Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Hyrdro Dam proposed on S. Fork Skykomish

7K views 78 replies 23 participants last post by  Checkthisout 
#1 ·
This may be old news but it was new to news to me.

Snohomish PUD has proposed placement of a hydroelectric dam on the South Fork of the Skykomish River near Sunset Falls. If you have ever traveled along Highway 2 or fished the upper Sky you know what a travesty damming this section of the river would be. According to estimates this dam would add about 1% to SnoPUDs total capacity. We already have too many dams and wind factories in this state. We should focus on energy conservation or sell a little less to California before we dam another river.

Please sign the petition here and share this with your fishing buddies.

Direct link to the petition

http://www.change.org/petitions/toni-olson-abandon-the-skykomish-river-sunset-falls-hydro-project

From the web site of the conservation group fighting this proposal

http://www.savetheskyriver.org/

In Sept., 2011, Snohomish County Public Utility District submitted a preliminary permit application (FERC P-14295) to build a large scale hydroelectric project near Sunset Falls on the South Fork of The Skykomish River. The proposed project is directly below the popular trails leading to Lake Serene and Bridal Veil Falls. A proposed low head dam would divert water from the river above Sunset Falls. The proposed project is in conflict with with the Washington State Renewable Energy Standards and voter approved 1-937 mandates which exclude new fresh water dams from renewable energy credits.
 
#38 ·
We don't own earth we belong to it.
 
This post has been deleted
#52 ·
I am not anti-dam but I am anti stupid & wasteful government spending. Yes we need power and there is no such thing as "green energy" unless you're a plant who can photosynthesize. All energy production has trade offs; dams are bad for anadromous fish; wind factories use up massive amounts of land affecting animals like elk and bats; coal burning produces sulfurdioxide; and nuclear based production produces radioactive waste. I accept that we need power sources and agree we will need to increase capacity over time but we need to be smart about it and I don't see this as a smart project.

The problem I have with this particular project is the economics are completely upside down (see below) and because of this I don't see how we can justify building it (and messing up what is currently a wild and scenic river in the process). By the accounts from SnoPUD they are spending 175 million dollars to benefit a base of about 11,000 households. This new dam would increase SnoPUDs power capacity by about 1%. An independent study (albeit it could be somewhat biased because the opposition commissioned it) estimates the power generated will come at a cost 5 times higher than what could be bought on the open market. It also estimate that the break even point for paying off the cost of construction with added capacity is 100 years. A 1% gain in capacity could be made up by improving existing power generation (like Snoqualmie Falls) and distribution sources (improve the grid) & conservation alone (switching to LED lighting).

The reason the Elwha dams were torn down is because they a)generated minimal hydro power and b) blocked a river that had supported anadromus fish runs for tens of thousands of years before impoundment. Tearing the Elwha dams down opened up some 30+miles of spawning habitat that was previously blocked.

Arguing that the dams will make the river fish better or is the only way to fund the fish ladder are utter BS. Why not just argue for more fish hatcheries on the lower riverif the objective is to catch more fish? That fish ladder is an unnatural passage that shouldn't be there. All it did was trade one fishery (native bull trout, cutthroat, and rainbows) for an artificial fishery (even if they are wild fish). There is a reason Trout Unlimited, Save our Salmon, Native Fish Society, almost every tribe in the state, NOAA Fisheries, and dozens of other pro-fishery stake holders are opposed to this project.

http://www.savetheskyriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sunset-Falls-Synopsis-Final.pdf

A new economic study of the controversial Sunset Falls Dam on Washington's South Fork of the Skykomish River, reveals the power generated at the proposed site would actually cost 2.3 times more than the Snohomish County Public Utility District (SnoPUD) estimates. Rocky Mountain Econometrics (RME), an economic, business and energy consulting firm in Boise, Idaho, evaluated the proposed dam using SnoPUD's own data and, contrary to SnoPUD claims, concludes that the proposed dam would:
 Not be price competitive with better renewable power alternatives
 Not complement renewables such as wind and solar generation
 Not provide reliable power
 Not fit SnoPUD's power needs, and
 Not provide power for ratepayer homes when it is needed

SnoPUD maintains that the Sunset Falls dam would have an assumed cost of power of $72.50 Megawatt hours (MWh) and an annual revenue requirement of $8,982.750. The RME report finds that adding in project related costs of financing, operations and maintenance, the proposed dam's actual cost of power would be much higher at $166 MWh, with a revenue requirement of nearly $21 million. This does not include the cost of aesthetic, recreation and natural resource losses.

The South Fork drops over a series of three waterfalls, each with one of the most dramatic backdrops in the nation, framing Mt. Index and the North Cascade Mountains. Two of these dramatic waterfalls, the 40 foot Canyon Falls and the 104 foot Sunset Falls, would be reduced to a trickle by the Sunset Falls dam. The threat from this project to fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity, recreation, the aesthetic values of one of Washington's most impressive rivers, and the character of the river community spurred American Rivers to name the South Fork one of America's Most Endangered Rivers in 2012.

"This study is another nail in the coffin for the Sunset Falls Dam. The math on this project just doesn't add up. SnoPUD should abandon its plans to dam the South Fork Skykomish and instead pursue more suitable energy options," said Michael Garrity, Washington State Conservation Director for American Rivers.
"SnoPUD ratepayers would take a big hit if SnoPUD builds this expensive, unprofitable and environmentally harmful dam," said Andrea Matzke of Washington Wild Rivers. "Local property owners would lose even more."

The RME report also finds that the proposed dam will not fit the power needs of SnoPUD customers as the dam would only generate at capacity in the spring, when the power is not needed. When demand is high in the winter, the dam would operate far below capacity, and in the summer, the second highest demand period, the dam would shut down completely from mid-July to mid-October. RME finds that during low-water years, the dam would operate at as little as 31% of its capacity.
"For decades a dam on the South Fork Sky has been recognized as an environmental, aesthetic and recreational disaster," said Rich Bowers with the Hydropower Reform Coalition. "Now this report shows it will be an economic nightmare as well."
The South Fork Skykomish is a State Scenic Waterway, a Northwest Power and Conservation Council Protected Area, and is recommended for federal designation as a Wild and Scenic River for its remarkable scenic, recreational, fish, and wildlife values.
The next step in the process is for SnoPUD to conduct additional studies on the impacts of the proposed dam. Once completed, SnoPUD will then apply for a federal license, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will make the final determination regarding that application.

Sunset Falls has been studied for a new dam at least five times over the past one hundred years (including attempts by SnoPUD in 1981 and 1991). In each instance, poor economics and unacceptable impacts to migrating salmon and steelhead, and natural, recreational and scenic resources have kept this river segment from being developed.

"The South Fork Sky is just the wrong place for a dam," said Thomas O'Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director for American Whitewater. "In addition to the loss of two magnificent waterfalls, the river is an outstanding aesthetic and recreational resource, one of only four Scenic Rivers designated for protection by the Washington State Legislature."

RME produced the Sunset Falls report on behalf of Hydropower Reform Coalition members Alpine Lakes Protection Society, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Conservation Northwest, North Cascades Conservation Council, The Mountaineers, the Washington State Chapter of Sierra Club, Washington Wild, and Washington Wild Rivers. The Coalition exists to improve and restore rivers affected by hydropower dams.
 
#51 ·
Without the fish trap revamp included in the proposal where is the state going to dig up the money to fix it? Without upgrading that relic I'm afraid the future of the anadromous trucking program is in jeopardy. That's a big loss for spawning habitat to all those coho and pinks they truck. Without the salmon the native species suffer above the falls and downriver angling opportunity is lost.

Almost 50,000 pinks trucked up there now, figure another 20k plus coho on the way. That's a lot of river nutrients and miles of quality spawning habitat lost. I don't understand all the details of the construction but if competent fisheries biologists aren't opposed I'll take their word for it.

Dam is an evil word but without the hype there are arguments in both directions. We will see what happens I suppose.
 
#54 ·
If god wanted anadromous fish in the upper Sky he shouldn't have put in the waterfalls.;)

I'll admit I've enjoyed catching summer run steelhead on southfork but it is an unatural fishery based on 1950's fisheries management practices. The 50,000 pinks belong in the lower river. We have no idea how trucking these fish beyond their natural spawning grounds has impacted the lower river species or resident upper river native fish (cutts, rainbows, bulls, whitefish etc). Maybe we just need to let the fish ladder die and stop the trucking program.
 
This post has been deleted
#56 ·
Yes the hypocritical nature of our society, everyone wants the luxuries but they do not want to pay for them. Where do you think power comes from Einstein? If you don't like it how about turning off all the power in your house? I am sure that after a day with no power you'll be ready piss on the salmon.
No one here is anti hydro-power, we all have to live in the 21st century, but we can question and oppose ill-conceived projects .

Since you can't formulate an intelligent argument to support the dam you've just resorted to name calling, nice. Looking at your post count and the negative nature of the 7 posts you've made I can't see you lasting too long here. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
 
This post has been deleted
This post has been deleted
#59 ·
More uniformed nonsense. Indian nets did not put almost every Columbia River salmon and steelhead run on the endangered species list, dams did.

The Bonneville Power Administration and other hydro agencies are not spending billions, BILLIONS of dollars on fish passage, barging smolt downstream, hatcheries, etc because of Indian nets. Stop spewing this crap.

Right now the tribes are mostly on our side. Many tribes like the Stilliguamish, Tulalip, Snoqualmie. Yakamas, and Colvilles are actually putting millions of dollars into fisheries because they have a long term stake in the runs returning.
 
#61 ·
Scott I admire your passion, I appreciate when good people get fired up about things they care about. But I must say some of your references are apples to oranges. Sunset falls is unique and is nothing like the elwha, or any dam on the Columbia or Snake river. Not comparable, so jumbling in the sunset falls proposal with them is an unfair comparison. Obviously dams are not good we can all agree. Some are worse than others and some could be catastrophic. Which one is sunset falls?

I'm pretty neutral on the issue. I can see two viewpoints and both carry merit. And as much as I respect the savetheskyriver camp I don't feel like I can base an entire opinion on what information I glean from their campaign.

The irony from where I'm standing is so many are quick to pull the plug on this dam proposal for fear it might interrupt the Eco system, while surely big changes are on the horizon for the fish of the SF should no improvements to the fish trap be made (ie... Homeless fish and an empty river). You can't have much more of an impact than that. Whether you or I deem it "natural" is not of any consequence. Lost habitat for 80,000 naturally reproducing adult salmon and steelhead is a dramatic change to the basin.
 
#63 ·
Scott I admire your passion, I appreciate when good people get fired up about things they care about. But I must say some of your references are apples to oranges. Sunset falls is unique and is nothing like the elwha, or any dam on the Columbia or Snake river. Not comparable, so jumbling in the sunset falls proposal with them is an unfair comparison. Obviously dams are not good we can all agree. Some are worse than others and some could be catastrophic. Which one is sunset falls?

I'm pretty neutral on the issue. I can see two viewpoints and both carry merit. And as much as I respect the savetheskyriver camp I don't feel like I can base an entire opinion on what information I glean from their campaign.

The irony from where I'm standing is so many are quick to pull the plug on this dam proposal for fear it might interrupt the Eco system, while surely big changes are on the horizon for the fish of the SF should no improvements to the fish trap be made (ie... Homeless fish and an empty river). You can't have much more of an impact than that. Whether you or I deem it "natural" is not of any consequence. Lost habitat for 80,000 naturally reproducing adult salmon and steelhead is a dramatic change to the basin.
Hi Sean,

I agree the Elwha and Skykomish are very different issues, I attempted (and obviously failed) at trying to make this point :) .

The Elwha had two dams that prevented anadromous fish from getting upstream. I've hiked and fished the upper reaches of the Elwha and the spawning habitat is amazing. Looking at a map there are tens of miles of river that are now accessible to fish.

Putting the fish passage issue aside for the Skykomish discussion, the economics of the project appear to be REALLY bad. I hear you what you are saying about the SaveTheSkyCampaign. Just like SnoPUD they are coming at this with a strong POV and are going to present arguments that favor their position. It is good to be skeptical of everything they are saying, do your own research and draw you own conclusions. Going beyond the two main sides there are a lot of other groups that have weighed in on this project. I trust organizations like Trout Unlimited and American Rivers and when you take into account the position of all the groups opposed to this project I am lead to believe this is a bad deal for the river. IMO the poor economics are not worth the changes that will happen to the river. Again I am not anti dam just very against this particular project.
 
#67 ·
I am not anti-dam but I am anti stupid & wasteful government spending. Yes we need power and there is no such thing as "green energy" unless you're a plant who can photosynthesize. All energy production has trade offs; dams are bad for anadromous fish; wind factories use up massive amounts of land affecting animals like elk and bats; coal burning produces sulfurdioxide; and nuclear based production produces radioactive waste. I accept that we need power sources and agree we will need to increase capacity over time but we need to be smart about it and I don't see this as a smart project.

The problem I have with this particular project is the economics are completely upside down (see below) and because of this I don't see how we can justify building it (and messing up what is currently a wild and scenic river in the process). By the accounts from SnoPUD they are spending 175 million dollars to benefit a base of about 11,000 households. This new dam would increase SnoPUDs power capacity by about 1%. An independent study (albeit it could be somewhat biased because the opposition commissioned it) estimates the power generated will come at a cost 5 times higher than what could be bought on the open market. It also estimate that the break even point for paying off the cost of construction with added capacity is 100 years. A 1% gain in capacity could be made up by improving existing power generation (like Snoqualmie Falls) and distribution sources (improve the grid) & conservation alone (switching to LED lighting).

The reason the Elwha dams were torn down is because they a)generated minimal hydro power and b) blocked a river that had supported anadromus fish runs for tens of thousands of years before impoundment. Tearing the Elwha dams down opened up some 30+miles of spawning habitat that was previously blocked.

Arguing that the dams will make the river fish better or is the only way to fund the fish ladder are utter BS. Why not just argue for more fish hatcheries on the lower riverif the objective is to catch more fish? That fish ladder is an unnatural passage that shouldn't be there. All it did was trade one fishery (native bull trout, cutthroat, and rainbows) for an artificial fishery (even if they are wild fish). There is a reason Trout Unlimited, Save our Salmon, Native Fish Society, almost every tribe in the state, NOAA Fisheries, and dozens of other pro-fishery stake holders are opposed to this project.

http://www.savetheskyriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sunset-Falls-Synopsis-Final.pdf
The adjustable diversion weir will and water diversion will only have positive impacts on your life and that of your children in the form of greater electricity production.

The weir has the same effect on the river as the chutes, falls and pools that already exist along that stretch of River.

You really have no place to comment on what you believe the negative impacts will be as they will have absolutely ZERO effect on your own personal life.
 
#72 ·
It is my belief that the economics of this project are poor and the project should not be approved. It has a high total project cost that will produce electricity far above open market electrical pricing for a relatively small number of households.

I would rather see the money spent to buy electricity on the open market with long term negotiated contracts, invested to improve existing hydro projects with increased capacity/generation (like what is being done at Snoqualmie falls), and electricity conservation efforts.

I have every right to comment, end of story.
 
#71 ·
If god wanted anadromous fish in the upper Sky he shouldn't have put in the waterfalls.;)

I'll admit I've enjoyed catching summer run steelhead on southfork but it is an unatural fishery based on 1950's fisheries management practices. The 50,000 pinks belong in the lower river. We have no idea how trucking these fish beyond their natural spawning grounds has impacted the lower river species or resident upper river native fish (cutts, rainbows, bulls, whitefish etc). Maybe we just need to let the fish ladder die and stop the trucking program.
Who cares?

The Steelhead you were catching are most likely hatchery transplants that began to spawn naturally above the falls.
 
#74 ·
yes they were hatchery steelhead. The state trucks them up above the falls.

There are also a lot of wild/native fish in the river system above the falls that are not hatchery origin Are you saying you don't care about wild and native fish?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top