Luck R@60 Cha S

siM & WtLDLIFE ROMENCEUSHARY

luck R@60 Cha s. Co fins T.,

ITT! T T

IT T- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2870 PORTLAND, OREGON 97208

NPDPL-ER 8 June 1981

SUBJECT: Oregon Division Izaak Walton League Report, Rogue River-Savagc--- Rapids Dam, 31 January 1981

District Engineer, Portland

Subject report is inclosed for your information. Corps of Engineers corrixnents on this report are not appropriate or desired.

FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER:

1 Incl D. W. NORDHILL as Assistant Chief, Planning Division OREGON DIVISION REGIONAL DIRECTORS C"11.11 M. S.ith..@ 2045 N,E. 144th P.al.,,d, OR 97230 33ank Milton T[moule of America, ]Ynr, Mild.d! R..h., R.&,,-21 2132 0..,Wl StIm F @ OR 9 7116 .... G,.m DEFENDERS OF SOIL, WATERS, AIR AND WILDLIFE O@@., Th.d,... (R.&.-31 WOODS, I sag wif..i, STATE OFFICERS E@,..., OR 97402st..t GI.d E. A.I,h E. C. IR.&,,-41 Sv.s. R., GI.. W.W.. JI. Elli... Vi,,. P1..1d.,,t T 8.@ E...flw. S.C.'.'Y R0. 636 5440 S.W. 7365 3800 S.W. [email protected],v CINb 01. Ti@b.,...... RX., 176 731 N.W. Midl.i,d A OR SM. 82.d A,.. Wig. 97470 Skvi.. A.. C S. ... 97330 P."t.i,d, OR 97223 .... Ili., OR 97330 V.,..Pi.. OR 97064 P.@., OR 97526 Mik. M@L... (R.9id.-5) P@O. 3.@ 146 M..,im, OR 97037 L.,.. H.9h.. (R.9i.161 May 1981 1 1 08 Ad.@. 20, L. G,.@d., 08 97850 J.h. C. C,..d (R.,io@-7) P.0, B. a03 OR 97720

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

STATE OFFICERS .,,d- D... W. R.wli.,. Pa., [email protected] 1825 N,E. 92,,d A@.@@. P.1d..d, OR 97220 Dom Ch.d.. S. C.M.. Rogue Savago Rapids 123 Lilb.,,, Subject. Rk"r R ... b.,,, OR 97470 many W..d.11 H.W, 7he Oregon Divisl on of the Di has been concerrted for years with 1840 N.E. 92,,d Dam on OR 97220 the inadequate fish passage facilities at Savage Rapids located we L.,, K..Ift.,, Rogue upstream from Grants -Pass. Because of this concern. P.O@ B.. 540 the River OR 973§4 this Droblem. W31dl.lt, have completed the enclosed report to focus attention on 0, Alf,.d J. K,.ft The anadromous (stiselhead and Salmon) attributed to the 1301 [email protected] Ci,@t.' Bid,. loss of fish OR This P.Itl.dd, 97205 dam has been Estimated at two million dollars a year. magnitude Rod.n.k J. V.@,. remedial action. 3300 S.W. Rid, d R..d of fish loss certainly requires P.M.,,d, OR 97225.... O@.., R. Th.@... We those local. state and federal. having 1589 wil'.,, are urging authorities, re- E.g..@. OR 97402 sponsibIlities for the river. the dam and fisheries to assist in cor- REGIONAL GOVERNOR recting this problem. In our opinion a feasibility study by the Water BY.. R..Ii.g@ 1825 N,E. 92i,d [email protected],.@ and Power Resources Service is required to determine an alternative P.,,I.M. OR 97220 method.for supplying water for agricultural use. NATIONAL DIRECTORS L.C. [J..k) Bdf.1d Pw N@[email protected] Pli,@id@M comments on Should be direct-A to the undersigned. 1901 M.E. 701l, A@.@.. AU this report OR 97213 J.,,. C.'a.i Sincerely. 5440 SM, OR 97330

W..d.11 MM., 1840 N,E, 92,,d P.11I.,,d. OR 97220 0, Alft.d J. K,.h Jane Capizzi, side ft@, N@d.,,@l P,[email protected] 1301 M.dic.i C.11@1 Bid, Oregon Division. roLA OR 97205 e4W S.W. S17view Ave. Corvallis, Cre2on 97330

A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WORKING FOR A BETTER OUTDOOR AMERICA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PLANNING FIELD BRANCH,SALE* OREGON .

GRANTS PASS DIVISION

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT OREGON

INFORMATION BULLETIN

December 1981

BACKGROUND

We would like to advise you of the status of the Bureau of Reclamation water and related resource study in the Grants Pass Division.,-, The purpose of the study is twofold: (1) to formulate measures to replace or improve the Grants Pass Irrigation District's existing distribution system and (2) to define alternative plans for a permanent solution to the fish passage problems at Savage Rapids Dam. In October 1970 interim study results were summarized for the public in a formulation working-document. Further work on the feasibility study was deferred pending response to that document. Responses to date through use of the return mailer and from local contacts@have been varied. They range from recommending removal of Savage Rapids Dam to expanding the facilities to include electric power generation. Response to alternatives to improve the irrigation distribution system have been more consistent. The general reaction teems to be that the irrigation district,would not be able to pay the costs Associated with these improvement measures if an extensive rehabilitation program was undertaken

FUTURE WORK

Consensus on a future course for the study was reached in a November 10, 1981, meeting in Grants Pass with the Grants Pass Irrigation District, fish and wildlife interests, Oregon State Water Resources Department, Josephine County Water Resources Advisory Committee, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Conclusions reached at that meeting are as follows: 1. The Bureau of Reclamation should defer study of measures to replace or rehabilitate the Grants Pass Irrigation District's existing facilities. Fish enhancement structures needed at some of the canal stream crossings would be the only measures associated with the distribution system that would be included At this time. 2. The Bureau of Reclamation thouM,concentrat6 the remainder of the study on Savage Rapids Dam. Three alternatives would be (a) evaluated:I installation of permanent fish passage facilitie s on the dam as suming;@theAam would be operated as at present, (b) removal of Savage Rapids Dam and installation of I electric-powered pumps to supply the Grants Pass 'Irrigation District c anals, and (c) installation@of permanent fish passage facilities oh the dam assuming power a future generation facility at th d 40) The future addition of a power, generation facil-it at the dam is uncertain at this time. The-Pacific Northwest Generating Company, with Grant$ thWOr0qo__ together P45S Irrigation District and Public Power Agency; receive d a preliminary permif from the Federal Energy Regulatory, Commission to study the power potential at Savage Rapids Dam. However, present Oregon law prohibits hydropower development an that portion of the Rogue River. The appli-cant-As-presently seeking-an-@Wftno@o*'of -the permit study period to allow time to seek modification of the current restriction from the State Legislature.

W A pr @epaid return mailer is attar he d., e we I come your suggestions orcomments. If you wish'Lto.have the study team n*k@wfth year group, pl easwindicate. so on the return mailer. We welcome your comments on the Grants Pass Divisloh

Please'add the following names and addresses to your mailing list.

from@ Remove my name your mailing list.

To retum - Fold sheet, on dashed lines with address side of mailer exposed and tape or staple. No postage is necessary. ML6 UOBqJ0 welles 'N 40WIS J91U90,QC9 jejueo 9jqej!nbtj gee ej!nG uojjiawiejo9?j lo n7aeing JOIJ9jul OLIZ Jo juawliede(] sel-elS Paiiun

33ssasuav ke 03AYd 39 TIM 30VISOd

Q 'NOIDNINSM 6V8Z[ ON 11WN3d SSV1:) ISMIJ -11VN KldD@J SISDNisnp

------J

@-j

------United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation . POSTAGE AND FEES PAID Kable @ Suite 335 Equ Center D E PARTMEN T OF THE I NTERIO R N. E. 530' Center St. I NT A20 Salem, Oregon 97301

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

Boris Georgeff Rogue Basin Coordinator U.S. Department of the Army Portland District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 ------@X,

JACKSON -0. JOSEPHINE CO.

VAGE RAPIDS DAM

GRANTS PASS IRRIGATION DISTRICT

0 1 a

MILES

Sal 0 G 0 N

S Pass MeE PAOS DA

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT GRANTS PASS DIVISION,OREGON LOCATION MAP

SEPTEMBER 1973 ROGUE RIVER - SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM COMMITTEE REPORT

Introduction

The National Marine Fisheries Service has estimated that fish losses at Savage Rapids Dam are over $2,000,000 per year. Waltonians have been aware of the problem at least since 1930 when a chapter in Grants Pass was active. During the 1952-56 period we took a leading role in the efforts to get screens installed at the hydraulic turbine intakes so as to reduce the numbers of fingerlings pumped into the canals and irrigation ditches.

It is the objective of this committee to look into the fish passage problem relating to both the upstream and downstream migrating anadromous fish and to what is being done about it. The committee also feels that the operation of the Grants Pass Irrigation District (G.P.I.D.) should be reviewed regarding its financial condition as the conversion of farms to city lots takes place. The committee is concerned with what are the legal responsibilities of the District with respect to fish passage and how they have been carried out. We are also concerned with the responsibilities of the State agencies, particularly the Water Resources Department and the Fish and Wildlife Department.

The subject is a very complicated one. The many details of both historic and current interest can not be given in this committee report. Source information made available to the committee for reference is listed at the end of this report.

Savage Rapids Dam Information (quoted from Reference (1) G.P.I.D. History)

The present constructed dam has a structural height of 30 39-feet, hydraulic height of feet and an overflow type crest having a length of 456 which 16 feet; is divided into bays, with 9 bays at the right end of the dam, of multiple arch construction, and the remaining 7 bays of concrete gravity section. During irrigation season, the overflow crest spillway is controlled by metal stop A 4000 logs. lb. cableway and hoist is used to place and remove stop logs, and demountable piers. Two 16 feet x 7 feet top steel 10 radial gates are in bays and 11; and four 4 feet x 6 feet cast iron sluice gates at the right abutment, dam are used to unwater the crest for spring log placement and removal. Page: 2

Lumping Unit Three canals starting from Savage Rapids Dam provide all water used One in the District. canal rated at 100 c.f.s. is a type from dam gravity canal the itself, and the other main canals exist from two pumping units, located on the north bank of Savage Rapids Dam. Power for these pumping units is provided by two individual 900 horsepower water turbines with 30 operating the head of feet and requiring approximately 800 c.f.s. The 30 inch turbine serving South the Highline Canal has a capacity of 30,000 gpm against a head 90 static of Peet. Its water is carried to the canal through dam in 309 the feet of 42 inch steel pipe and 371 feet of 42 inch concrete pipe. The other turbine powers two 24 inch pumps connected in series, which have a capacity of 18,000 gpm against a static head of 150 feet. Water 185 is carried to the canal through a feet of 42 inch steel pipe and 1,483 42 wood feet of inch stope pipe. The whole pumping equipment is Allis Chalmers manufactured, and operates at 450 rpm. Water at the entrance to the pump canals is then split, a portion of which then gravities into and around the City of Grants Pass and Josephine County.

Dam Operating Problems 1. System is primarily open, unlined and metal flumes. 2. High cost of maintenance, considerable seepage and evaporation, and a system designed and constructed 50 years ago, lacking proper roadways for maintenance. 3. Pumping system Savage at Rapids Dam, now approaching 50 years old, which was only somewhat repaired during the rehabilitation in 1955, and which is estimated to be beyond repair in the year of approximately 1978. 4. Considering the facts of existing system, a feasibility study needed so is that the Irrigation District can make worthwhile decisions regarding the rehabilitation of the present system; or construction of modern day municipal, industrial, and fire protection, as well as an system. irrigation

As discussed is above, the Irrigation District now comprises some 10,000 acres under irrigation, which we are 5500 and (1975); billing more various customers indicating that our area is growing, both the and in division of property population expansion. This has been true for many becoming years, as the area is more predominantly an area for homesites and part-time farming. (Note: In 1956 the number of full time farms was 200. In 1976 the number had dropped to 8--probably fewer today.)

Need for Feasibility Study 1. We are an approaching emergency situation, since it is estimated the maximum of our that life equipment at the Savage Rapids Dam is in the area of seven or eight years. (from 1976). 2. This requires both a feasibility study and construction, be no than to completed later the seven or eight years as mentioned in item 1. 3. If the study should suggest a pressure system, it ideally should start construction around five years from the time mated present since it is esti- that sewer construction will start at least by this period or less. five year Page: 3

4. If fire protection is involved, it is also anticipated that the county will be in fire protection business around this five year period. If we.are unable to have a feasibility study of our District--the only recourse for the Grants Pass Irrigation District would be to close its doors, as it would be impossible for us, on an annual budget basis, to do the necessary construction involved. In this case the urban and rural area of Grants Pass would be reverted to practically a waste land, which it once was. Peo- ple not connected with the Grants Pass Irrigation District in any way realize that this would be a catastrophy for the whole area. (End of quotation from G.P.I.D. History) Anadromous Fish Problems (C,uo@ed from Reference (2), Oregon State Game Commission)

The north bank fish ladder was built with the dam 50 years ago. Its dimensions have long been recognized as inadequate for anadromous fish. It is narrow with a steep gradient, short pools, and shallow water depths within the pools. Frequently, the 10 c.f.s. flow from the entrance at the base of the dam is totally obscured by the discharge from the turbines. i. L. Savage, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, described the south fishway in 1971 11 a hodgepodge and side as being ... of walls weirs, with fish passage conditions varying greatly at different river stages. Stranding is common when the flow drops. The operation of this ladder requires constant attention to assure fish passage over the dam. Fence building, patching of weirs and walls, and fish salvage are continuous processes. At times the fish are hand carried over the dam." Observations at least as early as 1928 demonstrated substantial fish losses in the two highline canals and at the turbines and pumps which supply water to them. From the time that resident biologists were stationed in the Rogue area in 1941, a number of evaluations were made of those losses. In 1947, Cole M. Rivers estimated that a total of 210,000 fish may have been lost to the systems. He recommended that the turbine-pump intakes at the north end of the dam be screened. H. R. Newcomb had suggested this be done in 1943, but added that it would be a costly project and difficult to accomplish. In November 1950, the State Game Director advised the Grants Pass Irrigation District that it was legally required to provide fish protective screens and asked that:the engineering design be initiated. The action opened a long and frustrating series of negotiations with many meetings and correspondence exchanges between the Department, the District, and other interested parties. The District took the position that no important fish loss resulted from project operation, hence no protective facilities were required. It believed that if any screens were built, the fishermen should be totally responsible for all construction, operation, and maintenance costs. When the Bureau of Reclamation renovated the dam in 1954, fish screens were not included. The attitude of the District that it could not be responsible for the facilities had precluded the development of the required operation and maintenance agreement. After much negotiation and compromise, an operation and maintenance agreement was signed by the District and Game Commission on July 17, 1956. Page: 4

It contains ten points concerning different aspects, but over the years point No. 9 has proved to be the most crucial and restrictive. That reads "The district further agrees that it shall be liable for the costs of operating said fish screen in an amount not to exceed $200.00 a month for the period of the irrigation season and that the district shall, in addition, set aside in a reserve fund annually a sum of not less than $500.00 for the purpose of maintaining and replacing said fish screen, but the district shall not be liable for maintenance expenditures in excess of the funds so accumu- lated in the said reserve fund." Needed repairs frequently have exceeded the reserve amount, consequently some have not been accomplished. (End of quotation from Oregon State Game Commission) Recent Fish Passage Improvements

A number of minor improvements to assist fish passage up the south ladder system have been made in recent years. The major improvement, a rebuilding of the north ladder has not been done. Estimated costs were far below the one bid received, so that job is no longer on schedule. Funds are available for two new screens and these are on order, and are scheduled to be installed in April, 1981. The existing screens, second hand from Tracy, California and installed in 1957-58, are worn out. Three breakdowns occurred in 1980. Two of three repairs had to be done under water; in the other one, dewatering of the dam was necessary. Such operations may require a few days or a few weeks during which time fish migrations are stopped or seriously affected and sediment is released to cause high turbidity which affects fishing. A breakdown in June 1980 was due to a chain break causing a turbine screen to drop to the bottom of the reservoir. Dewatering was required before repairs could be made. The installation of bulkheads in the channels to the turbines, so that the reservoir will not have to be drawn down when repairs are needed, was recently completed. At the present time, the work outlined in the improvement plan of 1974 is nearing completion, with one important exception, the rebuilding of the north fish ladder. The work completed relates mainly to improvements to the south fish ladder.

A permanent solution entails either removal of the dam or provision for a new north ladder, a new south ladder, and installation of screens meeting fishery agency standards.

Water Permit

The G.P.I.D. obtained a State permit to withdraw 220 c.f.s. for irrigation and to use 800 c.f.s. for the hydraulic power lifts. This occurred many years ago. However, the "proof of development of use of water", the so-called perfection Page: 5 of the water right, was not done until 1980. The Director of the State Water Resources Department is in the process of reviewing the permit. It is reported that there will be a reduction of approximately 50 percent in the water used for irrigation. This will surely affect the volume of water needed for the hydraulic lifts. We are informed that a decision had been made to cut back the water use to 92 c.f.s. to become effective January 1, 1981. In a recent news item it is stated that the Department has extended the deadline for a water rights survey to April 1, 1981. The delay has been granted so that the District will have the opportunity to make an appeal. Now is the opportune time for the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department to assure that some of the water given up by the District re- mains in the Rogue River to maintain minimum flows, to see that water withdrawals are efficiently used and that water is available to junior water right holders (which includes the City of Grants Pass where water needs are increasing).

Water Use Fees and the Exclusion Process

We are informed that a land owner in the District, whether he used the water or not, was charged $15/acre/year and that this had been raised to $27. This is a minimum charge which would apply to a lot of less than one acre. City lot owners located in the District, whether or not connected to the nearby canal, can make a request for an exclusion from the assessment and by making a single payment equivalent to 3 times the annual charge. Approval by the District is required.

The City Water System

The City of Grants Pass has a water right for 12.5 c.f.s. and a permit, perhaps not yet formally perfected, to withdraw 25 c.f.s. At an estimated 1990 population of 39,000 there would be a need for 42 c.f.s. The water system is being expanded to serve several rapidly growing residential districts.

Hydropower Potential The energy crisis has brought about a national policy to have all potential hydropower sites re-examined to see whether there is a practicable power development. An engineering firm has contacted the G.P.I.D. requesting a permit to con- duct a study. An Application for a Preliminary Permit was published in the Federal Register of December 1. 1980. A copy of it is included in this report. Should 5-A

79544 Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 232 / Monday, December 1, 1980 / Notices

[Project No. 34691 Putpose of Prelimincuy Filing Service of Permit-A 0 and Responsive preliminary permit does not authorize Documents-Any comments, notices of Pacific Northwest Generating Co., construction. A permit, if issued, gives intent, competing applications, protests, Oregon Public Power Agency and the Permittee, during the term of the or petitions to intervene must bear in all Grants Pass Irrigation District; permit, the right of priority of capital letters the title "Comments," Application for Preliminary Permit application for license while the "Notice of Intent To File Competing Permittee undertakes the necessary Application ... .. Competing Application," November 21, 1980. studies to and examinations determine "Protest," or "Petition To Intervene," as the Take notice that Pacific Northwest engineering, economic, and applicable. Any of these filings must environmental feasibility of Generating Company, Oregon Public the also state that it is made in response to Power Agency, and Grants Pass proposed project, the market for the this notice of application for preliminary and all Irrigation District (Applicant) filed on power, other information permit for Project No. 3409. Any necessary for inclusion in September 15, 1980, an applicati on for an application comments. notices of intent, competing license. preliminary pernii@ [pursuant to the r a applications, protests, or petitions to Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)- Agency Comments-Federal, State, intervene must be filed by providing the 825(r)] for 469 to and local agencies that receive this original and those copies required by the be known notice through direct mailing from the Commission's regulations to: Kenneth F. HycLroelec the Commission are invited to submit Plumb, Secretary, Federal Energy kson comments on the described application Regulatory Commission, 825 North for preliminary Counties, regon. T a applicati n is on permit, (A copy of the Capitol Street., NE., Washington, D.C. application be file with the Commission and is may obtained directly 20426. An additional copy must be sent available for public inspection. from the Applicant.) Comments should to Fred E. Springer, Chief, Applications Correspondence with the Applicant be confined to substantive issues Branch, Division of Hydropower should be directed to: Mr. David E. relevant to the issuance of a permit and Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Piper, Pacific Northwest Generating consistent with the purpose of a permit Commission, Room 20131, 400 First St., Company, 8383 N.E. Sandy Blvd., Suite as described in this notice. No other NW., Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy-of formal for 330, Portland, Oregon 97220. Any person request comments will be any notice of intent, competing made. who wishes to file a response to this If an agency does not file application, application. or petition to notice should read the entire notice and comments within the time set below, it intervene must also be served upon each must comply witlitho requirements will be presumed to have no comments. representative of the Applicant specified specified for the particular kind of Competing Applications-Anyone in the first paragranh of this notice. response that person wishes to file. desiring to file a competing application Kenneth F. Plumb, submit Project Description-The proposed must to the Commission, on or Secretary. before January 21, 1981, either the project would consist of: (a) the existing MI D.,_ @37185 VW 8:45 competing application itself Savage Rapids Concrete Dam or a notice BILUNG CODE 6450-85-M of to file a (combination gravity and multipI c arch intent competing application. Submission of a type), 456 real long and 39 feet high; (b) timely notice of intent allows the existing Savage Rapids Reservoir an interested person lo file the competing application with a surface area of 50 acres at no later than March 23, 1981. elevation 964 feet in.s.l.; (c) an int ake A notice of intent must structure within the north embankment conform with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.33(b) (c)(1980). of the dam; (it) a 500-foot long channeh and A competing applicati on conform and fe) a powerhouse Containing 2or must with the requirements of 18 CFR generating units with a total rated 4.33(a) and (d) [1980). capacity of between 7.5 and 10.0 11W. The Applicant estimates that the Carnments, PrOIOSIS, OF PelitiouB to average annual Intervene-Anyone desiring to be heard mil"lion energy output would be 35 kWh. or to make any protest about this application should file a petition to purpose of Pro]ect-Project energy intervene or a protest with the would be used to serve the needs of the Commission, in accordance with the Pacific Northwest Generating Company requirements of its Rules of and the Public Practice and Oregon Power Agency. § Procedure, la CFR 1.8 or § 1.10 (1980). proposed Scope of and Cost Studies Comments not in the nature of a protest has underPermit-Applicant requested may also be submitted by conforming to a 36-month preliminary § permit to the procedures specified in 1.10 for prepare a definitive project report protests. In determining the including appropriate preliminary designs and action to take, the Commission will results of environmnental and economic consider all protests or other comments feasibility studies. The of cost the above filed, but a person who merely files a activities, along with preparation of an protest or comments does not become a environmental impact obtaining report, party to the proceeding. To become a agreements with Federal, State and party, or to participate in my hearing, a local agencies. a preparing license person must file a petition to intervene application, conducting final field in accordance with the Commission's surveys and preparing designs is Rules. Any comments, protest, or estimated by the Applicant to be petition to intervene must be filed on or SMG(o. before January 21. 1981. Page: 6 this permit, or a similar one, be granted it is quite likely that the study, with an investment of $60,000 or more, would take two or three years. This could delay any plans to remove the dam even if the G.P.I.D. was having financial problems and was ready to terminate its operation. We are informed that the Water and Power Resources Service (Bureau of Reclamation) has already given attention to a possible power development and has determined that it does not appear feasible. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife De- partment plan to intervene in the current situation, Application for a Preliminary Permit. There are serious concerns that a power development and maintenance of the Rogue River fish runs may not be compatible.

Recreation

The principal recreational uses of the reservoir behind the dam are swimming and water skiing. These sports provide fun for a few but the noise and water disturbance is not appreciated by many. The reservoir area is narrow with an average width of about 210 feet, only 3-112 miles long, with a total acreage of about 90. Water skiing has resulted in several fatal accidents, many injuries, and one boat went over the dam resulting in a lawsuit. The area is too small for that use. As for public access, the District owns a brushy strip of land along the south side extending 1/4 mile upstream from the dam. A boat ramp and picnic area maintained by Jackson County Parks Department is located on the upper end of this stretch. This is the only public access for 3 miles, up to the town of Rogue River. The slack water is also used for fishing and pleasure boating.

It should be noted that there will be recreational gains if the dam is removed. It will make 3 miles of river bed available for fish spawning beds, provide stream fishing and running water for streamside property owners and reduce the contamination and occasional bad odors due to sewage and other wastes that get into the reservoir. It will also open up the stream for many additional miles to river rafters and power boat rides for tourists such as now go downstream from Grants Pass.

What to do with Savage Rapids Dam? The fishery agencies have considered three basic alternatives. 1. The dam be taken down -- "decommissioned" -- and an alternative water supply system provided with electric pumps for irrigation needs. Page: 7

2. Modifying the existing dam structure to provide needed fish passage improvements. This would include a new ladder at both north and south would sides and.additional screens. The cost be in the $10:000,000 range. 3. No action. A good deal of information on these 3 alternatives is given in Reference 3 (below). It is a frustrating situation --to the G.P.I.D. as noted in the quotes (above) from Reference 1, 1 (Reference --to the fishery agencies -- see news story No. 7), --to the Water and Power Resources Service (formerly Bureau of Reclamation) as noted in news story No. 2, (Reference 8). This agency controls the funds (federal) whatever course is chosen.

Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 would both take time, even if there were agreement and funds were Available. The hydropower investigation would also take several years. We are therefore faced with the reality that we must do with what we have for a while longer -- but that does not mean do nothing.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. It is generally conceded that the days of the G.P.I.D. are numbered. This,is mainly due to the decrease in farming operations and the rapid increase in urbanization now taking place in and around Grants Pass.

2. There will be increasing numbers of land owners that will withdraw from the District under the exclusion process, with resulting loss of funds. 3. The municipal water system will provide water to an increasing number of land owners. It is reported that discussions have been initiated relative to the formation of a new Water District that would embrace the County, cities and the Irrigation District. This would likely result in a pressurized system with properly screened water intakes. This effort should be encouraged.

4. The State agencies involved, the Water Resources Department and Department of Fish and Wildlife, should demonstrate their concern regarding the ser- iousness of the fishery losses occurring at the Dam, and of the water losses due to inefficient and wasteful use by

a) Informing the State and local officials, as well as the public at large, of the fishery losses ($2,000,000 annually) and of their responsibilities in managing these resources. Page: 8

b) Restating to the G.P.I.D., perhaps in a public hearing process, what laws apply and indicate where noncompliance has been and is now taking place. It should be stressed that a water right does not include a right to take fish. c) Encouraging the Water and Power Resources Service 1) to proceed as rapidly as possible in the feasibility study of dam removal and of an alternative method to obtain a water supply for agricultural use; 2) to obtain prompt authorization for furthering efforts to reduce the considerable fish losses that occur where the small tributary streams are intercepted by the canals. (Note: a few canal bypasses have been constructed.)

5. There seems to have been a complacent attitude at the State policy level that this rape of resources is inevitable so let's be quiet about it. (Our own organization, I.W.L.A. and the Oregon Wildlife Federation have also been quiet.) The improvements we seek could result not only in a greatly improved sports fishery but could make a significant contribution to the off-shore commercial fishery. With the huge $10,000,000 fish hatchery now in operation at the Lost Creek Dam site, not many miles upstream, it would seem that major investments to prevent fish losses at Savage Rapids Dam, including removal, are fully justified.

The Governor, Members of the Oregon Legislature and the Oregon Congressional Delegation should be informed of our concerns in this fish passage problem. Page: 9

References

1. History of Grants Pass Irrigation District--1975 (from the District office). 2. A Summary of the Anadromous Fish Problems at Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River-l(@72, by William E. Pitney, Oregon State Game Commission. 3. Special Report--"The Effects of Savage Rapids Dam and Associate Irrigation Distribution System on Anadromous Fish Resources"--prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service, sent to the Bureau of Reclamation, January,-1979. It had the concurrence of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4. Technical Memorandum on Fish Losses due to Fish Passage Through Screens-- October, 1979, by Steve Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service.

5. Anadromous Fish Passage Improvements--March, 1974, by the U. S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Reclamation. 6. Environmental Statement: Anadromous Fish Passage Improvements--April, 1978, Bureau of Reclamation. 7. News Story No. 1--"Dam may be torn down to aid Salmon"--Oregon Journal, October, 1978. 8. News Story No. 2--"What Do You Want to Do With Savage Rapids Dam?"--Grants Pass Courier, June 20, 1980. Dam be down may torn to aid almon

By PAULINIANLEY would solve the fish transit well as fisheries," he promoted a new stud ilo@ljsg could water be pumped river ari; Journal Staff Writer problem, but create new said.. "Our biologists de- for, Ahe water from the river for irriga- stored' behind ones. Where would farm. W1111am, Pitney, chief of termining what improve- the 'dam tlou?, State federal ers find replacement menLs should be made" to have changed since it was and agen. water environmental manage- "That's been suggest- Cies toying with for irrigation' Would de. ease fish - Smith built but. that doesn't are the meht for. the Oregon Fish passage, ed," Geiske noted, "but idea of molition of the dam said- change the fact that the tearing down Sav. cause. and Wildlife Department, with the power shortages age Rapids Dam on the more hazards.for fish than :water Is still needed in tho said the fish passage prob- a over $1 it be feasible. V6 had little valleyi!' Geiske; wouldn't Rogue River In Southwest. leaving it in'place? lern "has existed since the Wit Heary million to replace in manager Where would the electric- ern Oregon, Was built's un- of the Grants "It is a tremendous can dam In 1921, satisfactory north-side fish ity come from for tfie As an interim Pass'Irrigation. District measure, of worms to decide what' while Steve Smith, biolo modl- )'k ladder and for other SayAgii Rap- Pumps' they're hoping to improve to do," admitted Jack gist for the National Ma- which, owns fications. The low bid Robert. Barbo,@ chief of fish passage around and Kincheloe, field supervisor r1rie Fisheries Service, said Ids. Came in at $2,7 Million. the Bureau of Reclama. over the dam for salmon in U.S. Fish & Wildlife' become, Acres the the. problem - has Roughly 10,000 . . Salem@fleld branch, a ' "We will to redesign don's spawned at hatchery that Portland office.. -,rare acute since the Cole try are Irrigated by water 52 it and bring the cost down.. agrees with Geiske the, was built years after "If the dam is'romoved, Rivers fish hatchery was from the reservoir ." if the bid Is high "the need for the water the dam. The savings in some other way would built upstream from the too again, mostly hops, bay and corn, hasn't gone away." fish $2 million. dam', we'll try for alternative 1. may exceed have to be found to, supply near the Jackson- pastures a Lnd It also passage improvements" Barbo's agency controls Weighing the prospects thei area's needs for water, Josephine County line. seeps Into , the, ground 'and' the funds to be spent for for "decommissioning" the The local residents are not '..Congress some time @or the longer replenishes the ground W4-@ term, any remodeling of fish pas- dam, as it's terined In 6 eager to'give up a source ago" authorized federal' Smith said,' ter,". Gelske pointed out. the fisheries sage or for.decommission- reaucratic memos, are the of low-cost and funds to..bulld now fish like In- water agencies would to If' Ing dam, if U.S. Bureau of Reclama- the dam goes down, the that's the have to build a new one at passage facilities, as an In. stall a new south fish lad- tion, U.S. Fish & Wildlife higher cost." terlin measure," Kincheloe der as well, and make al- final decision. Service, Oregon Depart- The related. "A study showed "Decommissioning, like. present concern, terations , that would. ment of Fish and Wildlife, Kincheloe stressed, centers- the project would pay for smooth the downstream any other federal project, National Marine Fisheries more on economic aspects Itself In eight to 10 years, trip for smolts fresh from, would requir.le 'federal au- Service and - somewhat of the salmon and steel- even If ItVas decided later the hatchery. ti,orization and congres- reluctantly " the Grants head run.than or, envlron- to remove the dam.'!- sional funding," Barbo ' At present, Smith said, Pass Irrigation District, menial damage. .. However, be said, wheat printed out. apparently all the batch. which built and owns the "Economics Involved In the project was put up for Kincheloe feels the con- 32-foot-high structure, the fish losses are fantg- bids, all bids exceeded the ery-released smelts are washed over the dam, gnd Eroversy over Savage Rap- Tearing down the dam tic, for offshore (ocean)'as available money. -That he fears many.are lost Ids may be a forerunner of when they strike concrete similar, debates over the at the base. continuing usefulness of. other Northwest dam and ,,We don't;know,how will be taken into account 0 0 M many :E survive.'! he. said. when new. dams &re pro- 0 La lV) "Once we have that data, posed. U 0 we can decide whether to "It makes planning dif. remodel the dam or take It ficult and out.,. more expen- 0 sive," he observed. "The 0 "'We used to estimate answers are no longer so fish losses at $I'million 4 simple!, co W :re year," Smith continued. "Now the value of the fish has gone up and the losses may be more than S2 mil- Wh, at Do You Wantlo Do

Wilh Savage Rapids Dam?

I By PAUL FATTIG passage problem and the The report found that some Of the Courier Staff Irrigation system under the ithe 160 miles of irrigation If local residents want to be jurisdiction of the Grants Pass canals have seepage problems 3ble to decide what will be Irrigation District. - and that. some of the older ione with Savage Rapids Barbo said the report structures'had deteriorated. showed the agency Dam i now is the tim for them that has Some of the options NEWS a - REPORT #2 in :ostepforward, , three options, including discussed the report include of 'maintaining Bob Barbo, a planner from rehabilitation the dam, the status quo -be Salem office of the federal replacing it with a electrical and preparing the canals on a. Grants Pass Courier Vlater and Power Resources power facility or "live. with it piecemeal basis or installing June 20, 1980 3ervice (formerly Bureau of. thewayMs." underground pipes to replace told - "If everything. clicks it some of the canals. Service leclamation), members !may )f the Josephine County Water could result in a federal also be dropped in the .1esources Board this morning. project," Barbo told the Imore unefficient".areas.the board, adding that. some report suggested. .. that th e agency was looking construction work has been Price tags quoted include . done on the However, he for guidance. T I dam. $1.4 million for ; . partial , "if you get all the local cautionedthatthereportisnot rehabilitation of major canals, people@ pulling together then thefinalword' $8.5 million for full , you have a better chance of .Hopefully, it will provide a rehabilitation of major canals, getting to the ear of basis for local people to tell us $5.3 million for rehabilitation Congress," Barbo said. "But what might be done to meet of minor late'rali, or $28-7 we need to know just wbaiyou the local needs," he said. million for replacement of . think is appropriate. This is If the dam, built in 1921, is minor laterals with a pressure the time for you to say what rehabilitated, then the agency pipe system. would in- is you want done with the dam."' help with the , The state's role to first ]provide Buthewarnedthatitwa4up stallation of a bulkhe -ad and a feasibility study, to local iesidents-.1- including new fish The then either' help obtain a . screens. government bodies and bulkhead was to be installed federal loan for the projects or but delayed. this spring was help construct the @ im- laynien alike to Sell their *'There needs-to be a new provements, Barbo said.. proposal to Congress.- bulkhead so they can shut off Bill Haight fish W!o1ogist for Barbo attended the meeting the water without having to the Fish and Wildlife to give a of the drain the reservior," Barbo Department, said the annual report recent delayed study of the-dam, a feasibility said. adding that the fish loss from the dam is report which was required by bulkhead should be installed estimated at three millon. this fall- had asked Congress before any, money The department the buiW could be allotted for a water The district drained for bids to a new fish. project. reservior last week after a passageway several years screen into. the The agency began the study -faulty fish fell ago, estimating that it would on the dam In 1971 to see what river. "That will happen as cost'around $1-million. Haight could be done with the fish soon is Congress approves of. said that project was dropped, the project,"' he said of the when the low bid of $2.7 for .$100,000 sup-7 request . milflonwasreceived. plemental appropriattom Haight Said the fish loss was ;C It will take from eight to ten less xnan it was in early years. months to manufacture the "But we're still not realizing screens once they are ordered, the total fish benefits," be Barbosaid. . ' a Mide .. . .. The secondhand screens are "Savage Rapids is 'probably not large enough to withstand i . the most cr ifical problem the velocity of the Rogne i than low streamflows River, he said. other in the entire Rogue Basin,"- The completed last report, Haight said. fall, also calls for :'Although the board did not rehabilitation of the irrigation take action on the report, system. The Grants Pass any member Wally Pollard was Irrigation Disfrict was ' organized in 1916 to serve againstremovingthedam.. for would like to see some 18,000 acres of farmland "I I one. @i the dam stay in place." It now serves about 7.4 Pollard said, citing the need acres.