ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
This capstone project was made possible by the help and resources from the following
individuals and organizations. Their invaluable assistance throughout the past year has
provided data, background information, regional history, water rights and policy,
photographs, and personal support.
Tualatin River Watershed Council
Steve Trask, Bio-Surveys, LLC
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Rob Foster, City of Forest Grove
Clean Water Services
The following OSU instructors have provided support, guidance, and insight throughout
completion of the Master of Natural Resources program and this capstone project.
Penelope Diebel
Ken Diebel
Dana Warren
Badege Bishaw
Lynette de Silva
Further, I would like to acknowledge mentor Gary Miniszewski and my parents, who
promoted broader thinking, aided work sessions, conducted periodic editorial draft
reviews, and provided continued support throughout my capstone project and completion
of my Master of Natural resources degree from Oregon State University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Review of Water Flow and Temperature Impacts
2.1.1 How to Mitigate High Water Temperature
2.2 Literature Review of Economic Analysis
2.2.1 Ecosystem Services
2.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis.
4
4
5
6
7
9
3. STUDY AREA
3.1 Regional Context
3.1.1 Watershed Description
3.2 Steelhead Trout
3.3 Tualatin River Watershed Council Fish Survey History
3.4 City of Forest Grove Water
13
13
14
17
20
21
4. FLOW AND FISHERIES DATA
4.1 Water Flow of Gales Creek
4.2 Fish Surveys
4.3 Intake Changes in 2014
4.4 Clear Creek Intake versus JWC Intake
24
24
27
32
33
5. ECONOMIC DATA
5.1 Cost Analysis
5.2 Funding
36
36
37
6. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
6.1 Proposed Improvement Plan
6.1.1 Altering Intake Level
6.1.2 Large Woody Debris Restoration
41
41
42
43
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
46
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDICES
49
55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gales Creek Summer Water Flow 2006-2015
26
Table 2: Gales Creek Summer Temperature 2006-2015
26
Table 3: Juvenile Steelhead Numbers & Density Observed from
RBA Surveys 2013-2014
Table 4: Juvenile Steelhead Number Expansion from 20% RBA Survey Results
29
30
Table 5: Water Received from JWC
35
Table 6: Forest Grove Water Budget
37
th
Table 7: 3/4 in. Water Meter Size Revenue
39
Table 8: 2 in. Water Meter Size Revenue
39
Table 9: 30% Reduction of Current Summer Municipal Intake
42
Table 10: Two Week Shutdown
43
Table 11: Expanded Juvenile Steelhead Number for Clear Creek LWD Project
44
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Capstone Project Overview
3
Figure 2: Water Availability and Demand by Seasons
13
Figure 3: Gales Creek Watershed & Tributaries
14
Figure 4: Land Ownership
16
Figure 5: Critical Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin: Gales Creek
19
Figure 6: Population Growth in Washington County
23
Figure 7: 2014 Gales Creek Mean Daily Flow (a proxy to Clear Creek)
25
Figure 8: 2014 Gales Creek Mean Daily Temperature (a proxy to Clear Creek)
25
Figure 9: Steelhead trout Escapement Count at Willamette Falls
28
Figure 10: Steelhead Numbers & Density in the Tualatin River Basin
32
Figure 11: Juvenile Steelhead per pool in Gales Creek (a proxy to Clear Creek)
32
Figure 12: JWC Beginning and Ending Allocation
35
ABBREVIATIONS
cfs
Cubic Feet Per Second
DEQ
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FPA
Forest Practices Act
JWC
Joint Water Commission
MAD
Mean Annual Discharge
ODF
Oregon Department of Forestry
ODFW
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
OWRD
Oregon Water Resources Department
PNW
Pacific Northwest
RM
River Mile
STHD
Steelhead Trout
SQM
Square-mile
TRWC
Tualatin River Watershed Council
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WTP
Willingness-To-Pay
1
Municipal Water Impacts on Steelhead Trout in the Gales Creek Watershed
1. Introduction
The Tualatin River Basin is a large watershed in the Upper Willamette Basin of Oregon
stretching from the Coast Range to the Willamette River. The Tualatin River is 80 miles long
with four major urban tributaries and six major rural tributaries. The Gales Creek Watershed
branches from the upper Tualatin River and provides important habitat for salmonid juveniles to
rear. Gales Creek’s water quality and habitat for salmonids is vital to the sustainability of the
Tualatin River Basin’s native steelhead trout population.
The Gales Creek Watershed has a tributary, Clear Creek, that provides municipal water to the
city of Forest Grove. Forest Grove is located in Washington County, Oregon. The city of Forest
Grove and the rest of Washington County is currently experiencing population growth.
Washington County is the third fastest growing county in Oregon, with over an estimated
10,000-person increase in 2015 (Population Research Center 2015). Forest Grove is currently the
fastest growing city in Washington County, with a nine percent increase in 2015 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2015). The city’s water demands need to accommodate population growth; however,
Clear Creek provides water for native fish as well as the city. This population increase has
caused many cities in Washington County to reevaluate their water sources for long-term
planning.
In June of 2015 the Tualatin River Watershed Council (TRWC) gave a public presentation on
two years of fish sample survey data of the Tualatin River’s tributaries. The presentation
addressed a change in fish numbers and density between 2013 and 2014 in the Gales Creek
Watershed possibly due to the in Clear Creek water intake shutdown for two weeks in the
summer of 2014 (Trask 2015). This data indicates the need for research as to how municipal
water intake may impact fish numbers and density. The fish surveys for the TRWC project
collected data on Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout and steelhead trout. This
capstone will focus on the changes and impact on steelhead trout in Clear Creek of the Gales
Creek Watershed.
There are many variables that impact stream temperature, and decades of human development
have altered natural temperature regimes in the Tualatin river network. Managing water
diversions is considered a critical action for salmonid recovery throughout Oregon. Common
management suggestions to enhance stream habitat include vegetation improvements and
instream allocation changes (Meross 2000; Cerda 1991).
The objective of this Masters of Natural Resources Capstone project is to examine how
municipal water use of the Clear Creek tributary changes habitat requirements for steelhead
trout, and to determine if changes of urban water use can increase access to salmonid habitat.
Fundamental to this strategy are answers to the following questions: Is the goal to increase fish
numbers or access the current habitat? Given limited resources, can water flow levels be
increased for the fish while still economically meeting municipal water needs for the city?
2
Figure1:CapstoneProjectOverview
3
4
2. Literature Review
This section summarizes the relevant literature on water flow and temperature impacts on
salmonids. It also identifies the theoretical basis for my economic analysis of alternative water
management.
2.1 Literature Review of Water Flow and Temperature Impacts
Stream temperature is a predominant impact on aquatic organisms, and temperature is a control
of salmonid growth (Wade et al. 2013). The salmon life cycle is adapted to specific water
temperature patterns in their native streams. Fish are exothermic and their life cycle is controlled
by temperature (Groom et al. 2011). Low water flow, high air temperatures, and minimal canopy
coverage elevate summer stream temperatures in forestlands (Neumann et al. 2006; Groom et al.
2011). Wade et al. (2013) model data has found that rivers west of the Cascades, like the
Tualatin River Basin, has the greatest magnitude of low flow. Studies have found that when
stream flow is reduced by 90% there is a reduction in invertebrate density, but not when the
stream flow is only reduced by 50% (Bradford and Heinonen 2008). It has also been determined
that low stream flows decrease riffles and pool habitats, which are preferred by certain salmonid
species like steelhead trout (Bradford and Heinonen 2008). Streams used by salmonids for
spawning need to maintain a healthy temperature range since salmonid life cycles are effected by
water temperature.
The “Salmon Restoration in an Urban Watershed: Johnson Creek, Oregon” compiled by Sharon
Meross (2000) is a comprehensive overview of the conditions and challenges for salmon in
Johnson Creek. Johnson Creek, also part of the Upper Willamette Basin, is 15 miles east of the
5
Tualatin River and has similar habitat challenges as the Tualatin River Basin. The Oregon
Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) have a temperature limit of 17.7˚C regulated by
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels and human use allowances (Meross 2000; DEQ
2012). Stream temperatures above 23˚C can be deadly to salmon because they require specific
water temperature levels in order to prevent disease and to stay alive. Steelhead trout have a
lower temperature threshold of 18˚C (Thompson 2005). High water temperatures can also
decrease dissolved oxygen levels in water. Dissolved oxygen is essential to fish survival (British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks 1998). Lastly, studies have found that low
water flow habitats can favor exotic species over native species and lower the native success
rates (Bradford and Heinonen 2008).
2.1.1 How to Mitigate High Water Temperature
It is difficult to cool already elevated water temperatures, but there are many ways to prevent
high water temperatures (Thompson 2005). Water flow and shade from streamside vegetation are
two variables that impact stream temperature and can be used to mitigate elevated water
temperature (Bradford and Heinonen 2008). A study by Groom et al. (2011) researched how
stream temperatures respond to timber harvest. Stream temperatures in private forest sites
increase on average 0.7° C in response to riparian timber harvest. The study concluded that the
amount of shade from streamside vegetation is one of the most important variables affecting
summer stream temperatures in the Pacific Northwest (Groom et al. 2011; Johnson and Jones
2000). Forest canopy cover reduces direct solar radiation on a stream, which lowers the
maximum daily water temperature (Thompson 2005).
6
Stream temperature is also correlated to water flow. Temperature can rise when water levels are
low because solar radiation heats up the lower water volume quicker. Neumann et al. (2006)
recommends purchasing water rights to increase water flows and decrease stream temperature.
When flow levels are extremely low in dry summer months, juvenile salmonids may be stranded
when migrating through a tributary (Neumann et al. 2006). One strategy to combat instream flow
impacts is to use the Tennant method (Tennant 1976) for setting flow standards based on the
mean annual discharge (MAD). Minimal instream water flow level is set at 10% of MAD, 30%
MAD is considered acceptable flow levels for aquatic species, and 60% is exceptional levels for
aquatic species. The MAD percentage acceptable is dependent on the stream size and region
(Tennant 1976).
2.2 Literature Review of Economic Analysis
Investing in better habitat for fish results in a change of natural resource allocation. Changing
resource allocation, such as instream flow, means there is less water available for out-of-stream
needs. This increases conflict between fish production and other uses like agriculture, municipal
water, and power. The choice of reallocating resources, and how much, can be determined
through economic efficiency analysis (Johnson and Adams 1988). William Jaeger (2005)
explains in Environmental Economics for Tree Hugger and Other Skeptics that the purpose of an
economic marginal analysis is to evaluate the trade-offs between the marginal benefit and
marginal cost. This creates a high opportunity cost. The results of economic analysis help
identify efficient allocation that will maximize net benefits.
A 1977 study on the Little White Salmon hatchery by Brown and Larson (1977) researched the
7
estimated cost benefits of water supply improvements at the hatchery. The study compared two
different hatcheries, Spring Creek and Little White Salmon, and determined that the smolt
survival numbers was due to cooler river water and better water quality. The authors concluded
that the estimated benefits of water quality improvements were about 77% higher than the
estimated total costs. In addition, there was a projected conservative 20% increase in fish harvest
in the Little White Salmon. The authors address an important point when calculating the value of
the increase in fish numbers. Which parties will gain from the increase? Freshwater fish can have
economic value to fishermen, value to aquatic and terrestrial species in the ecosystem, and value
to the community (Brown and Larson 1977). When measuring costs and benefits to water supply
changes for native fish it is important to address the community who values from the benefit
change.
2.2.1 Ecosystem Services
Society places a value on salmon, as a commodity and as an ecological benefit (Whittlesey and
Wandschneider 1992). Ecosystem services are services of ecological benefits to humans
provided by ecosystem functions (Jaeger 2005). Valuation of natural resources can be
controversial in policy decisions, but also provide useful information to decision makers, like a
city council or watershed council. The value of salmonids has changed over time due to other
industrial developments, like hydropower and irrigation (Whittlesey and Wandschneider 1992).
In addition, many ecosystem services are considered public goods, which make it difficult for
private sectors to market these goods (Johnson and Adams 1988). Some studies show that
household’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for resources increases if there are the ecosystem benefits
to their community (Jaeger 2005). The Oregon Population Survey assessed Oregonian’s WTP for
8
salmon recovery biennially between 1996 and 2002 (Montgomery and Helvoigt 2006). During
this survey period WTP for salmon recovery by Oregonians declined for unexplainable reasons,
but the WTP may have increased since 2002 (Montgomery and Helvoigt 2006). Furthermore,
migratory species provide ecological benefits in multiple areas and to many different people, but
estimating the value of migratory species is a challenge due to many variables. Semmens et al.
(2011) created a framework to estimate how one location for a migratory species supports
ecosystem services in another location. A monetary range is usually used to determine price for
benefit from migratory species. The goal of the study was to quantify the spatial subsidies by
migratory species for markets. Salmonids can travel far distances from the ocean to their
spawning freshwater tributaries. They provide nutrients between marine, freshwater, and
terrestrial ecosystems (Semmens et al. 2011). It is important to determine how migratory species
services can be quantified in order to make sound management and policy decisions.
Surveys have found that citizens in the Pacific Northwest are willing to pay for improved
salmonid conditions. There is a wide scope in valuation but surveys have found that residents are
willing to pay between $21-$122 per year for Coho recovery programs (Bell et al. 2003). Results
from a study by Loomis et al. (2000) found that households were willing to pay an average of
$21 more per month on a water bill for the additional ecosystem services. The ecosystem
services in the study were a restored section of the Platte River. Ecosystem services depend on
the ecosystem in question. The restored Platte River services were dilution of wastewater, natural
purification of water, erosion control, habitat for fish and wildlife, and recreation. The increased
revenue through higher water bills exceeded the cost estimates of alternative programs for the
river, and therefore the best funding option for Platte River restoration work (Loomis et al.
9
2000).
2.2.2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Multiple methods can be used to measure the cost-benefits of changes in fish habitat. Stream
water can be considered a precautionary principal resource; uncertain actions that have
potentially negative effects on the environment should not be allowed unless the risks are low
(Jaeger 2005). One way to allocate water is to address the value of the water, at the margin, for
each competing use. Many natural resources used for recreation benefits can be measured with
the travel cost approach or contingent valuation approach (Trenholm et al. 2012). The travel cost
approach works if contingents are actually traveling to that benefit. Cerda (1991) uses the travel
cost method to determine the benefits of changes for fish in the paper “An Economic Analysis of
Alternative Water Allocations and Habitat Investments for Anadromous Fish Production, John
Day Basin, Oregon.” The Ph.D. thesis examines economic efficiency for alternative habitat
management strategies for anadromous fish. One of the habitat strategies addressed in the
research is the concept of water transfers to instream flow, which leaves water instream instead
of exporting it for municipal use. Habitat management to reduce stream temperature comes as a
cost, whether it is by planting vegetation in the riparian corridors or altering stream flow. These
plans impose direct costs of labor, materials, and monitoring. In terms of stream flow
augmentation, that incurs an out-of-stream use cost. For example, if the needed water is not
coming out of the stream it will cost money to receive the needed water supply from another
source. If there is an alternative water source that can serve as a close substitution, the instream
water will have a low value. If there is no substitution for the instream water use it will have a
high substitution value (Jaeger 2005). The economic market can constrain efficient water
10
allocation because markets view price as the regulator for water demand, but streams have
intrinsic benefits and environmental services in addition to price.
A statistical approach can be used to estimate the cost of change for stream resource allocation.
The marginal costs concepts are best used for resource allocation decisions because they are
typically considered inexpensive to model and easily understood by non-economists. A study in
the John Day River, Oregon by Johnson and Adams (1988) measured the benefits on instream
flow to steelhead trout. The authors estimated the marginal value of water quality for fish
production by combining the steelhead fishery production model and a contingent valuation
assessment. The results found a marginal value of $2.40 acre-foot when summer water flow was
increased, and this was a conservative estimate (Johnson and Adams 1988). There are challenges
associated with determining the marginal cost of a natural resource like water. Although water is
a natural resource, it is priced to consumers and sold as a commodity. The price water is sold at
for municipal and agricultural use does not reflect the true marginal cost. This makes it difficult
to estimate the demand function of water (Cerda 1991).
Contingent valuation uses a survey approach to valuing nonmarket goods and services. This
approach typically assesses the WTP for a non-market good, such as a healthy stream system and
other ecosystem services. The existence value and bequest value are techniques used to
determine the WTP for a service. For example, the existent value can determine the amount an
individual would pay for a fish species to exist in its native habitat. The bequest value is the
amount an individual would pay for preservation of a habitat. For the case of the Loomis et al.
study, $21 per month was the determined value (Jaeger 2005; Loomis et al. 2000). Besides
11
ecosystem service values, some recreational fishing occurs in Gales Creek, but it is limited
because the majority of the land is privately owned. The Clear Creek tributary addressed in my
research paper does not have direct recreational value because it is owned by Forest Grove and
solely used for timber and municipal water (Murtagh et al. 1992). Contingent valuation can be
helpful for management decisions that need to focus on out-of-stream services or in-stream
services in a watershed.
Many studies that focus on cost estimates for riparian stream habitat restoration are calculating
the cost-benefits of increasing riparian vegetation buffers. The studies present data on
construction, maintenance and market opportunity costs (Trenholm et al. 2012). The Oregon
Forest Practices Act (FPA) run by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) sets the standards
for commercial activities in forestlands. FPA standards state that clearcuts by a single ownership
cannot exceed 120 acres. Trees must also remain along streams with fish because the buffer
provides shade to keep the water cool and logs for fish habitat (ODF 2014). Forest Grove is the
single owner of Clear Creek and manages the old growth forest and timber harvest through
selective cutting (Trask 2015). Riparian vegetation buffer is not the primary resource allocation
change in this capstone, but adequate riparian vegetation buffers should help maintain elevated
water temperature in low flow situations (Groom et al. 2011). It is beneficial to understand the
opportunity costs for water use in regard to the cost-benefit of resources. Discounting and net
benefit estimates of a resource provide tangible inputs for decision makers, and they allow
comparisons to be addressed for resource management changes. The cost-benefits of a
management change are a model for further understanding the policy options for future changes
(Jaeger 2005).
12
With population growth and demographic transitions there is an increased demand for water in
the Pacific Northwest. There is high competition for out-of-stream supply such as industrial use,
irrigation, and municipal use. In addition to these out-of-stream uses, there are requirements to
keep water instream for habitat (Cerda 1991). Waterways need sustainable levels of inputs and
outputs. The output of the water flow cannot be greater than the inflow in order to maintain a
sustainable economic resource. Deciding where water goes to, and how much, has costs
associated to it (Jaeger 2005).
13
3. Study Area
3.1 Regional Context
As noted in Chapter 1, the Gales Creek Watershed is located in the Tualatin River Basin in the
Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest is diverse in climates, but the area as a whole has a
mild-temperate climate of wet winters and dry summers (Mote et al. 2003). The Tualatin River
Basin is located west of the Cascades in the “maritime” climate. Summer water flows tend to be
low due to the hot dry air temperature and minimal rainfall.
Figure 2: Water Availability and Demand by Season (TRWC 2015)
In addition, water demand is higher in the summer compared to other seasons but it is also the
time of lowest water supply due to the area’s climate. The impact from global climate change
will affect sensitive natural resources, like salmon, due to increasing annual temperatures (Wade
et al. 2013). It is predicted that the region will experience a warming of 0.5-2.5˚C by the 2020s
(Mote et al. 2003). Higher annual temperatures and lower summer precipitation will increase
stress in the Mediterranean climate of the Pacific Northwest during the summer season.
14
3.1 .1 Watershed Description
Gales Creek is one of the main rural watersheds in the Tualatin River Basin. The 48,481 acres
watershed, primarily in the Washington County jurisdiction, drains 77.9 square miles (TRWC
1998). When surveyed in 2014, the Gales Creek subbasin contained an average of 11 tributaries
that have good habitat potential; one of the tributaries is Clear Creek. The Clear Creek tributary
at River Mile (RM) 11 of Gales Creek is one of the top producing tributaries for steelhead trout
(SWCD 2012). Clear Creek is 5 miles long and drains 6,109 acres of primarily rural land (Trask
2015; Breuner 1998).
Figure 3: Gales Creek Watershed & Tributaries (Breuner 1998)
15
In the 1992 “Tualatin River Management Plan,” Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) assessed that the Tualatin River subbasin needs to maintain an average annual winter
steelhead run of 2,000 fish for habitat enhancement and protection in regards to angling. The
plan deemed water flow levels and dam impoundments as major habitat constraints for native
fish in the Tualatin Basin. To note, hatchery fish were released into the Tualatin River during the
time of this 1992 study. The average annual run of steelhead trout and angling patterns have
since changed. As of 2012, there are 75 diversion points on Gales Creek mainly for agricultural
irrigation. The largest dam obstruction in the Gales Creek watershed is Balm Grove Dam at RM
13. Part of the 1992 ODFW Tualatin Plan was to work with the Balm Grove Dam owner to
modify the fish passage structure for better success. The report also planned to work with the city
of Forest Grove to restore fish passage at the dam on Clear Creek (TRWC 2012; Murtagh et al.
1992). Clear Creek dam has been updated with a fish ladder since the 1992 plan was published.
Balm Grove Dam on Gales Creek is still a constraint for steelhead trout during low water
conditions. The dam is currently for sale and it is unclear if the new owner will be required to
remove it.
GalesCreek
ClearCreek
Figure 4: Land Ownership (TRWC 1998)
16
17
Gales Creek is designated as a rural watershed, which confines land-use activity to forestry,
agriculture, and limited resource extraction. About 66% of Gales Creek watershed is privately
owned. Private ownership can be used for agriculture, industrial forestry or rural residency. The
ODF owns 28% of the watershed and Forest Grove owns eight percent, which includes all of the
Clear Creek tributary (TRWC 1998). At the moment, no urban development is planned for Gales
Creek Watershed. Forest Grove is part of the Metro Urban Growth Boundary and is confined to
its development boundaries. This means that any urban development must stay in the cities 5.40
square-mile boundary (City of Forest Grove 2015). In addition to being privately owned, Clear
Creek is the only sub-basin of Gales Creek with old-growth upslope forest. Old-growth forest is
rare in the Tualatin River Basin because much of the area was impacted by the Tillamook burn in
1933 (Decker 2016). This factor is important to the health of the tributary because old-growth
forests improve water quality by trapping pollutants before reaching the stream. Forests also
retain and store water (Niemi 2006; Trask 2015). The city of Forest Grove manages the Clear
Creek riparian buffer through selective timber harvest cutting. Timber harvest revenue stays
within the city’s Water Fund budget (Trask 2015).
Due to the land activity and limitations in the Gales Creek watershed, the area has become
refugia for salmonids in the Tualatin River Watershed. In 2014, the Gales Creek tributaries
produced the majority of salmonids in the entire basin (Trask 2015).
3.2 Steelhead Trout
Steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, is part of the Salmonid family, along with Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Cutthroat trout
18
(Oncorhynchus clarkia). Steelhead trout fry are born in freshwater and need shelter and gravel
beds to develop. Fish fry spend two or three years in their spawning stream (Meross 2000;
Gorman 2006). Steelhead trout spend their adult life in saltwater and then return to freshwater to
spawn. Up to 30% of steelhead trout can potentially survive spawning and repeat the ocean
migration to spawning cycle again (Trask 2015). Steelhead trout are indigenous to the Tualatin
River and are born in the headwater tributaries, like Clear Creek (Murtagh et al. 1992). Steelhead
trout migrate to the Pacific Ocean through the Willamette River and Columbia River. Upper
Willamette Basin steelhead trout are native to the area and the species was listed as threatened on
the Endangered Species List in 2006 (ODFW 2006).
In the Pacific Northwest, high water temperature can have a negative impact on fish species. The
water temperature needs to be below 18˚C to sustain healthy steelhead trout (Meross 2000). In
terms of fish species, steelhead trout have a relatively narrow range of tolerable water
temperatures for ideal reproduction and growth (Cerda 1991). In addition to temperature
constraints, steelhead trout use streams with a gradient less than 10% in optimal conditions
(Breuner 1998). Steelhead trout typically swim farther upstream than Chinook or Coho salmon to
find cool water temperatures; therefore, the species is a good indicator of adequate river flow and
temperature (Thompson 2005). Steelhead trout spawning runs vary depending on the river; some
areas have one spawning run and others have two. The steelhead trout in the Tualatin River
Basin have one run between May and October. Juveniles emigrate out of the Tualatin Basin
every April-August. Low water flows in Gales Creek and Clear Creek during the summer are a
barrier to the steelhead trout from accessing the cool old growth forest areas of Clear Creek for
spawning (Murtagh et al. 1992). Municipal water plans need to account for providing adequate
water flows and habitats for theses areas (Rosenfeld and Boss 2001).
Figure 5: Critical Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin: Gales Creek (Bonn 2014)
19
20
Salmonids spend the winter in Gales Creek below the Clear Creek confluence (Figure 5). The
fish then move up to Clear Creek for the summer because the water is cooler. Clear Creek is
limited in temperature range, and there is a critical period of about six weeks in the summer for
salmonid success. An increase in water flow could increase upstream migration for the fish,
which spend two-plus years in freshwater (Trask 2015).
3.3 Tualatin River Watershed Council Fish Survey History
Despite the constraints identified in 1992 by ODFW there has not been consistent data of fish
health in the Gales Creek watershed since the plan was published (Breuner 1998). In 1998 the
Tualatin River Watershed Council (TRWC) prepared a “Gales Creek Watershed Assessment
Project.” The project reviewed the health of the watershed, quality concerns, and recommended
areas for improvement. The top two concerns were fisheries habitat and fish migration barriers.
One of the recommendations that resulted from the assessment project was to conduct a fish
habitat survey for the Gales Creek watershed and determine if steelhead trout and cutthroat trout
should be on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list, which they were in 2006 (Breuner 1998).
The biological consulting firm Bio-Surveys, LLC conducted Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA)
snorkel fish surveys throughout tributaries of the Tualatin River in July and August of 2013 and
2014 (TRWC 2015). The surveys have been used to help determine the distribution and
abundance of salmonids in the Upper Tualatin River, Dairy-McKay Creek, East Fork Dairy
Creek, Rock Creek, McFee Creek, Heaton Creek, Chicken Creek, and Gales Creek. The surveys
covered 138.2 miles of tributaries in 2013 and 91.8 miles of tributaries in 2014. Gales Creek and
East Fork Dairy Creek were the only two sub-basins surveyed consecutive years. Bio-Surveys
21
presented their results on density numbers of steelhead trout, Coho salmon, and Chinook salmon
in June 2015 at a Tualatin River Watershed Council meeting. During this presentation Steve
Trask, lead on the project, speculated that steelhead trout swam farther upstream than usual on
Clear Creek in 2014 due to a Forest Grove municipal water intake structure’s shutdown for two
weeks in June 2014 (Trask 2015).
3.4 City of Forest Grove Water
Forest Grove uses the Clear Creek tributaries year-round for municipal water supply to support
the city’s urban population. The Clear Creek tributary of Gales Creek has a municipal water
intake structure to supply the city (Foster 2015). Although Clear Creek is upland and considered
to be in good condition, the tributaries intake structure, Balm Grove Dam, and other factors tied
to urban development have created barriers for fish passage. The 1998 TRWC concerns for fish
passage are due to low water flows, high water temperatures, and water diversions by the city of
Forest Grove (Breuner 1998).
Forest Grove owns the water rights to Clear Creek and forestland in the area. The first public
water system for the city of Forest Grove was built in 1908, which included the intake structure
on Clear Creek. In 1947, a new $5,000,000 gallon water reservoir was constructed at the Buxton
Hill, now known as Watercrest Road. When the new facility was completed, it could produce 1.7
million gallons of treated water in a day. Creek water goes to Watercrest Road and serves over
6,000 customers (Forest Grove 2016). Currently, Forest Grove takes 3 million gallons of water
per day from Clear Creek in the fall through spring seasons. The intake is reduced by 50% to 1.5
million gallons of water in the summer to adjust for the streams natural lower summer flows
22
(Foster 2015). It is important to note that the four-foot Clear Creek intake diversion structure has
a fish ladder and there is evidence of salmonids migrating above the passage. In addition, when
water is diverted from Clear Creek, a flow-by system is implemented so not all the tributary
water is taken from the intake structure (Foster 2015).
The city also receives water from Scoggins Dam in the summer through the Joint Water
Commission (JWC) when daily intake from Clear Creek is reduced. The Joint Water
Commission is a co-op between the cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and the
Tualatin Valley Water District. Water is released from Scoggins Dam in the summer when
natural water flow levels of the Tualatin River decrease, but municipal demand increases. Forest
Grove owns 1.7 billion gallons from Scoggins Dam and 163 million gallons from Barney
Reservoir (TRWC 2015).
Since 1947, the Watercrest Road treatment site has been shut down twice for planned updates.
The first shutdown was for 2-years in 1978 and the second was for one month in June 2006. The
intake structure on Clear Creek was also shut down for a two-week period in June 2014 to fix a
hole in the filter. The Bio-Survey’s RBA team noticed a change in salmonid numbers and density
in Clear Creek during the most recent two-week shut down in 2014 (Trask 2015).
As mentioned in a previous section, Washington County is one of the fastest growing counties in
Oregon. Between 2010-2013 the Forest Grove grew at just over six percent. Figure 6 shows
population growth from 2010 to 2013 for all cities in Washington County.
23
Figure 6: Population Growth in Washington County (U.S. Census Bureau 2015)
An increase in population over a short time can put high demands on resources, like municipal
water. In addition, the Tualatin River Basin may experience more erratic weather patterns due to
increased annual air temperatures and climate change. It is critical to examine how better habitat
can be provided for steelhead trout in the Clear Creek, while still providing water to a growing
community. The case study can be used as a framework for the rest of the Tualatin River Basin.
24
4. Flow and Fisheries Data
A variety of data sources were used to analyze if water flow levels of Clear Creek has impacted
steelhead trout numbers and density. Data were analyzed for correlations between water flow
levels, fish numbers and density. In addition, budgets from the city of Forest Grove were used
for an economic analysis of Forest Grove’s options for municipal water management.
4.1 Water Flow of Gales Creek
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) monitors water flow throughout the Tualatin
River Basin with monitor gauges updated in-real-time. Currently, there is no gauge on Clear
Creek managed by OWRD. The closest water flow-monitoring gauge by OWRD is at the Gales
Creek confluence near Old Highway 47. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also monitors
water conditions on Gales Creek. USGS gauges measure water temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity and pH. Water temperature research for this paper was taken from the USGS Oregon
Water Science Center database (USGS 2015).
Data from the monitoring of Gales Creek were used to examine cubic feet per second (cfs) water
flow levels and the average daily mean of water temperature between 2006-2015 at the Old
Highway 47 gauge site.
25
Figure 7: 2014 Gales Creek Mean Daily Flow (a proxy to Clear Creek) (Bonn 2014)
Figure 8: 2014 Gales Creek Mean Daily Temperature (a proxy to Clear Creek) (USGS 2015)
26
In general, water flow levels and solar radiation can affect stream temperatures and this creates a
water quality problem for salmonid habitat (Neumann et al. 2006; Bradford and Heinonen 2008).
Figures 7 and 8 show the mean daily water flow and mean daily water temperature for Gales
Creek in 2014. When the water flow begins to decrease in June 2014 the water temperature
begins to rise.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the monthly water flow levels and temperature during the summer
months over a nine-year period. The warmest and driest portion of the summer in the Tualatin
River Basin is from July-August. The temperature data is taken from Gales Creek because of
gauge location, but water temperature on Clear Creek is suspected to have similar temperature
27
patterns. Clear Creek may have slightly cooler temperature range compared to Gales Creek due
to forest canopy and a smaller number of diversions points.
The average mean temperatures in July and August are above the recommended 18˚C for
steelhead trout. Figure 8 shows that the Gales Creek mean daily water temperatures for June,
July, and August in 2014 were consistent with the nine-year average. July was the hottest month
in 2014 year and had an average daily mean of 20.9˚C (USGS 2015).
4.2 Fish Surveys
Steelhead trout’s natural migration patterns have been altered over decades of management.
From 1975 to 1995 winter steelhead trout hatchery fish were released into Gales Creek. In
addition, Coho salmon were introduced into Gales Creek through stocking efforts in 1936. Coho
salmon still have a large presence in the Tualatin River and its’ tributaries (Breuner 1998). To
promote wild fish runs, all stocking of Gales Creek stopped in 1995. Although steelhead trout are
native to the Tualatin River Basin, decades of human manipulation and impact make it difficult
to determine how current fish populations would respond to new habitat changes in the longterm.
Summer juvenile fish numbers are impacted by water flow and temperature, as well as the
number of adult steelhead trout escapement from earlier in the year. Fish escapement is the
number of fish released from a fishery to spawn.
28
Figure 9: Steelhead trout Escapement Count at Willamette Falls (Trask et al. 2014)
ODFW have a continuous fish passage count at Willamette Falls on the Willamette River. The
steelhead trout passing Willamette Falls are making their way to other rivers and tributaries off
the Willamette River to spawn. The 2013 adult escapement numbers for total steelhead trout in
the Upper Willamette Basin was 4,944. In 2014 it increased to 5,349 steelhead trout. These
escapement numbers are the total amount of steelhead that made it back from the Pacific Ocean,
through the Columbia River, and into the Willamette River (ODFW 2016). Only a small
percentage of the escapement are estimated to return to the Tualatin River and its’ tributaries. In
2012, an estimate of 2.4% of adult steelhead trout escapement returned to the Tualatin River
(Trask et al. 2014).
29
The Bio-Surveys, LLC Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA) data was from their 2013 and 2014 fish
snorkel surveys. The data from this research will be used below, as well as my interpretation of
the raw data Steve Trask of Bio-Surveys, LLC sent me from the RBA work. The objective of the
2013 and 2014 RBA surveys was to quantify the density and abundance of juvenile salmonids in
the Tualatin River Basin tributaries during low summer flow. TRWC and Bio-Surveys hoped the
data would begin long term trend analysis and guide management. The fish survey data for this
capstone is a 20% sub-sample of pool rearing habitats for juvenile steelhead trout. Table 3 shows
the actual number of juvenile steelhead trout and the average juvenile steelhead per squaremetered surveyed in Gales Creek and Clear Creek in 2013 and 2014.
Table 3: Juvenile Steelhead Numbers & Density Observed from RBA Surveys 2013-2014
(Trask 2015)
Gales Creek
Clear Creek
2013
2014
2013
2014
Total STHD Observed 86
61
29
27
Average Steelhead/
Square-Meter
0.036
0.067
0.032
0.043
I am not able to conclude why the 2014 juvenile steelhead per square-mile density (0.032) in
Clear Creek was almost half compared than 2013 (0.067). One potential hypothesis is that the
flow changes in Clear Creek due to the Forest Grove municipal water intake structure shutdown
increased habitat availability and size for juvenile salmonids. Another idea is that the slight
decrease is overall fish numbers in 2014 created more space for the juveniles in the upper
tributaries.
30
Table 4: Juvenile Steelhead Number Expansion from 20% RBA Survey Results 2013-2014
(Trask et.al 2014)
Gales Creek
Clear Creek
STHD Estimate
2013
2014
2013
2014
430
270
140
135
% of Total Fish
66.1
66.2
21.5
30.6
Population
Note: estimates underestimate standing crop because significant portion of rearing in riffle/rapid
and glide habitats were not surveyed
Only 20% of steelhead trout salmonids were surveyed in Gales Creek Watershed in 2013 and
2014 (Table 4). The expanded 20% estimate of those numbers is in Table 4. In 2013, only 21.5%
of the juvenile salmonids in Clear Creek were steelhead trout. In 2014, the percentage increased
to 30.6%. Although Clear Creek steelhead numbers are lower numbers in 2014, they made up
more of the total fish population in Clear Creek. Bio-Surveys had a disclaimer with their data
that the expanded juvenile steelhead estimated numbers are an underestimate because some riffle
and glide habitats in the area were not surveyed.
GalesCreek
ClearCreek
Figure10:SteelheadNumbers&DensityintheTualatinRiverBasin(Trask2015)
31
32
4.3 Changes in 2014
As noted earlier in this paper, the Clear Creek intake structure was inoperable for two weeks in
June 2014 and Bio-Surveys noticed a change in steelhead trout distribution. The Bio-Surveys
data should show additional salmonids juveniles migrating up from the main stem of Gales
Creek.
Figure 11 is from the final report of Bio-Surveys, LLC 2015 “Tualatin River Rapid Bio
Assessment.
Figure 11: Juvenile Steelhead per pool in Gales Creek (a proxy to Clear Creek) (Trask 2015)
In 2013, RM 15.8 had an average of two steelhead trout per pool. In 2014, the average number of
steelhead trout was eight per pool. In Clear Creek, steelhead densities began farther upstream in
33
2014 than the previous year. Steelhead trout are temperature dependent migrant species and their
density should decrease as the distance increases from the mouth of the stream because of lower
stream flow. Lower stream flow decrease stream surface area, and in turn decreases the number
of pool habitat for juveniles (Trask 2015). Since there are no USGS temperature and flow gauges
on Clear Creek it is difficult to determine if the intake structure shutdown influenced a change in
salmonid numbers or stream flow levels. What is known is that the Gales Creek did not seem to
be affected by the Clear Creek intake structure. Water temperature was on average 1.25 degrees
warmer in 2014 than in 2013, but the water flow level of the creek was similar both years. The
TRWC and Bio-Surveys Snorkel Fish Survey concluded that steelhead trout densities were
consistently well below the 0.7 sthd/sqm found in other tributaries that do not have interspecific
competition (Trask 2015).
4.5 Clear Creek Intake versus JWC Intake
The city of Forest Grove currently allocates 1.5 million gallons of water per day in the summer
months of June-August. This is a 50% reduction from the 3 million gallons of the municipal
water used in the fall, winter, and spring (Foster 2015). A 1.5 mil gal/day allocation is about 46.5
mil gallons of water used per month. Municipal water intake from June-August is 92 days and a
total of 138 million gallons of water.
The JWC has the right to use Scoggins Dam and Barney Reservoir. Forest Grove owns 2.5% of
Barney Reservoir. Forest Grove uses it’s JWC water rights in the summer when water in the
Clear Creek becomes too low for the increased municipal demand and senior water right holders
in the Gales Creek Watershed are given priority. Out of the four joint ownerships part of the
34
JWC, Forest Grove owns the smallest amount of water storage between Scoggins Dam and
Barney Reservoir.
Table 5: Water Received from JWC (Bonn 2006-2015)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Allocation
Released
(million
gallons)
% of
Allocation
Released
Ave. Daily
Release
(million
gallons)
2011
2012
2013
2014
3,951.9 3,004.6 2,812.3
2,235.6 854.2
846.9
1,002.1 985.0
1,523.0
104.6% 119.7% 116.5%
82.7%
17.4%
18.4%
20.4%
20.0%
21.0%
24.7
16.7
7.5
6.4
7.8
7.0
11.0
24.7
20.8
Over the last eight years, Forest Grove used an average of 57.8% of their allocation every year.
Table 5 shows that the Percentage of Allocation Released has decreased significantly since 2009.
This is a lower average than other JWC partners. The average daily release from the other three
JWC partners was 33 acre-ft/day in 2014, while Forest Grove’s was 11 acre-ft/day.
35
Figure 12: JWC Beginning and Ending Allocation (Bonn 2006-2015)
Forest Grove has only used a portion of their allocated JWC water rights in the last five years.
Although there should always be enough reserves in case of emergencies, there is potential for
the city to release more of their purchased Scoggins Dam reserves. This can allow the city to
leave additional water in at Clear Creek during critical periods for juvenile salmonids.
36
5. Economic Data
5.1 Cost Analysis
Forest Grove’s municipal water sources are unique because they receive water from Scoggins
Dam and Clear Creek throughout the year. The city also harvests timber from the land owned in
in the Clear Creek tributary. The city’s annual budgets were used to examine Forest Grove’s
water use.
The city’s Public Works Department manages Forest Grove municipal water. The primary
responsibility of the Water Department is service of water supply, water treatment, and water
distribution. Key elements of the department’s budget for this capstone are outlined in Table 6.
The Water Fund revenue is generated by water service charges billed to metered customers. The
number Forest Groves metered water customers has increased more than six percent since 2011,
which is consistent with the cities overall population growth (Figure 5). The Water Fund also
receives revenue from the city’s timber harvest. Timber revenue remains in the Water
Department to cover timber harvest cost and put revenue towards water treatment and projects.
The Timber Harvesting revenue from 2014-2015 was $937,500. Forest Grove is expecting a 30%
increase in timber harvest revenue for the 2015-2016 fiscal year (Forest Grove 2015).
Table: 6: Forest Grove Water Budget (Forest Grove 2014; Forest Grove 2015)
City of Forest Grove Budget: Expenses & Revenues 2011-2016
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
Number of Metered
5,762
5,775
5,997
6,133
Customers
Water Supplied
1,065
1,112
1,137.20
1,119
(Million Gallons)
Watershed
$57,340
$404
$1,365
$10,000
Management Expenses
Timber Harvest
$1,012,116
$1,558,140
$1,100,00
$937,500
Revenue
JWC Purchase
$200,030
$196,697
$220,498
$250,000
37
2015-2016
$26,300
$1,245,000
$250,000
The last line item in Table 6 is the city’s expenses as a shareholder in the JWC co-op. Forest
Grove’s JWC purchased increased in 2014-2015 to $250,000, which is roughly 4,913.50 million
gallons of allocated JWC water. The dollar amount and stored water reserves amount have
remained similar since the increase. The net expenditure in 2014 JWC water can be found by
dividing the total 2014 JWC water purchased ($250,000) by the amount of JWC water released
(1,523 million gallons). The net expenditure for 2014 was $164 per million-gallons. With an
estimated 135 steelhead trout (Table 4) in Clear Creek in 2014, each steelhead trout in the
waterway has an estimated cost of $1.21 per million gallons of JWC water purchased by Forest
Grove.
5.2 Funding
Water purchased from JWC reserves cost Forest Grove is more expensive than taking municipal
water from Clear Creek. In order to leave more water instream at Clear Creek during the
summer, the city will need to increase its daily-allocated release of JWC water. Since the city is
currently releasing less than half of it’s allocated water every summer, there is no evidence that
Forest Grove will need to purchase additional water reserves from the JWC co-op. If the city
38
does need additional funding to increase average daily release from JWC reserves it could come
from timber harvest revenues, an increase in customer’s water bills, or a combination of both.
Currently, Forest Grove residences do not pay more for water in the summer than in the winter
despite the change in municipal water source (Forest Grove 2016).
Current Timber Harvest Revenue is $995,000 more than JWC Expenses ($1,245,000 $250,000= $995,000). If Forest Grove’s average daily release of JWC water increases to 12-14
mil-gal/day and the expense increase to about $300,000 Timber Harvest Revenue goals could
increase to offset JWC cost. I do not recommend the city increase timber harvest to cover
potential increased expenditures of releasing JWC water. Riparian buffer zones and canopy
cover help cool water temperature to levels needed for healthy salmonid habitat to increase fish
numbers and density.
Implementing a plan to alter the municipal water supply structure will require determining
customer’s WTP. There is a cost-benefit analysis needed for altering municipal intake water
sources and amounts. There are currently about 6,133 meter customers in the city of Forest
Grove. If there is a cost reflected on the customer’s due to an alteration in municipal water
supply, metered customer’s WTP needs to be determined in order to have a successful water
program.
In Chapter 2 of this paper, a study by Loomis et al. (2000) discussed that metered customers
were willing to pay an additional $21 per month for ecosystem services. Using the figure of $21
per month and Forest Groves 2015 number of 6,133 metered customers, an estimated range for
39
increased revenue can be determined. Forest Grove metered customers are charged a fixed
monthly rate depending on their water meter size plus a rate for water use. The smallest meter
size is 3/4th inches and the largest is 2 inches.
Table 7: 3/4th in. Water Meter Size Revenue (Forest Grove 2015)
Monthly Rate $22.04 x Metered Customers 6,133 = $135,171.32
Monthly Ecosystem Services Revenue $21 x 6,133 = $128,793.00
Monthly revenue + Ecosystem Services ($135, 171.32 + $128,793.00)= $263,964.32
Table 8: 2 in. Water Meter Size Revenue (Forest Grove 2015)
Monthly Rate $63.99 x Meter Customers 6,133 = $392,450.67
Monthly Ecosystem Services Revenue ($21 x 6,133) = $128,793.00
Monthly Rate + Ecosystem Services ($392,450.67 + $128,793.00) = $521,243.67
The monthly revenue from utility service billing could range from $263,964 - $521,243. This is a
conservative estimate because a service charge of kilo-gallons of water used by metered
customers is not incorporated into this analysis. A $21 per month ecosystem service charge to
Forest Grove residents would generate $1,545,516 annually. That is enough to cover costs of
JWC allocation increases and potential watershed habitat restoration work.
There is still a question of the true cost of municipal water intake during the summer months of
Clear Creek. There is the monetary cost of providing water to a municipality and benefits to the
community. It is difficult to determine a valuation of ecosystem benefits because the variable
measures in monetary amounts and public opinion. There are ecosystem benefits for leaving
more instream water in Clear Creek during critical periods for salmonids. Increased water quality
decreases city’s water treatment costs (Loomis et al. 2000). The steelhead trout in Clear Creek
provides an ecosystem service to the watershed property owned by the city of Forest Grove.
Forest Grove should conduct a WTP survey to determine what their customers would pay for
their local ecological services.
40
41
6. Discussion of Options
Water quantity is hypothesized to be a limiting factor to upstream migration for fish production
in the Gales Creek watershed, and particularly its tributary Clear Creek. Water quantity and
stream flow is also seasonally influenced by temperature and land-use decisions. The city of
Forest Grove has influence on municipal water intake from the Clear Creek stream and this
creates a dialogue about potential management options to address fish productivity and water
needs for the city.
The data above shows correlations between water flow and juvenile fish density, but there is not
enough information to determine water flow levels directly influence fish numbers and density.
Future research needs to be done before determining a conclusion of this relationship. In Chapter
2, the article by Bradford and Heinonen (2008) states that a 50% reduction of intake can be
adequate stream flow for salmonids. Forest Grove does reduce their summer intake by 50%, but
there is not enough data at the moment to know what the 100% instream flow should be. Unable
to determine if the two-week shutdown of the Clear Creek intake structure in June 2014 had an
effect on steelhead trout numbers and density, there is still an opportunity for municipal water
management recommendations.
6.1 Proposed Improvement Plan
The city of Forest Grove is unique in that they have two water sources throughout the year and
can take water from both sources during the summer. This is important due to the Pacific
Northwest’s hot-dry summer and increase in water demand during this time. Below are
42
recommendations to help increase steelhead trout habitat access and maintain municipal water
supply.
6.1.1 Altering Intake Level
Analysis recommends that the city reduce summer intake by 30% for a total of 0.5 million
gallons of water allocated per day. A 30% reduction allows the city to still take water from Clear
Creek year round. This reduction allows the city to take 0.5 million gallons of water per day in
the summer and leave up to 92 million gallons of water instream during the hottest months and
most critical salmonid growth times in the year. The 1.0 million gallons per day not taken from
the Clear Creek in the summer can instead be taken from Forest Grove’s JWC allocated reserves.
Table 9: 30% Reduction of Current Summer Municipal Intake
Daily Intake
Monthly Intake
92 Day Intake
0.5 mil-gal
15.5 mil-gal
46 mil-gal
Water Left Instream
92 mil-gal
Forest Grove can increase their daily average intake from Scoggins Dam to 12-14 mil-gal/day to
compensate for the 92 million gallon intake loss from the Clear Creek. This will increase the
city’s JWC Percentage of Allocation Released to 40-60% a year. From the research gathered, this
would not change Forest Grove’s annual JWC expenses.
A second proposed intake alteration is to shutdown the Clear Creek intake structure for a twoweek period during critical survival times for juvenile salmonids. This two-week shutdown is a
mimic of the June 2014 intake structure shutdown. Two weeks of municipal water at 1.5 milgal/day is a total of 21 million gallons. An additional 21 million gallons of water could be left
instream if the Clear Creek intake structure shut down for a two-weeks anytime during the hot
43
and dry summer months of June-August. These 21 million gallons is an overall 15% intake
reduction by the city for the summer.
Table 10: Two-Week Summer Shutdown
Two-Weeks of Water Monthly Intake with 92 Day Intake
Two-Week Reduction
21 mil-gal
25.5 mil-gal
117 mil-gal
Water Left Instream
21 mil-gal
If Forest Grove shuts down the Clear Creek intake for 2 weeks during summertime low flows
and still takes 1.5 mil-gal for the rest of the month, it will add an additional average of 21 mil-gal
of water in the stream for the month. This second intake alteration proposal may be less
successful compared to reducing municipal intake throughout the summer because there are
many variables in deciding what two-week period to choose. The Clear Creek intake structure
shutdown in 2014 happened in June, but data from water flow levels and temperature in Chapter
4 show that July and August have the lowest summer instream flow. The results of this research
do not show a clear indicator that the two-week shutdown of the Clear Creek municipal intake
structure changed steelhead trout numbers.
6.1.2 Large Woody Debris Restoration
In 2012 the Tualatin River Watershed Council completed a Large Woody Debris (LWD) project
on the upper reaches of Gales Creek This was part of a two-year project for fish habitat
improvement in the Gales Creek Watershed. Large woody debris create pools and increase
gravel beds for spawning and rearing (TRWC 2013). Table 11 shows the changes in steelhead
trout numbers in Clear Creek before and after the LWD project.
44
Table 11: Expanded Juvenile Steelhead Number for Clear Creek LWD Project (Trask 2015)
Year
Number of
Steelhead
Pre-Treatment
2012
0
Post-Treatment
2013
30
Post-Treatment
2014
60
A fish survey of the project area was done before the restoration begun. No steelhead trout were
observed in the 2012 pre-treatment survey. There was an estimated gain of 30 steelhead in the
one-mile restored area in 2013 after project completion. That estimate increased to 60 steelhead
in 2014 (Trask 2015). The LWD project was funded with a $60,175 grant and over $52,000 of
in-kind contributions from ODFW and ODF (TRWC 2013). LWD projects in Clear Creek could
be done to improve steelhead trout habitat and create better access for fish.
I also recommend the city look into purchasing instream water right and conservation easement
options as sources of additional instream flow and conservation (Neumann et al. 2006). The city
may be able to purchase temporary water right transfers since there are senior water right holders
older than Forest Grove. Further research would need to be conducted to determine price and if
instream transfers would affect other JWC owners like Tualatin Valley Irrigation District who
own water rights to Gales Creek (Neumann et al. 2006; TRWC 2015; Gericke 2012).
Lastly, recommendations not directly tied to water flow levels can also improve steelhead trout
habitat and health. First, the Forest Grove Annual Budget consistently has a section in the Public
Works portion for “Water Department Goals & Budget.” This section lists current department
goals. None of the goals in this section address watershed habitat and sustainability.
Incorporating sustainable development goals of the watershed for future use can better align the
45
department with ecological systems. Second, a recommendation suggested by other Upper
Willamette watershed managers is for OWRD to require all water diversions be metered (Meross
2000). In 2000 OWRD developed a strategy to improve water measurement. Now 80% of all
significant diversion points in Oregon are monitored. There is currently an OWRD gauge on
Gales Creek, but not Clear Creek (OWRD 2007). I recommend OWRD put a gauge Clear Creek
of assess fish passage. Third, monitoring of salmonid numbers and density should continue in the
Gales Creek Watershed and tributaries. Continued monitoring through fish surveys will create
more complete data. Juvenile salmonid distribution in each tributary provides information and
understanding in relation to the rest of the basin. This research can help identify migration
barriers and how juveniles are responding to habitat changes (Trask 2015). There are multiple
ways Forest Grove can provide better habitat to juvenile salmonids in the watershed in addition
to altering municipal water intake during critical dry summer months.
46
7. Conclusion and Future Implications
This capstone project is a culmination of almost two years of graduate studies and a year’s
involvement with the Tualatin River Basin community. My work began with an internship at
Tualatin Riverkeepers and I have remained on their Watershed Watch Committee since the
internships conclusion. During this time I have worked with cities, the county, the watershed
council, private agency managers, consultants, and local stakeholders.
Water resource reliability in the Pacific Northwest is becoming less dependable from climat
change effects, but population and municipal water demand is increasing. Many cities in the
Tualatin River area are addressing the supply and demand of water, and weighing options for the
future. Sustaining native salmonid numbers and creating better access to habitat should be
included in future water use decisions by stakeholders. The recommendations for the city of
Forest Grove in this research paper can be used for other cities facing the same issues that have
alternative water source options.
The city of Forest Grove has the opportunity to increase instream flow in Clear Creek to enhance
steelhead trout access. To do so, the city will need to alter municipal water supply sources.
Forest Grove can alter the amount of water flow or the length of time they take water from Clear
Creek during the summer. If this water transfer change requires additional funding by the city
Forest Grove can use timber revenue or an ecological service charged to metered customers. For
these recommendations to be considered for the future, Forest Grove should survey metered
customers WTP and determine how much water they can leave instream to created better habitat
access to steelhead trout.
47
The conservation and water quality enhancement opportunities in Clear Creek and Gales Creek
could be critical to salmonid survival during low stream flow seasons. I recognize that the
recommendations in this project are ambitious and will require significant coordination between
Forest Grove and all other invested entities of the JWC. Forest Grove estimates they will deplete
their water supply by 2045 due to population increase and effects from climate change. It is
imperative that conservation steps are taken in the Water Master Plan to sustain the city’s water
supply and to sustain habitat access to steelhead trout (Foster 2015). In order for a plan to be put
into action it should be feasible and suitable to meet the goals.
The graduate studies at OSU and this capstone project have helped me gain a deeper
understanding and clearer perspective of policy, ecological systems, and environmental
economics. From my experience with this research I have learned that there is increased
complexity from multijurisdictional areas and overlapping water needs. This not only
complicates the research, but it also delays receiving information, data, and department contacts.
This can postpone action and approvals on management plans in the basin and subbasin.
Second, all sustainability measures in urban areas need funding and committed partners to
provide the necessary services. Bio-Surveys, LLC was contracted to do fish snorkel surveys in
the Tualatin River Basin. Their work has been critical to better understanding of the regions
natural systems and salmonid health. The continuation of this research is dependent on funding
and partner interest. An additional benefit to funding the RBA work is community education
about the fish species and distribution is the watersheds. Residence’s WTP for ecosystem
48
services benefit when research and education are provided to the community. It is important for
people to know the ecological benefits of their water source.
Looking ahead, recommendations will need to be assessed by city’s City Council facing water
source changes and availability. The Gales Creek Watershed and Clear Creek tributary can be a
model for cities to make proactive changes to sustain steelhead trout numbers and create better
access to habitat. Success of the area’s steelhead trout is partially dependent on the municipal
decisions made by Forest Grove for future funding. These future water use decisions will set the
course for better appreciation and conservation of steelhead trout habitat.
49
LITERATURE CITED
Apple, D. D. 2001. “Evolution of Water Policy.” U.S. Forest Service, (2001): 1-13.
http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/evolution-water-policy.pdf.
Baker, J., J.V. Sickle and D. White. 2002. “Water Sources and Allocation.” Willamette River
Basin Atlas. Oregon State University.
http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/Atlas_web_compressed/3.Water_Resources/3h.water
_sources_alloc_web.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks. 1998. “Guidelines for Interpreting
Water Quality Data Version 1.0.” Land Data B.C., and Geographic Data B.C., 1998.
Print.
Bell, K.P., D. Huppert, and R.L. Johnson. 2003. “Willing to Pay for Local Coho Salmon
Enhancement in Coastal Communities.” Marine Resources Economics, 18(1): 15-31.
Print.
Bonn, B. 2006. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2006 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2006. Print.
Bonn, B. 2007. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2007 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2007. Print.
Bonn, B. 2008. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2008 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2008. Print.
Bonn, B. 2009. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2009 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2009. Print.
Bonn, B. 2010. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2010 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2010. Print.
Bonn, B. 2011. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2011 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2011. Print.
Bonn, B. 2012. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2012 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2012. Print.
Bonn, B. 2013. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2013 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2013. Print.
Bonn, B. 2014. “Tualatin River Flow Management Technical Committee 2014 Annual Report.”
Clean Water Services, Watershed Management Division, 2014. Print.
Bradford, M.J. and J.S. Heinonen. 2008. “Low flow, instream flow needs and fish ecology in
small streams.” Canadian Water Resources Journal, 33(2): 165-175. Print.
Breuner, N. 1998. "Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Project." Tualatin River Watershed
Council. September 1998. Print.
Brown, W.G. and D.M. Larson. 1977. “Estimated Costs and Benefits of Water Supply
Improvements at the Little While Salmon.” Oregon State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station. May 1977. Print.
Cerda, A.A. 1991. “An Economic Analysis of Alternative Water Allocations and Habitat
Investments for Anadromous Fish Production, John Day Basin, Oregon.” Oregon State
University. January 1991. Print.
Decker, D. 2016. “Tillamook Burn.” Oregon Historical Society.
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/tillamook_burn/#.VtCjQrwz5Bs
Forest Grove. 2014. “City of Forest Grove 2014-2015 Adopted Budget.”
http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/images/stories/services/finance/pdf/201415_BUDGET/2014-15_Adopted_Budget.pdf
Forest Grove. 2015. “City of Forest Grove 2015-2016 Adopted Budget.”
http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/images/stories/services/finance/pdf/201516/ADOPTED_BUDGET.pdf
Forest Grove. 2016. “Water Treatment Plant History.” http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/cityhall/water-treatment/water-treatment-plant-history.html
Forest Grove. 2015. “ Utility Billing: Service Rates.” July 1, 2015. http://www.forestgroveor.gov/city-hall/light-power/utility-billing-service-rates.html
Forest Grove. 2016. “Visitors: At A Glance.” http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/visitors/at-aglance.html
Foster, R. 2015. “Interview with City of Forest Grove Public Works Director.” December 13,
2015. Phone.
Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological
Conservation and Restoration.” Ecology and Society, 9(3): 1.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/
Gericke, J.D. 2012. “Water Right Transfers in Oregon.” Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. August
2012. http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/water-right-transfer/
Gorman, M. 2006. “The Steelhead Life Cycle.” Gorman Fly Fishing. 2006.
http://gormanflyfishing.com/the_steelhead_life_cycle.htm
50
51
Groom, J.D., L. Dent, L.J. Madsen, J. Fleuret. 2011. “Response of Western Oregon (USA)
Stream Temperatures to Contemporary Forest Management.” Forest Ecology and
Management, 262(8):1618-1629. Print.
Jaeger, William K. Environmental Economics for Tree Huggers and Other Skeptics.
Washington, D.C.: Island, 2005. Print.
Johnson, N.S., and R.M. Adams. 1988. “Benefits of Increased Streamflow: The Case of the John
Day River Steelhead Fishery.” November 1988. Water Resources Research, 24(11):
1839-1846. Print.
Johnson, S.L. and J.J. Jones. 2000. “Stream Temperature Responses to Forest Harvest and Debris
Flow in Western Cascades, Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 57: 30-39.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch, A. Covich. 2000. “Measuring the total economic
value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent
valuation survey.” Ecological Economics, 33(1): 103-117. Print.
Meross, S. 2000. “Salmon Restoration in an Urban Watershed: Johnson Creek, Oregon.”
Portland Multnomah Progress Board. April, 2000. Print.
Metro. 2015. “Urban Growth Boundary.” Metro Planning Department. September 2015.
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary
Montgomery, C.A. and T.L. Helvoigt. 2006. “Changes in Attitudes About Importance of and
Willingness to Pay for Salmon Recovery in Oregon.” Journal of Environmental
Management, 78(4): 330-340.
Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles,
D.W. Peterson, D.L Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. “Preparing For
Climate Change: The Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest.” Climate
Change, 61: 45-88. Print.
Murtagh, T., V. Niles-Raethke, M. Gray, T. Rien, and J. Massey. 1992. “Tualatin Subbasin Fish
Management Plan.” January, 1992.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Print.
Neumann, D.W., E.A. Zagona, B. Rajagopalan. 2006. “A Decision Support System to manage
Summer Stream Temperatures.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
42(5); 1275-1284.
Niemi, E.t. 2006. “The Economic Benefits of Old-Growth Forests in the Pacific Northwest: An
Overview.” October 2006. ECONorthwest. Print.
52
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. “Chapter 4: Water Quality Management
Plan.” August 2012. Tualatin Subbasin TMDL.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/tualatin/revision/Ch4WQMP.p
df
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. “Lower Willamette Fisheries and Willamette
Falls Fish Counts.” http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/fish_counts/willamette%20falls.asp
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. “Upper Willamette River Conservation and
Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead”. August 5, 2011.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/upper_willamette_river_plan.asp
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2014. “Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practice
Administrative Rules and Forest Practices Act.” January 2014.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/WorkingForests/FPARulebook.pdf
Oregon Water Resources Department. 2015. “OWRD Near Real Time Hydrographics Data.”
http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_near_real_time/display_hydro_graph.aspx?stati
on_nbr=14204530
Oregon Water Resources Department. 2007. “Oregon Water Resources Department Strategic
Measurement Plan.” March 8, 2007.
http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/reports/priority_wab_report03-2007.pdf
Oregon Water Resources Department. 2013. “Water Rights in Oregon: An Introduction to
Oregon’s Water Rights.” http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/PUBS/docs/aquabook2013.pdf
Population Research Center. 2015. “Summary of 2015 estimates findings.” November 16, 2015.
Portland State University. Print.
Rosenfeld, J.S. and S. Boss. 2001. “Fitness consequences of habitat use for juvenile cutthroat
trout: energetic costs and benefits in pools and riffles.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 585-593. Print.
Semmens, D.J., J. E. Diffendorfer, L. López-Hoffman, and C.D. Shapiro. 2011. “Accounting for
the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial
subsidies.” Ecological Economics, 70 (2): 2236-2242. Print.
Tennant, D.L. 1976. “Instream Flow Regimes for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation and Related
Environmental Resources.” Fisheries, 1(4): 6-10. Print.
Thompson, J. 2005. “Keeping It Cool: Unraveling the Influences on Stream Temperature.” June
2005. Science Findings, 73: 2-5. Print.
53
Trask, S., J. Lees, and J. Holley. 2014. “2014 Rapid Bio-Assessment In the Tualatin River
Basin.” Bio-Surveys, LLC. http://trwc.org/tualatin-basin-info/environmentalreports/tualatin-river-rapid-bio-assessment-summer-2013/
Trask, S. 2015. “Interview with Director of Bio-Surveys, LLC.” December 7, 2015. Phone.
Trask, S. 2015. “Tualatin River Rapid Bio-Assessment 2013 & 2014 Final Report.” Tualatin
River Watershed Council, 2014. Print.
Trenholm, R., V. Lantz, R. Martinez-Espineira, S. Little. 2012. “Cost-benefit analysis of riparian
protection in an eastern Canadian watershed.” Journal of Environmental Management,
116: 81-94. Print.
Tualatin River Watershed Council. 2015. “City of Forest Grove’s Water Sources: Part 1.” April
2015. http://trwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TRWC-Water-Right-April-2015-Part1.pdf
Tualatin River Watershed Council. 2013. “Upper Gales Creek Large Wood Placement
September 2010 to March 2012.” http://trwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UpperGales-Creek-LWD-profile-with-map-ver-3.pdf
Tualatin River Watershed Council. 2012. “Watershed Analysis Summary: Gales.”
http://trwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Gales_summary.pdf
Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District. 2011. “Long-Range Business Plan for 20112015.” June 4, 2011. http://www.swcd.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Business-Plan-614-2011_FINAL.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “Washington County, Oregon.” December 2, 2015.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41067.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. “USGS Data Grapher: Gales Creek at Old Hwy 47, Forest Grove,
OR.” http://or.water.usgs.gov/cgibin/grapher/graph_setup.pl?basin_id=tualatin&site_id=453040123065201
Wade, A.A, T.J. Beechie, E. Fleishman, N.J. Mantua, H. Wu, J.S. Kimball, D.M. Stoms, J.A.
Stanford. 2013. “Steelhead Vulnerability to climate change in the Pacific Northwest.”
Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 1093-1104. Print.
Walston, R.E. 1986. “Western Water Law.” Natural Resources & Environment 1(4): 6,8, 48-52.
Print.
Whittlesey, N.K. and P.R. Wandschneider. 1992. “Salmon Recovery: As Viewed by Two
Economists.” Choices. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/131622/2/Whittlesey.pdf
Willamette Riverkeeper. 2014. “Pollution”. Willamette Riverkeeper. http://www.willametteriverkeeper.org/WRK/pollution.html
Wilson, M.F., and K.C. Halupka. 1995. “Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate
Communities.” June 1995. Conservation Biology, 9(3): 489-497.
54
55
APPENDICES
56
Appendix A: Interviews
Interview: Steve Trask, Bio-Surveys, LLC
•
December 7, 2015
Can you tell me what is special or unusual about the Clear Creek tributary?
o Clear Creek is the only sub-basin of Gales Creek with old growth upslope forest.
The Clear Creek forest is maintained by the city of Forest Grove with very little
selective cutting. The old forest creates high water quality and water retention.
•
How many intake structures are on Clear Creek?
o There are three or four intake structures on Clear creek.
•
What salmonid patterns have you observed during your surveys in Gales Creek?
o Salmonids spend the winter in Gales Creek below the Clear Creek confluence.
The fish then move up to Clear Creek for the summer because the water
temperature is cooler. Clear Creek is temperature limited and there is a critical
period of about 6 weeks time refugia for salmonids. An increase in flow could be
a big salvation for the fish, who spend 2+ years in freshwater.
•
Has any restoration work been done on Clear Creek? And about the changes between
2013 and 2014?
o In 2012 a stream segment of Clear Creek was treated with log structures. The
2013 and 2014 data files were for the entire Clear Creek system. In 2013 there
were normal municipal withdrawals from Clear Creek by Forest Grove. In 2014
withdrawals were terminated during the most critical period for juvenile
salmonids for maintenance. The data should show a response to this differential
management in the form of additional migrants coming up from the main stem of
Gales Creek where temps started to get critical for survival.
57
Interview: Rob Foster, Director of Forest Grove Public Works
•
December 14, 2015
What Creeks does Forest Grove use for municipal water?
o There are 5 intake structures on 5 creeks in Gales Creek: Clear, Roaring, Smith,
Deep, & Thomas. The last four creeks flow into Clear creek, which flows into
Gales Creek.
•
How many gallons of water is taken from Clear Creek per day?
o 3 million gallons per day. 1.5 million gallons in the summer. Summer intake
decreases to accommodate natural low summer stream flows. In June 2014 the
Clear Creek intake structure was temporarily shut down for about two weeks to
fix a hole in the filter.
•
Where does the city get water in summer and how much?
o 1.5 million gallons per day from Clear Creek in the summer and the rest from
JWC co-op. JWC is the secondary water source for the city. It is more expensive
to receive water from JWC than Gales Creek.
•
Does the city participate in any projects to protect salmon habitat?
o City has management plan committed to providing salon habitat, which is
voluntary. There is a fish ladder at the 4 ft. tall Clear Creek diversion structure.
When water diversion is taken it is a flow-by so not all the water is taken. The city
tries to determine how much.
•
How is the city planning for water use with the city’s population increase?
o Water master plan. Estimated that the city will use up all their water by 2045 with
projected population increase.
Appendix B: Watershed & Growth Boundaries
Figure B-1: City of Forest Grove Watershed (Bonn 2014)
58
SC
K
O
ee
k
Prickett
k
y
lle
Di
SA
Cr e
R
T
ek
DR
KNIG HT
RD
EY
IT C H
DD L EBAC K
PLUMLEE
Johnson
O'N eil
RD
Carpenter
RD
F
RD
Cr e e
k
Cre ek
RD
ST
RD
CRE
ID H IL
L
WAT
ER
D AV
k
ee
Cr
South
e ek
LN
Scog
g
ins
VALLE Y
Urban Area
ER
S
RD
SEGHERS RD
Seghers
RD
RD
BEAL
RD
PACIFIC
LL
HI
River
¹
AVE
RT
n ci l
}
BL
OO
Verboort
M IN G
GEIGE R
RD
AVE
RD
BURGARSK Y RD
SANDS TROM
EISCHE N
Unchanged undesignated
Fern Hill
Unchanged Rural Reserve
Unchanged Urban Reserve
FER N
Tualati
19TH
23RD AVE
Cou
V E R BO O
FOREST ¹
GROVE
HARTFO RD DR
IN
G
k
RD
Cr ee
SE
GH
Added to Urban Growth Boundary
S
MAP LE
RS RD
Change from undesignated to Rural Reserve
k
ee
ETTE
PU
RD
Dilley
HIATT
Cr
RD
Change from Urban Reserve to Rural Reserve
r
Fo
Cr
er
and
ex
Al
EASTERDAY
Knighten
}
RD
Cr
IN
RD
DAVI D
RD
H IL
RO D
FigureB-2:ForestGroveUrbanGrowthBoundary(Metro2015)
G
G
Cr
Cre ek
erick
od
R
RD
RD
McKIBBIN
R RY
WILDB E
RD
R IN
Stimson
Mill
E RIC
CRE
EK
RD
PORTE R
ST
k
ee
S
NURSERY
O
GN
ST
DAVIS
SPIES
LONG
RD
ST
RD
HO LL AD AY ST
HOBBS
Blooming
DOBER
JO H
CORNELIUS
ST
ST
ST
RD
Da
ir
AVE
Tu
TONGUE
NS O
N
C re ek
ST
s
av i
D
SCHOOL
a l at i n
COOK
RD
RD
r
Rive
RD
BRIDG ES
ST
HOR NE CKER
WR EN
PADGE TT
LI
N
FERN HILL RD
HEATHE R
DOGW OOD
BASELINE
ADAIR
Cr
RD
SC
HE
CORNELIUS -
Go
a r pen t e r
ST
HAWTH ORN
ST
YEW
RT
IN
MA
MARSH
RD
RD
LN
47
20TH
FF
AVE
ER
BA U
SU S
AVE
ek
SP
OL
D
ST
ELM
ST
MAP LE
AVE
4TH
AVE
Cr e
k
ee
C
RD
DILLEY
HIG
HW
AY
Cr
RD
R
TE
RS O N
BO
YD
ST
B
E
AN D
Rive r
t er
en
N
RD
rp
PE
RD
C
AR
LaFOLLETT
Ca
n
WINTERS
WN
RD
HERGERT
eek
Cr
LaFOLL ETT RD
OA K
HILL
RD
FERN
RD
TO
14TH
IN G
RD
RD
AVE
S TR
26TH
les
Ga
29TH
A LEDR
G
GOLF
HILL
S
OR E
COURSE
IOWA
MARTIN RD
WEBB
RD
S C HA ER T
DR
345TH
LN
338TH AVE
336TH AVE
E
MIL
341ST AVE
RD
LEIS Y
HALF
334TH AVE
LL
HI
AVE
RD
y
331ST
N
VISITATIO
RD
AVE
BAG LEY
325TH
ey
dfr
59
RD
DR
L
60
Appendix C: Forest Grove JWC Use and Water Service Rates
Table C-1: Forest Grove JWC Stored Allocation 2006-2014 (Forest Grove 2015)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Beginning
Stored
Allocation
Allocation
Released
% Released
4,140.54
2,413.50
2,413.50 2,704.50 4,913.5
0
4,766.6
2
4,913.5
0
4,913.5
0
4,914
3,951.85
3,004.64
2,812.29 2,235.60 854.16
846.89
984.97
1,523
104.56
119.68
116.52
82.66
17.38
18.39
1,002.1
0
20.39
20.04
20.99
Ave. Daily
Release
Scoggins
Dam Water
Delivered to
Forest
Grove
Total % of
Scoggins
Dam
Release
24.7
24.7
20.83
16.68
7.49
6.42
7.77
6.99
11
3,745
2,519.01
2,413.74 1,822.10 597.92
318.38
668.79
649.31
1,205
76
80
94
83
87
55
72
84
67
Table C-2: Single-Family Residential Water Service Rates (Forest Grove 2015)
Water Meter
Monthly Fixed
Tier 1 0 to 7 kgal Tier 2 7 to 13
Tier 3 15 kgal &
Size
Rate
kgal
over
¾” and less
$22.04
$1.77
$3.60
$5.22
1”
$31.03
$1.77
$3.60
$5.22
1.5”
$58.01
$1.77
$3.60
$5.22
2”
$63.99
$1.77
$3.60
$5.22
Appendix D: 2014 Flow & Temperature (Bonn 2014)
61
62
63
Appendix E: Oregon Water Law
Oregon water law provides that all water is publicly owned (OWRD 2013). Anyone who wants
to use water in Oregon needs a permit. This is true for both instream and out-of-stream use
(Baker et al. 2002). Oregon water law has accommodated both the riparian doctrine and prior
appropriation doctrine because the state has temperate and arid land regions. Recognizing both
doctrines gives flexibility to water users. In addition to the primary water user aspect of the prior
appropriation doctrine, Oregon has three other statements in their code: 1) water can be diverted
if used beneficially; 2) when land is sold, the water goes to the new owner; and 3) a water right
must be used at least once every five years or the user forfeits the right (OWRD 2013). Although
Oregon is a mixed- doctrine state, the prior appropriation doctrine is primary (Apple 2001).
In 2012, the Oregon Water Resource Commission created the Integrated Water Resources
Strategy (IWRS) to help plan for future water management. The IWRS is focused on future
urban water planning because Oregon is projected to have a high number of immigrants in the
future due to climate change. The IWRS addresses instream and out-of-stream needs, water
quantity, water quality and ecosystem issues (OWRD 2013). To date, the Commission has
declared seven critical groundwater areas in Oregon. These identified areas are places where
groundwater removal has exceeded the long-term natural replenishment rate. When an
underground reservoir is declared critical, the Commission will not approve any new permits for
that area, and current users may be restricted in use. The Commission can also limit use of
classified groundwater areas and aquifers (OWRD 2013). Groundwater is not the only water
source with critical issues.
Instream has regulations as well. The Wild and Scenic River Act (WSRA) was created to
preserve free-flowing rivers and prevent further development. Any river under the WSRA is
exempt from state laws concerning river development. Most western states provide additional
protection to instream water sources due to potential environmental and health risks form
pollution. The challenge with instream water policy is in determining whether existing water
rights need to be changed or revoked for new protection of instream use (Walston 1986).
However, action needs to be taken to protect ecosystem conservation and fish habitats (OWRD
2013).
The Clean Water Act 303 (d) lists water quality standard violations rivers. The list of standards
includes temperature, bacteria, and mercury. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
is in charge of setting standards through a permitting program to regulate the river pollution
(Willamette Riverkeeper 2014).
Appendix F: Photos of Clear Creek
Source: TRWC 2015
64
Source: Trask et al. 2014
65