FONT

MORE STORIES


Two plans call for strengthening aging dam; a third proposes a new dam downstream. A decision is expected this year

PMG FILE PHOTO - U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and former county Chair Andy Duyck tour Hagg Lake and Scoggins Dam last May.Washington County will soon face decisions about the future of Scoggins Dam and Henry Hagg Lake.

Though county officials are considering three different options, the real choice boils down to a single question: "Do you fix the existing structure, or do you build a new one?"

That is how Tom VanderPlaat, water supply project manager for Clean Water Services, put it to the five Washington County commissioners, who are also the governing board for the agency.

Hagg Lake is the primary water source for much of the county.

The county manages Hagg Lake as a park, and several agencies — including Clean Water Services, which treats wastewater and manages stormwater for the urban part of the county — share the water released from Hagg Lake.

But Scoggins Dam is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which has the dam atop its list of structures likely to be imperiled by a major earthquake, such as one along the Cascadia subduction zone off the Oregon coast.

Scoggins Dam, an earthfill structure 151 feet high, was built in 1975.

The three engineering alternatives being studied could modify the dam with a new fill on its downstream face; raise the size of the dam to add capacity to the current 52,000 acre-feet in Hagg Lake, or build a new, narrower dam of roller-compacted concrete about three miles downstream of the current dam, near Stimson Lumber. Oregon has two such dams, on Willow Creek near Heppner — the nation's first, completed in 1983 — and Galesville on Cow Creek near Azalea, built in 1985.

The current dam is about 2,700 feet across; a narrower dam would be 900 to 1,000 feet across.

Earlier this month, county commissioners toured the dam and the proposed downstream site, and heard a briefing about alternatives.

"Doing nothing is not an option," VanderPlaat said.

There are no cost estimates yet for the three alternatives. They will be determined once the engineering work is complete by the end of this year.

Process underway

The bureau is studying the first two alternatives, plus the accompanying environmental review. Clean Water Services is looking at the proposed downstream dam.

About half of Hagg Lake's stored water goes to the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, a quarter to Clean Water Services, and most of the rest to the Joint Water Commission, which serves Forest Grove, Hillsboro and Beaverton.

A new dam would allow Clean Water Services to release more water into the Tualatin River, in addition to its discharges of treated wastewater, to improve water quality in a river once considered one of Oregon's most polluted. The ratio would be two parts of released water to one part treated wastewater.

It also would offer the potential of additional supplies for three cities — Beaverton, Forest Grove and Hillsboro — and the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District. However, as of now, most of the additional water from a new dam would be for in-stream flows for Clean Water Services.

A new dam also would add about 1,000 acres to Hagg Lake.

But a new dam would require the relocation of about two dozen residents — property acquisition is part of the process — and the Stimson Lumber mill.

VanderPlaat said that, while a new mill site would require less acreage than the current operation, it also would have to have access to water, power and a rail spur — and to be close to timber supply, it likely would remain in western Washington County.

The mill has been at its current site since 1933, predating Scoggins Dam by four decades.

Next steps

Both agencies will have to choose one of the engineering alternatives by December, after which a one-year process for an environmental impact statement will start in January 2020.

Under a 1970 federal law, major federal projects must undergo such a review — and because of a recent order by the Interior Department, the parent agency of the Bureau of Reclamation, that review has been shortened from three years to one.

Assuming completion of the environmental impact statement without challenges, a preferred alternative would be selected in early 2021, permits issued and construction started in fall 2022 with a completion target of 2026.

Though there are no cost estimates yet, the bureau would pick up 85 percent and local governments 15 percent of dam safety work. However, local governments must pick up the entire cost of additional benefits, such as increased water storage — and Clean Water Services customers would pay most of the tab if a new dam is built.

The Scoggins Dam project is the nation's first to proceed under a 2015 law that allows dam safety work to be integrated with other benefits, such as water storage.

Advocates of a new dam are seeking a fish passage waiver from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife — they say their proposed mitigation would involve the removal of a dam at Gales Creek and related improvements — but the Tualatin Riverkeepers oppose such a move, saying a waiver shouldn't be granted unless there is additional mitigation.

"It's a big project that's going to impact the river system, and we feel like we need to be involved in that, because it's going to impact the entire river," said Ashley Short, advocacy and public policy coordinator for the environmentalist group.

Short noted that winter steelhead, considered a vulnerable migratory fish species in the watershed, use the upper Tualatin River as a spawning channel. That's one of the reasons why Tualatin Riverkeepers is pushing back on the proposed waiver, she said.

Short said the group doesn't oppose a new dam or downstream mitigation, just that an environmental analysis should be completed before any action is taken such as a waiver.

"We, by no means, are opposing making the current dam seismically sound or whatever the safety choice ends up being," Short said. "But we want to make sure that it's done the right way."

Mark Miller contributed to this report.

By Peter Wong
Reporter
(503) 580-0266
email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Follow us on Twitter

Go to top
Template by JoomlaShine