SnoPUD has proposed building a new dam on the Skykomish - Spey Pages
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 12:59 PM Thread Starter
Registered Potamophile
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Skykomish River
Posts: 111
Thumbs down SnoPUD has proposed building a new dam on the Skykomish

I am stunned. There is a petition to sign.
http://www.savetheskyriver.org/

From SnoPUD:
http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hy...nsetfalls.ashx
Bert Brehm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 01:04 PM
Jack Cook
 
speyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Everywhere these days
Posts: 1,668
Odd

when you drive by the wind farms and see how often they are not producing due to lack of demand on the grid

Jack Cook
Steelhead Anglers
Tolt River Anglers
Mackenzie DTX
Speyco Reels
McNett
http://www.steelheadanglers.com
http://www.toltriveranglers.com
http://www.speyman.com

"keep your eyes open, slow down and keep in tune with the river", Harry Lemire
speyman is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:00 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rogue River
Posts: 11,027
Question

Just a question here. Can fish even get by the falls below the proposed dam site?




Fred Evans - White City, Oregon
fredaevans is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:08 PM
Jack Cook
 
speyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Everywhere these days
Posts: 1,668
No

The fish are trapped, loaded in a truck, and driven a mile or so upstream and released back to the river

Jack Cook
Steelhead Anglers
Tolt River Anglers
Mackenzie DTX
Speyco Reels
McNett
http://www.steelheadanglers.com
http://www.toltriveranglers.com
http://www.speyman.com

"keep your eyes open, slow down and keep in tune with the river", Harry Lemire
speyman is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:10 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rogue River
Posts: 11,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by speyman View Post
The fish are trapped, loaded in a truck, and driven a mile or so upstream and released back to the river
Thanks Jack, so if they put in the 'damned dam' it really wouldn't change much ... save for the size of the pool behind the dam?




Fred Evans - White City, Oregon
fredaevans is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:17 PM
Jack Cook
 
speyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Everywhere these days
Posts: 1,668
Yes

The biggest effect would be the downstream challenge to smolts

Jack Cook
Steelhead Anglers
Tolt River Anglers
Mackenzie DTX
Speyco Reels
McNett
http://www.steelheadanglers.com
http://www.toltriveranglers.com
http://www.speyman.com

"keep your eyes open, slow down and keep in tune with the river", Harry Lemire
speyman is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:18 PM Thread Starter
Registered Potamophile
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Skykomish River
Posts: 111
The dam obstructs fishing moving downstream.

Both migrating smolts and spent adults.
Bert Brehm is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-29-2012, 02:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: PNW, w. WA
Posts: 1,080
Some more of the story . . .

Fred,

There are three water falls on the SF Sky, Sunset, Canyon, and Eagle. Each is a barrier to upstream fish migration. WDFW has operated a trap-and-haul facility around the falls since the 1950s. The facility is out dated and near the end of its useful life.

The proposed dam is a diversion dam, about 10 feet high, to divert water into a penstock. So there would be a very small pool or reservoir behind the dam, less than 2 acres I think.

The water diversion will be required to have a NMFS' criteria fish screen, with openings between the wedgewire bars of no more than 2 mm and an approach water velocity of 0.4 fps to protect juvenile fish migrating downstream. Fish will be bypassed away from the water intake tunnel and pass down Sunset Falls just as they do now.

If the project is developed, Snohomish PUD will rebuild the WDFW fish ladder and trap to modern fish facility standards. This appears to be important to WDFW, which has no funds to upgrade the facility and can barely keep it operable now.

IMO legitimate reasons for opposing the project include: NIMBY, it will probably be ugly and detract from the appearance of an attractive natural waterfall, there will be some unavoidable slight adverse environmental effects, the cost of the project's energy will be relatively high (the PUD is thinking toward future energy costs), and the SF Skykomish is a state designated Wild and Scenic River. Also the SF Sky is on a regional list of prohibited hydro sights because of being located in an anadromous fish zone.

Sg
salmo_g is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposed Mega Quarry at the Headwaters of the Nottawasaga Kruegs General 5 04-21-2011 02:17 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome