Wendy McDermott
Resource Management Graduate Student
Central Washington University
May 24, 2011
Case-study approach provides for lessons-learned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Effective science and well-informed public policy are the avenues
to successful management of environmental resources.”
~ William Graf (1992)
“Through documentation and analyses of case studies we can be
guided by the light of science rather than curse the darkness in
which we must make projections.”
~ Bruce Babbitt (2002)
 Problem







~80,000 dams in the U.S.
Disrupts natural flow regime
Fragments ecosystems
Block migrating fish passage
Social displacement, migration
and resettlement
New Era of River Mgmt
 Convergence of a number of
economic, social, and
environmental factors
Reflected in changing policies
to re-create more natural
ecosystems and to conserve
natural & cultural resources
Source: National Inventory of Dams, 2010

Environmental and Social Concerns

Age, Functional Status

Economics & Cost-benefit Analyses
 Marginal Benefits from Continued Operations
 FERC Relicensing Process

Hazard & Safety Ratings

Changes in Public Opinion

~ 13,350 km² (5,156 mi²)

Five Subbasins:






Applegate,
Illinois
Lower Rogue
Middle Rogue
Upper Rogue
Over 80 dams in the Basin
Gold Ray Dam
Grants Pass
Medford
Savage Rapids Dam
Ashland

346 km (~215 mi) in length

Originates at Boundary Springs in
Crater Lake National Park

Premier salmon & steelhead fishery,
whitewater rafting, and rugged
scenery

One of original 8 rivers named in
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
Middle Rogue
Upper Rogue
Lower Rogue
Agricultural Industry:
 2500 directly
employed
 9000 indirectly
 $141 million in
crop & livestock sales
 pears, wine grapes,
alfalfa, corn
(Climate Leadership Initiative, 2008)
Fisheries
 $1.4 million commercial fishing
 $16 million sport fishing
 $1.5 billion non-use values
Recreation/Tourism
 $30 million in economic output
 445 full- and part-time jobs
(ECONorthwest, 2009)
Gold Ray Dam
Grants Pass
Medford
Savage Rapids Dam
Ashland

Built in 1921 by Grants Pass
Irrigation District (GPID)

39’ high, 465’ long

Combination gravity &
multiple arch dam

Irrigation

Grants Pass Irrigation District

GPID water right for 203 cfs

Removed in October 2009
Photos courtesy of Josephine County Hx Society

Built in 1904 by Ray Brothers
to power Braden Mine

Originally log crib style

Replaced with concrete in 1941
by CA-OR Power Company

35’ high, 394’ long

Hydropower

Closed in 1972 by Pacific Power,
deeded to Jackson County

Removed Summer 2010
Photos courtesy of Jackson County
Source: Lowry (2003)
POLITICAL RECEPTIVITY

Interactions btwn Coalitions
Reflect Political Receptivity
PHYSICAL COMPLEXITY

 Not # of actors, but diversity of
their viewpoint
 Is there agreement?
 Identify primary stakeholders
 What percent in favor of removal?

Decision-making Venue
 Level of decision-making
 Points of Access


Dimensionality –
(Decision Points along the way)
Costs of Maintaining Status Quo
 Unidimensional – less layers of
government
 Multidimensional – more layers
Scientific Info on Potential
Benefits Widely Embraced
 Scope of Undertaking
 Which Alternative costs more?

Scale – Political Jurisdictions
 Broad-based scientific consensus
 Size of dam, miles of river to be
restored, etc.

Reviewed NEPA documents & tech reports
 Gained initial understanding of issues at hand

Six weeks in the Rogue Basin!
 Visited Southern Oregon Hx Society & Josephine Cnty Hx Society
 Collected and reviewed newspaper articles & LTEs
 Conducted interviews with key informants

Read Public Hearing Transcripts & Public Comment
from NEPA planning processes
 Created database, tallied for or against removal
 Analyzed content to identify major themes

Built 1921 - lacked safe passage for fish

1929 – GPID granted water right for 230 cfs to
irrigate ~18,000 acres
 Never reached that amount of irrigated lands

1982 –GPID reports only 7,738 acres under irrigation



State of Oregon reduces water right to 97 cfs
1987 – GPID applies for additional 90 cfs
1988 – 1990 - NGOs protest water rights application

Settlement instructed GPID to study water conservation
practices & investigate fish passage option including removal
1994 – GPID issues plan to resolve fish passage issues
through dam removal

 Replace dam with pumping system

1995 – BOR releases Planning Report/Final EIS
 Preferred Alternative: Dam Removal/Pumping Facility
 Dam Retention Alternative
 No Action Alternative
BUT....
 Months later, new GPID Board reneges on removal,
launches statewide lobbying campaign!
 And…Senator Brady from Grants Pass became Pres of
State Senate – “Saving” dam becomes state priority!

For the next DECADE –
 Political and legal campaign rages forward
 Driven by “Save the Dam” contingency and Dam Removal Advocates
 State & Local level, U.S. Congress, Dept of Interior, and federal courts

1997 – Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho
 Protected under the ESA as THREATENED

2001 – Settlement of federal & state litigation
 Required GPID to remove the dam

2006 – Funding in place, engineering & environmental
analyses complete, contracts awarded,
construction begins

2009 – Dam completely removed

2009 – Oregon Statewide Fish Passage Priority List
 Gold Ray Dam = FIFTH greatest barrier to fish passage
 Existing fish ladder does not meet passage standards
2009 – Jackson County receives NOAA Coastal &
Marine Habitat Restoration Grant

 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Feb, 2010 – Draft EA issues
 Dam Removal Alternative (preferred)
 Dam/Fish Ladder Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Alternative
 No Action Alternative
May 5, 2010 – Jackson County BOC unanimous vote
to remove the dam

 Order No. 80-10 – directs staff to take necessary steps

June 2010 – EA clearance version – for Removal

May 24 to July 28, 2010
 Appeal to OR Land Use Board of Appeals
 Appeal to Jackson County Hearings Officer
 Cases dismissed/denied – Order No. 80-10 not a land use decision
 U.S. District Court (OR District) over due process.
 Appellants didn’t have a case.

Removal continues, completed Oct 2010
Source: Lowry (2003)
Political Coalition/ DecisionMaking
Receptivity to
Venue
Change
Costs of
Maintaining
Status Quo
High &
Significant
Scientific
Consensus
on Benefits
of Change
Low/
Moderate
High
High
High/Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Tolerant to
Change
SRD
Low/
Moderate
GRD
High
SRD = Savage Rapids Dam; GRD = Gold Ray Dam
Physical
Complexity
(jurisdictions;
decision points)

Fundamental changes have occurred
 but Savage Rapids much more slowly than Gold Ray

WHY?
 Conditions were different
 Savage Rapids wasn’t always Fundamental; reflected Disjointed
Changes for a long time
 Gold Ray had more pro-change variables in place

Lowry’s Framework
 A way to categorize the process
Questions?
Courtesy of Josephine County Historical Society