I hate to seem the apologist for hydropower, but I don't see society, including fishermen, scaling back their energy consumption, or the regional human population declining.

That said, I took a look at the first 3 claims made against the project:

1..Extensive destruction of protected salmon and trout habitat would hurt fish populations.

How would this alleged destruction occur? The area to be disturbed is just above the falls, and contains no spawning habitat and extremely little juvenile rearing habitat. Fish don't spawn and rear in rapids and waterfalls.


2 Reduced instream flows would be dangerously low to salmon and steelhead migrating downstream.

Again, how so? The fish need enough water to migrate downstream at this point on the river, not for spawning or rearing. A minimum year around instream flow will be required for this purpose, and it may be higher for aesthetic reasons, or for recreation if kayakers want to float over the falls.


3. Generation turbines and tailrace would destroy salmon spawning habitat.

Salmon and steelhead don't spawn in the location where the tailrace would be located. If the project is developed, the PUD will be required to ensure that the tailrace does not interfere with fish locating the fish ladder entrance.

It seems like the opposition cannot make a point without exaggerating or outright falsifying the potential project impacts. That's pretty weak IMO. If a hydro project were being built where anadromous fish occur, Sunset Falls is about as close to a benign location as one could find. I think the opponents are trying very hard to say they oppose the project based on reasons of aesthetics (not that much will actually be visible) and NIMBY.

Sg