The URL can be used to link to this page

01/13/1999 - Packet BOOK COPY INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:00-9:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Approval of Minutes - December 9, 1998 4. Presentations & Questions by IWB Members a. Portland Water Plan for Expanded Southwest Service b. Willamette River Water Supply System Break - 10 minutes 5. Written Questions to Presentors/Board Members - Audience 6. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. kathy\iwb\1-13-9.agn WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY REPORT Intergovernmental Water Board Presentation January 13, 1999 PROJECT OVERVIEW O Certainty of Supply for Participants o Demand and Capacity Needs o System Components - Size and Location o Permitting o System Reliability o Endangered Species Act O Water Quality o Willamette River Raw Water - Take Another Look o Treatability o Drinking Water Standards • Present • Future O Costs o Initial o Financing o Operation and Maintenance o Long Term Financial Impacts ILAME TTE � kVF. Et WA Ir SUPPLY SYSTEM COMPONENTS O River Intake & Raw Water Pump Station O Water Treatment Plant O High Service Pump Station O Finished Water Transmission Main *- WILLAMETTE RIVER WAFER SUPPLY SYS ��► _ CAPITAL COSTS O City of Tigard's Costs o Construction: $34.7 million o Contingencies and Other Factors: $5.5 million o Project Cost: $40.2 million O Total Project Cost: $92.3 million O How far does this $40 million investment take the Tigard water service area? 4 L LAMF TTE RIFER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM COST CERTAINTY CURVE Certainty of Costs 100 versus Project Cycle 0 U 0 U ami a� Preliminary Engineering Level 0 Conceptual Engineering Construction SCHEDULE O Tigard's New Supply Could Be Complete in 2002 o Decision to Proceed Spring 1999 o Financing in Place Mid 1999 o Biological Assessment Complete Mid 1999 o Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Efforts Initiated Mid 1999 o Permit Applications Submitted Mid 1999 O Implementation Issues o Governance o Project Development o Project Financing o Further Detailing Technical Issues WILLAMETTE R M VER WAFER SUPPED SYSTEM SUPPLY SYSTEM RELIABILITY O Reliability o Floods o Turbidity • 1996 Flood Events • Recent Storms - Joint Water Commission - City of Corvallis o Power Outages o Water Quality WILLAMETTE BRIER WAFER SUPPLY STSTE0 PREVIOUS RAW WATER MONITORING SHOWED THE RIVER IS SUITABLE AS A WATER SOURCE O 1994-1996 -- TVWD Monitoring O 1991-1995 -- UGSG Monitoring O Potential for Organic Contaminants a Concern WI LLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TIGARD BEGAN UPDATED RAW WATER MONITORING IN JULY 1998 O All SDWA Regulated Contaminants O EPA Contaminant Candidate List O All Pesticides and Herbicides Detected by USGS Anywhere in Willamette Basin O 25 Suspected Endocrine Disrupters WILLAMETTE LLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM RESULTS OF FIRST FOUR MONTHS CONSISTENT WITH PAST RESULTS O No Detects in 2 Sets of Low Flow Samples o 64 Semi-Volatile Organics o 19 Acid Extractable Organics (Phenols) o 15 Herbicides o Diquat, Paraquat, EDB, DBCP 0 14 Organophosphorous Pesticides o 41 Nitrogen and Phosphorous Pesticides 0 64 Volatile Organics 0 30 SDWA Regulated Pesticides o Dioxin WN k. ILAMIE TT it k VE11WA1rE11 S U P P k. T STSI i MAY BE NO DETECTS OUT OF 170 ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYZED O Simazine (1 .7 ug/L) Detected by Montgomery Labs Method O Not Detected by 2 EPA Methods in Same Water Sample O Not Detected in Repeat Sampling on September 23, 1998 O Not Detected in November 1998 Sampling Vale O Not Detected in Previous Sampling O If Present, Still at Levels Below MCL of 4 ug/L, Will Be Further Removed by Treatment MAY BE NO DETECTS OUT OF 170 ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYZED O Dichloromethane Detected at 1 .2 ug/L in Second Round, Not in First Round O Not Detected in Previous Sampling O Frequent Laboratory Contaminant O If Present, Still at Levels Well Below MCL of 5 ug/L WILLAMETTE RIVES WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM i OTHER PARAMETERS TYPICAL OF PNW WATER SOURCES AND PREVIOUS RESULTS O Hardness O Giardia, Crypto, Microbials O Metals O Turbidity O Natural Organic Matter - (TOC) Disinfection by Product Precursors WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY STST I TREATMENT PROCESS MEETS CURRENT REGULATIONS . . . Current Floc Sed Ozonation GAC Corrosion Final Regulation Filtration Control Disinfection Turbidity ✓ ✓ (IESWTR) Coliform ✓ ✓ V/ V/ V/ Bacteria (TCR) Giardia ✓ V/ (IESWTR) Cryptosporidum ✓ ✓ ✓ V/ (IESWTR) Lead (LCR) ✓ SOC's (Phase I, ✓ ✓ ✓ V/ II, V) THM's (D/DBP) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HAA's (D/BBP) ✓ ✓ ✓ . . . AND ANTICIPATES FUTURE REGULATIONS Regulation Floc Sed Ozonation GAC Corrosion Final Filtration Control Disinfection THM's (Stage 2 ✓ ✓ V/ DBP) HAA's (Stage 2 ✓ ✓ V/ DBP) Cryptosporidum ✓ ✓ V/ V/ (ESWTR) Filter Backwash ✓ ✓ V/ Contaminant ✓ V V/ Candidate List PLANT DESIGNED TO MEET REGULATIONS TO AT LEAST THE END OF THE NEXT DECADE Regulation Date Regulation Comes Into Effect THM's (Stage 2 DBP) 2007 HAA's (Stage 2 DBP) 2007 ESWTR (Cryptosporidum) 2007 Filter Backwash 2003 Contaminant Candidate List 2007 E---> 2013 ILLAMETTE RkVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FINISHED WATER AT THE TAP WILL BE THE BEST IN THE REGION Regulation Willamette River Typical Regional EPA Standards Supply Range Bacteria 0% 0% 5% Lead 5-10 10-15 15 Turbidity 0.01-0.1 0.05-0.3 0.3/1 THM's 5-10 15-40 80 (40) HAA's 5-10 15-30 60 (30) Giardia >99.99% 99.9% 99.9% Removal Removal Removal Cryptosporidium >99.99% 0-99% 0-99% Removal Removal Removal (99-99.99% Removal +- WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM *i t 7 COST I M PACTS O Assumptions o Inflation o Tigard's Current Bond Rating o Ownership Will Impact Long Term Costs o System Development Charges (SDC's) Growth Pays for Growth Owning Tangible Assets Allows SDC's to Offset Customer Costs * WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS O 3% Inflation O 5.1 % I me rest O Growth per City Water Demand Estimates ------------------------- WILI, p,METTE RIMIER WATER PROJECT COST IMPACTS O Operating Costs - Volume Charge O Capital Costs - City Funded with Debt O SDC's - Used to Offset Debt Service GROSS SUPPLY COST City of Tigard Gross Suppiy System Water Cost Summary $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 ❑Supply System $6,000,000 Capital Costs 0 $5,000,000 Q) $4,000,000 N $3,000,000 ■Wholesale Water $2,000,000 Charges $1,000,000 $- O`L Fiscal Year Ending ,. GROSS UNIT COST OF WATER City of Tigard Gross Unit Cost Summary $2.50 $2.00 U � , $1.50 o $1.00 0 $0.50 7777 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti � Fiscal Year Ending - - -Escalated Dollars Constant 1998 Dollars .. NET UNIT COST OF WATER City of Tigard Net Unit Cost Summary $2.50 $2.00 - - - - - _ ---__ ------ - $1.50 --- --.._ ---- ----------__----- d a N O $1.00 0 $0.50 -- -- -- �o o° pyo 00 ,�° �o pyo �o �o �o �o pyo �o pyo �o �o �o pyo �o pyo pyo �o pyo Fiscal Year Ending Net Cost, Escalated $ ----Net Cost,Constant 1998 $ -- -Net Savings, Escalated $ —Net Savings,Constant 1998 $ r WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY STET M i 1 SUMMARY O Certainty o Effort Has Increased Tigard's Level of Certainty O Water Quality o We Know What is Really in the Water o The System Will Supply the Highest Quality Drinking Water O The Proposed Willamette River Water Supply System For Tigard o Economic o Certain o Long Term k LLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY STSTE� City of Portland Water Bureau Proposal for Expanded Service Presentation to the Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board January 13, 1998 City of Portland Water Bureau Portland Water System Plan for Proposal for Expanded Service Expanded Southwest Service - ■A contract already exists with Tigard effective until 2007. Presentation to the ■The Portland water system is of very high Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board quality and backed by a base of A t January 13, 1998 experience to operate that system. ■The proposal contains a specific set of improvements designed to meet Tiigard's water supply needs over the long term. Portland Water System Plan for Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Expanded Southwest Service Southwest Service ■Flexibility of proposal ■Conservation ■ Proposed east-west transmission route could ■The costs and savings of conservation be located further south and benefit from programs not included in proposal. multiple users. ■Assumption of regional commitment. ■Winter use of Portland system ■Refines timing and costs of system •Added supply increments could include a improvements. third dam in the Bull Run. Primary Issues Addressed by the Portland Proposal Water Supply Needs Assumptions ■Adequate transmission and storage. a Portland water demand forecast is based ■Supply source enhancements utilize existing on actual historical consumption data and investments and are increased incrementally climate records back to 1943. over time. ®Population forecasts were obtained from •The projects are implementable in a timely manner. Metro based on geographic service areas. ■Reliable system provides high quality water. ■A factor for historic reductions due to ■Reasonable costs are equitably allocated. conservation have been included in the forecast. 1 Water Supply Needs Assumptions Water Supply Needs Assumptions ■West-side demand forecasts based ons tj ■Forecasts for non-peak season and annual consumption data for TVWD service area. average use average of all weather years. ■Forecasts for supply include estimates to ■Non-peak season average demands used 2050 for peak season and peak day for sizing emergency supply. (based on hottest weather demands). ■Annual average forecast is used to estimate revenue flow for financial portion of proposal. Portland Water System Plan for Water Supply Needs Assumptions Expanded Southwest Service ■Demand modeling can accommodate ■Institutional Issues changes in future demand forecasts. ■ Proposal does not specify details of ■Over time we can create demand arrangements to supply water. forecasts for specific wholesale providers ■Specific terms and arrangements can be based on their consumption data. finalized when Tigard,Wilsonville,and Sherwood determine source choice and number of existing and new customers is known. ■ Portland is already beginning the process to proceed with negotiating contracts. Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Southwest Service Expanded Southwest Service Plan Water Supply Needs ■Portland is will!ng to discuss issues of ownership and decision making as a part of 1. Peak Season Demand and Supply contract negotiations. nPortland anticipates that it should be possible 2. Peak Day Demand and Supply to complete contract negotiations within a 3. West Side Demand and Supply year after Tigard and the other new customers make their decisions. 4. Emergency Demand and Supply 2 Peak Season Supply PEAK SEASON DEMAND Table Table 4 /�yy,� � -lOX I.w3 Sewww ♦lOK i �'— (�'1 t i er �.�l TeS� I6111Nw°wlNw) I Denww� (.Hlbw�SNew.) { �lw.t i 7� 1..� �bWN2/.INw. —III .rru 1• 21! 31.5 � I I � �c�.•+o �h+�•+�.w l _ 2D_2 J1J 39! f.rrl - ' J39.wu o I 30.7 31.1 37.9 I ' �0� e i�• 31! � .9 JD.1 2+<+ 32.1 cp1131 36.1 b.0 I 1� �y77 P1 PEAK DAY DEMANDS PEAK DAY SUPPLY Table S ■2005 ■ Well field Upgrade(304mgd) ■ Powell Butte II(30mg storage) c 2l9 xJ3 2.3 _ 02010 r 29.° x2' -4 ■ Phase I Conduit 5(327mgd) >0,7 — 1I ■2020 _ 2K.J !1St H9f n3-o llll Jam° ■ Powell Butte III(30mg storage) 02030 ■ Westside ASR (347mgd) +, - ■2040 ■ Conduit No. 5 (450+mgd) 004 WEST SIDE SUPPLY West Side Peak Day Demand Peak Day Supply Table 7 — yE� ■2000 � �/S�/I• ■ West Side Capacity(90mgd) tlyr l TrNllw C9. u. IISIN.Sr43 c99 ■ WCSL,Pumped&TVWD(JWC) �,•� r.r 1MNr1MM�kt ]+blw Ob91et a�...w 99b1 CS 13.. I] L4 ns ■2001 �KA a Ms v a.3 199.f ■ Wilsonville to Beaverton Pipelines E,� �10.5 1.9 'J 131-0 E 2010 0.7 16f 1.t J] 3153 IRS] n.I S.f 113• ■ WCSL II(+60mgd) 17.2 1.4 11.1 0.2 ■ 150mgd Capacity IA" b� J e '46 U �0M � EMERGENCY SUPPLYEmergency Demand ivy) I T Table 8 ■2000 Capacity(92 to lwngd) ✓� j jt — ■ Well field 72 to 90mgd IV — ■ TVWD(7WC)10 to 20mgd ■ Other 10 to 20m9d .— N..r ♦.�.�.O�rti ■2005 Capacity(120 to 140ttgd) MGD ■ Well Feld 90 to I00m9d ■2010 ■7WC/Portland Connection '°• ■2020 J� xz mN —.} ■Bull Run Treatment '� }°' "`• ■2030 capacity(too u)iw gd) V r:s: }N, !w2 ■Westside ASR 20Tgd ■Canyon Log Conduit No.S ■2040 capacity(16o to iaomgd) ■Eastside ASR 20mgd Expanded Southwest Service Plan Facility r Expanded Southwest Service Plan Facility 76 Summary Summary m Table 2 5Q' p.�t/I`'�./V( .oe asw'mow + rw a aaa.a eow fiwwr. 1►�Nec! Savk! C.pecrtr k4Plf n IbMbn) . •We I C� �MYW2WI i 1 n.ha b nee. j Nro...n..Irwil NOM...�.1N r.y.w B' ^ r 200E 2B (tbN ncM) TWd BarWMGD bTW-UNS� 1 JS MGD rucOc.ac hiiV rlMN GommaNenG 'tun 2010 I 1P30 ese Ornw t rr} ASN }!ND lt! '(enr�genry N+CNW) j MGD JAA i Pex�ll BVIe to Be�vertoll VASMnplon Court' � 2010�W MGO 6B l dewn„n AA }lp NCD }�9G iS�gpy lir 11(fA icrrsl v bxt..arp niw..y. A!o ANGD 21. t} 'Dorn ..Leg of Caw15 2010 2l MGD t5 SIM.neN) wn Sa 1 M Run Carryon tp oI CN S(U icnes) 2030 55 MuM A>we� v. Aro AMCD 21- 1 1] luclearM CompNon olCmdr�� 20M '2'A MG 96 (M ndra) I 1 N ReaenoY N 1 2005 150 MGO 25 Paw<I&ne Reurni III , 2010 50 MGD 25 Major Supply and Transmission Existing p9 Cost Analysis Facilities ■ Existing Major Supply and Transmission ■ Facilities include: ■ Supply-dams, Headworks and o New Major Supply and Transmission groundwater system • Southwest Transmission Facilities W Conduits from watershed ■ Terminal storage 4 Major Supply and Transmission Existing Major Supply and Transmission Existing Facilities: Assumpi;ons FarilitiPc Accumntinns ■Extension of existing contract pricing a fists ■Continuous facility reinvestment I Operations and Maintenance(O&M) ■2%Increase in depreciation and ROI I Asset depreciation(based on replacement value) ■O&M cost increase at 2%Inflation C I Return on Investment(ROI) ■ Unit Costs �( + 1 Total of all costs/total demand I No differential peaking ratios between customers Major Supply and Transmission New Major Supply and Transmission New FarilitiPc — Farilities_ Asrtjnintioas. ■ Dam 1 and 2 raises ■Capital costs ■ New Conduit 5 ■Cost inflated at 2%until construction ■Converted to annual debt service 5 ■ Treatment facilities 120-year repayment period ■ Well field improvements 1 6%interest and level payments do ■ ASR Major Supply and Transmission New Southwest Transmission Facilities FarilitiPc 4Scu ntinnc ■O&M costs ■ Wilsonville-Tualatin Pipeline ■Fixed costs vary-0.25%to 5.00%of ® Beaverton-Tualatin Pipeline initial inflated construction cost ■Variable cost change with demand ■ Washington County Supply II ■Fixed and variable cost increase at 2% for inflation ■Unit costs-annual total cost/total demand i P�y 5 Southwest Transmission Facilities: Southwest Transmission Facilities: Assumptions Assumptions ■Capital costs ■Distribution of costs based on ■2%Inflation until construction design capacity requirements of ■Converted to annual debt service each community. 1 25-year repayment period 1 6%interest with level payments ■ O&M costs ■0.25%of inflated construction- not included JAJ Portland Water System Plan for Expanded �A,�n tvso rt/ Total Cost Summary Southwest Service �SSurS ■Existing Major Supply and Transmission ■Summary ■The Portland water system can expand to meet the ■+ New Major Supply and Transmission needs of Tigard and other new southwest customers. ■+ Southwest Transmission Facilities ■The proposal assumes high service reliability, including emergency backup,and makes ✓ improvements to reduce system vulnerability. ■The projects In proposal can be implemented and are backed up with other potential Improvements (e.g.a third dam). Portland Water System Plan for Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Southwest Service Expanded Southwest Service e Cost of providing Portland water service Is reasonable ■More analysis and detaii can be provided. and based on equitable cost distribution. ■Portland welcomes discussion about supplying water 0 Portland recognizes Tigard and other wholesale for duration of existing contract and over the longer customers want role in selecting system Improvements. term. ■Actual costs and rates need refinement through contract negotiation. H Some facilities In the proposal could be financed directly by those using facilities. �wrr� 6 D ost Per Unit for Existing Supply and Transmission Facilities Cost Per 0-it MrcasvngU poy Faci6ties �l.6ll U $1-20 av $1-00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 2000 20'10 2023 2030 2040 2150 Figure 1 Peak Season Supply with Incremental Enhancements Compared to Demand During Driest and Average Weather Conditions 50 SuPP1Y u BG 45 east side ASR u BG 24 BG West Side ASR m 40 Treatment 2.6 BG M Dom Rai" o 2!BG W35GW u C7 c 30 C 0 m 25 20 15 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Years )nit Costs of Systemwide Additions to Supply and Transmission Lht Costs of Sysbe mei de Addti ons to Supply End Transni ssi on System $1.00 � $0.80 U U rA v a, � $0.40 Inasafe tn�msea tri' wdw tmdrrort plot ain. $0.00 2000 2010 2023 2030 2040 2050 Questions from Public at the IWB meeting, Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7- 9 pm. The asker of the question is noted where possible. Portland 1. Asked by Jim Hansen The Tigard proposal quotes water costs per ccf. After crediting income from 3 or 4 factors such as projected system development charge increases of around $1500 for each new water hookup, bond income etc. —Can Portland adjust its projected water cost to also reflect Tigard's credits so that there will be an "apples to apples" comparison of water cost? 2. Why did Portland propose to expand the Washington County Supply Line instead of building the new Clackamas inter-tie to supply Tigard and Wilsonville? 3. What is the advantage of the Clackamas inter-tie in terms of supply security? 4. Is Portland sure that dams #1 and #2 can be raised? If dams#1 and#2 cannot be raised what does Portland propose to do? 5. Asked by Gretchen Brehner Portland proposal provides that Tigard would pay a share of any treatment plant, raising dam, new dam etc.; the plan does not indicate that Tigard would have any ownership interest in said facilities giving them a voice in future plans for development. Please address this issue. 6. Asked by Gretchen Brehner The Program contains a detailed discussion of environmental issues. However, it doesn't address delays due to likely litigation. Recent case such as that involving Columbia South Shore delayed the project for years and added $to cost. Please advise how Portland has factored this issue into the proposal? 7. Asked by Joyce Patton Your proposal assumes that Tualatin Valley Water District will shift some of its load off the Portland system, to that Portland can deliver that water instead to Tigard and others. What value do you place on TVWD's willingness to make that shift, and what cost impact would that have on Tigard ratepayers? H:ADocs\iwbqs.doc 01/14/99 Portland and Murray Smith 8. Asked by Jim Hansen What if any things have changed since your December 15 proposal? Are projected costs the same? 9. What will be the actual cost of the water to the average homeowner in Tigard for the Willamette system versus the Portland system in their monthly bill? Murray Smith 10. How much (in increased taxes) cost will the Willamette system bring to the Tigard homeowner to just build the system? 11. Does it not require a great deal of electrical power, which is very expensive, to use Ozone oxidation for removing such contaminants as E. Coli from Willamette drinking water? What emergency backup would be used in the event of a power outage and has the ozone cost been factored in the Tigard proposal? 12. Asked by Jim Hansen What is the projected useful life of the filter plant? 13. Has the Willamette River water testing for endocrine disrupters been performed on 1) both sides of the river 2) at different depths? 3) in different seasons? 4) continually for a period of time? IE hourly, weekly. 14. In the event those claim superior water rights to those claimed by the WWSA prevail in adjudication, what are your contingency plans to assure the source of the Willamette? H:ADocs\iwbgs.doc O1/14/99 MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Possible Legislative Proposal DATE: January 6, 1999 Kim Swan, our new Water Quality/Conservation Specialist, attended a conference where state agencies and other interested groups presented their legislative agendas. I have attached a copy of Kim's report. Staff members will be watching these issues as they proceed through the legislative process. If you have any questions, you can reach either myself or Kim at 639-4171, extension 396 (Ed) or 346 (Kim). Thanks! %ftw Attachments (4) i I I i k t Item No. 1Z��..�. For Council Newsletter dated L32LL December 14, 1998 �r On December 7, 1998 I attended the"Water for Fish and People—How do we Balance?" conference at the Double Tree Hotel in Eugene/ Springfield. The Conference consisted of four different panels that looked at water issues and agendas for the next legislative session. The first panel focused on State Agency Initiatives and included speakers from the Oregon Water Resource Department (OWRD), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Department of Health(ODI ) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The second panel addressed the Environmental Agenda with representatives from the Oregon Environmental Council, Water Watch of Oregon, and Oregon Trout. The third panel gave the Industry/User perspective with speakers from the League of Oregon Cities, Special Districts Ass. of Oregon, the Oregon Farm Bureau, and the Institute of Fisheries Resources. The last panel addressed Legislators Views. The following is a brief summary of each of the speakers representing the four panels above. State Agency Initiatives Martha Pagel of the OWRD said that most of this legislative session would focus on budget issues and long-term planning which will include funding and budget issues for Willamette Restoration, the Oregon Plan, the passage of Measure 66, and the Stewardship and Supply Initiative. She indicated that issues that won't be in the next session were: water right permit extensions (this is being address through the rulemaking process) and how municipal water suppliers deal with extension. A workgroup is being formed to look at Community Water Use. Bills that might be seen in the next session are: a water development loan fund for water projects, elimination of the current one year construction period for current water rights, hydro-electric fees, and technical changes to well construction. Russel Harding of DEQ said that there would not be a lot of DEQ issues in the next session. He said that there were two main reasons: 1) budgets are very tight, 2) they have a considerable mandate with the Healthy Streams Initiative. There are four broad issues that DEQ is addressing: drinking water, the ESA, the Safe Drinking Water Act/ Clean Water Act, and stream flows. DEQ is involved in the protection of drinking water sources by looking at potential contamination sources. Mr Harding indicated that the agency was facing big challenges with ESA/CWA integration. With regards to stream flows DEQ will not be going after water rights but will be interested in how water withdrawls impact water quality. They have also been involved in the Willamette River 4 Basin Task Force and the Hydroelectric Task Force which is looking at section 401 of the CWA in reauthorization of FERC projects. Dave Leland of the Oregon Department of Health's Drinking Water Program said that the main program purposes are to assure safe drinking water for the public, and to regulate public water systems for water quality standards. The ODH has a primacy agreement with EPA to carry out all Federal standards. He said the issues that would be in the next legislative session included: responding to 1996 federal SDWA, increasing the administrative penalty under the primacy agreement, revising the definition of a"water system" to include irrigation districts, preserving the revolving loan fund for operator certifications to expand coverage, and to eliminate exemptions. Other issues are: elimination of the Preventive Health Block Grant, expansion of State Revolving Fund set-aside for regulatory program support. Rick Applegate of NMFS said their focus this session was the Willamette River and ESA listings. He said that the biggest fish problems were in the Snake River Basin and have already been listed. The lower Columbia stealhead listing impacts the Portland Metro area. This spring, however, he said that it looks like spring chinook and stealhead may be listed on the Willamette. He indicated that NMFS was looking at ways to collaborate on protective rules, Habitat Conservation Plans, conservation/recovery plans, funding, and federal coordination. They have been trying to work with Metro on expanding the urban growth boundaries, the City of Portland on their pesticide program, and the Oregon Department of Transportation on run-off. He said that the Oregon Plan was the most promising recovery plan in the country. Environmental Agendas Hillary Abraham of the Oregon Environmental Council said that their environmental legislative agenda included: 1) Pesticide"right to know" 2) Safe drinking water source protection/and conservation 3) Groundwater protection 4) Watershed restoration—the Willamette Contract 5)Tracking and measuring water use 6) and looking at the risk of eating fish out of the Willamette River. Reed Benson of Water Watch stated that Oregon is already short of water for new uses and for future uses. He said that contributing factors to expansion of the CWA 303(d) listing and expansion of ESA listing were lack of summer instream flows. He said the big issues that he saw for the next session were: 1) questions of budgets and funding for existing programs and lack of funding for new issues, 2) water transfers 3) Measure 66 4) questions of water storage 5) issue of dams 6) and water right extensions. Issues for Water Watch include: exempt wells, and water use measurement - which OWRD has rules for but has not been enforced. Their agenda is to be on the defensive for instream flows. They will be looking at a bills to eliminate protest fee for instream water right applications, to eliminate the Instream Water Right Act, to limited OWRD's authority over groundwater, to require the state to authorize water rights if water is available 50% of the time(currently it is 80%), and a bill that refuses water right transfers to instream flows. Jim Myron of Oregon Trout said that their current issues include: the Coho appeal, Reauthorization of the ESA, Department of Ag.'s water quality management plans, Outstanding Resource Waters, and Fish passage. Their legislative agenda will be focused on fish passage, Measure 66, and the Healthy Stream Partnership Industry /User Perspective Willie Tiffany of the League of Oregon Cities said they were conducting a study on the Willamette River. Burton Weast representing Special Districts said that they were working on a number of things for the next legislative session. The first is a bill that would give Senate Bill 122 a drop dead date for land use reviews. There hope is that a minimum baseline will allow these decisions to be made quicker so that Cities will know where service boundaries are so they can plan for future growth. Special Districts are very against permit extensions and do not want to do water right reviews. With regards to Measure 66 their#1 priority is to keep public works and economic funds. Special Districts are trying to become more educated about the Salmon Plan. Special Districts also challenged environmental groups about using the Willamette River as a source. If the Willamette River is used this will get Federal/ State and local funding for clean up. Pete Test of the Oregon Farm Bureau said that their agenda includes: 1) fish passage and its cost to the Agriculture industry 2)the hydro-power decommissioning process 3) fish screening program support and financing 4) stored water issues—the Willamette River and reservation on Willamette reservoirs 5) encouragement of the use of the Willamette River as a source before groundwater 6) compliance of water quality management plans at a minimum cost 7)DEQ's efforts with the TMDL process 8) support of the Oregon Plan 9) involvement in long-term water supply issues 10) with regards to permit extension they are in a wait and see basis 11) they have problems with municipal wells because it takes land out,of production. Glen Spain of the Institute of Fishery Resources said that their industry has seen a decline in salmon jobs because of habitat issues, and that they are very concerned about wetland, nearshore and estuary environments. Loss of these systems will result in a direct loss in food supply and jobs. Their agenda follows: they want a tracking procedure/right to know legislation for agricultural and industrial chemicals, fish passage issues, dam issues, diversions and fish screens, believe that instream water rights should not be junior, transfer of water rights to instream flows, the need to find more incentives for instream water right transfers, very interested in off-stream storage options, feel that the Fish Passage Task Force needs to come up with some recommendations, need a long term water planning mechanism, believe that clean water is good business. Legislators View State Senator Veria Tarno stated that Oregon was not managing it's water properly and that"Oregonians need to conserve water and use it in a proper fashion". He said that he was in the process of drafting a bill that will go hand in hand with the OWRD's ,. Stewardship and Supply initiative, and that we need to look at supply for the next 50 years, and to look at alternative water sources. He also asked " are we really facing a shortage of water?" State Representative Jeff Kruse is on the Salmon Committee. He said that Measure 66 was a zero sum game, the measure just moves money from one thing to another. On the positive side it does give the Salmon Committee an opportunity to talk about structural changes to the Oregon Plan. He said that we need to focus on clean water and complying with the Clean Water Act. Also there needs to change the way we measure success. He felt that we were going to have to develop an Oregon Plan Phase II. MEMORANDUM TO: Integovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Appeal of Ballot Title DATE: January 4, 1999 Bill Scheiderich the at-large representative to the Intergovernmental Water Board has filed an appeal of the ballot title for the proposed Charter amendment. A copy of the appeal and other documents are attached. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder will prepare material for the City Council meeting on January 12. The Tigard City council will be ruling on the appeal that evening. Cc: Chris Uber Kevin Hanway Brian Bell + It=No. 1p RECEIVED For Council Newsletter dated ZAr DEC 3 U 1998 10810 SW Garden Park Place Tigard OR 97223-3884 CITY OF JIGARD December 30, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Tigard C 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 RE: Ballot Title for Citizens for Safe Water Initiative Dear Mayor Nicoli and Councilors, am a citizen resident and elector of the City of Tigard and challenge the ballot title prepared by the city's attorney for this initiative measure. The ballot title is insufficient in that it omits any mention of the city's contractual obligations with other certain other cities and with the Tigard Water District to jointly plan for and agree on capital improvements for a common source of water supply. Those obligations are stated in an intergovernmental agreement between Tigard and the Tigard Water District dated December 23, 1993 and executed early in 1994. The ballot title also is insufficient in that it omits any mention of the city's existing contractual obligations to purchase water from both the City of Portland and from the Tualatin Valley Water District. I believe that neither contracts limits either supplier's choice of the source of the water sent to Tigard. The ballot title is unfair in that it misleads Tigard voters to believe that they will be ,%W entitled to approve a source of water supply for the City of Tigard when in fact, by prior contractual agreement, the City of Tigard has agreed to make that choice only as a joint exercise with certain other cities and with the Tigard Water District. It also misleads Tigard voters to believe that Tigard may unilaterally change the terms of its water supply contracts with the City of Portland and with TVWD.. I do not have any replacement wording to offer for the caption, question or summary of the proposed ballot title as I believe the subject of the initiative is unconstitutional. The measure concerns an administrative, not a legislative matter and for that reason should not be certified for an election. If the measure is certified and then enacted it would impair contracts already made by the city. The measure thus contradicts two separate provisions of the Oregon Constitution. I recommend that the Tigard Council not certify the measure to the county elections officer unless it is rephrased to allow only an advisory vote. That would put the burden on those proposing the measure as now worded to defend it against constitutional challenges rather than commit public resources to that defense. Please direct further correspondence on this matter to my address above. Thank you. Sincerely, uj-vL U —,- , William J. Scheiderich December 18, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD Mr. Jim Hansen OREGON Chief Petitioner Citizens for Safe Water 11348 SW Ironwood Loop Certified Mail: Z 271 063 888 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Hansen: Enclosed is the ballot title that was received today from the Tigard City Attorney's office. I note that the City Attorney's office also forwarded you a copy of this information. Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title may file an appeal for review by the City Council (Tigard Municipal Code 1.12.030). The deadline for filing an appeal of the ballot title is December 30, 1998, 5 p.m. Any appeal must state the reasons why the ballot title filed is insufficient, not concise or fair. For your information and records, I have enclosed a copy of Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 1.12.030 along with the sections of the ORS that are referred to in this section of the TMC. I will not be able to give final approval to an elections cover and signature sheet until the challenge period of the ballot title expires (12/30/98) or, if the ballot title is challenged, until after the City Council order is received. If appealed, the next available Council meeting to consider an appeal is January 12, 1998. As I mentioned to you in our telephone conversation on December 17, 1998, I will be out of the office from December 21-25, 1998. While I am out of the office next week, please contact City Manager Bill Monahan at 639-4171 if you have any,questions. I will return to the office on Monday, December 28, 1998. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder Attachments C: --", ,Bill Monahan;CityManageu Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel, City Attorney's Office Jo Hayes, Executive Assistant to City Administration I:\ADM\CATHY\ELECTION\LETTER TO PETTIONER-RECEIPT OF BALLOT TITLE.DOC wr. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 I BALLOT TTI'LE FOR CUIZENS FOR SAFE WATER EMUTAT CAMON VOTER APPROVAL, REQUIR MENT FOR WILLAMETTE RIVER AS DRINKING WATER SOURCE QUOTION Shall the City Charter be amended to require voter approval for use of Willamette River as a drinking water source? SUMMARY This measure will add a new Section 51 to the City Charter that will prevent the City from using any water from the Willamette River as a drinking water source for its citizens unless the question of using the Willamette River as a source of drinking water has been approved by a majority of the voters voting in a city wide election. The measure places no restrictions on using any other source for drinking water for the citizens of Tigard. The measure prevents the use of Willamette River water as a secondary or emergency source of drinking water if prior voter approval has not been received. aL�s�ae.uama , i I TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1.12.030 Procedure for elector dissatisfied with 1.12.030 ballot title for city measure. '�►' Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title filed with the city elections officer by the city attorney or the city governing body,may petition the City Council seeking a different title and stating the reasons the title filed is insufficient,not concise or unfair.. The petition shall be filed with the city elections officer not later than the seventh business day after the title is filed with the city elections officer. The City Council shall review the title and measure to be initiated or referred,hear arguments, if any,and certify to the city elections officer a title for the measure which meets the requirements of ORS 250.035 and 250.039. The review by the City Council shall be the first and final review, and shall be conducted expeditiously to insure the orderly and timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the electors. (Ord. 95-09) 1-1 1'77/ UlUgUu ncvtaw OWLuiw 250.035 Form of ballot titles for state and local measures. (1) The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: (a) A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; (b) A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and (c) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure and its major effect. (2) The ballot title of any state measure to be initiated or referred shall consist of: (a) A caption of not more than 10 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure. The caption of an initiative or referendum amendment to the constitution shall begin with the phrase, "Amends Constitution," which shall not be counted for purposes of the 10-word caption limit; (b) A simple and understandable statement of not more than 15 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved. The statement required by this paragraph shall include either the phrase, "I vote" or"vote yes," or a substantially similar phrase, which may be placed at any point within the statement; (c) A simple and understandable statement of not more than 15 words that describes the result if the state measure is rejected. The statement required by this paragraph shall include either the phrase, "I vote" or"vote no," or a substantially similar phrase, which may be placed at any point within the statement; and (d) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the measure and its major effect. (3) The statements required by subsection(2)(b) and(c) of this section shall be written so that, to the extent practical, the language of the two statements is parallel. (4) The statement required by subsection(2)(b) of this section shall be written so that an affirmative response to the statement corresponds to an affirmative vote on the state measure. (5) The statement required by subsection(2)(c) of this section shall be written so that an affirmative response to the statement corresponds to a negative vote on the state measure. (6) To avoid confusion, a ballot title shall not resemble any title previously filed for a measure to be submitted at that election. [1979 c.190 s.143; 1979 c.675 s.1; 1985 c.405 s.1; 1987 c.556 s.1; 1987 c.875 s.1; 1995 c.534 s.1; 1997 c.541 s.312] http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/250.html 12/17/98 1'yy/ ViCbUll txcvi�cu )WLLIL - 250.039 [Formerly ORS 250.055; repealed by 1995 c.534 s.19] .*Ow http://Iandru.leg.state.or.us/ors/250.html 12/17/98 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, Jo Hayes FROM: Cathy Wheatley DATE: December 17, 1998 SUBJECT: Initiative Petition - Ballot Title - Citizens for Clean Water It is on the City Attorney's work schedule to have the ballot title faxed to me by tomorrow, December 18. At that time, I must prepare a notice of receipt of ballot title for the newspaper. This notification will be prepared in time to meet the deadline for the December 24, 1998, issue of the Tigard Times. Based on the assumption that I will receive the ballot title tomorrow, here is the timeline showing what must be done: 1. Receive ballot title from City Attorney on 12/18/98. 2. Prepare notice of receipt of ballot title for the newspaper (page 18 of the '98 City Elections Manual) (I will do this.) 3. Furnish the chief petitioner(s)with a copy of the ballot title. (I will do this.) 4. Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title may file an appeal for review by the City Council. This appeal must be filed in this office by December 30, 1998, 5 p.m. 5. Attached is a copy of TMC 1.12.030 concerning the procedure for elector dissatisfied with ballot title for city measure. To receive an appeal of the ballot title here are the steps that should be followed: a. Date and time stamp the appeal. This must be done in order to verify whether the challenge is timely. b. Ask the person filing the appeal to write their name, address and telephone number for you if it does not appear on their appeal documents. c. The appeal must state the reasons why the ballot title filed is insufficient, not concise or fair. d. Call the Elections Division (648-8670) to verify if the person filing is a Tigard elector. Ginny Kinglsey, Washington County Elections Director, is `' aware that someone from our office may be calling to verify elector status. The individual submitting the appeal must be a City of Tigard elector (I confirmed this with Jim Coleman.) To verify with the Washington County Elections Division, you will need to give them the name and address. Usually they can check this information while you wait for them on the telephone. Please note that if the Chief Petitioner, Jim Hansen (Citizens For Safe Water), should file an appeal, I have already verified that he is a Tigard elector. If the person filing the appeal is not an elector, notify them immediately that they are not eligible to file this appeal; therefore, the appeal cannot be accepted for processing. e. Notify Jim Coleman that an appeal has been received. Fax it to him. f. Notify the City Council that an appeal has been received. I checked with Jim Coleman and confirmed that the appeal of the ballot title to the City Council should occur at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting and that would be January 12, 1999. *taw Should an issue come up for which you need some advice, you can call Jim Coleman (222-4402). Jim will not be in Monday, December 21; however, he will check voice mail. Jim will be in the remainder of next week. Also, the Secretary of State's office is a good resource (1-503-986-1518). If a problem comes up, I don't mind being contacted as I plan to be at home next week (692-5118). If my plans change, I'll call and leave a number. In addition: If the chief petitioner wants to file the Initiative Petition Cover and Signature Sheets (ORS 250.265) (City Elections Manual '98, Pages 18-19), please date and time stamp this material. I will need to review this as soon as possible; however I cannot give formal approval until the challenge period of the ballot title expires, or if the ballot title is challenged, until after the City Council order is received (January 12, 1999). My advice to the chief petitioner will be to wait until after December 30 to determine whether there is an appeal(s) to the ballot title. I will include this information to the Chief Petitioner when I notify him of the receipt of the ballot title. IAADM\CATHY\ELECTION\BALLOT TITLE CHALLENGE.DOC TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1.12.030 Procedure for elector dissatisfied with 1.12.030 ballot title for city measure. Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title filed with the city elections officer by the city attorney or the city governing body,may petition the City Council seeking a different title and stating the reasons the title filed is insufficient,not concise or unfair. The petition shall be filed with the city elections officer not later than the seventh business day after the title is filed with the city elections officer. The City Council shall review the title and measure to be initiated or referred,hear arguments, if any,and certify to the city elections officer a title for the measure which meets the requirements of ORS 250.035 and 250.039. The review by the City Council shall be the first and final review, and shall be conducted expeditiously to insure the orderly and timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the electors.(Ord.95-09) '�wrr►. 1-1 -O © MONTGOMERY WATSON Serving the World's Environmental Needs Water Managers Group Preliminary Feasibility Study for a Hagg Lake Dam Raise January 1999 \'err•' � y ti • 1 i :Wastewater `i la#efl spu r, Designl ui d Gan tru i+ eci�ent Preliminary Feasibility Study for a Hagg Lake Dam Raise Introduction The Integrated Water Resources Management(IWRM) project has considered strategies for water resources management in the Tualatin River Basin. One objective of the IWRM Strategy is to ensure a safe, reliable and cost-effective water supply into the future for multiple water resources needs in the Basin. Increased needs for water to meet instream, municipal and agricultural water demands are anticipated before the year 2050. The Water Managers Group (WMG) has recommended that several water supply alternatives be considered to meet future needs. One of these options is an expansion of existing storage at Henry Hagg Lake. Hagg Lake is currently used for municipal and agricultural supply and for flow augmentation of the Tualatin River during the summer and fall months. This technical memorandum discusses the results of a preliminary feasibility study of increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam. This work has been conducted by Montgomery Watson and Comforth Consultants. The study addressed three primary areas: • Engineering feasibility; • Geotechnical feasibility; and • Environmental feasibility The primary objectives of this preliminary investigation are to identify potential `fatal flaws' which could cause the project to be technically or legally infeasible, to identify major issues of concern, and to refine cost estimates for a dam raise. This preliminary study is the first step in the consideration of this water supply option. More detailed investigations must be completed to fully understand the issues and costs associated with the project. Preliminary Engineering Evaluation This section describes the existing dam and associated facilities. The technical feasibility of two dam raise heights has been evaluated, for a 20-foot raise and a 40-foot raise. The required facilities are described for each case, and a cost estimate for the two scenarios is presented. This section also contains a description of the methods and results of an operations study performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the raised dam. The final section assesses the feasibility of raising the dam. Preliminary Feasibility Study page I Hagg Lake Dam Raise 1. 0 Existing Project Facilities Scoggins Dam. The dam is a zoned embankment structure located approximately 25 miles west of Portland, Oregon on the east slope of the coast range. The project is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and was constructed from 1972 to 1975. Regulation of water began in January of 1975. It contains about 4,000,000 cubic yards of material. The dam crest is 2,700 feet long and is 116 feet above the bed of Scoggins Creek. A more complete description of the dam itself is contained in the geotechnical evaluation results. Reservoir and Perimeter Road. The reservoir at completion of the dam contains the following storage amounts. Storage Top of Capacity Elevation (Acre-feet) (Feet) Dead Capacity 3,980 229.0 Inactive Capacity 2,330 235.3 Active Conservation 23,600 272.9 Joint-use Capacity 30,000 303.5 Surcharge Capacity 2,630 305.8 A two-lane asphalt road circles the reservoir. It is about 11 miles long and has experienced slides. Some of its length is less than 20 feet above the maximum pool, some sections would require relocation if the dam were to be raised. Spillway. The spillway is located on the left abutment. The spillway is a chute type about 810 feet long. At the top of the spillway there is an intake transition to two radial gates which are 19 feet wide and 20.5 feet high. Immediately downstream of the radial gates is a bridge for the road across the dam. The chute starts downstream of the radial gates and varies in width from 43 feet at its upstream end to 49 feet at its downstream end. A stilling basin, 50 feet wide by 132 feet long, is located at the end of the chute. It has a horizontal floor and contains chute blocks at its upstream and downstream end. See Figures 1 and 2. Outlet Works. The outlet works are also located on the left abutment. At the upstream end of the intake is a 28-foot high intake tower which has trash rack covered openings on its four sides and top. A six-foot diameter pipe runs 455 feet from the intake structure to a Gate Chamber that is a concrete encased cavern. The Gate Chamber is 15.5 feet in diameter and contains a hydraulically operated rectangular shutoff gate, four feet by five feet. Downstream of the Gate Chamber is a 10.3 foot diameter horseshoe tunnel containing a 64-inch main transmission pipe and an 18-inch bypass pipe. The tunnel extends 531 feet downstream to the tunnel access structure. At the Tunnel Access Structure the main pipe branches into a 44-inch pipe to the outlet works and a 36-inch pipe for municipal water delivery which is presently capped. The 44-inch Scoggins Preliminary Feasibility Study page 2 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Creek Branch extends 324 feet to the outlet structure. Two pipes branch off this pipe and deliver water to a stilling structure that transports water to the fish capture facilities. The outlet structure contains two two-foot three-inch square gates and an 18-inch jet flow gate for the bypass line outlet. It also contains the piping and valves to supply water to the fish capture facilities and an operator's office. The fish capture facilities have not been used in about 20 years, however the valves are exercised annually and are kept in operating order. See Figures 1 and 2. 2.0 Project Operation The dam and reservoir are operated for water supply and flood control. The releases for water supply and flood control were maintained in the operations study. The operating criteria and requirements are explained in Section 4. 3.0 Hagg Lake Dam Raise A twenty-foot dam raise was initially evaluated as a reasonable starting point. This dam height appeared to be feasible for maintaining an acceptable frequency of filling of the reservoir, and had reasonable economic consequences. For example, a dam raise above twenty feet would extend the embankment into the valley downstream of the left abutment, and the entire outlet structure would have to be rebuilt. A second dam raise height of 40 feet was selected for further evaluation based on discussion with the Water Managers Group on September 16. These two alternatives are described below. 3.1 Twenty Foot Dam Raise All elevations in the existing dam would be raised twenty feet . The crest of the dam was increased from about 313.0 to 333.0. The top of Joint Use Capacity would increase from 303.5 to 323.5 and top of Surcharge Capacity would increase from 305.8 to 325.8. Assuming that the intake level would remain the same,the available storage would increase from 53,600 acre-feet to 80,200 acre-feet. This provides an additional 26,600 acre-feet of active storage. The actual useable storage will depend on desired operating criteria, withdrawal amounts and schedules, and the probability of firm water delivery. For a general plan of this option see Figure 3. Dam. The embankment would be raised by adding fill to the downstream side of the dam. The upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment were kept the same as the present slopes. The Geotechnical evaluation provides more information on dam issues. Spillway. The operation for flood control and the design floods were assumed to be the same for the existing and raised dams. Therefore, the spillway gates, chute width, and stilling basin were assumed to be the same for the raised dam. The spillway would be Preliminary Feasibility Study page 3 Hagg Lake Dam Raise ACCESS ROAD DRAINAGE TRIBUTARY 1, �/ OUTLET STRUCTURE 100 0 100 200 SCALErr=200' MUNICIPAL BRANCH OUTLET CHANNEL (CAPPED) ' SCOGGINS CREEK BRANCH ( ,, ,� TUNNEL ACCESS STRUCTURE, r STILLING BASIN i M \ \ f TE HAUL r F, TUNNEL � ,r PRIVATE ROAD FISH :TRAP FACILITIES RADIAL GATES SPILLWAY,CHUTE SCOGGINS DAM t \ Q \ _ - GATE CHAMBER 'i i ......_.... OUTLET - \ \ F WORKS INTAKE STRUCTURE HENRY HAGG LAKE Figure 1 en aI PI _... General an Existing Dam © MONTGOMERY WATSON Spillway Outlet Radial Gates orks Stilling Basin Figure 2 Scoggins Creek Dam from its Crest ACCESS ROAD r- DRAINAGE TRIBUTARY OUTLET STRUCTURE too o too zoo SCALE,r=zoo MUNICIPAL BRANCH r- RELOCATED OUTLET CHANNEL (CAPPED) SCOGGINS CREEK BRANCH ' TUNNEL ACCESS Y PRIVATE HAUL ROAD *E '"� ` STILLING BASIN TO BE RELOCATED _�; STRUCTURE =--�----� J.�' TUNNEL RELOCATED RADIAL GATES \\:�� /s y' % f� FISH TRAP FACILITIES NEW SPILLWAY CHUTE -, SCOGGINS DAM kl i _ T i i GATE CHAMBER _. ^--__._..._ ___ __.._.._ ____._. ._ % v� �� OUTLET '/ `•' t WORKS Ep ABANDON ROAD 2 \ \ -- INTAKE STRUCTURE HENRY HAGG LAKE x Figure 3 \� ry General Plan 20 Foot Dam Raise © MONTGOMERY WATSON APPROACH CHANNEL SPILLWAY STILLING BASIN RADIAL GATE BRIDGE 360 360 EXIST NG ROAD 340 ------ 340 EL 324.0 ............. ............... ............................ .......... ........... ................ ..................... ............. EXISTING GROUND 320 ................ ............ ..........------ ............ ........... .............. 320 ........................ .................- .........-- ........ . ..... ............. ........... ............. .......... ............. ....... ...... 300 3=01UMMIM 300 SOLID RO K ............. ............. ................... ........................ .......................... .......... .. . ........................................... 280 ................. ................. ............. .... ............. -.... ....... ---------------- ...... ............... 280 ...................... ..........- ........... ........... 260 ............... ..................... .......... -------------- .......................-.. ........... 260 . EXISTING SPILLWAY .............. .......... .................. ...............- ........... . .............. WALL 240 ............... ...... ............. ....... 240 ........... ...................... ........... .......... .......... ............. ........... .............- ............................................ ................... 220 220 ............. ...... ............... ------- ..........-- ................ ............. .............. • 200 .............. 200 . ....... .. N, ........... ........ .. . .......... ............. ........... ........... ......... ....... . . ----------- .......................... ........... 180 ----------� ...... 180 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 Figure 4 SCALE: 1"=100'HORIZ Spillway Profile 1"=40'VERT 20 Foot Dam Raise MONTGOMERY WATSON located on the left abutment. The radial gates would be located 250 feet northeast of the present gate location. The chute would be angled to the existing chute so that the new stilling basin would be positioned at about the same location as the existing stilling basin. This spillway arrangement would preclude raising the dam further at a later date. To leave open the ability to raise the dam above the 20-foot raise the spillway could be rotated about 60 degrees counterclockwise and the spillway inlet would be located about 300 feet to the east-northeast. The spillway would discharge to the tributary channel located in the upper left corner of Figure 3. A new stilling basin would have to be built and the drainage tributary widened. In order to raise the dam later the spillway walls would have to be raised and new higher radial gates would be installed. During initial construction the walls would be made strong enough to accommodate the later dam raise especially at the upstream end of the spillway. Although slightly more expensive this option would allow future raising of the dam. In addition, the dam raise would have to be angled to the north in the vicinity of the left abutment. Further work is required to see if this is feasible. The costs presented in this report for the 20-foot raise do not include this spillway option. Outlet Works. Since the spillway was positioned to avoid any of the outlet structures and piping, the outlet works would not be affected. Review of the plans and a site visit indicate that with a dam raise of twenty feet the existing pipes, gates, and valves are of sufficient strength to withstand the additional head. However, this conclusion should be verified in subsequent phases of analysis. Fish Passage. For upstream fish passage it was assumed that the existing fish trapping facilities could be used with little or no modification. Downstream fish passage requirements are unknown at this time. If fish protection is the only requirement, then cylindrical wedgewire screens could be replace the existing intake. If downstream migrating salmon or steelhead are introduced, they would have to be passed downstream. This could be done by capturing them at a point where the tributary stream enters the reservoir and trucking them downstream of the dam. If screening and passage were required at the intake, a more elaborate structure would be required. It would probably entail a tower with complicated screening and mechanical systems built in. To our knowledge there are no successful examples of screening and passage in a reservoir that varies widely in water surface elevation. Since downstream fish passage requirements are unknown at this time they were not included in the cost estimate. Fish passage requirements and costs should be revisited in subsequent phases of analysis. Sometimes temperature control requirements for releases from dams are required. If temperature control were required then a tower intake would have to be constructed at the intake. This would increase the cost and complexity of the intake especially if screening is also required. S""'' Preliminary Feasibility Study page 4 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Relocations. About 2.7 miles of county road surrounding Henry Hagg Lake would have to be relocated. The bridge over Scoggins Creek just upstream of the lake will have to be raised, and a bridge or embankment would have to be constructed at three other tributaries. There are six park developments on the lake at the shoreline. Washington County has made several improvements at the parks since the dam was built. It was assumed that all park facilities would have to be relocated or rebuilt. The boat launch facilities would have to be extended. More information on recreational impacts of the 20-foot dam raise is presented in the Environmental feasibility section. Property Acquisition. Property impacts of the 20-foot dam raise appear to be minimal, based on an area review of the USGS topographic map. Figure 5 illustrates the inundation line for the 20-foot raise, and the Hagg Lake property boundary. The property boundary is approximate and has been taken from the Scoggins Valley Park-Hagg Lake Opportunities Study and Master Plan (Meyer, 1989). A small area of inundation outside the current property boundary would occur at Sain Creek, and probably at Scoggins Creek. In most cases, it appears the perimeter road can be relocated inside the existing federally owned boundary. Road relocation and property acquisition should be studied in more detail if the dam raise alternative is pursued. Property immediately outside the existing park boundary is zoned by Washington County as Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC). This zoning is intended to provide for forest uses, recreation and environmental goals. Property in this zoning area would have comparable land values to agricultural properties in the area. A cost of property acquisition of$150,000 has been assumed for the 20-foot dam raise. This is a rough estimate and should be verified by survey in subsequent phases of analysis. 3.2. Forty Foot Dam Raise All elevations in the existing dam would be raised forty feet. The crest of the dam was increased from about 313.0 to 353.0. The top of Joint Use Capacity would increase from 303.5 to 343.5 and top of Surcharge Capacity would increase from 305.8 to 345.8. Since the intake level would remain the same, the available storage would increase from the existing 53,600 acre-feet to 104,200 acre-feet. This provides an additional 50,600 acre- feet of active storage. Again, the resulting useable storage will depend on operating and withdrawal criteria. Dam. The embankment would be raised by adding fill material to the downstream side of the dam. The upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment were kept the same as the present slopes. There is a tributary(unnamed) entering from the left just downstream of the dam. If the dam were raised 40 feet the downstream fill on the left side of the dam would extend into the small valley of this tributary. Drainage provisions for this tributary would have to be provided, increasing the cost of this option, compared to the 20-foot raise. The geotechnical section provides more information on this issue. *01 Preliminary Feasibility Study page 5 Hagg Lake Dam Raise t - r y NIM RMURMUK MRS MORE 0 wrwo*fs,142"OR r• ILI SO Spillway. The operation for flood control and the design floods were assumed to be the same for the existing and raised dams. Therefore, the spillway gates, chute width, and stilling basin were assumed to be the same for the raised dam. The spillway would be located on the left abutment. It was assumed that the radial gates would be located about 400 feet northeast of the present gate location. Much of the left abutment would have to be reshaped to accommodate the approach to the spillway. The chute would roughly parallel the existing chute about 400 feet to the east. It would be about 40% longer than the existing spillway and would run down the ridge east of the outlet structure. The new stilling basin would be located about 500 feet southeast of the existing stilling basin. Outlet Works. The fill on the upstream side of the left abutment area would extend as far into the reservoir as the twenty-foot dam raise. Therefore, the existing inlet structure can be used under this scenario. See Figure 3. It was also assumed that the existing pipes and valves could accommodate the 40 feet of increased head, however this conclusion should be verified in subsequent phases of analysis. Since the embankment covers the existing outlet structure, outlet works would be relocated to the tributary valley east of the existing structure. A new outlet channel would have to be excavated to join the existing outlet channel about 1,200 feet downstream of the existing outlet structure. It is assumed that the new outlet structure would be the same as the existing one and that the same tunnel and piping would be extended. Fish Passage. For this alternative it was assumed that the existing fish trapping facilities would be rebuilt with little or no modification. For downstream passage the considerations are the same as for the twenty-foot dam raise alternative. Relocations. About 4.3 miles of county road surrounding Henry Hagg Lake would have to be relocated. The bridge over Scoggins Creek just upstream of the lake will have to be raised, and a bridge or embankment would have to be constructed at six other tributaries. There are six park developments on the lake at the shoreline. Washington County has made several improvements at the parks since the dam was built. It was assumed that all park facilities would have to be relocated or rebuilt. The boat launch facilities would have to be extended. More information on park facilities is included in the Environmental analysis. In addition, private homes in the Tanner Creek area would be affected by the forty-foot dam raise. Property Acquisition. Property impacts of the 40-foot dam raise are more significant than for the 20-foot option. Figure 6 illustrates the extension of the inundation line into privately owned areas in six locations. These areas are all tributaries or draws. Significant areas include Tanner, Scoggins and Sain Creeks. The amount of inundated acreage is not large, and may be on the order of 50 acres, based on rough calculations from the USGS topographic maps of the area. Road relocation may be a more significant cost issue, as the majority of new road may need to be relocated outside existing park *%No, Preliminary Feasibility Study page 6 Hagg Lake Dam Raise • 1 1 1 1 � ( 1 1 � . mill, I grifful IR �►�� ►V _ - _ �� P IJIL � ) / gm WE Nk 101 01 Z Pi Iris W—A � --.•WSJ.-��/�l ••� �� ; ; `` ��, �•• `J�� \11111��,��''_��,�. boundaries. A more detailed evaluation of road relocation is needed to develop a sound cost estimate for this scenario. a The total area of the existing reservoir and adjacent lands owned by the BuRec is approximately 2,250 acres. An expansion of the property boundary by 10 percent has been assumed to satisfy increased storage and road relocation requirements resulting from the 40-foot dam raise. This percentage is somewhat arbitrary and has been selected based on visual observation of the park boundary and anticipated inundation line. Using this assumed value, an additional 225 acres would need to be acquired, primarily for road relocation. Property immediately outside the existing park boundary is zoned by Washington County as Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC). This zoning is intended to provide for forest uses, recreation and environmental goals. Property in this zoning area is assumed to have comparable land values to agricultural properties in the area. A reasonable range for agricultural land value in the area is assumed to by $3,000-$5,000 (Joe Rutledge, personal communication). Using the upper end of the land value, a total of approximately$1.2 million would be required for property acquisition. Land values of individual parcels may be higher, if existing buildable land can be sold above `market value' to wealthy tenants. Also, some compensation for displacement of existing homes and access roads in the Tanner Creek area will be required. For planning purposes, a total of$3 million has been assumed for property acquisition. This figure must be refined based on actual road relocation requirements. 3.3. Cost Estimates The cost estimates presented in this report have been developed to a planning-level of accuracy. In general, these estimates should be considered accurate within a margin of— 30% and +40%, which is typical for a preliminary investigation. Raising the dam embankment is the largest single item in the costs. In the twenty-foot raise alternative the dam fill requires 1,000,000 cubic yards of material, and this amount more than doubles for the 40-foot raise. The second largest cost item is the spillway. For the twenty-foot dam raise the dam foot print was sketched on an existing topographic sheet, and typical cross sections were sketched. From this information dam fill quantities were measured. The area of clearing, amount of excavation, and length of roadway were measured from the same drawings. The concrete quantities for the existing spillway were measured. The spillway was sketched on a topographic map and its length measured. The amount of concrete was then increased by the length ratio. The existing grade and competent rock surface was plotted and the depth of excavation was measured. The recreation facilities were estimated as a lump sum based on observations made in the field and information from Washington County. The length of road to be relocated was measured on a USGS quadrangle sheet. Preliminary Feasibility Study Page 7 Hagg Lake Dam Raise The cost of the twenty-foot dam raise including a 20% contingency, administration, engineering and permits was $62 million. The cost of the forty-foot dam raise was $112 million. 4.0 Operations Study And Dam Sizing Introduction. An operations study was performed to study the affects on reservoir operations with the raised dam and additional water withdrawals. This was a feasibility level study. Operations Model. The model was constructed in an EXCEL workbook. It utilized daily inflows and calculated required releases for water demands, minimum instream flows, or flood flow releases depending on the reservoir contents. The following algorithm was used to analyze each daily flow: 1) Convert the flow at the Scoggins Creek near Gaston flow to an inflow to Henry Hagg Lake using the ratio of drainage areas. See subsection below. 2) Calculate the demands of downstream water users. See subsection below. 3) Compare the demands to the minimum instream flows. Whichever is greater is the minimum release. 4) Calculate the flood flow releases as explained in subsection below. 5) Calculate the release by selecting the larger of the minimum release or the flood flow. During the winter when there were no demands and contents in the reservoir were below the rule curve, the minimum flow was released. This release was convert to acre-feet per day. 6) Subtract the release and add the inflow to the reservoir storage contents at the end of the previous day. 7) Repeat steps 1 through 6 for each daily flow in the 34-year record. The model contains a summary spreadsheet in which the minimum, maximum, and end of year storage and elevations are recorded. The total inflow, change in storage, and the maximum outflow are calculated for each year. The maximum and minimum storage values are averaged over the 34-year period of record. Additional model runs were made by increasing the demand flows by 20%. Nine model runs were made using present demands and 20, 40, 60, 80, 100,120, 140, and 160 percent increases in demands. A plot of the average minimum and maximum storage levels were plotted versus demands. This gives an overall idea of the effects of increased demands on drawdown. The above procedure was repeated for the existing dam height and for dam raises of 20, 30, and 40 feet. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 8 Hagg Lake Dam Raise (TVID), Lake Oswego, and the municipal demand (Joint Water Commission). In addition, minimum instream flows were provided by TVID. These were 10 cfs **AIW throughout the year except for October and November when they were assumed to be 20 cfs. Flood Control Operations. For flood control operations, the stream gage on the Tualatin River near Dilley is used as the downstream control point. The Corps of Engineers' publication, "Water Control Manual for Scoggins Dam—Henry Hagg Lake", December 1988 provides the flood control operating criteria. In actual operations this manual is used as a guide, and operators confer with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps' Reservoir Regulation Section in Portland to set the reservoir releases. The decision as to the amount of release is not only based on the flows at Dilley and the Water Control Manual but on weather forecasts and the operation of other projects in the Willamette River Basin. Weather forecasts and operations at other facilities cannot be simulated in the model. Therefore, the criteria in the Water Control Manual and some simplifying assumptions were used in the model to calculate flood releases. The following algorithm was used in the model. 1) Calculate the flow at Dilley—The gage on the Tualatin River at Dilley is used by the reservoir regulation section at the Corps as a flow control point. The object of the flow control strategy at Scoggins Dam is to keep the water level at Dilley below 16.5 feet on the gage. The flow for water levels at this elevation can vary. A flow of 1,250 cfs was given in the Water Control Manual and used in the model. Prior to construction of Scoggins Dam there was no regulation or impoundment above Dilley of any consequence during high flows. A plot of the flows at Dilley versus the flows in Scoggins Creek near Gaston showed good correlation. A curve was fit to this plot and used in the model to compute the flows at Dilley from the flows at Gaston. 2) If the present reservoir storage is below rule curve release the minimum release (the greater of minimum instream flow or demands) and go to Step 5; otherwise continue. 3) If the capacity at Dilley (1,250 cfs) minus the minimum release is not exceeded, release up to the capacity at Dilley and go to Step 5; otherwise continue. 4) If the reservoir storage is less than the "Emergency Operations Setting", then release the minimum release otherwise release a flow equal to the reservoir inflow times 0.7. This is to prevent grossly exceeding the maximum operating storage. The "Emergency Operations Setting" used in the model was the maximum storage minus 5,000 acre-feet. This value was derived by making runs with the dam at its existing height, and watching the excursions above the maximum storage. 5) End flood release calculations for the day. 4.3 Dam Sizing Results Model Output. The model was run for four different dam heights—existing height, 20- foot raise, 30-foot raise, and 40-foot raise. For each dam height, runs were made using several different water demands. These included present demands and increases in `" , Preliminary Feasibility Study page 10 Hagg Lake Dam Raise demand of 20%, 40% ,60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140%. At higher demand levels and lower dam elevations negative storage occurred. Therefore, runs at demand increases of more than 140% were not made. INOW Each model run produced maximum and minimum storage levels for each year of the 34 years of record. As an indication of added usable capacity, the averages of these maximum and minimum storage values were computed and plotted on a graph. As the demands increased, the maximum storage values decreased slightly, and the average minimum values decreased significantly. Figure 8 shows such a plot for the existing dam. As the average minimum storage values decrease, the probability increases that the intake could draw air. At about 10,000 acre-feet of storage, the lowest storage value for the 34 years of record is at about 3,000 acre-feet which corresponds to a water surface about four feet above the top of the intake. At this level the intake is probably taking in air. The second lowest level reached in the 34 years is about 12 feet above the intake, and air entrainment is probably not going to occur. For the period of record, the lowest reservoir elevation is about 7,000 acre-feet below the average minimum storage. To insure that a safe water surface exists over the intake, the average storage contents shown on Figure 8 should be above about 15,000 acre-feet. This corresponds to a reservoir elevation of about 260 and provides some storage for emergencies. This will provide better than a 95% confidence that releases to satisfy demands will not have to be curtailed due to low levels in the reservoir. Therefore, to meet this standard about 15,000 acre-feet more demand could be released per year at the present dam height. Model runs as described above were also made with the dam raised 20 feet, 30 feet, and 40 feet. The results of these runs are shown on Figures 9, 10, and 11, respectively. Employing the 15,000 acre-foot storage standard, significantly more increased demand can be met. See the table below. If the standard is reduced to an average minimum storage of 10,000 acre-feet, even more water is available to meet demands. 10,000 acre feet of storage corresponds to a water surface elevation of 254, and there is little cushion for increased demand before air entrainment problems are encountered. This is shown in the third column of the table below. The increased available demand for each dam height is shown in the table below. Dam Height Increased Demand Increased Demand 15,000 acre-foot Standard 10,000 acre-foot Standard Existing Dam 15,000 acre-feet 18,000 acre-feet 20-foot Dam Raise 37,000 acre-feet 41,000 acre-feet 30-foot Dam Raise 46,000 acre-feet 49,000 acre-feet 40-foot Dam Raise 50,000 acre-feet 52,000 acre-feet Preliminary Feasibility Study page 11 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Figure 8 Existing Dam Increased Demand vs Storage 60000 50000 40000 w. d 30000 —N Average Max Storage — Average Min Storage rn c 20000 10000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25 00 3M 35000 -10000 Increase in Demand(acre-feet) Figure 9 20-Foot Raise 90000 Increased Demand vs Storage 80000 70000 60000 d m d 50000 —6—Average Annual Min Storage d c� 40000 0 N —*—Average Annual Max 30000 Storage 20000 10000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Increase in Demand(acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 Figure 10 - 30-Foot Raise 100000 Increased Demand vs Storage 90000 80000 70000 60000 w d 50000 —N—Average Annual Max Storage 40000 —*--Average Annual Min Storage 30000 20000 - 10000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Increase in Demand (acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 Figure 11 40-Foot Raise 120000 Increased Demand vs Storage 100000 80000 m W 60000 —*—Average Annual Max Storage `o N —*—Average Annual Min Storage 40000 20000 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Increase in Demand(acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 As can be seen in the table 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet more water can be obtained if the standard is set at 10,000 acre-feet of average minimum reservoir contents remaining. However, there would be an increase in the number of years that water deliveries would have to be curtailed in dry years due to low water in the reservoir. In general, this would probably happen in September or October. The above analysis is based on an average of the minimum yearly storage in the reservoir. During dry years the minimum storage would be less. An analysis was performed on minimum storage computed in the operations model. A histogram of the minimum storage values for the 34 years evaluated in the model was developed. Figure 12 shows the number of years that the minimum storage for each year fell within storage brackets. Storage of zero corresponds to a water surface about two feet below the top of the intake structure. Figure 12 shows that for twenty-foot dam raise and 37,000 acre feet of additional demand, water withdrawals would have to be curtailed for at least 3 years or about 10% of the years. These three years occurred in 1944, 1945, and 1946. The results in Figure 12 were obtained using the 15,000 acre-foot storage standard. If the 10,000 acre-foot standard were applied, the withdrawals would have to be curtailed in seven years or about 20% of the years. As the dam height is increased there is not a proportional increase in available water. For example,raising the dam 20 feet above the existing height increases the available water by 22,000 acre-feet, when existing operating criteria and withdrawals are used. Increasing the dam height further from 20 to 40 feet increases the available water by only 13,000 acre-feet. Effects on Recreation. Another issue of concern is low water in the reservoir during the recreation season. Increasing the height of the dam does not increase the risk of low water during the recreation season, which is assumed to be the months of June, July and August. However, increasing releases does. An analysis of model results showed that for all 34 years of record the reservoir reached its lowest level between September 28 and November 29. In most of the years the minimum level occurred in the last week of October and first week of November. Figure 13 shows a histogram of water levels for each month from July through October for the existing dam and present demands. The graph would be similar for higher demand levels. The plot shows water levels and their percentage of occurrence in each of the four months as simulated over the 34 years of record. During the height of the recreation season in July and August the water levels are most likely to be 301 in July and from about 290 to 296 in August. Over the 34 years simulated, the minimum values in July and August are 296 and 285, respectively. In September the minimum and most likely water levels are 278 and 285. Another possible effect on recreation in Henry Hagg Lake is the rate at which drawdown occurs in the summer time. When the drawdown starts depends on the flows in early summer, and the rate at which drawdown occurs depends on the water demands. To illustrate this the daily operation of the reservoir was investigated for water year 1946, which had a slightly above average inflow to the reservoir. The model was run for two Preliminary Feasibility Study page 12 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Figure 12 Minimum Storage Histogram 20-Foot Dam Raise & 37,000 Acre-feet of Additional Demand 10 - 9 8 7 N 6 Ld o 5 �C G Z 4 3 2 1 0 - <0 0-2000 2000- 4000- 6000- 8000- 10000- 12000- 14000- 16000- 18000- 20000- 22000- 24000- 26000- 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 Storage Categories(acre-feet) Figure 13 Histogram of Low Pool Elevations by Month 25.0% 20.0% / •1 � 1 C 15.0% July 1 — — —August c - - - - September —October c v 10.0% ' CL 5.0% i 0.0% '10 '1�L '1D� '1�° .�O 00 OCL 0D, Opo 00 90 Oil. Off` 00 00 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti IPI O 3 Water Surface Elevation , cases: 1) the existing dam and demands; and 2) for the 20-foot dam raise with an increase in demands of 37,000 acre-feet. The results of these runs are shown in the table below. Case Start of Drawdown Rate of Drawdown Rate of Drawdown (acre-feet/da ) (feet/day) Existing Dam, July 1 255 0.50 Existing Demands 20-Foot Dam Raise July 1 508 0.26 The rate of drawdown is about double for the 20-foot dam raise, however the drawdown begins at about the same time of year. For both cases the reservoir level at the end of August was about the same, 290 feet above sea level. It appears that the dam raise will have only a slight affect on recreation. Effects on Flooding. The possible effects of the dam raise on flooding downstream are also a concern. The peak of releases from the dam will be about 450 cfs with the dam raise of 20 feet and 600 cfs with a raise of 40 feet. The present peak releases are about 200 cfs. These releases could affect flooding downstream only if a storm causes flows above about 600 cfs in the Tualatin River above Gaston. During the flood season the releases from the dam would remain the same or slightly decrease if the flood control operating criteria remain the same. It should be noted that increased releases to satisfy higher demands could result in localized flooding due to channel restrictions in the Tualatin River downstream of Scoggins Creek. Localized flooding is presently experienced at flows greater than about 280 cfs. This problem would be exacerbated under increased release scenarios. Multiple solutions to the channel restriction concern are possible, including purchase of affected land and out-of-channel piping of released water. Costs to mitigate channel flooding should be evaluated in subsequent phases of the analysis. 5.0 Feasibility Results. This preliminary evaluation has not identified any fatal flaws or major obstacles which would prevent the project, based on engineering and operating considerations. The costs of two dam raise alternatives were computed. These were for 20 and 40-foot dam raises. Existing upstream fish passage facilities were assumed to be sufficient for the 20-foot dam raise. Facilities similar to the existing ones would be built for the 40- foot raise. For both dam raise options no costs were included for downstream fish passage facilities. The increase in water available for use was computed using a computer operations model. Approximately, 15,000 acre-feet could be obtained by purchase of storage presently owned by others. Congress would have to approve such a transfer. For a 20 foot dam raise the cost per acre-foot of increased stored water is Preliminary Feasibility Study page 13 Hagg Lake Dam Raise $1,698 per acre-foot (total project cost). For a 40-foot dam raise the cost is $2,187 per acre-foot (total project cost). Major components of project cost for the 20-foot and 40- foot raises are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. These costs can be compared to the recent experience at the Barney reservoir, as this storage has been increased from 4,000 AF to 20,000 AF by a dam raise. Estimated unit costs for Barney Reservoir water total about$1,720 per acre-foot, based on a total project cost of$27.5 million. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 1.0 Tectonic and Geologic Setting Scoggins Dam is located on the eastern side of the Oregon Coast Range. The regional tectonic setting of the project site is within a zone of active convergence between the Juan de Fuca and North American tectonic plates. Tectonic provinces that have developed by this convergence include the Coast Range, the Willamette Valley and the Cascadia Accretionary province off the Oregon coast. Regional geology of the Coast Range consists of interbedded marine basalts and sedimentary rocks that are pervasively intruded by volcanic dikes, sills and plugs. At the dam site, the geology consists primarily of weak,poorly indurated marine sedimentary rocks with some minor interbedded volcanics. The foundation bedrock consists of Eocene-age sandstone of the Spencer Formation. This rock is poorly to moderately cemented,fine-grained, and is interbedded with layers of siltstone. The sandstone bedrock is covered by relatively thin layers of residual soils on both the left and right abutments and by Scoggins Creek stream alluvium on the valley floor. The abutment residual soils were formed by the in-place weathering of the underlying marine sedimentary rocks. These soils consist mostly of silt and clay layers. The Scoggins Creek alluvial deposits include clay, silt, sand and gravel layers that are interbedded and generally continuous across the valley. 2.0 Seismicity Subduction Zone Earthquakes. Earthquakes in western Oregon can be generated from two main sources--the Cascadia Subduction Zone and shallow crustal faults. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a region where the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate is being forced underneath the lighter North American plate. The zone of friction between the two sliding plates is referred to as the subduction "interface"zone. Based on historical geologic Preliminary Feasibility Study page 14 Hagg Lake Dam Raise adjustments (based on our experience and judgement) were made for the quantity estimates. The unit prices assumed for lump sum items in the 20-foot option were adjusted to reflect assumed increases for a 40-foot raise. No attempt was made to adjust the unit prices for quantity items (i.e. non-lump sum items) as a result of contractor savings for handling larger volumes. All estimates of quantities and unit prices in Table 3 should be assumed as preliminary in nature and subject to change. 7.0 Summary Major Geotechnical Issues. Our review of available information on the Hagg Lake project identified three significant geotechnical issues. These are: (i) considerations for an increased level of earthquake hazard that are a result of updated studies on regional and local seismicity; (ii) additional studies and probable treatment measures for the existing seepage area located on the downstream,left abutment side of the dam; and(iii) recognizing and making allowances for additional landslides around the reservoir perimeter as a result of the increased water level and partial realignment of the perimeter road. Each of these issues should be included in the final design tasks for an embankment raise. `Fatal Flaw' Issues. Our evaluations did not identify any `fatal flaw' issues that would prohibit the construction of a dam raise at the existing Hagg Lake project. A question was raised about a fault that passes beneath the existing reservoir and dam. A fault has been identified as passing through this location; however, all indications are that it is inactive with a very low probability of causing an earthquake. Estimate of Construction Costs. A 20-foot embankment raise on the downstream side of the existing dam was assumed for the study. The quantities that were estimated for this option are shown on Table 1 at the end of the text. The estimated unit prices are based on contractor bid prices (adjusted for inflation) from two recent dam projects located in the general vicinity of the Scoggins Dam site. Quantities and unit prices for a 40-foot raise option are also presented in Table 1. The numbers that were used for the 40-foot option are based on proportional adjustments to the quantities and, in some cases,the unit prices that were assumed for the 20-foot raise. In the 40-foot raise the dam embankment quantities would be slightly more than double since the dam crest would be wider and the downstream slope would be longer. Embankment quantities were estimated to be about 120% more than the 20-foot raise. Therefore, the confidence level is somewhat less for the values used for the 40-foot option. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 20 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Preliminary Environmental Analysis 1.0 Introduction The following analysis provides a preliminary evaluation of the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with raising Scoggins Dam and increasing the pool level of Henry Hagg Lake. This evaluation is very cursory in nature and is also time sensitive. That is, the evaluation is based on regulatory conditions as of October 1998. These conditions are likely to change over time and thus alter some of the evaluation and conclusions that have been made. This evaluation is intended to provide decision-makers with adequate information regarding environmental issues to determine if the next step of more detailed project analysis is warranted. The basis for the information contained herein includes literature search, field reconnaissance and experience and Montgomery Watson's experience with similar projects. 2.0 Assumptions The major assumption used to conduct the evaluation was that the dam and reservoir would be raised 20—feet in height. A 20-foot dam raise would cause land impacts to approximately elevation 320-325. Based on this assumption, a USGS topography map was used to determine where the potential on-land impacts would be. It should be noted that actual on-land impacts cannot be determined accurately without an actual survey being conducted. ,. 3.0 Environmental Issues A wide range of environmental issues will need to be addressed to evaluate the potential environmental impact from the project and the appropriate mitigation necessary to address these impacts. These issues will include land use, fish, wildlife and habitat, vegetation, transportation, threatened, endangered and sensitive species,recreation, water quality, wetlands, air quality, economics, public services, noise, cultural resources and visual resources. For purposes of this preliminary evaluation, a critical list of issues were addressed. This smaller list is based on the need to assess issues that may either be difficult to resolve during the project and/or which may be costly to address. These issues include land use, fish, wildlife and habitat, threatened, endangered and sensitive species,recreation, transportation, water quality and wetlands. Each of these critical environmental issues are discussed below: Land Use. This land use evaluation is based on the assumption that the project area would not be federally owned. The project area is within the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) zoning district of Washington County. This zone provides for reservoirs and water impoundments through an administrative Type 1I procedure. It should be noted that the Washington County Code also sets forth a specific provision for Preliminary Feasibility Study page 21 Hagg Lake Dam Raise review of the Barney Reservoir expansion project. The expansion of the Barney Reservoir required a Type III procedure. It appears that this code provision was set forth to address all activities associated with the Barney expansion project within one land use application. These additional and related activities include things such as road construction, soil and rock extraction, water diversion and transmission facilities, etc. It may be beneficial for the Hagg Lake expansion project to request a land use code change to allow review of all project related activities within one land use application through a Type III process. Further, a recent court case (Wilbur Residents v. Douglas County), essentially concludes that if the Planning Director makes an administrative decision (similar to the Type II procedure), and if notice is not sent to everyone likely to be adversely affected by the decision, then the decision can be overturned long after the decision and appeal period is over. If view of this case, it may be desirable to proceed with a Type III procedure for review of the land use application for expansion of Hagg Lake. A decision was recently made by the applicant for the McGuire Dam raise (Yamhill County) to waive an administrative decision and request that the Planning Director forward the application for that project to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. This strategic decision was made in view of the court case. Scoggins Valley Road and West Shore Drive (roads that traverse the perimeter of the lake) are designated as scenic resources by the Washington County Land Use Plan. The Plan, (Policy 13, Scenic Resources) states that it is the policy of Washington County to protect and enhance its outstanding scenic views,routes and features. This essentially will require replacement of road sections around the perimeter of the reservoir that are inundated. Based on review of the inundation area as placed on the USGS topographic map, it does not appear that any homes or private out buildings will be inundated by a 20-foot raise. However, it appears that some private access roads will be partially inundated. This information should be used cautiously. In order to determine the exact land impact area a site survey needs to be conducted. Some private structures within the Tanner Creek area may be inundated if the reservoir is raised by 40-feet. Information relating to the flooding hazard due to catastrophic failure of the existing dam was not available at the time of this review. It can be assumed, however, that flooding risk is proportionately higher under a dam raise scenario. The effects of downstream flooding due to catastrophic failure of the dam should be evaluated in subsequent phases of analysis. Fish. The original Scoggins Dam blocked anadromous fish from utilizing about 15 miles of upstream spawning areas (Bureau of Reclamation, 1972). Further, it blocked passage for resident cutthroat trout as well as other resident fish species that utilized Scoggins Creek. The original project included several planned and constructed projects which were authorized by Congress to mitigate for these impacts to fish and their habitat. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 22 Hagg Lake Dam Raise ti One of these fish mitigation measures included construction of fish trapping and holding facilities immediately below Scoggins Dam. Much has changed since the fish mitigation program for the existing facility was authorized. The State of Oregon is pursuing aggressive efforts to restore native runs of both anadromous as well as resident fish populations. Some of these efforts are set forth within the Oregon Plan as well as prior legislation (HB 2607, fish passage) that historically have not been as widely administered as the law allows. These efforts, coupled with existing and upcoming Federal actions to list most sea-run salmonids under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), will likely have a significant effect on the existing fish mitigation projects at Scoggins Dam. These actions will trigger the need for additional fish mitigation measures to be put in place to allow raising the dam. Based on current agency direction (National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) on other similar projects within the permitting process, it appears that effective fish passage at this dam will be required. This may require modification of the existing trapping and holding facility for upward movement of fish, and will require construction of a passage facility for downstream movement of fish. In the state of Oregon, an option to required fish passage is to develop mitigation measures which in effect result in a net benefit to the fish. These mitigation measures must be approved by the ODFW Commission through development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Commission has not yet approved this type of MOU for a dam project. In view of this situation, legislative efforts are currently under way in an attempt to resolve and/or clarify the extent of requirements that will be necessary to obtain approvals for project impacts to fish resources. At the Federal level, the NMFS is expected to list the late-run winter steelhead within the upper Willamette Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the near future. This ESU includes the area of the Scoggins Dam project. A listing will trigger the need for consultation with the NMFS and subsequent development of a biological opinion about potential impacts to steelhead that could result from the dam raise project. The biological opinion issued by the NMFS will likely set forth additional or concurring project-specific mitigation requirements. Wildlife and Habitat. Wildlife and habitat in and around the existing reservoir is diverse and abundant. A wide-range of species are relatively abundant due to the ready availability of cover, water, large varieties of deciduous trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses. The reservoir project has created several large wetland complexes associated with major lake drainages—particularly at the confluence with Tanner Creek, Scoggins Creek and Sain Creek. These wetland areas contain a diversity of habitat including wetland grasses, sedges,willows and mature cottonwoods. This complex habitat supports multiple species including the red-legged frog (state sensitive species), lizards, the western pond turtle, multiple salamanders and snakes. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 23 Hagg Lake Dam Raise The habitat immediately above the reservoir and outside of the wetland areas is developed with water-related amenities and is used extensively for recreation. Multiple picnic areas, boat launch sites, trails and parking lots are located around the reservoir. These high-use recreation areas tend to cause natural habitat conditions to be compromised. Further, human use of these areas cause most wildlife to avoid them, especially during high recreation use times. The habitat conditions above the reservoir and above the perimeter road and park amenities is primarily characterized by a rolling topography which includes a mix of open grassy meadows and Douglas fir dominated forests. This diverse habitat provides cover, foraging, resting and feeding opportunities for several species from game birds and raptors to squirrels, skunks, coyotes, cougars, elk, deer and bear. Based on a cursory evaluation of wildlife and habitat in the area, it appears that significant impacts to wetland habitat (i.e. inundation) will occur with the raise of the dam and reservoir. This will require mitigation for lost wetland values and function including those directly related to wildlife habitat. The inundation of the recreation areas is not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat because wildlife tend to avoid these high human use areas already. Impacts may result from moving the recreation amenities and uses to more upland areas where wildlife is currently abundant. However, it is doubtful that this will result in actual loss of wildlife because affected species will most likely simply move further away from the reservoir onto adjacent upland meadow or forested areas. Transportation. A 20-foot dam and reservoir raise would result in some transportation access areas being inundated. These areas include multiple private access roads around the reservoir,boat ramp access sites, West Shore Drive at the southwest corner of the reservoir,West Shore Drive at Sain Creek, the Scoggins Creek Bridge and the Scoggins Valley Road at Tanner Creek. These roadways and access areas would need to be relocated above the inundation levels of the new reservoir. Preliminary field review indicates that the transportation infrastructure that will be inundated can be relocated. The topography is conducive to re-creating roads and access in adjacent upland areas. Probably the most costly transportation project will be the relocation of the Scoggins Creek Bridge. A 40-foot dam/reservoir raise would increase transportation impacts significantly by further increasing the inundation of these facilities. It is anticipated that inundated roads and parking lots would need to be removed. Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Species (S,T,E). According to available literature, there are multiple species in and around Scoggins Dam and Henry Hagg Lake that are classified as Federal and/or State S, T or E species. The Natural Heritage Program reviewed their database in September of 1998 for species around the project area and confirmed the presence of several species noted in the literature. In brief, some of these species include winter steelhead (Federally proposed as threatened under the ESA), bald eagle (threatened), peregrine falcon (endangered), red-legged frog Preliminary Feasibility Study page 24 Hagg Lake Dam Raise (state sensitive), painted turtle (state sensitive), northwestern pond turtle (state sensitive) and the Canada goose(threatened). The presence of these species will trigger the need to either consult with the NMFS (anadromous fish), the USFWS (terrestrial species) and the Oregon Department of Fish &Wildlife (ODFW), (resident species) for addressing potential impacts and appropriate mitigation necessary to insure the safety of these species and their habitat during project construction and long-term operation. It should be noted that the USFWS has recently proposed that the bald eagle, peregrine falcon and Canada goose be taken off the Federal ESA list. Recreation. Hagg Lake is the only large public access slack-water recreation site in the Portland Metropolitan area. There were approximately 700,000 visitors at the park in 1997. It is projected that up to 1 million visitors may visit the park annually by the year 2000. Most of the park use occurs during the summer months of June, July and August. Recreation facilities at the park were originally designed by the National Park Service and then later developed over time by the Bureau of Recreation and Washington County. These amenities include high quality picnic areas with multiple table and grill sites, paved parking lots, covered group picnic areas including a large pavilion area, boat launch sites, restrooms and multiple trail systems. The park facilities are very well maintained and attractive. A 20-foot dam and reservoir raise would inundate the majority of the existing recreation facilities at Hagg Lake. Specific areas that would be inundated include multiple developed trails around the lake; the picnic area immediately at the southwest end of the dam (originally designed as a handicapped picnic area); the Sain Creek pavilion and picnic area; the lower portions of Recreation Area"C"which includes the lower parking lot,boat ramp,rest rooms and the handicap boat ramp that is currently under construction; the Scoggins Creek picnic area; the lower portion of Recreation Area"A" West including the boat ramp; and the lower portion of Recreation Area"A" East including the boat ramp, and multiple septic tanks and waste holding tanks. The topography upland of the existing recreation facilities is gently sloping in most areas. This provides the opportunity to relocate the recreation facilities immediately upland of their current location. However, the cost for replacement and/or relocation of these recreation amenities will be significant due to their high quality design and materials. Water Ouality. Water quality impacts from the construction and long term operation of the dam and reservoir will need to be closely evaluated and managed to gain regulatory support for the project. Water quality increasingly is becoming a focal point of consideration in statewide efforts to restore historic fish resources. For this project to be successful there will likely need to be a quantifiable net benefit to water quality. Currently Scoggins Creek upstream of the dam is identified on the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) "303(d)" list as being water quality limited based on multiple factors. These factors include bacteria,chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients—particularly phosphorus, pH, summer temperature, and ammonia. DEQ's Preliminary Feasibility Study page 25 Hagg Lake Dam Raise "303(d)" list results from their implementation of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act which requires each state to develop a list of waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards to protect aquatic resources. These identified water quality limited factors in Scoggins Creek may need to be addressed and mitigated in order for the project to be successful. It is important to note that one of the primary purposes of the dam raise project would be to improve water quality throughout the Tualatin River,by increasing the availability of high quality stored water for release during the summer low flow period. Wetlands. There are currently multiple wetlands and wetland complexes in and around Hagg Lake. The several drainages and year-round tributaries that feed into the lake coupled with the gentle, rolling topography result in very desirable conditions for wetlands. The existing wetlands contain a diversity of plant species and animals which confirm that they are well functioning and healthy wetlands. Probably the most significant wetlands occur at the confluences of Tanner, Sain and Scoggins Creeks and Hagg Lake. These areas contain large wetlands which transition from underwater to vegetated shallows to scrub-shrub and then to forest. It appears that the Tanner Creek wetland complex also contains some meadow wetland conditions. An on-site wetland delineation will need to be completed to determine the exact boundaries and characteristics of these wetlands. Based on the preliminary site reconnaissance it appears that there may be in excess of fifty (50) acres of wetlands that could be inundated with a 20-foot dam and reservoir raise. This amount of wetland inundation would require a significant effort to effectively mitigate for these losses. On-site and off-site wetland options are potentially available and should be considered. Currently, there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty surrounding the issue of wetland creation due to past wetland mitigation projects that have not demonstrated desired success. This history makes it difficult to gain agreement from agency representatives on what kinds of projects are appropriate as mitigation for those acres that are impacted. 4.0 Permits Multiple environmental permits will be required to raise the dam and reservoir. Further, multiple agencies will be involved in discussing and negotiating the identification of potential impacts associated with project actions and required mitigation for the potential impacts identified. Many agencies that are directly involved in negotiating issues related to project permits do not actually issue their own permits. For example, requirements of the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish&Wildlife Service and the Oregon Department of Fish&Wildlife Service are addressed through the COE Section 404 permit. This process typically takes the form of a series of field investigations followed by months of agency meetings to get agreement on project impacts and appropriate mitigation. This is a very subjective process. The permits listed below are the culmination of this process: Preliminary Feasibility Study page 26 Hagg Lake Dam Raise PERMIT LEAD AGENCY 404 Permit Corp of Engineers (COE) 401 Permit Dept. of Env. Qual. (DEQ) Fill/Removal Permit Division of State Lands (DSL) Water Rights Dept. of Water Resources (OWRD) NPDES DEQ and/or USA Land Use Washington County 5.0 Permitting Feasibility This preliminary environmental analysis has not identified any `fatal flaws' that would prohibit the project from being realized. This project probably can be permitted, but it will require a process for negotiating appropriate mitigation to satisfy multiple agency issues and concerns. It is very likely that the project will require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The primary factors which would trigger the need for an EIS include significant impacts to wetlands, potential impacts to S,T or E species and potential impacts to water quality. Wetland issues alone make the possibility of a lower-level Environmental Assessment(EA)process unlikely for this site. The lead agency for the EIS would need to be determined. Typically,Bureau of Reclamation projects result in the Bureau being the lead agency for conducting the EIS process. However,if project ownership is transferred from the Bureau, it is likely that the US Army Corp of Engineers would become the lead agency. Summary and Conclusions A preliminary feasibility study for increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam has been conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to: • identify any potential fatal flaws which could cause the project to be technically or legally infeasible; • to refine cost estimates; and fir► Preliminary Feasibility Study page 27 Hagg Lake Dam Raise • to identify major issues associated with a dam raise project. The feasibility study addressed engineering, geotechnical and environmental aspects of this potential project. An engineering analysis of two potential dam raise heights—a 20-foot raise and a 40-foot raise did not reveal any major technical obstacles to completion of the project. A 20-foot dam raise would provide an additional 26,600 AF of active storage, for a total project cost of approximately$62 million. A 40-foot dam raise would increase active storage by an additional 50,600 AF, at a cost of$112 million. An examination of expected yields from the existing reservoir suggests that an additional 15,000 AF could be safely used at this time, strictly on a hydrological basis. This conclusion does not take into account any water rights or authorization issues which may complicate the ability to use this additional stored water. This additional demand would maintain an average minimum storage level in the existing reservoir of 15,000 AF, and would result in an average minimum reservoir level of 260'. This minimum would provide for some emergency storage and would provide a safe water level over the existing intake. Historical records indicate that maintenance of the reservoir at this lower level would permit an additional 15,000 AF of demand to be met more than 95 percent of the time. Drawdown of the reservoir is an issue with respect to recreational demands on the Lake. The reservoir typically reaches its lowest level in late September through late November, while the peak for recreation occurs much earlier in the year,beginning in June. Increased ,: demands on the reservoir will accelerate drawdown,but the difference in peak need timing may be such that increased drawdown is manageable. This may especially be true if additional water is being used for instream flow augmentation, which exerts its highest demand in late summer and early fall. The preliminary geotechnical evaluation did not reveal any serious obstacles to project completion. Major geotechnical issues include seismic activity,correction of the existing seepage area on the left abutment of the existing dam, and known landslide vulnerability around the perimeter of the reservoir. Each of these issues can be dealt with, and must be evaluated in more detail if the project is pursued. Multiple environmental permits will be required for the successful completion of this project. A preliminary analysis suggests that the project can be permitted,but the process will be significant. The need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is likely. Environmental regulations and judgements are changing quickly. Much of the permitting process is subjective and is the result of negotiation with multiple agencies. As a result, the environmental component is more of an unknown than any of the other technical aspects of the project. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 28 Hagg Lake Dam Raise In summary,increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam appears to be feasible. The costs and benefits of this water supply option must be weighed against other options in order to meet anticipated future instream, municipal and agricultural needs in the Tualatin Basin. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 29 Hagg Lake Dam Raise