Backtrollin -
Great observations on some of the impacts from the hydro dams here in the PNW!

However the situation on the South Fork Skykomish is a very different situation. As I mentioned the "impoundment pool" behind the proposed SF Skykomish project is estimated to be 20 acre feet while the SF Tolt dam impounds 57,500 acre feet of water. The SF Skykomish project is a low head project with a weir to insure water is divert to the pipeline intake and does not rely on storing water to generate power (the reason it has a dramatic lower capacity). Typically such diversion weirs are 10 feet or so high (I could not find any specs on the proposed project) while the South Fork Tolt dam is 200 feet high.

Since the SF Skykomish project is about diversion water to the intake it is safe to assume that it will have to be designed to pass gravel to insure that it will provide the water to the intake. In the Snohomish Basin a better Dam comparison in terms of gravel passage would be the City of Snohomish water diversion dam on the Pilchuck (though the water is not returned to the river). I don't recall anyone being worried about gravel recruitment on the Pilchuck.

Given the small size of the proposed impoundment from the SF Skykomish and the typically river flow I'm not sure that temperature would be much of an issue. As I recall the temperature issues in the basin are more on the Snoqualmie side of the basin (Pilchuck as well).

The big potential fish issues on the type of project being proposed include upstream adult passage, downstream pasage of the juveniles and flow issues in the by-pass reach. Without going into detailed here (I can if you wish) it looks to me they would be adequately addressed (maybe Salmo g can contribute more insight on this).

I too would hope to enjoy that spring steelhead fishing on the Sky! If I thought that opposing the SF Skykomish project would bring that day even one day sooner I would have been the first signing the petition!

I have no problem with folks opposing this project (I'm sure that locals would prefer to not have such a project in their backyards). As I state in my first post if folks are opposing it to protect the anadromous fish resources that time and effort is essentially wasted. There are any number of other issues (past, present, and future) that would be far more productive in that cause.

Tight lines
Curt