Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Snohomish County PUD wants to dam several waterfalls
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostSun Oct 30, 2011 1:36 pm 
Breaking this off into a separate thread to not hijack the Garland topic. Snohomish County PUD has proposed building three more dams to add to its power generating portfolio. Sunset Falls Project: The first and biggest would be built across the South Fork of the Skykomish River between Eagle Falls and Canyon Falls, with a capacity of 2,500 cubic feet per second and a generating capacity of about 30MW (enough to power about 21,000 homes). The mean annual flow of the South Fork at Sunset Falls is about 2,400 cfs, so this means the falls could potentially be completely de-watered for periods. Map of the proposed facility. Application for preliminary permit. Calligan Creek Project: The PUD doesn't have documents with extensive details on this project yet, but their initial proposal documents indicate it to involve an 8-foot tall, 60-foot wide dam, with a 38" penstock of about 6200 feet in length running to a single-generator powerhouse capable of producing about 6 MW. This basically means that the dam would be not too far downstream from the outlet of Calligan Lake and that the power house could conceivably empty directly into the North Fork of the Snoqualmie, greatly reducing the water present in Calligan Creek for fish spawning, and significantly lessening the quality of Calligan Creek Falls. Hancock Creek Project: Similar to the Calligan Creek project, the proposed Hancock Creek project would involve a 7-foot high, 62-foot long dam which would impound an acre foot of water, with a 38" penstock running 7800 feet to a single generator powerhouse capable of producing about 6 MW. Again the length of the penstock seems to indicate the idea is to put the dam not far downstream from the outlet of Hancock Lake and the tailrace could empty directly into the North Fork. This would again result in significant loss of fish habitat in Hancock Creek, as well as greatly reducing at least three significant waterfalls along the creek. Documents related to both projects. Hancock Timber Management, Black Creek Hydro and the Tulalip Tribes have apparently all filed injunctions for the Calligan and Hancock projects, but I did not see any evidence that there has been much protest about the Sunset Falls project (perhaps a little ironic given that the Calligan and Hancock projects are located on a tree farm, while Sunset Falls is much more publicly accessible).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tmatlack
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 2854 | TRs | Pics
tmatlack
Member
PostTue Nov 01, 2011 5:11 am 
Why?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
ncheber
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 2 | TRs | Pics
ncheber
Member
PostTue Nov 01, 2011 12:53 pm 
Hi Sore Feet - My name is Nathan Heber, I work in the communications department at the PUD. I appreciate your concern for our rivers and wanted to provide a little more information about these projects we are studying. 1) The potential hydro project at Sunset Falls, if constructed, would never dewater the falls as state and federal requirements will be to have a minimum flow between the intake (above the falls) and the powerhouse (below the falls). 2) The intakes at the potential hydro projects at Hancock and Calligan are fairly close to outlet of their respective lakes but intake does not increase lake elevations and neither discharge into the North Fork of the Snoqualmie but instead discharge back into their respective creeks such that flows at confluence of creeks and north fork remains exactly is how it is now. You can learn more about these projects and see upcoming public meetings by following the links below. Also, you can email me and I will add your name to a list of people to be notified of upcoming public meetings. http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/sunsetfalls.ashx?p=1956 http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/calligan.ashx?p=1913 Best regards, Nathan Heber Communications Representative Snohomish County PUD ncheber@snopud.com 425-783-1748

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tmatlack
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 2854 | TRs | Pics
tmatlack
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2011 4:09 am 
Nathan, Repeat... Why? Tom

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2011 1:09 pm 
Nathan, additional questions: 1) Do you have more information on the minimum releases for all three projects? 2) Are there currently plans to allow public access to the power house site at the Sunset Falls project for recreational use (kayaking, viewing the falls, etc)? If not, why not?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 6:09 am 
There's an article in today's Herald: Talk of new dam on Skykomish above falls resisted

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
ncheber
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 2 | TRs | Pics
ncheber
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 8:43 am 
Bryan – The proposed instream flows for Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek are those that were required by the FERC for the previously licensed projects and are identified in the Pre-Application Documents located at http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/calligan/calligandocs.ashx?p=1916. Right now we do not have more information on the minimum flows for the Sunset Falls Project; an updated instream flow study will be conducted next year for this site. We are aware of the interest in recreational use and access; however, we are still too early in the process to make any decisions in that regards. We will continue to involve the public and stakeholders if we continue moving forward. Tom – To meet future demand, the PUD is promoting conservation and is studying a number of renewable power sources located in or close to our service territory. In addition to small hydro, we are studying tidal and geothermal. Please see our Power Supply page at http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply.ashx?p=1105 for more information. Best regards, Nathan Heber Communications Representative Snohomish County PUD ncheber@snopud.com 425-783-1748

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Magellan
Brutally Handsome



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Inexorable descent
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 9:17 am 
Nathan thanks for checking in with us and pointing in the right direction. up.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Scrooge
Famous Grouse



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6966 | TRs | Pics
Location: wishful thinking
Scrooge
Famous Grouse
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 10:40 am 
Defining the Snohomish proposed dam projects, Sore Feet said
Quote:
Sunset Falls Project: The first and biggest would be built across the South Fork of the Skykomish River between Eagle Falls and Canyon Falls, with a capacity of 2,500 cubic feet per second and a generating capacity of about 30MW (enough to power about 21,000 homes). The mean annual flow of the South Fork at Sunset Falls is about 2,400 cfs, so this means the falls could potentially be completely de-watered for periods.
Bryan, even if that proved true, I'm not sure it would be a significant issue. The locals use the area right at Eagle Falls for a swimming hole, but there's very little recreational use of the stretch of river between the falls, It's too short to make putting in a boat worthwhile. Most rafting and kayaking starts at the Route 2 bridge over the Skykomish, downstream from Sunset Falls. I have seen people fishing in there, but I don't know why. There can't be any natural fish population above Sunset Falls. And Sunset Falls is not a tourist destination. I think there used to be a set up for tourist access, on the north side of the falls, but that's been 'closed' for at least the 30 years that I've been going by there. I'd say the PUD can sell that one to the court. As for Hancock and Calligan, I don't think they can de-water those streams, any more than has been done at Rachor Creek. They either have a power plant that will only run part of the year, or they design one small enough that part of the streams will almost always be left flowing.

Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you....... Go and find it. Go!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 11:25 am 
I think the greater issue is along these lines, from the Herald article:
Quote:
Brook Stanford, 70, a retired reporter for Seattle's KOMO-TV, lives near Canyon Falls, between Sunset Falls and where the dam could be built. He's afraid the river's beauty would be diminished. "When (the water) tumbles through solid granite and over Canyon Falls, the vision it creates is beyond description," he said. "It is a visual and spiritual experience that you must see to appreciate. Will this project alter the falls permanently, change the river permanently?"
Though the Sky is not designated a Wild and Scenic River, it has no dams of any kind along its entire length. I foresee a big battle ahead.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Julia
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 154 | TRs | Pics
Location: Skykomish
Julia
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 2:01 pm 
Schroder wrote:
I foresee a big battle ahead.
I agree. Property owners above & below Sunset Falls are already getting together on this. So much environmental impact, so little benefit to the general public. From the article--
Quote:
Environmental groups say the PUD should be investigating conversion of existing dams, which now are used only as reservoirs, into hydropower projects rather than creating new ones
agree.gif

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. ~Groucho Marx
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 2:25 pm 
Scrooge wrote:
Bryan, even if that proved true, I'm not sure it would be a significant issue. The locals use the area right at Eagle Falls for a swimming hole, but there's very little recreational use of the stretch of river between the falls, It's too short to make putting in a boat worthwhile. Most rafting and kayaking starts at the Route 2 bridge over the Skykomish, downstream from Sunset Falls.
A couple points here: 1) Just because there is "very little" recreational use in a particular stretch of a river should not be justification for effectively sacrificing it to commercial use. It used to be quite a frequently visited area, the surrounding landowners simply got fed up with the rabble that came with the rest of the public. And then there is of course the fact that there is a ton of private land around there - and I'm sure the landowners do not want to see what was presumably one of the perks of buying land there effectively tamed. 2) It's not necessarily too short for boating purposes. Sunset Falls had been the traditional put in for kayakers paddling the mainstem Skykomish down to Big Eddy until access to Sunset Falls at the fish counting station was closed off, and since then they've been using the US 2 bridge where the rafters typically start. Additionally, while Canyon and Sunset Falls have for the most part been deemed too dangerous to boat themselves, considering the limits of whitewater kayaking are being raised to new levels seemingly every year (see Tyler Brandt running Palouse Falls, for example), it may only be a matter of time before it is determined that Sunset Falls can be run safely (to be fair, it is said that there are potholes all over the falls, so it just as likely may remain unrunnable).
Quote:
I have seen people fishing in there, but I don't know why. There can't be any natural fish population above Sunset Falls.
There shouldn't be natural fish populations in a lot of areas, but in our attempt to control nature, man has gone well out of the way to ensure there are fish in places where they would not naturally be.
Quote:
And Sunset Falls is not a tourist destination. I think there used to be a set up for tourist access, on the north side of the falls, but that's been 'closed' for at least the 30 years that I've been going by there.
As I said before, there used to be public access allowed via the fish counting station. That route has been closed for probably over 15 years now. However, I've talked with several landowners in the area about access via Mount Index Road, and most of them don't have a problem with public access on foot or bike via Mount Index Road. Their main concern in road maintenance comes out of their pockets, so they don't want the public driving up to see the falls and causing unnecessary wear on the road (I would hope that if this project actually does go through that the PUD would at least pay for maintenance to the road so the public might have the opportunity to drive to the falls). Additionally, I recently talked with a landowners up there, who owns property immediately adjacent to the falls, who rents out his cabin to the public. I imagine if the falls were substantially reduced in volume that a great deal of the allure of his enterprise would be impacted negatively.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
iron
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics
Location: southeast kootenays
iron
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 2:32 pm 
Sore Feet wrote:
1) Just because there is "very little" recreational use in a particular stretch of a river should not be justification for effectively sacrificing it to commercial use.
ditto.gif especially for such little power generation. heck, just connect the grid a little better, stop shutting off wind turbines, and we'll all be fine, for now.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm 
Digging through the info on the Calligan and Hancock projects, here's what I've found: Calligan Creek will be allowed a minimum release of 2 cubic feet per second at all times. From June to October it will be ramped up to 15 cubic feet per second. Additionally several springs which feed into Calligan Creek above the major falls on the creek will allow permanent inflow, but this may be taken into account and subtracted from the prescribed releases at times. It basically appears as if there will be a minimum of about 5 cfs in the creek as it passes the tailrace of the project at any time. The penstocks appear to have a maximum capacity of 102 cubic feet per second, while the creek has an average mean flow of 53 cubic feet per second and an average high flow of about 90 cfs. Even taking into account the minimum releases, this would result in potentially as much as a 90% reduction in the volume of the creek between the dam and the powerhouse, which would severely affect the scenic quality of Calligan Creek Falls. Hancock Creek would have a similar system in place, with a minimum release of 5 cfs at all times, ramped up to 20 cfs between June and October. The higher volume of the release is presumably partially related to the fact that the powerhouse and tailrace would only be 200 feet upstream from the confluence with the North Fork, while fish habitat stretches a considerable distance further upstream to the lowest in a series of waterfalls along the creek.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2011 3:05 pm 
To the P.U.D.: I'd like to know how you can justify $4000-$6000 per kW installed capital cost compared to wind power at about $1500. You're proposing unit costs equivalent to a nuclear power plant. And what's wrong with buying power from large producers (like Bonneville)?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Snohomish County PUD wants to dam several waterfalls
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum