Loading...
08/02/2000 - Minutes Meeting Date: August 2, 2000 Issue Date: August 29, 2000 MINUTES Project: Summer Lake Water Quality Purpose: Task Force Meeting Location: Tigard Water District Auditorium Attendees: Task Force Members Brian Wegener—Chair, Tualatin Riverkeepers John E. Cook-Vice Chair,Resident Ed Halberg, Summer Lake Home Owners Gus Duenas- City Engineer Jim Hendrya, Public Works Director Kendra Smith,Unified Sewerage Agency Advisory Committee Members Sue Beilke, ODFW Duane Roberts, City Planning Department Greg Berry, City Engineering Department Consultants Vaughn Brown,Jeanne Lawson Assoc. Anders Rasmussen, HDR Greg Koonce, Inter-Fluve Guests Jeremy Fellows, Friends of Summerlake Jennifer Thompson, USF&WS Jim Grimes, ODFW Mr. Wegener opened the meeting at 6:35 PM. Approval of Minutes-Approved by consensus without revision. Criteria Statement Review and Approval The mission statement and seven evaluation criteria developed at the previous meeting were distributed and were separately considered in a discussion led by Mr. Brown. Revisions to the criteria statements were adopted by consensus and recorded by Mr. Brown(see adopted criteria statements attached). Alternatives Design Mr. Koonce described the general features of three options and conducted a question- answer session with the task force. The first is a diversion pipe extending from the lake inlet to downstream of the dam. During periods of low flow, warming of the water would be prevented by directing the flow into the pipe. Water would be allowed to remain in the pond but would not be passed downstream. During periods of high flow, water would pass through the lake much as is currently does. The second alternative is an open diversion channel constructed along the south edge of the lake that would operate much like the diversion pipe: low flows would be diverted to the channel to reduce warming of the water. Native vegetation would be planted along the channel to shade the water. This option would not be as effective in preventing warming of the water but would provide a year round flowing stream. The final alternative is removal of the dam. Low flows would be confined to meandering channel through the existing lake to reduce warming. High flows would overflow the banks of the channel and be directed to deepened backwater areas. Native vegetation and other habitat improvements would be provided. Neighborhood Meeting Plan The Task Force discussed the need for applying the criteria to the alternatives before presenting the alternatives at a public meeting. Additional descriptive detail is needed as well. It was agreed that the Consultants would conduct this evaluation at the next Task Force meeting. Neat Meeting: September 6, 2000, 6:30 PM. at TWD Auditorium. Adjourn: 9:20 PM i:WN%gregWurTww leks"2 M rrree*q sum y.doc � f Summer Lake Water Quality Enhancement Project Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Mission Statement: "The completed project shall enhance the biological integrity of Summer Creek and its attendant wetlands while providing for a multi-use urban park" Water Ouality • Project must improve lake and downstream water quality,to assist in meeting standards for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH and chlorophyll. • Project must improve visual aesthetics(minimal weeds, algae blooms)and reduce odors associated with lake water. Neighborhood Impact • Project minimizes negative impacts(including property values)on the surrounding neighborhoods. Park Use • Project maintains a lake water feature as focal point of Summer Lake Park • Project maximizes present and future uses for the Summer Lake Park in conjunction with the Summer Lake Park Management Plan. • Project allows for educational opportunities at the park to improve understanding of water quality and fish/wildlife issues. Fish & Wildlife Habitat and Travel Corridors • Project creates a habitat where humans, fish and wildlife coexist. • Project encourages the growth of native species while discouraging the presence of exotic invasive species. • Project enhances fish and wildlife habitat including improving migratory passage for both. Regulations • Project meets, or works toward meeting, all applicable federal, state and regional local regulations, including CWA,ESA, Goal 5 and Title 3 (USA D&C standards). • Project satisfies DEQ,USF&WS, ODFW,NMFS, USACOE, DSL requirements through their early involvement. cost • Project is cost effective and affordable, for both construction and operations& maintenance, with available funding. • Project minimizes maintenance costs. Recommended Alternative Demonstrates That: • Interested citizens, City and Agencies shall have had the opportunity to work collectively on solutions. • The project has a high probability of successfully meeting the objectives. • Project proponents can pursue partnership funding through stream and habitat enhancement grants from government agencies. • The project can be monitored for effectiveness.