Hult Dam FAQs

The following frequently asked questions are provided to help the public better understand National Environmental Policy Act analysis, opportunities for public involvement, dam safety, and the planning process.

National Environmental Policy Act Process

What is NEPA/NEPA analysis?

The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) is a U.S. law that requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions. As a Federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts NEPA analyses for its actions. If an action must be addressed with a NEPA analysis, the BLM may do one of three types of analyses:

• A categorical exclusion (CatEx or CE) applies to a category of actions that the agency has already determined, through its agency NEPA procedures, do not normally have a significant effect on the human environment.
• An environmental assessment (EA) is a tool for determining the significance of environmental impacts, and it provides a basis for decision-making. If the analysis in an EA shows the action would not have a significant effect, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) documents that there is no need for further analysis through an environmental impact statement.
• An environmental impact statement (EIS) is used when an agency has determined that an action would have significant impacts on the human environment. An EIS is typically longer and more complex than an EA and takes more time to complete. It has more procedural requirements and offers more opportunities for public comment or involvement than an EA. An EIS is completed with a Record of Decision documenting the BLM’s decision as to how it will, or will not, move forward with a proposed action.

How are decisions made in an environmental impact statement?

The Northwest Oregon District Manager will decide which alternative to select and whether any additional mitigation or monitoring is to be applied. The purpose and need of this project focuses primarily on the potential for dam failure; other concerns related to the dam are expected to influence which alternative is selected, but these issues are not the reasons that the BLM is proposing this project.

Factors that will be considered as they are expected to influence the decision include:

• How the alternatives affect the potential for dam failure and loss of life;
• How the alternatives affect cost, and whether the BLM can reasonably fund the action;
• How the alternatives affect recreation and the public use of the area;
• How the alternatives affect fish passage; and
• How the alternatives affect water availability for fire suppression in the area.

What is a “Cooperator” in an environmental impact statement?

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and NEPA provide direction regarding the coordination and cooperation of Federal agencies with other Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribal governments. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the agency to ensure that the BLM’s proposed actions are coordinated and consistent with the plans and policies of other relevant jurisdictions.

A “cooperating” agency engages in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement requirements of NEPA. For this EIS, the BLM has worked with cooperators from many agencies. With all formal cooperators, the BLM has signed a memorandum of understanding identifying the roles and responsibilities of the BLM and the cooperating agency in the planning process. Cooperating agencies do not necessarily agree with the BLM’s proposed actions but have agreed to serve as advisors to the process.

Formal cooperators on this EIS include:

• Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
• Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Oregon Department of Forestry - Lane County
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch

Additional cooperators may join during this EIS process.

What is environmental justice?

Some communities or populations experience more environmental impacts or are more likely to be affected by environmental impacts than the population at large. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice describes these as “overburdened populations,” which include “minority, low-income, Tribal, and indigenous populations or communities in the United States that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks due to exposures or cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.” The EIS process refers to this issue as environmental justice and takes these populations and any disproportionate impacts on them into account in the analysis.

Hult Reservoir & Dam Safety

What is the Hult Reservoir and Dam Safety Environmental Impact Statement?

The BLM is preparing the Hult Reservoir and Dam Environmental Impact Statement to analyze proposals to address the high hazard dam on Hult Reservoir.

As the owner of the dam, the BLM has a responsibility to the people and property downstream and to the users of the reservoir. The dam is aging, and the likelihood of failure is increasing. The EIS will examine proposed alternatives for reducing the safety risk to the community of Horton and the surrounding area. Proposals that the BLM will examine in detail include removal or replacement of the dam. The BLM has determined that repair would not extend the overall lifespan of the dam or reduce the safety risk to an acceptable level.

• Alternative 1: No action. All EISs must consider the impact of taking no action, which the BLM defines as continuing current activities with no changes. Accordingly, the BLM will analyze the impacts of taking no major action at Hult Dam and maintaining current operations. The BLM would continue regular monitoring and repairs without making major changes to the structure.
• Alternative 2: Replace the existing dam. The BLM would remove the existing dam and build a new, larger one in its place. The new dam would be built of more appropriate materials, have a more stable foundation, and meet current engineering standards.
• Alternative 3: Remove the existing dam. The BLM would remove the existing dam, allowing the stream to flow naturally through the area.

In all cases, the area would continue to be used for recreation, including fishing, camping, hiking, and horseback riding.

Why is the BLM taking action now?

Since taking ownership of the dam in 1994, the BLM has done maintenance on the structure as routine inspections found problems. However, over the past decade, maintenance actions have become larger and more frequent, while more comprehensive inspections of the dam by the Bureau of Reclamation (2012) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (2017) identified further safety issues. Based on these factors, the BLM determined that it was time to consider the future of the dam and reservoir and look at other ways to address the safety issues.

Because some of the actions being considered would have significant effects on the human environment, the BLM needed to prepare an environmental impact statement. The BLM issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in 2018. However, the BLM determined that additional information was needed before the analysis could start. The BLM issued a new notice of intent was issued in December 2021, and the team expects the analysis will be complete in 2023.

What recreational amenities will exist if the dam or reservoir is removed?

The Hult Reservoir Special Recreation Management Area will continue to exist under each of the alternatives in the EIS. Recreational opportunities would include some form of camping, day use, swimming, fishing, scenic driving, hiking, equestrian use, picnicking, and boating/rafting, although they would be changed from what they are today.

Dam Safety

What does low/high/significant hazard mean?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes hazard classification for dams based on the potential for loss of life and property damage downstream if the dam were to fail. Hult Dam is classified as a high hazard dam and is one of only 19 high or significant hazard dams on BLM-administered lands in the United States.

Table 1: Embankment Dam Hazard Potential Classification¹

Hazard Potential Classification	Loss of Human Life	Economic, Environmental, Lifeline (Critical Services) Losses
Low	None expected	Low and generally limited to owner
Significant	None expected	Yes
High	Probable (loss of one or more life expected)	Yes (but secondary to loss of life for this classification)

_{1. From Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams (FEMA 2004). Dams are hazard classified if they are 25 feet or more in hydraulic height or if they impound 50 acre-feet or more of water (USDI 2009a).}

 

Due to this high hazard rating, the BLM must frequently conduct inspections on the dam.

What are the risks at Hult Dam?

Little is known about the original design and construction of the Hult Dam structures, built in 1948. Both the embankment dam and spillway dike are homogeneous earth fill mixed with logs and woody debris atop a foundation of ancient landslide material (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone). This composition makes the dam inherently unstable. The average lifespan of an earthen dam is 50 years, which the dam has exceeded by more than two decades.

Since ownership of the dam was conveyed to the BLM in 1994, the agency has carried out ongoing renovations to address structural and safety concerns, with significant repairs, reinforcements, and preventative measures done in 2003, 2007, 2016, 2020, and 2021. The dam requires constant monitoring and adjustment of the outflow valve to avoid overwhelming the current water level controls

As described above, Hult Dam is rated as a high hazard dam due to the downstream population and infrastructure, which creates a potential for loss of life if the dam gave way or failed. Because of the age, condition, and composition of the dam, it is particularly vulnerable to a large flood and ground instability or seismic events. If the dam were to give way, it would release an uncontrolled rush of water downstream toward the community of Horton. This surge could damage Highway 36 and even cause loss of life.

Did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers complete their analysis of the dam?

In 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dam safety experts conducted a regularly scheduled inspection and assessment of the dam. They found multiple potential failure modes at the dam. As a follow up, the BLM requested that the Corps propose and evaluate options to reduce the chance of those failures occurring. That evaluation report looked at making the dam taller to reduce the potential of overtopping and making the dam wider to reduce the potential for dam breach. The report was completed in 2019 and is available on the BLM’s ePlanning site (USACE 2019 – Hult Dam Alternatives Report).

The BLM also looked at previous inspection reports and considered the dam’s age, history of problems and repairs, and construction materials. Taking these factors into account, the BLM determined that even significant repairs, like those described in the Corps' report, would not lengthen the overall lifespan of the dam.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2017 Hult Dam inspection report, like all Federal agency dam inspection reports, is classified as “For Official Use Only” and is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The regulatory branch of the Corps may need to do additional analysis in response to the EIS in order to issue permits necessary to implement actions at the dam. However, the regulatory branch of the Corps is working with the BLM as a cooperating agency on this EIS, in part to incorporate any of the Corps’ necessary analysis into this EIS.

Public Involvement

How can the public be involved in the process?

Local community input is critical in the EIS.

Public input opportunities:

• May 2022 – A public meeting was held and input requested on the first two draft chapters of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Substantive comments received will be considered in the analysis moving forward.
• Spring 2023* – The BLM will release a Draft EIS and request another round of public input. The information we get from the public will help us address anything we missed in our draft analysis. As we do our final analysis, we will release the environmental reports that have been used throughout the process.
• Late 2023* – The BLM will publish the Final EIS addressing the substantive comments received during the public comment period. Thirty days later, a Record of Decision will be issued selecting one of the alternatives as a plan of action.

*Schedule is subject to change.

More information:

Members of the public can contact the Hult Reservoir and Dam Safety EIS team in the following ways:

• Email: BLM_OR_NO_SIU_Hult_Dam_EIS@blm.gov
• Project hotline: (971) 213-4970

To learn more about the project, visit the project webpage:
https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/oregon-washington/hult-dam

To view planning documents and learn more about the EIS process, visit the ePlanning site:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/99598/510

What is a substantive comment?

Substantive comments are those that challenge the EIS’s analysis, provide additional information, dispute information accuracy with alternative information, provide information that leads to changes to alternatives, or suggest new alternatives. Substantive comments will be addressed in the EIS.

Comments that speak in favor of or against the action, BLM policy, or resource decisions without reasoning or data are considered non-substantive, as are comments that do not relate to the project or project area.