05/24/2000 - Packet SUMMER LAKE TASK FORCE
MEETING NOTICE
WEDNESDAY MAY 249 2000
6:30 — 9:15 PM
Tigard Water District Building
Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham Street
The Task Force will interview consulting firms that have submitted proposals to provide
services for this project. This meeting is not open to the public.
6:30 PM Approval of Minutes
6:35 PM Review of consultant interview procedure—Gus Duenas
6:45 PM Interview of Inter-fluve, Inc.
7:45 PM Break
7:50 PM Interview of Tetra-tech, Inc.
8:50 PM Consideration of Recommendation to Council
Selection of a consultant requires approval of the Task Force's
recommendation at a Council Business Meeting. The Task Force may
direct staff to submit the Task Force's recommendation to Council. To be
considered at the June 13, 2000 Business Meeting, the recommendation
must be available to staff by May 26, 2000. For consideration at the June
27, 2000 Business Meeting, the recommendation must be available to staff
by June 12, 2000.
9:15 PM Adjourn
Next Meeting: As directed by the Task Force.
Report to Summer Lake Task Force
May 24, 2000
Statutory Framework
Efforts to improve water quality in Summer Lake are primarily regulated by two federal acts:
The Clean Water Act(CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act passed by Congress in 1972 required the EPA to develop a list of water
pollutants to be regulated nation-wide. Section 303(d) of the Act required each state to identify
those waters for which existing required pollution controls were not stringent enough to achieve
the state's water quality standards. The water quality standards are typically designed to protect
the most sensitive "beneficial use"within a water body. Beneficial uses include: water contract
1*W recreation, aesthetics, fishing, resident fish and aquatic life survival , water supply/drinking
water, livestock watering, and salmon spawning and rearing. Streams that do not support the
beneficial uses are listed as "water quality limited" for certain parameters is based on: evidence
of numeric standard exceedence; evidence of a narrative standard exceedence; evidence of a
beneficial use impairment; or antidegradation. The water quality parameters used in a 303(d)
listing include: aquatic weeds or algae,bacteria, biological criteria, chlorophyll a, dissolved
oxygen, habitat modification, flow modification, nutrients, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total
dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity.
The 1998 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Waterbodies listed Summer Creek for bacteria,
biological criteria, dissolved oxygen and temperature parameters (phosphorous and ammonia are
addressed in an existing total maximum daily load allocation). The criteria for listing included
the impairment of the beneficial uses of. water contact recreation, fish communities, and salmon
spawning and rearing.
Once streams are listed as"water quality limited", designated management agencies (such as the
Unified Sewerage Agency on behalf of urban Washington County Cities) are required to develop
a plan for bringing the water body back into compliance with the standards. Total Maximum
Daily Load(TMDL) allocations are the mechanism by which the State sets maximum allowances
for pollution into the waterbody, so that the stream will ultimately be able to recover and meet
the water quality standards. The TMDL allocations require the designated management agencies
(DMA's)to address human-caused impacts such as industrial and treatment plant discharges as
well as non-point source impacts such as fertilizer application, stormwater runoff, and
infrastructure that impair proper stream/wetland function.
Phosphorous and ammonia Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are established for the
Tualatin and its tributaries. The DMAs address the nonpoint source load allocation of these
parameters by complying with the Tualatin Basin DMA Implementation and Compliance Order
that was adopted by the Oregon EQC in June of 1998. Additional TMDL's are in the process of
being developed by DEQ for temperature, dissolved oxygen, biological critera, toxics,bacteria in
the Tualatin Basin. The phosphorous and ammonia TMDL are under review for revision due to
new scientific information.
While USA serves as the DMA on behalf of the cities,per the Agency/City Intergovernmental
Agreements, the jurisdictions are to work cooperatively together to address the water quality
problems of the local stream and the Tualatin River.
Section 404 of the CWA also contains provisions for protecting receiving waters and aquatic
habitat from adverse effects that could result from the improper discharge or deposition of
dredged fill materials. It applies to development and construction projects that could disturb
streams,ponds,wetlands and other water bodies. The city must adhere to Section 404
requirements and must obtain a 404 permit when it performs such construction activities. The
Oregon Removal/Fill Law, administered by the Division of State Lands, requires a permit for
activities that would remove or fill materials in streams, ponds or other"waters of the State".
Both this permit and the 404 permit are usually applied for through a single joint application and
would probably be required for any improvements to Summer Lake.
,tire
Endangered Species Act
With the listing of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead as threatened, the
Endangered Species Act applies to Summer Creek. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is responsible for implementing the Act as it applies to these species. NMFS is
currently proposing rules under section 4(d) of the ESA to protect these species. These rules are
aimed at protecting streams from development and are expected to become final by June 19,
2000. If NMFS finds that Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is adequate, a
proposed development will be found to be in compliance with the proposed rules if the
development is regulated by the Functional Plan. Metro is currently preparing to submit the
Functional Plan to NMFS for this approval. Any development of Summer Lake must comply
with these rules. However, the rules do not require any improvements to the lake.
err
The other regulatory portion of the ESA is the "take"prohibitions of section 9. A take is defined
as"to harass, harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap capture, or collect or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct"(16 USC 1532 (19)). A"harm"is an act that actually kills or
injures fish by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, spawning
rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering. Actions which may result in take include habitat
modification or degradation that harms listed species (64 FR 60727). Consequently, for the
Summer Lake dam to be found to be a"take"because it is a"harm"to fish would require a
finding, among others, that the listed fish were actually being killed or injured by the dam.
Local Planning
In order to provide a coordinated response from the Cities within the Tualatin Basin and
Washington County, the responsibility for meeting the CWA standards was delegated to Unified
Sewerage Agency in 1990. The CWA standards where to be met by complying with rules
promulgated by DEQ. These rules required USA to prepare a Nonpoint Source Watershed
Report to Summer Lake Task Force
Page 2
Management Plan for the entire Tualatin Basin followed by a plan for each subbasin within the
Tualatin Basin(OAR 340.41-470).
Nonpoint Source Watershed Management Plan
During February 1990,USA completed the Surface Water Management Plan on behalf of the
eleven cities of the USA service area and Washington County in fulfillment of DEQ
requirements for preparation of a Nonpoint Source Watershed Management Plan. This plan
resulted in rules that focused on erosion control and removal of total phosphorous from rainfall
runoff from new developments. These rules were codified into USA's design standards that
apply to all construction throughout the Tualatin Basin. Additional rules for other water quality
standards such as temperature are currently being developed by DEQ.
The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan
The Agency's subbasin plan that includes Summer Creek is The Fanno Creek Watershed
*r► Management Plan. It was completed in June 1997 and is being currently updated. In addition to
water quality, the plan also recommends action that would reduce flooding problems and
degradation of fish habitat.
The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan reports that in addition to not meeting standards
for the discharge of certain nutrients, anticipated standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature
also are not being met. Summer Creek's dissolved oxygen levels were below the water quality
standard 92% of the time and temperatures exceeded the standard of 64'F for 44% of the
samples,based on the limited sampling in the watershed. Among the remedies to correct this are
the watershed wide recommendation that there be no new in-stream ponds and that existing
ponds be made"off-stream by adding a berm, island or other feature to separate the stream and
pond during the summer."The Plan further recommends that additional islands be created in
Summer Lake to increase shade, that native vegetation be planted along the edge of the lake, and
other habitat improvements.
,%W
Summer Lake Management Plan
On November 12, 1996, Council directed staff to explore options to improve the appearance of
the lake. The staff report discussing proposed actions was presented to City Council on
September 23, 1997. Following the presentation, Council directed staff to request proposals from
consulting firms to prepare a preliminary lake management plan to improve the appearance of the
lake and appointed an Advisory Committee to guide the effort. The resulting Summer Lake
Management Plan-September 1998, recommended that the appearance of the lake could be best
improved by mechanical harvesting of the weeds, treatment with alum to clarify the water, and
the placement of mats on the bottom of the lake to retard weed growth in areas inaccessible to the
mechanical harvester. The alum treatment proposal was strongly discouraged by the Department
of Environmental Quality and has not been pursued further. Weed harvesting has been
completed several times with questionable results. Only one additional cutting is planned.
Report to Summer Lake Task Force
Page 3
Recent City Council Action
On January 25, 2000, continuing dissatisfaction with the lake led Council to establish,through
Resolution 00-05, the Summer Lake Task Force to guide certain improvements to the lake.
Conclusion
The City is obligated to achieve certain water quality standards in Summer Creek set by DEQ
through the Clean Water Act.
The Endangered Species Act may impose future restrictions on the continuing maintenance of
Summer Lake and partial removal of the dam. The City is taking a proactive stance on this
issue in an attempt to improve conditions and appearance of the lake. Action to remedy the
situation from both a water quality and endangered species act perspective now, will provide
greater flexibility in the design process. Future regulations will be more restrictive and may
limit the City and USA's ability to accept project design alternatives that are more balanced to
achieve a variety of objectives.
iAeng\greg\summer lake\task force fact sheet 5-24.doc
Report to Summer Lake Task Force
Page 4
i
Interview Questions
Summer Lake Water Quality Project
May 24, 2000
Consultant:
Interviewer:
1. Explain exactly what your firm would do to ensure that this project (10 Pts Max)
starts off on the right track and is completed in a timely manner.
2. What expertise does your firm possess that would enable your firm (10 Pts Max)
to deal knowledgeably with the contents and meaning of the Federal
Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts and the regulations of
the various governmental agencies who administer these laws.
3. Has your firm interacted successfully with each of the following (10 Pts Max)
governmental agencies: Environmental Protection Agency?
National Marine Fisheries service? Army Corps of Engineers?
Oregon department of Environmental Quality? Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife? Oregon Division of State Lands? Department
of Water Resources? Describe at least one project when the
interaction was successful.
Pagel of 3
4. Please describe your successes in restoring streams, lakes and (10 Pts Max)
wetlands.
5. Has your firm been involved in designing and implementing stream (10 Pts Max)
rehabilitation measures in urban streams?
6. Describe your experience with projects such as parks, which are in (10 Pts Max)
residential areas and intended for use by residents in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
�r.
7. Describe a project of your firm that included an aesthetic element (10 Pts Max)
such as a water feature, use of art or landscaping or an
architectural statement.
Page 2 of 3
8. Is the project goal of constructing a water quality facility that also (10 Pts Max)
contributes to the appearance of the park feasible?
9. In what way could the City contribute to the success of the project? (10 Pts Max)
Total (90 pts max)
Page 3 of 3