02/16/1988 - Packet CITY OF TIGARD
UTILITIES AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Tigard City Hall — Town Hall Conference Room
�^ #AA4-°
Members: MoREYN0LDS ^^' BARRETT .^/ C0CHRAN _�` IRWIN
JACOBS ~~/ W0��H W0�EN ^�'
____
Ex—Officio Members : MILLER ^~~ LEICHNER a^~� SCHMIDT
l . Call to Order and Roll Call .
2 Minutes of December 15 1087
. ^ .
3 Franchise update. _-~---
.
4. Recycling — Lion' s Club.
5. Tualatin River.
6. Other Business .
7. Adjournment. `
6r/3175D
4 r.,4,5
11
CITY OF TIGA M
January 28, 1988 OREGON
Mr. James Blake, President
King City Lions ;lub
12750 S.W. Prince Albert
King City, OR 97224
Dear Mr. Blake:
I must ask that you contact Schmidt's Sanitary Service on or before Feb-
ruary 29, 1988 about your recycling reporting reaquirements. You must
provide a reasonable estimate to Schmidt's each month on the amount of
newspaper you collected the prior month. Schmidt's is required by the
City and the State to report this information to the State. Failure to
comply will force me to revoke your permit and may subject you to a
citation for code violation.
Schmidt's has consented to allow you to collect newspapers in their
franchise area per the permit I issued you. Please contact Schmidt 's
immediately. If you have any further questions, please contact Finance
Director Wayne Lowry. The City wishes you well in your fund raising
objectives and hopes to continue to support your efforts. Thank you for
your cooperation and assistance.
Yours truly,
Robe W. Jean
City Administrator
RWJ:mkh
Attachment: Lowry Memo 1/15/88
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Ron Hansen, Codes Enforcement
Larry Schmidt
Gerry McReynolds
Wayne Lowry f
13125 SW Hail Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Bob Jean, City Administrator January 15, 1988
FROM: 14/—Wayne Lowry, Staff Liaison to the Utility & Franchise Committee
SUBJECT: Recycling by Nonfranchisees
As you recall, the King City lions club and Schmidt' s Sanitary Service have
been going back and forth on the issue of the Lions Club newspaper recycling
in the Summerfield area.
The franchise agreement states that it does not prohibit a charitable
organization from recycling provided such collection is riot a regular or
periodic business of the organization. It also indicates that a permit must
be obtained from the City Administrator. The franchise goes on to say that
such a permit will only be issued upon a finding that the service is needed,
and has not been provided by the franchisee. The City Administrator may
attach such conditions as he determines necessary and the permittee must
comply with those conditions .
This issue of nonfranchised recycling with the City has been discussed at
great length by the Utility and Franchise Committee at several recent
meetings. The franchised waste haulers operating within the City are mandated
by the ORS to provide recycling service on a regular basis and are entitled to
receive any revenue from recycled materials to offset the cost of their
mandated service.
The waste haulers have rioted that of all the recyclable material, glass, tin,
corrugated cardboard, and newsprint, nonfranchised recyclers only take the
profitable items such as the cardboard and newsprint leaving them with the
unprofitable items . They feel strongly that since they must operate as
mandated by the State and the City's franchise, the City should do what it can
to ensure that the haulers are able to get the revenue to offset their costs
of recycling. Another point that needs to be made is that revenue taken out
of the system by unfranchised recyclers increases the rate that Tigard
citizens pay for garbage collection because we evaluate our rates each year
based upon the haulers' profits.
The Lions Club situation is only one example of a much larger problem.
Schmidt' s Sanitary has consented to allow the lions Club to recycle from a
designated area within Summerfield. Schmidt' s was, however, under the
impression that the agreement between the City Administrator and the Lions
included a provision that would require the Lions Club to provide a customer
list and report to Schmidt' s the total pounds of paper recycled each month.
The written agreement between you and the Lions Club dated July 8, 1987 did
not include such a stipulation and since then, they have refused to provide
such information.
Recycling by Nonfranchisees Memo
Page 2
January 15, 1988
It: is the consensus of the Utility and Franchise Committee that the Lions Club
agreement should be amended to include a stipulation that they give Schmidt's
a customer list and r•epor•t the weight of paper• being recycled each month. If
the Lions Club is unwilling to live up to such stipulations, the Committee
feels that their• "privilege" should be withdrawn. In addition, the Committee
has made a motion to recommend that the City Administrator direct staff to
enforce the ORS and the Franchise Agreement regulations that prohibit
unauthorized removal of recyclable material within the City of Tigard.
cn/2758D
cc: Utility and Franchise Committee
EIMEN S OF NONPOINr POLLUTION SCXJRCE MANAGEME r IN THE TUAUVIN BASIN
J. Douglas Smith, Tualatin River Citizen's Advisory Calnlittee
N. Stan Geiger, Tualatin River Technical Advisory Committee
The purpose of the following discussion is to describe a systematic
approach to the development of a nonpoint pollution source management
program in the Tualatin River basin. Some technical details are simplified
slightly for clarity of the illustration. Although a number of examples
are presented here, this is not an analysis of nonpoint source pollution in
the Tualatin basin, nor is it a nonpoint pollution source management plan.
It is an illustration of how to approach an analysis that would provide a
credible basis for the development of an effective management program. The
exanples that are presented, nevertheless, are not unrealistic and tend to
indicate that substantive control of nonpoint source pollution and signifi-
cant resulting water quality inprovements in the Tualatin River are both
technically and economically feasible.
The elements of nonpoint source pollution and stormwater hydrology and
how these elements interrelate are illustrated in Figure 1. The distribu-
tion of rainfall beween surface runoff and infiltration to groundwater is
.determined primarily by land use and land management practices, and to a
secondary extent by rainfall patterns, topography and soils characteris-
tics. Nonpoint source pollution is associated with stornmater runoff from
the land surface.
Precipitation Evapotranspiration
r
Runoff il Moisture
Diversion, roundwater to
Wetland Table Management
Surface Groundwater Irrigation
Runoff Inflow Withdrawal
Inchannel
Storage
Upstream water _ Stream
Inflow Quality Outflow
Irtport
E�cpor t
FIGURE 1. SDORMWNI'ER HYDROLOGY AMID NPS POLLUTION INTERRELATIONSHIPS
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 1
Non int Source SsessjjMt
Some typical values for runoff coefficients and pollutant concentra-
tions associated with different land use categories are displayed in the
lower half of Figure 2. These values are annual averages derived from
national experience (e.g., USEPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program). More
detailed information is available for specific land management practices -
urban street maintenance, construction operations, timber harvesting, agri-
cultural cropping, livestock grazing, solid wastes disposal and the like.
1. METEOROLOGIC STATION: FOREST GROVE ELEV: 100.00
Precipitation: Events Dur In/hr Total Period T(F) Solar EvapTr
January 7.59 1:04
February 4.32 1.06
March 3.79 1.32
April 2.32 2.12
May 1.89 2.62
June 1.26
2.91
July .42 3.12
August •74 3.16
September 1.42 3.01
October 4.10 2.65
November 5.98
1.34
December 7.07 1.15
TOTALS: 105.50 15.50 .03 40.90 3.46 100.00 25.50
2. LAND USE CHARAL'!'E32ISTICS USE CLASSIFICATIONS (i)
Comm/Ind Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland Gwater AWP
Runoff Coeff , R .80 .60 .20 .50 .20 .10
Impery Fraction, I .95 .30 .10
TP cone (mg/1) .20 .38 .12 .10 .05 .05 .01 1
TKN cont (mg/1) 1.18 1.90 .97 1.75 1.00 .40 .05 5
TSS cont (mg/1) 69.00 101.00 70.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 .10 5
SOD cone (mg/1) 9.30 10.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5
TCu cone (ug/1) 29.00 33.00 10.00
TPb cont (ug/1) 104.00 144.00 30.00
TZn cont (ug/1) 226.00 135.00 195.00
FIGURE 2. TUALATIN BASIN METEOROLOGY (1) AND LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS (2)
The runoff distribution coefficient, Rv, is the volume of runoff
produced by one unit of precipitation falling on one unit of land area
(e.g., 1 acre-inch). The product of the runoff distribution coefficient
and runoff pollutant concentration is a unit nonpoint source pollutant
loading. Thus computed unit loadings for a number of example pollutants
and land use categories are displayed in Figure 3.
To estimate nonpoint source loadings specific to the Tualatin River
basin, the unit loadings in Figure 3 are applied to the specific rainfall
patterns and land use distributions in the Tualatin basin. An average
monthly rainfall distribution for the Tualatin basin area is illustrated in
the upper half of Figure 2. An approximate land use distribution by tribu-
tary and stream segment drainage area in the Tualatin basin is displayed in
Figure 4, with drainage areas located on the basin map in the figure.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 2
' 12. CONTROL OPTIONS
Comm/Ind Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland
Fraction retained .00 .00
Retention to Gwater .00
Removal in retention .00
Removal at source .00 .00
RUNOFF DISTRIBUTION
Impery runoff , R1 .90 .29 .10 .00 .00 .00
Pervious runoff , R2 .04 .42 .18 .50 .20 .10
Precip to Gwater, G1 .01 .28 .72 .50 .80 .90
Reten. to Gwater, G2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total runoff , Rv .94 .71 .28 .50 .20 .10
Total to Gwater , Gv .01 .28 .72 .50 .80 .90
UNIT LOADINGS, (CR)i
TP , (lb/mi2/inch) 27.5 39.1 4.8 7.2 1.4 .7
TKN, (lb/mi2/inch) 161.0 194.1 38.5 126.8 29.0 5.8
TSS, (lb/mi2/inch) 9424.4 10318.9 2789.7 362.3 29.0 14.5
BOD, (lb/mi2/inch 1270.2 1021.7 39.9 72.5 29.0 14.5
TCu, (lb/mit/inch) 4.0 3.4 .4 .0 .0 .0
TPb, (lb/mit/inch) 14.2 14.7 1.2 .0 .0 .0
TZn, (lb/mi2/inch) 30.9 13.8 7.8 .0 .0 .0
FIGURE 3. RUNOFF DISTRIBUTIONS AMID UNIT LOADINGS, NO CONTROLS
Annual average runoff and nonpoint source phosphorus loadings for each
land use category in each drainage subarea in the Tualatin basin are tabu-
lated in Figure 5 to illustrate these computations. Nonpoint source load-
ings for other pollutants can be similarly computed from the unit loadings
in Figure 3. Runoff and nonpoint source loadings can as well be computed
for individual months or by season from the rainfall data in Figure 2.
The results of the series of computations displayed in Figure 5 pro-
vide a systematic means to determine the relative distribution of storm-
water runoff and nonpoint source pollutant loadings within the Tualatin
basin by geography and land use category. It appears, for example, that
the first four largest nonpoint phosphorus sources are the drainage areas
of Dairy Creek, Rock Creek, Fanno Creek and Gales Creek, and that the
primary sources by land use are agricultural cropland in Dairy Creek and
urban developed land (commercial/industrial and residential) in the other
three tributary drainage areas.
Columns on the right side of Figure 5 are the area wide aggregated
surface runoff coefficients (Rj) and unit nonpoint source phosphorus load-
ings (CRj) resulting from the particular distribution of land uses in the
drainage area of each tributary or stream segment j. The ratios (CRj/Rj)
in Figure 7 are the annual composite phosphorus concentrations in the
aggregated runoff from each drainage area j. These computed concentrations
compare reasonably with annual averages of the phosphorus data from Tuala-
tin River tributaries and from the river upstream from major treatment
plant discharges. Summer seasonal instream phosphorus data are lower than
the annual runoff averages because summer runoff is diluted to a greater
extent by inflow from low phosphorus groundwater, i.e., winter streamif lows
in the Tualatin are mainly from surface runoff; summer streamf lows are
mainly from the groundwater reservoir.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 3
1U11IJ11'IN Ri%'ER NZIN NUIVOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
4. LAND USE DISTRIBUTIONS S(JU11RE MILES
CointOnd Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland Totals ELEV
SE94EI?r , RM to RM (ft)
Upper 1, 85 to 70 3.00 48.00 51.00 1000
Upper 2, 70 to 63 1.30 34.00 13.00 48.30 200
Scoggins Cr, 63 .50 2.30 42.50 45.30 1000
Middle 1, 63 to 59 5.00 5.40 10.40 180
Gales Creek, 59 2.30 4.00 7.50 61.40 75.20 1000
Middle 2, 59 to 45 1.00 2.00 .40 8.00 1.00 .70 13.10 150
Dairy Creek, 45 4.60 7.00 4.60 92.00 115.00 7.00 230.20 500
Middle 3, 45 to 38 .30 .30 .50 2.60 .90 .50 5.10 100
Rock Creek, 38 15.00 23.20 2.30 26.60 7.50 1.50 76.10 100
Lacer 1, 38 to 30 6.40 1.50 10.20 .40 5.30 23.80 100
Lower 2, 30 to 27 .20 8.30 3.50 .30 12.30 100
Lower 3, 27 to 9 1.30 .50 28.80 3.60 34.20 100
Fanno Creek, 9 .90 29.00 1.00 .60 1.00 32.50 100
Lower 4, 9 to 7 .30 2.00 .40 3.00 .20 .30 6.20 100
Oswego Canal, 7 .70 .20 .10 1.00 100
Lower 5, 7 to 0 .80 3.70 1.10 3.00 .90 .30 9.80 100
TOTALS: 25.20 81.10 12.80 234.30 304.10 17.00 674.50
��. +9 L�(r".� i! ,�'C !'-!� }a LC .sem _� 1)Y• -•�. �j`t ; ..e� � ..•-rt i. ,1•.�__
l �• '�"F. \.'l.. liy� �t.�i l• ' U r ^ t.� ..Y.2R�. A-i' I.JI ,•. {.��
_ - lr;l
/: ,1 _ l� �+?.2.. •�� w h1 f °r 1.1 li��� �l` j�s�.. ' ._' .j'I� � '� ,ate
�,},�^S3 •��.� �i Ia�1�11...�1�0. r .t. p�s�li� ", `'v r�.^ -� ..-1+'�I �. �� %•c -i-
�'�/ �i l�r<`,a'7•'��%'�� � '._�" �'�.1,(f/\•����•`•�-('\tL;4 fb'•�.J". 1` .Jrite_°t. •.ly ! I`,Y "�,..%�a�..�
r-lob
= ��-M• �'K'� s>. -i lad� I_' 't_ :f � ,�! 1 � 4 �'1?r.�:C.�•��-i! � ll�.Zt��/ _./_.. �7 1'
y�. 41 cN 1�''•yiu .�� 1 \ l � 11. '� f��� r. ,1�`l.� �..� Im r ,, � 1 �
!'�._.• i•r�l•l Iv.�s+° .:--! •.•..{_ ' .eu' j r.t •r tr Ftl ' IAA
.•t! `ylfl .� !Y"FI 'l'•.\_ �• � r �" �'r!:' ul'lv, ww
r!:`=fir _ 1'• `�., ♦f\-1� �♦. � �•.� 1�� !•i' f -1 �� �t.i�.._o� rr•d..! t 'T`�,y,,,
;fiplF.N 1 s r ) .'� /T'Z.,'.,.`:.\J i/: % � 'S 1Y. r '/ T•.��!
�_ rte- r. �F � �f� � - -T/-,;:. f1 •�' �.-eti x^ � .�t I _ _
`�i�al -
<,UG/'t.-:: V•`� M• L - •.�.'b Y-2;-f �� •, w „:
Siva Jti / :1 or. :► {:. .` Iz;, rej
r�� '�� '�l � .�r jLal Vii(_1+,� �'I„-�- •• t L -.c�.l..... � l ,/ �c --;J-` h� � �.•y1� ,
�r` ' l,.n.i•roL< :�.. .ac�r=-��- `r'.- 1•:1� 'S'.1�-� t .•� .1 -.S `'�'�_!.'L
1,1.-.,4.��I`=,��1' �r�:`•-" -.,t:�.-M' /�2;_��tC :'-h ,.�r,at i��,,,r -1 ,f, - �•r LPba_ � TI. _
>,li-r,..,
iw t r� � ✓�'11•�,rti�3 ,� 1 1,�ti. !�,: .il �/ � ( _� `J, 1 � """r��' � � 1�,
I°rr s S j t ! I'{
\
FIGURE 4. TUALATIN BASIN LAND USE DISTRIBUTIONS AND BASIN MAP
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 4
5a. RUNOFF DISTRIBUTIONS J=UAL AVERAGE CFS
Conu4nd Res id Open Crops Forest Wetland Totals Rj
SEGMENT , RM to RM
Upper 1, 85 to 70 .00 .00 .00 7.01 44.84 .00 51.84 .34
Upper 2, 70 to 63 .00 2.93 .00 54.35 8.31 .00 65.60 .45
Scoggins Cr, 63 .00 .00 .64 5.37 39.70 .00 45.71 .33
Middle 1, 63 to 59 .00 .00 .00 7.90 3.41 .00 11.31 .36
Gales Creek, 59 10.12 13.17 .00 17.51 57.35 .00 98.16 .43
Middle 2, 59 to 45 2.93 4.38 .34 12.42 .62 .22 20.91 .53
Dairy Creek, 45 16.26 18.50 4.74 172.49 86.24 2.62 300.86 .43
Middle 3, 45 to 38 .85 .64 .41 3.92 .54 .15 6.51 .42
Rock Creek, 38 42.60 49.28 1.91 40.07 4.52 .45 138.83 .60
Lower 1, 38 to 30 .00 13.59 1.24 15.37 .24 1.60 32.04 .45
Lower 2, 30 to 27 .00 .42 .00 12.50 2.11 .09 15.13 .41
Lower 3, 27 to 9 .00 2.76 .41 43.39 - 2.17 .00 48.73 .47
Fanno Creek, 9 2.56 61.60 .83 .00 .36 .30 65.65 .67
Lower 4, 9 to 7 .85 4.25 .33 4.52 .12 .09 10.16 .54
Oswego Canal, 7 .00 1.49 .00 .00 .12 .03 1.64 .54
Lower 5, 7 to 0 2.27 7.86 .91 4.52 .54 .09 16.20 .55
TOTALS: 78.44 180.88 11.78 401.34 251.21 5.64 929.28 .46
5b. PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS ANNUAL AVERAGE POUNDS P/DAY SURVEY DATA
ConWInd Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland TOTAL CRj CRj/Rj Annual Sumner
SEGMENT , RM to RM (N/1) (mJ/1) (m3/1)
Upper 1, 85 to 70 .00 .00 .00 3.78 12.08 .00 15.86 2.77 .06 .03 .02
Upper 2, 70 to 63 .00 6.05 .00 29.29 2.24 .00 37.58 6.94 .11
Scoggins Cr, 63 .00 .00 .42 2.89 10.70 .00 14.01 2.76 .06
Middle 1, 63 to 59 .00 .00 .00 4.26 .92 .00 5.18 4.44 .09 .07 .04
Gales Creek, 59 10.97 27.19 .00 9.44 15.46 .00 63.05 7.48 .12 .07
Middle 2, 59 to 45 3.17 9.04 .22 6.69 .17 .06 19.35 13.18 .17 .10 .08
Dairy Creek, 45 17.61 38.20 3.09 92.96 23.24 .71 175.81 6.82 .11 .13
Middle 3, 45 to 38 .92 1.32 .27 2.11 .15 .04 4.81 8.41 .14 .14 .09
Rock Creek, 38 46.14 101.73 1.24 21.60 1.22 .12 172.05 20.18 .23 .34
Lower 1, 38 to 30 .00 28.06 .81 8.28 .06 .43 37.65 14.12 .22 .27 .22
Lower 2, 30 to 27 .00 .88 .00 6.74 .57 .02 8.21 5.96 .10
Lower 3, 27 to 9 .00 5.70 .27 23.38 .58 .00 29.94 7.81 .11 .27 .20
Fanno Creek, 9 2.77 127.16 .54 .00 .10 .08 130.64 35.87 .37 .19
Lower 4, 9 to ,7 .92 8.77 .22 2.44 .03 .02 12.40 17.85 .23 .32 .27
Oswego Canal, 7 .00 3.07 .00 .00 .03 .01 3.11 27.75 .35
Lower 5, 7 to 0 2.46 16.22 .59 2.44 .15 .02 21.89 19.93 .25 .30 .31
TOTALS: 84.97 373.37 7.68 216.30 67.69 1.52 751.54 9.94 .15
FIGURE 5. TUALATIN BASIN RUNOFF (a) AND PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS (b)
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 5
NNoriW?nt S tea nntrnl Strategies
The "Total" values, Rk, CRk, CRk/Rk, at the bottom of Figure 5(a) and
(b), are the basin-wide average runoff distribution coefficients, nonpoint
source phosphorus loadings and runoff phosphorus concentrations, respec-
tively, based on the precipitation pattern at Forest Grove (Figure 2). The
outlines for a phosphorus based nonpoint source management program can be
approximated by the levels and locations of control necessary to reduce the
basin-average runoff phosphorus concentration, CRk/Rk, to some general
control objective, say 0.10 mg/1. Nonpoint source control strategies can
be described by one or a combination of four general terms:
1. fraction of initially available pollutant removed at the source -
pollutant loadings reduced, no change in runoff rates to streams,
examples: urban street cleaning, livestock wastes management;
2. fraction of runoff diverted to temporary retention -
rate of runoff reduced, no change in eventual pollutant loadings,
examples: dry diversion basins, culvert flow restrictions;
3. fraction of pollutant removed during temporary retention -
pollutant loadings and runoff rates to streams both reduced,
examples: detention/sedimentation basins, wetlands diversion;
4. fraction of diverted runoff infiltrating to groundwater -
pollutant loadings, runoff rates and runoff volumes all reduced,
examples: infiltration basins, land irrigation, "leaky" wetlands.
As a simple and arbitrary control strategy example, consider that
phosphorus loadings from agricultural lands are reduced 20 percent at the
source by any or several available 'best management practices" and that 20
percent of the agricultural runoff is infiltrated to groundwater by the
same or other practices. Consider also that 80 percent of the runoff from
all urban lands is diverted to temporary retention, 50 percent of this 80
percent infiltrates to groundwater and 80 percent of the pollutants in the
remaining 50 percent is removed during retention.
For this control strategy example, the runoff distributions and unit
nonpoint source loadings from Figure 3 are recomputed and displayed below
in Figure 6. Recomputed stormmwater runoff and nonpoint source phosphorus
loadings in the Tualatin basin are displayed in Figure 7. The control
strategy objective for the basin-average runoff phosphorus concentration,
CRk/Rk, is satisfied for this control strategy example, although the dis-
tribution of runoff concentrations is not geographically uniform. A more
cost efficient strategy would perhaps distribute nonpoint source control
efforts differently than the uniform application in this example.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 6
12. CONTROL OPTIONS
Cc m/Ind Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland
Fraction retained .80 .80 .20
Retention to Gwater .50 .50 1.00
Removal in retention .80 .80 .00
Removal at source .00 .00 .20
RDNOFF DISTRIBUTION
impery runoff , Rl .90 .29 .10 .00 .00 .00
Pervious runoff , R2 .04 .42 .18 .50 .20 .10
Precip to Gwater, G1 .01 .28 .72 .50 .80 .90
Reten. to Gwater, G2 .38 .28 .00 .10 .00 .00
Total runoff , Rv .57 .42 .28 .40 .20 .10
Total to Gwater , Gv .39 .56 .72 .60 .80 .90
UNIT LOADINGS, (CR)i
TP , (lb/mit/inch) 7.7 11.0 4.8 4.6 1.4 .7
TKN, (lb/mi2/inch) 45.1 54.4 38.5 81.2 29.0 5.8
TSS, (lb/mit/inch) 2638.8 2889.3 2789.7 231.9 29.0 14.5
BOD, (lb/mit/inch 355.7 286.1 39.9 46.4 29.0 14.5
TCu, (lb/mi2/inch) 1109.1 944.0 398.5 .0 .0 .0
TPb, (lb/mi2/inch) 3977.4 4119.4 1195.6 .0 .0 .0
TZn, (lb/mi2/inch) 8643.1 3861.9 7771.3 .0 .0 .0
FIGURE 6. RUNOFF DISTRIBUTIONS AND UNIT LOADINGS, CONTROL STRATEGY EXAMPLE
A more detailed analysis would account for changes in stream and
groundwater hydrology induced by the control strategy. In Figure 7(a), for
example, stormwater runoff is reduced on an annual average by 184 cfs from
the uncontrolled runoff in Figure 5(a). Much of this reduced storm runoff
will appear as increased groundwater inflow to the river during otherwise
low flow periods. The influence of changing runoff patterns on ground-
water, available streamflow and instream concentrations of runoff pollu-
tants is illustrated in Figure 8.
Control Technologies
Of the several technologies available for nonpoint source controls,
two that are consistent with the example control strategy, are diversion to
wet retention basins, and engineered wetland systems. To examine the
application of these technologies to a specific control strategy, monthly
rainfall and runoff conditions are of more interest than annual averages.
In the following illustrations, monthly Tualatin basin rainfall values from
Figure 2 and the area-averaged runoff coefficient for commercial/industrial
and residential lands from Figure 3 are used to generate monthly inflows to
the example control systems.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 7
Sa. RUNOFF DISTRIBUTIONS A4NUAL AVERAGE CFS
Conn/Ind Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland Totals Rj
SEGKENT. , RM to RM
Upper 1, 85 to 70 .00 .00 .00 5.60 44.84 .00 50.44 .33
Upper 2, 70 to 63 .00 1.76 .00 43.48 8.31 .00 53.55 .37
Scoggins Cr, 63 .00 .00 .64 4.30 39.70 .00 44.64 .33
Middle 1, 63 to 59 .00 .00 .00 6.32 3.41 .00 9.73 .31
Gales Creek, 59 6.07 7.90 .00 14.01 57.35 .00 85.34 .38
Middle 2, 59 to 45 1.76 2.63 .34 9.94 .62 .22 15.50 .39
Dairy Creek, 45 9.75 11.10 4.74 137.99 86.24 2.62 252.46 .36
Middle 3, 45 to 38 .51 .38 .41 3.13 .54 .15 5.13 .33
Rack Creek, 38 25.56 29.57 1.91 32.06 4.52 .45 94.06 .41
Lower 1, 38 to 30 .00 8.16 1.24 12.29 .24 1.60 23.53 .33
Lower 2, 30 to 27 .00 .25 .00 10.00 2.11 .09 12.46 .34
Lower 3, 27 to 9 .00 1.66 .41 34.71 2.17 .00 38.95 .38
Fanno Creek, 9 1.53 36.96 .83 .00 .36 .30 39.99 .41
Lower 4, 9 to 7 .51 2.55 .33 3.62 .12 :09 7.22 .39
Oswego Canal, 7 .00 .89 .00 .00 .12 .03 1.04 .35
Loser 5, 7 to 0 1.36 4.72 .91 3.62 .54 .09 11.24 .38
TOTALS: 47.06 108.53 11.78 321.07 251.21 5.64 745.29 .37
5b. PHOSPFIDRUS LOADINGS ANNUAL AVERAGE POUNDS P/bAY
Com 0nd Resid Open Crops Forest Wetland TOTAL CRj CRj/Rj
SEGMENT , RM to RM (r3/1)
Upper 1, 85 to 70 .00 .00 .00 2.42 12.08 .00 14.50 2.54 .05
Upper 2, 70 to 63 .00 1.69 .00 18.75 2.24 .00 22.68 4.19 .08
Scoggins Cr, 63 .00 .00 .42 1.85 10.70 .00 12.97 2.56 .05
Middle I, 63 to 59 .00 .00 .00 2.73 .92 .00 3.65 3.13 .07
Gales Creek, 59 3.07 7.61 .00 6.04 15.46 .00 32.18 3.82 .07
Middle 2, 59 to 45 .89 2.53 .22 4.28 .17 .06 8.15 5.55 .10
Dairy Creek, 45 4.93 10.70 3.09 59.50 23.24 .71 102.16 3.96 .08
Middle 3, 45 to 38 .26 .37 .27 1.35 .15 .04 2.43 4.26 .09
Rock Creek, 38 12.92 28.48 1.24 13.82 1.22 .12 57.81 6.78 .11
Lower 1, 38 to 30 .00 7.86 .81 5.30 .06 .43 14.46 5.42 .11
Lower 2, 30 to 27 .00 .25 .00 4.31 .57 .02 5.15 3.74 .08
Lower 3, 27 to 9 .00 1.60 .27 14.97 .58 .00 17.42 4.54 .08
Fanno Creek, 9 .78 35.60 .54 .00 .10 .08 37.10 10.19 .17
Lower 4, 9 to 7 .26 2.46 .22 1.56 .03 .02 4.55 6.54 .12
Oswego Canal, 7 .00 .86 .00 .00 .03 .01 .90 8.03 .16
Lower 5, 7 to 0 .69 4.54 .59 1.56 .15 .02 7.56 6.88 .13
TOTALS: 23.79 104.54 7.68 138.43 67.69 1.52 343.66 4.55 .09
FIGURE 7. RUNOFF (a) AND PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS (b) WITH CONIWL EXAMPLE
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin In----
Land Use: Open i Forest Land Use: Commercial
RVJ = 0.2 Rv 0.8
PJ PJ Rainfall
J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0
ORJ ORJ Runoff
M J S 0 M J S 0
"GJ nGJ Groundwater
Level
M J S 0 M J S 0
OJ OJ
Streamflow
M J S O M J S O
Water
CJ cJ
Quality
M J S 0 M J S 0
FIGURE 8. LAND USE INFLUENCES ON STREAMFF LOW AND WATER QUALITY
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 9
For both wet retention basins and wetland systems, pollutant removals
are directly related to the ratio of control system area to flow rate, or
to the ratio of control system area to runoff drainage area. This rela-
tionship is illustrated for suspended solids removal by wet retention
basins in Figure 9 and for phosphorus removal by wetland systems in Figure
10. In addition, pollutant removal efficiencies are determined by engi-
neering design, primarily through the internal geometries - length, width,
depth - of these control systems. The shaded performance bands in Figure
10, for example, are based on observed phosphorus removals from secondary
sewage effluent and stormwater runoff by geometrically different wetland
systems. Efficiency of phosphorus removal in these systems increases with
the ratio of length to width, L/W, of the path of flow through the wetland
vegetation. Thus, high pollutant removal efficiencies by relatively small
wetland areas can be achieved by appropriate systems engineering.
1.0 - Ar/AD
1/20
0.8
0.6 1/100
0.4
1/500
0.2
Basin Depth = 3.5 ft
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
MONni
FIGURE 9. SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL BY wET RETENTION BASINS
Assuming that phosphorus is removed in wet retention basins at the
same rate as suspended solids, the example control strategy would dictate
that the ratio of runoff drainage area to retention basin area should be
not greater than about 100/1. Figure 9 indicates that this ratio would
provide an annual phosphorus removal rate of more than 75 percent and a
summer period (May through September) removal of more than 95 percent. For
efficiently designed wetland systems (high L/W), a drainage area to wetland
area ratio of about 80/1 would provide phosphorus removal in excess of 80
percent annually and greater than 95 percent during the 5 month summer
period. For a very low L/W, or otherwise inappropriately designed wet-
lands, the ratio of runoff drainage area to wetland area may be as low as
10/1, i.e., 1 acre of wetland for every 10 acres of urban development.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 10
1.0
0 L/W = 75
°i 0.8
0.6
U) 0.4 L/W =.4
0.2
a (a) Av//AD = 1/20
0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
MONPH
0 1.0
R'
0.8
L/W = 75
0.6
0.4
0.2 L/W a 4
—7 (b) A,/AD = 1/100
0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
MONTH
1.0
0
°' 0.8
ci
0.6
0.4 L/W = 75
0.2
a L/W a 4 (c) A,/AD = 1/500
U
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
MUM
FIGURE 10. PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL BY WL•TLAND SYSTEMS
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 11
Contro�8vste_ms Costs
Higher treatment efficiencies in engineered wetland systems are pur-
chased generally by higher design and construction costs - more extensive
berm construction to increase internal flow channel L/W ratios. A rational
design process for these control systems will thus in theory and usually
involve trade-offs between construction costs and land aquisition costs.
This is not, however, always the practical case. The authors of this
discussion have designed wetland systems for stormwater treatment in Clark
County, Washington, to be located within existing stream channels. In
these fortuitous but not unique design situations, high runoff collection
efficiencies and naturally advantageous flow geometries coincided with
minimal relative costs of streambed easement aquisition.
Construction costs for wetland systems and wet retention basins in the
Tualatin River area are estimated in Figure 11. These estimates do not
include engineering design, contingencies or land aquisition costs. For
both of these example control systems, economies of scale are reflected in
the decreasing unit costs of construction as the individual control sys-
tems, or unit drainage areas, become larger. This is particularly evident
for drainage areas smaller than about 100 acres. For unit drainage areas
larger than 200 acres, there is relatively little difference in unit con-
struction costs.
For drainage area units of 100 acres, the construction costs for wet
retention basins at an Ar/AD ratio of 1/100 are estimated in Figure 11 as
$734 per acre of drainage area. Extrapolating this cost to 80 percent of
the 68,000 acres of commercial/industrial and residential drainage areas
from Figure 4, the total retention basin construction costs to satisfy this
control strategy example would be nearly $40 million.
For wetland systems at an Aw/AD ratio of 1/80 and an average unit
drainage area of 100 acres, construction costs are estimated in Figure 11
as $43 per acre of drainage area. Increasing the wetlands area to an Aw/AD
ratio of 1/20 would increase these construction costs to $134 per acre of
drainage area. For 80 percent of the total urban drainage area in the
Tualatin basin, the total wetlands construction costs for these two design
extremes would be about $2.5 million and $7.5 million, respectively.
onc> >G;on
This discussion is not intended to La a nonpoint source management
plan, but is meant by example to illustrate a systematic approach to the
development of such a plan. The examples described above do, however,
provide some perspective on some of the probable elements of an ultimate
plan, the areas of their feasible application and their likely costs.
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 12
250
(a) WE7LAI D SYSTEMS
2U0 ` �
7,
y \\1/20
14
150
8 �
N
tT 100
50
\/80
1/100
0
50 100 200 300 400 500
UNIT DRAINAGE AREA, Acres
5,000
(b) RETENTION BASINS
4,000 Ar/AD
� 1
3,000 1/20
w \��rn
0 2,000 \1/50
$ 80
1/100
1,000 \ _
0
50 100 200 300 400 500
UNIT DRAINAa AREA, Acres
FIGURE 11. ESTIMATED UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF EXAMPLE CONTROL SYSTEMS
(a) WETLAND SYSTEMS; (b) WET RETENTION BASINS
NPS Management, Tualatin River Basin Page 13
Environmental Quality Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Director
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No.
March 11, 1988 EQC meeting
Preliminary Draft, Version 5
for Committee Review
Request for authorization to hold hearings to solicit
public comments on proposed amendments to rules contained
in OAR Chapter 340, Division 41, Section 442 , Water Quality
Standards not to be exceeded, Willamette Basin.
1
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
BACKGROUND - PROBLEM STATEMENT 5
TUALATIN BASIN NUTRIENT CONTROL PLAN 6
Purpose of the Nutrient Control Plan
Proposed Rule Change
Waste Load Allocation and Load Allocation
JUSTIFICATION for the PHOSPHORUS STANDARD 10
JUSTIFICATION for the AMMONIA STANDARD 14
POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 14
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 15
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGESLDISADVANTAGES OF TARGET CONCENTRATIONS 19
A) 0.15 mg/1 Phosphorus as a median value
B) 0.15 mg/1 Phosphorus not to be exceeded
C) 0.10 mg/1 phosphorus as Proposed
D) 0.05 mg/1 Phosphorus as a median value
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES of USA CONTROL OPTIONS 21
A) Out-of-Basin transport
B) Alternative Technology
C) High-Lime Treatment
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED with NPS CONTROL 22
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 23
A) Flow Augmentation
B) Removal of the Lake Oswego Dam
C) Phosphate Detergent Ban
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 25
2
Figure 1
Algal Density vs. Total Phosphorus
6,3
6.2 ❑
❑ ❑
6.1
6
5,9 ❑ +-- Phosphorus Spike
\ 5.8
y 5.7
v
U 5,6 Growth response of Selenastrum caprir_omutum
v
Y
5.5 (E03
to differing concentrations of phosphorus in sewn e
a 5.4
0 5.3 effluent diluted with Tualatin River water
_rn
a 5.2
5.1 $== EDTA mike------ N Spike ❑ Test Sample
5 + + Control Sample
4.9
4.8 +
4.7
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28
Total P (Autoclaved) (mg/1)
Figure 2
Algal Density vs. Total Phosphorus
6.3
6.2
O �
6.1 p
6 7 ❑
❑
5.8
y 5.7 Algal (Selanastrum capricomutum) Density vs.
v '
v 5.6 Total Phosphorus as Described by a Family of Lines
y 5.5
5,4 For the Tualatin River Algal Assays
v
5.3
0
5.2
a ❑ First Assay
5.1 x
5 o Second Assay .
4,9
X Controls and spikes
4.8 x
4.7
4.6
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0•2
Total P (Autoclaved) (mg/1)
Fr ti_ar
❑
500.0 -
❑ ° Q❑
�
100.0 - �CEo ❑ ❑ ❑❑ -- ---r _
❑ f �~❑ — Cur'�e of Gest Fit
50.0 — p ] ❑ ❑O ❑ Ep ❑
3 ° ❑� ❑
0 15.0 — ❑ ❑ pp8❑ Cl
I
a ❑ly ❑ ❑ 13a p ❑ algal Growth vs. Total Phosphorus Goncentrotion
0
o ❑
Ambient Data From the Tualatin, Yarnhill,
U D
En
p® Marys, and Lower Willarnette Rivers, Surnt-ner 190'
131,0 —
8 Correlation Coefficient = 0.70
0.5 —
--Expanded Scale
0.1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.E 0.3 i
Total Phosphorus (mg%Ij
Figure 4
500.0 —
Expanded Scale of Algal Growth vs. T
T
Total Phosphors Concentration for T fi T
100.0 — T T
Selected strear^1s, Surnmer 1957 T
50.0
\ 95% Confidenced Interval of dota ---
v 15.0 — T Yr +Lr'
I T 1'I �, T T r
Y TT lrl r� T
a T -' Y
i 4//T'.
o / Y T T = Tualatin
�j
Y
M
1.0 — T Y T T
YIn
Y W _ Willarne-tte
0.10 —
0 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.16
Total Phosphorus (rng l)
gure 5
500.0
j j ��•y _ j 90'0 Confidence
100.0 --� ` �+ �s :1 G 'anterval -
50.0 - u � n :'� _.!:► "" �u� ,�
t C7
a 15.0
[,
CL HIGH ALGAL. GROWTH COT-4DIMO S
O
-� *.-_:_-_..-___--YI0DERATE GROWTH
n Trophic levels by Total Phosphorus Concentration
•o Ambient Datc From the Tualatin, Yamhil;,
0.5 Miarys, and Lower Willamette Rivers, Summer 198:"
-LOW GROWFH -
Correlation Coefficient -= 0.`12
t ;
I
0 0.? 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tota' Phosphorus (mg,. !)
>_< Other Rivers 'A Tuaiatin Kier
Figure
11
--Oxygen Profile
10
RCWTP DWTP
9
Averaged values from
$ Ambient and Intensive Surveys
For the Tualatin River
E' During the Low Flow Period of
June - September 1986 WQ STANDARD 6mg/I
0 5
c NH4+ 20---> NO + H2 + 2H
a�
i
c 4
0
v Total N
3
Ammonia as N ----- -=
2 ~ Nitrate as IJ
0 - -
(80.0) (60.0) (40.0) (20.0) 0.0
River Mile
o
- N£MALE�J-'Jil4FER ; ; �, ' WILLAMETTE IV R
WA51-IINGTON' ('0( 1)
l .r - ....�.�.....�. p _
EASTFORS
*V11
YfrCREE
{ r 11 % I '-.w•�
\'lj \WftM ��)
Spl itOUf:f yY R1V � ' `
IJ
sOi r t'h s K UAISPeY CREEK
V VA \i 1
_ v �
MeKAY CRtt�C
WILSON RIVE P� �71—
���,/�• � � j30CK� CREEK, .��� • f �\'.::mss ,\ ,�e 1 .1`� , _. :�r __ ;z
' Sma•iIne fr.r.•' COUNCIL CREEK -y� ..
•S`` '' �/. ; 1 _I._.. % 1 �.l__ 'UEAVERTOILCRE E,�� rw..1+ 2
.I
SCO r¢
1 � J/ BUTTERNUT
/ =•P`����•-J'� ~j •,„ , ( '�` ?ti e •� 1wI �S� CREEKS ` f •'� `
s,�}+1'1 ` r\., )<r\� '•ln 1 \� v 1 i �r��Jr� �.: 1 i •�, r:!• `SFANNO CREICK f
�•'•. :l. 116PEH 7UALA IN R71f£R��•• \. - 'y��LOWER TUALATIN RIVER I
L_ �S`�`' `' DRAINAGE BASIN
NOBT K..R ti'r 1
�� :S• �< _`L i '� ; BOUNDARIES
•: s j 1, �� ` S�' �1 SOURCE:WASH CO PLANNING DEPT,1902,
T _ •:..-�� _...G 1 Fa. . USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MSPS,
Irn„�/•\• ••••,• rf �.�.• O �, „�•. I I Tl/• WILLAMETTE RIVER VARIOUS SCALES i DATES
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARIES
\j f , 7 1 jj1 V •�r•. ; , l\ z1• lwl...q COW^.f�•el a. a •s _•.
(- �,rf EeF e,r E•ae ( ii
URBAN WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED OOUNOARY ���,''V' > 1�.�.. / +. j 1 frfe 10 fwE o- '.••.[ a� •t
q _ S co,n.,•n. ,
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ^„I,
F
0 AREAS BELOW 400' �AREAS 400'TO 1000' � ` E �j A�;, ) WILLAMETTE IGUR
TTE RIYER
'
atrofnYSr.r• I,.+.�c..:.'•:., .. ,
-
Aac" 2000•TO 3000-
AREAS 1000'TO 2000' Yr '1
Trask River —
I 7.75 cfs
1 _._ ... Ootat Cr.
0-9*.t 0—k.laps LAO '
i -•--.._ 120.h►0.n; ,..
a t/1.ao am 10 oft. 0.079m�
�Grove /1, d <bt i
1 _ _.._.. .____...
110.6 aft. n.nt myh. 2 Ow / Outflow
�.........-•-- —_-. _... ....__....._ . .__.. .... 25 cfo Municipal
— — 40 cfs Irrigation
rualatin a Boit
�I 1Lal*on 0 MW
S 1
Dairy Crook
o a.--my/�,sa�bt 100 aft. 0.051 mg/l. 47 Ibo
1 �110 ar
_^.._.-.T..._._.- 30 aft. 0.125 mg,/1, 10 the `�jlmky v
I L_
/f Jookoon Botlorn i♦
133 oft. 0.070 m9/1. 84 Vae -
! !Z0.a..0.12_Q^.164 a� i
j Wt+,er 6>•dp�
Tualatin Schematic
1•i0 ott. 0-103 m9/1, 77 The �
i
i
Peak Algal Growth Period Road Ra
I 140 ale. 0.103 m9/1. 77 tpo /A
(tCW1P ' -
f Showing flow. Total Phosphorus �a'"'in0'a" i PAQk�
1 Concentration. and Phosphorus 1D at°• °JOR "'°/' 70"Di `� 10.f.. °•�=-w/1. 17 a.�
Loads, for Summer 1987 ------- _..___
SabathSewerun Cr
I
170 aft.0.26 rnq/I. 230 The
,
I 170 cte. 0.25 .n-j/1. 230 IDt'
ranno G.
DYI rp — 4.0 oro. '"'n ....
a
Doon. Parry
t07 da. 0.37 ...°/1. 303
We
57 cfs to
r l _
------ccarrora _ _ Lake Oswego
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
EXECUTIVE SUMIARY
Areas where water quality standards are not being meet after the
implementation of technology-based effluent standards are said to be
"water quality limited" . The Federal Clean Water Act requires total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to be established on water quality
limited segments. A TMDL is the amount of a pollutant loading that a
water can receive without violating water quality standards.
In November 1985, the Department began an intensive assessment of
pollution sources and water quality in the Tualatin Basin. In
December, 1986 the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC)
filed suit in Federal District Court against the Environmental
Protection Agency to ensure that TMDLs are established for the
Tualatin River and other water quality limited waters in Oregon. In
April 1987, the Department proposed TMDLs for phosphorus and ammonia
in the Tualatin River. On June 3 1987, a consent decree was signed
by NEDC and EPA that requires the adoption of TMDLs for the Tualatin
River.
The proposed TMDLs are designed to address specific water quality
problems in the lower Tualatin River. The proposed phosphorus TMDL
is designed to reduce nuisance algal growth. The proposed ammonia.
limit will address the substandard oxygen conditions in the river.
Based on both lab tests and ambient water quality data, phosphorus
criteria levels in the Tualatin River should be set between 0._10 and
0. 15 mg/L. Ammonia values should not exceed 1. 0 mg/1 . These limits
should be in place during the critical summer low flow, i.e. June to
September. Therefore, the Department recommends the following
standards be established in the Tualatin River:
11 OAR 340-41-445(2) No wastes shall be discharged and no activities
shall be conducted which either alone or in combination with other
wastes or activities will cause violations of the following standards
in the waters of the Willamette River Basin"
(g) Total phosphate expressed as phosphorus (P) : =
A) As soon as practicable, but not later than December 31 ,
-1995, the EOC will consider the implementation schedule
developed by designated lead agencies and agreed upon by
the Department as satisfactory progress toward meeting the
phosphorus standard.
B) The median concentration shall not exceed 0. 10 mg/L and
no more than 10% of samples shall exceed 0. 15 mg/L based on
3
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
a sampling program approved by DEO for the period from June
1 to September 15 for the for the following:
(i) Mainstem Tualatin River between Elsner Bridge (RM 16)
and the mouth (RM (0)
(r) Ammonia-Nitrogen content shall not exceed 1. 0 mg/L from
June 1 through September 15 in the Tualatin River and
tributaries.
Note: proposed new language is underscored.
4
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
BACKGROUND - PROBLEM STATEMENT
ORS 468 .735 provides that the Commission, by rule, may establish
standards of quality and purity for waters of the state. Water
quality standards, contained in OAR chapter 340, were adopted by the
commission in December 1976. The Commission adopted revisions to
these standards in September 1979, in July 1985, added the nuisance
growth rule in March 1986, and amended the mixing zone policy and
toxic substances standards in August 1987 .
In March 1987, the Department presented an informational report to
the Commission proposing an approach for establishing Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) as a management tool on water quality limited
stream segments. The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act specified certain
requirements for water quality planning and management activities.
Among the requirements is one requiring TMDLs be established for
identified water quality limited stream segments. Water quality
limited segments are those waters where it is known that water does
not meet water quality standards, in either numerical or narrative
form, even after the application of technology-based effluent
limitations.
In December 1986, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC)
filed a suit in Federal District Court against the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that TMDLs are established and
implemented for waters in Oregon identified as being water quality
limited. Subsequently, NEDC filed a Notice of Intent to sue, naming
27 other water bodies requiring TMDLs be established. The Department
actively participated in negotiations among NEDC, EPA, and the U.S.
Justice Department to develop an acceptable approach in establishing
TMDLs and WLAs (Waste Load Allocations) to settle the suit. On June
3 , 1987, U.S. District Judge James Burns signed a consent decree that
requires adoption of TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs (Load Allocations for
background water quality and nonpoint sources) for the Tualatin
River, nine other rivers, and one lake (Attachment 1) .
In March 1987, the EQC approved the Department' s proposed process and
schedule for addressing the issue of setting TMDLs for identified
water quality limited segments. To start the process the Department,
in April 1987, prepared an issue paper proposing total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) for total phosphorus and ammonia in the Tualatin River.
These proposed loads would vary with flows as recorded at the USGS
gauge at Farmington (River Mile 33) (Attachment 2) . The issue paper
was distributed for public review and comment. Seven respondents
submitted written comments and the Department responded to those
comments (Attachment 3) .
The proposed TMDLs are designed to address specific water quality
problems in the lower Tualatin River. The proposed phosphorus TMDL
5
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
is designed to reduce nuisance algal growth in the lower river. By
reducing the load in the Tualatin, the phosphorus load to Lake Oswego
during the summer will also be reduced. However, the proposed limit
is not designed to control algal growth in the lake. The proposed
ammonia limit will address the substandard oxygen conditions in the
river.
Algal growth affects the aesthetic quality and beneficial uses of the
lower Tualatin River. Chlorophyll a concentrations routinely exceed
the action level used to indicate when phytoplankton growth may
create a nuisance condition. Although phosphorus is not the only
factor which stimulates algal growth, studies indicate that it can
have a major effect on the abundance and type of algae produced.
The Tualatin River below the Rock Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(RCWTP) routinely violates the dissolved oxygen standard during
summer low flow. The dissolved oxygen depression in the river is due
primarily to the oxidation of ammonia from RCWTP. USA is currently
installing improvements to correct the dissolved oxygen problems.
The Tualatin River occasionally exceeds the 100 mg/l total dissolved
solids (TDS) standard. There is no indication that these
exceedances affect any of the recognized beneficial uses for the
river at this time. The Tualatin technical advisory committee
recommends against establishing a TMDL for this parameter. Instead,
the TDS standard should be reviewed with respect to its relationship
to beneficial uses. Since the TDS standard applies to the entire
Willamette Basin, the upcoming Willamette Basin assessment provides
an appropriate opportunity for reviewing the standard.
TUALATIN BASIN NUTRIENT CONTROL PLAN
Control of both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients is needed to
protect water quality and the uses of the Tualatin River over the
long term. The subjective nature of aesthetic problems resulting
from algal blooms is complex. Nonetheless, decisions must still be
made which will protect the quality of the Tualatin River.
Purpose of the Nutrient Control Plan
The long-term goal of a water quality management plan in the Tualatin
basin is to preserve and enhance water quality and to provide for the
beneficial uses of the water resource. The water quality program is
implemented through a general management plan that includes water
quality standards to protect the recognized beneficial uses. Water
quality standards consist of two parts: 1) a definition of
recognized beneficial uses of the water resource, and 2) criteria to
protect the uses. Aesthetics, contact recreation, aquatic life,
water supply, and irrigation are major beneficial uses listed in OA-
6
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
340-4-445 for the Tualatin River. The goal of a nutrient control
plan is to restore and maintain water quality in the Tualatin River
to an attainable level which will provide for the protection of fish
and aquatic life and will provide for recreation in and on the water.
Excessive algal growth affects aesthetics, reduces water clarity, and
restricts contact recreation in the river. Algal blooms often
elevate the pH level which causes eye irritations for swimmers
(National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineers,
1972) .
Revisions in 1986 to the Water Quality Standards established a
trigger level for chlorophyll a of 15 ug/L. If exceeded, OAR 340-41-
150(2) states that DEQ must conduct such studies as are necessary to
describe present water quality; determine the impact on beneficial -
uses; determine the probable causes of exceedance and beneficial use
impact; and develop a proposed control strategy for attaining
compliance where technically and economically practicable. This
strategy can include standards for other pollutant parameters and
discharge load limitations. In addition, the rule states that the
chlorophyll a trigger value may be modified to an appropriate value
for that particular water body.
Arguments supporting all perspectives of algal growth have been
presented and discussed by the Tualatin Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) . This committee explored the use of chlorophyll a and Secchi
disk measurements as potential water quality standards. Chlorophyll
a and Secchi disc transparencies measure symptoms but are not
primary determinants of algal growth. Both produce highly variable
results because of the effect of •other factors, especially light
intensity. Furthermore, neither parameter is well suited for limits
in waste discharge permits. The Department feels that both
parameters should be included in an evaluation program and that
action levels are appropriate. However, chlorophyll a and Secchi
disc measurements are not practical parameters for regulatory
standards.
Laboratory algal assays and intensive surveys conducted on Tualatin
River have confirmed phosphorus to be the controlling nutrient.
Thus, phosphorus standards and controls are proposed for the Tualatin
River. These standards are designed to deal with algal growth
problems and to protect the aesthetic quality and recreational uses
of the river.
Proposed Rule Change
The EQC recognizes that it will take time to plan, arrange financing,
and implement control measures before the phosphorus standard can be
achieved in the Tualatin River. Accordingly the Department will
assist the process by:
7
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
. providing technical assistance to local agencies and
individuals in establishing compliance schedules to achieve
the standard,
. modifying NPDES permits to incorporate compliance
schedules and other conditions as appropriate, and
. reporting to the EQC on the agreed upon compliance
schedule.
Based on both lab tests and ambient water quality data, phosphorus
criteria levels in the Tualatin should be set somewhere between 0. 05
and 0. 15 mg/L. These limits should be in ,place during the critical
algal growth season, i.e. June to September. There should -be
recognition of the inherent variability of water quality
measurements. The Department, therefore, recommends the following
standard be established in the Tualatin for control of phosphorus to
prevent nuisance algal growth:
If OAR 340-41-445(2) No wastes shall be discharged and no
Activities shall be conducted which either alone or in
combination with other wastes or activities will cause
violations of the following standards- in the waters of the
Willamette River Basin"
(q) _ Total phosphate expressed as phosphorus (P) • The
median concentration shall not exceed 0. 10 ma/L and no more
than 101 of samples shall exceed 0. 15 mg/L based on a
sampling program approved by DEO for the period from June 1
to September 15 for the following:
(i) Mainstem Tualatin River between Elsner Bridge (RM 16)
and the mouth (RM 0)
(r) Ammonia-Nitrogen content shall not exceed 1. 0 mg/L from
June 1 through September 15 in the Tualatin River and
tributaries.
Note: proposed new language is underscored.
Waste Load Allocation and Load Allocation
The phosphorus load allocation for the Tualatin River is based on the
ambient concentration of total phosphate in the mainstem Tualatin
upstream from where point sources are known to exist. The median
concentration during the summer of 1987 was 0. 07 mg/1. This level
was applied to the Tualatin River, and all tributaries entering the
river above River Mile 35 to determine the upstream Load allocation.
Table 1 defines the load allocation (LA) for background and upstre,---
8
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
sources, the waste load allocation (WLA) for USA point sources by
flow, and provides an estimate of the time-of-travel (TOT) for the
Tualatin River between Elsner and Highway 99.
Table 1
Illustration of flow related load allocation (LA) ,
wasteload allocation (WLA) , and total maximum daily load (TMDL) in
pounds per day of phosphorus in the lower Tualatin River.
Flow LA WLA TMDL : TOT (hours)
CFS at Upstream of USA In the: Elsner to
Farmington WTP 20 MGD River : to HGWY 99
150 45 + 36 = 81 : 77 . 6
175 54 + 40 = 94 : 70 . 3
200 64 + 44 = 108 : 64 . 8
225 73 + 48 = 121 : 59 . 5
250 83 + 52 = 135 : 54 . 8
Note: The TMDL is based on 0. 1 mg/l total P , is equal to the sum of
the LA and WLAs, and applies to the Tualatin River from Elsner to the
mouth
TOT is the Time-of-Travel for the 4 .7 miles from Elsner Bridge to
the Highway 99 bridge.
The allocations presented in table 1 assume no precipitation of
phosphorus or other forms of assimilation in the stream. Under
existing conditions of high phosphorus loads there is significant
assimilation of phosphorus downstream from the point sources. Since
background concentrations are approaching the 0. 10 mg/l target level ,
the proportion of phosphorus assimilated would be expected to be much
less as phosphorus concentrations are reduced.
The time-of-travel estimates presented in table 1 were determined by .
using Mannings equation with data on cross-sectional profiles under
different flows and time-of-travel information collected by USA in
July, 1987. Travel time can affect the abundance of algae.
Phytoplankton, or suspended algae, are transported in the water
column. Increased travel time between any two points will increase
the amount of time algae have to grow and multiply in that section of
the river. Conversely, decreasing travel times will reduce the time
algae have to grow and multiply within a section of river.
Under the flow conditions presented in Table 1, it takes between 2 . 3
and 3.3 days for water to travel the 4.7 miles between Elsner and
9
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
Highway 99. This is adequate time, given the proper ambient
conditions, to support algal growth. Decreasing TOT by increasing
flow therefore, not be expected to reduce the need for phosphorus
control. Loss of a significant amount of flow may, however, act to
increase the abundance of algae in the lower river.
Similar concerns have been raised regarding the effect introducing
lower temperature water through flow augmentation and what effect
this may have on algal growth. In general, lowering water
temperature below optimum growth temperature for algal will lower
the algal growth rate. However, given the slow moving nature of the
Tualatin River it is unlikely that flow augmentation would
effectively lower summer water temperatures so that the algal growth
rate would be reduced.
Many potential load allocations exist that could achieve the required
TMDL. A procedure has been developed that allows for adjustments in
the TMDL and WLAs if ambient conditions in the Tualatin change.
Ambient conditions could change if additional dilution water becomes
available for USA, if background concentrations of phosphorus are
reduced, or if nonpoint source controls are implemented.
The procedure for assessing various options is described in
Attachment 4. Using this procedure, Table 2 was developed. Table
illustrates a potential distribution of phosphorus loads assuming
that further nonpoint source controls are implemented and some flow
augmentation is available.
Table 2
Illustration of flow dependent potential load allocation (LA) ,
waste load allocation (WLA) and TMDL, in lbs/day of P,assuming that
further NPS controls are implemented for the Tualatin River Basin
low Dairy Rock Upper Fanno USA TMDL**
CFS Creek Creek Tualatin Creek WLA In the
* River
175 13 8 38 2 46 94
200 13 8 43 3 54 108
225 13 8 49 2 63 122
250 13 8 54 3 71 136
* Upper Tualatin at Rood Road includes Dairy Creek Drainage
** The TMDL is the sum of RCWTP + Fanno Creek + Rock Creek
+ Upper Tualatin.
10
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
JUSTIFICATION for PHOSPHORUS STANDARD.
The phosphorus TMDL is based on an ambient target concentration.
This concentration was determined through controlled laboratory algal
assays, assessing ambient Tualatin data in comparison with similar
streams, and by literature review.
The algal assay is the standard method for determining the potential
of natural waters to support algal growth. The test may also be used
to define critical limiting concentrations of nutrients. The assay
is based on the premise that the maximum growth is proportional to
the amount of a nutrient which is present and biologically available
in minimum quantity relative to the growth requirements of the alga
being tested. This concept has been thoroughly documented in the
literature for critical requirements of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
other crucial elements.
Two algal assays have been completed using Tualatin River water. In
these assays differing amounts of phosphorus was removed from Durham
sewage effluent and then the effluent was spiked to background
Tualatin River water. Results of these assays are illustrated in
Figure 1. Figure 2 uses a family of lines to illustrate the
relationship between algal growth and total phosphorus. At total
phosphorus concentrations below 0. 15 mg/l, algal growth appears to
decrease as total P decreases. The results also show that a target
level of 0. 10 mg/1 total phosphorus would be required to
significantly reduce algal growth in the Tualatin.
The assumption that phosphorus limits algal growth under 0. 10 mg/l
was tested during the first two assays by spiking low phosphorus
control samples with nitrogen; EDTA, a chelating agent which acts to
increase micronutrients; and phosphorus. Control samples spiked with
phosphorus resulted in increased algal growth, while those spiked
with nitrogen or EDTA did not result in significant algal growth.
These results indicate that phosphorus acted as a limiting nutrient
for algal growth in these tests at concentrations below 0. 10 mg/1 .
In contrast, for the third assay, background Tualatin River water was
spiked with differing volumes of treated effluent from the Durham
treatment plant. This test was designed to show what productivity
might be with different amounts of sewage in the Tualatin. Test
dilutions ranged from no effluent to 6 percent effluent. These
dilutions are much less than the 25 percent effluent in the lower
Tualatin at the time the samples were collected. The test dilutions
showed an apparent nitrogen limitation. This condition does not
generally occur in the Tualatin. Unlike the test alga used in the
assay, many of the alga species naturally present in the Tualatin can
"fix" atmospheric nitrogen and would not be nitrogen limited.
Although this test indicated a reduction in growth potential as
11
committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29 , 1987
effluent is removed, a similar pattern may not be seen under natural
conditions where the algae can fix nitrogen.
Algal assays have been used to determine regulatory target
concentrations, to assess wasteload allocations, and to accurately
determine the limiting nutrient status of waters. Many researchers
have noted a high degree of correlation between laboratory algal
assays and the trophic levels of waters. However, there are concerns
with the application of laboratory algal assays to field
interpretations. The two major concerns are the growth conditions
under laboratory control and the form of phosphorus measured in the
algal assay.
Optimum growth conditions are maintained in the lab throughout the
14-day test. These conditions would not always occur in the field.
Therefore, algal assay results should be interpreted as the optimum
growth potential.
Due to laboratory procedures, the form of total phosphorus in the
assay may be more biologically available than the total phosphorus
measured in the field. Total phosphorus represents the pool of
available phosphorus and is therefore used in algal assays and field
investigations. Ortho-phosphorus represents the available dissolved-
phosphorus that has not been consumed by algae. By autoclaving
samples prior to the tests, some component forms of total phosphorus
break down making them more biologically available. This could lead
to an underestimate of the critical limiting concentration of
phosphorus. The samples are not filtered and, therefore, should not
be confused with dissolved ortho-phosphorus.
Field data collection focused on describing the relationship between
algal growth and total phosphorus concentration in the Tualatin.
Additional data is also available to compare the Tualatin to other
streams with similar basin characteristics. This information is
illustrated in Figure 3 . The expanded scale in Figure 4 shows the
data points for each river. The two lines in the expanded scale
represent the confidence interval for those data points presented.
Results of the field investigations correspond well with the results
of the algal assays. An apparent break point occurs near a
phosphorus concentration of 0. 15 mg/l. Above this point, algal
growth is only slightly dependent on phosphorus concentration. Algal
growth may be limited by self shading or other factors when
phosphorus is above 0. 15 mg/1. Below this concentration algal growth
is limited by phosphorus.
The 0. 15 mg/l break appears to be the border between high enrichment
or high algal growth, and moderate algal growth conditions (Figure
5) . The method for describing the zones has been tested and
documented in literature. The zones described are specific for the
12
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
data presented. For example, phosphorus concentrations just above
0.15 mg/l supported algal growths which produced chlorophyll a of
over 100 ug/1. These extreme nuisance algal blooms were not found
to occur when phosphorus was below 0. 15 mg/1. Therefore, 0. 15 mg/l
appears to be the maximum concentration below which nuisance growths
can be prevented.
One reason for the dramatic response of algae in the high growth
region is the ability of algae to store excess phosphorus. Under
conditions of excess phosphorus, algae can store phosphorus until
physical conditions, such as available sunlight, permit growth to
occur. One concern with a 0. 15 mg/l total phosphorus target level is
that it is very close to the 0. 16 mg/l where extreme growths appear
to occur. Caution should be used in interpreting 0. 15 mg/l total
phosphorus as the upper limit when little ambient data at this
concentration is available.
The variation in data points seen in these figures is common for
ambient data analysis. This natural variation makes it difficult to
predict exactly the chlorophyll a concentration for a given
phosphorus concentration. We can, however, as illustrated in Figures
4 and 5, define a range. We can be certain 90% of the time that the
average chlorophyll a concentration will fall between the two lines
in Figure 5. We can be confident that a 0. 10 mg/l total phosphorus
concentration will limit nuisance algal conditions as defined in the
nuisance phytoplankton growth rule, providing that flow in the lower
Tualatin River is not greatly reduced.
Much of the variation in the data occurs at total phosphorus
concentration above 0. 15 mg/1. As discussed earlier this may be due
to other physical factors controlling algal growth in the presence of
excess phosphorus. The expanded view covers range of phosphorus
where it may be expected to control algal growth. Confidence
intervals drawn for this range indicate that a 0. 10 mg/l target level
will result in average chlorophyll a concentrations which meet the
nuisance phytoplankton growth rule. A 0. 15 mg/l total phosphorus
target level appears to prevent extreme algal growths but would be
expected to result in chlorophyll a concentration in excess of the
nuisance phytoplankton growth rule.
The 0. 10 mg/l target concentration forms the basis for EPA' s
recommended criteria and is a generally accepted goal for the
prevention of nuisance algal conditions in streams. The approach of
using algal assays and empirical data analysis for eutrophication
studies is well documented. The response of phosphorus control has
been found to be predictable with respect to trophic change.
Therefore, a total P median concentration of 0. 10 mg/l and a 90th
percentile (90% of points below) of 0. 15 mg/l P are proposed for
target concentrations to base the TMDL.
13
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
JUSTIFICATION for AMMONIA STANDARD
The Tualatin River downstream from Rock Creek Waste Treatment Plant
routinely violates the dissolved oxygen standard during summer low
flow. Early in the study, ammonia nitrification was defined as the
significant source of oxygen demand in the Tualatin River. The Rock
Creek Waste Treatment Plant is the primary source of ammonia to the
Tualatin River. The target concentration for ammonia was determined
through intensive field investigations and controlled laboratory
experiments.
Intensive surveys conducted during the summer of 1986 to describe
oxygen demand are illustrated in Figure 6. The oxygen sag below
RCWTP is directly related to the conversion of ammonia to nitrate, a
process which consumes oxygen.
Laboratory tests were conducted to quantify the components of the
total oxygen demand. These components include the ultimate
nitrogenous and organic demands, and sediment oxygen demands.
Results of these tests verified the field investigations.
Results of these tests are used to define 1.0 mg/l of ammonia below
RCWTP, at Farmington, as the target concentration. The consensus o.
the Technical Advisory Committee is that the ammonia controls should
solve the dissolved oxygen standards violations in the Tualatin. The
Rock Creek Waste Treatment Plant began construction of facilities
during the summer of 1987 to reduce ammonia loads to the river. To
meet waste discharge limitations specified in RCWTP' s NPDES permit,
these facilities must be in operation by November 1, 1989 .
POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
There are eight National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits and five Water Pollution Control Facilities Permits
(WPCF) issued by the Department to municipal and industrial
facilities. The WPCF permits do not allow discharge to waters of the
state. Two NPDES permits, for Tektronix INC. , and Intel Corporation,,
are for industrial waste discharges to Beaverton Creek. The
remaining permits are for USA municipal waste treatment plants.
Only two of the USA Plants, at Durham and Rock Creek, discharge
during the critical low summer flows. These plants are the major
point sources for phosphorus and ammonia loads and, therefore, are
the focus of point source control options.
Some management alternatives have been presented by USA to two
advisory committees for the Tualatin Project. Table 3 summarizes a
range of the alternatives and estimated capital and operational costs
for summer months only for the USA plants to meet the TMDL
14
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
requirements (36 lbs/day) . The costs are at 40 MGD for current USA
operation. USA's flows are projected to increase from Durham and
RCWTP to about 60 MGD by the year 2005. In addition, USA projects
will need about $40, 000, 000 worth of improvements to Durham and RCWTP
to provide for the increased flows.
Table 3
Options and associated costs for USA plants
to meet a 36 lbs/day waste load allocation
flow Capitol O&M Present Increase Total
Option MGD Cost Cost Worth In User User
$ Mill $ Mill $ Mill Charge Charge
$ / Mo.
Land irrigation 40 62 3 . 7 100 7 . 00 18 . 75
both plants 60 94 5. 6 150 10. 00 21. 75
Out of basin 40 82 2 .4 104 7 . 31 19 . 06
to Columbia 60 120 3 .4 151 10.75 22 . 50
RCWTP Columbia 40 48 1. 3 56 4 . 20 15. 95
DWTP to Will. 60 61 1.9 79 5. 70 17 . 45
RCWTP Columbia 40 55 2 . 2 75 5. 30 17 . 05
DWTP High lime 60 72 3 . 6 106 7 .50 19. 25
*High Lime Both 40 54 2. 6 78 5. 60 17 . 35
irrigate > 40 60 85 4 . 5 128 9. 10 20.85 11
* Does not include sludge disposal costs. A 40 MGD high lime plant
will use about 40 to 50 tons of raw lime a day and produce 80
tons or 200 cubic yards of chemical sludge in addition to the 175
cubic yards of biological sludge
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Nonpoint source pollution results from diverse land use activities
that are not regulated as point sources. In practical terms,
nonpoint sources do not result from a discharge at a specific
location (e.g. a pipe) but generally from diffuse runoff associated
with urban, agricultural, and numerous other land use activities.
The Department has been investigating nonpoint pollution sources for
a number of years. This activity has centered around the
identification of problems, the development of needed controls, and
the implementations of controls. The problem identifications ranged
from very intensive monitoring efforts that sampled storm events to
more general assessments of adverse impact based on professional
15
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
judgement. The control programs were based on resource management
systems that utilized best management practices (BMPs) as the means
to prevent or correct the problems. BMPs are defined as a
conservation practice or system of conservation practices which when
installed protects water quality from a particular nonpoint source
activity. Practices were consequently developed for various nonpoint
source categories such as agriculture, forestry, and urban runoff.
Once the practices were identified, the Department worked with
specific state and local agencies to determine what agency would be
responsible for implementing the control program. In the forestry
area the State Department of Forestry was designated as the agency
responsible for implementing the BMPs on state and private lands.
During the late 1970s and early 1980 's, several studies were
conducted in Washington County. At the completion of these planning
studies the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District
was designated as the agricultural nonpoint source control management
agency.
The Department during the past 18 months has reviewed the nonpoint
source issues in the Tualatin Basin in an attempt to assess the
pollution loadings from these sources. This review has indicated
that a renewed effort is needed to control nonpoint source pollution
in Washington County. Phosphorus concentration in the mainstem
Tualatin above RCWTP is near the 0. 10 mg/l target concentration.
This concentration is used to define the TMDL and associated load
allocations. Therefore, nonpoint source control strategies will
greatly affect the options available to USA.
Land use patterns are a major factor influencing water quality and
nonpoint loads of pollution. Figure 7 from the 1982 Washington
County Comprehensive Plan, defines the major subbasins in the
Tualatin Basin. Fanno Creek, Beaverton Creek, Butternut Creek, lower
Rock Creek, and sections of the lower Tualatin are predominantly
urban basins. Upper Rock Creek, sections of the lower Tualatin, and
the Dairy Creek system are predominantly influenced by agriculture.
Gales, Scoggins, and the upper Tualatin drainages are dominated by
forest practices.
The ambient sampling program, by both USA and DEQ, was designed to
determine the load of pollutants discharged by the major subbasins to
the mainstem Tualatin. Figure 8 provides a schematic of the
phosphorus discharge from the major basins and existing loads in the
Tualatin during summer low flow conditions. Both agriculture and
urban dominated basins are sources of phosphorus which should be
reduced by nonpoint source controls. Agricultural dominated
subbasins show higher phosphorus concentrations than forest dominated
basins. However, urban basins have 2 to 3 times the phosphorus
16
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
concentration as rural basins. This large increase illustrates the
need for urban nonpoint source controls.
Land management practices and land use planning therefore play a
major role in the overall water quality protection program for the
Tualatin River. At the present time only very general methodologies
exist for estimating pollutant loads from changing land use
patterns. These approaches need to be refined and applied to the
Tualatin Basin to quantify the impact of land management practices
and land use planning decisions on water quality.
Nonpoint source control strategies need to address the contaminant
contribution from urban runoff and agriculture. Strategies may
include: defining and controlling undefined sources; applying best
management practices within resource management systems, off-site
controls, and on-site controls. The selection of one or more
strategies depends on the nature of the problem.
For example, 20 to 30 pounds per day of phosphorus enters the
mainstem Tualatin between river Jackson Bottom Bridge and Mitner
Bridge. This load increase indicates potential sources of phosphorus
that could be defined and controlled. Similar opportunities may
exist for limiting nutrient discharge from other activities of
concern. The overall nonpoint source control program needs to focus
on urban drainage.
There are many methods that have been shown to be effective in
controlling nutrient loads in urban watersheds. These methods fall
under two general categories: on-site, usually small and associated
with a single development; and off-site which are usually larger and
associated with subbasins. Phosphorus control has been shown to be
predictable and effective. The costs are dependent on the amount of
phosphorus removed and the method used. The selection of a method,
and therefore costs, will be site specific.
Wetlands have been shown to be effective in removing nutrients from
both urban and agricultural runoff. The role of natural and
"engineered" wetlands in reducing nonpoint source pollution need to
be assessed.
The nonpoint source control options could also include:
County enforcement of zoning ordinances in riparian areas,
Adoption of rules requiring erosion controls at new developments
(both residential and/or commercial) , and
Work with Soil & Water Conservation District to identify specific
17
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
contributions in agricultural areas and describe the BMPs needed
to address the problems.
Table 4 presents a range of nonpoint source management practices and
associated costs. The associated costs were obtained from available
literature. The actual costs associated with any nonpoint source
control option will be site specific. Additionally, associated costs
will vary due to the removal efficiency required of the project.
Therefore, no generalized cost/unit area estimates are presented.
Table 4
Selected Urban and Rural Management Nonpoint Source Control
Management Practices and Associated Costs
Management Practice Associated price
Range cited in
Available Literature
URBAN PRACTICES
Wet-Pond Detention Basin $ 500 - 1500 / Acre
on-site Construction
Wet-Pond Detention Basin $ 100 - 250 / Acre
off-site construction
Wetlands Land acquisition or
cost of protection
Dry Detention Ponds $ 200 - 5000 each
RURAL/AGRICULTURE PRACTICES
Conservation Tillage $ 5 - 15/Acre
Filter Strips $ 0. 14 - 0. 17 / ft
Grassed waterways $ 72 - 200 /Acre
Contour Plowing Little Associated
Costs
Intensive Animal Waste $ 40 - 100 /
Management Animal Unit
Fencing Livestock off Creek $ 0. 15 - 2 . 33 / ft.
Off-site, Small rural Ownerships $ 75 - 100 / Acre
18
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29 , 1987
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES of TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
Many options relating to target levels and control options have been
discussed and reviewed by staff and the advisory committees. The
advantages and disadvantages of the various options are discussed
below.
Target values are used to define the TMDLs. The proposed target
value for ammonia was not controversial. However, several target
values .for phosphorus were suggested and reviewed. These target
values ranged from 0.05 to 0. 15 mg/l P. It is generally accepted
that under all target values that Durham Waste Treatment Plant (DWTP)
will not discharge directly to the Tualatin, and that nonpoint source
controls will be necessary.
A) 0. 15 mg/l P target value (0. 15 mg/l median concentration)
1. Advantages
Assuming flow augmentation and NPS controls, this target level
may be achievable with existing technology (for RCWTP only) .
Would reduce pollutant loads to the Tualatin.
Would require minor capital improvements and short term
implementation.
2. Disadvantages
As a median value, high algal bloom conditions would be
expected to occur 50% of the time, and therefore may not
noticeably reduce algal growth conditions.
Unlikely that EPA would accept this target level because
laboratory assays and ambient data do not support this
concentration.
B) 0. 15 mg/l target value not to be exceeded.
1.Advantages
0. 15 mg/l appears to be the upper limit in which phosphorus
directly controls algal growth.
19
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
Target levels can be attained by enhanced treatment at RCWTP
with NPS controls, exporting Durham effluent.
Would result in increased clarity and prevent pH problems.
With alternative treatment, wetlands polishing, there may be
room for future growth in the service area.
May result in significant acreages of new wetlands with
associated benefits. (wildlife) .
2 . Disadvantages
Total P concentrations slightly above a 0. 15 mg/l target value
resulted in chlorophyll a concentrations above 100 ug/l
indicating extreme nuisance algal growth conditions. Natural
variation in phosphorus concentrations, or the ability of algae
to store phosphorus, could readily result in nuisance algal
conditions with a 0. 15 mg/l target concentration.
Based on data from similar rivers and Tualatin River, 0. 15
mg/1 phosphorus would be expected to result in an average
chlorophyll a concentration in excess of the 15 ug/l cited ii
the nuisance phytoplankton growth rule.
C) 0. 10 mg/l P target value (as proposed, median 0. 10 mg/l and not
more that 10% > 0. 15 mg/1) :
1. Advantages
Would result in a trophic level change in the Tualatin and
significantly reduce algal growth.
Would increase water clarity and eliminate the pH violations.
This value is consistent with algal assay data, ambient data,
and EPA recommended criteria for streams.
2 . Disadvantages
Will require increased costs associated with alternative
technology, e.g. wetlands polishing, and partial irrigation of
RCWTP effluent to achieve.
Will require capital improvements and a longer time to
implement, compared to higher target concentrations.
20
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
May, with out-of-basin effluent transport, result in loss of
river flow (flow from plants and from dilution water) .
May require a more aggressive nonpoint source control program,
with associated higher costs, than the 0. 15 mg/l target levels.
C) 0. 05 mg/l target value as a median concentration:
1. Advantages
EPA recommended target for streams supplying lakes or
reservoirs and may, to a limited extent address problems in
Lake Oswego.
Would result in trophic level change in the Tualatin and
reduce algal growth.
2 . Disadvantages
Would require very extensive nonpoint source controls
throughout the basin since the major source of flow from
Scoggins reservoir exceeds this limit.
Would require no point source discharges.
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES of USA CONTROL OPTIONS
Nutrient control strategies include both point and nonpoint source
controls. Advantages and disadvantages associated with each are
described below.
Point sources will be a major factor determining the success of this
project. Options may be categorized into three areas: out- of-basin
transport, alternative technology, and advanced treatment.
A) Out-of-Basin transport of sewage effluent:
1. Advantages
Removes the major source of nutrients to the river during the
critical summer period.
2. Disadvantages
Will require intensive nonpoint source controls and associated
costs.
21
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
Further reduces summer critical low flows in the Tualatin.
Water rights issues need to be clarified.
B) Alternative Technology:
1. Advantages
Could be a component to a long-term solution.
Avoids some of the water quantity problems.
Potential for beneficial re-use of the effluent.
2. Disadvantages
May require additional flow augmentation and have higher costs
associated with intensive NPS controls than the out-of-basin
option.
May have increased cost associated with sizable irrigation fields,
or wetlands which need to be purchased and maintained.
C) Advanced (High-Lime) Treatment:
1. Advantages
Provides a significant reduction in the phosphorus
loading to the Tualatin.
Keeps flows in the Tualatin.
2. Disadvantages
High operating costs.
Increased sludge handling and disposal problems.
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGESZDISADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED with NPS CONTROL
Nonpoint source control options would be varied and site-specific.
Best management practices may be applicable in agricultural areas.
Both off-site and on-site mitigation can be effective for pollution
control in urban streams. The protection and enhancement of wetlands
will play a key role in nonpoint source control strategies.
Advantages of nonpoint source controls:
22
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29 , 1987
Will equitably distribute problem solving efforts in the
Tualatin Basin.
It is generally accepted that nonpoint source controls are a
necessary component of the nutrient control program.
Addresses water quality problems throughout the basin rather
than just the mainstem Tualatin.
Have been shown to be both efficient and cost effective in
other areas of the country.
Will contribute positively to stormwater management in the
basin.
Disadvantages of nonpoint source controls:
Effective measures are largely site-specific, therefore
specific control measures are not well defined at this time.
Attainable target levels are not yet well defined.
Will require substantial effort to describe specific sources
and control options and to define attainable objectives.
DEQ's authority not as well defined as with point sources.
Effective management will require cooperative efforts with
other responsible agencies.
SUMMARY of ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES with ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Other options have been suggested as components or alternative
strategies for addressing the nuisance algal growths in the Tualatin.
These include flow augmentation, removing the "Lake Oswego Diversion
Dam", and/or a phosphate detergent ban.
Flow augmentation is a viable component to the nutrient control
strategies. However, it can not be considered as the total solution.
Existing stored water in Scoggins reservoir could be used to increase
flows during critical periods. The potential exists to increase
flows from the Trask River, construct another dam, or other measures.
A) Flow Augmentation
1. Advantages
23
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
As flow increases, the TMDL can be increased; therefore flow
augmentation may be a key component of the control strategy
Existing opportunities are available.
2. Disadvantages
Not directly under the control of any single agency, and
will require cooperation of many agencies.
Water rights concerns need to be clarified.
Suggestions have been made that removal of the Lake Oswego Diversion
Dam would reduce algal growth by reducing the residence time of water
in the lower Tualatin. There is, however, no confirmed data that
indicates that modifications to the dam would eliminate the need for
a phosphorus control strategy. The phosphorus TMDL is based on a
target concentration where phosphorus acts as to limit algal growth.
Data suggests this value is near 0. 10 mg/1. No information has been
presented which indicates this value will change due to modifications
to the diversion dam.
B) Removal of the Lake Oswego Diversion Dam
1. Advantages
Inexpensive.
Reduces detention time of water in the lower Tualatin
River.
2. Disadvantages
Does not remove need for a nutrient control program and there
is no indication that it would influence the target levels
May reduce the recreational opportunities requiring pooled
water conditions and beneficial uses upstream from the dam
Will require Lake Oswego to employ other means to divert
water from the river to the lake
Several states have controlled the use of phosphate detergents either
totally or partially to reduce phosphorus loadings from domestic
sources. In response to proposed legislation (SB 1028) the
Department compiled a review of phosphate detergent bans (Attachment
24
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
--) . There are mixed results on the effectiveness of phosphate
detergent bans. In some cases results show a reduction in influent
phosphate concentration. However, others debate the need for such
bans when treatment plant technologies can effectively remove
phosphorus.
C) Phosphate Detergent Ban
1. Advantages
Would reduce the influent phosphorus load to the USA
wastewater treatment plants and therefore, reduce the chemical
and sludge production.
The primary purpose of phosphate in detergent is to soften
the water. Since most of Oregon's water is already soft, a
phosphate detergent ban would not be expected to reduce the
effectiveness of the detergent.
2.Disadvantages
Would not eliminate the need for additional phosphorus
removal from the wastewater treatment plants.
Would not be beneficial under options which do not include
discharge to the Tualatin.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation played a major role in the Tualatin project.
The goal was to keep the public involved at each step of the
decision-making process. Input came to DEQ through a variety of
techniques, designed to reach a wide spectrum of citizens. These
techniques included mailings, informational presentations to
interested groups, two advisory committees, public comments on
proposed load limits, open houses, and a citizen's Riverwatch
program.
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) represents a cross-section of
interests in the Tualatin Basin. This committee discussed public
policy concerns relating to the establishment of TMDLs. The
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) , a group of water quality
professionals, assists DEQ in identifying and reviewing strategies
from a technical standpoint. Both committees held monthly meetings
and have met once jointly. Members of the public were invited to
express their views during the open forum portion of the CAC
meetings.
25
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
People who were not interested in attending committee meetings were
offered several ways to be informed and share views. DEQ staff made
several presentations to concerned residents, service clubs, and
special interest groups. Everyone on the mailing list received two
different fact sheets that described the status of the Tualatin •
project and were notified of the chance to comment on proposed load
limits for the Tualatin. Additionally, they were invited to a series
of informal open houses.
The open houses were held in the community to give the public a
chance to talk to the Departments technical staff about problems in
the Tualatin River Basin. Exhibits were set up on weekends at three
different parks near the river. Two week-night open houses were held
in coordination with the Unified Sewerage Agency. Table 5 summarizes
the attendance at the Open Houses. Most of the over 140 people who
attended had not participated in other public meetings. DEQ
distributed a survey form which asked people to share their ideas on
how to best manage water quality in the basin. This survey was also
made available to the public by request.
Table 5
Summary of attendance at DEQ open house
events for the Tualatin Project
Estimated
Open House Location Date Time Attendance
Tualatin City Park 8/22 loam - 2pm 50+
Cook Park 8/22 2pm - 6pm 25
Henry Hagg Lake 8/29 loam - 5pm 30
Tigard High School 9/24 3pm - 9pm 25
Rock Creek STP 9/28 3pm - 9pm 10
There were 32 responses to the survey. These responses indicated
that boating, fishing, viewing, and swimming are the most popular
uses of the lower Tualatin River. However, most individuals
responding felt the river was not fully supporting these uses. Major
concerns cited in the responses included visual appearance, algal
growth, and lack of flow. Responses to various strategies included
in control options are summarized in Table 6.
26
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
This survey, was not a scientific survey designed to measure the
community opinion. Results, however, do indicate that options which
included nonpoint source controls, improved waste treatment, and flow
augmentation were the most acceptable to individuals who attended the
open houses. Out-of-Basin effluent transport was perceived to simply
move water quality problems from the Tualatin to another stream.
Loss of recreational opportunities in the pool upstream from the Lake
Oswego Diversion dam was the primary concern about removing the dam.
Table 6
Percent of responses, by general acceptance categories
for strategies listed in the Tualatin River Survey
Strongly Maybe Don't No
Strategy Support or a think a Bad Idea
possibility good idea
Flow Augmentation 70% 8% 15% 7%
Out-of-Basin 19% 10% 19% 52%
Transport
Improved Treatment 70% 16% 7% 7%
Irrigation of 52% 26% 11% 11%
Effluent
Nonpoint Source 80% 7% 10% 3%°
Controls
Remove the Lake- 24% 24% 28% 240
Oswego Dam
The River Watch Program was established at the request of concerned
citizens who live along the lower Tualatin River. A core group
provided observations of river conditions during late summer. These
citizens are concerned about the aesthetics of the river, and were
able to observe the river on a regular basis. The information
gathered by the River Watchers was compared to the testing done by
the DEQ laboratory during the same period. Their observations also
gave DEQ an idea of the recreational uses of the lower River.
A total of 111 reports, from nine individuals, were received between
late July and September 1987 . The River Watchers recorded their
perceptions on the aesthetic conditions of the lower Tualatin river
as follows: good to moderate, 9%; adequate, 21% ; and poor to bad,
27
Committee Discussion Draft Version 5, January 29, 1987
70%. Cloud cover and rain were associated with improved aesthetic
conditions by all reporters. Poor conditions were most often
described as Algal mats, green water color, floating scum, nighttime
odors, and debris. Boating, fishing, swimming, and general
recreation were listed as the most popular uses of the Lower Tualatin
River.
These efforts at communication have given DEQ a better understanding
of the uses of the river and the concerns that residents share. The
interest shown by citizens reinforce DEQ's recognized need to improve
water quality in the river.
28
WASHINGTON
COUNTY,
OREGON
January 6, 19I�3_
TO: WASHINGTON COUNTY GARBAGE COORDINATING COMMITTEE & INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: STEVE LARRANCE, WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER
RE: SUMMAZ. OF PROCEEDINGS OF DECEMBER 3, 1987 MEETING OF THE
WASHIGTON COUNTY GARBAGE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
T. Assessment of Regional Proceedings to Date
A. Metro staff seems to be the major initiator of policy initiatives.
B. Police group not initiating direction of policy initiatives,
C. The landfill siting; barge/rail depot and transportation to landfill ;
and the Multnomah County initial transfer site all are on a "fast
track," process instead of the 18 month agreed upon Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP) update timeline.
D. Technical subcommittees will shoulder majority of workload in SWMP
update.
E. How do these events impact Washington County policy initiatives?
II. We Have they Capability to Design a System That is Workable in Washington
County
A. We need the opportunity to discuss our ideas more subjectively
with the region.
B. Our consensus goals can be followed to logical system of
satellite collection and transfer sites.
C. These financial issues need to be addressed as part of our
planning process:
1. What revenue is now derived from the Metro Solid Waste
System?
2. Washington County will pay for its decentralized system
within the overall regional network. Is this compatible
with Metro planning to date?
D. Transferring is a function of pickup and hauling, therefore
should involve Washington County franchised haulers as part of our
solution.
Board of County Commissioners
150 North First Avenue Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Phone:503/648-8681
Summary of December 3, 1987 Meeting
Page 2
E. The Washington County garbage now transferred to CTRC (Clackamas
Transfer Site) :
1. Is less than the amount that the facility is over their
tonnage limit.
2. Must be eliminated soon.
3. Solution should be generated by franchised haulers from
southeast portion of County now utilizing CTRC.
4. Solution should utilize the Washington County Garbage
Coordinating Committee as the consensus building
group and our agreed upon goals.
F. Now is the time to approach the regional consensus building group
with these issues.
III. Summary of Washington County Concerns
A. Polis
1. Washington County prefers a logical system of satellite
collection and transfer sites.
2. We envision a financially independent and decentralized county
system within the regional network.
3. Washington County supports the involvement of the haulers in the
transfer solution.
B. Process
1. Washington County requests that more subjective discussion
opportunities be made available at the regional policy making
level.
2. Washington County desires revenue information (relating to
the Metro Solid Waste System) to further our policy alternatives
evaluation.
3. Washington County wants to accomplish the above described policy
goals as part of the SWMP update process.
4. Question for Committee Chair on January 9, 1988:
"Can this process be modified to accommodate our policy
initiatives?"
3182M
�`Cl��it
WASHINGTON
COUNTY,
OREGON
January 27, 1988
Dale Harlan, Commissioner
Clackamas County Board of Commissioners
Court House Annex
906 Main Street
Oregon City, OR 97045
Dear Commissioner Harlan:
r
At the onset of the January 89 1988 Garbage Policy Advisory Committee (GPAC)
meeting in the Metro Council Chambers, I outlined several of Washington County' s
concerns in regard to both policy content and process as it related to the Solid
Waste Management Plan Update (SWMP) . The issues I brought forth were assembled
as part of a consensus building process with elected officials from
jurisdictions in Washington County.
You offered two comments at this meeting which I feel are worth addressing.
Your first comment suggested that "The main reason we (the region) have to be
involved in this (SWMP) update process is due to the fact that Washington County
has not been able to sight its own solid waste management facilities". Your
second comment was a plea to "not bog down the current process with our policy
initiatives".
In response to your first comment regarding the purpose for the SWMP update
process, recall the original information packet issued by Metro on May 14, 1987,
in which the following statements were offered as the primary rationale for
undertaking the Plan Update process:
o "An update (of the SWMP) is needed because the Solid Waste
Management Action Plan is out of date, waste management priorities
have changed, and an adversary ins ad of cooperative re ations ip
' has developed in siting solid waste facilities."
o "The policies of the Waste Reduction Program have changed the
direction of solid waste management in the region. Because of
this, the SWMP needs to be revised to reflect these policies.'
o "New siting criteria and general locations for solid waste
facilities that meet the goals of the waste Reduction rogram need
to be identified."
o "The entire region is being invited to participate in updating and
developing the regional solid waste management plan."
Board of County Commissioners
`l 150 North First Avenue Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Phone:503/648-8681
January 27, 1988
Page 2
o Metro Resolution and Order No. 87-785-A "authorizes the
Metropolitan Service District to prepare and adopt functional glans
for areas and activities which have impact on air quality, water
quality, transportation and other aspects of metro-area development
As you can see, many of the above described reasons for the SW14P update process
reach far beyond the specific siting problems in Washington County.
In regards to your second comment, allow me to restate our intentions:
In simple terms, we view this policy advisory group as an opportunity :o insert
our prioritized policy goals into the process. My statements regardin,l policy
content were simply a reiteration of Washington County's key policy
initiatives. My comments about policy process were made not in the spirit of
"bogging the process down" but to maximize the expression of Washington County's
policy priorities "up front". Further, you will recall that one of our key
policy development requests called for the inclusion of the haulers in this
process and that we were not requesting a new element in regards to this
component of the process. Exhibit "A" of Metro Resolution and Order No.
87-785-A, item #5 states that: "The plan will be developed through a regional
partnership comprised of Metro, cities, counties , refuse haulers, citizens and
other affected parties." Our policy request made at this meeting called for
compliance with previously stated policy guidelines regarding the inclusion of
haulers.
In summary, I offer these conclusions about your comments:
o Washington County does not intend to bog down the SWMP update
process.
r' o We view this policy advisory group as an opportunity to place our
policy concerns on the table so key issues can be developed in this
forum before major recommendations are released. We view this as
the route to take in order to prevent the very community problems
which you reference to in making your comments.
o Washington County appreciates your concerns about our siting
difficulties but urge your consideration of the complexity,
multiple-players and multifaceted issues involved in this process.
We hope that this information will be helpful to you and look forward to meeting
with you for discussion if you require further clarification of our intentions
in this process.
Sinter ly,
Steve Larrance
Commissioner
c: The Regional "Solid Waste Planning Policy Committee"
Washington County Garbage Coordinating Committee
3223M
i RE: RECYCLING
EDUCATION
& PROMOTION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume III,Number 5
January-February,1988 .
In this isvcue<1488 Recycling Week awareness, Metro Sets Media Blitz
deadlines,purrfect collection, and get well
wishes! the
Metropolitan Service District(Metro),
the Portland area's regional government,plans
to repeat the"brown paper bag"TV ads for
two weeks in February, and again in May;yard
Presentation Tip: Pencils debris recycling posters will move on Tri-Met
The next time you set up an unstaffed buses in March.If you plan to tie your local
display,make room on the table for a pen or promotions into Metro's schedule,you'll be
pencil attached with string to a blank pad of "Piggy-backing,"considered legitimate and
paper. Write this sentence at the top of the extremely effective in advertising and public
paper.
relations fields.For more information on
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR Metro's ads,call Joan Saroka,221-1646.
WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION,
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND Trees Offer Handy Hook
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS BELOW. Once again this December,Oregonians
You'll find that people will be pleased by recycled thousands of Christmas trees at sites
your willingness to follow up,even if they from Portland to Coos Bay.Calls flooded
don't have a question. Metro's Recycling Information Center,
threatening to near 4,000 by the end of
January.That's double the number of
EQC Plants Yard Debris Christmas tree calls Metro received last year.
Offering tree recycling is one more way of
The Environmental Quality Commission, getting the recycling message to the public.
DEQ's policy-making board,has added The person who recycles a tree, or makes a
source-separated yard debris to the list of phone call about tree recycling,or sees a
principal recyclable materials in the notice in the newspaper, often will begin to
Clackamas,Multnomah,Portland, consider what else might be recycled.
Washington, and West Linn wastesheds. The If you didn't this year,plan next year to
rule amendament will become effective when provide information about community
the Commission adopts additional rules recycling activities in trade for that slightly
clarifying the range of alternative methods to used Christmas tree.Start by clipping this
on-route collection.The Commission directed article and placing it in your file marked
DEQ to have the draft rules ready for its April "Christmas season activities." Watch for
29 meeting.A public hearing will be held specific information on setting up and running
before final action.For more information, a tree recycling program in the
contact Bill Bree,229-6975. September-October issue of this newsletter.
y
Decorations Get Notice Ashland Takes First Award
Before the greenery recycling began, Congratulations to the city of Ashland, the
Albany-Lebanon Sanitation participated in the first organization/government body to ask
city's first Celebration of Trees,paying$104 DEQ when 1988's Recycling Awareness
for the privilege of decorating and displaying a Week was scheduled. That city was putting
tree during the event.Proceeds went to together a 1988 calendar and wanted to
tax-exempt organizations in the community. include important statewide events.
Albany-Lebanon used only household
recyclables to decorate the tree,which
resulted in this program write-up: "this
forward-thinking company continues to Week Adds Another Day
emphasize the need to recycle...tin cookie Forget Leap Year: Metro's Joan Saroka
cutters,glass icicles...A clever way to educate." suggested starting Recycling Awareness Week
And a worthy way of drawing attention to both on Saturday, October 8,to give wastesheds the
recycling and your organization,we might add. chance to plan a promotion for either the first
or the second Saturday of Recycling
Awareness Week. The third annual Recycling
Awareness Week will run from October 8-15,
DEQ Sends Forms 1988.
By now many RE:RECYCLING readers
should have received 1987 recycling report,
quarterly,and/or data collection forms from
DEQ. The recycling report forms went to Paper Covers Trash Sifting
wasteshed representatives; the quarterly Another garbage go-through garnered
and/or data collection,to collectors,who will headlines in one of the state's largest daily
send completed forms on to their wasteshed newspapers. The Eugene
representatives.The forms will then become REGISTER-GUARD recently ran an article
part of the recycling reports and returned to on Earl's Sanitary Service's program of
DEQ. For more information, contact Peter random inspections of customers'trash. Roy
Spendelow,229-5253. Hoefer,owner,used his computer to select
100 customers;if their trash is free of
recyclable materials,they receive$25. When
Collection Increases 100% all 104 cans have been checked, one of the $25
winners will receive a check for$100 in
We always knew recyclers were softies at another random drawing.Hoefer is
heart. This was recently proven by Portland considering periodically sending out a list of
Recycling Refuse Operators, Inc., (PRROS), winners to his customers: "It adds a little peer
Portland's largest group of curbside.collectors. pressure to see your neighbor's name on the
An unnamed-by-request spokesperson tells us list,"he says.For more information on the
that a tiny white kitten left in a PRROS drop program and on the flyers he used to
box for recyclables was, indeed, recycled--to a announce it to his customers, call 345-1811.
good home. That's going above and beyond
the list of principal recyclable materials.
Session Shares Ideas
Good ideas never go out of date,and the Video Available
informal education-promotion sharing session DEQ's'Taking the Mystery Out of the
cohosted by OSSI and DEQ in Salem last Media"is available on videotape for in-state
November for newly-hired recycling loan to recyclers, collectors,and others in
coordinators was so valuable we'd like to waste reduction-related fields. The four-hour
share it.There's not room for the whole session,which focused on recycling,covered
summary,but the following tips should give tips on both placing information and dealing
you a taste of the valuable suggestions we with requests from local media.To borrow it,
heard: contact Alene Cordas,229-6046.
• school district and Education Service
District libraries and media centers, and
their resources, often are open and free for
public use; check with local community or promotion Helps New Station
junior colleges for interns or students who
can help you with a project; News stories, a grand opening,radio
• when you do a presentation, make a coverage,and newspaper ads featuring a
duplicate of the poster or binder you use photo of a tuxedo-clad woman dumping
showing what is and isn't recyclable--and garbage under the heading"Cleanest Spot in
leave it behind; Town"have resulted in growing public
• try not to re-invent the wheel: ask for advice acceptance of a transfer station in the heart of
and materials to share from other The Dalles,says Art Braun,The Dalles
wastesheds and agencies; Disposal owner.
• print the recycling logo on a set of stickers But the success doesn't stop there.
and distribute them to customers to use on Employees at The Dalles Transfer Station
their calendars as a reminder of curbside pulled out over 20 tons of materials in its first
pick-up day. four months of operation. The dump-and=pick
And that's just the start. For a detailed site is staffed by handicapped members of
memo, contact Elaine Glendening at DEQ, Columbia Gorge Rehabilitation Center,
229-5060. whose supervisor oversees the operation. And
Braun pledged to donate all proceeds from the
station's sales back to the center.Total from
September-mid-December? Nearly$500.
Braun,who plans to add a baler soon,has
We've Come A Long Way received state tax credits on all recycling
Maureen Ernst, OSSI executive director, equipment.
said it best at the November sharing session. The station replaces public dumping at The
The fact that both established and newly hired Dalles landfill. For more information, contact
education and promotion representatives, Braun at 298-5149.
state and city government employees, and
members of hauler organizations could come
together and amicably share ideas--and
support--in an all-day session is a fine measure
of the progress we've made since those early
days of implementing the Recycling
Opportunity Act.
Dockside Recycling Impressive
If you've been to Newport lately,you've Finally: Deadlines "
seen results of a 12-month anti-litter program
funded by a$97,000 grant from the National Printed here,for the first time, are
Marine Fisheries Service. Director Fran deadlines for RE:RECYCLING.If you have
Recht used the grant to put together an suggestions for an article,you can either write
impressive demonstration program for or call Alene Cordas, editor,229-6046, or
managing vessel-generated solid waste in the write her at DEQ, address below.
Port of Newport. Attractive posters in store • March-April issue: deadline February 29.
and motel windows use a fish to tell tourists • May-June issue: deadline April 25.
and residents alike"Don't Teach Your Trash • July-August issuer deadline June 27.
to Swim."There also are recycling bins at all • September-October issue: deadline August
docks, a program making used wood and other 29.
materials available to needy residents,school • November-December issue: deadline
curriculum programs,radio PSAs, and much October 31.
more.
Recht also researched and printed a list of
the Newport restaurants using recyclable cups
and dishes, those using non-recyclable
materials, and a list of places where people
can buy non-styrofoam fast-food containers.
For more information, contact the Port of
Newport,265-7758.
Guidelines Set
To preserve their integrity and uniformity,
OSSI has developed guidelines for using the
revitalized Mr.Trash, Cool Can, and their
relatives. Recyclers may use them for
promotional events in cooperation with local
garbage collectors who are OSSI members.To
find out more,contact OSSI executive director
Maureen Ernst, 1-800-527-7624;or write 1880
Lancaster Drive #112, Salem 97305.
RE:RECYCLING EDUCATIONAND
Get Well Wishes PROMOTIONprovides resources and ideas for
effective, affordable recycling programs
To Oregon Sanitary Service Institute developed in response to the Oregon Recycling
(OSSI) members Mr.Trash and Cool Can, OpportunityAct. Published bimonthly by the
whose participation in over 50 parades, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
exhibitions and trade shows in the past 24 Waste Reduction Section, 811 SW 6th., Portland,
months has led to hospitalization for Oregon 97204.
everything from open heart surgery to face Alene Cordas, editor.
lifts. Prognosis is excellent;by the time you
read this,in fact, they both may be back on
their feet and once more bringing the
recycling word to Oregonians. printed on recycled paper
Y'¢SvN.�^:m'N
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Report
The problem:Closure of the St.Johns The solution:Reach consensus on a November/December 1987
Landfill by 1991;difficulty siting new new regional Solid Waste Management Metropolitan Service District
disposal facilities. Plan.
New regional updated regional Solid Waste Manage- garbage and recycling industries and
a rt n e rs h i begins ment Plan. citizens of the tri-county region. Commit-
Two committees,policy and technical, tee members work on the"nuts and bolts"
solid waste planning are charged with reaching consensus to of building the system and will recom-
solve the region's solid waste problems mend facilities and siting criteria,recom-
and update the solid waste plan. mend recycling goals and identify the
The policy committee is made up of 14 impacts of various options.Recommenda-
Anew"partnership approach"to local elected officials and staff representing tions are forwarded to the policy commit-
solid waste planning began this fall. the jurisdictions in Multnomah,Washing- tee for review and adoption.
Representatives of tri-county jurisdic- ton and Clackamas counties. The commit- Subcommittees of the technical
tions,the garbage industry and the public tee reviews system options,hears public committee—waste reduction,facilities,
are working with Metro to build a system testimony on policy issues and makes land use and hazardous waste—are
of regional garbage management.The recommendations to the Metro Council. completing specific work assignments and
targeted completion date is 1989 for The 25 members of the technical producing draft chapters of the plan for
adoption by the Metro Council of the committee represent government staff, review and public comment.
Policy committee Draft framework policies
drafts guidelines for • Use regional consensus in developing and implementing a solid waste
planning management system.
Achieve stable and predictable costs and rates for the solid waste system.
The discussion at the first meeting of
the policy and technical committees • Make use of private ownership and operation for solid waste facilities
centered around the community: What do where practical and beneficial to the region.
people value and what concerns do
citizens have about garbage and recycling? Use achievable goals for recycling in planning solid waste facilities.
Thus,community values and
concerns became a framework to guide the • Include provisions to mitigate negative impacts in areas where facilities are
direction of the regional solid waste plan. proposed.
These"draft framework policies"
were adopted by the policy committee to • Protect environmental quality through the selection of sites,facility design
use as initial working guidelines. and operation standards.
• Promote public information,education and participation during the
planning process.
• Be recognized in city and county comprehensive plans governing the
siting,permitting and development of solid waste facilities.
•L� ,
conomic development of the region by recognizing economic
during the siting of the solid waste system.s Veil eVentUall�]become p of the solid waste plan•
Crowne,Dick Cereghino,Ed Druback, 1Members of the land use subcommit-
FaFacilities Merle Irvine,Delyn Kies,Tom Miller, tee are Pam Christian,Jim Claypool,
Dave Phillips,John Trout and Mark Sebastian Degens,Ed Gronke,Linda Kotta,
subcommittee Williams,chair. Gary LaHaie,Dominic Mancini,Kevin
develops four Martin,Jim Rapp and Gary Clifford.
chapters Land-use
The facilities subcommittee develops subcommittee
policy options and examines technical reviews local comp
alternatives for a range of garbage facili-
ties. plans
The committee is responsible for four
chapters of the plan:facilities,privatiza-
tion,geographic areas and capital im- The land-use subcommittee is re-
provement program. viewing the comprehensive plans of three
Members of the facilities subcommit- counties and 35 cities for existing policy
tee are Michael Borg,Bob Brown,Carolyn for siting garbage and recycling facilities. Printed on recycled paper
The committee will develop model solid 87442
waste policy recommendations for local
governments to use in their comprehen-
sive plans.
MEMO Bulk rate
U.S.Postage
2000 S.W.First Avenue PAID
; `
Portland,OR 97201-5398 Portland,OR
503/221-1646 Permit No.1912
Mr. Robert Jean
City Administrator
City of Tigard
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHURCHILL TO TUALAIN ADv I SORT COMMITTEE
FPZRUART 7, 1907
My name is John R. Churchill. I appear to day as co-plaintiff in
NRDC and Churchill vs EPA.The legal action that caused you be to be here at
such an early hour .
My testimony is directed to this committee , DEQ and EPA. It deals primarily
what I expect as the co-plaintiff as a result of the consent agreement that
governs the policy issues before you today.
The purpose of our suit is to clean up the Tualatin River. Phosphates are not
only a significant pollutant in itself but also an indicator polluter. What I
have asked and won in court is not only that the Tualatin river be managed
to meet Federal requirements of the Clean water act but that the users of
Tualatin river water meet the basic requirements of that ancient Anglo
Saxon riparian doctrine that the upstream user of water must return the
water to the stream in the same condition in which he withdrew it. That is
the basis of water quality law in the United States. So I have sued as a
downstream water user to assert my rights to clean water.
My testimony is divided into three parts:findings, recommendation and
discussion.
Findings:
I.TMDL
A. The ambient or natural concentration of phosphates according to DEQ
data is .02 mg/1 as determined at Cherry Grove. The .075 chosen by DEQ
staff is an erroneous and unscientific judgement call.
B. The DEQ Tualatin River Sampling Data is based largely on a best case
year.The statistical methodology assumes the data to be a mean or median.
Most federal court cases require agency to plan on worse case scenarios.
C. .05 mg/l is a necessary TMDL for the Tualatin Lake and Lake Oswego. It
is an obtainable goal if the political will is sufficient.
D. TMDL must be set for spring as well as summer if land treatment for
USA plants is part of the solution.
11. Waste Load Allocations
A. All Point Sources Must De included Wnetner permitted Or not SpeCff1C
waste load allocation must be established and included in submission for all
container nurseries, storm water discharges and sewage bypass points.and
other point sources not now permitted. Federal law requires the
establishment of permits for storm water in 1991 and the time is now to set
discharge limits for all storm water pipes
B. Schedules of attainment must be a part of the Waste Load Allocations.
111. Load Allocations
A. The load allocations must be established for all sub basins and sub
basins for non point sources.Major sources by small drainages must be
identified. If this is not available for the first second and third order
drainages then a schedule should be presented when these load allocations
will be established by rule making.
B. Specific policies for non point source control should be included in the
load allocations such as riparian area restoration and protection. Minimum
impervious surface standards for development. adoption and enforcement of
adequate water quality management procedures and runoff limits for
developers.
Recommendations
I. . 05 mg/l as max concentration for 90% of samples and 10 percent of
samples not to exceed.10 mg/1 be established for water entering Tualatin
Lake and Lake Oswego.
2. A specific non point source program be included as apart pf the
loading allocations including specific numerical pound load allocations for
each sub basin.
3. All point sources be identified and assigned specific waste load
allocations regardless of whether or not they now have MPDS permits
4. That DEQ commit itself to a monitoring and data collection system to
effectively implement and guide the maximum daily load requirements.
5. That time requirements for implementation be established in the TMDL
rule.
TUALATIN RIVER CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tentative Agenda
Monday,February 8,1988
7:30 to 9:30 a.m.
Rose's Restaurant
11995 SW Beaverton Highway,Beaverton
I. Minutes from January 4 Meeting
11. Final Review of the Draft Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) Staff
Report—to be presented at the EQC meeting on March 11,1988.*
III.Public Forum
IV. Committee Action on DEQ Staff Recommendation
*Copies of the draft will be available at the meeting,or you can request a
copy from Shirley Kengla,DEQ Public Affairs,229-5766.
Ninth Tualatin River Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
January 4, 1988
7:30 to 10:30 am.
Rose's Restaurant,11995 SW Beaverton Highway
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Bonnie Hayes Jack Smith
Gene Siebel Gerd Hoeren
Gary Krahmer Bill Young
Larry Cole Cal Krahmer
Adele Newton Lloyd Baron
John McGhehey
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Roy Bowden Jim Fisher
Frank Deaver Rosalie Morrison
Darlene Hooley
The Committee approved the minutes from the December 7 meeting,with the re-
quest to add Rosalie Morrison's comment that if the Lake Oswego diversion dam
was removed,the city of Rivergrove would want an environmental impact statement.
REVIEW OF DISCUSSION DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Bob Baumgartner,DEQ Water Quality Specialist, announced that the request for
public hearings on a proposed management plan for the Tualatin River Basin would
be on the Environmental Quality Commission meeting agenda for March instead of
the January 22 date originally planned.
Bob handed out the latest draft of the Tualatin River water quality management
plan to committee members and the public.
The Committee members already have the attachments mentioned in the draft,so
they were not distributed. Anyone interested in getting copies of information,
should contact Shirley Kengla,DEQ Public Affairs,Portland.
BACKGROUND--PROBLEM STATEMENT
The group reviewed the draft in sections. The background problem statement was
reviewed first. Committee members asked if total suspended solids were going to be
included as a problem. Bob explained that the technical committee was still discuss-
ing that issue. Jack Smith asked that the words'beneficial uses"be added to aes-
thetic quality. He was concerned that recreational use be listed as a beneficial use
impaired by algal growth.
proposed phosphorus limit will not solve the problem.The phosphorus load to the
lake from the river would be reduced,but the 0.10 limit is to prevent nuisance algal
growth in the lower Tualatin River.
Stan Geiger said that the timing for filling the lake with river water can make a dif-
ference. The phosphorus load will be reduced only for summer,however,and Lake
Oswego draws much of its water load in the winter to generate power. Adele New-
ton suggested looking at filling the lake in late spring.
POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Gary Krahmer provided a more detailed review of management options being con-
sidered by USA. USA will consider use of wetlands for effluent polishing. USA will
make its own decision on how to achieve the required waste load allocations. The
summary list provided by USA did not include allof the possible options.
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Jack Smith suggested words to convey more precise meaning in several parts of the
draft,including references to land use planning,resource management and wetland
engineering.
SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF TARGET CONCENTRA-
TIONS
Gary Krahmer promised 35 pages of comments for the DEQ staff to consider. The
committee can review any changes made because of these comments at the next
meeting set for February 8.
The committee suggested rewriting the draft to change the format of advantages and
disadvantages. DEQ staff explained that the report format is typical of that used to
report to the Environmental Quality Commission.
Several committee members suggested rewriting the advantage of the 0.15 mg/l tar-
get value. Jack Smith asked to replace"impractical and cannot be attained"with"in-
creased cost"in references to the disadvantages of 0.05 mg/l as a median
concentration. Jack Smith said another disadvantage of 0.05 mg/l was that DEQ had
not extensively studied this level,so known facts are limited.
Gerd Hoeren and Bill Young felt that the need for wintertime phosphorus limits to
reduce nutrient loads to Lake Oswego should be mentioned. It was noted that phos-
phorus levels are higher in the winter and the lake retains some of these nutrients.
SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF CONTROL OPTIONS
Disadvantages of out-of-basin transport were discussed by the committee. Flows in
the river may be lower and control over nonpoint source pollution will still be
needed to achieve the proposed TMDL's.
In response to Mayor Creedon,Bob explained the reference of Farmington on the
allocation tables as the point at which flow is measured in the Tualatin. The TMDL
applies to the lower Tualatin downstream from Elsner Bridge. The river is sampled
at a variety of points downstream from Farmington. Trout will be protected when
ammonia meets the limits because of improvements to the Rock Creek sewage treat-
ment plants. The river will also support the beneficial use of recreation.
The committee discussed whether the report was to be prepared for the public as
well as for the EQC. Jack Smith, a member of Northwest Environmental Defense
Center which was a plaintiff in the lawsuit,explained to Mayor Creedon why the suit
was filed against EPA. The purpose of the suit was to require DEQ to set allowable
loadings of pollutants so that Oregon's water bodies would meet water quality stand-
ards as required by the Clean Water Act.
Ted Creedon said that land use plate can sake care-of thee-nonpoint source pollution
problem. The City of Rivergrove is reviewing their land use pian now and would
like suggestions.
Ken Fink,Tualatin resident,noted that there was a lot of lethargy on the part of the
public towards the Tualatin River. He expressed concern for management of the set
pollution limits. He offered newspaper clippings on a group interested in develop-
ing a recreational area on the river and control of topsoil erosion. The Tualatin is
everyone's problem,not just USA's. The real problem is how to achieve the set
numbers of the TMDL.
Adele Newton said the League of Oregon Women Voters will be looking at
household hazardous waste at the next legislative session and is open to suggestions.
Jack Smith said the TMDL numbers were needed as an objective for planning.
Gene Siebel said that he felt the committee's task--to set pollution levels for am-
monia and phosphorus--was nearly done. Ted Creedon wanted to know how the
TMDL numbers related to the water quality of the river. Bonnie Hays suggested
that DEQ give a presentation to the city of Rivergrove. Ken Fink said the commit-
tee had a limited job,and people want to understand how these T`MDL numbers will
be implemented. Neil Mullane said that the load will be set for point sources first
because most of the load in the summer comes from the sewage treatment plant.
Ken Fink said that the state,not the EPA,will be expected to follow through.
The committee unanimously agreed to accept all changes to the draft.
^ :.
ttwd �! mnlng.,U YgeMH n .
: , m r �r�ia
4or g _p
officials from Washliigton`Coun- distric�fs,'$iahmei=sdtd The
sewage r agency may must be app ►ed by Portland
the
tY s •. Govern
soon spend, ,000 to study fvriether Metropohim►,+'. en
on end then
� � " ,; '= W ori Co. th should.go into the storm sewer meat N tion
bustnees t4 help detm utp.local ri�rers. vatera if resid+�nts�atker Y?�petition
)Vtti:'•(Value k.. <N6'� 1, ', slue signatares,he'added.
_ The Washington County Board of Wash-
Commissioners authorized the Uni Krahmer said he is asking,
] 516 S`52 8 8 fled Sewemr,Agency Tuesday to be- $1 per
County and its_does nC0( pin
`0 5� pep gin steps to farm a special service i1 Per resident fAr:the necessart6
dist'[ct r psponsible. for managing studio& which will Pry ov.
23(58 8 mil 5 51.4'nil, 116' 37.7 tmt: stoma and surface water'drainage in the`botind07 cofnrr on pPT
4 N
1�1 4T 1 miL : the county al of Ule disMct. ,;
23($10.6 m8. 1 59 Mier. G�y I=ce,district t 'iQorpp ''1he new
Y Xu General tee
Kralimer said storm water js a major; age11 >iea
t
8 5773 _ 3, gilll x .&hU x } source of polluttoq Co waterways aloney 0th-
j] X3928 2' n" :.48 54 m�: = the Tp9latiii Riee'and the�neo ty
dLq wltttin two
n ' 01 erwise,the money+odd tie
2' 23 m' l9 5856 897 3 it. Mct would be an itrtegral Part
Cleaning np.tha
true F
t
1'
rf a S b
7 514 E 21 50 .: 71i (561, 81i(. there is The PY re-
�Ve know now that meat
t source lltftioa(in the Tu- place d
. d:s imeb*is going to have districtsIslaw
rl r - fl he '�.
•'� r;„ a H{yam. �vB,.4.""Y�''•"`>•_: J
flooding
noj
� �.. 0 9 � "f� ' pob3t.sourrn pblitltiQtf i,4 a:problem. , .,fi�se:d �is i�ir��i�`�8e
r } 52 5 2$ 3r d.> 'a Cts vVlll,all
�., Bsuce Warner;
director of the, local disrt
COUflty'8 Departgaent of Land Use �'alitet 'i #° the
27(51 " ` s154 Soa $7 588 mil.) and Transportation, said his office p d and tequest that they be terms-
S1Q3 123 5S mi{.)' currdntiY carries that burden but is ;
15'$%4 prohibited by state law from using
aft J 688 5]43 mil �' road;funds to pay:for repairs to off- Instead of p>.ID.:residents paying
,gtornage#ers:
County land use S8 `o>r S7 a f!a limit. local
527 mi mt3 1 t' 38 8 i the forma ficodin$,`' df `the' duct
F officials inlet"proposed water would Pay a smaller fee,.oi about$2
tiop'of a storlh and surface
district as Part of a ' per month t0 add Wip clean up
a ' ' i u►onth s I98#=$5 dt'ablage master pian. the,
and�s spi,he
}a�4 � E e4%oi athneffo+rt I/{y 'w
X711+
a190 led the - Y riz#:g Studies. part-a a o� i�}�g
it Com ems:"t...
k `city been . z , ,.�iRrte, �rA*, t,. court drat d pollution�Iiarebl
iWi _ L4C� rQC. to form tile. a7'
nage
ulries from de pers I were fsslt !hn"= the see this as a 'first step fA�ard that
l r,de- tical fit: ultimate >io. water,
�f oL Com n#o deet
l�ill
the
8n dJa:1 91jaitiy~ }
ad
last.
reri
`trM,!
nlding p »► 1rsG41'ded + Dr �rres
{�/i�/ ray :;YVM MWM�I'hProjec}t�'��.ya, i.t F .tr j�,.. § ]VO IJ
• tWs earl VB a combined
reI ` ' st - Ynn 0-0
par 8:. � ..
� ���j�" rfient
d 9tf M9 to tfil arrests. Ng char .' '
the
Y ; . i25
tit �1►`' . ={�ete�id► ¢ "� �. �`�
TUALATIN BASIN PROJECT
QUARTERLY REPORT 6/30/87
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) initiated an
intensive assessment of pollution sources and water quality in the
Tualatin Basin in July 1986. This is a two year study which will
be completed in June 1988. The study is supported by a section
205(j) grant provided by EPA. Portions of the study are being
conducted coope'ratively. by the DEQ, the Unified Sewerage Agency of
Washington county (USA) , and the Lake Oswego Corporation (LOC) .
- This report summarizes the project status for the fourth quarter.
The project is proceeding as scheduled. Background information,
study objectives and study tasks are outlined in the project
workplan.
PROGRESS TO DATE
The information collected during the first year is being analyzed
by DEQ. An objective of this analysis is to determine where
additional information is required to- describe processes affecting
water quality in the Tualatin Basin. Areas .requiring additional
information include a description of the variability of
chlorophyll a concentrations in the river, analysis of processes
which affect algal growth, and .the magnitude of sediment oxygen
demand.
The sampling program initiated this quarter will provide the data
for refining the assessment -of water quality conditions in the
Tualatin River. The Quality Assurance Implementation Plan has
been updated to cover the details of the sampling program.
Data collection will occur through intensive surveys which key in
on a few critical sampling sitesandan expanded ambient sampling
network. The information collected at each site depends on the
intended use of the data. The objective of each data collection
activity describes the intended use of the data. The survey types
and objectives are:
1) Ambient Monitoring. The two main objectives for ambient
monitoring this summer are: to maintain ambient background
information, and to distinguish the effect from point and
nonpoint pollution sources in the basin.
2) Chlorophyll Measurement. The objective is to refine the
analytical description of chlorophyll a variation in the
Tualatin and its dependence on nutrient concentration.
3) Depth Profile. The object-J.ve is to verify that
stratification occurs in the Lower Tualatin and to assess the
effect of stratification on water quality.
The information collected from these surveys will be related
directly, or indirectly, to the study objectives. The Tualatin
study is divided into three parts which reflect study objectives.
These parts are:
1) Water quality and aquatic life
2) Water quality and human uses
3) Water quality and toxics
Water Quality and Aquatic Life
The focus throughout this portion of the study has been on
dissolved oxygen, a key parameter that directly affects aquatic
Iife. During summer low flow the Tualatin River below the Rock
Creek Waste Treatment Plant (RCWTP) violates the dissolved oxygen
standard of 6 mg/l. Analysis of data confirms that the oxygen
depletion is due to nitrification of ammonia from RCWTP.
Data analysis by CH2M-Hill and DEQ indicates that sediment oxygen
demand and benthic nitrification need to be considered when
assessing oxygen demand in the Tualatin River. The intensive
depth profile surveys and diurnal sampling initiated this quarter
should provide the information needed to quantify the effect that
SOD,, benthic nitrification, and thermal stratification have on
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lower Tualatin River.
Water Quality and Human Uses
The Tualatin River provides area residents with many uses
including municipal water supply, andirrigation. other uses such
as swimming and boating depend on aesthetically pleasing water.
Point source discharges as well as nonpoint- urban and agricultural
sources affect water quality. To relate these discharges on water
quality, an ambient monitoring network has been established by
USA, by Scientific Resources Inc. (SRI) for LOC and- by DEQ.
Results from this quarter's sampling are being used to assess
seasonal water quality patterns. Wet weather surveys have been
completed. These surveys look at contributions resulting from key
activities, such as agricultural and urban runoff, and sewage
bypass in the basin. The entry of pollutants into Lake Oswego
reflects the seasonal variation of pollutant concentration in the
Tualatin River. Pollutants entering the lake during winter high
flows may also be present during the summer.
Water quality data collected during the final wet weather survey
appear to verify the results from previous winter surveys.
Concentrations of nutrients typically increase during winter high
flows. Phosphorus concentrations continue to be higher in
tributaries adjacent to urban areas than other tributaries in the
basin.
CONTROL OPTIONS
Table 2 presents the control options that are being discussed by
USA, DEQ and the citizens advisory committee.
Table 2
Control options
Point Sources
Alternative Uses
Out of Basin Transport:
Treatment Procedures
Nonpoint Sources
Stormwater Control
Land Management and Treatment
Point source control options that have been evaluated by CH2M-Hill
for USA include alternative uses, out of basin transport, and
treatment processes.
Alternative uses of sewage effluent are directed at spray
irrigation and land treatment in the form of "duck ponds" in
wetland areas.
The out-of-basin transport option would pump the effluent from the
major discharges to either the Columbia or the Willamette Rivers
where greater dilution is available. CH2M-Hill estimated a cost
of $100 million for the Columbia River option. The out-of-basin
transport option has raised concerns about water quantity in the
Tualatin. Dilution water purchased by USA provides a significant
amount of the flow during summer low flow conditions. Loss of
this water could greatly affect the flow in the lower river.
Dilution flows purchased from Scoggins Reservoir would have to
continue through the life of the contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Treatment processes being reviewed include advanced treatment
options and pretreatment alternatives. The nitrification
processes included in the Rock Creek Waste Treatment Plant
expansion is an example of a treatment process control. The
nitrification process is designed to reduce the ammonia load which
lowers the dissolved oxygen concentration in the Tualatin River
below RCWTP. One pretreatment alternative that has been discussed
is a phosphate detergent ban to reduce influent phosphorus loads.
References
CH2M-Hill, 1987, Interim Report, Tualatin River Water Quality
Modeling study
DEQ, 1987, Tualatin Drainage Basin Point and nonpoint Assessment
Part 2.1, Updated Quality Assurance Plan
DEQ, 1987, Tualatin Toxics Reconnaissance Surveys, Quality
Assurance PlzLn (Draft)
SRI, 1987, Lake Oswego Progress Report
The Need
t (Why have this expanded mission?)
1. Who is currently in charge of those three systems (storm,
sanitary & surface water) ? NOTE: Staff interpreted this
question to include those who impact or are interested in
these systems.
STORM SURFACE
WATER SANITARY WATER
LOCAL
Business Community X X X
Chambers of Commerce X X X
Cities x X X
Counties X x x
CPOs/NPOs X X X
Drainage Entities X x
Metropolitan Service District X X X
Private Property Owners X X x
Tualatin Hills Park i Rec. x
USA Advisory Commission X
USA Board of Directors X
Washington County Commissioners X
Water Districts X x
Tualatin Valley Irrigation Dist X
WC Soil i Water Conservation Dist X X
STATE OF OREGON
LCDC X X X
Boundary Commission
Dept of Environmental Quality X X x
Fish i Wildlife x
Water Resources Department X
Watermaster X
Legislators X X x
Division of State Lands X
FEDERAL
Audobon Society/Sierra Club X X X
Bureau of Reclamation x
Corps of Engineers x
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Interior , Bureau of
Land Management
Environmental Protection Agency x X x
HUD
PNPCA/WPCF X X x
US Fish 6 Wildlife X x
i US Soil Conservation Service x x
-7-
Rsw RSW R4W Raw R2W
i
ME AM LIN »
T3N i✓"� __._.
vw5a"wr3TCry f/ �
l.,
—Rif Red— -� � RIW RIE
xASi El. .
91
T2N SITE 11..a
�1 M CLINwadO l
N •"'� 'Ul S. SUIT�0A0$x 110. 2 st
a
• L._ Qonrs .t` 1101 TAINIALI ` "�•r-�
,QJ
ow.Cfto
TIN i $ALIS $1.1 . S Alex CN
MALES A. If. ' 111.9011! LAxI �� ' r
PO R T L A N D
TIS � I ` LAKC
N +
t + 1
_ J iNENtT 9111 t GASTON
111,11x$t�-.✓1 T = a
NT.
t u 7 M
1 LAKE OSWEGO
TUALATIN PROJECT, OREGON ' � 1�1..� � #� ; �`� - ti $one
wf tum
POTENTIAL DAMSITES `` a• t ��f -►'�--
ary
«rti +t 7f 1010-K,o-to t = 1 : , 4 s =smor[rul=
A '`� _f
4onday, September 28=3:30 to 5:30 p.m. and 7 to 9 TU�TIN RIVER FACT SHEET #2
►.m., Rock Creek Sewage Treatment plant, 3125 SE
fiver Rd.,Hillsboro.
)pen houses are a chance for people to ask questions
make suggestions before the decision has been made.
iE FINAL DECISION 811 SW Sixth Avenue
he public hearing will be held near the end of 1987, Portland,OR 97202
ng citizens a chance to give input on the final
ommeadation. The Environmental Quality Commission
make the decision on whether to approve the updated
aagement plant in the spring of M THE TUALATI N
)W CAN YOU HELP?"
obIe�f� .,= �,� � #AVER: SEARCHING
�, the result of human activities in the watershed. FOR A SOLUTION
)pie who degrade the river's water quality can help
Luce pollution byshanging their habits.
Individuals are difficult to regulate. Currently, DEQ 111
I the. Soil and Water Conservation District rely on Who uses the Tualatin River? Can it meet the needs Of
notary efforts. Eroding softs, fertilizers and to)dc anever-garowing population in Washington and Clackamas
unicals all cause water quality problems. Counties? How much pollution is natural? How much is
Urban storm drams run into culverts which release to the result of people living and working in the Tualatin
river. This "urban runoff carries A sediments and River Basin?
tilizers from residential lawns and gardeaus, malting the
alatin a dumping ground for these pollutants. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
osphorus from fertilizers, Organic waste and soaps also wants answers to these questions before deciding how to
rch the Tualatin,encouraging algae to grow. age the Tualatin River and its tributaries for better
These problems are not unique to the Tualatin River. water quality in the future.
►erase of fertilizers and pesticides is common where
ople take pride in green lawns. Oil leaks can be found IS THE RIM DIRTY?
uerever there are many cars. -People may dump oil or Over the last 20 years, Washington'County grew from
emicals down storm drains rather than recycle them 5MW to 250100 people. The growing population
cause they don't realize it will drain into the river.
overwhelmed existing sewage treatment facilities. In the
Phosphorus from detergents may keep clothes looking 19717"3, DEQ and Washington County closed inadequate
ighter,but phosphate-free detcrgent3 will also dean your sewage treatment plants, transferring wastewater to the
andry. The detergent label will say if it contains h4py.sophisticated Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
uosphates. The use of kw-phosphate detergents, and planta at Durham and Rock Creek. Today, USA meets
reful application of pesticides and fertilizers can aid in the strictest limits for wastewater treatment in Oregon.
e cleanup of the Tualatin River Basin. But even the best treatment isn't enough when pollution
OR MORE INFORMATION from a handle.large population becomes more than the river can
DEQ welcomes public comment and ideas on how to
anage the Tualatin River Basin, for the future. N you
we questions or want more information, entad Shirley
engla,Public Affairs Representative,229-5766.
,, ff
4
HAT IS WRONG WITH THE TUALATIN? quality through management plans in coordination with
The most obvious problem is the way the river looks. In other state agencies. Because of public concerns, DEQ
summer, algae--a simple plant that grows is lakes and
wants public input before recommending as updated basin
w moving rivers—gives the river a murky green calor. n°aaagement plan to the Environmental Quality
in-mixed sediments make the water look brawn in the Commission. Advisory committees, open houses, and a
iter. Both algae and sediments make the Tualatin less Public hearing are all part of DEQ s effort to hear the
pealing far recreation. public's concerns and ideas.
Another problem is invisible to humans, but is felt by PAs of the management plan' DEQ will set acs
L In summer, tow Levels of dissolved oxygen upset limits on pollution levels for the Tualatin River. These
static life. This drives fish to other areas in search of limits will improve water quality to meet the needs of the
people who use the river for water supply, recreation and
son- fishing. Bath a citizen and a technical advisory committee
The nature of the river compounds problems. Partway are assisting DEQ with management decisions. The
ough its journey to the Willamette River, the Tualatin citizen committee members represent competing uses for
er slows way down when it reaches'a 2-inch-per.-mile the Tualatin River as they discuss strategies to limit
pe. The nearly still waters encourage algal growth pollution. The technical committee serves as a scientific
ich causes erratic swings in oxygen. Near the Lake peer group for technical decisions.
wego Diversiog Dam, the river resembles a lake by
)arating into layers of different temperatures. WHAT CAN BE DONE? }
HAT CAUSES ALGAE TO GROW? Before money is spent on solutions, DEQ wants to be
certain that any efforts will improve water quality.
DEQ Launched an intensive study of the elver in June, gang the options being considered:
6.Two pollutants, phosphorus and ammonia,have been
;ratified as contributors to the summer problems of algae Better control of *nanpoint* pollution. The
I low dissolved oxygen. ms bTemsmeted pollution from many individuals can cause
pro . Noupoint sources of pollution in the
Phosphorus—a nutrient naturally present is food, Tualatin River Basin include runoff from urban and
tib'zer and detergents—enters the Tualatin through agriculture areas.
nage treatment plants, and runoff from urban and • Increasing summer-time water flaws for the basin.
zcultural areas. With the right combination of
trients,sunlight and warm temperatures,algae will grow. • Divtreated wastewater discharges to either the
gae is not a health threat, but is unpleasant for people int or Columbia Rivers.
o use the river and Lake Oswego for summertime • Improving wastewater treatment beyond what h
creation. currently required.
Ammonia, released into the river by sewage treatment • Irrigating treated wastewater on land during the
Brats, robs the water of oxygen. DEQ's study showed critical summer mouths.
4 in the summer, dissolved oxygen dips below the level • Removing the splashboards from the Lake Oswego
eded to support trout and salmon. Diversion Dam to increase the river's movement.
The sewage treatment plants introduce nearly all of the These are only a few options. The management plan
,monia. No single group is responsible for all of the may combine several of the options to improve water
osphorus. DEQ's study shows that heavy rains wash the quality. DEQ is seeking any ideas that the public may
jority of the nutrients from urban and agricultural areas have.
D the river during winter. The sewage treatment plants
I the most phosphorus in summer. By the study's end OPEN ROUSES-MEET THE bTERTS
June, 1988, DEQ wants to know how much of the The public has several opportunities to meet experts on
,tee's nutrients remain in the Tualatin to promote the the Tualatin River. Open houses will be held on:
rimer algal growth.
• Thursday, Se ptember 243:30 to 530 p.m� . and 7 to 9
HO CONTROLS THE RIVERS DESTINY? f; High School cafeteria, 9W0 SW Durham
The Tualatin River Basin is considered public waters„
unaged by several state agencies. DEQ protects water
THE TUALATIN RIVER. BASIN STUDY
FACT SHEET
Background
f
The Tualatin River Basin, located southwest of Portland, is an important
natural resource used for drinki�g, irrigation, industry and recreation.
The basin is made up of the Tua atin River and its tributaries which
include Scoggins, Gales, Dairy, Rock, Fanno and Beaverton Creeks. The
Tualatin winds t4rough Washington county past the cities of Gaston, Forest
Grove, Hillsboro and Tualatin, and flows into the Willamette River. Lake
Oswego draws water from the Tualatin.
The Tualatin's water quality is a growing concern. Low dissolved oxygen
caused by ammonia discharges from sewage treatment plants threatens aquatic
life. Heavy algae growth in the slow-moving river is "fed" by nutrients,
such as fertilizers, and discourages recreational use. There is also a
concern about toxics in the river as new industry moves into the area.
Population in the Tualatin River Basin has increased dramatically in recent
years from 60,000 in 1950 to 250,000 today. Population is projected to
reach 350,000 by the year 2000.
Rapid-population growth created an overload of wastewater in the Tualatin
during the 1950's and 601s. In the early 1970's many small, inefficient,
overloaded and outdated sewage treatment plants closed for public health
reasons. The plants began transferring their waste to Unified Sewerage
Agency's (USA) Durham and Rock Creek wastewater treatment facilities.
USA's plants were built using the best available technology. This improved
treatment reduced the amount of bacteria and other materials being
discharged into the Tualatin River Basin.
Before the construction of Hagg Lake Dam in 1974, the Tualatin River would
almost dry up during the summer. The low water levels led to warm -
temperatures, low oxygen and an inadequate water supply for fish,
irrigation or sewage dilution. Today, Hagg Lake Dam on Scoggins Creek
stores water during the winter for release in the summer. This increased
flow enhances water quality in the Tualatin River.
A study conducted by DEQ and USA between 1970 and 1979, showed improvement
in the water quality of the Tualatin, despite a 40 percent population
growth in the basin area. The study, however, warned that water quality
will deteriorate as population and industrial growth continues.
FR1311 -1-
'Why Study The Tualatin Basin?
The Tualatin River serves as an important resource to a growing
population. Industries use the river for manufacturing. Farmers use the
river for crop irrigation. Anglers and boaters use the river for
recreation. The Tualatin provides drinking water to Forest Grove,
Hillsboro and Beaverton. These uses depend on good water quality.
The problem of low dissolved oxygen is an immediate concern that will
require action. The nuisance of hard-to-control algae growth in the lower
Tualatin and Lake Oswego has heightened public concern. Rapid population
and industrial growth will continue to affect the river's water quality.
DEQ must plan carefully for the future.
Currently, DEQ is studying water quality in the Tualatin Basin in
000peration with the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County (USA) _
and the Lake Oswego Corporation. This study will review current water
pollution control standards in order to develop a long-term water quality
management plan.
What Will Be Studied?
• Aquatic Life
Fishing is a popular sport in the basin. Trout and bass need adequate
levels of oxygen to live. Low levels of dissolved oxygen can
eventually kill off fish and other aquatic life. The stretch of the
Tualatin River below Rock Creek violates dissolved oxygen standards
during the summer, when the river level .is low and temperatures are
warm. A study can pinpoint what causes the violations.
By taking an inventory of pollution sources and discharge points,
DEQ can fully understand the relationship between dissolved oxygen
levels and oxygen-demanding ammonia. Data has already been gathered
front a series of studies conducted between mid-June and mid-September,
198(:. With this data, DEQ will develop a plan to eliminate the
dissolved oxygen violations.
• Uses of the River
The Tualatin River is used by area residents for many purposes --
drinking water, irrigation and recreation. These uses may be
threatened by deterioration of the Tualatin's water quality. Levels
of fecal coliform bacteria in the lower Tualatin system sometimes
exceed water quality standards. Nutrient "enriched" water .flowing
into the lower system stimulates algae growth.
FR1311 -2-
A sampling program will estimate the level of pollutants coming from
industrial and. sewage treatment plant wastewater, agricultural
activities, and storm drains or ditches that discharge into the
river. The uses study will examine the effect of these pollutants
on water quality, making it possible to identify actions needed to
protect the Tualatin River system.
• Toxics
Fbr this study, the term "toxic" is very general, meaning any
"foreign" substances that degrade the river's water quality. Lawn
fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, motor oil, and metals, etc. fall
under this category. Toxic materials come from both human and
industrial sources.
More and more high-tech firms are moving into the Tualatin Basin.
Manufacturing equipment for computers, electronics, and communications
use large volumes of water. Discharge of heavy metals in industrial
wastes could increase toxic concentrations in the Tualatin River.
As industry expands, more people are expected to move into the area.
Toxics such as yard fertilizers and motor oil increase with
population. These toxins wash from the streets into storm drains
which flow into the river. Pesticide and herbicide runoff from
expanding agricultural activities also drain into the Tualatin.
Little data exists on the occurrence of toxins in the Tualatin basin.
Astudy can evaluate the impact of continuing- development on water
quality.
DEQ will focus its sampling.program on herbicides, pesticides and
heavy metals which are used in the basin. After assessing current
levels of toxics and their effects on the river, DEQ will begin
designing methods to protect water quality.
What Is The Next step?
The ultimate goal of the Tualatin River project is to develop an updated
plan which identifies water quality concerns and management strategies
that will best protect the basin.
Beginning September 30, 1986, DEQ will compile progress reports every three
months until June 30, 1988. A final report which includes basin planning
options will be prepared by June 30, 1988.
FR1311 -3-
Complex and varied issues surround the Tualatin River Basin study. DEQ,
USA, and the Lake Oswego Corporation are attempting to address the major
issues. However, critical factors may have been overlooked. Basin area
residents should be involved in the process to ensure that their concerns
and needs are covered in the study. DEQ is forming a citizen's advisory
committee to provide valuable input on study findings, as one way of
involving residents.
The Department encourages and welcomes public comment. To comment or
obtain additional information please write to:
DEQ Public Affairs
811 S. W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Ta obtain specific or additional information or be included--on the mailing
list regarding this study, contact Shirley Rengla at 229-5766 in Portland.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
January 9, 1987
FR1311 -4-
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TICARD, OREGON
TO: Utility and Franchise Committee Members January 15, 1988
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director Al
SUBJECT: Franchises and Meeting Date
At our last meeting of DeueWer 15, 1088, it was reported that the City
Council would consider nur staff report on the renegotiation of franchises at
the meeting of January 18, 1988. Our item has boen moved to the council
agenda of February 8, 1988, and will be considered by Council at that time.
In addition, the chairman of the committee has suggested that the utility and
franchise meeting scheduled for January 1O, 1088, be cancelled and that we
schedule our, next meeting for, February 16, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. I will send
each member a packet and agenda for the February meeting early in February.
If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171 ext 345.
ht/2704D