08/02/2000 - Packet RECD J U L 212000
Summer Lake Task Force
MEMO
TO: Summer Lake Task Force
RE: Upcoming Task Force Meeting DATE: July 19, 2000
August 2, 2000
FROM: Vaughn Browk
The next Task Force meeting has two main purposes:
1. Accept a set of criteria statements that will guide alternative development and selection.
2. Prepare alternative solution approaches for resolving Summer Lake issues.
As per the Task Force request, we are inviting agency representatives to this meeting to provide
assistance in making sure the alternatives meet regulatory and policy guidelines.
Enclosed in this meeting briefing packet are the July 5 Meeting Minutes and a Criteria
Statements review draft. This draft is identical to the one emailed and faxed earlier. Please
review these documents and come prepared with questions, editorial suggestions and a
willingness to work toward group agreement.
Thank you for your participation on this project. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday
"d
the 2
s
Summer Lake Task Force71
August 2, 2000
6:30-9:00 PM
Tigard Water Building
Agenda
6:30 Welcome and Meeting Purpose Vaughn
Introduce Agency Guests
Review Previous Meeting Minutes
Approve Agenda and Format
6:45 Criteria Statement Review & Approval Task Force
Rating System Framework
Refine and Edit Statements
7:30 Alternatives Design Greg/Task Force
Conceptual Approaches
Options Development
8:40 Neighborhood Meeting Plan Task Force
Identify Feedback Needs
Date, Time, Location
Meeting Format & Materials
Task Force Role
8:55 Next Steps Vaughn
Review Progress
Schedule Next Meetings
9:00 Close Meeting Vaughn
s
Summer Lake Water Quality Enhancement Project
. Alternatives Evaluation Criteria
Review Draft
7/17/00
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 Quality
• 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.
• Project allows for educational opportunities at the park to improve understanding of water
quality and fish/wildlife issues.
Wildlife Habitat/Fish Passage
• 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 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 city budget.
• Project minimizes maintenance costs.
Other
• Neighbors, City and Agencies shall have worked collectively on solution.
• Selected 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.
• Project can be monitored for effectiveness.
•
Fishman Environmental Services, LLC
CONSULTANTS IN ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Z
9,
(� ; ao
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 2000
To: Kendra Smith, USA
From: Steve Johnson, Senior Fish/Aquatic Ecologist; Kim Gould, Fish/Aquatic Biologist
Subject: Summer Creek/Summer Lake Ecological Viability Analysis
Introduction
Fishman Environmental Services was asked to prepare a brief analysis of existing habitat and
water quality conditions in Summer Creek upstream of Summer Lake and address a series of
questions regarding feasibility and relative probability of success of the management alternatives
posed by the newly-formed Summer Lake Task Force. This memorandum describes the results of
our survey and our recommendations for addressing the water quality concerns at Summer Lake.
Methodology
Steve Johnson and Kim Gould visually surveyed Stunmer Lake and the south fork of Summer
• Creek from the lake upstream to the headwaters above the quarry. Water quality measurements
(temperature, dissolved oxygen,pH, and conductivity were taken with an ICM model 51501
Aquacheck water quality meter.
Analysis
The survey and analysis conducted by FES was designed to address the ecological conditions and
limitations of the south fork of Summer Creek and Summer Lake in relation to the habitat ,
requirements of resident coastal cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki clarki. We have attempted
to address several of the key questions pertaining to the potential breaching of the dam,
enhancement of habitat conditions upstream in the creek and augmenting flows in Summer Creek
with groundwater from the quarry.
Existing Conditions of Summer Lake and Summer Creek
Water quality conditions in Summer Lake are currently visibly as well as physically degraded.
Water quality measurements taken on April 19, 2000 indicated that water temperatures were
approximately 3° C warmer in the lake (18°C)than two miles upstream near the powerline
corridor(15.4°C). In addition,pH values were considerably higher in the lake than in upstream
reaches of the creek (lake: 8.64; quarry reach: 7.41). Oregon DEQ 303 (d) General Basin
Standards (adopted as of 1/11/96) for pH in the Willamette Basin are 6.5 to 8. . Dissolved
oxygen values were acceptable both in the lake and in the creek. The riparian and wetland
vegetation is better developed along the southern edge of the lake which includes a broad
• wetland fringe (dominated by reed canarygrass) and shrub layer with an adjacent stS°d of
0
o'-'q
434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304 Portland OR 97209-3600 phone:503 224 0333 fax:503 224 1851 www.fishenscrv.com
Summer Lake/Creek Ecological Viability Analysis
April 27, 2000 •
Page 2
conifers. The wetland/riparian vegetation on the north side is limited to a strip approximately 15-
20 feet wide and provides some protection for wildlife but little in terms of shade benefits.
Upstream of the lake between Scholl's Ferry Road and the 1301h Avenue bridge, Summer Creek
meanders through a broad floodplain dominated by reed canarygrass,however segments of the
channel are covered by a dense canopy of willow and a variety of native shrub species. Most of
the coniferous trees along this reach are dead, possibly from periodic flooding or excessively wet
conditions resulting from beaver activity. The riparian canopy of mature trees is still intact
through the Reflections at Summer Creek development reach. The stream channel is somewhat
wider(8-10 feet versus 3-5 feet)than in downstream reaches. Beaver activity at the upstream end
of the triple culvert road crossing in the Reflections development has created an impoundment in
recent years. Upstream of Reflections,the floodplain broadens again and the channel becomes
braided. Once again, most of the mature trees through this reach are dead or dying.
An instream detention pond downstream of the powerline corridor appears to be a potential
problem in terms of temperature impacts. The pond is shallow and has insufficient shading to
prevent warming of impounded waters.
Conditions in Summer Creek above the detention pond do not provide adequate fish passage •
particularly where the creek passes over the powerline access road, at the culverts downstream of
the quarry access road and at the beaver dam upstream of the quarry. There appear to be small
pockets of adequate fish habitat including gravel and sufficient instream and canopy cover both
above and below the powerline corridor.
Recommended Potential Actions to Bring Summer Creek into Compliance
It is apparent that while specific water quality improvement goals, such as removal of
phosphorus through detention facilities, are attainable, they may conflict with other desireable
goals such as reduction of stream temperatures or improved fish passage.
Restoring adequate temperature and water quality conditions in Summer Creek to support
salmonids,particularly cutthroat trout, will likely require a combination or possibly all of the
watershed management alternatives presented in the Summer Lake Management Plan as well as
flow augmentation from the quarry. Separation of Summer Lake from Summer Creek and
removal or partially breaching of the dam are the most ambitious and likely most expensive of
the alternatives. These alternatives should continue to be considered and studied for later use
particularly if the less expensive options such as flow augmentation and enhancement tree and
shrub planting are found to be reasonably effective and further compliance measures are
warranted. Shrub planting has a greater probability for success for providing shade than tree
planting based on the width of the stream channel. Shrubs will likely provide more immediate
shading results and are less likely to be removed by beaver. Good examples of reaches with good
shrub canopy cover are located upstream of the 1.3 Avenue bridge and upstream of the bridge •
in Reflections at Summer Creek.
i
Summer Lake/Creek Ecological Viability Analysis
• April 27, 2000
Page 3
Modifying the lake by separating it from the Summer Lake stream channel will likely provide
considerable benefits to downstream water quality in terms of temperature reduction, however it
would be of little value unless the temperature criterion can be met upstream of the lake. It is
important to note that if the lake is taken off-line many of the recreational and aesthetic benefits
of the lake will remain intact and possibly improved through chemical treatment, augmentation
with freshwater water or deepening through dredging.
(If this doesn't work you might consider building paddle boat marina to provide shade and
increase dissolved oxygen levels!)
Additional Measures (not included in Management Plan) to Improve Fish Passage and water
Quality
Instream obstructions resulting from beaver activity appear to be on the rise. While beaver ponds
are generally beneficial in terms of wildlife habitat, they tend to create fish passage problems and
the shallow impoundments can act as heat sumps that release warmer water into the downstream
reaches of the creek. The dams allow additional water volume to be stored on the floodplain and
facilitate groundwater recharge in the summer months. Augmentation planting around the edges
of beaver ponds,protected against destruction by beaver, may help reduce temperature
conditions during the summer months.
• Extent of Urban Runoff During Summer Months
Concerns have been expressed that the extent of impervious surface (paved areas and roofs) in
the Summer Creek basin precludes effective water quality restoration. The Summer Creek
basin's area is approximately 36 percent impervious surface (Ecotrust 1998). Although this
percentage is considered high enough to have considerable effects on basin hydrology, the
Summer Creek Basin possesses approximately 10 percent less impervious surface than adjacent
watersheds (Sylvan Creek: 45%; Ash Creek: 46%). The storm hydrograph for a precipitation
event in such an urbanized basin would be expected to exhibit a higher and earlier peak than in a
comparable basin with less impervious area(i.e. the stream would have a more "flashy"
hydrology). This effect can be partially mitigated by modern stormwater detention facilities.
Given that the Summer Creek system possesses less impervious surface and more stormwater
detention facilities than adjacent basins, it would be expected to have a somewhat less"flashy"
hydrology. Detailed hydrological modeling would be needed to specifically estimate these
effects.
Expected Effectiveness of Flow Augmentation and Infiltration to Reduce Stream Temperatures
Above and at the Lake
Flow augmentation and infiltration appear to be the best opportunities to determine whether the
target temperature range (64° F), is attainable. Flow augmentation can likely be accomplished
fairly inexpensively providing the discharge point is in the vicinity of the quarry rather than 2
• miles downstream at Summer Lake. A series of temperature monitors strategically placed in the
three forks of Summer Creek will provide a good indication of whether this alternative alone will
Summer Lake/Creek Ecological Viability Analysis
April 27, 2000 •
Page 4
be adequate to meet the temperature goals. If the data show that acceptable temperatures of 64° F
are unattainable upstream of the lake, it makes little sense to remove the dam and provide
passage for salmonids.
Timing and Sequencing of Proposed Actions
Feasibility and design study of Summer Lake/Dam modifications should continue to be examined
since it is recognized that a partial breach of the Summer Lake Dam will require 5-7 years for
regulatory approval. While these actions are explored, less expensive actions, such as tree and
shrub planting, can take place in reaches that currently lack adequate cover. Implementation of
these activities will give an indication of whether the water temperature criterion is attainable in
Summer Creek.
Range of Costs
The relative cost of alternatives under consideration from least to most expensive are likely as
follows:
• Enhancement tree and/or shrub planting through the City's Adopt-a-Stream program
• Flow augmentation through pumping
•
• Removal of instream detention facilities (other than Summer Lake Dam)
• Partial breaching of Summer Lake Dam
• Moving Summer Lake offline from Summer Creek
•
s
Exhibit A
•
SCOPE OF WORK AND
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
I. Scope of Work:
Consultant shall analyze the condition of Fanno Creek and the basin draining to it from
the Summer Lake dam upstream to the quarry. Consultant's evaluation shall address the
following issues:
• What are the conditions of Summer Lake and the mainstem reach above it up to the
quarry?
• If the conditions above the Lake do not meet standards (water quality and fish
passage), are there actions that could be taken to bring the reach into compliance?
• What are the measures that should be taken upstream(beyond those identified in the
watershed plan and recent development plans)to improve water quality and fish
passage,if any?
• What is the extent of urban runoff heating the creek during the summer months?
• What is the expected effectiveness of the proposed measures (flow augmentation in
the upper reaches from groundwater and infiltration at water quality facilities to
reduce stream temperatures above.and/or into the lake?
• • What would be the appropriate timing and sequencing of the proposed work
for areas
upstream and the Lake? Should implementation of the Lake modification await
resolution of the problems upstream?
• What are the range of costs associated with the needed activities? Describe the
economic efficiency of the suggested improvements?
I�