I
D 103.62:
Ap 5/3x/97/
-* tv
INFORMATION PAPER FOR APPLEGATE LAKE,
A PART OF THE ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT
Prepared by
PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Updated 15 October 1974
INTRODUCTION
Rogue Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1962: Lost Creek is
under construction and will be available for flood control about December
1975; Elk Creek received construction funds in 1971, and is expected to
be ready for flood control in 1978. Preconstruction planning on Applegate has been completed, funds for land acquisition were allocated in
March 1974, and funds for continued land acquisition were appropriated
by Congress for the present fiscal year (FY 1975) but allocation of those
funds has not yet been made.
The Rogue Basin Project was developed under comprehensive planning procedures for control, conservation, and the best use of the natural
resources of the basin. Planning for the project has been a long, continued, cooperative, multiagency public endeavor. The following pages
provide information for understanding the effort that has gone into the
Rogue Basin Project, with particular attention to Applegate.
BACKGROUND ON THE ROGUE BASIN PROJECT
In 1935 (PL 74-183) and 1936 (1936 Flood Control Act), because of serious
flood damages that had occurred and again in 1958 (1958 Flood Control
Act), because of flooding again and other water related problems, Congress
authorized and directed the Corps of Engineers to make studies of Rogue
River and tributaries for flood control and allied purposes. A limited
study was made prior to World War II, under the two early authorizations.
After World War II the Bureau of Reclamation, under the 1902 Reclamation
Act, began studies to investigate for possible irrigation development.
The Corps made no studies while the Bureau's plan was under investigation. That development had planned a dam at a site on upper Rogue River
about 9 miles downstream from present Lost Creek site. The Bureau's plan
met with opposition from local and nationwide sportsmen's and conservationist groups, including Izaak Walton League of America and National
Wildlife Federation and locally organized Preserve the Rogue Associattmrq:The dam was opposed because it was anticipated that about one-thp4"01f?
the spring chinook run would be lost. As a consequence, no project wals
authorized.
5OMMN OREGON SATE COLLEGE LIBRARY'
WSHLAND, OREGON 97520
f
I
Two major and several lesser floods occurred after the completion of the
Bureau's study. The first major flood was December 1955, and the second
flood was in December 1964. As a follow-up to the 1955 floods, Congress:
(1) sent an interim committee to look at flood damaged areas on the West
Coast; (2) held a joint committee hearing in Medford to hear local views
on flood damages, project potentials, the fishery resource, etc.; and
(3) appropriated funds for resumption of studies by the Corps in FY 1957.
Immediately following the 1955 flood, local people in Jackson and Josephine Counties (upper and lower valley areas, respectively) organized
the Rogue Basin Flood Control and Water Resources Association (RBFC&WRA)
to represent the people of the basin. The Association, supported by
Jackson and Josephine Counties, represented almost all areas, groups,
and organizations in the basin, including sportsmen's groups.
The Corps held a public hearing in Grants Pass on 15 November 1956. The
emphasis of testimony was on: Prevention of flood damages, with associated irrigation, power generation, and recreation benefits; however, it
was emphasized that any flood control plan detrimental to the fishery
resource would be unacceptable, both locally and by Federal and State
fishery agencies.
After our hearing, studies were made on all available alternatives to
meet flood control and other water resource needs. Sites that would inundate significant anadromous spawning and rearing areas were not considered.
About 36 upstream storage sites, as well as local flood protection works
in damage areas were investigated.
By 1958, studies showed that no more than three, or perhaps only one,
storage project might be economically justifiable on the basis of benefits then available. The storage projects were Lost Creek on Rogue River
and Elk Creek and Applegate. It was apparent to the Corps and the fishery agencies that any storage project having just flood control, irrigation, power generation, and recreation would be detrimental to the
fishery and our laws did not allow any benefits for the fishery.
On that basis, no alternative plan investigated up to 1958 would be both
economically justified and assured of local and agency support; however,
in August of 1958, Congress adopted new legislation which offered an
opportunity to resolve the problem.
The Revised Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, adopted 12 August 1958,
provided Federal recognition of fish and wildlife enhancement as a primary purpose for Federal water resource projects. It was decided to
reopen project studies with fishery enhancement as one of the primary
project purposes. A specific interagency team was formed to cooperate
in the Rogue Basin study and to work with RBFC&WRA and any other interested parties. Team membership, under Corps' coordination, included
Oregon State Water Resources Board, Fish Commission of Oregon, Oregon
2
S5U-1
RUR" 'TIAT COrCE.E Ol~hy
ASHLN - OREGON 97520
State Game Commission, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and other
Federal and State agencies as appropriate.
To properly evaluate fishery problems and needs, it was necessary to
detail and document the extent and specific nature of the water temperature problem. For that purpose, the fishery agencies and local interests
installed a system of about 25 recording thermographs, in Rogue River and
tributaries from Laurelhurst Bridge (river mile 165) to Marial (river
mile 52). Also, with local assistance, the fishery agencies investigated
the location of spawning areas, potential spawning gravels, and related
fishery problems.
As the cooperative study progressed, local meetings arranged by or through
RBFC&WRA were held by the interagency team to present progress reports on
their findings. About 22 meetings were held, usually in consecutive sessions from the upper Rogue (Shady Cove area) to Grants Pass or Gold Beach
starting in November 1956 up to the final public hearing in September
1961. Also, radio and television question-and-answer sessions were held
prior to the public hearing.
On the basis of study findings and the record of the public hearing of
15 September 1961, the Corps prepared a report recommending authorization
of a Rogue Basin Project including Lost Creek, Elk Creek, and Applegate
Dams. Recommendation was for the primary project purposes of flood control, irrigation, power generation, fish and wildlife enhancement, recreation, water supply, and water quality control. With the active support
of the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA) and of the National Wildlife
Federation (NWLF) as well as of RBFC&WRA and the Oregon delegation, the
Congress, in the 1962 Flood Control Act, authorized the Rogue Basin
Project.
With continued support from IWLA, NWLF, and RBFC&WRA, the Congress appropriated detailed planning funds for the project and start-of-construction
funds (1967) for Lost Creek and (1971) for Elk Creek, and land acquisition funds (1973) for Applegate. Detailed planning and design have been
accomplished and construction is well underway in continuing coordination
and cooperation between and among the interagency team and local people
as represented by RBFC&WRA and the Jackson County Chapter, IWLA. In
addition to the 22 meetings during the preauthorization period noted
above, the Corps participated in more than 50 local meetings (dealing
with the Rogue Basin Project) since that period. Examples of recent
meetings particularly concerned with Applegate are: (1) League of Women
Voters in Medford in April 1973; (2) an informational meeting held by
Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon in Medford in August 1973; and (3) Corps'
meeting with Applegate landowners at Upper Applegate Grange in August
1974. Changes resulting from detailed planning and design have been
only minor detail; the basic concepts and functions, developed as outlined have been adhered to in all respects.
0
Docs-U.S. D 13.62:Ap 5/3x/974
Information
ate Lake a
3 5138 (00000312
APPLEGATE BASIN
Applegate Basin begins in the Siskiyou Range in northern California at an
elevation of about 7,400 feet, and flows north and west 58 miles to its
confluence with Rogue River. The total Applegate drainage basin is 768
square miles.
The climate of the drainage area is dominated by maritime influences which
contribute to mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Normal annual
precipitation above the damsite is 45 inches, ranging from about 30 inches
at the damsite to nea~rly 60 inches in the headwaters. Temperatures are
generally such that a large portion of the winter precipitation at high
levels occurs as snow, with rain predominating at low elevations.
Normally about 75 percent of the annual precipitation occurs during the
November to March period. By contrast, less than 2 percent of the annual
precipitation occurs during the July-August period.
The streamflow regimen is similar to the precipitation pattern. Low flows
prevail from July through September, the period of low precipitation.
Streams respond rapidly to the many storms that occur from November to
April. Runoff in May and June is moderate and results from melting snow
at the higher elevations. Average annual runoff at the damsite is about
317,000 acre-feet. Discharges have ranged from a minimum of 13 c.f.s.
to a peak of 29,000 c.f.s. at the damsite.
Floods on Applegate River are flashy in character and may occur at any
time between November and March. They are primarily the result of heavy
rains augmented with snowmelt runoff. After the ground becomes saturated,
runoff from heavy rains occurs almost immediately and surface losses are
small.
Water-shortage problems exist in the Applegate River Basin. Stored water
is in great-demand for conservation uses. Irrigation water rights filed
for natural flows total 356 c.f.s., which is considerably greater than
the summer flow of the river. The natural, low summer flows are depleted
by the diversion for irrigation and other purposes. This leads to increased warming of the stream which is harmful to fish.
The temperature of the water in the Applegate River is satisfactory for
the rearing of fish except during the low-flow months. During the winter,
the water temperature is generally below 40° F. In July and August, the
maximum daily water temperature at times exceed 800 F. When water temperatures above 70° F. are experienced, fish life is seriously affected.
Applegate River and its tributaries support a fish population including
fall chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, resident rainbow and cutthroat trout. To support the sport fishery, legal sized trout are
planted in the stream each year. There is no spring chinook run.
4
There is a run of fall chinook salmon that use the lower Applegate River.
Low flows prevent migration and good spawning utilization in some years.
Floodflows frequently cause losses to fall chinook embryos in the gravel.
PROJECT FUNCTIONS
Flood Control. - Applegate Lake will be operated to regulate the
river downstream from the damsite to keep it within its banks to the maximum extent possible. Whenever a flood appears likely and it is expected
to exceed bankfull stage, the project discharge will be reduced. It will
not always be possible to obtain a high degree of regulation in the lower
reaches, as only about half of the drainage area above the town of Applegate is upstream of the dam. Therefore, Applegate project will be capable
of reducing most flood peak discharges at Applegate by about 50 to 60
percent. Project releases during a flood may be reduced to a minimum of
50 c.f.s. to insure maximum effectiveness of the project to control downstream flooding.
As an example, the maximum discharge, in c.f.s., from Applegate Dam
(with 65,000 acre-feet storage) for the following floods would be:
(Drainage Area 223 Sq. Mi.)
Natural
Regulated
1955
20,300
4,600
1964
1974
29,000
27,900
11,000
10,000
Maximum flow in the river, in c.f.s., at the town of Applegate would be:
(Drainage Area 483 Sq. Mi.)
Natural
Regulated
1955
1964
35,700
45,700
16,500
1974
51,500
27,400
23,000
The flood (stage reduction) would be reduced from 4 feet to 6 feet at
Applegate for floods of record (1890, 1955, 1964, and 1974).
A major environmental gain from flood control will be a decrease in
erosion and sedimentation of streambanks and bottom lands and will also
reduce losses of fish eggs in stream gravels.
5
Fish and Wildlife. Fishery enhancement. - A major function to be served by Applegate Lake will be flow augmentation during the low-water season, for
fishery enhancement. Cooler river temperatures and increased flows will
yield a substantial fishery benefit. Special temperature studies indicate the feasibility of such a project function. Desirable minimum
releases and downstream water requirements that are proposed for the
project for fishery enhancement are shown in the following tabulation.
Minimum Releases
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Minimum
natural
flows at
Copper,
c.f.s.
34
86
192
230
117
61
30
13
13
19
29
42
Release
at dam,
c.f.s.
Flows,
Little Applegate
to
Williams Creek,
c.f.s.
Flows from
Williams Creek
to mouth,
c.f.s.
100
100
170
170
170
200
230
200
200/130
130
100
100
200
200
265
265
265
265
230
200
200/240
240
240
200
300
300
340
340
360
360
120
120
120
360
360
300
Water shortages for fishery enhancement averaged 12 percent for the 37
years studied. The specific years in which shortages occurred were 1929,
1930, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1949, 1955, and 1959. Fishery benefits were adjusted to reflect the shortages experienced.
Fishery flow protection. - Flows released for fishery enhancement will remain in the river from Applegate Dam to the Pacific Ocean.
These releases will be protected from diversion for other uses.
Protection will be provided under the Federal Act which authorized the
projects and by programs adopted by Oregon State Water Resources Board.
The Fish Commission of Oregon and Oregon Wildlife Commission have jointly
filed water rights for storage of water and for water to be released
from conservation storage in the reservoir. Natural flow water rights
will have no claim to that water. All water rights are policed by the
State Water Master, working for the State Engineer. Those water rights
will assure an adequate flow for fishery enhancement.
6
Temperature of water released from storage. - The proposed
increase in flows in Applegate River downstream from Applegate Dam will
result in benefits to anadromous and resident fish provided adequate
temperature control is achieved in the 25-mile reach affected. Studies
indicate that such temperature control is possible; although with the
limited storage available, optimum water temperatures might not occur in
all years. Fish production will be limited by the least flow or highest
temperature regimen attained. The following tabulation shows desirable
temperature regimen of water that would be released from Applegate
storage.
Month
Temperatures
(degrees F.)
April
May
June
55
55
55
July
50
August
September
October
55
50
55
The above temperatures are the goals. In some short water
years, they may not be attained. Nevertheless, in many years the lowwater flows during August and September at Applegate will be more than
five times the past observed flows. The improved flow and temperature
are the basis for the prediction by the fishery experts that a spring
chinook run will be reestablished in the Applegate.
Recreation. - The recreation potential of the lake and adjacent
land area will be developed and managed for public use by the U.S. Forest
Service. Development of 37 recreation sites, totaling 185 acres, will
comprise the major recreational development of the area. Other land has
potential for limited use, such as hiking and scenic viewing. Presently
scheduled for development during the first 10 years of project life are
250 camping units, 200 picnic units, three boat launching areas, four
swimming areas, vista points, trails, and various other facilities. A
viewpoint will be developed near the damsite for public viewing of construction activities. Future development at new sites and expansion of
existing sites will be accomplished if the need and demand arises.
Figure 1 shows the pool elevation at the end of recreation season.
Water Quality. - Diversion of the Applegate River for irrigation
during the summer months leaves the lower reaches below the settlement
of Applegate virtually dry or in stagnant pools. This has an adverse
effect on recreational use and development and lowers property values
of riverfront lands. With increased flows resulting from reservoir
withdrawals, attendance in the public and private parks (existing and
7
RIVATE
'-4
L44
tow,'
0
Z
'200
4000'
APPLEGATE RIVER
future) along the Applegate, downstream of the dam, is expected to
increase. Real estate studies show that the private lands suitable
for homesites along this reach of the Applegate River can be increased
in value and that these lands would be enhanced with augmented flows
from Applegate Lake.
Area Redevelopment is based on the value of wage payments to otherwise unemployed local unskilled and semi-skilled laborers who will work
on the construction of the project. Also included are wage payments to
otherwise unemployed unskilled and semi-skilled laborers who will be
engaged in operation and maintenance of the project.
Irrigation. - Rainfall deficiency in the valley areas of the Rogue
River Basin during the growing season makes a supplemental water supply
a necessity for successful crop and orchard production. The U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation has indicated that there are 1,300 acres of new lands
that can be supplied from the Applegate storage site. At the present
time 8,371 acres are being irrigated from natural flows.
At some future time, it is anticipated that an irrigation distribution system will be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Meanwhile,
it is anticipated that a procedure for the furnishing of supplemental
water could be worked out between the Bureau of Reclamation, the Applegate Valley Irrigation District, and interested landowners to use the
stored water for irrigation purposes.
BASIN PLAN OF RESERVOIR OPERATIONS
The seasonal climate of the Rogue River Basin is such that joint-use
storage is feasible. Major floods occur only during the winter months,
at which time storage space will be reserved for flood regulation.
Following the major flood season, the storage space will be filled
gradually between 1 February and 1 May as the storm activity decreases.
The stored water will then be used as required for conservation needs
during the summer and early fall. By 15 November the reservoir must be
drawn down to provide the maximum space reserved for flood regulation.
The reservoir may be drawn below the scheduled flood control pool elevations at any particular time if the conservation situation requires the
stored water. There is 10,000 acre-feet of exclusive conservation storage space between minimum flood control pool and minimum conservation
pool. The following table shows areas of the pool and exposed ground
for the most probable reservoir drawdown.
9
Date
Pool
elevation
Area of
pool
Ground area
exposed
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
1
1
1
1
I
1,987
1,976
1,964
1,948
1,920
1,889
988
910
834
735
535
361
0
78
154
253
453
627
Mar
'
1,925
565
423 acres
1,950
1,970
1,987
750
873
988
238 acres
115 acres
0 acres
Apr 1
May 1
Jun 1
The figures on the following page show the reservoir storage and drawdown curve.
PROJECT ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Flood Damages. - Benefits from flood control consist primarily of
reduction of damages attributable to the project. Agricultural damages
include:
1. Damages to orchards and various crops such as row crops,
hay.
and
grain,
2. Damages to soils due to leaching, scour, and erosion loss
of topsoil, debris overlay, and weed infestation.
3. Damages to farm roads, bridges, fences, and utilities.
4. Damages to farm residences, utility buildings, farm equipment, and machinery.
Urban flood damages consist of damages to commercial and industrial
structures and contents, business losses, transportation losses, residential damages, damages to roads, streets, bridges, and utilities. As far
as possible, damages are based on field appraisals made of actual flood
damages following major floods such as those which occurred in 1955,
1964, and 1974. Flood control benefits are: $1,796,800.
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement. - Fish and wildlife enhancement benefits consist of reservoir fishing, downstream sport fishing, ocean commercial fish catch, and wildlife hunting. The resources have been
evaluated by the Fish and Wildlife Service based on the project providing
a reservoir fishing site, minimum flow downstream releases, and low water
temperature control. The reservoir fishery day use benefit is based on
10
a
Mx
1987
Full Pool
>-30,000 Acre-Feet
w rc. Port No. / (/#53)
25,000 Acre-Feet
VT.C. Port A.2 (/92)
-/0,000 Acre-Feet
-65,000 Acre-Feet
L
I in. F C. Pool
p/0,000
Acro-Feet
1889
1854
,990
0
-j
I
in. Conservation Poo/
1770
-
-/0,000
p 34'
0
4 1'
1
z
Acre-Feet
4
I 142'I'-
27,000 Acre -Feet-
I w
a
Acre-Feet (Inactive)
-egotion Out/et Invert
t
_______
10/0 Acre-Feet
j
(Dead)
1760L
RESERVOIR STORAGE
w
FIGURE
0
2
4
I-
w
w
T
ZUUW .
I
I
I
l
U.
z
z
0
I95a0
19401I-
1940
--
_
_5-
w
-j
w
.N or,Fno/ Drowdown
/#*$-
-1910O
WTC. Port No. 2 (19/21
el
Flood Contro
-= -I
Roserv Wton I
el-l s
isa0
Minimum
I- -4
-
Conservation Pool
----1--
A--tA-
1854
r
t
-
-1--
1120
1760
-
.
JAN
FEB
MAR
Reulating IOutle-tI/ie rt (/p77)
- -1--- 1--I
f-t-APR
MAY
JUL
JUN
AUG
SEP
MONTHLY RESERVOIR LEVELS
(MOST PROBABLE POOL ELEVATIONS)
FIGURE
11
3
w
U-
l
OCT
NOV
DEC
a value of $2 per fisherman-day with attendance estimated at 25,000
angler-days initially and increasing to 50,000 angler-days in 1.0 years
and remaining at that rate for the balance of project life. The downstream fishery benefit is based on an increase in sportsman angler-days
due to the project and evaluated at $9 per angler-day for spring and
fall chinook and steelhead; and increased angler-days of resident trout
fishing evaluated at $5 per angler-day less stocking costs; and increased
ocean commercial catch of spring and fall chinook evaluated at $1.10 per
pound. The fish and wildlife benefits adjusted to equivalent annual
values during project life are:
Anadromous sport
Anadromous commercial
Resident trout
Reservoir sport
$57,200
298,300
74,400
93,200
$523,100
Total
Reservoir Recreation. - The recreation resource to be created by
Applegate Lake is based on an annual attendance expected at the various
reservoir recreation sites amounting to 220,000 user-days in 3 years,
330,000 in 10 years, 455,000 in 50 years, and increasing to 730,000 in
100 years. Benefits attributable to the general recreation use of the
project are based on the unit value of $1.25 per user-day. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has evaluated reservoir fishery user-days and
has assigned a value of $2 per angler-day for reservoir fishing. It is
anticipated that 20 percent of the general recreation use will be
attributable to reservoir fishing. Benefits are: $357,000.
Those benefits exclude reservoir fishing which is included in the
fish and wildlife enhancement benefits. The U.S. Forest Service is to
construct, operate, and maintain these recreation areas.
Water Quality. - Diversion of the Applegate River for irrigation
during the summer months leaves the lower reaches below the settlement
of Applegate virtually dry or in stagnant pools. This has an adverse
effect on recreational use and development and depresses property values
of riverfront lands. With increased flows resulting from reservoir withdrawals, increased attendance in recreational use could be expected in
the existing public and private parks along Applegate River. The total
increase in recreational day use attributable to increased flows is
estimated at 190,000 at the start of project operation and is expected
to increase to 262,000, 300,000, and 350,000 within 25, 50, and 100 years,
respectively. Benefits are based on an increase in user-days and an
increase in value per user-day from 50¢ to $1.00. Real estate studies
show that the private lands suitable for homesites along this reach of
the Applegate River are depressed in value and that these lands would
be enhanced by about $53,000 with augmented flows from Applegate project. Ownership of these lands is widespread, and in determining benefits
12
it was assumed that the enhancement would take place over a period of
some 20 years on a straight line basis. Benefits are as follows:
Recreation downstream of the project
Enhancement of riverfront lands
$330,000
53,000
Total benefits attributable to water quality
$383,000
Area Redevelopment Benefits. - These benefits are based on the value
of wage payments to otherwise unemployed local unskilled and semi-skilled
laborers who will work on the construction of Applegate project. Also
included are wage payments to otherwise unemployed unskilled and semiskilled laborers who will be engaged in operation and maintenance of the
project.
Irrigation. - Preliminary estimates of benefits attributable to the
use of Applegate storage for irrigation purposes amounting to $20,600
have been furnished by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These benefits
were based on supplying stored water to serve 1,300 acres of new farmlands.
Other Benefits. - Project access roads will be utilized in future
logging operations which will reduce the cost of movement of harvested
timber by $5,900 annually. Other benefits consist of:
Reduced cost of timber haul
Loss of timber productivity
Total
$5,900
-500
$5,400
13
COST-BENEFIT SUMMARY
(July 1973 base, 100-year life, and 3-1/4 percent)
Construction Cost
Interest during construction - Federal
Net value of lands transferred
without cost
U.S. F.S. - recreation
Initial
Future - present worth
Investment cost - Federal
Non-Federal - recreation
Initial
Future - present worth
Subtotal
Total project investment
$45,500,000
2,957,500
1,468,300
4,125,000
2,870,000
56,920,800
305,700
133,700
439,400
57,360,200
Annual Cost
Federal
Interest and amortization
Operation and maintenance
Replacements
Total - Federal
Less: nonreimbursable roads
Total annual - Federal
1,928,500
334,000
46,600
2,309,100
-69,400
2,239,700
Non-Federal
Interest and amortization
Operation and maintenance
Replacements
Total - non-Federal
Total annual costs
14,900
65,300
4,700
84,900
2,324,600
Annual Benefits by Project Functions
Flood Control
Fish and Wildlife
Recreation
Water Quality
Area Redevelopment
Irrigation
Other Uses
Total annual benefits
1,796,800
523,100
357,000
383 ,000
250,000
20,600
5,400
$3,335,900
1.43 to 1
Benefit-cost ratio
14
53.9% of ann. total
15.7%
10.7%
11.5%
7.5%
0.6%
0.1%
PERTINENT PROJECT DATA
Lands - Project requires 5,495 acres of land, of which 2,810 acres are
federally owned and under the control of the Forest Service.
Approximately 36 private ownerships. Improvements: 9 farms,
18 residences, and Copper store.
General
Applegate River
Jackson, Oregon
Section 25,
.
......
T. 40 S., R. 4 W., WM
45.7
River mile above mouth, Applegate River ............
223 sq. mi.
Drainage area ......................................
29,000 c.f.s.
.......
Maximum discharge, observed (22 Dec 64) .
Mean annual discharge (1929-1965)
.
.
....
437 c.f.s.
.
.
.....
20 c.f.s.
Minimum discharge (Sep 1939)
Mean annual runoff (1929-1965) ..................... 317,200 acre-feet
Stream .........
County, State
Dam location
.........
.
.
Storage and Principal Elevations
Usable storage (1,987-1,854)......................
Flood control storage (1,987-1,889)...............
Conservation storage (1,889-1,854)................
Inactive storage (1,854-1,770)....................
Dead storage (1,770-1,760)........................
Total storage (1,987-1,760).......................
75,000 acre-feet
65,000 acre-feet
10,000 acre-feet
6,990 acre-feet
10 acre-feet
82,000 acre-feet
Elevation - maximum (full pool) .................... 1 ,987 feet, m.s.l.
Elevation - minimum flood control pool ............. 1 ,889 feet, m.s.l.
Elevation - minimum conservation pool .............. 1 ,854 feet, m.s.l.
Reservoir
988
360
205
4.6
1
Area - maximum pool (full pool)..........
Area - minimum flood control pool........
Area - minimum conservation pool.........
Length...................................
Width....................................
acres
acres
acres
miles
mile
Dam
Rockfill embankment
Type .......................
Height - streambed to crest ......................
Length .......................
Embankment volume .......................
Concrete volume .......................
Elevation - top of dam.......................
Elevation - full pool .......................
Q1TWHER
234 feet
1,200 feet
2,720,000 cubic yards
55,000 cubic yards
1,994 feet, m.s.l.
1,987 feet, m.s.l.
rC!:CO STATE COGLECr L!ERANYr
1i5LAIO, OfkEGON 97520
Spillway
Type .
Concrete gravity, gates,
ogee section, right bank
Crest elevation.............................
1,942 feet
Crest length................................
97 feett
Control gates (Tainter).....................
Two - 48'-6" x 48'
Design discharge...........................
93,800 c.f.s.
* ...........
Outlet Works
Type.......................................
Conduit - size..............................
Conduit - length..............................
Operating
Emergency
Discharge
Discharge
slide gates.........................
slide gates......................
capacity at minimum flood control
capacity at maximum flood control
Multiple-use, intake
tower, discharge conduits, stilling basin
Two - 5' x 10'
concrete rectangular
1,000 feet
Two - 5' x 7'
Two - 5' x 7'
4,200 c.f.s.
5,700 c.f.s.
Temperature Control System
Number, parts and size......................
Five - 4' x 5.5'
Design discharge...........................
rectangular
300 c.f.s.
Diversion
....................................
Fish Facilities ...........
Unlined channel with
control weir collection
The facil ities to stop and collect
upstream adult migrants. The facilities consist of a fish barrier weir
across downstream end of primary
stilling basin, a fish ladder, collection pool, holding pool, sorting
facilities, and transfer facility.
16
Response to Questions on Applegate Lake
Question:
Will there be water quality problems, such as algal blooms in
the reservoir?
Answer:
Algal blooms, or other related problems are not expected.
Nourishment of the type usually associated with algal blooms
from agricultural or urban wastes will not occur upstream of
the reservoir to any significant extent. Annual replacement
of almost all stored water will further reduce any problems
of that nature.
Question:
What effect will the temperature of water released from the
project have on the downstream fishery?
Answer:
The increase in downstream flows will provide benefits to
anadromous and resident fish. The benefits of $523,100
annually to the fishery are discussed under question on
benefits.
Question:
What steps are being taken to minimize the initial reservoir
impact?
Answer:
The reservoir area will be cleared of fences, buildings,
brush, and trees to an elevation 3 feet above maximum pool.
Tree stumps will be cut low and parallel to the ground.
Stumps will be removed entirely on gently sloping ground in
front of recreation areas suitable for swimming or boating
activities. Merchantable timber will be salvaged. Other
material will be stacked and burned in accordance with then
current rules of the governmental agencies with jurisdiction
in the area. No disposal by burial or dumping into water or
on flood plain lands will be permitted. Cesspools, septic
tanks, or other sources of bacterial contamination will be
treated with lime and covered with soil.
Question:
With all the large cuts and fills required for the roads and
dam plus the wave action on the banks of the reservoir, won't
there be a lot of bank erosion and slides?
Answer:
Slides and bank erosion will not be a problem. The Applegate
Reservoir location is within the Klamath Mountain Geologic
Province. The rocks are metamorphics and granitic intrusive
types. Rock is frequently exposed on the surface alonq the
steep hillsides. The soil cover generally consists of a thin
cover of talus and rock fragments with a small percentage of
17
sand and silt fines. No deep deposits of soil or unstable
slide areas have been located along the reservoir slopes.
Carberry Creek slide is beyond the influence of the reservoir.
Road construction will be mostly in rock cuts and granular
type soils. Cut and embankment slopes of these materials
are stable and erosion resistant.
Erosion of reservoir slopes will be quickly arrested due to
the shallow depth and rock fragment content of the soil cover.
A revetment cover of rock fragments will be self-forming.
The silt and sand fines contain little or no colloidal clay
and will quickly settle out of suspension in the reservoir.
When will the studies be
Question:
Will the reservoir be turbid?
completed?
Answer:
Non-settling turbidity problems are caused primarily by swelling colloidal clays, usually derived from soft tuffaceous rock
of pyroclastic origin.
The Geologic and Soil mapping of the Applegate Reservoir and
watershed area has not located any areas of pyroclastic
origin, tuffaceous sediments, or swelling clay soils with
appreciable clay fines. Most of the watershed has a thin,
rocky soil cover. Even the major unstable areas such as
Carberry Creek slide and Sturgis Fork or Bigelow Creek slide
have a small proportion of colloidal clay fines.
The Applegate River and all of its major tributaries are flowing on rock which is partially covered with gravel. The
Applegate River and its tributaries are normally relatively
clear except during high rainfall or when turbidity is caused
by other events. A milky appearance during normal flow conditions, typical of streams carrying colloidal clay fines,has
not been observed.
Mineral identification tests performed on the suspended solids
obtained from Applegate and tributary streams during December
1972 high water indicated the suspended sediment either did
not contain colloidal clay fines, or if present, it is a minor
component. Time-settlement observations of the water samples
obtained during these high-water events confirmed that nonsettling colloidal clay are a minor part of the turbidity
producing sediments.
The geology, soils, and water test data all indicate conditions-that are favorable and that turbidity will not be
aggravated by the reservoir or intended long-term beyond
18
flood events. In fact, settlement of silts in the reservoir
will appreciably reduce the transport of turbidity downstream.
This will be of benefit in trapping the major portion of sediments produced by slide events in the watershed area such as
has occurred at Bigelow Creek. Such an event would occur
during the winter or spring and although turbidity would occur
in the reservoir and downstream releases, the test data indicates the condition would be temporary.
We have found that selective release of water from multilevel outlets has an important influence on the storage and
downstream release of turbid water. A mathematical simulation model for prediction of turbidities and temperatures in
the reservoir and downstream releases has been developed and
verified. This model has shown for other projects that selective release from low level outlets can be very beneficial
in reducing the storage of turbidity in a reservoir without
conflict with downstream temperature control. Due to an
unusually dry winter we did not obtain sufficient turbidity
data for the Applegate at high flows for use of this model.
Except for continued monitoring to obtain data for the model
study which will determine the optimum operation for turbidity
control consistent with other objectives of the reservoir,
our basic turbidity studies are complete. We are confident
that the model will indicate that the minor amount of colloidal
clay contained in winter floods can be flushed through low
level outlets within a week or two following the flood events
and that the downstream releases can be controlled to high
standards without conflict with downstream temperature control.
Question:
What irrigation will be provided by Applegate and when?
Answer:
Irrigation is one of the authorized purposes of Applegate
Lake project; however, the Corps of Engineers is authorized
only to store the water for irrigation. All other irrigation
development is the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation. Studies prepared by the Bureau for the Applegate Division identified some 1,300 acres of new land that could be
irrigated with water stored in Applegate Lake. They have not,
however, been able to justify construction of the irrigation
project at this time. Nevertheless, neither the Bureau nor
the Corps believe that the irrigation purpose of Applegate
should be deauthorized and the water be made available for
some other purpose. We will, therefore, continue to plan for
storage of water for irrigation in Applegate Reservoir until
such time as the use develops or a change in authorization is
made in recognition of some other greater need for that portion of stored water. The presently listed project benefit
19
for irrigation is quite small and has very little effect on
project economics.
Question:
Will there be additional water rights available for new lands
or for increase to existing water rights?
Answer:
As discussed above, there will be additional water available
for irrigation. However, water from storage cannot be used
for irrigation until contracted for with the Bureau of Reclamation. Owners of existing water rights have a right to use
water from natural flow in accordance with State of Oregon
laws. Those owners do not have a right to use water from
storage until contracts are entered into as noted above.
Question:
Will the dam ruin the pastoral beauty of Applegate Valley?
Answer:
The pastoral beauty of the Applegate Valley has been undergoing changes since the early 1850's. First the gold miners,
then the farmers and ranchers, and more recently by land subdivision with resulting increases in homes, cabins, and
people. In addition to those changes there has been logging,
consumptive use of water from the river, and changes made by
the river during floodflows. Let us consider specifically
that portion of the valley that will be within the reservoir
and adjacent areas. Approximately 95 percent of the lands
within the reservoir area are privately owned and lands publicly owned touch the river along a couple of short stretches
only. In other words those lands are not open to the public
and they are subject to subdividing and home construction.
Lands adjacent to the reservoir are more evenly divided between private and public ownership. The public lands are
managed according to multiple use concepts but the private
lands are managed by the private owners in their best interests. With Applegate Lake project the reservoir lands and
lands adjacent thereto will be managed for public use. What
does this all add up to? In our judgment, and the judgment
of many, the pastoral beauty of the valley is undergoing and
will continue to undergo change and many of those changes
will result in less beauty and less possibility for the public to take advantage of the area. The project will preserve
one area for public use and even though we may not all agree,
that area will have beauty.
Question:
Won't the reservoir ruin wildlife habitat for the deer and
reduce the herd by 250 to 300 deer?
Answer:
It is true that some wildlife habitat for deer will be ruined.
The project will reduce the habitat of wild animals and wildfowl in the project area by about 1,500 acres, about 988 acres
20
from inundation by the reservoir; the balance from relocations
and other project uses. Most of this is considered to be
valuable winter range area for blacktail deer. According to
the Forest Service, a herd reduction of 250 to 350 animals
would be expected to occur if no mitigation measures involving
vegetation management on the approximately 4,000 acres of land
peripheral to the project were instituted. Plans for habitat
improvement on project lands and adjacent national forest
lands have been formulated by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries
and Wildlife and the Oregon Wildlife Commission in cooperation with the Forest Service. The preliminary plan for wildlife mitigation at Applegate has been reviewed and approved
by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Filling the reservoir will force the displacement of animals
in the area. They will be forced to share the habitat surrounding the reservoir with the animals already there. Some
natural depopulation will probably occur. Those effects on
some of the larger wildlife will be reduced in part by
elimination of cattle and other domestic animal populations
presently supported by the perimeter lands. Without the
project private lands may be gradually lost for deer winter
range if the land is developed for homes and cabins. We are
hopeful that the public lands adjacent to the reservoir can
be managed to supply the needed winter range.
Question:
What is the basis for benefits and costs used in the annual
benefits for the project functions?
Answer:
Benefits are a measure of what the project will produce if
looked at from a national point of view. The ground rules
are quite simple and apply to all categories of benefits;
they are:
a. Compare the situation with and without the project.
b. Include all costs and all benefits wherever and to whomever they accrue.
c. Use a discount rate to reduce all costs and benefits to
a common time basis.
Methods
The details of methodology used to evaluate benefits for each
category (flood control, recreation, irrigation, water quality,
and fish enhancement) are different but each strictly adheres
to the general ground rules listed abcve. The reason the
methods differ is that each benefit category poses special
21
problems in identifying the value of the project's output.
Benefits are measured as follows and as given herein are
based on 1973 prices and conditions.
Flood Control
Compare
against
Average
storing
the average annual
the average annual
annual damages are
floodwater reduces
flood damages without the project
flood damages with the project.
less with flood storage because
the frequency of damages downstream.
The comparison must include economic growth in the value of
flood damageable property during the project's economic life,
with the project and without it. Benefits are also claimed
for enhancement of lands due to reduced flood risk. These
benefits represent increased income resulting from lands being
put to more intensive use.
Recreation
Compare the average annual quantity and quality of recreation
use without the project to that with the project. The comparison must include increases (or decreases) in future boating, swimming, camping, picnicking, winter sports, hiking,
horseback riding, sightseeing, and similar outdoor activities
under both conditions. Projection of future recreational use
is based on consideration of regional population trends,
presence of other competing recreation areas, project access,
project amenities, recreation use season, and facilities to
be provided.
The value of a user-day is applied as described in Supplement
No. 1, Senate Document 97, which provides a range of values
and notes the factors to be considered in selecting a particular value. In the absence of market prices, values for
specific recreational activities may be derived or estimated
on the basis of a simulated market considering prices recreationists would be willing to pay and to actual charges being
made at other installations or on the basis of justifiable
alternative cost.
The above benefits exclude reservoir fishing which is included
in the fish and wildlife enhancement benefits. The U.S.
Forest Service is to construct, operate, and maintain these
recreation areas and these costs have been included in the
Corps' economic analysis.
22
Irrigation
Irrigation benefits and supporting data are supplied to the
Corps from studies performed by the USBR and represent the
increased net income of agricultural production resulting
from an increase in the moisture content of the soil through
the application of water or decrease in damage from drought.
Fish Enhancement
A comparison, by State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies,
of conditions without the project against conditions with the
project is used to identify the project's contribution to net
increases in recreational and commercial fisheries production.
The value of sport fishing is established on a user-day basis
as described for recreation benefits. The value of commercial fishing uses an average market value per pound of fish
caught commercially as the basic unit value for evaluation.
The project's net contribution to number of sport fishing
user-days and pounds of commercial fish caught during the
entire life of the project is taken into account. Replacement
of project-caused losses, (hatchery to replace lost spawning
grounds) is not included as a benefit.
Water Quality
The water quality benefit is based on the net contribution to
public use and enjoyment of water for all purposes made possible by virtue of a change in water quality. A comparison
of the downstream area with and without the project indicates
recreation would be more highly valued and more popular, and
public use would increase.
The same comparison also showed
would be more highly valued due
sites. The annual value of the
more intensive land use make up
that lands along the stream
to more intensive use as homeincreased recreation use and
the water quality benefit.
Project Economic Costs
Project economic costs include the value of all goods and
services used in constructing, operating, and maintaining a
project. Project economic costs are the sum of investment
costs; operation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and
induced costs as defined below:
Investment costs. - The value of goods and services necessary
for the establishment of the project, including: land,
23
easements, rights-of-way, and water rights; capital outlays
to relocate facilities or prevent damages; and all other
expenditures for investigations and surveys, and designing,
planning, and constructing a project after its authorization.
Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. - The value of
goods and services needed to operate a constructed project and
make repairs and replacements necessary to maintain the project in sound operating condition during its economic life.
Induced costs. - All uncompensated adverse effects caused by
the construction and operation of a program or project, whether
tangible or intangible. These include estimated net increases,
if any, in the cost of Government services directly resulting
from the project and net adverse effects on the economy such
as increased transportation costs. Induced costs may be
accounted for either by addition to project economic costs or
deduction from primary benefits.
Associated costs. - The value of goods and services over and
above those included in project costs needed to make the
immediate products or services of the project available for
use or sale. Associated costs are deducted from the value of
goods and services resulting from a project to obtain primary
benefits.
Question:
What is the status of the PZethodon stormi?
Answer:
The Siskiyou Mountain Salamander (PZethodon stormi) is a
species only recently described by herpetologists. Limited
collecting efforts have indicated that it may be rare or uncommon and that it occupies a small geographical range in the
Applegate area. In 1972, some members of the Sierra Club and
others pointed out the possible effects of Applegate Dam and
Reservoir on P. stormi. In response, the Corps contracted
with the University of Michigan to investigate the natural
history of P. stormi, its validity as a distinct species, and
its vulnerability to environmental changes brought about by
dam construction.
The "Salamander Study" is to culminate in a final report in
December 1974. No detailed information has been provided yet,
but the principal investigator, Dr. Ronald Nussbaum, has indicated that the known range of the species has been considerably
expanded. Results of the study will be available to the public.
Any proposed measures for management of project lands, or other
Corps proposals to reduce project impacts on P. stormi, will
be set forth in a supplement to the existing environmental
impact statement. The supplement will be distributed to the
public in mid-1975.
24
Question:
Does the Corps of Engineers recognize the effect of downstream
tributary inflows?
Answer:
Yes, all of its studies of flood control effects have taken
those inflows into account. Specific stage reduction figures,
for Applegate project operated as planned and authorized, are:
Flood
of
Without
project
1955
1964
1972
1974
18.0
19.6
12.4
20.4
At Applegate
1/
Project With
stage
project
reduction
13.0
15.2
7.7
16.2
5.0
4.4
4.7
4.2
Bankfull stage or the point of zero damage is 11.9 feet.
1/
Based on recurrence under present channel conditions as
reflected by current rating curves prepared by U.S.
Geological Survey
With a bankfull stage of about 11.9 feet, the 1964 flood crest
at Applegate represented about 7.7 feet of flooding depth
along the bankline, and lesser depths with increased distance
from the river. Thus, the 4.4-foot stage reduction would have
represented more than a 57 percent reduction in maximum depth
of flooding, and complete elimination of all flooding in areas
where depths were 4.4 feet or less.
Although those reductions represent considerably less than
complete flood control, the result is a very significant reduction in flood damages. As residents along the river know from
experience, total flood damages are not directly proportional
to depth of inundation. A comparison of damages along Applegate River with stages at Applegate is as follows:
Stage, feet
Discharge, c.f.s.
Damages, $ millions
14
16
18
20
19,300
26,400
35,700
48,700
0.6
0.9
1.7
4.4
In consideration of the above, it is obvious that complete
control of floods at Applegate is not necessary for achievement of major damage reductions.
25
Question:
Will mercury pollution result from construction of the
reservoir?
Answer:
In order to evaluate the possibility of mercury pollution,
the Corps has gathered information concerning the known
mercury production and prospects within the Applegate Lake
area. A field reconnaissance by Corps of Engineers' geologists
has been made. Available data concerning areas where mercury
has been mined within the reservoir catchment basin have been
reviewed. A paper which reviews the above data has been
drafted. The above information indicates that mercury pollution will not result from the construction of the reservoir.
However, this information currently is being reviewed. We
expect to have this review accomplished and a decision made
as to the need for and type of further studies that may be
required by the end of November. No irreversible action will
be taken on the Applegate project until we have satisfied
ourselves and State and Federal agencies which have expertise
in the field that mercury pollution will not be a problem in
Applegate Lake.
26
,I V ! I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
D
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
! I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
IV
!I
I!