We're in...

Too bad that this kind of interest and involvement has not or can not be generated on issues that really matter for the fish of the region!

The "dam" here is a relatively low weir to insure a constant diversion of water to the intake. From the project discription it looks like that "impoundment" behind that weir will have about 2 surface acres (average depth of 10 feet). Hardly the vision that comes to mind when talking about "daming" the South Fork Skykomish.

Interest in a low head hydro - run of the river project has been around since at least the early 1980s. These kinds of projects are a different animal than say the large "Spada" type projects. Snohomish County has two operating low head hydro projects in the Basin (one on Woods Creek and another on Youngs River) and a couple others proposed on tirbutaries of the North Fork Snoqualmie.

Maybe some folks here have had the chance to look at the Youngs River project can report on.

The big fish issue with projects like this are screen fish away from the intake, ramping rates at start up and shut down, and in this case attraction of adult fish to the fish trap at Sunset Falls. In saure that the tribes and various state and Federal agencies have been and will be all over the requirements to protect the fish.

BTW -
As part of the project it is reported the PUD will invest in upgrading the fish trap and haul facility at Sunset Falls. The facility is more than 50 years old and reaching the end of its useful life.

Tight lines
Curt

Who cares? Dams are a thing of the past, it's time to use an alternative source of power.

Curt, I am no biologist. However, I have made a few observations below dams that sometimes are forgotten. Do these observations apply to "run of the river" projects as well?

Let me know if I am off base:

Any dam will stop the natural flow of gravel to the spawning beds. For example the S. Fork Tolt; the only remaining native summer run steelhead in the snoqualmie system are starving for gravel to spawn on. This is due to the fact that these fish only spawn above the forks and only in the S Fork. Some years we have seen as low as 60 spawning pairs left in this system.

According to the the King County Snoqualmie/Skykomish watershed forum high water temperature is a major concern of this system. How much effect does a run of the river dam have on water temp? My guess is that more water surface area and discharge levels would increase water temp.

What are some of the other effects of this proposed dam on the Sky?

I signed the petition and hope to again enjoy steelhead fishing in march on the SKY in my lifetime!

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

PUD can get their dam power somewhere else.

Done and sent a link to everyone I know.

Done

Done

I was hoping this thread was about banning sleds.

Wrong. Dams are the future for better or worse. The newer designs can generate a lot of energy.

Einstein's son was a hydrologist and a genius in his own right. He was obsessed with the power of water and knew it was our future. You can look into his life.

I am still against any dam in any fish passage area, especially this one.

But what alternatives are there? Most all energy is solar powered. How did that water get to the top of the mountain? What heating and cooling caused the winds?

I think it is safe to say that a dam powered world is more attainable than solar panel world or wind turbine world.

signed.

Signature completed.

People should be just as enthusiastic about the small stuff as the big stuff. After all we are resorted to the small stuff compared to the big C because of the dams it has. Who would want a disaster like that on a resource so close to many people's homes. I don't see any advantage to it, all I see is an impact to this watershed which is not wanted. Why the hell would anyone support it when they can not even access Sunset Falls as it is? If I can't access it why should another user group be allowed to build a frickin dam in it? Even if I could access it I would not want the moment destroyed by a frickin pile of shitt.

I really appreciate Bantam's enthusiasm for activism, but as this forum's unofficial hydroid I'll explain why I haven't and won't sign the petition.

Dams always have negative effects on rivers and their fish. Even when dams have beneficial effects, there are still negative impacts associated with development and operation of dams. The proposed Sunset Falls project is no different. The salient issue is "how much" effect. So far my worst case estimate of the negative fisheries impacts of the Sunset Falls project is that the negative effects may be enough to be measurable. Maybe measurable. That's kinda' different from dam projects that extirpate entire fish populations.

If Snohomish PUD develops Sunset Falls, it will be required to equip its water supply diversion with a NMFS criteria juvenile fish screen to prevent - that's prevent, not reduce - entrainment of any juvenile fish into the penstock that delivers water to the project turbine or turbines. So what is a NMFS criteria fish screen anyway? Most are made of stainless steel wedgewire with a bar spacing of 2 mm (two millimeters) which even a newly emerged pink salmon fry cannot squeeze through. Another requirement is that the water approach velocity cannot exceed 0.4 fps, so that said pink salmon fry can swim fast enough to avoid being impinged on the screen. Consequently the negative impacts of Sunset Falls on juvenile fish is likely to be low enough that they cannot be measured.

As Smalma mentioned, the PUD will also be required to maintain a minimum instream flow in the stream channel and over the falls sufficient to pass fish downstream and most probably to also maintain some aesthetic quality to the falls, which BTW are pretty spectacular.

Since Sunset Falls is a natural fish barrier, upstream fish passage would not normally be required. However, in order to build the project, the PUD needs space. Some of that space is currently owned by WDFW for the fish trap and haul operation that it has done there since the 1950s. In return for sharing some of that valuable and necessary space, the PUD would make much needed improvements and modernization, not of the fish ladder, but of all the associated fish trapping and sorting and loading and unloading activities that are necessary to maintain the naturally reproducing salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations that inhabit the upper SF Skykomish watershed.

Other concerns that come up with projects of this sort include gravel transport and silt/sediment/erosion. The small dam would include provisions to pass gravel seasonally. The total silt and sediment generated from building the project would be temporary and amount to less than goes into the river during one typical autumn spate freshet, in other words, nothing I'm going to worry about.

I was contacted by a local group of project opponents and asked about project impacts to fish. I described much of what I wrote above and suggested that the most viable reason for opposition is the NIMBY position because the aesthetic qualities of Sunset Falls won't be improved by adding a hydro project to the scene, no matter how well it's executed. Apparently that wasn't the answer they were seeking as I haven't been contacted subsequently.

Sg

why screw with such a perfect thing?





NO DAMS on the South Fork!

Eagle, Canyon, and Sunset are awesome places, dont mess with it...

Redhook

In order to preserve/restore the scenery at Sunset how about supporting removal of the artificial trapping structures?

the fish traps have been there for a while now, and has helped tremendously... there is zero chance of a fish going up Sunset, the first of the 3 falls... and zero at Canyon as well... they need to be trucked up, otherwise, the pool below Sunset will become Poachfest and would have been done a long time ago... the traps are needed to make sure the fish can go even further up... taking them out, would be worse than putting a dam in...

Why would it become poachfest? I didn't think there was a public access. Now I see why they want a dam. A dam now is just a baby step, when and if this dam goes in they'll wait about 50 years and then try to build as big of a dam as possible. Screw a dam. I don't/won't support no fucin dam that fuks that thing up.

A message for the group(s) behind the dam: Why can't you find a better way to make power than a dam? Don't you understand that dam's are a big deal in this day and age as they relate to salmon/steelhead/trout/other fish? Many and I mean many people are against them, why does it seem like you need to push the envelope? WTH is the big dam deal? To put it in terms that relate to this day and age "FIND YOUR OWN DAM PLACE TO PLAY!". I mean it, I as well as many other people do not appreciate being pushed around like we don't belong here or something, you need to find a better dam way to take care of your business that doesn't affect people like me! Get on it! Find another dam way!