Portland Parks & Recreation and the Portland Water Bureau are in the final weeks of gathering public input on the planned improvements at Powell Butte Nature Park that will be implemented in conjunction with a new underground 50-million gallon reservoir at the park. The organizations unveiled design plans for a new interpretive center, restrooms, caretaker’s house and maintenance building, at a January 25 open house, located at Parklane Christian Reformed Church on SE 160th Avenue and Main Street. They also unveiled several concepts for improvements and rerouting strategies for the trail system.

Top: proposed design for park center. Bottom: park center as it is today.
Images: CH2M Hill
The new underground reservoir is currently in phase one of construction and is the second of five planned reservoirs for the 608-acre Powell Butte Nature Park. The five reservoirs will help with anticipated increases in demand for water, and will offset the City’s plan to close five of its open reservoirs by 2020, three in Mount Tabor and two in Washington Park. The four new reservoirs, three of which will be 50-million gallons, while the other will be 20-million gallons, will accompany the lone 50-million gallon reservoir that already sits atop Powell Butte.*

Reservoir number 2 excavation
The PWB originally started this project in 1995 with the Powell Butte Master Plan, which proposed that a second reservoir would be built on Powell Butte by 2013. At that time, a Public Advisory Committee was created to steer the project and help map out a conditional use master plan. The group is comprised of recreational groups, environmental agencies, neighborhood associations and nearby homeowners.
The conditional use master plan was approved in 2003, which stated the park’s need for new buildings, parking lot improvements and trail improvements. The city then hired a group of consultants to put the advisory committee’s input into a plan. CH2M Hill, a Portland-based firm, is the lead consultant on the project, while they have subcontracted specific consulting services to Nevue Ngan landscape architects of Portland, the Wetlands Conservancy of Tualatin, Pacific Habitat Services of Wilsonville and Sea Research of Portland.
“One thing we heard over and over again was that we needed to put the focus back on the nature aspect of this nature park,” said Teresa Elliott, an engineer in charge of reservoirs at PWB. “So, we worked hard to find what specific wildlife areas within the park needed to be protected to maintain the natural integrity of the park.”
The point of contention within the project thus far has been working out the idea of expanding the wildlife area without giving up overall trail mileage. Something the people at Nevue Ngan Associates, the landscape architecture firm hired to design the trails, have been working at diligently.
At the recent open house, Nevue Ngan proposed a host of trail realignment options for three trails: Pioneer Orchard, Wildhorse and Mountain View. Plus, the firm introduced a possible new single-track trail, Upper Elderberry.

Proposed trail plan. Image: CH2M Hill
“This space is incredibly popular with a lot of different people, so we have to find out the best way to manage the natural qualities while still keeping it accessible to several different recreations,” said Kathleen Murrin, project supervisor with PP&R. “Thus far everyone has really come together and worked hard to make sacrifices so that this project can meet the needs of everyone.”
Several of the current trails either: run between two of these natural areas or run through an area that needs to be left alone in order for the park’s ecosystem to function properly. The problem with bisecting two natural areas, or compromising the ecosystem of the park, is that it makes it more difficult for wildlife to live in the area.
“These large areas where animals can live so close to the city is hard to come by,” said Murrin. “If we compromise that then we are taking away one of the key attractions of this park.”

Powellhurst-Gilbert resident Ray Bayley points to where he recently saw two coyotes along the Pioneer Orchard trail.
At the expense of only a small amount of trail mileage, Nevue Ngan hopes to expand the natural area and improve the overall functionality of the trail system and the trails themselves.
While everyone agrees that wildlife should be protected on Powell Butte, some recreational groups believe rerouting or decommissioning specific trails could make the park overcrowded and dangerous with the expected usage increases that will come with these improvements.
“Powell Butte is by far the biggest mountain biking opportunity around the city,” said Dennis Veatch, director of the Northwest Trail Alliance, a mountain biking advocacy group in the area. “And once these trails are brought up to the standards that are being discussed, it is only going to become more popular.”
Veatch continued, “We are all for making the trails multi-use, but with increased attendance, the trails that we already have will be too crowded, let alone if some of them were to be decommissioned.”

Dennis Veatch (center), Director of the Northwest Trail Alliance discusses the proposed trail plan with other Alliance members
One of the groups major concerns is the possibility of decommissioning the Pioneer Orchard trail, in order to expand the wildlife area to include drainageway and part of two wetlands. If this .75-mile trail was eliminated, not only would the most challenging mountain bike trail be lost, but also one of the longest trails for all park users.
“We are really excited that these trails are going to get the improvements that they deserve for everyone that uses them,” he said. “But we really hope that we don’t lose any of the trail capacity so that every recreation can enjoy the park in a safe environment.”

Pioneer Orchard Trail, in red, could be decommissioned. Image: PP&R
While not everyone agrees on the exact path of the trail system, everyone is excited for the trails to get the improvements that they deserve.
“The trails, to a large extent, were built throughout the years by the people that use them,” said Murrin. “While there efforts are much appreciated, we hope this project will make them even better so that they can be open longer with fewer environmental problems.”
The project team has been using environmental consultants and trail consultants in order to make trails that are more accessible, easier to maintain and more sustainable for every kind of use. Trails will receive improvements in drainage, adjustments in slope, widening of certain trails, smoothing out sharp corners, and improved surface materials and trailside vegetation.
The new buildings and parking lot improvements seem to have slightly less contention than the trail system, although that hasn’t been the case through this entire process.
“When we first took on the project and inherited the conditional use master plan there was just an outline of what had to be included and the general vicinity of where the buildings and parking lot had to be built,” said David Goodyke, landscape architect with Nevue Ngan. “What we found out when we went to the public is that the park users wanted these amenities, but wanted them fit in seamlessly with the park in order to keep the attention on its natural beauty as much as possible.”

David Goodyke, landscape architect with Nevue Ngan, describes park center details with Public Advisory Committee member Ariana Longanecker.
After looking into the park’s history, the advisory committee decided the buildings and entry points should portray a farm motif. The 608-acre lot was originally an orchard and cattle grazing site for the Camp family in the 1880s.
The first way this will be accomplished is by giving the 162nd and Powell Street entrance, the only automobile entrance, a rural feel. The entryway won’t have bright yellow lines or big sidewalks. Instead, the entryway and parking loop will be outline by conifer trees and some of the park’s wetland vegetation.
“We really want the whole experience of being at the butte to come out as soon as you get out of your car,” said Goodyke. “We want the parking lot and entry road to be as non descript as possible so the focus stays on the butte.”
The interpretive center will house bathrooms, park information, an education center and a small amphitheatre. It will be built in a farmhouse style along with the caretaker’s residence and detached garage. Both buildings will be surrounded by trees in order to appear as non obtrusive as possible.
The major challenge as far as the buildings are concerned has been the 5,000 sq. ft. maintenance building that must sit within a 90,000 sq. ft. maintenance yard.

Proposed park center layout. Image: CH2M Hill
In order to keep the maintenance facility out of the way as much as possible, Nevue Ngan decided to move the building’s location to a slightly more non-descriptive lot than was originally laid out in the conditional use master plan. The building will now be built on a sunken lot to the Northeast of the parking lot and other buildings. The maintenance building will look like a giant barn, with only the roof being visible from the parking lot.
PP&R, the PWB and the various consulting groups hope to have a final recommendation for the advisory committee and the City by March of this year. Once that is approved the construction plan can be created and the work can be bid out.
For more information on the project, please visit:
PP&R Powell Butte Nature Park Improvement Project
For more information on the water reservoir aspect of the project, please visit:
Portland Water Bureau Powell Butte Reservoir 2
*Editor's Note: The article originally noted that the underground reservoir currently under construction is the first of five planned reservoirs. It is actually the second. We regret the error.







What the article does not tell you is that there is absoultely no need for additional storage. Water use and water demand have steadily declined in Portland for the last 22 years. Portland currently has 50 milllion gallons more in town storage than is needed. The article also fails to mention that the 20mg tank noted as part of the Water Bureau plans a "blend center" designed for blending contaminated rivier water either from the Columbia or Willamette with pristine Bull Run water. See the PWB/ Montgomery, Watson, Harza Global document, "Regional Transmission and Storage" .
All of the PWB/ corporate burial plans reflect the vision of a former Portland Water Bueau official turned cozy consultant. Upon leaving the PWB Joe Glicker secured a series of Portland Water Bureau consultant contracts for the Global corporation, Montgomery, Watson, Harza . PWB folks dominated the contact selection committee. Glicker is now a VP with CH2MHill, the recipient of the Powell Butte burial design contract. PWB staff dominated this contract as well.
Joe Glicker is same consultant who was awarded a PWB contract to assist the PWB in negotiated the EPA regulation that the Water Bureau uses to force projects that will provide no measurable public health benefit, double water rates and create new risks unique to buried tanks, cancer-causing nitirfication.
The negotiated EPA regulation that requires that we either additional "treat or cover" the open reservoirs for a problem that does not exist, Cryptosporidium . The open reservoirs were extensively tested for this microbe with ZERO detected. Additionally treating the open reservoirs will provide no measurable pubic health benefit. The requrement benefits the PWB's favorite cozy consultant and the corporation that employs him, but will provide no measurable public health benefit to citizens whose water bills will double in five years.
Twenty-five organizations, businesses, environmental groups, neighborhood associations and coalitions, democracy groups and others support retaining our open reservoirs. We have asked the City to stop awarding consultant contracts and follow New York's lead and secure the alternative "variance" that is allowed by the Safe Drinking Water act.
www.friendsofreservoirs.org for more information
consultant contracts information:
http://www.friendsofreservoirs.org/background.html
Floy-
You make some very valid points in your comment. I intended to focus on the park improvements aspects of the project in this article. Hence the title, Design Plans for Powell Butte Nature Park Project Unveiled at Open House. There will be an article on the reservoir side of the project on NeighborhoodNotes soon, although not authored by me.
I'm not a scientist, and would never claim to know the positives and negatives between open and buried reservoirs. I do know the City's hands are now tied with the EPA's ruling, although I don't know if that was self inflicted or not. I love the open reservoirs as much as the next person, but I'm not sure there is anything that can be done now.
So I guess that would be my question to you. With the EPA ruling, what actions would you like to take in order to keep the reservoirs open? How would the City combat these federal mandates?
Thanks for your comment!
--"With the EPA ruling, what actions would you like to take in order to keep the reservoirs open? How would the City combat these federal mandates?"--
Nick, if you haven't gone to the friendsofthereservoirs.org site for possible answers to your question, here's an excerpt for starters:
1. Seek an extension or deferral from the EPA from the burial projects. Community stakeholders have long recommended this action for both the open reservoirs and the source water requirement.
2. Engage the assistance of the City Attorney and/or outside counsel Foley Hoag.
3. Seek further assistance from Senator Jeff Merkley who has demonstrated his support for retention of the open reservoirs.
4. Submit the data to the EPA or state of Oregon if the state has assumed Primacy for the regulation; in 2006 the state legislature unanimously approved and the Governor signed into law a state provision for variances with the full knowledge that Portland would be seeking such a variance for its open reservoirs.
5. Do not rule out legislation. The opportunity for further Congressional intervention is not only possible but also likely in light of the acknowledged flaws with EPA’s source water variance plan.
Steve