and immediately following reservoir cleaning,
the City of Talent may be forced to temporarily discontinue
use of the Bear Creek supply to avoid high nitrogen levels
in the potable water supply.
o Effects on recreation use and aesthetics
The presence of turbidity, high sediment loads and deposits
of bottom sediments will adversely affect recreation use
and aesthetics whenever the cleaning or its effects coincide
with these uses. While the highest recreational and aesthetic
use intensities occur during summer months, some impact occurs
whenever cleaning occurs. To the extent that sediments remain
in Bear Creek into the summer they may increase turbidities
and decrease enjoyment of the stream.
The Bear Creek Greenway, a natural resource, open space
and recreational corridor along Bear Creek from Emigrant
Reservoir to the Rogue River (also including Ashland Creek
downstream from Lithia Park and other tributaries to Bear
Creek) is presently being acquired by Jackson County and
other agencies. As additional areas become available for
public use, this impact of reservoir cleaning on aesthetic
and recreational uses will decrease.
o Impact on irrigators
The cleaning of Reeder Reservoir can leave sediments
in Bear Creek into the irrigation season, adversely affecting
irrigators. Regardless of when the reservoir is cleaned,
sediments may remain in Bear Creek and be moved slowly as
bedload material during the irrigation season (April 15 to
October 15). Such bedload material tends to accumulate behind
diversion dams, settle out in irrigation canals, and obstruct
pump intakes. This sediment must be removed at some cost
to the irrigators. However, except for 1974, when cleaning
83
-------
(dredging) occurred between the end of May and early July,
the major irrigators on Bear Creek have reported no abnormal
sedimentation problems. Thus, while the cleaning of Reeder
Reservoir has an impact on irrigators to the extent that
sediments remain in Bear Creek into the irrigation season,
this is not presently recognized as a serious problem.
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 -
Spring Draining and Sluicing
In evaluating the environmental impacts of this alternative
it is necessary to rely in part on the city's experience
and on observations of stream and water quality conditions
following sluicing in prior years. The data available are
somewhat limited, but do provide an indication as to the
magnitude of some impacts, particularly with regard to water
quality and fisheries.
o Practical considerations
A number of factors bear on the timing and duration
of spring draining and sluicing. The city must first decide
that sufficient sediments have accumulated to warrant cleaning.
This decision can be reached by reviewing soundings taken
in the lake to measure changes in bottom profile, by visual
inspections of the upstream portions of the reservoir at
partial drawdown, by inspection of the diversion dams on
the East and West Porks of Ashland Creek, or by knowing the
general severity of storms in the watershed.
Next the city must decide that there will be adequate
spring runoff to refill the reservoir, preventing a water
shortage. This is accomplished by monitoring snowpack measure-
ments of the USFS and developing rough estimates of stored
water that will later become stream flow.
The timing of the sluicing is also critical. There
must not be a hard freeze period during cleaning, or stream
flow will decrease to about 2.5 cfs, thus lowering the city's
water supply. Further, the exposed silts and muds in the
reservoir bottom will freeze and resist sluicing. This con-
straint generally precluded sluicing prior to February or
early March.
Timing is also a factor relative to environmental effects
downstream of Reeder Reservoir. The present Water Pollution
Control Facilities Permit (DEQ, 1978) restricts discharge
to November 15 through March 31 "during periods of high stream
flow". The term "high stream flow" is not defined in the
permit, and could be interpreted to conflict with the present
limited flow range within which sluicing may physically be
done.
84
-------
Once a decision is made to sluice the reservoir, it
must first be drained, a process requiring at least 2 to
3 weeks. Higher streams flow can prolong the draining. His-
torically, the city has usually taken 4 to 5 weeks to complete
draining of the reservoir, having selected a target date
in advance that allows adequate time to drain and prepare
for the cleaning.
The sluicing itself normally requires a period of about
2 to 4 weeks of around-the-clock effort assuming no floods
or freezes. The sluicing of about 70,000 cabic yards of
sediment in 1976 required 31 consecutive working days. The
sluicing involves the use of men and equips int to put moving
water in contact with accumulated sediments to wash them
through the reservoir and down Ashland Creek into Bear Creek.
As the reservoir is drained, the stream flow will cut through
the bottom sediments to its oriainal channel, thereby removing
some of the sediments. Water is pumped from the stream through
hoses and sprayed on the sediments adjacent to the streambed.
Limited use of equipment such as small bulldozers may also be
made to push sediments into the stream in the reservoir bottom.
Heavier equipment is useless unless at least several weeks
can be allowed to let the sediments become partly dewatered
and more stable.
Debris, including logs, stumps and branches are a part
of the material trapped by Reeder Reservoir, and these must
by manually removed as they will not pass through the outlet,
but instead create a blockage. The amount of such debris
varies with the intensity and duration of rainfall in the
upstream watershed. When this material is encountered, it is
hauled out or dried and burned.
A constant effort is required to keep the sluiceway
outlet clear, and a 24-hour/day operation is the most practical
way to complete the cleaning. The city will set up portable
lighting, hire temporary crews, and maintain an around-
the-clock effort to complete the sluicing before interruption
by spring runoff, and to enable refilling of the reservoir
for water supply carryover for the summer season.
Flow volumes are critical to sluicing. Sufficient
stream flow should be present to provide for city water supplies
and for sluicing activities. Too much stream flow will exceed
the capacity of the dam outlet, forming an increasing pool
at the upstream face of the dam, and allowing sediments to
settle out prior to passing through the outlet. High flows
can also endanger workmen and damage equipment.
The city can regulate flow volumes through Reeder Reservoir
to some degree. A 24-inch steel pipeline connects the two
diversion dams on the East and West Forks with the 24-inch
pipeline that transports water from the dam to the water
85
-------
treatment plant. This pipeline bypasses Reeder Reservoir.
It can operate at capacity carrying about 15 cfs, and the
surplus flow (above the approximately 5 to 10 cfs needed
at the treatment plant to provide the city's water supply)
can be released to Ashland Creek at the water treatment plant.
If creek flow volumes are low, the city can reduce its
diversions for water supply purposes to about 3 cfs during
the day, to optimize sluicing operations. During this cutback
the city would rely partly on stored water in system reser-
voirs to meet water demands. Then at night the city would
again divert and treat greater quantities of water to replenish
reservoir storage. Sluicing would continue on a 24-hour
basis, but with reduced activity at night.
From past experience, the city has determined that a
total flow through the reservoir of about 20 cfs is the maximum
that can be handled without ponding at the outlet and piling
sediment and debris on the screen. The 24-inch pipe bypassing
the reservoir can handle an additional 15 cfs.
The minimum desirable flow, per city staff, is about
10 cfs, with 15 cfs being best to work with.
Thus, sluicing is limited to time periods when the total
combined flow of the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek
is between 13 and 35 cfs, with the optimum flow at about
30 cfs. Table 4-1 illustrates the maximum and minimum conditions
for sluicing.
The maximum tolerable flow for sluicing would be considerably
increased if the modifications to the sluiceway outlet recommended
by Montgomery Engineers (1977) were to be implemented. Enlarge-
ment of the outlet to 4 8-inch diameter from the present 30-inch
to 24-inch tapered outlet is suggested. This would allow
passage of 80 to 90 cfs through the reservoir without ponding
at the outlet. Thus, with the outlet modified, sluicing
could be conducted with flows from 13 cfs to about 100 cfs.
This analysis illustrates that, from a practical stand-
point, adhering to the DEQ requirement of restricting dis-
charges to Ashland Creek "during periods of high stream flow"
may not be possible. Of course, since the city would only
drain and sluice in a year with an above-average snowpack,
periods of "high stream flow" are likely to occur during
snowmelt, although this may be sometime after sluicing.
Implementation of this alternative would seem to require
modification of the DEQ permit conditions to specify a flow
of at least median stream flow volumes (10 cfs), rather than
the undefined "high stream flow" term.
86
-------
Table 4-1
REEDER RESERVOIR SLUICING - WORKABLE STREAM FLOW RANGES
Maximum tolerable flow; cfs
E&W Forks Stream Flow 35
Less 24-inch diversion -15
Flow through reservoir 20
Flow returned to creek at WTP 5-10
Flow below WTP in Ashland Creek 25-30
5-10 cfs treated
for water supply
Minimum working flow; cfs
E&W Forks Stream Flow 13
Less 24-inch diversion -3
Flow through reservoir 10
Flow returned to creek at WTP 0
Flow below WTP in Ashland Creek 10
all treated for
water supply
Note; Ignores flows from minor tributaries to reservoir, likely
to be of little significance in above flow ranges.
SOURCE: Ed Fallon, Al Alsing, City of Ashland.
-------
o Impact on water quality
Sluicing increases the turbidity, sediment loading and
total organic nitrogen levels in Ashland and Bear Creeks,
and probably in the Rogue River. The increases exceed levels
allowed pursuant to water quality standards both during and
for an undetermined period following sluicing. Turbidity
and sediment loading increases may last for a month or more,
while nitrogen levels tend to return to normal within days
of completion of sluicing.
Standards for stream bottom deposits are violated by
the sediments, and the adverse effects last until after the
sediment has been washed on through the stream system by
high flows. This may require from a month or so to more
than a year, depending on the quantity of sediment and hydro-
logic conditions.
Since spring sluicing would involve a continuation of
the practices followed in the past by the City of Ashland,
the evaluation of its impacts on the water quality of Ashland
and Bear Creeks has been largely based on available data
on the effects of past sluicing operations on water quality.
Both the RVCOG and the City of Ashland collected water
quality data in Ashland and Bear Creeks before, during and
after the 1976 sluicing of Reeder Reservoir, which began on
February 18 and continued until March 19, 1976. A total
of about 70,000 cy of sediment was sluiced from the reservoir
during the 31-day period, averaging about 2,000 cy per day
(Fallon, pers. comm.). Using USGS flow records for stream
flows in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek, an average
stream flow of 13.3 cfs was calculated as entering the reservoir
during the sluicing period. Subtracting an average flow
of 3.5 cfs (2.25 MGD) which was diverted by the city for
water supply during the same period (Fallon, pers. comm.)
a net flow of 9.8 cfs is estimated to have passed through
the reservoir during the sluicing operation. Freezing conditions
in the upper watershed contributed to low flows during this
period (Fallon, pers. comm.).
Although a 24-hour-a-day operation was maintained during
the 1976 sluicing period, the movement of sediments into
the stream channel using bulldozers was limited to the daylight
hours, and only sluicing with the pressure hoses and keeping
the outlet clear continued during the hours of darkness (Fallon,
pers. comm.). For this reason it is estimated that two-
thirds of the 2,000 cy of sediment sluiced daily or 1,300 cy
was discharged during the 12-hour day shift. With a stream
88
-------
flow of about 10 cfs, the estimated concentration of sediments
discharged during the daytime was approximately 85 parts
per thousand (ppt), or a dilution of 12:1. Estimated night-
time discharge concentration was approximately 4 2 ppt, or
a dilution of about 24:1. These concentrations result in
extremely turbid water.
Of the twelve water quality parameters measured by the
RVCOG during its 12-month monitoring program in the Bear
Creek Basin, only suspended sediment and organic nitrogen
(total Kieldahl nitrogen) levels were significantly affected
by the sluicing of Reeder Reservoir (LaRiviere, 1977). Although
the concentration of suspended sediments in lower Ashland
Creek was only 9.7 mg/1 on January 20, on February 24, 6
days after the sluicing operation began, it had increased
to 4,658 mg/1 or 4.7 ppt at the same location approximately
5 miles below the reservoir (Figure 4-2). The large decrease
in suspended sediment concentration which occurred in the
first 5 miles of stream below the reservoir (from an estimated
85 ppt to about 4 ppt) indicates that most of the sediment
settled out in Ashland Creek, and was transported down the
stream and into Bear Creek as bedload material. On March 23,
4 days after the sluicing was completed, suspended sediment
levels remained high in lower Ashland Creek, with a value
of 2,020 mg/1 or 2.02 ppt, and on April 20 still registered
14 5 mg/1.
As shown in Figure 4-2 suspended sediment levels in
Bear Creek below its confluence with Ashland Creek (Stations
1 to 7) were elevated both during the February 23-24 period
when sluicing was occurring and the March 22-23 period after
sluicing operations had ceased. These levels are high as compared
to January 1976 values and as compared to the 1977 values
shown in Figure 4-3, covering a similar period when sluicing
did not occur. Elevated suspended sediment levels in the
middle and lower mainstem of Bear Creek on April 19-20 (a
high flow period) indicate that the sediments deposited as
bedload in Ashland and Bear Creeks as a result of the sluicing
operation may contribute to downstream suspended sediment
problems for a considerable period of time after cleaning
of the reservoir has occurred.
The following comment on the effects of the 1976 sluicing
of Reeder Reservoir on suspended sediment problems in Bear
Creek is quoted from LaRiviere, 1977:
"The highest levels of suspended sediment in Bear Creek
occurred during the months of February and March. This cor-
responds to the sluicing of Reeder Reservoir on Ashland Creek.
The highest levels were measured at the Valley View Road
89
-------
600
500 -
400 -
LU
s
Q
O
UJ
Q
FIGURE 4-2
CONCENTRATION OF
SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS IN
BEAR CREEK BEFORE, DURING £ AFTER SLUICING
OF REEDER RESERVOIR IN 1976
(BASED ON DATA FROM Lo RIVIERE, 1977)
300
200
oh
17
s ®
gt w
8
O •
in n
Uiui
£ a
* U4~—
«« £»-
z
« *
M *
-L.EGE ND-
JANUARY 19-20
FEBRUARY 23-24
MARCH 22-2J
APRIL 19-20
MAY IT- IB
£ ^
3 o»
8-
v> X
Ui
o w
_A$HLAW0 CRttK
BEAR Cms-
SAMPLING STATIONS
H
JONES 6 STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
FIGURE 4-3
CONCENTRATION OF
SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS IN
BEAR CREEK FROM JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1977
(BASED ON MONTHLY SAMPLES TAKEN BY THE USGS; OPEN FILE REPORT 78-230, 1978)
17
8
> •
* Wl .
l|
2*3
S£ »
Sȣ
~i'
4M1
s ¦
55
£ ;
M £
2I
• W
9 =
2"
g-o
2d
S*
SS
o°
-BEAR CREEK -
ASHLAND CREEK
-!
-EGEND-
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
JONES 6 STOKES ASSXIATES, INC.
SAMPLING STATIONS
-------
Station [Figure 4-2] and decreased downstream. This is because
the majority of the suspended material is granitic particles
which settle out of the water column. This granitic material
continues to be transported downstream as part of the bedload
however, and builds up substantial deposits behind downstream
irrigation dams. These deposits are released again at the
end of the irrigation season. The actual time of transport
through the basin may be several years depending on hydrologic
condition."
Monthly samples of suspended sediment levels in Bear Creek
for January through April 1977 as shown in Figure 4-3 indicate
that in th&t year, when no cleaning of the reservoir occurred,
suspended sediment levels in Bear Creek from January through
April were all relatively low with the exception of a high
reading in Ashland Creek in February.
The highest levels of organic nitrogen (TKN) reported
during the RVCOG's water quality monitoring program were
on Ashland Creek (Station 17) during the months of February
and March, corresponding to the sluicing of Reeder Reservoir.
LaRiviere (1977) concluded that these high levels probably
represent organic materials which had built up on the bottom
of the reservoir and failed to be converted to inorganic
form due to the low temperatures and lack of oxygen. TKN
levels were also elevated in Bear Creek below its confluence
with Ashland Creek (Stations 1 to 7) both during and after
sluicing of the reservoir (Figure 4-4). Although TKN levels
had dropped considerably within 3 days after sluicing was
completed (March 22-23), March, April and May TKN values
in the lower mainstem of Bear Creek remained above January
base levels and above the comparable 1977 period (Figure 4-5)
when sluicing did not occur. The consistent increase in
TKN levels from Station 8 (above Ashland Creek) to Station 7
(below Ashland Creek) both before and after sluicing of the
reservoir was attributed to discharges from the Ashland sewage
treatment plant which had been recently expanded and was,
at the time, not operating at full efficiency because of
construction problems (LaRiviere, 1977).
Monthly samples of organic nitrogen (TKN) levels in
Bear Creek from January through April 1977, when no cleaning
of the reservoir was done, are shown in Figure 4-5. In 1977,
although organic nitrogen levels were high in Bear Creek
at Valley View Road during January and March, levels above
the sewage treatment plant on Ashland Creek were uniformly
low during all four months. The high levels of organic
nitrogen in Bear Creek at Valley View Road may have been
due to discharges from the Ashland sewage treatment plant.
92
-------
PIGURE 4-4
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL KI ELDAHL NITROGEN IN
BEAR CREEK BEFORE, DURING 6 AFTER SLUICING
OF REEOER RESERVOIR IN 1976
(BASED ON DATA FROM Lo RIVIERE, 1977)
o
o
oc
s
A
s \
/
I
I
I
\ t
\ I
t.
/'•.
/ \
/
I
—I—
7
o
S;
oe
_ £
K UJ
GEN D -
JANUARY 19-20
FEBRUARY 23-24
- MARCH 22-23
APRIL 19-20
MAY 17-18
Si
h
ASHLAN0 CREEK
-SCAR CffCCK-
SAMPLING STATIONS
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
FIGURE 4-5
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL KIELDAHL NITROGEN IN
BEAR CREEK FROM JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1977
BASED ON MONTHLY SAMPLES TAKEN BY THE USGS; OPEN FILE REPORT 78-230, 1978
4.0
o
o
ce
x
t—
o
3.0 -
2.0
1.0-
- t-EG END-
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
-BEAR CREEK -
ASHLAND CREEK
SAMPLING STATIONS
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
Data collected by the City of Ashland on turbidity levels
in Ashland and Bear Creeks before, during and after the 1976
sluicing of Reeder Reservoir show trends similar to those
for suspended sediments recorded by the RVCOG sampling program.
As is seen in Figure 4-6, turbidity levels in Bear Creek
during the sluicing operation (February 18 to March 18)
increased by as much as 200 percent just below the confluence
with Ashland Creek (Station 2) and remained high throughout
the mainstem of Bear Creek, exceeding current DEQ water quality
standards restricting turbidity increases to 10 percent above
natural background levels. During the last week In March
(23-29) turbidity levels had dropped significantly but
remained above the presluicing levels (January 9 to February 13)
with the exception of Station 4.
In April, which experienced increased stream flows,
turbidity levels in Bear Creek were elevated above the January
base levels, perhaps due to the large quantities of bedload
material remaining in the stream bed after the sluicing of
the reservoir was completed. In May and June stream turbidities
were again low throughout the mainstem of Bear Creek, similar
to the base levels recorded during the pre-sluicing period.
These data indicate that in 1976, the sluicing of Reeder
Reservoir created turbidity levels in Bear Creek during the
months of February, March and April that were several hundred
percent higher than those which existed during the irrigation
months of May and June. In 1978, when no cleaning of the
reservoir occurred, average monthly turbidity levels in Bear
Creek from January through June were all relatively low and
no clear differences between the spring and summer months
were evident (Figure 4-7) .
If future sluicing volumes are similar to those in 1976,
an average volume of about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment
would be sluiced each day on a 24-hour-a-day schedule, with
two-thirds of the cleaning being accomplished during the
12-hour day shift (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and the remaining one-
third sluiced at night. Assuming a net flow of 10 cfs
through Reeder Reservoir into Ashland Creek downstream, the
following sediment discharge concentrations would be expected:
Stream Flew Shift Discharge Concentration Dilution
10 cfs Day 85 ppt 12:1
10 cfs Night 42 ppt 24:1
95
-------
FIGURE 4-6
AVERAGE TURBIDITY LEVELS IN
ASHLAND & BEAR CREEK BEFORE , DURING & AFTER SLUICING
OF REEDER RESERVOIR IN 1976
(BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND)
1^280.6
V
„ \
100
1
75 -
a
cn
cc
50 -
25
\
V
N
\
/
. /
•/
y.
t\
/
L-EGEND -
JANUARY 9 - FEBRUARY 13
FEBRUARY 18-MARCH 19
MARCH 2S-29
APRIL 2-30
MAY 7-28
JUNE 4-25
Sis
ASHlANDCflEE*
-BEAR CREEK
SAMPLING STATIONS
JONES £ STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
FIGURE 4-7
AVERAGE MONTHLY TURBIDITY LEVELS IN
ASHLAND £ BEAR CREEK FROM JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 1978
(BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND)
- l_EGEND ~
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
P
Sim —
oou
X* *¦
-BEAR CHEEK
ASHUNO CHECK
SAMPLING STATIONS
JONES e STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
Given the above assumptions, draining and sluicing at
a minimum stream flow of 10 cfs would produce sediment discharge
concentrations and related water quality impacts similar
to those described for the 1976 sluicing operation, and result
in violation of the DEQ's water quality standard by raising
turbidity more than 10 percent above background levels, if
stream flows in the mainstem of Bear Creek are similar to
those which occurred in February and March 1976.
The maximum tolerable flow possible for cleaning of
the reservoir without enlarging the sluiceway outlet is 20 cfs
through the reservoir, with a maximum return flow of 10 cfs
from the water treatment plant, providing a net downstream
flow in Ashland Creek of 30 cfs.
As described previously, stream flows entering Reeder
Reserovir exceeding 20 cfs have occurred historically on
the average of only 19 days each year between November 15
and March 31. On the basis of this record it is statistically
unlikely that a 30 cfs flow would occur during the full duration
of the sluicing operation, but would perhaps occur during
intermittent peak flow periods resulting from local storm
events or snowmelt.
Under these maximum tolerable flow conditions (without
outlet modification) and assuming a cleaning capacity of
2,000 cubic yards per day, the average concentrations of
suspended sediments discharged below the water treatment
plant in Ashland Creek during the sluicing operation is expected
to be about one-third of those stated for the minimum 10 cfs
flow conditions:
Stream Flow Shift Discharge Concentration Dilution
30 cfs Day 28 ppt 36:1
30 cfs Night 14 ppt 72:1
Although suspended sediment concentrations will be less
at 30 cfs than at 10 cfs, violation of the DEQ water quality
standard for turbidity would still occur. The sediments
in suspension will be carried further downstream before settling
out as bedload material due to the increased flow rate, and
will result in proportionally greater downstream suspended
sediment levels, but would help reduce the residence time
of the sediments within Bear Creek.
Given the similarity in the trends of suspended sediment
and turbidity levels which were indicated before, during
and after the 1976 sluicing of the reservoir as shown in
Figures 4-2 and 4-6, a two-thirds reduction in suspended sediment
98
-------
concentration should result in a similar reduction in turbidity
levels. Background levels may be naturally higher during
higher stream flows, and in such cases the violation of the
10 percent turbidity increase standard may not be nearly as
great as the several hundred percent increases measured in
1976. As with the suspended sediment load, the related tur-
bidities are expected to persist further downstream before
declining under the 30 cfs flow conditions.
If the modifications to the reservoir outlet recommended
by Montgomery (1977) were implemented, the maximum tolerable
flow for sluicing would be increased to about 80 to 90 cfs
through the reservoir, allowing a gross manageable stream
flow above the reservoir of approximately 100 cfs. A review
of the USGS gauge records for the period from November 15
to March 31, during which reservoir cleaning can occur, indicates
that on the average gross stream flows into the reservoir
equal or exceed, 40 cfs on only 4 days each year and exceed
80 cfs on the average only one day per year. Although high
stream flows would not occur often or for long periods, the
installation of a larger outlet would allow sluicing operations
to continue during peak flow periods.
At a stream flow through the reservoir of 80 cfs and
assuming a relatively constant capacity of about 2,000 cy
per day, the average concentration of suspended sediments
discharged from the reservoir during sluicing operations
would be about one-eighth of those discharged at the 10 cfs
flow conditions. The resulting suspended sediment and turbidity
levels would be lower, although persisting farther downstream.
Suspended sediments would be carried further downstream at
such high flows before settling out as bedload material,
thus decreasing the time of sediment retention and the amount
of sediment retained in Bear Creek as a result of the reservoir
cleaning operation. Since natural background turbidity levels
may be elevated during such peak flow periods, it is not possible
to conclusively determine whether violation of turbidity
standards would occur due to sluicing of the reservoir, although
it appears likely violations would occur.
In addition to suspended sediment and turbidity, accumu-
lations of sediments in the channel of Bear Creek are a problem
resulting from sluicing, and violate DEQ standards prohibiting
the formation of bottom deposits deleterious to fish or other
aquatic life. Sediment accumulations in Bear Creek depend
on the amount and timing of the spring sluicing, and the
ability of Bear Creek flows to flush sediment on through into
the Rogue River. No studies of sediment movement in Bear Creek
have been conducted, and it is not known how long it would
take at various flow rates to flush sediments out into the
99
-------
Rogue River, and hence to the ocean. However, reports by
irrigation operators indicate that it takes at least some
months for sediment to move on through Bear Creek, based
on their observations after the 1974 dredging of Reeder
Reservoir. LaRiviere (197 7) indicates it may take from several
months to several years depending on hydrologic conditions.
An arbitrary flow value of 500 cfs was selected for
purposes of evaluating the probability of "high" flow on
a month-to-month basis during the winter season. While 500 cfs
may or may not be high enough to effectively move most bed-
load material, the use of an arbitrary value does permit
evaluation of the relative likelihood of high flows at various
times of the year. Flows of over 500 cfs occur on Bear Creek
in most years, but the chance that this flow will occur
between March 15 and April 15 (start of the irrigation season)
is only about one in seven. The probability that sediment
could be moved through Bear Creek following spring draining
and sluicing appears low in most years.
Thus, violations of the bottom deposit standards are
likely to occur following the initiation of sluicing, and
to persist from a month or so to a year or more. These duration
times are speculative, since no long-term monitoring of bottom
sediments has been conducted. Sampling in March 197 9 indicated
no detectable residual violations resulting from the February-
March sluicing in 1976, illustrating that Bear Creek was
essentially cleansed of the sediments after three years.
It might be possible to mitigate water quality impacts
by artificially augmenting stream flow during or following
sluicing. Such augmentation could be achieved by releases
down Bear Creek from Emigrant Reservoir. However, at present
the reservoir does not have water available for such purposes,
the magnitude and duration of mitigating releases that would
be needed is unknown, and their relative effectiveness is
not known. If more were known about sediment movement in
Bear Creek in response to flow, then investigation of such
a mitigation measure might be justified.
By only sluicing during relatively wet years, the city
helps mitigate the water quality and sediment accumulations
to a degree, since in years with a substantial snowpack the
runoff later in the spring is likely to be above average.
This helps to move the sediments on through the stream system
more rapidly. However, it does so at a time that is undesirable
from a fisheries standpoint.
o Impact on anadromous fisheries
100
-------
High turbidities from sluicing Reeder Reservoir may
result in increased mortality in summer and winter steelhead
trout, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon by suffocation and
abrasion, may inhibit migration of fish, and make stream
gravels unsuitable for spawning. Abrasion and covering of
stream organisms eliminates sources of food for adults and
fry, further increasing mortality. The adverse conditions
persist until sufficient stream flows flush sediments through
the Bear Creek and the aquatic habitat can recover.
The impacts of the proposed draining and sluicing operation
on the anadromous fisheries resources of the Bear Creek system
are evaluated using information available on the effects
of past reservoir cleaning operations on the biota of Bear
Creek, and information from the literature on the effects
of stream sediments on salmonid fisheries.
In March 1973, due to its prime concern that the sluicing
of Reeder Reservoir was occurring during the peak season
(February to March) for annual adult steelhead trout inmigration
and spawning in the Bear Creek system, the Oregon State Game
Commission (OSGC) requested that the DEQ investigate the
severe turbidity and sedimentation conditions which were
being caused by the reservoir cleaning operation. During
the 1973 sluicing of the reservoir turbidity levels in Ashland
Creek reached 1,500 JTUs and suspended sediments were carried
out into Bear Creek and the Rogue River, with turbidity in
Bear Creek at Medford measuring 50 JTUs. Associated with
this was a bedload of sediment from the reservoir which was
carried, in diminishing proportions, down Ashland Creek and
into Bear Creek (DEQ, 1973). As a result of its investigation
DEQ concluded that "water quality and other aquatic habitat
were broadly impaired" due to the sluicing of the reservoir,
and that the operation posed "a hazard to fishery production."
As indicated above and by analyses of the ODFW described
in the last section of this chapter regarding cleaning following
sediment inflow, the discharge of sediments into Ashland
and Bear Creek may have a major adverse impact on the salmonid
fishery of the Bear Creek system. Reviews of the literature
on the specific effects of stream sediments on salmonid fisheries
indicate that all life history stages oil salmonids while
in freshwater may be adversely affected by either suspended
sediment or bottom sediments (Cordone and Kelley, 1961;
Phillips, 1971; Iwamoto, et al., 1978; OSGC, 1970). Turbidity
and suspended sediment levels from 200 to 300 mg/1 may cause
increased mortalities among both adult and juvenile salmonids
due to clogging of the gills with fine sediments and sub-
sequent suffocation, as well as abrasion of the gills and
body surface from suspended sediments, causing increased
stress and exposure to disease (Phillips, 1971). Similar
101
-------
turbidity and suspended sediment levels may also inhibit
spawning in streams that are otherwise suitable as spawning
habitat. Adult salmonids may avoid turbid water streams
and select other streams for spawning, or may pass through
turbid areas and spawn in clear side tributaries if access
is available (Cordone and Kelley, 1961).
In a review of the literature on the effects of sediments
on the gravel environment and fish production, Phillips (1971)
found that sediments less than 4 mm in diameter which settle
on the gravel substrate are harmful to salmonids in a number
of ways. These sediments fill the intergravel spaces and
reduce the flow of water within the gravel bed. This inhibits
the development of the eggs due to the lack of an adequate
oxygen supply and a reduction in the removal of metabolites
such as carbon dioxide and ammonia. Sediments which fill
the intergravel spaces also form a barrier to the emergence
of young fry after hatching. Both reduced oxygen levels
and the physical barrier effect of sediments appear to be
additive in reducing the spawning success of salmonids. Stream
sediments as large as 8 mm also adversely affect the survival
of salmonid fry after emergence by filling in the gravel
spaces which the fish use as escape cover and also provide
habitat for aquatic insects that serve as the main food source
for young salmonids. Accumulation of sediments within or
on top of loose stream gravels also compacts or cements them,
making the area unsuitable as spawning substrate for in-
migrating adult salmonids.
On the basis of the information provided in the literature
and the reports of the effects of the 1973 and 1974 cleaning
of Reeder Reservoir on the stream biota, it may be concluded
that the discharge of sediment into Ashland and Bear Creeks
has both immediate and residual adverse impacts on the salmonid
fishery of the Bear Creek system. A review of the timing
of the life history stages and the environmental needs of
the four anadromous salmonids found in the Bear Creek system,
as presented in the Environmental Criteria Guidelines (see
Appendix D), indicates that the discharge of granitic sediments
from Reeder Reservoir into Ashland and Bear Creeks during
February and March may have the following adverse impacts
on the salmonid fishery: 1) high turbidity and suspended
sediment levels in Bear and Ashland Creeks during February
and March may result in increased mortalities due to suffocation
and abrasion among inmigrating and outmigrating adult summer
and winter steelhead trout, outmigrating steelhead and coho
salmon smolts, and newly emerged fry of coho and chinook
salmon and winter steelhead which were spawned in the mainstem
of Bear Creek, as well as summer steelhead fry spawned in
Ashland Creek below Reeder Reservoir; 2) these same conditions
may also inhibit the movement of adult summer and winter
102
-------
steelhead trout into the Bear Creek system, as well as inhibit
the spawning of those steelhead which do move up into Bear
Creek; 3) the silting of the streambed in Ashland and Bear
Creeks with granitic sediments during February and March
may make the gravels unsuitable as spawning substrate for
summer and winter steelhead; smother any eggs already spawned
by steelhead, coho salmon and chinook salmon; inhibit or
prevent the emergence of any fry which do hatch, and eliminate
the intergravel spaces used as cover by young salmonid fry
and the aquatic insects on which they feed. The elimination
of cover and food organisms in the mainstem of Bear Creek
adversely affects not only the salmonid fry which emerge
there but also summer steelhead fry which migrate out of
the tributary streams and down through Bear Creek during
the spring months. Unless sufficient peak flows in Ashland
and Bear Creeks occur during the following st>ring months
to scour the stream gravels and remove the fine sediments,
the adverse conditions caused by the silting of the stream-
bed may persist, until sufficient stream flow does occur.
o Water supply impacts
The City of Ashland has reportedly never experienced
any adverse water supply impacts following spring draining
and sluicing. Adequate runoff has refilled the reservoir
to sufficient levels to provide carryover throughout the
summer and fall. Continuing stream flow plus the storage
provide for the city's entire domestic supply. The practice
of monitoring the snowpack in the watershed and only draining
and sluicing during wet years helps ensure that the city
will not fail to refill the reservoir from snowmelt.
Montgomery (1977) concluded that the. city could no longer
expect to drain the reservoir for cleaning, since water demands
are projected to increase, and the storage of Reeder Reservoir
will be of ever increasing importance to meeting summer and
fall demands. Their analysis indicates that by the year
1984 water demands will have grown such that a dry cycle
of two years could result in the city running out of water,
even if the city develops its rights to 800 acre-feet of
TID water.
They state that "the disadvantage of this method (draining
and sluicing) is that the reservoir must be emptied in order
to accomplish the sluicing operation and the City of Ashland
cannot afford to deplete its water supply in this manner,
on the chance that the runoff will not be sufficient to refill
the reservoir for summer storage." (Montgomery, 1977).
103
-------
Montgomery (1977) projects total water use of 7,040
acre-feet per year by the year 2000, the use of which would
presumably be distributed through the year in the same proportion
as now occurs. Thus if the reservoir were drained and sluiced,
and refilling began on April 1, 1,940 acre-feet would be
needed to meet April, May and June demands, about 360 acre-
feet would be needed to maintain a 2 cfs flow in Ashland
Creek for downstream water rights, and 860 acre-feet would
be needed to refill the reservoir to the top of the spillway
gates, for a total of about 5,100 acre-feet between April 1
and July 1.
Review of USGS gauge records of inflow from the East p.nd
West Forks of Ashland Creek reveals that of 10 years of
available record (water years 1926-1932 and 1975-1977) that
5 years would have produced sufficient runoff and 5 would
not. Two of the years provided more than twice the required
runoff, while 3 years provided less than half of the required
amount.
The Montgomery concern about lack of sufficient runoff
is well founded. However, if the city continues its practice
of monitoring the snowpack and decides in early February
that there are above-average amounts of moisture stored in
the watershed that will later refill the reservoir, they should
be able to implement this alternative until at least the
year 2000 without threat to the water supply. Draining could
not be attempted during average or dry years, but sediment
inflows are likely to be small then in any event. With proper
precautions, no adverse water supply impacts are envisioned
with this alternative.
o Economic impacts
The economic effects of continued spring draining and
sluicing are primarily fishery losses and the costs of labor
and equipment rental. In 1976, the city sluiced about 70,000
cubic yards at a total cost of about $25,600, or $0.37 per
cubic yard (1976 dollars). During the time that the reservoir
is drained, the city may also incur greater water treatment
costs for chemicals and filter cleaning if there are turbid
flows in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek. However,
the timing and duration of such events vary with hydrologic
conditions and these costs are probably minor. Since the
city will be able to meet water demands during spring sluicing,
no water revenues would be lost. Thus the annual costs (1977
dollars) for sluicing can be estimated at $0.39 per cubic
yard times the 18,000 to 24,000 cubic yards, or an average
annual cost of $7,000 to $9,400. To this must be added those
104
-------
losses to the fisheries of Bear Creek that would occur in
those years when sluicing was accomplished. Those costs
would be $67,500 (1977 dollars), assuming total loss of one
year's spawn. Also, if residual sediments affected the following
year's spawn, then additional losses would result.
Estimation of annual fishery losses due to this alternative
is somewhat speculative. Hydrologic records indicate that
Reeder Reservoir could only be drained for cleaning in about
one-half of the years without jeopardizing summer water supplies.
Thus, at most, total fishery losses could only occur in one-
half of the years. Further, the volume of accumulated sedi-
ments would vary unpredictably from year to year. Infrequent
major floods would contribute most sediments, and intervening
years might see little sediment entering Reeder Reservoir.
The sluicing of relatively small sediment volumes would most
likely not cause total losses to the year's spawn, although
insufficient data exist to define any quantitative relationships
between sediment quantity and fishery losses.
For costing purposes, it is arbitrarily assumed that
sluicing would occur in one-half of the years, fishery losses
would be one-half of total value, and there would be no allowance
for residual damage for the year following sluicing. Based
on these assumptions fishery costs would equal about $16,900
per year.
Thus, the total annual cost of this alternative would
be about $23,900 to $26,300 per year (1977 dollars).
o Other impacts
Workers conducting the sluicing operation face some
safety hazards. The sediments can behave like quicksand,
and liquefy under loading or equipment vibration. This can
result in injury, or in equipment loss or damage. Vertical
walls of sediment can also suddenly cave, threatening men
and equipment.
The task of keeping the outlet screen free of debris
is an equally dangerous task, risking falls, entrapment in
debris, and serious injury or drowning. This could be mitigated
by an enlarged outlet and by screens that can be cleaned
by hydraulic or mechanical means from a distance. The night-
time operations are also somewhat dangerous. Adequate lighting
can reduce these hazards.
105
-------
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 -
Dredging During High Stream Flow
The timing of many of the impacts of dredging is as
uncertain as the weather. The timing of periods of "high
streamflow" is not predictable, and whether this alternative
would be operated in any given year is not known- In addition
to the impacts described in this section, the city indicates
that occasional draining and sluicing will be necessary to
remove material missed by dredging, thereby implying that
the impacts of Alternatives 1 or 3 would occasionally occur
(every 3 to 4 years).
The evaluation of the dredging alternative is based
in part on the observations made in 1974 and 1976 following
cleaning of Reeder Reservoir. It is important to note that
dredging would release sediments to Ashland Creek below the
dam at about the same rate as sluicing. Thus, many of the
impacts are similar, with the exception of those that change
with the timing.
o Practical considerations
The factors bearing upon the timing and duration of
dredging are fewer than for draining and sluicing. Once
the dredge has been purchased and is in place in Reeder Reservoir,
a decision to dredge could be made and implemented within
the 16-hour notice required by DEQ. Dredging can be conducted
as long as flows in the East and West Forks are adequate
to provide the city's water supply. (Since dredging greatly
increases reservoir turbidity and turbid water is more costly
to treat, dredging should be avoided during periods when
the reservoir water must be used for water supply. This
occurs when combined flows of the East and West Forks drop
below 5 or 6 cfs.)
Freezes, heavy snow, rain and high wind could prevent
use of the dredge. A crust of ice on the reservoir could
damage the floating dredge, and would prevent its use. It
might be necessary to remove the dredge from the reservoir
to a dry dock during the initial stages of any ice formation
as a precautionary measure. Such a dry dock facility would
probably need to be usable from a wide range of reservoir
levels.
Montgomery (1977) estimates that, on a 16-hour, two-
shift basis that about 1,000 cubic yards per day could be
removed with a 12-inch hydraulic dredge. This rate is similar
106
-------
to the 2,000 cubic yards per 24 hours that would be discharged
by sluicing. The Montgomery time estimate includes allowance
for about 25 percent downtime for repairing the dredge, removing
debris clogging the intake, and other typical operational
problems.
The ability of the city to locate and successfully employ
qualified operators for either a single or double shift deep-
water dredging operation is not known. Since operation in
up to 100 feet of water requires specialized equipment and
skilled operation, experienced personnel are essential. Full-
time staff with split responsibilities, or contract labor
during the rainy season, would be the main options open to
Ashland.
The DEQ permit requires that discharge of sediments
from Reeder Reservoir be accomplished only between November 15
and March 31, and only "during periods of high stream flow".
The term "high stream flow" is undefined in the permit, although
it might be assumed to be any flow higher than the median
which is 10 cfs for the combined flows of the East and West
Forks of Ashland Creek. Such an assumption allows evaluation
of the practicality of meeting such flows.
Periods with flows above 10 cfs are not predictable,
but they do occur in a sufficient number of days each year
to allow an ample number of dredging days between November 15
and March 31 of most years to remove more than the estimated
average annual volume of sediments. Such flow periods are
more likely to occur in the later portions of the November 15
to March 31 permitted discharge period than toward the
beginning.
Another interpretation of the "high stream flow" term
in the DEQ permit might be a value of twice the median stream
flow value, or about 20 cfs. From a review of USGS gauge
records for period of "freshets", it appears that, on the
average, flows into Reeder Reservoir exceed 20 cfs about
70 days per year, but most of those days occur after the
start of the irrigation season on April 15. If no dredge
discharge could occur after March 31, the DEQ permit date,
then only on an average number of 19 days per year during
this period would flows into Reeder Reservoir exceed 20 cfs.
(In prior years, this has varied from zero days to 59 days.)
If 20 cfs or more were to be the definition of "high stream
flow", an average maximum of about 20,000 cubic yards of
sediment could be discharged each year by dredging. If sediment
inflows average more than this, the city could not keep up
with the inflows.
107
-------
In any event, periods of "high stream flow" are not pre-
dictable during the November 15 through March 31 period (or
at any other time) and suitable dredging times may or may
not occur, depending on definitions and meteorological events.
Storms and high winds could also coincide with times of high
stream flow, preventing dredging during some of the already
limited opportunities- This further indicates that the city
may have a difficult time accomplishing dredging to keep
up with sediment inflows if a 20 cfs criterion were applied.
Regardless of how the term "high stream flow" is interpreted,
there must be an adequate flow in Ashland Creek below the
dam to wash the sediments downstream into Bear Creek. It
is estimated that a flow of about 10 cfs, similar to the
minimum flow needed for sluicing, would be required. If Reeder
Reservoir is full when the high stream flow occurs, the difference
between inflow and the city's water use will flow over the
spillway and provide the water necessary to wash the sediments
downstream. But if the reservoir is not full when dredging
is conducted in accordance with the DEQ permit, stored water
must be released from the reservoir to make up at least a 10 cfs
stream flow.
The fact that reservoir releases might be necessary
to dredge sediments even during high stream flow periods
raises the question of whether dredging could be implemented
pursuant to the DEQ permit by merely releasing a "high stream
flow" from the reservoir into Ashland Creek. This could
be done whenever sufficient storage was available in Reeder
Reservoir, without regard to inflow or the flow volume of
any other streams in the basin. Such an approach would allow
the city to select any time period or periods desired between
November 15 and March 31 for dredging. The timing would
be selected to help overcome some of the disadvantages of
dredging, such as interference from hazardous weather coincident
with high stream flow periods or freezing of the reservoir
surface.
o Water quality impacts
Dredging would cause the same water quality problems
as sluicing, namely high turbidity and sediment loading,
high total organic nitrogen, and creation of stream bottom
deposits. These violations would occur in Ashland Creek
and Bear Creek, and effects would continue downstream into
the Rogue River, following each dredge discharge period.
Turbidity and sediment load increases may last for a month
or more, while nitrogen increases will return to normal within
a few days of discharge cessation. Bottom deposit violations
may last for months or longer until flush-out by high stream
flow.
108
-------
Since "high flow" periods are undefined, and in any
event are unpredictable, the time or times of dredge discharges
are not predictable. Dredging may occur early, late, or
sporadically, depending on climatic conditions.
Using Montgomery's (1977) suggested dredging rate of
1,000 cubic yards per 16-hour work day, and assuming stream
flows of from 10 to 20 cfs in Ashland Creek below the dam,
the estimated concentration of sediments discharged by the
proposed dredging operation would range from 4 7 ppt to 23 ppt,
or a dilution of from 22:1 to 43:1.
However, as the volume of flow in Ashland and Bear Creeks
increases, the sediment will be increasingly diluted. Further,
high natural flows will be more turbid than low flows. Thus
dredged materials released during higher flows will cause
proportionately lower percentage increases in turbidity levels
and sediment loading. The sediments are also likely to be
carried through the Bear Creek stream system sooner during
higher flows, decreasing the time that bottom sediments adversely
affect spawning gravels.
Given the above estimates and assuming that the majority
of dredging would occur at flows from 10 to 20 cfs, the average
sediment discharge concentration and associated turbidity
levels would be slightly less than those experienced during
the 1976 sluicing of Reeder Reservoir (though they could
still show a several hundred percent increase in turbidity
levels in Bear Creek, causing violations of the DEQ water
quality standard for turbidity. However, due to the fact
that the occurrence, magnitude and duration of "high stream
flow" periods during the winter months is unpredictable,
it is impossible to assess the magnitude and duration of
the impacts which the dredging operation would have on water
quality in Ashland and Bear Creeks. During years when flows
fluctuate around the median of 10 cfs for both forks of Ashland
Creek, dredging activity may be sporadic, producing high
sediment discharge concentrations and associated turbidity
increases, with large percentage violations of the DEQ turbidity
standards. During wet years, however, the majority of the
dredging activity may occur during continuous periods of
flow above 20 cfs. This would produce somewhat lower suspended
sediment discharge concentrations and associated turbidities,
and reduce the amount of time it takes to move the deposited
bedload material through Bear Creek and into the Rogue River,
although violation of DEQ turbidity standards may still occur.
o Anadromous fisheries
109
-------
Since the proposed dredging of Reeder Reservoir may
occur as one continuous operation during a high flow period
(such as occurred in 1974 with a stream flow estimated at
about 50 cfs), or sporadically throughout the winter, depending
on climatic conditions, its immediate impact on the salmonid
fisheries of the Bear Creek system may vary from year to
year. As is indicated in the Environmental Criteria Guidelines
for salmonids presented in Appendix D, the discharge of sediments
during November and December would have an immediate adverse
impact on the inmigration and spawning of adult chinook and
coho salmon. High turbidity and suspended sediment levels
may result in increased mortalities due to suffocation and
abrasion, inhibit the movement of adult salmon into Bear
Creek, and inhibit the spawning of those salmon which do
enter Bear Creek. Silting of the streambed may also degrade
the quality of the spawning gravels and smother the eggs
already spawned by chinook and coho salmon.
If dredging activities occurred during the period from
January through March, the immediate impacts would be more
extensive, as described for the February to March sluicing
of the reservoir in a prior section. During this period
high suspended sediment and turbidity levels would adversely
affect inmigrating and outmigrating adult summer and winter
steelhead trout, outmigrating steelhead and coho salmon smolts
and newly emerged fry of coho and chinook salmon and summer
and winter steelhead. Silting of the gravels with granitic
sediments during this period would also degrade the quality
of the spawning gravels, smother eggs already spawned and
eliminate rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead fry. If
peak scouring flows do not occur during the winter and spring
months to remove the accumulated sediments from the stream
gravels, salmonid habitat in Ashland and Bear Creeks will
remain degraded until sufficient peak scouring flows do occur
to clean the stream gravels.
o Water supply
Dredging Reeder Reservoir does not require draining
and therefore largely foregoes the risk of losing storage
needed for water supplies. However, the occasional draining,
necessary to remove sediments not amenable to dredging and
to inspect the reservoir, would have the same impacts as
Alternatives 1 or 3, depending on when the cleaning was to
take place. Dredging itself requires the flow to operate
the dredge, and a flow in Ashland Creek (or reservoir release
to provide this flow) to carry the sediments downstream.
If dredging is implemented with a partially full reservoir,
the release of 10 cfs to carry dredged sediments downstream
requires about 14 acre-feet per 1,000 cubic yards of sediment.
110
-------
Given a reservoir capacity of 860 acre-feet to the top of
the spillway gates (Montgomery, 1977), one day of dredging
costs 1.6 percent of reservoir storage. Dredging 18,000
to 24,000 cubic yards over 18 to 24 days would require about
30 to 4 0 percent of Reeder Reservoir volume. This may consti-
tute a risk to the city's water supply in the following summer
if sufficient spring runoff does not refill the reservoir.
It seems likely that dredging would be deferred by the city
until a sufficient snowpack was present or until the reservoir
is full. This procedure would preclude any adverse water
supply effects, but might limit the flexibility of dredging
somewhat.
The dredging will cause turbidity in the reservoir at
the water supply intake, which would make treatment for domestic
use more costly. This can be mitigated by taking water at
the upstream diversion dams, or by taking water from a different
level of the reservoir, if the recommended modifications
to the water intake are made.
o Safety
Operation of a dredge on Reeder Reservoir poses some
safety hazards to workers. The constraints of the DEQ permit,
namely restricting dredging to the periods from November 15
to March 31, and only during periods of "high stream flow",
would seem to increase the workers' exposure to storm conditions,
including snow, rain and wind. Operating major mechanical
equipment in deep water under such conditions may pose some
threats of serious injury or even death unless extreme caution
is exercised.
o Economic impacts
The economic effects of dredging are primarily those
of amortizing dredge costs, periodic operating costs, and
fishery losses. Montgomery (1977) estimates the dredge to
cost $300,000 to $350,000 complete, and annual operation
to be $6,000, assuming operation by city employees. They
further indicate annual costs amortized over 20 years of
$31,000 for sediment removal (1977 dollars). Assuming dredging
is 75 percent efficient, 25 percent of the sediment would
be sluiced, at an average annual cost of about $2,300.
To this must be added the fishery losses, which could
be equal to or less than those for sluicing, depending on
the timing of dredging. If the same losses as for sluicing
are assumed, an annual cost of $16,900 for fishery losses
can be assigned to the dredging alternative.
Thus, the total annual cost of this alternative would
be about $50,200 (1977 dollars).
Ill
-------
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 -
Fall Draining and Sluicing
An identified purpose of the cleaning of Reeder Reservoir
in the fall rather than in the spring is to allow the high
winter and spring flows to flush the sediments on through
the stream system, minimizing conflicts with the fisheries
and irrigators. This would theoretically lessen the potential
for siltation in diversion dams on Bear Creek, reduce irrigation
canal maintenance, and reduce fisheries conflicts.
o Practical considerations
The timing of fall draining and sluicing would probably
be scheduled to follow the end of the irrigation season,
so that sluicing could begin as early as possible. Flows
in the two forks of Ashland Creek are likely to be at or
less than median flows, meaning that sluicing cannot be effectively
carried out until flows reach at least 10 cfs. Thus it is
possible that the reservoir could sit empty for weeks or
months prior to sluicing, or that the city would have to
use fewer hoses and less equipment, working more slowly.
For evaluation purposes it is assumed that the latter course
of action could be implemented, and that sluicing would be
complete by the end of the calendar year.
o Impacts on water quality
The fall sluicing would increase turbidity, sediment
loading and nitrogen levels as with Alternative 1. The impacts
would likely be similar to those in 1976, since stream flow
is likely to be at or below 10 cfs for fall sluicing. With
normal runoff patterns, the turbidity and sediment loading
will violate standards during and after sluicing and will
likely increase again later in the winter and in the spring
as higher flows move the sediments down Bear Creek.
The movement of sediments is a complex function of sediment
size, stream morphology, water velocity and depth, and flow
duration. Sediment will move in suspension in the water
and as bedload along the bottom of the stream. The higher
the flow the greater the carrying capacity of each unit volume
of water. Thus, the highest flows carry the vast majority
of sediments. Beyond stating this general relationship,
no quantification of the sediment-carrying capacity of Ashland
or Bear Creeks has been attempted, since the composition
by size of the sediments sluiced from Reeder Reservoir is
not known, and studies to evaluate sediment transport in
Bear Creek are considered by EPA to be beyond the scope of
the EIS.
112
-------
Knowledge of the probability of high flows occurring
is of some value to the analysis. Flow duration curves
(Figure 4-8) were developed for Bear Creek at Medford, based
on USGS gauge records for 1967-1976, illustrating the probability
of various flows occurring between November 16 and April 15,
by month-long increments.
The probability of flows of at least 500 cfs (an arbitrary
"high" flow selected for analysis purposes) is about 2 percent
from November 15 to December 16, rising to about 20 percent
in January 16 to February 15, and dropping off slightly in
March and April. The probability of flows over 500 cfs occurring
after the conclusion of fall sluicing (assume December 16)
and before April 15 is about a 50 percent chance. In comparison,
the chance of spring flows in Bear Creek of greater than
500 cfs between March 15 and April 15 (assuming completion
of spring sluicing as of March 15) would be about 15 percent.
Thus the likelihood of flows over 500 cfs occurring in Bear
Creek prior to April 15 is three times higher following fall
sluicing than following spring sluicing. From this it can
be reasonably concluded that sediment sluiced from Reeder
Reservoir in the fall is more likely to be conveyed through
the Bear Creek stream system than sediments sluiced in March.
o Impacts on anadromous fisheries
Although the sluicing or dredging of Reeder Reservoir
at any time of the year has a significant adverse impact
on the salmonid fishery of the Bear Creek system, the ODFW
has stated that the least impact to the fishery would occur
in November and December (Montgomery, 1977; Haight, pers.
comm.). The discharge of sediments into Ashland and Bear
Creeks before the winter rainy season would provide a better
opportunity for them to be washed out into the Rogue River
during peak flow periods.
Adult chinook and coho salmon which spawn in the mainstem
of Bear Creek from October through January are estimated
to total only 110 fish, whereas summer and winter steelhead
trout, which comprise the majority of the fishery, total approxi-
mately 850 fish and are found in Bear Creek from December
through June. Information provided in the Environmental
Criteria Guidelines for salmonids in Appendix D indicates
that the winter and spring months are also critical periods
for steelhead and salmon egg incubation, fry emergence, and
rearing of the young in Bear Creek before they move up into
the tributary streams or down to the Rogue River. The
outmigration of steelhead and coho salmon smolts to the ocean
through Bear Creek and the Rogue River also occurs during
this period, completing the freshwater portion of the salmonid
reproductive cycle.
113
-------
FIGURE 4-8
FLOW DURATION CURVES FOR
BEAR CREEK AT MEDFORD FOR MONTHLY
PERIODS FROM NOVEMBER 16 TO APRIL 15
w
<*—
(J
Ul
CD
cc
«x
JC.
o
CO
<
o
UJ
CD
500 -i
400 -
300 -
200-
100 -
LEGEND-
JANUARY 16 - FEBRUARY 15
— •••• MARCH 16 - APRIL 15
—FEBRUARY 16-MARCH 15
DECEMBER 16-JANUARY 15
— — NOVEMBER 16- DECEMBER 15
~T~
20
-T—
40
~1—
60
—r-
80
—I
100
PERCENT OF TIME EXCEEDED
SOURCE: US6S GAGE 14357500, WATER YEARS 1967-1976
114
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
The impacts on the salmonid fishery of sluicing the
reservoir during the months of November and December wil1
be similar to those outlined in Alternative 2 for dredging activities
during the same period. The discharge of sediments in November
and December would have an immediate adverse impact on the
inmigration and spawning of adult Chinook and coho salmon,
and silting of the streambed would degrade or eliminate available
spawning gravel areas and smother eggs already spawned by
chinook and coho salmon in the mainstem of Bear Creek.
Unless subsequent peak flows during the winter and spring
were sufficient to wash the accumulated sediments out of
Ashland and Bear Creeks, the silting of the streambed during
the fall would also adversely affect the spawning and rearing
of the young of both summer and winter steelhead during the
winter and spring months due to the loss of appropriate stream
gravel habitat.
o Water supply impacts
The water supply impacts of fall draining and sluicing
on Ashland's ability to meet water demands are potentially
serious, particularly if growth in water demand occurs as
predicted by Montgomery. Given current demands, the city
would be able to provide adequate water supplies through
most of the winter relying on stream flows alone. (A freeze
in the watershed could reduce stream flow to less than water
demands for periods of from several hours to several days.)
In about 20 percent of the years (based on 10 years of historical
records) neither winter nor spring runoff would have been
adequate to refill Reeder Reservoir, and shortages would
have developed in the subsequent summer and fall months.
Figure 4-9 illustrates the relationships of total flow in
Ashland Creek to average day and peak day water demands
for the city.
Given water demands projected for the year 2000, and
implementation of fall sluicing, in 3 of 10 years shortfalls
in supply would occur in December immediately following sluicing,
and since runoff would be insufficient to refill Reeder Reservoir,
shortages would continue for about a full year afterwards
in two of those years, requiring cutbacks in water use of
from 25 percent to 50 percent. Freezes in the watershed
would also have a more severe effect under these future conditions.
Unlike spring sluicing, where the winter snow pack can
be measured to determine whether sufficient runoff will occur
to refill the reservoir, the fall draining is somewhat of
a gamble, since it cannot be predicted in the fall if sufficient
precipitation will occur later in the year. The odds of
shortages will increase as water demands increase, if this
alternative is implemented.
115
-------
FIGURE 4-9
FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR
EAST £ WEST FORKS ASHLAND CREEK,
ANNUAL BASIS, SHOWING RELATIONSHIP TO
CITY OF ASHLAND WATER SUPPLY NEEDS(1)
50 -1
to
«*-
o
UJ
e>
cc
CO
Q
>-
o
CD
¦*5
CC
UJ
>
40 -
30 -
20 -
MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND
AVERAGE DAY DEMAND
T~
40
20
—r~
60
—T~
80
~l
00
PERCENT OF TIME EXCEEDED
m BASED ON WATER YEARS 19 26- 32,1975 -77, USING AVERAGE
DAILY FLOWS FOR USGS GAGES 14353500 AND 14353000
116
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES , INC.
-------
Water shortages could result in rationing, high water
rates, prohibitions on some uses, and in extreme cases, pro-
hibition of exterior water use. To the extent that fall
draining and sluicing reduced storage and aggravated the
shortage, dissatisfaction with this management method (and
managers) could result. A supplemental water supply of sufficient
quantity could totally mitigate this adverse impact. A new
reservoir in the Ashland Creek watershed at the Winburn site
would provide such a supplemental supply. The intertie with
Talent Irrigation District (to be completed in summer 1979)
would not completely alleviate such a shortage since the
water may only be used for irrigation purposes, and not for
municipal (domestic) uses.
o Economic impact
The economic effects of Alternative 3 would be the same
as Alternative 1 (manpower and equipment for sluicing plus
fisheries loss) plus water revenues lost in dry years when
Reeder Reservoir did not refill. In addition to lost revenues,
the city might incur added costs from administering and
enforcing water conservation programs. Fisheries losses
are arbitrarily assumed to be equal to those of Alternative 1,
since sluicing in dry years may leave sediments in the stream
throughout critical periods.
Lost water sales revenues can be roughly estimated by
assuming that Reeder would fail to refill in about one-half
of the years, and that in those years it would average one-
half full. At $100 per acre-foot retail price, and an average
annual water loss of 215 acre-feet (one-quarter of Reeder's
capacity), the revenues lost would total about $21,500 per
year.
Thus the total annual cost to the city of Alternative 3
would be $45,400 to $47,800 (1977 dollars), plus costs of
enforcing water conservation in some years.
Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 -
Dram Reservoir for Entire Season
This alternative would allow the natural regime of Ashland
Creek to be more nearly duplicated in winter months, allowing
sediments to pass through during high runoff, except that
flows after about March 31 would be regulated as the reservoir
was filled. The Winburn Reservoir, which it is assumed will be
built on the West Fork of Ashland Creek, is to provide the
required supplemental water source as part of this alternative,
which complicates the analyses. It must also be cleaned and
it would comprise a further regulation of Ashland Creek.
117
-------
o Practical considerations
Montgomery recommends that Winburn Dam be drained and
sluiced, since it will receive sediment and debris. Thus,
net sediment inflow to Reeder Reservoir would be reduced
only to the extent that erosion along the West Fork of Ashland
Creek is reduced downstream of Winburn Dam to Reeder Reservoir,
and to the extent that any sediments or debris are removed
from Winburn Dam by means other than sluicing. The timing
of sediment inflow to Reeder Reservoir would be changed,
however, and sediments originating in the West Fork during
storms could not be passed through the system unless both
reservoirs were empty at the same time, an unacceptable approach
from a water supply standpoint.
While sediment flows would remain unnaturally high due
to prior watershed disturbance, the retention effects of
Reeder Reservoir would be reduced by this alternative. However,
during peak storm events the volume of sediment and debris
would be greatest, and it would likely block the existing
outlet. Even with an enlarged sluiceway outlet and improved
trash racks, a storm such as occurred in 1974 would likely
have plugged the outlet and filled the reservoir. Thus,
the effectiveness of this alternative in achieving its stated
goal would be limited by the capacity of the reservoir outlet
to pass flow, sediment and debris in those few peak events
that contribute the majority of the sediments. Without a
greatly enlarged outlet, the impacts of this alternative
will resemble those of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3.
o Water quality impacts
If all of the sediments could be passed through Reeder
Reservoir and not retained, some water quality violations
would still occur. Organic material that had settled to
the reservoir bottom would cause an increase in downstream
nitrogen levels as it was washed through following draining.
This effect would probably last only a few days. Turbidity
and sediment loading in Ashland and Bear Creeks would be
increased following draining and again after each storm in
the watershed. Since background levels of turbidity and
sediment would be higher in the basin the percent increase
would be less than at low flow periods. Bottom deposits
would likely continue to form, as high flows in Ashland Creek
do not always coincide with high flows in Bear Creek and the
sediments can easily settle out in the flatter streambed
of Bear Creek.
118
-------
o Anadromous fisheries
Since this alternative would permit more nearly natural
stream flow and sediment discharge to occur during the rainy
season, its effect on salmonid production within the Bear
Creek system would depend on the timing of storms relative
to fish life cycles. Under natural stream flow conditions
peak suspended sediment and turbidity conditions similar
to those created by sluicing would be likely to occur less
often, and for shorter periods, coinciding with high stream
flow. The natural stream flow conditions would also help
to scour the stream gravels in Ashland and Bear Creeks, improving
the quality of the salmonid habitat in the Bear Creek system.
However, adverse effects of high sediment yields in the watershed
would continue to have adverse impacts on fisheries.
o Water supply effects
Draining Reeder Reservoir for the entire season combines
the gamble of insufficient winter runoff with the chance
of insufficient spring runoff, maximizing the chances that
a shortage will arise in the summer. The risk of fall freezes
also exists. The supplemental water supply that would be
provided by the Winburn project becomes a necessity in this
alternative.
The analyses of Montgomery (1977) indicate that a reservoir
at the Winburn site would have to be drained and sluiced,
as would Reeder Reservoir. The phasing of these actions
would have to be studied to ensure that a conjunctive operation
would be worked out that would not risk shortages in the
combined water supply.
o Flood protection
Even when full, Reeder Reservoir will moderate flood
flows to some degree. When empty, it will retain that portion
of inflow that exceeds the outlet capacity until the spillway
overflows. Thus, the presence of an empty reservoir during
the winter months provides an added flood control benefit,
increasing protection for the City of Ashland. In 1974 for
instance, the peak flow of 1,330 cfs over the dam might have
been less if Reeder had been empty, and downstream damage
might have been less.
o Economic impact
119
-------
The economic effects of Alternative 4 are primarily the
costs of amortizing a new water supply (Winburn Reservoir
on the North Fork of Ashland Creek) plus manpower and equipment
for keeping the outlet to Reeder Reservoir cleared and for
sluicing Winburn Reservoir plus fishery losses. Montgomery
indicates the cost of Winburn Reservoir as $5,130,000 with
the city's share being $3,172,000 (1977 dollars). Costs
to the city amortized over 40 years (Winburn Dam, 20 years for the
pipeline, both at 6 percent interest) would total $182,000 per
year. Maintenance and operation were estimated at $17,500
per year. The costs for sluicing Winburn and keeping the
Reeder outlet clear of debris may be greater than at present,
but are assumed for purposes of this EIS to be the same.
Fishery losses would be less than for other alternatives,
but still would occur due to the unnaturally great sediment
volumes. No quantification of these losses is attempted.
Total annual costs for Alternative 4 would equal about
$209,000 plus undetermined fisheries losses.
Environmental Impacts of Cleaning Following
Catastrophic Sediment Inflows
As defined in Chapter 2 herein, a catastrophic event
is one which obstructs the water supply outlet or which obstructs
the sluiceway outlet and requires special efforts, other
than draining and sluicing, to reopen it.
The cleaning of Reeder Reservoir following major sediment-
carrying floods has required special action by the City of
Ashland in past years. In 1964 and again in 1974 the normal
cleaning techniques became unworkable due to the volume
of sediments deposited in the reservoir. These events required
special actions, including dredging after the start of the
irrigation season. A requirement for such untimely cleaning
could conceivably occur again if a large sediment inflow
blocks the sluiceway outlet or threatens to block the water
supply intake. Under such conditions the city may conclude
that at least some of the accumulated sediment must be removed
before the next fall, to avoid the risk of complete loss of
the intake in subsequent floods.
The analysis of impacts following catastrophic inflows
is essentially a documentation of the more serious adverse
impacts that occurred after the 1974 dredging, which began
in late May and ended in early July.
120
-------
o Water quality impacts of cleaning following
catastrophic sediment inflows
The water quality impacts of the proposed dredging of
Reeder Reservoir during high stream flows may be estimated
using information provided in the USFS report, Water Quality
in Ashland and Bear Creeks, Jackson County, Oregon, During and
After Sediment Removal from Reeder Reservoir (Weaver, 1974).
In their study of the cleaning of Reeder Reservoir during
the summer of 1974 the USFS monitored turbidity, water temperature,
and concentrations of dissolved solids at e:ght stations,
four each on Ashland and Bear Creeks. The USFS concluded
that of the three parameters measured, turbidity was the
only one which was significantly affected by the discharge
of sediments from Reeder Reservoir.
The cleaning of the reservoir in 1974 involved the removal
of 122,000 cubic yards of sediments by trucking out 62,000
cubic yards to an off-stream storage area and dredging 60,000
cubic yards which were discharged as a slurry immediately
below the dam in Ashland Creek to be washed away by water
released from the reservoir. The dredging operation began
May 28 and continued until July 3 with no dredging on weekends.
Dredging actually occurred on 21 days, allowing for
weekends and downtime. This indicates an average daily discharge
of nearly 2,900 cubic yards. Although no flow records are
available, it is estimated that the stream flow through the
reservoir during the dredging was approximately 50 cfs (Fallon,
pers. comm.). From this it is estimated that sediments were
discharged at average concentrations of 18 ppt or a dilution
of 56:1.
During the last 3 days of the reservoir dredging operation
(July 1-3) the USFS found that downstream turbidities in
Ashland Creek exceeded values upstream of Reeder Reservoir
by a factor of 1,000 and turbidity values at all stations
downstream from the reservoir far exceeded Oregon water quality
standards of 10 percent above natural background levels
(Figure 4-10). These values were three to four times those
recorded by the City of Ashland during the 1976 sluicing
operation (Figure 4-6) and may have been affected by increased
stream flows and turbid irrigation return flows in the basin
during the summer months. After dredging was completed turbidity
decreased rapidly as indicated on July 9 (Figure 4-10). Down-
stream increases in turbidity on July 9 and 16 may have been
due to both sediments deposited in Bear Creek as well as
turbid irrigation return flows within the basin.
121
-------
FIGURE 4-10
TURBIDITY PROFILES FOR
ASHLAND & BEAR CREEKS
QQ
ce
-i-EGEMD-
DATES
1200-1
1000-
800-
600-
400-
200-
7/1/74-7/3/74
7/16/74
7/9/74
\
I
\
I
I
i
I
V
2 3-4A
SAMPLING STATION
NOTE-' DATES 7/1-3 WERE DURING DREDGING IN REEDER RESERVOIR. DATES
7/9 & 7/16 WERE AFTER DREDGING. ENCLOSED POINTS REPRESENT
STATIONS ON BEAR CREEK. OTHER POINTS DENOTE STATIONS ON
ASHLAND CREEK. NO N - C ONN ECT E D POINTS REPRESENT STATION 4A
ON BEAR CREEK CA. IOO FT. UPSTREAM FROM ASHLAND CREEK
DISCHARGE.
SOURCE: WATER QUALITY IN ASHLAND & BEAR CREEKS, JACKSON COUNTY
OREGON, DURING AND AFTER SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM REEDER
RESERVOIR. CWEAVER , 1974) ^22
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
According to the USFS (Weaver, 1974) "the recorded increases
(in turbidity) were aesthetically displeasing, prevented
normal use of water, and undoubtedly caused serious damage
to the indigenous biota." Numerous silt, sand and gravel
bars were formed in Ashland and Bear Creeks from sediments
discharged from the reservoir, and were later subject to erosion,
causing turbidity problems during increased fall and winter
flows (Weaver, 1974). This same delayed effect on stream
turbidity and suspended sediment levels was indicated by
data presented in Figure 4-2 describing the effects of the
sluicing of Reeder Reservoir on downstream water quality.
The RVCOG's water quality data for the Bear Creek Basin,
collected during the 1976 sluicing of the reservoir, indicate
that sluiced sediments cause a significant increase in organic
nitrogen levels in Ashland and Bear Creeks during cleaning
operations. It is likely that a similar increase would result
from dredged sediments.
o Fisheries impacts of cleaning following
catastrophic sediment inflows
The effects of the 1974 summer dredging of Reeder Reservoir
on the salmonid fisheries of Bear Creek were described by
the ODFW in its Upper Rogue District Monthly Report, August
1974. The bed of Bear Creek from its confluence with Ashland
Creek to the Medford area was found to be covered with de-
composed granite, and steelhead fry as well as most species
of aquatic insects on which they feed were found to be absent.
Field sampling by the ODFW indicated that virtually all of
the fall chinook and winter steelhead spawn was lost due
to the sediment released from Reeder Reservoir, and that
summer steelhead fry, spawned in the tributary streams, survived
long enough to reach Bear Creek during their outmigration
in the spring but died after they entered Bear Creek (Jennings,
pers. comm.). The combined effects of the reservoir cleaning
operation on both adult spawning and survival of the young
resulted in the elimination of all salmonid production within
the Bear Creek system for the year 1974-1975, causing an
estimated one-year economic loss of $67,4 68 (Jennings,
pers. comm.). No damage monitoring or loss estimates were
developed for subsequent years.
o Impact of cleaning following catastrophic sediment
inflows on irrigation users
The dredging of Reeder Reservoir from late May to early
July in 1974 interfered with irrigation diversions from Bear
Creek below the confluence with Ashland Creek. Sediment
blocked diversion dams, silted sections of irrigation canals
and blocked pumps.
123
-------
The Medford Irrigation District reported that their
diversion dam was repeatedly silted in during the 1974 dredging.
On several occasions the district removed flashboards on
the dam and used mechanical equipment to pass accumulated sediment
debris and tree bark downstream. The sediment reportedly
abraded and destroyed the fish screens protecting their diversion
and left substantial deposits of sediment in their canals,
which had to be removed with a Gradall. A diversion pump
on Bear Creek at Phoenix also kept getting clogged, and had
to be cleaned frequently. The district indicated that this
was the only time in recent memory that such problems have
arisen. No cost estimates were made of the clean-up required
(Ralph Kime, pers. comm.).
The TID diverts most of their water from Bear Creek
upstream from the confluence with Ashland Creek. They did
confirm that silt problems in Bear Creek in 1974 were substantial,
and that Medford Irrigation District, Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District and Bear Creek Orchards all had problems.
TID indicated no costs to the district for sediment removal
in 1974 (Dee Swaringen, pers. comm.).
Bear Creek Orchards indicated some problems with pumps
clogged by silt in 1974.
One individual filed a court action against the city
alleging the silt interfered with his irrigation pump in
Bear Creek, but this was settled without ever going to trial
(Fallon, pers, comm.).
o Other impacts of cleaning following catastrophic
sediment inflows
The 1974 dredging had other effects, most notably channel
silting on lower Ashland Creek. The high sediment load of
Ashland Creek and the flatter stream gradient near the Bear
Creek confluence led to deposition of dredged sediments in
the creek bed. As a result, flows broke out of the Ashland
Creek channel, flooding and depositing silt and debris across
a rural residential area adjacent to Bear Creek.
The beneficial effect of sediment removal was to substantially
reduce the risk that subsequent sediment inflows would block
the water supply intake at Reeder Reservoir. It also enabled
the city to eventually drain and sluice the remaining sediments
from the reservoir. Without dredging, it may have been impossible
to reopen the sluiceway outlet.
124
-------
In addition to dredging, debris and sediment were removed
from Reeder Reservoir in 1974 by dragline and truck. This
removal cost an estimated $5.50 for each of the 62,000 cy
involved, for a total of about $340,000. The dredging was
also quite costly. Part of the removal costs were borne
by the Corps of Engineers under their emergency work authorization
by Congress. Energy and manpower were also used by the cleaning.
Dust and vehicle emissions resulted from hauling and
smoke resulted from burning debris within and adjacent to
the reservoir.
125
-------
Chapter 5
EPA DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As stated previously, the purpose of this EIS is to
provide information which EPA will use to make a decision
approving or disapproving the Reeder Reservoir element of
the Rogue Valley Water Quality Management Plan, and which
should assist the City of Ashland and other local decision
makers in taking steps to resolve identified water quality
problems in Ashland Creek and Bear Creek. The EPA decision
will be made following receipt of written comments in response
to this Draft EIS and after analyzing oral testimony from
the public hearing. The decision will be finalized after
release of the Final EIS and an additional period for public
review and comment.
As part of the EPA decision, one of the four reservoir-
cleaning alternatives presented herein may be recommended
to the RVCOG for incorporation into the water quality manage-
ment plan. Other conditions on plan approval, recommendations,
or suggestions may be made relating to rate and quantity
of sediment discharge, and relating to implementation of
the plan. The EPA decision and recommendations will be based
on a comparison of the expected results of alternatives des-
cribed herein with the objectives of fisheries protection,
maintenance of water quality, assurance of a reliable water
supply for the City of Ashland, and consistency with applicable
laws, regulations, and policies. Proposed EPA decisions,
recommendations, and their rationales will be discussed in
the Final EIS.
Regardless of the cleaning method selected, it is recommended
that the City of Ashland take steps to modify the water supply
intake at Reeder Reservoir to provide inlets at additional
elevations within the reservoir, consistent with modifications
recommended by Montgomery (1977). It is further recommended
that, regardless of cleaning method selected, that the sluiceway
outlet modifications recommended by Montgomery (1977) be
evaluated and implemented if found feasible. Both of these
modifications will have the effect of substantially reducing
the likelihood that a major sediment inflow could be considered
catastrophic. With the modifications complete, the city
could choose its timing and cleaning methods without facing
a crisis atmosphere and accomplish the cleaning on a routine
basis, minimizing environmental impacts.
127
-------
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The recommended cleaning method and dam outlet modifications
have the following unavoidable adverse impacts:
Water Supply Intake Modifications
o Minor construction impacts, lasting 1 to 2 months,
including dust, exhaust emissions and exposure of
construction workers to safety hazards.
Sluiceway Outlet Modifications
o Minor construction impacts, lasting several months,
including dust, exhaust emissions and exposure of
construction workers to safety hazards.
o Possibility of water shortages for city residents
during and following construction, unless a temporary
supplemental water supply can be located.
Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment vs.
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
The harvesting of timber and other recent watershed
uses have compromised the water supply purpose of the Ashland
watershed. In retrospect the disruptions constitute an unwise
short-term use of the watershed lands at the expense of main-
tenance and enhancement of the water supply use of the watershed
It is hoped that new USFS management policies will correct
this unwise use in favor of protection and enhancement of
the water supply uses of the watershed.
Given the sediment production of the watershed, which
is expected to continue as a result of past disturbances,
the decision that is under consideration involves passing
the sediments through the reservoir at the least disruptive
time and in the least disruptive way, consistent with con-
straints on the city's water supply. The relationship of
these discharges on the productivity of Bear Creek in terms
of fisheries and other beneficial uses is not well understood
at present. Similarly, it is not known if the much more
costly alternatives that involve completely removing these
sediments from the stream system would lead to better main-
tenance and productivity of Bear Creek.
128
-------
The modifications of the Reeder Reservoir water supply
intake and sluiceway outlet will improve the utility of the
reservoir for water supply purposes, will improve its protection
from operational dysfunctions as a result of major sediment
inflows, and will enable greater environmental protection
of downstream beneficial uses. The short-term construction
impacts and the construction costs (about $215,000) would
be the trade-offs for the resulting long-term benefits.
Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources
Minor commitments of construction materials, labor and
capital funds will be necessary to modify the outlets to
Reeder Reservoir. Following completion, the commitments
of energy and manpower to clean the reservoir should be reduced.
129
-------
Chapter 6
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
This chapter discusses those issues which remain unresolved
in this EIS, but which bear on the analyses and decisions
to be made by EPA. Each issue is identified, explained,
and its importance to EPA decisions is discussed.
o Sediment carrying capacity
As discussed in the text, the sediment carrying capacity
of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek is a complex function of
sediment size, stream morphology, water velocity and depth,
and flow duration. Quantitative determination of these
relationships was considered by EPA to be beyond the scope
of this EIS. Further, some of the data required to perform
such an analysis, particularly the size distribution of the
sediments, are lacking.
As a result, analyses of how long sediments remain in
Ashland and Bear Creeks, what flow volumes are necessary
to move sediments on through the Rogue River, and estimates
of how much sediment can be handled by the streams without
environmental damage or water quality violations at selected
flow volumes have not been possible.
If sediment transport relationships were known, it would
be possible to compute the rate of sediment movement through
Bear Creek as a result of various reservoir cleaning alternatives
under varying hydrologic conditions in Bear Creek. It is
conceivable that such analyses might reveal more clear-cut
differences between alternatives in their impact on beneficial
uses of Bear Creek.
o Relative importance of Ashland Creek as a sediment
contributor to Bear Creek
An issue that remains unresolved is the relative importance
of Ashland Creek as a contributor of sediments to Bear Creek.
While Montgomery (1977) has estimated quantities discharged
to the Bear Creek system from Reeder Reservoir on Ashland
Creek, no similar estimates exist for other tributaries or
for the total sediments in Bear Creek. The Ashland Creek
contribution has been most visible because its timing has
not coincided with the flood flows that move sediment on
the other tributaries. In particular, dredging operations
in 1974 extended well into the irrigation season, conveying
sediment to downstream beneficial users at a time when the
streams generally run clear.
131
-------
It is known that Neil Creek drains some areas of granitic
soils in the Ashland stock batholith, and that it is a con-
tributor of sediment (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2-5). Other
tributaries drain generally nongranitic soils, but do contribute
some sediment. In judging the total impact of Reeder Reservoir
cleaning upon the Bear Creek system, it would be useful to
estimate the total combined magnitude of all sediment sources
in order to identify in greater depth what problems with
fisheries, channel aggradation, and conflicts with other
beneficial uses are traceable to sediment contributions ori-
ginating in the Ashland watershed as opposed to other sources,
and to develop a management program to mitigate the adverse
effects throughout the basin.
Such an analysis might indicate that sediments from
Ashland watershed do not provide a substantial proportion
of total sediments in Bear Creek and that the four viable
alternatives provide environmentally appropriate cleaning
options; alternatively, such an analysis might indicate Ashland
Creek does contribute a significant proportion, and that
further actions to reduce sediment yield or prevent the material
from reaching Bear Creek require investigation.
o Quantification of fisheries impacts due to sedimentation
At present the evidence is insufficient to quantitatively
indicate whether sediments from Ashland Creek are a significant
detriment to the anadromous fishery or merely one important
factor among many. The degradation of the anadromous fishery
is certainly the result of many watershed uses, only one
of which is the maintenance of Reeder Reservoir. Changed
habitat due to higher summer and early fall flows, agricultural
cultivation and return flows, diversion structures, impoundments
on tributaries, and urbanization all have adverse effects
on the salmonid fishes. Intensive field investigation would
be required to proportionately relate watershed uses to causes
for impairment of the fishery.
Because of this, the EIS has focused on alternatives
that merely adjust the method and timing of discharges from
the reservoir. It is possible that the overall impact of
Ashland watershed sediments on the Bear Creek salmonid fishery,
regardless of discharge timing, is significantly adverse.
If this were found to be true, then the alternatives evaluated
herein might not adequately mitigate the long-term adverse
impacts on Bear Creek. If the impact of the Ashland watershed
is not a major factor, then the amount of mitigation recom-
mended as a result of this EIS is appropriate.
o Management of Ashland watershed to minimize sediment
production
132
-------
Reeder Reservoir merely stores that sediment which enters
from the watershed. Thus, minimizing sediment production
in the watershed should be a primary objective. The USFS
and City of Ashland are currently negotiating an agreement
that is to specify how the USFS will manage the watershed
in the future. The agreement should specify how the past
damage would continue to be repaired, and how future damage
can be prevented. It is not known what provisions will be
included in the agreement, nor how effective they will be
in reducing future sediment inflows.
Part of the generalization of impacts in this EIS is
related to the unknown amounts of sediment that are likely
to enter Reeder Reservoir in the future. While the EIS uses
estimates related to historical sediment removal from the
reservoir and on projections by Montgomery Engineers, the
USFS has taken issue with those projections as being improperly
derived. The USFS does not offer any different projections,
however, and in any event future sediment inflows will depend
on watershed management and hydrologic events. Better estimates
of future sediment contributions would, if available, enable
a better evaluation of impacts and might assist EPA in developing
recommendations regarding the cleaning of Reeder Reservoir.
133
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Alsing, A. A. 1975. City of Ashland water facilities and
resources.
American Public Health Association. 1975. Standard methods
for the examination of water and wastewater.
Aney, W. W. , M. L. Montgomery and A. B. Lichens. 1967.
Lower Deschutes River, Oregon; discharge and the fish
environment. Oregon State Game Commission.
Ashland, City of. 1920-1926. Collection of news articles.
1930-1945. Reeder Dam log.
1978. Water quality data for Ashland and Bear
Creeks from 1975 through 1978. Mimeo.
[n.d.] Water supply: presidential proclamations,
congressional acts, Senate reports, House reports and
U. S. Forest Service Cooperative Agreement.
Ballard, J. B. and O. D. Swisher. 1975. Bird species found
along the actual and proposed Bear Creek Greenway
(Jackson Co., Oregon).
Baracco, A. 1977. Instream flow requirements in Dry Creek,
Sonoma County, below Warm Springs Dam. CDFG, Region 3,
unpublished report.
Bell, M. C. 197 3. Fisheries handbook of engineering
requirements and biological criteria. Corps of Engineers,
North Pacific Division. AD/A-006-404.
Burns, J. W. 1970. Spawning bed sedimentation studies in
northern California streams. California Fish and Game
56(4): 253-270.
Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelly. 1961. The influence of
inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams.
California Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228.
Cross, S. P. 1975. Hypothetical list of mammals, reptiles
and amphibians found along Bear Creek.
Deason, W. 0. 1975. Environmental Glossary. U. S. Bureau
of Reclamation.
135
-------
Doudoroff, P. and D. L. Shumway. 1967. Dissolved oxygen
criteria for the protection of fish. In: American
Fisheries Society. A symposium on water quality criteria
to protect aquatic life. Spec. Publ. no. 4, suppl. to
Vol. 96(1).
Evans, W. 1977. Fish migration and fish passage; a practical
guide to solving fish passage problems. U. S. Forest
Service, Region 5.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dryness. 1969. Vegetation of
Oregon and Washington. U. S. Forest Service Research
Paper PNW8 0.
Gaufin, A. R. 1965. Environmental requirements of Plecoptera.
In: Biological problems in water pollution, 3rd seminar,
13-17 August, 1962. Public Health Service Publ. no. 999-
WP 025.
Harvey, A. D. and S. C. Watkins. 1949. Construction of
water filtration plant and canyon reservoir for City
of Ashland, Oregon.
Hausle, D. A. and D. W. Coble. 1976. Influence of sand in
Redds on survival and emergence of brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105 (1) : 57-63" ~~~ "
Henny, D. C. 1927. Report to Ashland City Council on water
works improvements.
Hostick, G. 1976. Fish and wildlife checklist for Jackson
and Josephine Counties, Oregon. Oregon Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters.
Iwamoto, R. N., et al. 1978. Sediment and water quality: a
review of the literature including a suggested approach
for water quality criteria. EPA 910/9-78/048.
Jeffries, G. K. 1973. Draft interim plan for management of
the Ashland Creek watershed. Rogue River National Forest.
Jones & Stokes Assoc., Inc. 197 7. Final environmental impact
statement, City of Jacksonville, Jackson County, Oregon.
EPA 910/9-76/034.
Kittredge, J. 1948. Forest influences: the effects of woody
vegetation on climate, water and soil, with applications
to the conservation of water and the control of floods and
erosion.
136
-------
Lund, J. W. 1972. Engineering study of roads, Ashland
watershed. Rogue River National Forest.
197 4. Erosion and silting problems in the
Ashland watershed. Oregon Inst. Tech. Klamath Falls,
Oregon.
Meehan, W. R., and D. N. Swanston. 1977. Effects of gravel
morphology on fine sediment accumulation and survival of
incubating salmon eggs. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Pap.
PNW-220.
Montgomery, James M., Inc. 1977. Water resources management
plan and facility study. City of Ashland, Oregon.
Morisawa, Marie. 1968. Streams: their dynamics and morphology.
Nebeker, A. V. 1972. Effect of low oxygen concentration on
survival and emergence of aquatic insects. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 101(4):675-679.
Nickelson, T. E. 1976. Stream flow requirements of salmonids.
Oregon Dept. Fish Wildl. Fed. Aid Prog. Rep. Fisheries,
Am. Fish Soc. 62.
Northcote, T. G., ed. 1969. Symposium on salmon and trout in
streams. H. R. MacMillan lectures in fisheries. Univ.
British Columbia, Vancouver.
Oregon. Department of Environmental Quality. 1973. An
evaluation of the Ashland Creek drainage basin, relative
to the City of Ashland's municipal water supply.
197 4. Preliminary report: water quality in Bear
Creek, Oregon.
1976. State-wide water quality management plan.
Vol. 1.
Oregon. Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1964. Report of
fishery agencies and supporting data: Bear Creek.
. 1970. Stream habitat inventory, Bear Creek Basin.
Oregon. State Forestry Department. 1967. Ashland sub-unit,
southwest Oregon protection district. (map)
Oregon. State Water Resources Board. 1957. Water quality
data inventory supplement. Eng. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1,2.
Salem, Oregon.
137
-------
Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission. 1968. Climatological
handbook, Columbia Basin states. Hourly data vol. 3,
part A.
Periera, H. C. 1973. Land use and water resources in
temperate and tropical climates.
Phillips, R. W. 1971. Effects of sediment on the gravel
environment and fish production. In: Forest land uses
and stream environment, proceedings of a symposium.
Oregon State Univ. 19-21 Oct., 1970.
Platts, W. S., and W. F. Megahan. 1975. Time trends in
riverbed sediment composition in salmon and steelhead
spawning areas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. In:
Trans. 40th Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 16-19 March,
1975.
Puckett, L. K. , and R-. N. Hinton. 1974. Some measurements
of the relationship between stream flow and king salmon
spawning gravel in the main Eel and South Fork Eel Rivers.
California Fish Game. Environ. Serv. Branch Admin. Rep.
no. 74-1.
Rantz, S. E. 1964. Stream hydrology related to the optimum
discharge for king salmon spawninq in the northern
California coast ranges. U. S. Geol. Sur. WSP 1779-AA.
Ritter, J. R., and W. M. Brown III. 1971. Turbidity and
suspended sediment transport in the Russian River Basin,
California. U. S. Geol. Sur. in coop, with U. S. Army
Corps Eng. Open-file Rep.
Roberts, W. J. 1910. Report on water system for Ashland,
Oregon.
Rogue Valley Council of Governments. 1976. Water quality
management planning resource inventory.
Schlicker, H. G., and R. J. Deacon. 1970. Sand and gravel;
Bear Creeks and Rogue River Valleys, Jackson County,
Oregon. Oregon Dept. Geol. Mineral Indus. Portland,
Oregon.
Shapovalov, Leo, and Alan C. Taft. 19 54. The life histories
of steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri)
and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special
reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations
regarding their management. California Dept. Fish Game.
Fish Bull. 98:1-375.
138
-------
Shaw, D. 1956a. Ashland watershed. Rogue River National
Forest.
1956b. Water supply report on Ashland, Oregon.
U. S. For. Serv.
Sheridan, W. L. 1962. Water flow through a salmon spawning
riffle in southeastern Alaska. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Spec. Sci. Rep. - Fisheries no. 407.
Shumway, D. L. , C. E. Warren, and Peter Doudoroff. 1964.
Influence of oxygen concentration and water movement
on the growth of steelhead trout and coho salmon embryos.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 93:342-356.
Silver, S. J., C. E. Warren and P. Doudoroff. 1963.
Dissolved oxygen requirements of developing steelhead
trout and Chinook salmon embryos at different water
velocities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92(4):327-343.
Smith, A. K. 1973. Development and application of spawning
velocity and depth criteria for Oregon salmonids. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 102 (2) :312-316.
Stalnaber, C. B., and J. L. Arnette. 1976. Methodology for
the determination of stream resource flow requirements:
an assessment. Utah State Univ. Logan.
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan Inc. 1973. Jackson County
comprehensive areawide water and sewerage plan.
Thompson, K. E., and J. D. Fortune, Jr. 1970. Fish and
Wildlife resources of the Rogue Basin, Oregon, and their
water requirements. Oregon State Game Comm. Fed. Aid
Fish Rest. Compl. Rep. Proj. F-69-R-6, job no. 5.
U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 197 5.
Climatological data - Oregon. Vol. 81.
U. S. Department of Environmental Quality. 1976. Proposed
water quality management plan for Rogue River Basin.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria
for water.
U. S. Federal Insurance Administration. 1978. Flood insurance
study, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon.
U. S. Forest Service. 1978a. Forestry research: what's new
in the West.
1978b. Tabulation of data from Mt. Ashland snow
surveys for 1966 through 1978.
139
-------
U. S. Geological Survey. 1915. Surface supply of Oregon.
1878-1910. WSP-370.
1917. Surface water supply of the U. S. Part XII;
North Pacific drainage basins. WSP-362.
1924. Surface water supply of the U. S. 1919-
1920. Part XII: North Pacific slope drainage basins.
WSP-514.
1963. Compilation of records of surface waters
of the U. S., October 1950 to September 1960. Part XIV:
Pacific slope basins in Oregon and Lower Columbia River
Basins. WSP-1738.
1964. Magnitude and frequency of floods in the
U. S. Part XIV: Pacific slope basins in Oregon and
Lower Columbia River Basin. WSP-1689.
1971a. Availability and quality of ground water
in the Medford area, Jackson County, Oregon. Hydrologic
investigations atlas. HA-392.
1971b. Surface water supply of the U. S. 1961-
1965. Part XIV: Pacific slope basins in Oregon and Lower
Columbia River Basin. WSP-1935.
1977. 1976 water quality data in Bear Creek Basin,
Medford, Oregon. Open-file Rep. 77-90.
. 1978. Hydrologic data in Bear Creek Basin and
western Jackson County, Oregon, 1976-1977. Open-file
Rep. 78-230.
U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 197 5. Resource conservation
data for land use planning and community development,
City of Ashland, Oregon.
Weaver, G. T. 1974. Water quality in Ashland and Bear Creek,
Jackson County, Oregon, during and after sediment removal
from Reeder Reservoir. Rogue River Natl. For. Region 6."
Wells, F. G. 1956. Geology of the Medford quadrangle, Oregon-
California. (Geologic quadrangle maps). U. S. Geological
Survey.
Westgate, J. 1958. The relationship between flow and usable
spawning gravel, Cosumnes River, 19 56. Report to Inland
Fish. Branch. California Dept. Fish Game.
White, R. J. 1973. Stream channel suitability for coldwater
fish. In: Soil Conserv. Soc. Am. Wildlife and water
management: striking a balance.
140
-------
Wilson, S. A. 1975. Slope stability and mass wasting in the
Ashland Creek watershed. Rogue River Natl. For.
Zaugg, W. S., B. L. Adams and L. R. Mclain. Steelhead migration:
potential temperature effects as indicated by gill adenosine
triphosphate activities. Science 176:415-416.
Personal Communications
Haigt, Bill. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Hostick, Gary. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Jennings, Michael. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Walker, Don. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salem, Oregon.
141
-------
APPENDIX A
OREGON STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE ROGUE RIVER BASIN
143
-------
34(1-41-006
WATER POLLUTION
DIVISION 41
State-Wide Water Quality Management Plan,Be-
neficial Uses, Policies, Standards, and Treatment
Criteria for Oregon
(ED. NOTE: The Tablet* and Figure* referred to within the lexl
of this division may be found hi the end of this division.]
Preface
340-41-001 The sections which follow, together
with the applicable laws of the State of Oregon and the
applicable regulations of the Environmental Quality
Commission, set forth Oregon's plans for management
of the quality of public waters within the State of
Oregon.
Under this plan, the Department of Environmental
Quality will continue to munage water quality by
evaluating each discharge and activity, whether exist-
ing or a new proposal, on a case-by-case basis, based on
best information currently available and within the
limiting framework of minimum standards, treatment
criteria, and policies which are set forth in the plan.
The EQC recognizes that the deadlines for adoption
of this plan prevented thorough involvement by local
government in the development and review of the
plan. Accordingly the Department will review the
contents of this plan with affected local governments
and will use their comments and suggestions in pre-
paring amendments for consideration by the EQC not
later than December, 1977. At a minimum, the
processes of coordination with local governments will
consist of the following elements:
(1) Work with county coordinators to set up meet-
ings to explain the plan to groups of local governments
and solicit their comments.
(2) Provide copies of the plan and supporting docu-
ments to any affected local governments who have not
already received them.
(3) Seek input from Councils of Governments.
(4) Upon request, visit local level governments to
discuss the plan.
(5) Work with statewide associations of local gov-
ernments and others to inform local governments of
the plan.
Statutory Authority: ORS 468 020 and 468 735
Hist: Filed and Eff 1-21-77 ad DKQ 128
340-41-005 (Filed 6-1-67 u» SA
Repealed by DEC} 128, Filed und Kff. 1-27-771
Definitions
340-41-006 Definitions applicable to all basins un-
less context requires otherwise:
(1) "BOD" means 5-day 20° C. Biochemical Oxygen
Demand.
(2) "DEQ" or "Department" means the Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality
(3) "DO" means Dissolved Oxygen.
(4) "EQC" means the Oregon State Environmental
Quality Commission.
(5) "Estuarine waters" moans all mixed fresh arid
oceanic waters in estuaries or bays from the point of
oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the
outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties.
(6) "Industrial waste" means any liquid, gaseous,
radioactive, or solid waste substance or a combination
thereof resulting from any process of industry, manu-
facturing, trade or business, or from the development
or recovery of any natural resources.
(7) "Manne waters" means all occunic, offshore
waters outside of estuaries or bays and within the
territorial limits of the State of Oregon
(8) "mg'1" means milligrams per liter.
<91 "Pollution" means such contamination or other
alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological
properties of any waters of the state, including change
in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, silt, or odor of
the waters, or such radioactive or other substance into
any waters of the state which either by itself or in
connection with any other substance present, will or
can reasonably be expected to create a public nuisance
or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or injuri-
ous to public health, safety, or welfare, or to domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, <,r
other legitimate beneficial uses or to livestock, wild-
life, fish or other aquatic life, or the habitat thereof
tlO) "Public water" means the same as "waters of
the state".
(11) "Sewage" means the water-carried human it
animal waste from residenpes, buildings, industrial
establishments, or other places together with such
groundwater infiltration and surface water as may be
present. The admixture with sewage as herein defined
of industrial wastes or wastes, as defined in subsec-
tions (6) and (13) of this section, shall also be consid-
ered "sewage" within the meaning of this division.
(12) "SS" means Suspended Solids.
(13) "Wastes" means sewage, industrial wastes,
and all other liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or
other substances which will or may cause pollution or
tend to cause pollution of any water of the -state
(14) "Waters of the state" include lakes, bays,
ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers,
streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the
Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits of the State
of Oregon, and all other bodies of surface or under-
ground waters, natural or artificial, inland or coastal,
fresh or salt, public or private (except those private
waters which do not combine or effect a junction with
natural surface or underground waters), which are
wholly or partially within or bordering the state or
within its jurisdiction.
(15) "Low Flow Period" means the flows in r
stream resulting from primarily groundwater dis-
charge or ba8eflows augmented from lakes and storage
projects during the driest period of the year The dry
weather period varies across the state according to
climate and topography. Wherever the Ixiw Plow
Period is indicated in the Water Quality Management
Plans, this period has been approximated by the
3-1-77
144
-------
.'M0-41-O2H
inclusive months. Where applicable in a waste dis-
char^'" permit, the Low Flow Period may be further
defined.
<1C>) "Secondary Treatment" as the following con-
text may require for:
(ai "Sewage wastes" means the minimum level of
treatment mandated by EPA regulations pursuant to
Public Law 92-500.
ft)i "Industrial and other waste sources" imply
control equivalent to Best Practicable Treatment
(BPTl.
StHtutorv Authority: ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hist: Filed and Eff. 1-21-77 as DEQ 128
340-41-010 I Filed 6 1-67 ob SA 26
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Elf. 1-27-77)
340-41-015 IFiled 6-1-67 uh SA 26
I(j'peal<-d by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-020 I piled 6-1-67 a.s SA 26
Amended 5-24-71 by DEQ 28, Eff. 6-25-71
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-022 (Filed 5-24-71 us DKQ 28, Eff. 6 25-71
Amended 6-15-72 by DEQ 46, Eff. 7-1-72
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-023 IFiled 7-2-73 an DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repeated by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-024 IFiled 7-2-73 ax DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-025 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 4-5-72 by DEQ 39. Eff. 4-15-72
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-16-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
Policies and Guidelines Generally Applicable to
All Basins
340-41-026 (1) In order to maintain the quality of
waters in the State of Oregon, it is the policy of the
EQC to require that growth and development be
accomodated by increased efficiency and effectiveness
of waste treatment and control such that measurable
future discharged waste loads from existing sources do
not exceed presently allowed discharged loads unless
otherwise specifically approved by the EQC.
(2) For any new waste sources, alternatives which
utilize reuse or disposal with no discharge to public
waters shall be given highest priority for use wherever
practicable. New source discharges may be approved
by the Department if no measurable adverse impact on
water quality or beneficial uses will occur. Significant
or large new sources must be approved by the Environ-
mental Quality Commission.
'3) No discharges of wastes to lakes or reservoirs
shall be allowed without specific approval of the EQC.
(4) Log handling in public waters shall conform to
current EQC policies and guidelines.
(5) Sand and gravel removal operations shall be
conducted pursuant to a permit from the Division of
State Lands and separated from the active flowing
stream by a watertight berm wherever physically
practicable. Recirculation and reuse of process watvr
shall be required wherever practicable Discharges,
when allowed, or seepage or leakage losses 'o public-
waters shall not cause a violation of water quality
standards or adversely nffect legitimate beneficial
uses.
(6) Logging and forest management activities snail
be conducted in accordance with the Oregon Forest
Practices Act so as to minimize adverse effects on
water quality.
(7) Road building and maintenance activities shall
be conducted in a manner so as to keep waste materials
out of public waters and minimize erosion of cut banks,
fills, and road surfaces.
(8) In order to improve controls over non-point
sources of pollution, federal, state, and local resource
management agencies will be encouraged and assisted
to coordinate planning and implementation of pro-
grams to regulate or control runoff, erosion, turbidity,
stream temperature, stream flow, and the withdrawal
and use of irrigation wat er on a basin wide approach so
as to protect the quality and beneficial uses of water
and related resources. Such programs may include, but
not be limited to, the following:
(a) Development of projects for storage and release
of suitable quality waters to augment low stream flow.
(b) Urban runoff control to reduce erosion.
(c) Possible modification of irrigation practices to
reduce or minimize adverse impacts from irrigation
return flows.
(d) Stream bank erosion reduction projects.
Statutory Authority: ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hiat: Filed and Eff. 1-21-77 as DEQ 128
340-41-030 (Filed 6-1-67 aa SA 26
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77J
340-41-035 (Filed 6-1-67 a» SA 26
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-040 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77)
340-41-045 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15 73
Repealed by DEQ 128. Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-050 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Erf. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
340-41-055 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-060 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 as DEQ 55, Eff 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-771
340-41-065 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55. Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128. Filed and Eff. 1-27-77J
145
3-1-77
-------
340-41-070 [Filed 6-1-67 as SA 26
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77)
340-41-075 (Filed 6-19-67 aa SA 27
Amended 4-5-72 by DEQ 38, Eff. 4-15-72
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
340-41-080 [Filed 10-29-69 as SA 49
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff.1-27-77]
340-41-085 [Filed 10-29-69 as SA 50
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55. Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77J
340-41-090 [Filed 10-29-69 as SA 51
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
340-41-095 [Filed 3-3-70 aa DEQ 2, Eff. 3-25-70
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
340-41-100 [Filed 3-3-70 as DEQ 3, Eff. 3-25-70
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
340-41-105 [Filed 3-3-70 as DEQ 4. Eff. 3-25-70
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55, Eff. 7-15-73
Repealed by DEQ 128, Filed and Eff. 1-27-77]
Implementation Program Applicable to All
Basins
T 340-41-120 (1) No waste treatment and disposal
facilities shall be constructed or operated and no
wastes shall be discharged to public waters without
obtaining a permit from the Department as required
by ORS 468.740.
(2) Plans for all sewage and industrial waste treat-
ment, control, and disposal facilities shall be submit-
ted to the Department for review and approval prior to
construction as required by ORS 468.742.
(3) Minimum design criteria for waste treatment
and control facilities prescribed under this plan and
such other waste treatment and controls as may be
necessary to insure compliance with the water quality
standards contained in this plan shall be provided in
accordance with specific permit conditions for those
sources or activities for which permits are required
and the following implementation program:
(a) For new or expanded waste loads or activities,
fully approved treatment or control facilities, or both
shall be provided prior to discharge of any wastes from
the new or expanded facility or conduct of the new or
expanded activity.
(b) For existing waste loads or activities, additional
treatment or control facilities necessary to correct
specific unacceptable water quality conditions shall be
provided in accordance with a specific program and
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
3_4(M1-12
timetable incorporated into the waste discharge perm'
for the individual discharger or activity. In developin
treatment requirements and implementatio
schedules for existing installations or activities, coi
sideration shall be given to the impact upon the oven*
environmental quality including air, water, land ust
and aesthetics.
(c) Wherever minimum design criteria for wast
treatment and control facilities set forth in this pla
are more stringent than applicable federal standard
and treatment levele. currently being provided, upgrat!
ing to the more stringent requirements will be defer
red until it is necessary to expand or otherwise modif
or replace the existing treatment facilities. Such defei
ral will be acknowledged in the permit for the source.
(d) Where planning or design or construction <_
new or modified waste treatment and controls to met*
prior applicable state or federal requirements is unde:
way at the time this plan is adopted, such plans
design, or construction may be completed under th
requirements in effect when the project was initiate*
Timing for upgrading to meet more stringent futur
requirements will be as provided in paragraph C
above.
(4) Confined animal feeding operations shall b
regulated pursuant to rules contained in OAR Chapte
340, sections 340-51-005 through 340-51-080 in ordt-
to minimize potential adverse effect on water quality
(5) Programs for control of pollution from nor
point sources when developed by the Department, or b
other agencies pursuant to Section 208 of Public La>
92-500 and approved by the Department, shall &
applicable, be incorporated into this plan by axnenc
ment via.the same process used to adopt the pla
unless other procedures are established by law.
(6) Where minimum requirements of federal law o
enforceable regulations are more stringent tha
specific provisions of this plan, the federal require
menta shall prevail.
(7) Within a framework of statewide priority ar.
available resources, the Department will monitc
water quality within the basin for the purposes t
evaluating conformance with the plan and developin
information for future additions or updating.
(8) The EQC recognizes that the potential exists fc
conflicts between Water Quality Management plan
and the Land Use Plans and Resource Managetnen
plans which local governments and other agencie
must develop pursuant to law. In the event any sue
conflicts develop, it is the intent of the Department t
meet with the local government or responsible agenc
to formulate proposed revisions to one or both so as \
resolve the conflict. Revisions will be presented fc
adoption via the same process used to adopt the pla
unless other specific procedures are established by law
Statutory Authority; ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hiafc Filed and Eff. 1-21-77 aa DEQ 128
3-1-77
146
-------
340-41-214 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
j) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge
0^,/Osits or the formation of any organic or inorganic
deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or
injurious to public health, recreation or industry shall
not be allowed.
(k) Objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sleek, or
floating solids, or coating of aquatic life with oil films
shall not be allowed.
(1) Aesthetic conditions offensive to the human
senses of sight, taste, smell, or touch shall not be
allowed.
(m) Radioisotope concentrations shall not exceed
Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC's) in
drinking water, edible fishes or shellfishes, wildlife,
irrigated crops, livestock and dairy products, or pose an
external radiation hazard.
(n) The concentration of total dissolved gas relative
to atmospheric pressure at the point of Bample collec-
tion shall not exceed one hundred and five percent
(105%) of saturation, except when stream flow exceeds
the 10-year, 7-day average flood.
(o) Dissolved Chemical Substances: Guide concen-
trations listed below shall not be exceeded unless
otherwise specifically authorized by DEQ upon such
conditions as it may deem necessary to carry out the
general intent of this plan and to protect the beneficial
uses 6et forth in section 340-41-202:
mg/1
/».-^nic(As) 0.01
Barium (Ba) 1.0
Boron (Bo) 0.5
Cadmium (Cd) 0.003
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—Columbia
River 500.0
Total dissolved solids—all other fresh water
streams and tributaries thereto 100.0
Zinc (Zn) 0.01
(3) Where the natural quality parameters of
waters of the North Coast-Lower Columbia River
Basin are outside the numerical limits of the above
assigned water quality standards, the natural water
quality shall be the standard.
(4) Mixing Zones:
(a) The Department may suspend the applicability
of all or part of the water quality standards set forth in
t' ' * section, except those standards relating to aesthet-
i onditions, within a defined immediate mixing zone
of specified and appropriately limited size adjacent to
or surrounding the point of waste water discharge.
(b) The sole method of establishing such mixing
zone shall be by the Department defining same in a
waste discharge permit.
(c) In establishing a mixing zone in a waste dis-
charge permit the Department:
(A) May define the limits of the mixing zone in
terms of distance from the point of the waste water
discharge or the area or volume of the receiving water
or any combination thereof;
(B) May set other less restrictive water quality
standards to be applicable in the mixing zone in lieu of
the suspended standards; and
(C) Shall limit the mixing zone to that which in all
probability, will:
(i) Not interfere with any biological community or
population of any important species to a degree which
is damaging to the ecosystem; and
(ii) Not adversely affect any other beneficial use
disproportionately.
(5) Testing Methods: The analytical testing
methods for determining compliance with the water
quality standards contained in this section shall be in
accordance with the most recent edition of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water published jointly by the American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Associa-
tion, and Water Pollution Control Federation, unless
the Department has published an applicable supersed-
ing method, in which case testing shall be in accord-
ance with the superseding method; provided, however,
that testing in accordance with an alternative method
shall comply with this section if the Department has
published the method or has approved the method in
writing.
[Publications: The' publication referred to or incorporated by
reference in this rule is available in the office of the Department of
Environmental Quality or Secretary of State.]
Statutory Authority: ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hiatt Filed and Eff. 1-21-77 aa DEQ 128
Minimum Design Criteria for Treatment and Con-
trol of Wastes
340-41-215 Subject to the implementation program
set forth in section 340-41-120, prior to discharge of
any wastes from any new or modified facility to any
waters of the North Coast-Lower Columbia River
Basin, such wastes shall be treated and controlled in
facilities designed in accordance with the following
minimum criteria (In designing treatment facilities,
average conditions and a normal range of variability
are generally used in establishing design criteria. A
facility once completed and placed in operation should
operate at or near the design limit most of the time but
may operate below the design criteria limit at times
due to variables which are unpredictable or uncontroll-
able. This is particularly true for biological treatment
facilities. The actual operating limits are intended to
be established by permit pursuant to ORS 468.740 and.
recognize that the actual performance level may at
times be less than the design criteria.):
147
3-1-77
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
¦'140-41-214
111 Sewage Wastes:
• ;n During periods of low stream flows (approxi-
mately Myv 1 to October 311: Treatment resulting in
monthly average effluent concentrations not to exceed
JO mi,r'l of Hi JUan.I 20 mg'l of SS or equivalent control.
'hi During the period of high stream flows (approx-
imately November 1 to April 30i and for direct ocean
discharges: \ minimum of Secondary Treatment or
equivalent control and unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Department, operation of all waste
treatment and control facilities at maximum practic-
able efficiency and effectiveness so as to minimize
waste discharges to public waters.
• ci Effluent MOD concentrations in mg/1, divided
oy the dilution factor (ratio of receiving stream flow
to effluent flowi shall not exceed one (1) unless
otherwise approved by the EQC.
idi Sewage wastes shall he disinfected, after treat-
:mn: equivalent t.> thorough mixing with sufficient
• h'orine to provide a residual of at least 1 part per
..iillion after ii0 minutes of contact time unless other-
\v.se specifically authorized by permit.
<«.•> Positive protection shall be provided to prevent
b> pas-Sing raw or inadequately treated sewage to
public waters unless otherwise approved by the
Department where elimination of inflow and infiltra-
tion would b- necessury but not presently practicable.
Specific industrial waste tiva. r.n-nt iveui'
ments shall be determined on an individual ba-i
accordance with the provisions of thi.- appluacl.
federal requirements, and the following:
(A) The uses which are or may likely be ma.!.- •.!
the receiving stream;
(B^ The size and nature of flow. .>1 i n- i<*ic x
stream;
(C) The quantity and quality <>l r,- l«
treated; and
(D) The presence or absence -il oih.-i >ouriv- .1
pollution on the same watershed.
(c) Where industrial, commercial. • .ip ic .it u».'l
effluents contain significant quantities it pc.ti i-.tialn
toxic elements, treatment requirements .-hail !„•
mined utilizing appropriate bioassays.
(d) Industrial cooling waters containing ^iirnitu;i;i:
heat loads shall be subjected to uffstream coe :nn <•:
heat recovery pnor to discharge to public waters
(e) Positive protection shall be provided to pr»*v« n:
bypassing of raw or inadequately treated industrial
wastes to any public waters.
(f) Facilities shall be provided to pivvoni ami
contain spills of potentially toxic or hazardous ma
rials and a positive program, for containment ai..(
cleanup of such spills should they occur shall iv
developed and maintained.
Statutory Authority: ORS :111c1 !•>*
Hist: Filed and Kff 1-21-77 «¦. I>H}
-15-7
148
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 340-41
Rogue Benin
Beneficial Water Uses to be Protected
340,-41-362 Water quality in the Rogue River Ba-
sin (see Figures 1 and 6) shall be managed to protect
the recognized beneficial uses as indicated in Table 6.
Statutory Authority: ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hist: Filed and Eff. 1-27-77 oa DEQ 128
Water Quality Standards Not to be Exceeded (To
be adopted pursuant to ORS 468.735 and enforce-
able pursuant to ORS 468.720, 468.900, and
468.992.)
340-41-365 (1) Notwithstanding the water quality
standards contained below, the highest and best prac-
ticable treatment and/or control of wastes, activities,
and flows shall in every case be provided so as to
maintain dissolved oxygen and overall water quality
at the highest possible levels and water temperatues,
coliform bacteria concentrations, dissolved chemical
substances, toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities,
color, odor, and other deleterious factors at the lowest
possible levels.
(2) No wastes shall be discharged and no activities
Bhall be conducted which either alone or in combina-
tion with other wastes or activities will cause violation
of the following standards in the waters of the Rogue
River Basin:
(a) Dissolved Oxygen (DO):
(A) Fresh Waters: DO concentrations shall not 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 Btages
of salmonid fishes.
(B) Marine and Estuarine Waters (Outside of zones
of upwelled marine waters naturally deficient in DO):
DO concentrations shall not be less than 6 mg/1 for
estuarine waters, or less than saturation concentra-
tions for marine waters.
(b) Temperature:
(A) Fresh Waters: No measurable increases shall
be allowed when stream otemperatures are 68° F. or
greater; or more than 0.5°F. increase due to a single-
source discharge when receiving water temperatures
are 57.5° F. or less;or more than 2 F. increase due to all
sources combined when stream temperatures are 56° F.
or less, except for specifically limited duration ac-
tivities which may be specifically authorized by DEQ
under such conditions as it may prescribe and which
are necessary to accommodate legitimate uses or ac-
tivities where temperatures in excess of thiB standard
are unavoidable.
(B) Marine and Estuarine Waters: No significant
increase above natural background temperatures shall
be allowed, and water temperatures shall not be
altered to a degree which creates or can reasonably be
expected to create an adverse effect on fish or other
aquatic life.
(c) Turbidity (Jackson Turbidity Units, JTU): No
more than a 10 percent cumulative increase in natural
stream turbidities shall be allowed except for certain
specifically limited duration activities which ma
specifically authorized by DEQ under such condition
as it may prescribe and which are necessary to accon
modate essential dredging, construction, or othc
legitimate uses or activities where turbidities in ex- c
of this standard are unavoidable.
(d) pH (Hydrogen Ion Concentration): pH valut
shall not fall outside the following ranges:
(A) Marine Waters: 7.0 - 8.5
(B) Estuarine and Fresh Waters: 6.5 - 8.5
(e) Organisms of the Coliform Group whore A
sociated with Fecal Sources (MPN or equivalent M!
using a representative number of samples):
(A) Estuarine Waters: Average concentrations o
coliform bacteria Bhall not exceed 240 per 100 nil "
exceed this value in more than 20% of samples.
(B) Marine Waters: The median concentration o
coliform bacteria shall not exceed 70 per 100 ml
(C) Mainstem Rogue River from the point of sal
water intrusion, approximately River Mile 4, upstrean
to Dodge Park, River Mile 138.4, and Bear Creek
Average concentrations of coliform organisms shal
not exceed 1000 per 100 milliliters, except during
periods of high natural surface runoff.
(D) Rogue River above Dodge Park and all un
specified tributaries: Average concentrations of col
iform organisms shall not exceed 240 per 100 mil1'
ters, except during periods of high natural suri
runoff.
(f) Bacterial pollution or other conditions deleteri
ous to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock
watering, irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propagation
or otherwise injurious to public health shall not be
allowed.
(g) The liberation of dissolved gases, such as car-
bon-dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, or other gases, in suffi-
cient quantities to cause objectionable odors or to be
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life, navigation,
recreation, or other reasonable uses made of such
waters shall not be allowed.
(h) The development of fungi or other growth?
having a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish oi
other aquatic life, or which are injurious to health,
recreation, or industry shall not be allowed.
(i) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other
conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic
life or affect the potability of drinking water or the
palatability of fish or shellfish shall not be allowed.
(j) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge
deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic
deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or
injurious to public health, recreation, or industry shall
not be allowed.
(k) Objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sleek or
floating solids, or coating of aquatic life with oil fP—«
shall not be allowed.
(1) Aesthetic conditions offensive to the human
senses of sight, taste, smell, or touch shall not be
allowed.
a-1-77
149
-------
.340-41-375
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
(m) Radioisotope concentrations shall not exceed
Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC's) in
drinking water, edible fishes or shellfishes, wildlife,
irrigated crops, livestock and dairy products, or pose an
external radiation hazard.
(ni The concentration of total dissolved gas relative
to atmospheric pressure at the point of sample collec-
tion shall not exceed one hundred and five percent
(105%) of saturation, except when stream flow exceeds
the 10-year, 7-day average flood.
(o) Dissolved Chemical Substances: Guide concen-
trations listed below shall not be exceeded unless
otherwise specifically authorized by DEQ upon such
conditions as it may deem necessary to carry out the
general intent of this plan and to protect the beneficial
uses set forth in section 340-41-362:
mg/1
Arsenic (As) 0.01
Barium (Ba) 1.0
Boron (Bo) 0.5
Cadmium (Cd) 0.003
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
henols (totals) 0.001
I'otal dissolved solids 500.0
Zinc (Zn) 0.01
(3) Where the natural quality parameters of
waters of the Rogue Basin are outside the numerical
limits of the above assigned water quality standards,
the natural water quality shall be the standard.
(4) Mixing Zones:
(a) The Department may suspend the applicability
of all or part of the water quality standards set forth in
this section, except those standards relating to aesthet-
ic conditions, within a defined immediate mixing zone
of specified and appropriately limited size adjacent to
or surrounding the point of waste water discharge.
(b) The sole method of establishing such mixing
zone shall be by the Department defining same in a
waste discharge permit.
(c) In establishing a mixing zone in a waste dis-
charge permit the Department:
(A) May define the limits of the mixing zone in
terms of distance from the point of the waste water
discharge or the area or volume of the receiving water
or any combination thereof;
(B) May set other less restrictive water quality
standards to be applicable in the mixing zone in lieu of
the suspended standards; and
(C) Shall limit the mixing zone to that which in all
obability, will:
(i) Not interfere with any biological community or
population of any important species to a degree which
is damaging to the ecosystem; and
(ii) Not adversely affect any other beneficial use
disproportionately.
(5) Testing Methods: The analytical testing
methods for determining compliance with the water
quality standards contained in this section shall be in
accordance with the most recent edition of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water published jointly by the American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Associa-
tion, and Water Pollution Control Federation, unless
the Department has published an applicable supersed-
ing method, in which case testing shall be in accord-
ance with the superseding method; provided, however,
that testing in accordance with an alternative method
shall comply with this section if the Department has
published the method or has approved the method in
writing.
[Publications: The publication referred to or incorporated by
reference in this rule is available in the office of the Department of
Environmental Quality or Secretary of State ]
Statutory Authority; ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hist: Filed and Eff. 1-21-77 aa DEQ 128
Minimum Design Criteria for Treatment and Con-
trol of Wastes
340-41-375 Subject to the implementation program
set forth in section 340-41-120, prior to discharge of
any waste from any new or modified facility to any
waters of the Rogue River Basin, such wastes shall be
treated and controlled in facilities designed in accord-
ance with the following minimum criteria (In design-
ing treatment facilities, average conditions and a
normal range of variability are generally used in
establishing design criteria. A facility once completed
and placed in operation should operate at or near the
design limit most of the time but may operate below
the design criteria limit at times due to variables
which are unpredictable or uncontrollable. This is
particularly true for biological treatment facilities.
The actual operating limits are intended to be estab-
lished by permit pursuant to ORS 468.740 and recog-
nize that the actual performance level may at times be
less than the design criteria.):
— (1) Sewage Wastes:
(a) During periods of low stream flows (approxi-
mately May 1 to October 31): Treatment resulting in
monthly average effluent concentrations not to exceed
10 mg/1 of BOD and 10 mg/1 of SS or equivalent control.
(b) During the period of high stream flows (approx-
imately November 1 to April 30): A minimum of
Secondary Treatment or equivalent control and unless
otherwise specifically authorized by the Department,
operation of all waste treatment and control facilities
at maximum practicable efficiency and effectiveness
so as to minimize waste discharges to public waters.
(c) Effluent BOD concentrations in mg/1, divided
by the dilution factor (ratio of receiving stream flow to
effluent flow) shall not exceed one (1) unless otherwise
approved by the EQC.
(d) Sewage wastes shall be disinfected, after treat-
ment, equivalent to thorough mixing with sufficient
150
3-1-77
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
340-41-375
| chlorine to provide a residual of at least 1 part per
: million after 60 minutes of contact time unless other-
wise specifically authorized by permit.
(e) Positive protection shall be provided to prevent
bypassing raw or inadequately treated sewage to
public waters unless otherwise approved by the
Department where elimination of inflow and infiltra-
tion would be necessary but not presently practicable.
(f) More stringent waste treatment and control
requirements may be imposed where special conditions
may require.
(2) Industrial Wastes:
(a) After maximum practicable inplant control, a
minimum of Secondary Treatment or equivalent con-
trol (reduction of suspended solids and organic mate-
rial where present in significant quantities, effective
disinfection where bacterial organisms of public health
significance are present, and control of toxic or other
deleterious substances).
(b) Specific industrial waste treatment require-
ments shall be determined on an individual basis in
accordance with the provisions of this plan, applicable
federal requirements, and the following:
(A) The uses which are or may likely be made of
the receiving stream;
(B) The size and nature of flow of the receivii.^
stream;
(C) The quantity and quality of wastes to be
treated; and
(D) The presence or absence of other sources of
pollution on the same watershed.
(c) Where industrial, commercial, or agricultural
effluents contain significant quantities of potentially
toxic elements, treatment requirements shall be deter-
mined utilizing appropriate bioassays.
(d) Industrial cooling waters containing significant
heat loads shall be subjected to offstream cooling or
heat recovery prior to discharge to public waters.
(e) Positive protection shall be provided to prevent
bypassing of raw or inadequately treated industrial
wastes to any public waters.
(f) Facilities shall be provided to prevent and
contain spills of potentially toxic or hazardous mate-
rials and a positive program for containment and
cleanup of such spills should they occur shall be
developed and maintained.
Statutory Authority: ORS 468.020 and 468.735
Hint: Filed and Ef(. 1-21-77 aa DEQ 128
1-15-77
151
-------
Figure 6
ROGUE BASIN
(340-41-562)
(Note: Basin boundaries are as shown in figure below)
to
is i Ws "s
% V-i ^r\ - H. " v. \ I v\\
SI SIMJ/M
2 »;ttl£ «i rr? itu.*
3 lilt CtttK
4 irrLtr..itf
i Minou roci'i
< IUJ VO»J
7 tor ci inci i
Suic of Oregon
Department ot
LNVIRONMINTAL QSJALITY
ROGUE BASIN
Map by Stair Water Resources ftoard
u
ho
w
P3
©
c
>
r
1-4
O
S
-------
un
U)
TABLE 5
(340-41-362)
Beneficial Uses
Rogue River
Estuary §
Adjacent Marine
Waters
Rogue River
Main Stem from
Estuary to
Lost Creek Dam
Rogue River
Main Stem
above Lost
Creek Dam
Bear Creek
Main Stem
All other
Tributaries
Rogue River
Bear Creek
Public Domestic Water Supply
X
X
X
X
Private Domestic Water Supply
X
X
X
Industrial Water Supply
X
X
X
X
X
Irrigation
X
X
X
X
Livestock Watering
X
X
X
X
Anadromous Fish Passage
X
X
X
X
X
Salmonid Fish Rearing
X
X
X
X
X
Salmonid Fish Spawning
X
X
X
X
Resident Fish § Aquatic Life
X
X
X
X
X
Wildlife 5 Hunting
X
X
X
X
X
Fishing
X
X
X
X
X
Boating
X
X
X
X
X
Water Contact Recreation
X
X
X
X
X
Aesthetic Quality
X
X
*
X
X
X
Hydro Power
X
X
Commercial Navigation 5 Transportation X
X
cj
-------
APPENDIX B
155
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. Box 1760 (522 S.W. Fifth Avenue'
Portland, Oregon 97207
Telephone: (503) 229-5696
Permit N umbc r :
Expiration Date:
File Number:
Page I of 6
2761
3780
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES PERMIT
Issued pursuant to ORS 468.740
ISSUED TO:
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Screet
Ashland, Oregon 97520
PLANT TYPE AND LOCATION:
Reeder Reservoir is located on Ashland
Creek three miles south of City Center
Issued in response to application number
2197 received 12/7/77
CcZsJZ&iZ2*13
William H. (£ouny \J
Director
SEP 2 S 1978
Date
SOURCES C0V2RED BY TOIS PERMIT:
Waste
Method of Disposal
Reservior sediments Removal and discharge
during wet season
RIVER BASIN INFORMATION
Major Bcisin:
Minor Basin:
County:
Ron no
fSear Creek
Jackson
Nearest surface stream which
could be influenced by waste
disposal system: Ashland Creek
PERMITTED ACTIVITIES
Until this permit expires or is modified or revoked, the permittee is authorized
to construct, install, modify or operate waste water treatment, control and dis-
posal facilities in conformance with requirements, limitations and conditions
set forth in attached schedules as follows:
Schedule A - Waste Disposal Limitations
Schedule B - Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Schedule C - Compliance Conditions and Schedules
Schedule D - Special Conditions
General Conditions
Page
2
SzL
This permit does not relieve the permittee from responsibility for compliance
with other applicable Federal, state or local laws, rules or standards.
156
-------
State of Cregcn
Department of Env i ronrr.en ta 1 Quail ty
Permit .'lumber:
Expiration Date: ) f, 1/o3
Page 2 of _6
PERMIT CONDITIONS
City of Ash land
SCHEDULE A
Waste Disposal Limitations
1• Waste Discharge Limitations Not to Be Exceeded After Permit Issuance Date
April 1 - November 1^: No discharge of accumulated reservoir sediments to
public waters is permitted.
November 15 ~ March 31: Discharge of accumulated reservior sediments to
public waters is permitted during periods of high
stream flow.
2. The City of Ashland shall notify thn Department prior to the implementation
of any proposed sediment removal activities. Notification shall include:
a. Written notification of tentative time schedule thirty days
prior to implementation; and
b. Verbal notificat ion of final time schedule 16 hours prior
to implementation.
157
-------
State of Oregon
Department of EnvironnentaI Quality
PERMIT CONDITIONS
City of Ashland
Permit Number:
Expiration Date:
Page 3 of
_1Z£_L_
1/31/83
~z—
SCHEDULE B
Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The permittee shall monitor the operation and efficiency of all treatment and
disposal facilities. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Department of
Environmental Quality, data collected and submitted shall include but not neces-
sarily be limited to the following parameters and minimum frequencies:
Item or Parameter
Quantity of sediment
d i scha rged
Sett 1eable Sol i ds,
Suspended Solids and
Turbid i ty
Quantity of accumulated
sed iment
Reporting Procedures
Minimum Frequency
Daily when removing
sed i merit
Daily sample of Ashland
Creek at filtration plant,
weekly sainple of Ashland
Creek near mouth (STP)
and Bear Creek at Oak
Street and Valley View Road
Annua 11y
Type of Samp 1e
Est imate
Grab
Estimate based
grid soundings
on
Monitoring results shall be reported on approved forms. The reporting period is
the calendar month. Reports must be submitted to the Department by the 15th day
of the following month. Reports are only required during those months that
sediment is being removed.
158
-------
S.3ts cf Oreccn Permit dumber:
Depor ".rent or Environmental Quality Expiration Date; 1/31 /78
Page A of 6_
PERMIT CONDITIONS
C i Ly of Ashland
SCHEDULE C
Compliance Condi l: ions and Schedu 1 cs
1. The permittee r.hall cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to de-
v-li-V an Asiiinnd Creek watershed management and monitoring plan as outlined
in the City/USFS Memorandum of Understanding revised on October 7» 1977.
The City of Ashland shall submit annual progress reports on the develop-
ment of the interim and long range plans to the Department by January 15
of each year.
2. As soon as procticable, but not later than December 31, 1978, the permittee
;.hai: prioritize and establish inpler.ientation time schedules for the recom-
nvenJotions involving the operation of Reeder Reservoir including in the
"Ci!v of Ash Iond, Oregon, Water Resources Management Plan and Facility
Study", October 20, 1977* These recommendations included:
a. Purchase of cutterhead dredge and discharge pipeline;
b. Modification of bottom outlet trash rack;
c. Installation of multiple level water intake assembly; and
d. Preparation of engineering study on structural feasibility of en-
larging the present 2k-inch opening through the base of the dam to
^8-i nches.
SCHEDULE D
Speciel Conditions
Condition G2 of the attached General Conditions does not apply to this permit.
159
-------
State of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
PERMIT CONDITIONS
Ci ty of Ashland
GENERAL. CONDITIONS
Gl. The permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff which is duly
qualified to carry out the operation, maintenance and testing functions
required to insure compliance with the conditions oC this permit.
G2. All waste collection, control, treatment and disposal facilities shall
be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
a. At ail times all facilities shall be operated as efficiently as
possible and in a manner which will prevent discharges, health
hazards and nuisance conditions.
b. All screenings, grit and sludge shall be disposed of in a manner
approved by the Department of Environmental Quality such that it
does not reach any of the waters of the state or create a health
hazard or nuisance condition.
c. Bypassing of untreated waste is generally prohibited. No bypassing
shall occur without prior written permission from the Department
except whore unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property
damage.
Whenever a facility expansion, production increase or process modifica-
tion is anticipated which will result in a change in the character of
pollutants to be discharged or which will result in a discharge to public
waters, a new application must be submitted together with the necessary
reports, plans and specifications for the proposed changes. No change
shall be made until plans have been approved and a new permit or permit
modification has been issued.
After notice and opportunity for a hearing this permit may be modified,
suspended or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause
including but not limited to the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit or any appli-
cable rule, standard, or order of the Commission;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts.
G5. The permittee shall, at all reasonable times, allow authorized represen-
tatives of the Department of Environmental Quality:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where a waste source or
disposal system is located or in which any records are required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
b. To have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the
terms and conditions of this permit;
c. To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required by
this permit; or
Permit Number: 2761
Expiration Date: 1/3 1 /§3
Page 5 of &
G3.
G4.
160
-------
State cf Oregon
Depo r'j.rent or Environmental Quality
PERMIT CONDITIONS
C ily of Ash!and
Permit dumber:
Expiration Data: 1/31/78
Page h of 6
SCHEDULE C
Comp 1 i ,'jnc c Cond i I: i¦ :• ¦;s and Schedules
1. The pernii ttoc -.hall cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to de-
v-ky an Ashlnna Creek watershed management and monitoring plan as outlined
in the City/USFS Memorandum of Understanding revised on October 7, 1977.
The City of Ashland shall submit annual progress reports on the develop-
nie.hL of the interim and long range plans to the Department by January 15
of each year.
2. As scon as practicable, but not later than December 31, 1978, the permittee
j.luii- prioritize and establish inpler.ientat ion time schedules for the recom-
nvjiu'otions involving the operation of Reeder Reservoir including in the
"Ci:y of Ashloud, Oregon, Water Resources Management Plan and Facility
Study", Gctober 20, 1977- These recommendat ions included:
a. Purchase of cutterhead dredge and discharge pipeline;
b. Modification of bottom outlet trash rack;
c. Installation of multiple level water intake assembly; and
d. Preparation of engineering study on structural feasibility of en-
larging the present 2^-inch opening through the base of the dam to
A8-i nches.
SCHEDULE D
Special Conditions
Condition G2 of the attached General Conditions does not apply to this permit.
159
-------
State of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
PERMIT CONDITIONS
City of Ash I and
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Gl. The permittee shall provide an adequate opcrati.no staff which is duly
qualified to carry out the operation, maintenance and testing functions
required to insure compliance with the conditions of this perrr.it.
G2. All waste collection, control, treatment and disposal facilities shall
be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
a. At ail times all facilities shall be operated as efficiently as
possible and in a manner which will prevent discharges, health
hazards and nuisance conditions.
b. All screenings, grit and sludge shall be disposed of in a manner
approved by the Department of Environmental Quality such that it
does not reach any of the waters of the state or create a health
hazard or nuisance condition.
c. Bypassing of untreated waste is generally prohibited. No bypassing
shall occur without prior written permission from the Department
except whore unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property
damage.
G3. Whenever a facility expansion, production increase or process modifica-
tion is anticipated which will result in a change in the character of
pollutants to be discharged or which will result in a discharge to public
waters, a new application must be submitted together with the necessary
reports, plans and specifications for the proposed changes. No change
shall be made until plans have been approved and a new permit or permit
modification has been issued.
G4. After notice and opportunity for a hearing this permit may be modified,
suspended or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause
including but not limited to the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit or any appli-
cable rule, standard, or order of the Commission;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts.
G5. The permittee shall, at all reasonable times, allow authorized represen-
tatives of the Department of Environmental Quality:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where a waste source or
disposal system is located or in which any records are required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
b. To have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the
terms and conditions of this permit;
c. To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required bv
this permit; or
Penr.it Number: 27f' 1
Expiration Date: 1/31/83
Page 5 of
160
-------
State of Oregon Permit Nu/ubor: 2 761
Department of Environmental Quality Expiration Date: )/31/83
PERMIT CONDITIONS Pa9e _£ of —6__
Citv of Ashland
d. To sample any discharge of pollutants.
G6. The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate
as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems
installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit.
G7. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it autho-
rize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights,
nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
G8. The Department of Environmental Quality, its officers, agents and employees
shall not sustain any liability on account of the issuance of this permit
or on account of the construction or maintenance of facilities because of
this permit.
G9. In the event the permittee is unable to comply with all of the conditions
of this permit because of a breakdown of equipment or facilities, an acci-
dent caused by human error or negligence, or any other cause such as an act
of nature, the permittee shall:
a. Immediately take action to stop, contain and clean up the unauthorized
discharges and correct the problem.
b. Immediately notify the Department of Environmental Quality so that an
) investigation can be made to evaluate the impact and the corrective
actions taken and determine additional action that must be taken.
c. Submit a derailed written report describing the breakdown, the actual
quantity an- quality of resulting waste discharges, corrective action
taken, step i taken to prevent a recurrence and any other pertinent
information.
Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the permittee from
responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the conditions of
this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply.
G10. Definitions of terms and abbreviations used in this permit:
a. BOD means five-day biochemical oxygen demand.
b. TSS means total suspended solids.
c. ng/1 means milligrams, per liter.
d. kg means kilograms.
e. m3/d means cubic meters per day.
f. MGD means million gallons per day.
g. Averages for BOD and TSS are based on arithmetic mean of samples
taken.
h. Average coliform or fecal coliform is based on geometric mean of
samples taken.
i. Composite sample means a combination of samples collected, generally
at equal intervals over a 24-hour period, and apportioned according
to the volume of f3ov.' the tine of sampling.
j. FC moans fecal coliform bacteria.
161
-------
APPENDIX C
163
-------
(COPY)
EXHIBIT r
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Or AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVING AND PROTECTING
THE WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY Or ASHLAND, OREGON
This AGREEMENT made and entered into this 21st day of
Aupust , one thousand, nine hundred and twenty nine by and between
the City of Ashland, State of Oregon, through J. Edw. Thornton , its
Mayor, and the United States Department of Agriculture, through
K. W. Dunlflo t Acting , Secretary of Agriculture, WITNESSETH
that,
WHEREAS, the following described lands: all national forest
lands in townships 39 and 40 shouth, ranges 1 west and 1 east, W.M.
within the watershed of Ashland Creek, comprising approximately
11,432 acres, within the boundaries of Crater National Torest, arc
within the watershed from which the water supply oif the City of Ashland
is obtained:
NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of conserving and protecting the
water supply of said city, it is agreed:
1. That before entering into any p,reement for the cutting of
timber cr removal of other forest products from national forest lanc.c
within the area, the officials of the City of Ashland will be consulted
and full consideration will be given to any•requirements -he City of
164
-------
EXHIUIT I (CONT.)
Ashland may desire to impose as necessary for the safeguarding
of the water supply.
2. That in permittin.3 the use of said lands for timber cutting
or other purposes, kull consideration sail be Riven to the preservation
of the volume and purity of the city water supply, and if the proper
State or federal agencien shall determine, after due 3tudy and investi-
gation, that the City water supply is beinj* or will be deminished, ca
contaminated, or polluted through permitted operations upon said
lands, 6nd there is no other more practicable remedy for the situation,
the Secretary, so far as he has legal authority to do so, will cause
such permitted operations to be restricted, modified, or discontinued.
3. Grazing of livestock on national forest lands in the watershed
will not be authorized by the Forest Service except with the consent
of the officials of the City of Ashland. Any fencing or other improve-
ments found necessary to effectively exclude livestock from the
!watershed or to aid in safeguarding the water supply will be constructed
and maintained by the City under special use' permit to be issued by
the Forest Supervisor.
So for as practicable with the means at his disposal, the
Secretary of Agriculture will extend and improve the forests upon
these lands by seeding and planting, and by the most approved methods
of silviculture anri forest management.
5. The Forest SnrvicM will administer and protect the area in
connection with ad-'oininp national forest lands. Should the City of
165
-------
EXHIBIT I (CONT.)
Ashland desire any special protective measures not provided by the
regular Forest Service administration, they may be obtained at the
expense of the City of Ashland by the appointment of additional em-
ployees to be appointed by and to be directly resnonsible to the '
Forest Supervisor of the Crater National Forest, but their compen-
sation will be paid by the 3aid City the same rote as men employed
by the Forest Service on similar duties.
6. Both parties reserve the right to terminate this agreement
at any time on notice to the other party, provided 8 that all
obligations under the agreement up to the date of the termination
have been met.
The undersigned agree to the above propositions and r agree
to carry them out so far as thoy have official power and authority
to do so.
CITY OF ASHLAND
By /s/ J. Fdw, Thornton
Mayor
Attest:
Gertrude Dlwe, Recorder Signed P.. W. Dunlap
Acting Secretary of Agriculture
166
-------
APPENDIX D
167
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FRESHWPJER:
ACTIVITY/LIFE ST7£E/FACTORS
Bear Creek: Sunmer Steelhead
Activity/Life Stage
Factors
Adult
Passaqe
Spawning
Eqqs-Adults
Incubation
eqqs-sacfrv
Rnergence
Frv
Dispersal
fry-finger
Rearing
fingers-juv.
Sraoltinq
Juveniles
Smolt
Passaqe
Mult
out-miqratic
Dates
Dec-Mar
Dec-Mar
Dec-Mav
Mar-May
Mar-Jun
All year
Mar-May
Mar-May
Jan-Apr
Depths (min •)
h-j
0.6 ft.
(25% of
•wetted
surface
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.6 ft.
LA
CO
Velocity
<8 fps
1-3 fps
>1.5 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
Tenperature
45-60°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-65°F
45-55°F
45-60°F
45-60°F
DO
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
>7 ppn
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
>7 ppm
Substrate
gravel
(.5-4 in)
<20o fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
< 20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
Harriers
>
<1 ft (multi
2-3 ft (sing
ole)
le)
\
¦
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA. GUIDELINES FRESHWATER:
ficrivriYAJFE stage/factors
Bear Creek: Winter Steelhead
Activity/Life Stage
Factors
Mult
Passaqe
Spawning
Eqqs-Adult£
Incubation
eacrs-sacfrv
Unergence
Frv
Dispersal
fry-f i rvjor
Rearing
fingers-juv.
Smolting
Juveniles
Smolt
Passaae
Adult
out-micrrati
Dates
Feb-May
Mar-May
Mar-Jul
Apr-Jul
May-Aug
All year
Mar-May
Mar-May
Feb-Jun
Depths (min.)
0.6 ft.
(25% of
wetted
surface
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.6 ft.
vo
Velocity
<8 fps
1-3 fps
>1.5 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
Temperature
45-60°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-65°F
45-55°F
45-60°F
45-60°F
DO
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
Substrate
gravel
(.5-4 in)
^20% fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
< 20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
Barriers
<1 ft (multi
2-3 ft (sing
?le)
le)
-
i
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FRESHWATER:
ACTIVITY/LIFE STAGE/FACTORS
Bear Creek: Coho Salmon
?actors
Adult
Passage
Spawning
Bjgs-Mults
Incubation
Eggs-Sacfry
Bnergence
Fry
Dispersal
Fry-Finger
Rearing
Fingers-Juv.
Smolting
Juveniles
Snolt
Passage
3ates
Nov-Dec
Nbv-Jan
Nov-Mar
Feb-Apr
Feb-May
All Year
Mar-May
Mar-May
Depths (min.)
h*
0.6 feet
{25% of
wetted area!
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
0.5 feet
o
/elocity
<8 fps
1-3 fps
>1.5 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
Temperature
45-60°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-55°F
43-65°F
45-55°F
45-6 0°F
X)
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 Km
>7 ppn
Substrate
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(.5-4 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
larriers
<1 ft (malt
2-3 ft (sine
pie)
fie)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FRESHWATER:
ACTIVITY/LIFE STAGEJ/FACTORS
Bear Creek: Chinook Salmon (Fall Run)
Factors
» —i
Adult
Passage
Spawning
Eggs-Adults
Incubation
eggs-sacfry
Emergence
Fry
Dispersal
fry-finger
Rearing
fingers-juv,
Smelting
Juveniles
Smolt
Passage
Dates
Oct-Dec
Oct-Dec
Oct-Mar
Feb-Far
Feb-Mar
Mar-Jun
Mar.-May
(in Rocrue R.
Mar.-May
(in Rocrue R,
Depths (min. ]
i-1
0.8 ft
(25% of
SSflS3e
0:8 ft
0.5 ft
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
0.5 ft.
H-4
Velocity
<8 fps
1-3 fps
>1.5 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
1-3 fps
Temperature
51-67°F
43-58°F
43-58°F
43-58°F .
43-58°F
43-65°F
45-58°F
45-60°F
DO
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
>7 ppn
Substrate
gravel
(1-6 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(1-6 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
(1-6 in.)
<20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
gravel
<20% fines
Barriers
<1 ft (multi
2-3 ft (sine
pie)
le)
------- |