IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the SRBWC for Destroying the Habitat below Marmot Dam. Why do you think PGE has been spending 2 years studying the silt depths in all of the lower river ? From Marmot to the mouth. Perhaps to limit the liability for damage when the dam comes down. You thought mainstem spawning was low the last 10 years ? Standby as the enviro whacos and the Sandy River landowners get their way. With no fish in the Sandy (landowners plan ) crowds trying to use "their " beaches will be greatly reduced.
All past exstensive studies have shown that the Marmot and River Mill Dam complexes have very little if any effect on Salmonid Migration.
Don't believe ME. Yeah I have nothing better to do but feed you BS.....Call the PGE bios and ask for the studies.... I doubt ODF&W will admit they exhist Good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
ssteelheadsteve,

So it is you expert opinion that Dams are good for Salmon & Steelhead? I somehow doubt that the long term effects of removing Marmot will be a total extinction of Salmoniods from the Sandy River.

I am not an "Enviro-Wacko" but I do believe that we should remove those Dams which no longer make sense to keep. Remember PGE chose to end its Hydro program on the Sandy, ODF&W was using Marmot as a barrier to hatchery fish.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
I am glad to hear that the dam is being removed, I think? I'm definitely no expert, but I know a little about the dams effects on Salmonids. I believe that ssteelheadsteve is correct in part, from what I understand Rivermill and Marmot don't hinder adults TOO much, though there is a reason as to why you can go to Rivermill and see hundreds of salmon stacked up there, trying to find their way through that little slot definitely slows them down.

I always thought the problem was with the smolts and their migration down river. The current helps the smolts in their migration downstream, recognition so they can find their way back, etc. As well as keeping predation of smolts down. Now rivers that once flowed freely and allowed a much easier (but still difficult) migration for smolts have man made lakes in them with no current and little help to the smolts against predation, time spent in the river, etc. Not to mention making it THROUGH the dam, which we all know also takes it's share of smolts.

Here's the deal. The Clackamas is a perfect river to see the effects of dams, because dams are the only variable. I get so angry when my father and I drive the upper Clackamas and I get to HEAR about 20 fish days that he had 20 years ago. Now there is nothing up there. What changed? Dams were put in and as a result, numbers of fish dropped. I would like to thank those who decided to put in those dams and steal miles of great water from my generation.

But we can't go back in time, though I would like to and try to stop them from putting in the dams. Now we have the silt problem, and maybe it will be catastrophic, but what else is there. Someone needs to try something.

ssteelheadsteve- maybe the PGE bios do have a different view in the effects of the dams, could it be that the are PGE bios? I've been trying to find an alterior motive behind ODFW and their assessment of the situation, and can't seem to find one. I have a few friends that work with ODFW, and all I've ever heard them talk about is what is best for the fish. On the other hand, it's easy for me to find and alterior motive for the results the PGE bios have. Money. Dams make money and kill fish. PGE wants money and needs someone to say that dams don't kill fish.

Waterfish- thanks for the post and keeping us all updated on whats going on.

SH22
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
First, a disclaimer: I am not connected in any way to PEG or SRBWC. I do live near Marmot dam, and that's how I found out about the upcoming public meeting there. I don't know enough about the science about this to have much of an opinion, however I know that dams in general are not good for salmonoids, and if Marmot dam isn't producing significant power, at first glance it seems like a good idea to remove it. I don't know about the sediment issue, so maybe those questions can be asked at the meeting Saturday. Steelhead 22, I don't think that the dams on the Clackamas have much to do with why the fishing upriver is not as good now as it was 20 years ago. They didn't just put in those dams; Rivermill Dam has been there since 1911, and Cazedaro Dam may even be older.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
I believe....

Portland does wants to creat another reservior but much higher on the Bull Run. They want to place it above the two existing dams.

Portland pushed to remove Marmot because it was cheaper to remove the Marmot and Little Sandy Dams than to meet ESA needs on the Bull Run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
My thoughts about the real reason they want to remove the Marmot dam is that the city of Portland wants to create another resevoir to keep up with the growing population and the best way to do this is to build another dam on the Bull Run river just above the power house but in order to do this they need to block the under ground tunnel from the Sandy river to the Little Sandy thus no need for the Marmot dam.
This is just a theory but it makes sense to me.

[ 08-14-2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Boatramp ]
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top