The URL can be used to link to this page

11/29/2000 - Packet RECD NO V 2 7 2000 Summer Lake Task Force MEMO TO: Summer Lake Task Force RE: Upcoming Task Force Meeting DATE: November 22, 2000 November 29,2000 Tigard Water Building 6:30—9:00 PM FROM: Vaughn Brown Enclosed in this meeting briefing packet is an agenda,an updated evaluation matrix worksheet • with the Task Force's initial rating results,a Neighbor Meeting comment card summary report, and the comment card response raw data. This final Task Force meeting is our last scheduled meeting. We will need to be dedicated to fulfilling our charge from the City Council to"develop and implement a project for improvements to Summer Lake." Please take some time to look at the enclosed materials. Using this information,the Task Force will make its final recommendation(s). Thank you for your participation on this project. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday, November 29th. • Summer Lake Task Force November 29, 2000 6:30-9:00 PM Tigard Water Building Agenda 6:30 Welcome and Meeting Purpose Brian Review Previous Meeting Minutes 6:45 Review Neighbor Meeting Results Task Force Comment Card Summary Report Discussion 7:15 Evaluation Criteria Update Task Force Modifications and Outcome with Discussion Neighbor Meeting Input 7:45 Public Comment 7:50 Recommendation Development Task Force Brainstorm Statements Decision Modify and Approve 8:55 Next Steps 9:00 Close Meeting Vaughn I &-sego my Statement to Summer Lake Task Force November 29, 2000 At this meeting the Task Force will decide what it will recommend to the Tigard City Council about a project for improvements to Summer Lake,therefore I think it is necessary to debate and draw conclusions about the efficacy of going forward with the project. The Council adopted a resolution charging a Task Force to recommend options to the status quo. It did so because the Council understood it was subject to a compliance order "to reduce the amount of discharge of certain nutrients" under the Federal Clean Water Act and further,that the impoundment "caus[es] heating of water beyond temperatures that desired species of fish could survive and reduce[s] the amount of oxygen in the water." The Task Force has found, and the record should show, that the City is not now and never has been subject to a compliance order regarding nutrient discharges from Summer Creek. Nor has the Task Force been provided any evidence other than the City resolution suggesting that Summer Lake causes downstream offending nutrient discharges. I*ft..- Similarly, the Task Force has no evidence that removing the lake or modifying its flows will eliminate or even contribute in any significant degree to the reduction of stream temperatures downstream of the lake. While the City's consultants have been helpful in rendering expert opinions based on suppositions and in outlining several options to the status quo,they have not provided hard data that support continuance of the project. Relevant to the particulars of the Summer Lake issue, I daresay without fear of contradiction, that over several years I have gathered and studied more relating to water quality and fish habitat than anyone in this room. Virtually all of the material gathered, now occupying a whole file drawer, comes from published and authoritative sources, much of it from web pages of the Oregon Department of Quality (DEQ), Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey(USGS),National Marine Fisheries, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. Some comes from recent testimony at hearings held on the DEQ's proposed new Total Maximum IAW Daily Loads regulations now out for review. In brief(but well-supported by published government documentation if necessary) undisputed facts I have gathered show the following: • AS TO WATER QUALITY: Dry season water quality in the creek above the lake has been bad for many years. At various times, excessive phosphorus, bacteria and mud flow into Summer Lake and, in summer, the water flowing into Summer Lake is far too warm and too low in dissolved oxygen to meet existing standards. A 1996 study found concentrations of total phosphorus in the lower 6 miles of Fanno Creek(Summer Creek joins it at mile 5) were near estimated background levels during low-flow periods, suggesting that no human-caused or other sources of phosphorus were adding to those already in the Tualatin River. The same study shows elevated E.coli levels are probably due to sources such as pets and wildlife waste. If that is the case, it seems reducing harmful bacteria will be difficult and not dependent on changing the status quo at Summer Lake. The study shows natural (background) levels of phosphorus in the region are so high that little more can be done to reduce them,prompting a recent USA witness to ask DEQ to "declare victory on phosphorus." Presently Summer Lake acts as a pollution reduction facility in the same way as upper basin water detention facilities placed by USA do—they hold back sediments (mud)that would otherwise find its way into lower Summer and Fanno Creeks. This means changes to Summer Lake that allow those sediments to go downstream will hurt rather than help downstream biota. Planting more trees to shade the lake and stream will have little or no effect on cooling the water flowing into Summer Lake. The Task Force has been furnished with a summary of a USGS study showing that if all of the streams in the Tualatin River basin had maximum tree shading, it would still not be possible to meet temperature standards during periods of low flow. Most of the upper watershed (almost entirely in Beaverton) is heavily urbanized, allowing little room for adding many more trees. Trees can only slow the rate of heating; they can do little or nothing to cool water that is already too warm to meet standards. Natural dissolved oxygen levels are dependent on low water temperatures, as well as aeration by waterfalls if present. During low flow periods, water temperatures above Summer Lake are high and there are no natural waterfalls. This means removal of the lake or modifying 1%W flows through it will do little or nothing to raise dissolved oxygen levels. • AS TO FISH HABITAT: Just published State fish distribution maps show no habitat potential for rearing cutthroat trout or threatened steelhead anywhere in Summer Creek. Existing high stream temperatures and low-dissolved oxygen levels during low-flow periods in summer militate against the uppermost parts of Summer Creek ever becoming habitat suitable for rearing these fish. Last April, Fishman Environmental Services, a USA consultant, informed the Task Force in writing as follows: "If the data show that acceptable temperatures of 64° F are unattainable upstream of the lake (Summer Lake), it makes little sense to remove the dam and provide passage for salmonids." That report suggested that flow augmentation and infiltration appear to be the best opportunities to determine whether the necessary temperatures for salmonids can be reached. So far, no actual source of cool water for flow augmentation has been found and doing so seems unlikely except at high cost. Ground water infiltration may provide a little cooling, as the consultants suggest, but not enough to lower temperatures to 64° F. I found afternoon stream temperatures at 135'h Ave during a relatively cool period in third week of August 2000 to vary between 70 and 78 degrees in a six-day period, strongly suggesting that a maximum 7-day moving average of 64°F(the temperature standard) is unattainable during the height of summer. Conclusions: Continuance of this project cannot be justified given the undisputed facts already available to anyone who cares to look at them. I believe the Task Force should recommend abandonment of this project. Further study would be wasteful of public monies and highly unlikely to conclude that carrying out any of the options will actually make significant improvements in water quality or add important fish Whabbitar. d E.Banta, Task Force Member r 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530 January 17, 2001 Mayor & City Council City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor and Council: Subject: Summer Lake Task Force Recommendations This missive is being composed so as to eliminate a trip to the "VNW appropriate meeting when your Council considers the Summer Lake Task Force recommendations. I have some concerns as outlined below. At the last task force meeting I advocated retaining the status quo concerning breaching the dam at Summer Lake Park. However, I relented when the majority recommendation met the specifications of the Task Force charge. The forthcoming Task Force recommendations meet the exact goal of the Task Force enabling resolution and instruction (Section 3 (6)), in that it "presents an off-line water feature(s) consistent with the City's Parks Master Plan to enhance Summerlake Park and provide an attrac- tion for the surrounding neighborhoods". (One might reasonably ask; If we knew the solution, why did we hire an expensive consultant as well as form and utilize the efforts of a task force?) There is no specific "compliance order" for Summerlake Park. This "order" as referred to in the 11/4/99 Tigard Times article, wherein "if we (the city) do not take action, the courts will do it for us", is wrong at this point in time. Further, the 1/25/ 2000 staff report referencing the Federal Clean Water Act which implies the necessity to immediatly take corrective action under the guise of a compliance order is inappropriate. True, actions must be taken in the Tualatin River Basin, but there is no specific order for Summer Lake. (Your staff finally admitted the city was being "proactive" and "orders" specific to Summer Lake did not exist.) The motivation to "clean up the lake" and evaluation of expected costs is a legitimate concern. However, the recommended solution will likely not reduce taxpayer expense. Maintenance of this `off stream fea- ture" (lake) will likely cost as much (if not more) than the present situation. From my point of view, a specific compliance order from a superior governmental agency to implement changes to Summer Lake would be a welcome asset. If the city were to be sued (under Measure 7, for exam- ple) for (alleged) surrounding property devaluation, help would then be available from other governmental jurisdictions. As it is now, the City of Tigard stands alone. Repeated testimony from the USA representative indicated a necessity to proceed so the city would have an opportunity to design the project of it's choice. I considered this to be the veiled threat in that all such options might be withheld if USA, State or Federal agencies were forced to-order compliance to as yet some undefined standard. I still con- sider this testimony as inaccurate, unrealistic and nothing more than noise at this point in time. Another question to be addressed is the possible impact of a con- tinuation of the present and possible future beaver dam('s) in "Merestone Pond" near the 121st street crossing. An Oregonian article (12 /00) announces a "Tigard City Council celebration" related to retention of this "natural structure". Your City Engineer exults in the dollars to be saved by not removing the beaver dam. This situation seems to be in direct conflict with Summer Lake goals. How do the fish get through??? Finally, when you choose to proceed, please ensure the neces- sary technical data (stream flow adequacy, water contamination and tem- perature, impact of present and future upstream development, shading and etc., etc.) will justify the project. Respectfully, McAdams Jeanne Lawson Associates, Inc. Neighborhood Meeting COMMENT CARD SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for Summer Lake Task Force Draft- November 21, 2000 OVERVIEW A comment card was distributed to the 58 registered participants who attended the November 8, 2000 Neighborhood Meeting held from 6:30 to 8:30 PM at Mary Woodward School. Comment cards were collected at the meeting and a mailing address was provided for those wishing to complete cards and return later. Overall, 31 cards were returned. The comment card was designed to meet Task Force recommendations. Participants were asked: • what ideas and concerns they have about the project • what their rankings of the evaluation criteria were • what they liked and disliked about each of the action options The following summary has been compiled by Jeanne Lawson Associates in an effort to provide useful feedback to the Task Force in developing their recommendations to the City Council. Comments were categorized into similarity groups that required some interpretative judgement by JLA staff. Every attempt was made to maintain the intent and integrity of each comment. The raw data tables will be provided to the Task Force. QUESTION 1—WHAT ISSUES, IDEAS AND CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT? Me We C Concerned that this project will alter the appearance of the lake, 9 diminish park value or limit the use of park and lake Feel that water quality and/or fish data is inadequate,want to see more $ data or can't make a decision because of limited data Want to do nothing. Leave the lake alone. Don't like any options. 6 Suggest planting more trees on islands and/or south bank 4 Suggest dredging or making lake deeper 3 Suggest keeping "sewage"or runoff from lake 2 Suggest a fish ladder in any scenario 2 Appreciate Task Force efforts 1 Too much concern about self-interest. j Summer Lake NeiabborMeeting Comment Card Summary Kaport—DRAFT .Jeanne Lawton Associates,Inc. QUESTION 2 — RATING EVALUATION CRITERIA • Concerned that this project will alter the appearance of the lake Attendees were asked to rate the six evaluation criteria areas developed by the Task Force according to importance. Ratings were from 6 for most important to 1 for the least criteria area. #of 6 3 5 7 5 2 1 #of5 5 5 5 3 3 2 #of 4 4 5 2 0 4 8 #of3 6 2 2 6 2 5 #of2 3 5 2 2 8 3 #oft 2 1 5 7 4 4 Total 87 98 90 74 69 73 Ave. 3.70 4.00 3.91 3.22 3.00 3.17 Counting only the responses that ranked the criteria using each number only once. • Total number of comment forms tallied was 23. Total 95 116 111 84 79 89 Ave. 3.52 4.14 3.96 3.11 2.93 3.18 Counting all responses. Some used rating numbers more than once. i Criteria Ratting Results- Highest to Lowest Importance. 1• Minimize Neighborhood Im Pacts 2. Protect Park and Lake 3. Improve Water Quality 4. Enhance Habitat and Travel • 5. Cost Effectiveness and Affordability 6. Meet Regulations Summer Lake Naohbor Meeting Comment Card Summary Retor—DRAFT Jeanne Lawson Associates,Inc. QUESTION 3—WHAT DO YOU LIKE AND DLSLIU ABOUT EACH ACTION OPTION? • Open Channel Low Flow Bypass IEbf9I= _ Preserves lake 11 Low summer lake level—mudflats 5 Can treat chemically—offline lake 3 Hi maintenance 4 Easy maintenance 2 Changes/loss of lake 3 Keeps birdstwaterfowl 1 I No W /fish benefit 3 Least cost 1 Creek& lake silting u 2 Deepening lake for backfill 1 Excavation 1 Promotes fish passage 1 Creek bed will be disturbed 1 Piped Low Flow Bypass Preserves lake 12 Low summer lake level—mudflats 3 Favorite option 9 lEgh maintenance—pipe clogging 4 Can treat chemically—offline lake 3 Doesn't solve fish/Wroblems 3 Least cost 3 Changes/loss of lake—water in pipe 3 Easy maintenance 2 Unusable sections I • Water cooling effect 1 Pipes are unnatural 1 Keeps birds/waterfowl 1 Deepening lake for backfill 1 Promotes fish passage 1 Safest—no channel 1 Stream with Backwater Areas . . lam Provides most habitat—diversity 2 Destroys lake 13 Closest option to natural stream 2 Don't do it,No way, Unacceptable 12 Promotes fish passage 1 Mudflats, bugs, stagnant water 6 Preserves some water feature 1 Most costly 4 Improves WQ 1 Lowers property values 1 Doesn't solve WQ issues 1 Hazardous to children 1 Limits access to water 1 Destroys some habitat types 1 Summer Lade Nei hbor Meeting Comment Carta Samma7 Report—DRAFT Jeanne Lawson Associates,Inc. Page 1 of 1 Greg, • We have developed some budget level construction cost estimates based upon conceptual designs. At this point the designs have not been developed beyond a conceptual stage, thus,judgments and opinions related to the designs are more qualitative than quantitative. Budget level construction cost estimates are as follows: Alternative Estimated Cost Piped Bypass $400,000 Channel Bypass $500,000 Stream and Dam Removal $800,000 This does not account for operations and maintenance costs. Of the two lowest cost alternatives it is anticipated that the piped bypass would cost more to operate and maintain. The piped bypass is anticipated to cost more to operate and maintain since there is the potential for sedimentation and a pipe is more difficult to clean out than an open channel. This is all we have for costs at this time. We could develop costs further, however, it would be a fairly subjective task without fu developing g subJ further develo in designs for the three alternatives. Please do not hesitate to ' contact me if you need any further information. Cordially, • Bill Norris, P.E. Inter-Fluve, Inc. • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00015.HTM 11/29/00 ,Y A n. t � AERIAL VIEW OPEN CHANNEL LOW FLOW BYPASS • • NO SCALE Wit_ s LOW FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL LOW FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL 0 VEGETATED BERM .N WINTER WATER LEVEL ��-- �' �% SUMMER WATER LEVEL USE LAKE BOTTOM MATERIAL 1 SECTION VIEW TO CREATE BERM 2 SECTION VIEW CHANNEL CONSTRUCTED ON LAND C L CONSTRUCTED IN POND NO SCALE NO SCALE inter•fluve, InC. Jeanne Lawson Associates,Inc. PENC S S public—o1va w.".Galls" ti b.' i i AERIAL VIEW PIPED LOW FLOW BYPASS s - NO SCALE AL a PIPE T�C7,\�� ' % EXCAVATE LAKE BOTTOM AND FILL AROUND PIPE / EXISTING LAKE BOTTOM ----- -------------- I SECTION VIEW CONCEPTUAL PIPE ALIGNMENT N __ oil inter•fluve, Inc. Jeanne Lawson Associates,Inc. PIPEDLowFLOW SS public i—N--f ep-ialmta " 1 a res s y .« w jq.. R _ w, �s k YPICAL BACKWATER AREA tilt CONCEPTUAL S'T'REAM ALIGNMENT ... f - STRFAM & BACKWATER AREAS k"7 NO SCALEas t� d MEMO Allah, oil fluve, inc Jeanne Iawson Associates,Inc. inter pubho-ol,ament specialists � STRJU1111AM ; , CKWATER ARFAs Summer Lake Chronology November 1996- Summer Lake In 2000 neighbors express concern to City Council about lake's September 1997— May— appearance Staff report to Task Force selects consulting Council on lake firm to assist in options management options development September 1998- June to September- Summer Lake Task Force meets to develop Management Plan evaluation criteria, guide adopted by Council action options development & review alternatives December 1999- Council appoints a We October- Task Force to Are Neighborhood Review O develop and Here Meeting implement a project November to December- that will: that water Task Force recommendations quality to Council - Improve habitat - Promote fish passage - Enhance Summer Lake Park Where do we go from here? ---------------- ------------------------------ Summer Lake Water Quality Project Feedback Form Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/2000 The Summer Lake Task Force and the City of Tigard want to know what you think. Please help them by completing the following information. 1. What Issues, Ideas, and concerns do you have about this project? 2. Rate the following evaluation criteria from most to least important. These criteria will be used to compare the action options with the option of maintaining the status quo. *****Use 6 for most important to 1 for least important***** Improve Water Quality Minimize Neighborhood Impacts Protect Park Use and Lake Feature Enhance Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Travel Corridors Meet Federal, State and Local Regulations Cost Effectiveness and Affordability 3. What do you like and dislike about each of the three action options displayed here tonight? Like Dislike Open—Channel Low Flow Bypass: Piped Low Flow Bypass: Stream with Backwatered Areas. I would like to be notified of future meetings(Please circle selection) : Yes No Name: Email : Street: Phone: City: Zip Code: • Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 01 ... .. ........ ....... ....... .. ......... Would a preserve I understand the purpose of this project to be improvement of water quality in Bypass will take water some water features the Tualatin Watershed and benefit to salmon and steelhead trout. I would like from lake so lake and not drain water as to see numbers attached to each alternating: costs,temperatures, numbers of Will basically preserve likely to become a (same as open channel (same as open channel would two bypass Lake as it now exists 1 fish benefited(estimates of course). lake as it now exists mudflat in summer bypass) bypass) alternatives would be destroyed Leave it as is 1! This is not an effective way to treat this. There are no proven facts to spend The concern that people are being put on the back burner. Who is primary in this amount o 2 this chain?This is where we live. Hundreds of people enjoy this lake as it is!! money!! No way, bugs, mud 1st Choice! I like that Please Don't Consider. the lake would Don't want mud flats maintain current which would be I would like to have the appearance of the lake remain unchanged. I am very Maintains current appearance. created every summer. pleased that if we take the lake off line we could deal with the algae. I would water level. Can Maintains current Mosquito problems. want to make sure that there are provisions and guarantees make that water chemically treat the water level. Can Sounds like a swamp. would be added to the lake during the summer to keep the water levels at lake. It might be easier Is it realistic that this chemically treat the Great negative impact current levels. I am very pleased that this is the cheapest alternative. Please go to maintain than the creek would remain lake. Cheapest Pipe might get on the lake's beauty. 3— with "Piped Low Flow Bypass"! piped option. undisturbed? alternative. clogged. Don't Most costly. 4 Why not dredge Summer Lake? Page 1 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 5 Attached a typed page of commentsDon't like any of them All of them cuslike tile 3 options. I feel they are a good way to fritter away our tax dollars in search o It concems me that you are considering removing Summer Lake Dam or a livable habitat for altering its configuration and lose the lake per se. If it should happen I feel the fish in a water way lake bed could become a home for mosquitoes and a muddy quagmire certain where that is times of the year. Ugh! The lake is one of the hallmarks of this Tigard Park. It scientifically an 6 is unique and would be lost. I like none of these financially impossible. Do nothing unless you have to, and then it should be with the least change to 1st Choice. Retaining the visible lake and pond below the lake. How can the run-off pollution from the lake and keeping streets,yards, businesses,etc. be removed from water to make it fit for fish if the birds and fish is what's wanted. We don't want to lose the lake. There are currently no 2nd Choice. Retaining waterfowl,water The disappearance of gravel beds for fish spawning, if there are fish in Summer Creek. If the dam is the lake,keeping the possible sitting up of exiting the bypass will possibly that the pipe Last Choice.For the the lake almost 7 removed, what happens to Merestone Pond?Does it stay the same as it is now? birds and waterfowl channel and lake be cooler would clog up cost and aesthetics. everything about it. l 8 I do not believe any improvement is prudent. Leave as is. 113rd Choice 2nd Choice Nothing lEverything Page 2 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 „ .z Is this a problem?Are we going to see fish return?Were there any fish in the stream to begin with?City needs to reflect 1st time cost and ongoing cost. Is Best idea"if'you have the city going to pay the ongoing cost?Need"real"data not projections! Will to do something. It ok any of these solutions "fix"the problem. Lastly, are we being forced"now"to to have a plan-you 9 do this?What about upper and lower areas? Muddon't have to do it mud I am concerned about the lack of data provided to support any of these plans. It seems that the decision has already been made to do something,but you(the Cost, least impact on Minimal impact on 10 task force)don't want to let us in on it. park ark No Lake! NO WAY! What about Upper Appears to require a Creek flow and lot of maintenance temperature?Will the The focus is not on water quality&preserving this lake but rather on the creates additional 1st Choice. Summer water flow be warmer Do not want to lose passage of fish that no one can state any facts that there is even a potential of issues, like silt, low Lake level will remain as it enters the inlet to 3rd Choice. Not a lake;ponds are not 11 this habitat surviving or existing! Data is inconclusive. Second Choice water level. @ current level. the lake viable option acceptable People come to the park because of the water, if it is hidden in a pipe they could just The lack of data makes it impossible to offer an educated opinion on what to In the summer the stay home and look at This would result in 12 do. lakes would be mud the stretch. Summer Swamp Would like to know advantages/disadvantages of each option with cost. I Wildlife possibilities assume that the stream backwatered areas will fulfill all DEQ/EPA /more areas for a More description at 13 requirements-but is that true. A little modeling of the options would be helpful. Imissed discussion Will this pass regs? pariety of birds startup of project Page 3 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 aill;J IRS IN s� <v. I am mainly concerned with keeping the beauty of the park&lakes. Large lake Eliminates lake. This surface and algae as limited as in 2000. Current cost is like mowing grass. would look like area Consider alternatives such as used at Murrayhill. DO NOTHING! DO NO Summer algae, Extra cost to maintain west of 130th,just HARM! NONE HAVE DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO SOLVE operating cost same as creek banks, inlet,fish Operating costs same Extra cost to clean TOTALLY bushes in a marshy 14 UNDEFINED PROBLEM. now. ladder as now pipes, inlet,fish ladder UNACCEPTABLE! area. recorded history there never has been a fish come this far up stream- Species come and go in the history of the earth and it is ridiculous to think a little algae from Summer Lake can make any difference in water quality on the Willamette. What makes a difference is Safety-nobody falling Mgmt of algae- Portland and all the in channel. Leaves Surrounding property values and enjoyment of park if lake is drained. This chemical or raw sewage that goes visual impact. Can whole thing is a bunch of political bologna. Since we do not have control up harvesting. Lake levels in the river every time treat lake when offline. above the lake. Where is the money going to come from to do any of this? stays same it rains. Lake level stays up Nothing This is not acceptable Saves the lake, improves quality of Saves the lake, water, saves fish I appreciate efforts of the task force to come up with options to save and improves water quality habitat, the plan would 16 improve the quality of the lake. I like the pipe option. and appearance of lake e my choice Do not like this option Page 4 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 :s : y ,C...t>.. .:.......:.. ......k. .... :.. r. ..u �k.n..k...,.. .. ..3 .. ..:. ,..\. ,f`n;y,:.i:. » ,a: �;�•:' ..:fig:, �,, :>:.:; Pipe no good to fish habitat, chemical treatment not Chemical treatment no To much weight will be given to self-interested immediate neighbors of the completely contained, contained,ongoing This is the closest to a 17 lake. ongoing cost cost real strewn cost Seems like best option. Concerned water level It is critical to my family that the lake looks the same. This is a great treasure Nfinimal impact to will go down in Ruins look of this 18 for the city of Tigard and it would be a crime to lose it. existing lake. summer beautiful park 19 20 I do not want the lake removed Visual change No visual change Loss of lake chocolate pudding, Vegetation described limited access water, Why are we saving fish runs that have never existed?What is Beaverton to build maintained Construction and damage and changes planning above 135th?I would like to do nothing-if given a choice-other than Keeps lake appearance channel, low summer maintenance at inlet, to wildlife,undesirable adding natural shade. Deeper lake, plant trees on islands& south bank, gravel same, deepening lake water level, Keeps lakes fish ladder good idea area-lower property 21 and natural barriers between 130th& 135th to create shade, add fish ladder Ito backfill channel construction of inlet appearance same in any scenario nothing value Page 5 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 M Sys t,'k W Stagnant, low water in As long as is doesn't summer, I'm no clear Impact on the neighborhood-property value, mosquito problems,aesthetics. impact current lake on how overflow will Stagnant water areas Water quality improvement, algae problem, appears as if restoring fish habitat conditions/appearance, automatically"spill Somewhat maintains Stagnant, low water in in summer,becomes a 22 is main concern more than water quality-which is more immediate. looks ok over"to the lake "natural" appearance summer marsh, not a lake Fine if aesthetically I want to keep the ability of people who walk around the lake for the view to be pleasing and it will Will radically alter able to continue to do so. Many people tell me they walk around the lake for solve the federal and what the park looks 23 the sheer beauty. state rules Some as above like Maintains lake feature, easier to maintain lake Maintains lake feature, Cost to maintain/fix and treat algae, adds I want to minimize the visual change of the current feature-so preference is for easier to maintain lake pipe when problems aesthetic feature to Nothing about this Takes away the lake as 24 bypass options and treat algae occur park option! a positive feature Stream characteristics improved, improved habitat diversity, improved wq-fish Would like to maintain fishery resource valves, improve water quality, is ugly conditions, make now; US natural means to improve water quality; fix the problem do not treat Do not like un-natural broad habitat, dredge 25 the symptoms Like lake and creek Lake is still ugly pipes backwater Preserves current Minimal changes to Sections become Reduces lake into 26 appearance Excavation appearance unusable None small ponds Page 6 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 ..... I Sit..... Removes the"lake". This whole idea of reintroducing fish to a place where there is naturally Will totally impact insufficient flow even before the lake was in existence is absurd. Further, I'm value of surrounding Only option offered sure there are interests within the city that are more than willing to support the houses. That's why that even resembles use of what would become an abandoned area for eventual ball fields, they called it Summer one of the major recreation and the revenue that brings. This is nothing less than the Lake-disenfranchises reasons why I live 27 disenfranchisement of homeowners. homeowners Even worse then above here. Best maintains current Creates hazard for lake setting. Most cost children. Destroys effective of examples. beauty of lake. Run-off goes directly Preserves habitat for Destroys habitat for 28 into stream. birds. certain birds. No one has established that this will create habitat for threatened I'm concerned that the Task Force is ignoring the Findings issues by Fishman salmonids. This Environmental Services following Phase One of this project, and appears to be option creates hazards planning to recommed that the City Council move forward with one of the No one has established for children. This three proposed options before anyone has determined whether or not there is an that this will create Best of the three option destroys economically feasible way of lowering the temperature of the water entering habitat for threatened options for treating the No on has established Summer Lake and will Summer Lake sufficiently to provide habitat for threatened salmonids. Until salmonids. Run-off lake to reduce amounts that this will create generate costly that determination is made, any effort to choose among alternatives is not just flows directly into the 1of algae. Least costly habitat for threatened litigation the City 29 premature,but a waste of precious taxpayer dollars. stream. of the three options. salmonids. should try to avoid. Page 7 of 8 Comment Forms from Neighborhood Meeting 11/8/00 ........... On .MM Does no ng for 9aKe water quality." At summertime, it may divert water from channel to maintain lake water level. Does Eliminates the take. Does nothing for"lake not address lake temp Expensive and water quality." At nor algae. Deals disruptive. Does not summertime, it may nothing about other address the rest of the divert water from four or five goals problems. We may The main issue for me is to improve the lake and eliminate sewage from channel to maintain identified for the task have algae in three entering the Lake. I believe this is the main issue about the "water quality." lake water level. Does force. None of the ponds after this plan "Temperature"is the second most issue that deals with both algae and fish Promotes fish passage not address lake temp Promotes fish passage plans deal with inlet Promotes fish passage with high 30 habitat with regards to water quality. Park usage is my second priority. jonly. Por algae. only. temperature. only. temperatures. I want the lake to remain a lake. I also want costs to be minimized. I recommend that the pipe be put in,add 1 or more islands,dig the lake deeper, make the lake narrower, and plant lots of trees on the islands and south shore. Benefits of my recommendation: 1. The lake remains a lake, 2. Inexpensive trees provide the main cooling effect. 3. Total cost is minimized. 4. Hopefully it keeps the feds off our backs, avoiding more expensive alternatives. Least Cost. See his 5. The view from Winter Lake Drive north will be enhanced. The trees notes in question I planted on the east end of the ...[got cut off by fax machine] 6. Trees only regarding his need to be planted on the islands and the wouth shore of the lake, at the east recommendation to Lend. Disadvantages: 1. Cost will be significant, 2. The lake will be narrower e the lake It probably won't give Too expensive, the and will have [got cut off by fax machine] 3. The ducks and geese won't like it Too much cost for the narrower, deeper, and enough benefit by lake disappears--not as much as [got cut off by fax machine] benefit plant shade trees. itself. acceptable. Page 8 of 8 .. A. i» R \ c tef a:u u, :y p, a: ,:::.,¢,,,.:..:. o•r:.. _...♦♦,,,:..:., ,. . .....bye.. ... .ousit Commen Form# 1 6 2 1 5 3 4 2 3 5 6 1 2 4 3 2 5 6 3 1 4 4 5 0 2 1 0 0 3 6 2 1 3 7 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 1 6 6 1 1 5 9 5 4 6 1 2 3 10 3 4 5 1 6 2 11 2 4 1 6 5 3 12 4 6 6 4 6 3 13 4 1 2 6 5 3 14 3 5 6 1 2 4 15 1 3 2 6 5 4 16 4 5 6 3 2 1 17 5 2 1 6 4 3 18 5 6 4 3 2 1 19 2 6 5 1 4 3 20 5 4 6 3 2 1 21 3 6 6 3 1 1 22 4 6 3 2 1 5 23 4 5 6 3 1 2 24 3 2 1 S 4 6 25 6 2 3 5 4 1 26 27 5 2 1 6 3 4 28 3 6 5 1 2 4 29 3 6 5 1 2 4 30 6 4 5 3 1 2 311 1 3 4 1 2 6 5 Counting all responses: Total= 95 116 111 84 79 89 Average= 3.52 4.14 3.96 3.11 2.93 3.18 Counting only the responses that ranked the criteria from 1 to 6,using each number only once. Total number of comment forms counted was 23. #of 6 3 5 7 5 2 1 #of5 5 5 5 3 3 2 #of4 4 5 2 0 4 8 #of3 6 2 2 6 2 5 #oft 3 5 2 2 8 3 #oft 2 1 5 7 4 4 Average= 3.70 4.00 3.91 3.22 3.00 3.17 The ranking shows the order of importance of the criteria is as follows,from highest to lowest: Minimize neighborhood impacts Protect park and lake Improve water quality Enhance fish and wildlife habitat and travel corridors Cost effectiveness and affordability Meet federal,state and local regulations