You can help the Rogue River!

[Straydog]

I have been actively involved in the effort to remove Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River for over 5 years.

We have made tremendous progress after much, much local wrestling on this issue.

Savage Rapids dam is not a flood control dam.

Savage Rapids dam is not a hydropower dam.

Savage Rapids dam is an over 80 year old structure that's only purpose is to raise the level of the Rogue River enough to allow gravity flow irrigation. We can provide this water via fish friendly pumps.

Please take a very few minutes to contact our elected officals and ask that they introduce the funding bill and work hard to push it's congressional approval when they reconvene in January.

Thank you!
:smile:
--------------------------------------------------------

SUPPORT THE ROGUE RIVER RESTORATION AND GRANTS PASS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT ACT

In 2001 a settlement agreement was reached between the Grants Pass Irrigation District, Federal and State Governments, and the intervenors which terminated long-standing litigation. The parties have cooperatively developed a bill to be known as the Rogue River Restoration and Grants Pass Irrigation Improvement Act. This bill will authorize and fund pump installation, dam removal, water conservation activities, and fishery, riparian and recreational enhancements. This bill now needs to be introduced, moved forward, and passed. GPID needs the support of our local community to make this happen.

ACTION NEEDED: Write, fax, phone, or e-mail Senators Ron Wyden, Gordon Smith, and Representative Greg Walden. Thank them for their past leadership on this matter, and urge them to reintroduce this bill to install pumps for GPID and remove Savage Rapids Dam. Emphasize that the State of Oregon has already committed $3 million to the dam's removal. Let them know you support the preservation of the Grants Pass Irrigation District and the increased fishing and recreational benefits of dam removal.

The support of Oregon’s entire congressional delegation is needed so please copy your message or send a separate message to your congressman. The dam is in Congressman Greg Walden's district so it is especially important to contact him for support. Information on how to contact your legislators is provided at the end of this alert.

WHY FEDERAL DAM REMOVAL LEGISLATION SHOULD BE SUPPORTED:

Installation of modern pumps, funds for water conservation, and removal of the dam will secure GPID’s future and allow it to operate in an efficient and economically viable manner. Passage of the bill will provide GPID with a badly needed new diversion system, and allow GPID to stay in compliance with the settlement agreement and to eliminate expensive liability risks for the patrons.

This federal legislation will help implement a settlement agreement that resolved the long-standing legal battles over the dam. It is a solution that keeps GPID viable by increasing its water right and promoting water conservation activities.

Removal of the dam will have tremendous fishery benefits, increase river boating opportunities and will stop week-long economic losses for local guides due to the release of silt into the river during the fall fishing season.

4. There are 500 miles of salmon and steelhead spawning habitat upstream of Savage Rapids

Dam. All spring Chinook salmon spawn upstream of the dam and the dam impedes passage of significant portions of the four other runs of salmon and steelhead in the Rogue.

5. According to a 1995 Bureau of Reclamation report removal of the dam would increase

fish escapement at the site by 22%. This translates into approximately 114,00 more salmon and steelhead each year (87,900 that would be available for sport and commercial harvest and 26,700 that would escape to spawn) valued at $5 million annually.

6. Passage of the federal legislation will be good for the Grants Pass Irrigation District as the patrons will not have to finance the installation of pumps and dam removal.

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS:

Senator Gordon Smith

404 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3753

Fax: (202) 228-3997

E-mail: http://gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm

Senator Ron Wyden

516 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-5244

Fax: (202) 228-2717

E-mail: http://wyden.senate.gov/mail.htm

Rep. Greg Walden

1404 Longworth House Office Building

Washington DC 20515

Email: Greg.Walden@mail.house.gov

Rep. David Wu

510 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Email: http://www.house.gov/wu/issueform.htm

Rep. Peter DeFazio

2134 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Email: peter.defazio@mail.house.gov

http://www.house.gov/defazio

Rep. Darlene Hooley

1130 Longworth House Office Building

Washington DC. 20515

Email: Darlene@mail.house.gov

Rep. Earl Blumenauer

1111 Longworth Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Email: write.earl@mail.house.gov

[ 12-07-2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

For more information......

http://www.gpid.com/

Also, a Google search (or probably any search engine) of Savage Rapids Dam will get you a whole lot of information...

[ 12-07-2002, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[excuse me]

I'm all for restoring natural river channels and beds for native fish habitat.

But I am interested to know what improvements the engineers have come up with for the big irrigation water pipe intake systems to make them less of an impact on juvenile salmon and steelhead? I heard they were also to make such improvements on the ones being used further up the Columbia, but haven't seen anything about how they went about it; or even if they have done the project yet. Anyone know?

[Hogmaster]

excuse me,

I don't know about the scale of piping in the Columbia, but I wholeheartedly support Straydog's position on Savage Rapids Dam. Even if piping water caused some juvenile mortality, it would cause much less impact than the dam has in documented evidence. The dam is used for irrigation in some part for the adjoining property owners and also, not mentioned by Stray, makes a nice ski run for them.

I grew up down there, and almost anyone who is not involved with a special interest who has first hand knowledge of the situation would say to remove this albatross.

It just is not necessary and should be removed!

[lovetofish]

Way to go, StrayDog!! Your doing some good
here. I just wrote several of the senators and
congressmen.

--steve

[Straydog]

Thanks guys! :grin:

Believe me, every letter and bit of support does help and is greatly appreciated!
:grin: :grin:

PS. Hogmaster,

It is interesting you bring up the skiing aspect.
I don't know when you left here but it is interesting to me how few people actually are skiing up there these days. You're right though, it makes it a very handy spot for the people living on the backwater and a handfull of towns folk that use it.

The most prevelant users today are jet skis and of course, they are using other, non damed sections of the river too although not in many numbers.

Two points of interest concerning this aspect of the issue. For a time, certain irrigation board members were holding the flat water recreation aspect up as a big issue to help save the dam. As you might know, I am a traveling peddler in the area so I did my own, admitadly non scientific 'study' of the issue. At that time, I was running the small mom and pop accounts from Galice resort up to the Foots Creek Store above Rogue River every Friday. I made it a point to keep mental notes on the amount of river traffic I witnessed. The river use below SRD was about 100 to 1 compared to that above the dam, literally! The convenience store across Rogue River Highway from the ramp above the dam is vacant again after having three different owners that I know of fail in the last 8 years.
Below the dam, many, many places with enough room to stack a half dozen Tahitis are renting them in the summer.

I believe it is for two reasons..... one is change. Simply put, it is my feeling that not as many people are water skiing as when I was young and a whole lot more are rafting.

We actually owned a piece of property on the backwater portion of the river when I was a kid and there was indeed a lot of speed boat traffic. So much in fact that my folks sold the property due to safety concerns. Remember that the backwater is less than 500 ft. wide at it's widest point and only about two miles long. What you have is a very narrow, long and shallow ski area. What with the completion of Galesville Res. and Lost Creek Res., most of the serious skiers will go there for better, safer conditions.

To take this 'study' a step further, I checked the GP yellow pages and boat shops to see how many new ski boats were available for sale. The answer was a big ol zippo!! Not a one. I then looked at how many opportunities to buy rafts, drift boats and sleds. I think there were 7 or 8 businesses that sold those as well as a couple of manufacturers in Grants Pass. Raft rentals are almost everywhere!

I wrote a guest opinion to the GP paper explaining to the community the fact that recreation dollars created on the free flowing stretch of the river blew away those appreciated on the backwater. I also pointed out that we can increase recreation on that stretch of river by removing the dam and make it a year round opportunity rather than only a summer use rec. area. We don't hear the recreation argument much anymore.

Another interesting angle on this is that the majority of the people living on the backwater are not GPID patrons yet, as would be expected, do not want 'their' dam to be removed. The thing is, they pay no fees to the GPID so they contribute nothing to the cost of maintainence to the dam or the district. Since they were some of the loudest fighting for the dam at one time, the district asked them to form a taxing district and contribute financially to the district. The home owners wanted nothing to do with it. No, they seem to think they deserve to have GPID provide them with a half year playground for free.......... go figger.


[ 12-08-2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Hogmaster]

Nice work Straydog!

I haven't lived down there for many years, so the update on usage is interesting.

Have you or anyone considered if the dam were removed how rafters and the like could use that stretch of river? What it would look like? Just curious...

I've written, and will continue to push, but lead the charge! You are going to make the difference (finally!).

[Straydog]

Hog,

Yes, I have spoken with some of the "movers and shakers" of the business community and parks folks.

What I vision and will be pushing for is a truly "savage" rapid in part of the channel with safe passage for drift boats and sleds as well.

I would like to see a class 5 or better rapid so that we can captilalize on the "extreme" sport aspect of white water Kayaking. They have a whitewater rodeo up at Nugget Falls near Gold Hill that attracts hundreds of people to a very small, inadequate area for this event. If we place riff raff from the dam in the right manner, we can offer one heck of ride through there.

What a lot of people don't know is that before the dam that was actually a rather placid stretch of water. The "Savage" name comes from the Savage Family that lived up Savage Creek. Lincoln Savage Middle School out in Murphy as well as Savage Street in Grants Pass are also named after the Savage family.

What with Valley of the Rogue Park and the towns of Gold Hill and Rogue River not that far upriver, I see opportunity for a tremendous tourist/recreation economy there. As I told our state Rep., we an make the stretch of Rogue River Hiway called the 'miracle mile' in the old days truley a miracle from a business/recreation aspect.....

[ 12-08-2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[RogueFishr]

Hogmaster,

I am sure if the dam was removed, there would be in increase in rafters using that stretch (floating from Valleyof the Rogue to Grants Pass area, etc). Also the fishing , especially for springers, would increase in that area. The area below Savage Rapids Dam is one of the few places the spring salmon hold up in this stretch of the river. Now it's access is limited to sleds, the "Chosen Few" with a key to a local boat ramp, and those daring enough to motor up the rapid in a driftboat. I have been told by a few 'old timers' that the area where the dam is still served to slow the springers down, even before the dam was built. I am all for removing the dam. As Straydog mentioned, some of the biggest opponents to the removal are the people living above the dam on the "lake". They are not members of the Grants Pass Extortion District, er..... I mean Irrigation District, and were not willing to step up and help fund alternatives. There biggest problem when the dam is gone will be hauling in more topsoil to extend there lawns down to the new high water mark.

RF

Also, Straydog, are you a member of the Middle Rogue Steelheaders??

[Straydog]

RF,

Not any more although I now have a new application and will be joining. I do donate fairly generously to the derby every year.

I was a member a long time ago and let my membership lapse when I felt the local chapter 'sold out' to Hellgate Excursions during the OK Corral zoning fight. (that is all I care to say about that)

At any rate, I know I need to rejoin and promise I will in the near future. :blush:

You mention the riparian restoration that will need to take place once the dam is gone. GPID has included funding for some of that in their package to Congress and the Middle Rogue Watershed Council of which I am a member has comitted to pursuing funding and volunteer effort to help facilitate that process once the time comes. FYI, the ODW Fish Screening Task Force has also committed 100K for screening of the pumps and OWEB has committed 3 million to the project. The GPID is getting a cherry deal out of this overall.

[ 12-08-2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[TheRogue]

Orginally, I was against removal, on the premise that once you remove one, pretty soon, people will want them all torn down, regardless of benefits....until I read all the stuff that Straydog has posted the last few years concerning how the irrigation water was still going to be pumped/piped out, in the end costing LESS and wasting LESS water!!

Just from the economics side, it's a no-brainer. And throwing in the large benefit to fish, we should be down there with jackhammers right now (just kidding). As long as the silt-behind-the-dam buildup problem has been adressed (and Straydog has convinced me it has), I believe nothing should stand in the way of removal.

TR

[Straydog]

Thanks TR, I appreciate those words a bunch.

Interesting you bring up being down there with jackhammers right now (ggeezzz, I hope the homeland securtiy folks don't have thier ears on! [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] ) One of the legends around town is that it was indeed the commercial Salmon fishing guys that blew down Ament dam that was just a few miles below where Savage Rapids is now........

They did a good job of blowing a lot of obstacles in the Canyon, I am confident they could have also blown Ament dam.

I was privy to a tour a group of Gov. folks did at the dam last spring. One of the groups involved was the defense department and the General that was with them was like a kid in a candy store talking about the training possiblities demolation could provide. That is an aspect that is still being worked on by the way. Seems the defense department has deeper pockets than many departments....

[ 12-08-2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[riverraider]

Just finished E-mailing some of the folks on the list provided. Removing the dam is very logical. The dam is a known for being a fish killer.
Glad to hear the hoopla about millions of dollars in tourist junk is finally being debunked. Only a few people use it to ski.
I can't say I'd be a fan of class 5 whitewater though as there used to be alot of fall chinook spawning in that area, as well as a good springer fishery. From looking at old photos over the years, there doesn't seem to be the kind of gradiant needed to create such an area without alot of work and development anyway. I'd rather see it go close to the way nature had made it. Aside from pleasing Mrs. Nature, more people would recreate there without it.

[Straydog]

rr,

You are likely right about the gradient factor and it may not work at all.

What I am I am seeing in my mind would be a short but sweet rapid with a passage channel as well.

As you say, it may not work but I am thinking more multiple use than I think you see.

You are right about the spawning ground, we want to protect as much as that as absolutley possible.

The fish, afterall, are the motivating factor behind the literally hundreds of hours, meetings and letters I and others have invested in this project.

Thanks for the letters! :grin:

[ 12-08-2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Lured In]

Straydog...while I too support the dam removal, I have yet to hear a good argument for silt removal above the dam, prior to removal.

Has this been addressed? What was the proposition?

[Straydog]

There have been two, if not three sediment studies at the dam and they have shown no harmful concentrations of heavy metals or pesticides.

In fact, they have shown that the majority of the sediment is the smaller gravels that are lacking in the river bed below the dam due to scouring. We need these gravels down river to enhance the spawning beds.

Therefore, at this time the plan is to let natrual high water events disperse the sediment over time. Depending on weather patterns and flow rates, this could take few or many years to complete.

Bear in mind that every year when the stop logs are removed and the radial gates are opened, a good deal of the finer silt is washed down anyway. In fact, it creates a muddy river just in time for the summer steelhead and fall chinook to get a blast of mud and the guides and other fishers to be run off the river for several days.

If one were to visit the dam sight now, they would see that there is really as pretty small area that is built up with mud and sediment since by opening the gates each year they are flushing a lot of sediment out.

On the other hand, if it were determined to be harmful, I know of at least one large aggregate company that I am confident would jump on the opportunity to get in there and get that gravel out. That, however is not the plan at this time.

[ 12-08-2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

Lured in,

You brought up a good question.

FYI...... this is an older article written before the most current sediment studies but does touch on your concern and how they have been addressed.

The sediment issue is one of the red herrings the 'dam huggers' used in their battle to save the dam.....

http://www.forester.net/ecm_0209_stirring.html[/url]

Savage Rapids Dam

Located on the Rogue River just 5 mi. upstream from Grants Pass in southwestern Oregon, Savage Rapids Dam was built in 1921 to divert river flow for irrigation. A combination gravity and multiple-arch concrete dam, it has a crest width of 464 ft. and a height of 39 ft.

During the nonirrigation season, the dam creates a backwater pool that extends 0.5 mi. upstream. Here a natural formation in the river has created a small riffle. During irrigation season it extends 2.5 mi. upstream. After irrigation season the stoplogs are removed and this section returns to a free-flowing river during the winter months.

The reservoir is fairly narrow–only two to three times wider than the river. The Savage Rapids River Dam Sediment Evaluation Study (included in the Josephine County Water Management Improvement Study [JCWMIS] authorized and funded by Congress in 1989) lists the annual mean flow for the Rogue River at 3,372 ft.3/sec. and the total drainage area as 2,459 mi.2 Annual mean runoff is 19 in.; the highest recorded peak flow was in 1962 and measured 152,000 ft.3/sec. The dam has fish ladders in place, but they are old and don't meet current fisheries criteria. Dam removal has been proposed to restore fish passage to natural conditions. The JCWMIS recommends two pumping plants that would deliver water to the irrigation canals to replace the dam. The Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) asked that a sediment study be undertaken to model the potential sediment-related impacts of dam removal.

Things to consider for the study, Randle says, include how much sediment there is to be removed, the quality of the sediment, and the transport capacity of the river downstream. Significant concerns listed by the JCWMIS regarding the removal of Savage Rapids Dam include the particle-size gradation and spatial distribution of sediment accumulated within the reservoir, chemical composition of the reservoir sediment, and the rate at which the reservoir sediment would be eroded if the dam were removed. Other concerns the study will address include the rate at which the eroded reservoir sediment would be transported downstream and the location and magnitude of deposition downstream from the dam. Specifically there is apprehension regarding the potential for sediment deposition downstream at the proposed GPID irrigation pumping plants and at the water intake and treatment operations for the City of Grants Pass.

The primary objectives of the JCWMIS were to find a permanent solution to salmon and steelhead passage problems at Savage Rapids Dam and to help resolve conflicts over water use in Josephine County. The Bureau of Reclamation distributed the fishery portion of the report and a report on GPID water management in 1992. In 1994, the GPID Board voted to remove Savage Rapids Dam if capital and operational funding, water-availability guarantees, and protection from liability exposures were ensured.

A 1995 final environmental statement (FES) and a 1997 record of decision concentrated on salmon and steelhead passage at the dam and on the associated diversion facilities. The FES study concluded that fish passage and protective facilities at Savage Rapids Dam were inadequate, resulting in significant losses of both species, and recommended a preferred alternative that included removal of the existing dam.

After the FES completion, the Oregon legislature directed the establishment of a task force to review the recommendation of the planning report/FES. After reviewing documented examples of sediment damage to North American rivers when dams were demolished or breached, the task force recommended the dam be retained, based on sediment-related concerns.

The mid-Rogue is surrounded by mountains, with forest and timberland covering more than three-quarters of the river basin. The Rogue is designated a wild and scenic waterway from where it enters the Applegate River (west of Grants Pass) downstream to Lobster Creek Bridge, which is approximately 10 mi. upstream from the mouth of the river.

Thirty percent of the total drainage area upstream of Savage Rapids Dam is regulated by Lost Creek Reservoir, which was built by the US Army Corps of Engineers primarily for flood control. A few other small reservoirs exist that might trap some sediment, but they are considered small relative to the Rogue River. The Lost Creek Reservoir is important in that it reduces flood peaks at Savage Rapids Dam by storing water during the high flood peaks and traps essentially all sediment transported into the reservoir by the river during these peak flows. Therefore, the study concluded "virtually no sediment from the uppermost Rogue River drainage gets past Lost Creek Dam."

Water storage behind a diversion dam is typically small, and the pools fill with sediment in the first few years of operation. After that, all sediment transported into the reservoir passes the dam. Sediment probably filled in Savage Rapids Reservoir to its storage capacity within the first few years, and the reservoir is now full. During periods of high flows on the Rogue River, almost all of the sediment is naturally transported downstream. River conditions that exist upstream from the Savage Rapids Park boat ramp cause high velocities relative to the reservoir velocities behind the dam. According to the Bureau of Reclamation report, these high velocities mean the dam does not cause sediment deposition in the upper 2 mi. of the reservoir during this period. The bureau confirmed this by sending drill crews and divers to the site. The conclusion is that any sediment deposition caused by Savage Rapids Dam is within the half-mile reach upstream of the dam to the park boat ramp.

Visual observations made by bureau personnel confirm that gravel-size sediment, along with the finer sediments, is being transported past the dam. Coarser sand and gravel, traveling as bedload, has been deposited in the half-mile area immediately upstream of the dam. This permanent deposition is probably the filling that occurred in the first few years after the dam was built.

The characteristics of the Rogue River provide a continual scouring effect on the river's pools. After several studies were completed and compared, it was determined that the current volume of reservoir sediment is estimated to be 200,000 yd.3 To put this in perspective, says Randle, if the same volume were placed on a football field, it would reach 100 ft. high. The volume is roughly two years of sediment load transported by the Rogue River and accounts for 70% of the river's transport capacity in the Grants Pass area, assuming that the remaining 30% is trapped upstream in the Lost Creek Reservoir.

The fairly steep gravel and cobble bed of the Rogue River has a series of pools, riffles, and rapids. Eight of the pools in the 12.5-mi. reach of the river between the reservoir and the conjunction with the Applegate River are 10-20 ft. deep. The other 10 pools are shallow at less than 10 ft. deep.

During the period with low flow, the velocity slows down and the pools fill slowly with sediment. During high flows, such as spring runoff or during the winter storms, however, the speed within the pools increases and the sediment is scoured from the pools and transported downstream with the river. From 1996 to 1997, a US Geological Survey gauge cross-section near Grants Pass evidenced this occurrence during a winter storm that virtually scoured out a 6-ft. depth and then refilled the channel bed the following year during the low-flow period.

To arrive at the sedimentation estimates, experts look first for older studies, including topographical maps. In the case of Savage Rapids there were no such maps available. "If there is an old topographical map to refer to, then a survey can be done and the two can be compared," Randle explains. "If no pre-dam survey exists, then we have to use other methods and means to measure the river bottom. Then we put that in context. With these items in hand, it's possible to design a removal program that is slow enough not to impact the river.

"We're in the second phase of the study," he says. "Before dam removal, they have to first build pumping plants. The study now is where they should be built. But before anything else, the pumping plants for irrigation would go in first."

[ 12-08-2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Grantspastor]

Grantspastor just got home from church...logged in...and weighing in...Savage Rapids dam needs to go.

[GutshotApe]

Yes, Savage Rapids Damn has got to go.

I visited the site in March a couple of years ago on a tour and when the vans unloaded and everyone walked out to the vantage point the first thing we saw were dead salmon. Two half rotted carcasses were lying beneath the fish ladder where they had jumped out onto dry land. A third carcass was in a foot of water apparently dead from bashing itself into the damn abutments unable to find the ladder. If I was GPID's manager and wanted to keep the damn, I'd think about having someone pick up the dead salmon once in a while [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] .

I don't know first hand about the damn's effects on downstream migrants, gravel recruitment, etc. but I do know it kills some adult salmon trying to go upstream :depressed: .

[Straydog]

GSA,

Good point about picking up the dead and dying however, the manager of the district never really wanted to save the dam, it was the board. Very long and very ugly story, let's not go there.

In fact, now that the board makeup, and especially the chairmanship has changed, the manager of the district shared at a public meeting that "that dam kills fish." He then went on to explain how he had placed sheets of plywood over dead smolt on days they were to be inspected for fear of being shut down.

I have a short video that gives just a hint of the increased predation by mergansers during the out migration...... it is gross. They flock up at the outlet of the South fish ladder and it reminds one of a bunch of starving kids at JJ Norths chuckwagon!! Also, for the first time in my life I saw a Blue Heron 'hover' over the water just before it spills over the dam and pick a smolt up. I had no idea those big birds could do that. Of course, since the smolt was headed over the spill for a 39' drop straight down, possibly onto the rocks, I guess it was destined to die anyway. Speaking of that, the Mergansers also congregate along a gravel bar on the North side and pick off the stunned smolt that float by after falling over the spill of the dam. (how much we are paying to produce hatchery fish to be served buffet style at SRD??)
:whazzup:
We also have lot's of Sea Gulls that find their way up there during outmigration...... the feeding opportunity for this scavenger must be pretty good to make that trip up river.

I also noticed you mentioned something about Cormorants in an earlier post.... we are getting a noticable number of those now days too. Something I don't recall seeing as a kid.

Something that I do recall seeing tons of as a kid and rarely see anymore are Lampreys. No one has paid a lot of attention to them but my bet is that that dam has something to do with their demise too. I remember watching hundreds of them attempt climb up the face of the dam hanging on with their mouths. I guess they are going to start getting attention soon as I heard there is a group preparing to petition them for listing as either threatened or endangered..... :depressed:

Back to the Salmon....... it is very difficult if not impossible to quantify the number of fish that die before spawning or spawn in the pool (bedrock) below the dam due to delays in migration created by 460' of false attractors and very poor fish ladders..... heck, the south ladder enters the river counter to the current!!! :shocked: The fish have to follow their instinct to go upriver, do however many headbashings on the base of the dam and then do a 'U turn' to even find the entrance to south ladder!!!!

[ 12-09-2002, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

More on SRD killing fish.....

Below is pasted a note I received from the chair of the GPID concerning this thread on Ifish.

By the way, Judy does not fish, or at least not much but is very, very concerned about the Rogue River and the Irrigators that depend on it for water. She had the guts to stand up to a bully board chairman and take this issue on head on when no one else would. I hold a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude for her.
-----------------------------------------------------

".......I hope everyone who reads this takes a few minutes to respond as there are groups of folks who deny the dam kills fish and are fighting to save it.

The biggest fish-passage problem (not discussed on that page) is the turbines which pull 800 cfs of water to operate. The velocity of the water pulls the tiny (smolts/fry) into the screens. Some of them die because the pressure traps them on the screens and causes their heads to implode.
Some are ground up in the turbines.
Some get by the screens but lose some of their scales as they brush by the mesh on the screens. I was told that they are fine until they move into the ocean.
Others are stunned as they shoot through the bypass port at high velocity and land on the rocks below. Predators sit below and scoop them up as they float by.
Others are shot down the ladders into a narrow space where predators sit below to gobble them up.
Others find their way into the canals (screen mesh too large)
and die there when the canals are dewatered in the fall.
The BOR's EIS contains a drawing of the dam and the multiple places where fish are harmed or killed."

[ 12-09-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

I am not in favor of tearing out all the dams. But there are some dams that have outlived their usefulness - such as the two old dams on the Elwha River in WA and Elk Creek and Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue in OR.

Can't believe SRD is still there :whazzup: . In 25 words or less, what is the status? OK, 50.

[Straydog]

GSA,

Oh boy..... a challenge! (those words don't count!! :grin: )

A consent decree has been signed by all parties that state the district will stop using the dam by 2005 and will have it removed within one year after that. There was a provision under which they could ask for an extension given a good faith effort had been made to comply. I understand they are already looking at that as the bill for funding was introduced last session but not addressed.

The bill is to be reintroduced this January, thus my request of letters of support.

The pumps are to be in and functioning before the dam is removed.

(101, shoot not even close!! :blush: )

[GutshotApe]

Don't worry, talk is cheap.

So removal of the dam is contingent on obtaining state funding? :shocked: Jeez, that dam may never go away :depressed: .

[Straydog]

No, Federal funding with some matching state funds which have already been committed.

I believe the request to the Feds is at about 20 mil. although there are some things going on that could reduce that further.

Walden, Wyden, DeFazio and Smith have all signed on and pledged to support and push this through.

However, there are still a few small but vocal groups pushing to retain the dam so we really
need as much support as we can possibly get!

Further, it is my belief that we lost some support at the state level in our last election what with the two people we are sending to Salem.

As you might expect, it goes so much smoother when all levels of Gov. agree to one plan of action. I am confident we will have Kulongoski's support (Mannix told me he would NOT support dam removal) but the State Legislature could be a tougher nut to crack this session.

[ 12-09-2002, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]