Project Update
Sodom Dam Fish Passage Improvement and Flow Management Project 

Landowner Meeting Comments 
May 20, 2009 	3 pm to 5 pm
Pioneer Villa, Halsey, OR

Prepared by: Denise Hoffert-Hay, Project Manager
Prepared for: Project area landowners and Tech Team members, May 2009
Questions?  Please call or email Denise at: (541) 619-5896 or hofferthay@peak.org

In attendance:
Bud Baumgartner, Calapooia Watershed Council, Co-chair	Mark Running, Calapooia Watershed Council Co-chair	
Denise Hoffert-Hay, Calapooia Watershed Council, Project Manager	Tara Putney, Calapooia Watershed Council, Coordinator	
Scott Wright, River Design Group	Julie Whalen, OR Parks and Recreation Department	
Dennis Wiley, OR Parks and Recreation Department	Peter Jensen, Landowner	
Theresa Buckley, Landowner	Telly Wirth, Landowner	
George Pugh, Landowner	Dave Goracke, Landowner	
Brian Glaser, Landowner	Monte Lewis, Landowner	
Jerry Skiles, Landowner	John Matlock, Landowner	
Gary Gregory, Landowner		

Meeting began at 3:05 pm with introductions.

Presentation from Scott Wright, River Design Group (RDG).  Scott’s PowerPoint presentation is available to view on the Council’s website: http://www.calapooia.org

RDG’s presentation focused on the results of the geomorphic study of the Calapooia River and briefly discussed conditions in the Sodom channel.  Scott also provided an overview of dam removal in Oregon to put this project into regional context.  Many dams are currently or have been recently slated for removal due to aging structure that no longer provides a useful purpose.  Many have been removed to improve fish passage, though that is not typically the sole rationale.  Increased liability, aging structure and cost of repairs or re-building to comply with current fish passage regulations also have typically influenced removal decisions.  

Scott provided an overview of the conditions in each of the four Calapooia River reaches.  He also provided an overview of the 5 management alternatives for the system.  

The five management alternatives presented at the meeting include:
1.	Interim Action
a.	Implement fish passage (interim) improvements at all dams
b.	Develop plan for replacement of deteriorated structures
c.	Maintain bifurcation point with annual sediment and large wood removal
d.	Invoke flow management policy (as developed by Tech Team in 2003-04)

(Background on this option:  In 2003-04, Inter-fluve worked with the Council and the Tech Team on site alternatives.  During this process, they identified some interim actions that could be undertaken by the property owner to improve fish passage conditions at the Sodom Dam and at the Mill in the interim while a longer term management plan was under development.  This Option 1 is to remind the group of these interim actions and to bring them forward for implementation since construction of a preferred long-term solution is likely several years away.  The typical project would also examine the “Do Nothing” alternative, however with this project, doing “nothing” is not an option.  FERC, ESA, sediment and water management issues have all reached critical mass.  Continuing with status quo is not an option with this project.  In addition, this site is not a “do nothing” site, even if the project were to attempt to maintain status quo, doing so requires some action from the dam/Mills owner (State Parks).  

2.	Fish Passage
a.	Install new fish ladders that meet current criteria.
b.	Develop specific flow regime and adaptive management plan.
c.	Increase capacity of Calapooia to ensure water delivery for fish passage and water rights holders.
3.	Restore Calapooia as Mainstem
a.	Excavate or initiate natural river processes to reclaim channel
b.	Relocate existing homes or realign mainstem
c.	Upgrade bridges
4.	Sodom Ditch as Mainstem
a.	Remove dam and establish grade control – natural channel
b.	Add habitat features to Sodom Ditch, upgrade bridges
5.	Variable Flow Management
a.	Incrementally transition Sodom Ditch flows to Calapooia
b.	Install fish passage facilities at Shear and Spillway Dams

Meeting participants were then asked to participate in a round table discussion on the project. Denise Hoffert-Hay, Council Project Manager provided facilitation.  Discussion began with Alternative 1 questions and comments, but it was clear from the group that the format used for the Technical Team meeting did not well suit this group.  Instead of having an organized discussion for each alternative, we switched to a format of open forum discussion so that people could discuss the issues important to them.

Landowners expressed the following concern repeatedly:  Water management during winter high flow events is the tantamount concern.  Drainage is critical.  Management of flows through the Thompson’s Mills needs to change to allow more water to pass through the Mills during high flow events.

Questions raised for Alternative 1 included the following:

-	What is the priority for this project?  Is it water management or is it fish?  State water needs?  Water rights?  Priority for the project not in the alternatives.
-	How does the Thompson’s Mills dam affect flooding?
-	What are agency priorities?  Will they rank them, then look at the alternatives?
-	What is the project’s agenda?  The Mill’s impacts need to be explored.  What Parks does causes floods.
-	What are the goals?  What are the agency goals?  The landowners want drainage, that is our goal and Thompson’s Mills is the problem.
-	Problems on Calapooia, Walton Slough, are all from effects of Thompson’s Mills.
-	Thompson’s Mills dam has big impacts on what happens for flooding.
-	Alternative 1 only looks at fish passage and is a short-term solution to the problem.

General Discussion Comments

-	Use the hydraulic modeling to show impacts of flooding.
-	Can the agency staff support eliminating one channel or the other?
How will any alternative impact drainage?
-	If the Mills go off-line, can Shear, Spillway and Thompson’s Mills dams be removed?  Can the hydraulic model show what the system looks like without those structures?
-	What does the Calapooia system look like without dams or Mills influence?
-	There will be PROBLEMS if you try to put all the water in one channel or the other.
-	If there is grade control installed at Sodom, what happens when the channel floods?
-	Sediment deposition at the bifurcation is perpetual maintenance of wood and gravels.  How can this be addressed?
-	Summer low flows do not support fish passage in both channels.  Any structure at the split would have to be very carefully maintained.
-	Is RDG interested in moving toward dam removal (since the presentation focused on that topic for the first 15 minutes).  Response: No, RDG is not interested in influencing the project one direction or another, but recognizes that dam removal is one of the potential solutions.
-	What is the capacity of the I-5 and County bridges?
-	Soils in the Sodom – can they handle increased flows?  Sodom farmed to the edge, well, that is because it was historically farmland.  
-	This is a human-made problem.  Sodom soils may unravel and cause increased flooding, in the 30 or so year timeframe. 
-	Sodom was historically the overflow channel.  What would the Sodom meander belt look like?  
-	Sodom’s lack of meandering may be attributed to historic channel clearing, gravel extraction that took place upstream, berms and rip-rap that maintain the current configuration.
-	Calapooia channel is longer than the Sodom, lower slope and less energy.  Gravel deposition and erosion will occur, but less of it perhaps than in Sodom.
-	If no action is taken, the Calapooia channel will become a slough, there is no transport of water, it is a wetland. 
-	Flooding will be worse if the current rate of deposition continues to occur in Reach 4.  
-	What are the downstream impacts of increased flows in the Sodom channel?  (Below the confluence with Butte Creek?)

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.

____________________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN COMMENTS

The following comments were provided in writing.  They are organized by Alternative.  

Written Comments on Alternative 1:  Interim Action
Landowner - Immediate action needs to be taken if the structures are in threat of collapse.   If there is no immediate threat then the resources needed for the interim action should be used for a permanent solution.
Landowner – Short term fish passage.  Develop dam replacement.  Invoke flow management.
Landowner – I think we are not going to be able to walk away from this action, a continued simplified management has to happen.  Develop a plan a temporary action to remove some gravel and logs from the point of bifurcation.

Written Comments on Alternative 2: Fish Passage 
No Comments

Written Comments on Alternative 3:  Calapooia Channel Restored 
Landowner – Yes.
Landowner – Restore channel.  Remove shear dam.  Water rights.
Landowner – Improve flows some in Calapooia River in combination with Alternative 4.

Written Comments on Alternative 4:  Restore Sodom Channel
Landowner – The flow will continue to increase in Sodom unless restricted.  Let it be the main channel, so I think we have to arrive at a combination of 1, 3 and 4.
Landowner – Needed more explanation and discussion.  I think it will drop off the table and I regret that.  It may become the de facto approach if the River silts in more and there is not enough money to excavate the River.
Landowner -  If this is used, will you cause the Sodom to meander?  How would this affect landowners?

Written Comments on Alternative 5:  Variable Flow Control
Landowner – Yes.
Landowner – Manage flow distribution to get flow to Calapooia branch.  Upgrade fish passage install fish passage at Shear, Spillway Dams.
Landowner - I believe 5 to be the universal solution and that all available resources should be directed towards that end rather than pursuing courses that are not passable.
The reasons for my conclusion are
1.	 The landowners will not lose water rights and houses.
2.	There will not be greater flooding to either drainage.
3.	There will not be a loss of wildlife habitat.  Endangered western pond turtles.
4.	Excavations near the Calapooia Indian mounds will be avoided.
5.	There will not be a need to change the highway infrastructure.
My experience working with Wildlife and Cultural resource agency and their power base leads me to the conclusion that the work needed to accomplish either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 will meet impassable obstacles.

Next Steps

We are working to schedule a joint Landowner/Technical Team meeting for early to mid-August.  The purpose of this meeting will be to get the agency staff and landowners together to talk about project concerns and have more discussion around each of the alternatives.  Additionally, more discussion needs to take place around the topic of project implementation and future site management.  A detailed agenda will be available later in the summer.  

The Council has funding for the hydraulic modeling phase of the project that will provide water levels under the different alternatives.  Knowing the water levels and having the detailed topographic information makes it possible for the project engineers to provide a very visual representation of various water levels (flood stages, summer low flows, etc) for each of the scenarios.  We expect to have this information ready to share by late October 2009.