PDA

View Full Version : Facts about Savage Rapids Dam from NOAA


Straydog
07-13-2002, 10:12 PM
Facts About Savage Rapids Dam
Savage Rapids Dam was built on the Rogue River near Grants Pass, Ore., in 1921. The dam is of concrete construction, 500 feet long and 39 feet high. It's owned and operated by the Grants Pass Irrigation District.

The dam interferes with access to more than 100 miles of mainstem and tributary habitat important to coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat.

Fish ladders, to help adult fish get to their upstream spawning grounds, were constructed on the north side of the dam in 1923, and on the south side in the early 1930s. In 1934, two screens were installed to keep fish out of canals delivering water to irrigators, and two additional screens were installed in 1958 to keep fish out of turbines and pumps.

The fish ladders and fish screens at the dam have never worked well. Fish passage problems at the dam are documented and widely acknowledged. Between 15 and 25 percent of young coho are killed trying to pass the dam. The chief fish killer is the water diversion system, where water velocities are about five times what is considered safe and the screen mesh is twice as big as it should be.

Operation of the dam has continued while Oregon and federal agencies have tried to persuade the irrigation district to improve its fish passage facilities. After decades of negotiations, fish passage facilities at the dam remain very primitive and losses of fish at the dam continue to offset efforts elsewhere on the river to save them.

In 1982, the district's water right was reduced from 200 cubic feet/second to 100 cfs because the Oregon Water Resources Commission determined that less than half the land claimed by the irrigation district in the original water right was still being irrigated.

In 1990, the commission granted the district a temporary permit to divert an additional 50 cfs at the dam, with the condition that the irrigation district show due diligence in removing the dam. The dam's irrigation system is so inefficient because of leaks, that only about 18-22 percent of the water diverted is delivered to the district's customers.

In 1994, the irrigation district agreed to remove the dam.

A 1995, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation study of the district's options concluded that removing the dam and pumping water to customers would cost $13 million and would result in saving thousands of salmon and steelhead. The estimated cost of retrofitting the dam was put at $21 million.

Scientific findings announced in April 1997, found that coho salmon in this area were threatened with extinction and required protection under the Endangered Species Act. In June, ESA regulations against killing or harming protected coho went into effect.

The dam's operations kill and harm threatened coho. Oregon estimates that an additional 21,000 to 94,000 adult salmon and steelhead would be produced annually if the dam were removed. The National Marine Fisheries Service has been working with the irrigation district since June of 1997 to protect coho and meet the needs of the district's customers.

Under the ESA, the irrigation district must do its best to minimize harm to coho. Removing the dam and installing pumps would meet irrigation needs, cost less than retrofitting the dam, and would increase salmon and steelhead production. It is thus clearly the best option available to the irrigation district. This view is also shared by Oregon, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation and conservation groups like WaterWatch of Oregon, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers.

The fisheries service has told the irrigation district since September of 1997 that interruption of irrigation deliveries could be avoided if the district committed to a method and schedule for removing the dam, determined how removal would be paid for, and implemented protective measures to reduce harm to coho until the dam was removed.

The irrigation district has refused to commit to dam removal or to implement meaningful interim measures to reduce impacts to coho from operation of the project.

On March 31, the state's water resources commission found that the district had failed to show due diligence about removing the dam and it recommended denial of the district's request to continue diversion of the additional 50 cfs in 1998.

Capt. Rich
07-14-2002, 09:34 AM
Dennis, It seems incredible that the Grants Pass Irrigation District is operating in a vacuum. This is a mirror image of the problems that Irrigation Districts and natural resources people dealt with on the Sacramento River with the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District and the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District in the '80's and '90's. Both districts were under a lot of pressure from constituents to improve fish passage past their diversion points. Like the GPID, both districts were impacting ESA listed salmon runs.

I remember attending a heated meeting in Willows, California that was called to have the groups meet and discuss the problems. In many ways the farmers are not the enemys of the fish but the technology that delivers the water to them. In the meeting the farmers often talked about how they relax by going salmon fishing on the river. Both districts finally mitigated their irrigation diversions and the booming salmon runs on the Sacramento are witness to their modifications.

GCID's modifications are probably the ones to look at as a model to solve the GPID's problems. GCID is a bypass diverter of Sacramento River water and had fish screens that did not work. They spent money to redesign their diversion and installed new pumps. GCID operation is huge compared to the diversion figures that you have provided. If GCID can develop a workable bypass diversion, I am sure that GPID can do the same.

There are a lot of Southern Oregon anglers and Northern California anglers that fish on the Rogue River. I get customers that fish on the Rogue before they go ocean fishing. Having been aware of the Savage Rapids Dam issue for many years, I have tried to talk to them about it. If you have any local groups they can contact, please send me some literature and information.

TheRogue
07-14-2002, 04:09 PM
StrayDog.....Yes, get that dam out of there....but what about the huge buildup of silt behind it?? That is something that HAS to be taken into consideration before any plans are finalized. Bear Creek was running mud for months after the dam in town (Medford) came out...and we're talking something 10 times the size that has been there lots longer. The silt is without question full of years of accumulation of orchard pesticides and noxious chemicals from mining activity.

Won't do much good to wade in with bulldozer and crane to save the salmon of the future if we kill off two years worth by letting that crap filter down through the river all at once.

This is much like what just a handful of realistic scientists fear concerning the Snake River dams....but of course it never gets publicized.

Once again, I agree with the removal, and it's definitely makes more economic sense to pump the water, but for God's sakes, let's not tear it down, and then have someone say "Ooops!!".

Kyle

[ 07-14-2002, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

Straydog
07-14-2002, 04:38 PM
Kyle,

Valid question but one that has been answered in full.

The ex-chair of the irrigation district paid for the first, albeit small scale sediment study in hopes of proving what you describe in terms of sediment behind SRD.

The results were that there were no heavy metal concentrations nor significant build up of herbicides or pesticides.

The second, much more comprehensive and deeper study conducted by the BOR came to the same conclusion.

The Red herring had been boned, so to speak.

Further, the BOR study concluded that there was indeed much less sediment than anticipated and the majority of it consists of the small gravel that normaly moves around and works through a functioning system.

In other words, further evidence of the scouring effect that takes place from SRD all the way to the mouth of the Applegate. Scouring right in the middle of critical spawning habitat in the Rogue River.

While one would expect just what you described in terms of sediment, you have to remember that it is a very shallow, narrow impoundment. Also, the radial gates are opened as well as the stop logs removed in winter thus creating a fairly narrow but definate channel that filters a portion of the sediment through each winter anyway.

Granted, there will be muddier water below the dam but hopefully for only one winter.

TheRogue
07-14-2002, 07:57 PM
That sounds great!! I didn't figure something that important could slip through the cracks, but worse things have happened!!

Keep up the good work!!

kyle

Straydog
07-15-2002, 12:33 AM
Thank for your interest Capt.

Please feel free to give anyone my email (dstrahan@cpros.com) if they would like more info. concerning Savage Rapids Dam and the Grants Pass Irrigation District.

I have been deeply involved in the situation for about 5 years but have watched the destruction and had ill will towards this dam for as long as I can remember.

I am a member of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association which is an intervenor in the lawsuit that brought us to the point we are today with SRD.

Also, if one searches under "Savage Rapids Dam" on the net there are tons of info. to be had as well as a link to GPID which has a good "Question and Answer" section on their site.

I am somwhat familiar with the screening system on the Sac. that the Colus system currently uses as I am on the ODFW Fish Screening Task Force and we have looked at that system as a possible model for some of our needs.

You are right, the needs (wants) of GPID is minute compared to the systems used down in the Sac. system.

Beyond that, at this point in time, over 3/4 of the GPID water is used to water residential lawns and backyard gardens. The Ag. industry is a mere shadow of what it once was.

Keta
07-15-2002, 12:41 AM
Please help the dog get rid of this fish killer so he can have some time to help me kill kokanee! :grin:

MarlinMark
07-15-2002, 08:44 PM
Great work. Let's hope it doesn't take a lifetime of effort to move this fish killer out of Oregon's finest river.

Mark
:cheers: