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 4 2.1 Literature Review of Water Flow and Temperature Impacts 4 2.1.1 How to Mitigate High Water Temperature 5 2.2 Literature Review of Economic Analysis 6 2.2.1 Ecosystem Services 7 2.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis. 9

3. STUDY AREA 13 3.1 Regional Context 13 3.1.1 Watershed Description 14 3.2 Steelhead Trout 17 3.3 Tualatin River Watershed Council Fish Survey History 20 3.4 City of Forest Grove Water 21

4. FLOW AND FISHERIES DATA 24 4.1 Water Flow of Gales Creek 24 4.2 Fish Surveys 27 4.3 Intake Changes in 2014 32 4.4 Clear Creek Intake versus JWC Intake 33

5. ECONOMIC DATA 36 5.1 Cost Analysis 36 5.2 Funding 37

6. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS 41 6.1 Proposed Improvement Plan 41 6.1.1 Altering Intake Level 42 6.1.2 Large Woody Debris Restoration 43

7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS 46

LITERATURE CITED 49 APPENDICES 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 29 Table 4: Juvenile Steelhead Number Expansion from 20% RBA Survey Results 30 Table 5: Water Received from JWC 35 Table 6: Forest Grove Water Budget 37 Table 7: 3/4th 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 2 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? 3

Capstone Project Overview

Figure 1: 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.

16

Gales Creek

Clear Creek

) TRWC TRWC 1998 (

Ownership

Land

Figure 4: 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 19 water flows and habitats for theses areas (Rosenfeld and Boss 2001).

Figure 5: Critical Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin: Gales Creek (Bonn 2014)

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 long- term.

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 square- metered 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/ 0.043 0.036 0.067 0.032 Square-Meter

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

2013 2014 2013 2014 STHD Estimate 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. 31

Gales Creek

Clear Creek Steelhead Numbers & Density in the Tualatin River Basin (Trask 2015)

: igure 10 F

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 2011 2012 2013 2014

Allocation 3,951.9 3,004.6 2,812.3 2,235.6 854.2 846.9 1,002.1 985.0 1,523.0 Released (million gallons) % of 104.6% 119.7% 116.5% 82.7% 17.4% 18.4% 20.4% 20.0% 21.0% Allocation Released Ave. Daily 24.7 24.7 20.8 16.7 7.5 6.4 7.8 7.0 11.0 Release (million gallons)

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).

37

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 2015-2016 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 $26,300 Management Expenses Timber Harvest $1,012,116 $1,558,140 $1,100,00 $937,500 $1,245,000 Revenue JWC Purchase $200,030 $196,697 $220,498 $250,000 $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 40 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. 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 Water Left Instream 0.5 mil-gal 15.5 mil-gal 46 mil-gal 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 two- week 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 mil- gal/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 Water Left Instream Two-Week Reduction 21 mil-gal 25.5 mil-gal 117 mil-gal 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.

50

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/2014- 15_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/2015- 16/ADOPTED_BUDGET.pdf

Forest Grove. 2016. “Water Treatment Plant History.” http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/city- hall/water-treatment/water-treatment-plant-history.html

Forest Grove. 2015. “ Utility Billing: Service Rates.” July 1, 2015. http://www.forestgrove- or.gov/city-hall/light-power/utility-billing-service-rates.html

Forest Grove. 2016. “Visitors: At A Glance.” http://www.forestgrove-or.gov/visitors/at-a- glance.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 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/environmental- reports/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-Part- 1.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/Upper- Gales-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 2011- 2015.” June 4, 2011. http://www.swcd.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Business-Plan-6- 14-2011_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/cgi- bin/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

54

Willamette Riverkeeper. 2014. “Pollution”. Willamette Riverkeeper. http://www.willamette- riverkeeper.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. 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. 58

Appendix B: Watershed & Growth Boundaries

Figure B-1: City of Forest Grove Watershed (Bonn 2014)

59

r

e

T T E G D A P v

i D

D

R

R

H T 5 R 2 3

E V S A

E

L G E D I S R Y T

D

I S

R

R

E B

A V E T S 1 3 K 3

C E V A

H T 4 3 3

E

N D

R R

O T E

V A

H T 6 3 3

k S

H

s n N i

L E V A

H T e 8 3

E 3

i v

O

a

R

e t

GLEY O D E

W A V A

B T S 1 4 3

r H a

C

K

l S

O

C

O a

C

u E

E V A

H T 5 4 3 T U

G

E D V

R A

H T N 9

RD 2

R T D N

O

S O

B B E

S W

T S

E V

B A H T 6 Y 2 N

B

A H O

R

D

H O R E

S

E A J

U B

A L

B

S O

L U

S E V A D U

D O g

R I

H

n

i H T 0 2 L m o

y E T r o l T C i S OURS T E B T S RD a N

S S

D

D R

N R

I CH S E V A

L AERT

D H

R T 4 G S 1 I

L L I H

F S I O N W

DR V A E

F O I O

A

E L

P

D

D

H S

C

C R

D

-

R S U I L E N R S O C G D D OLF

L R T

O

L S

I O E

W H N

R I

G

I

L

O

R

N

A

E V

A D E

E H k T

D 4

R

D

e H S

e Y

R A T E r R A

A

F

E C S

E B

S

O

H

D R D

R R T

T N N E

I L L

O

F T a

MAR L H S

R

A

M U

G

D

R

T S N W E Y

D R

T T E L L O F

a

L

D R

T R E G R E H DR

D

R t

r

E

o e

R V N o e

N

I v E

E G b

T A d

R G r H v r

I

e A N C

E r M I

e S V

e I G

D t R E e TION M s

VISITA a

O s

e

D

R

R n E T R O

P O e

T S } K A

O HILL L R

l g T i

R i B R

c D

R FE R D

n N s

n l

u R

T

O S

E L P S A R E M T N I

o W e

a a O C r r

d

b

B e

r u

v D n R

E i R

D

R U R u

E

N I B B V I R K c M

A

V

l

¹

D

T

S l

d d d N ¹ R O H T W A R H i H e e e E

L

V

C

A

n

L g g g

A

I

E r

T S

L M I L B E

e F

D H n n n

D I F

R

D

R T

C

R a a a E

3

Y

2

A n

i K

h h h

D t

S S P

M

R

R V c c c a O

A H

l R

G E

T R T n n n

R

a S D

9

U

D u B 1 U U U N

O

D

R N A T

S

R

R

O

E H

R T I

S L F F L T B

O R

A RSO N RD

G E H D F AN IN D G R IN U PR

P D S

R

y

e D e

R

l

l

i D r

Y v T O e B v i e R

T D k r

A

e I D v

H

e e

R r RD r

C Y s

T ILLE e D D

D S R e

R s E

R k D s R

e e R

C e r

L

r k e

R l

L D D C

I S

h R

E R

N e k R

L H 7 g

R

T a e 4 l e

A E D e e r I S

Y W r H

r a

V R Y u

R C A G r

R A D

LE W

H y

A E

C G E D I

G H S r

R

R u

B Y T

D D T D

H E D a R L S

I E

G D

R R H R I

O o W R

F d C N k t S

K

T S R I e o D N n E

e K R R L n

R t H C

r e E

e G

A T

E u t C

T E B L r

v S h E E P d e o

r A

g k L e t

i e E

M

D

e D

r n k

E

} n e L

D B

D

L C O e t e K

A R M e p ks D

U S r r

e a

R

L e h

a y C e

P r

t

D e

n n l C C

L l

R o

IL s i s R

H g w e D n l N i h

a W o

l

s O o T n i

G NG J r RI e e

T a

S r N '

Y e G

d

A b

d

K

E O

D E

R r n

R C n a

n

Y

E x

T e

E

U u

S l r a

L e D r A

t C n

I e A p r L

V a

E

C b

A A

D V

r

m m

k

e e

r s C

k a n o o

r i U

D o r r

g e

F f f

R S g o r h t u

o o c t A e e S

Forest Grove Urban Growth Boundary (Metro 2015) g g d

n

t n n e t

k a e e a a

e d k LN R r 2: E b c T C

i -

E h h r IL N d r E M P HALF P R k A C C A S U e C e IN

D r G

R C G

O l l n

C i

S o K

s M

C I

m R i

t

E

S D O R k

e e r

e igure B r t

en

C p

ar F

c e k i

r C

d

o

R

y

e

r

f

d

o G 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 4,140.54 2,413.50 2,413.50 2,704.50 4,913.5 4,766.6 4,913.5 4,913.5 4,914 Stored 0 2 0 0 Allocation Allocation 3,951.85 3,004.64 2,812.29 2,235.60 854.16 846.89 1,002.1 984.97 1,523 Released 0 % Released 104.56 119.68 116.52 82.66 17.38 18.39 20.39 20.04 20.99

Ave. Daily 24.7 24.7 20.83 16.68 7.49 6.42 7.77 6.99 11 Release Scoggins 3,745 2,519.01 2,413.74 1,822.10 597.92 318.38 668.79 649.31 1,205 Dam Water Delivered to Forest Grove Total % of 76 80 94 84 67 83 87 55 72 Scoggins Dam Release

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 61

Appendix D: 2014 Flow & Temperature (Bonn 2014)

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).

64

Appendix F: Photos of Clear Creek

Source: TRWC 2015 65

Source: Trask et al. 2014