|
|
| Bear Creek revisited |
|---|
| Can the problem be the answer?
A river divides them: A series Possible environmental impacts Part 4 |
|---|
By Russell Bassett
There was a time not all that long ago when Bear Creek, a little waterway that meanders through the city of Molalla, was a great fishing stream, according to local residents.
Jerry Holbrook was one of several townspeople who often fished the creek, regularly catching up-to 14-inch cutthroat trout; however, those days are gone.
For some reason, according to local residents, sometime between 1967 and 1968, the fish population in Bear Creek was completely decimated. No one knows for sure how or why that happened.
Some people blame a sawmill that reportedly drained a polluted pond into the creek, others blame pesticides and fertilizers from agriculture. Still others point to the city of Molalla’s wastewater treatment plant.
“(Bear Creek) got killed off by pollution of some sort, and to this day there are no trout in it,” Holbrook said. “The fish would have come back if not for something else going on, and the only thing I can think of is sewers.”
Regardless of what caused the fish kill, one thing is for certain: Decreased flow is a main reason why Bear Creek fish have not made a comeback.
During summer months, the head waters of the creek near Adams Cemetery are completely dry, and in the city limits, the creek is little more than a series of stagnate pools. By the time it flows into the Pudding River, it is recognizable as a creek, but even there, the water is swampy.
The city and citizens of Molalla are directly responsible for the lack of water flow in Bear Creek.
Because the city’s population has grown, water that formerly flowed into the ground table and thus into the Bear Creek aquifer, now flows into the city’s storm drains and infiltrates into the city’s wastewater collection system.
“A lot of creeks are not flowing as much as they used to be, but Bear Creek is more so,” Holbrook said. “There ain’t nothing there now, no fish, not even crawfish. Part of it is flow, but I think it’s the treatment facility, as well.”
Holbrook is worried that a similar situation could happen to the Molalla River if the city discharges its effluent into it.
“I don’t want to see the same thing happen to the Molalla River,” he said. “I don’t want it to end up dead like Bear Creek.”
Friends of the Molalla River, a group opposed to the city of Molalla’s plan to discharge effluent into the Molalla River, believe there is a better way.
“Bear Creek cannot accept increased discharge under current treatment methods, so the Molalla River has been chosen as a dumping zone for increased sewage discharge,” reads the Molalla Wastewater Plan Informational Publication published by Friends of the Molalla River. “Wastewater-engineering consultants have indicated that if our community were to re-prioritize the improvements (and) make progressive upgrades to the treatment plant now, we could avoid the financial, economic and environmental costs of discharging effluent into the Molalla River.”
Friends would like to see the city’s effluent cleaned up or “polished” even more than it is now, and then discharged into the aquifer around Bear Creek’s headwaters, using the already established irrigation pipelines. They believe Molalla’s effluent can rehabilitate the creek, restoring its native fish populations. They also believe rehabilitation can be accomplished without any more cost than what the city is already spending to upgrade its current treatment facility.
“There are no additional costs associated with these progressive alternatives,” reads the publication. “Savings to the community are available by developing a system, which meets the guidelines of the DEQ, thus making the entire wastewater plan eligible for low cost financing through grants, low interest loans for the Oregon Revolving Fund and no interest federal funds. ... Certainly savings will occur from the lowered operating costs of a repaired and improved wastewater treatment system (and) huge environmental savings to the entire community in the form of preserving the Molalla River and the restoration of the Bear Creek drainage.”
Friends members say constructed wetlands will provide the additional polish needed to allow for discharge into the Bear Creek drainage.
“What we’ve been looking at is a design that would use the existing plant as the primary treatment, and would use a constructed wetlands as a secondary treatment,” said Friends environmental lawyer Chris Winter. “What we are finding is that constructed wetlands systems provide for as good or better treatment and are much less expensive to install and operate.”
“Why compound one problem by making another problem,” Friends member Connie Derry asked. “Since we’ve already used Bear Creek — I don’t think it’s right that we’ve destroyed a stream — but why not avoid going into the Molalla River and use this as the catalyst to clean up Bear Creek and do it right. Have a wetlands, and then (the effluent) would be filtered before it ever gets there and it would be way cleaner than it is now.”
Many municipalities throughout the county have gone to wetlands as a partial solution to their wastewater treatment. Locally, Silverton, Mount Angel, Ashland and La Grande, among others, all have all constructed wetlands to help treat their wastewater.
“The potential for achieving improved water quality while creating valuable wildlife habitat has lead to a growing interest in the use of constructed wetlands for treating and recycling wastewater,” reads the Environmental Protection Agency document “Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat.” “While land intensive, these systems offer an effective means of integrating wastewater treatment and resource enhancement, often at a cost that is competitive with conventional wastewater treatment alternatives.”
The 200-plus page document gives 17 examples from around the country of successful constructed wetlands.
“The operational experience and research results reported in the available literature suggest that the growing interest in the use of constructed wetlands as a part of water treatment offers considerable opportunity for realizing sizable future savings in wastewater treatment costs for small communities and for upgrading even large treatment facilities,” reads the document. “At the same time, as is demonstrated by the 17 wetlands treatment system case studies located in 10 states ... these systems can provide valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife, as well as areas for public education and recreation. Clearly such systems create an opportunity to contribute to the nation’s efforts to restore, maintain and create a valuable wetland habitat.”
Several questions remain unanswered: Where would the wetlands be? How much would it cost to acquire the land? Would the wetlands clean up the effluent enough for the Department of Environmental Quality to allow discharge into Bear Creek? Will the city, which has determinedly stood by its plan to discharge into the river, look at a wetlands if the citizens of Molalla vote yes in the September election?
Holbrook, like many others in the area, hope the city will see constructed wetlands as viable alternative to discharging into the river.
“I grew up along Bear Creek and have had some good times in it,” Holbrook concluded. “It may never be back to what it was, but that sure would be nice.”
For more information on constructed wetlands, visit www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/watersheds/ cwetlands.html.
(Next in the series: Is a constructed wetlands in Molalla practical, feasible?) |
| Go to top. |
|
