FAQ about the Snohomish County Public Utility District’s Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project
from Save the Skykomish River.org
(1) SnoPUD Wants to Build A New Dam?
Washington State’s Snohomish County Public Utility District #1 (SnoPUD) has dusted off some
very old plans to build a dam and power plant on the South Fork of the Skykomish River (the
“Sky”) near Sunset Falls, in Index, WA referred to as the Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project.1
(2) Sunset Falls Location is Not Economically nor Environmentally Feasible
Sunset Falls on the Skykomish River has been studied and rejected for hydropower at least four
times in the past 30 years because it is not economically feasible and it is in an extremely
environmentally sensitive location.2
(3) Proposed Dam Location is on The Original Washington State
Designated “Scenic River”
In 1977, the Skykomish River became the centerpiece of legislation creating the Washington
State Scenic River System (79A.55 RCW), intended to “protect and preserve the natural character
of such rivers and fulfill other conservation purposes.”3 Rivers in the system “shall be preserved
in as natural a condition as practical and that overuse of such rivers, which tends to downgrade
their natural condition, shall be discouraged.”4 The Skykomish is one of only four rivers in
Washington State on that list.5
(4) Sunset Falls Area is Intended to be Protected From Hydropower
Development
Sunset Falls is in a Northwest Power and Conservation Council Protected Area from hydropower
development because the Council has determined that “such development would have major
negative impacts that could not be reversed.”6
(5) Skykomish river is Nationally Recognized for its “Outstanding
Remarkable Values” with its nomination to Congress for Federal Wild and
Sceic Status
The South Fork of the Skykomish River has been recommended to Congress for National Wild
and Scenic River designation by the U.S. Forest Service. This was part of the 1990 Mt. Baker
Snoqualmie National Forest Plan and the river is also listed by the National Park Service on the
National Rivers Inventory with a potential classification as a recreational resource. This section
of the Skykomish is noted as having “outstanding remarkable values” including Scenery,
Recreation, Fish and Wildlife.7
(6) Skykomish River is Home to Threatened Salmon and Bull Trout
The Skykomish River is home to ESA threatened
8
Chinook salmon9 (king salmon) and numerous
species of other wild salmon, will be directly impacted by this Sunset Fish Passage and Energy
project. Also at risk will be the river’s threatened bull trout10, river otters11, aquatic birds,
raptors and amphibians.
(7) Skykomish River is Designated Critical Habitat
The Skykomish River has been designated by the National Fisheries Service as critical habitat for
threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (King Salmon) and Bull Trout.12
(8) Salmon are Already at a Historically Low Levels
Pacific Northwest salmon stocks are presently at historically low levels.13 Extensive efforts are
being made to preserve spawning habitat and prevent the extinction of these species. 14,15
(9) Voters Have Already Said “NO” to New Hydro-power Projects on
Washington’s Rivers
SnoPUD’s proposed Sunset Fish Passage and Energy project is in blatant disregard of voter
approved I-937 mandates.16 New dams on fresh water do not qualify for Renewable Energy
Credits, which are mandatory for power companies in Washington State. (WAC 194-37) The
Sunset Falls Hydropower Project violates SnoPUD’s own energy resource management plan,
which requires it “to comply with the mandates of I-937”17 .
(10) Dams are Known to Destroy the Natural Environment
No matter what costly mitigation provisions are included by SnoPUD as part of the overall
project, the impact of dams (Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project) on wild and pristine
river ecosystems is significant and well documented.18,19 The impact that dams, even ones
marketed as “low impact” or “run of river,” have already had the following impacts on Northwest
Rivers:
a. Disrupted river flows
b. Degraded water quality
c. Blocked the movement of a river’s vital nutrients and sediment
d. Destroyed fish and wildlife habitat
e. Impeded migration of fish and other aquatic species
f. Eliminated recreational opportunities
17
(11) Dams Mirror the Predicted Negative Impacts of Climate Change
The impacts that dams have already had on the Northwest’s rivers mirror the predicted impacts
of climate change. Dams and hydropower plants:
a. Increase damage to downstream migrating fish through abrasion
b. Reduce water oxygen levels
c. Reduce fish and wildlife resiliency
d. Disturb habitats
e. Alter amount and timing of stream flows
f. Increase water temperature
g. Decrease water quality & quantity
h. Reduce fish migration
i. Increase species extinction
j. Reduce river levels
18,19,20,21
(12) Taxpayers Are Currently Spending Millions to Remove Existing Dams
Taxpayers are now spending hundreds of millions of dollars, an estimated $324.7 million, to
remove two Washington State dams on the Elwha River due to the enormous environmental
devastation they have caused.22 Nationwide, at least 925 dams have been removed so far.23
(13) Popular Northwest Hiking Trails will be Seriously Affected
The proposed Sunset Fish Passage and Energy project dam is below the hiking trails that lead to
Lake Serene and Bridal Veil Falls, so the present stunning view of Sunset Falls from the trail and
the Lake Serene lookout would be transformed into a view of a partially dewatered waterfall, a
power plant and electrical transmission lines.24
(14) Minimal Power Output
SnoPUD estimates the Sunset Fish Passage and Energy project will cost rate-payers at least
$150 million yet admits that it will produce only about 1% of its overall power needs once
completed. According to the Hydropower Reform Coalition, utilities typically overestimate new
energy generation capacity by 40-50%25 so overall power production would likely be
significantly less than 1%.
(15) Is SnoPUD Intentionally Misleading the Public?
SnoPUD is publicly marketing the Sunset Fish Passage and Energy project’s nameplate capacity
as 30 MW.26 However, the actual generation will depend upon minimum stream flows. As such,
PUD admits the project’s actual best case capacity would be and average of 13.7 MW 27, less
than half the nameplate capacity. PUD has stated that power production will coincide with peak
demand in winter, but their own studies show that this is not so. Peak production can only
occur during spring runoff when Northwest hydropower is already over producing, causing the
shutdown of wind power at a cost of millions of dollars to ratepayers.
(16) Can SnoPUD be Trusted?
The SnoPUD board commissioner David Aldrich has stated “that [they] will not force this project
on anyone,”28 yet they are pushing ahead despite major resistance. Strongly opposed are
Washington State residents
29
and environmental agencies including The Sierra Club, Alpine
Lakes Protection Society, American Rivers, American Whitewater, the Hydropower Reform
Coalition, the North Cascades Conservation Council, The Mountaineers, Friends of Heybrook
Ridge, and Washington Wild30 – so far. That is in addition fishing groups, whitewater
enthusiasts, kayakers, birders, hikers, local businesses and voters recognizing the dangers of
new hydro and the need for green energy. In 2006, Washington voters passed initiative I-937,
the clean energy initiative that mandates Washington power companies increase their
renewable energy generation annually, to 15% by 2020. Renewable energy specifically excludes
the creation of new impoundments (dams) on fresh water rivers.
31
(17) Will SnoPUD Knowingly Place Human Lives At Risk?
The Skykomish has long been used for recreation. The location of the weir, or low head dam,
would be located in an area historically full of kayakers, rafters and swimmers. The current PUD
design dramatically reduces the amount of water available for recreation. The project is so
poorly designed, in an attempt to mitigate the amount of the river it would render unusable, it
offers an area just after the dam for swimmers and rafters to put in to continue down the river –
which is ironically where currents are so swift that they are typically inescapable until they flow
over Canyon Falls, a deadly waterfall.
(18) Inefficient Use of Rate-Payer Dollars
According to the US Department of Energy more than 2652 megawatts of power could be added
in Washington State by simply improving the efficiency and adding hydro at existing dams.
Building new dams at all of the state’s remaining potential hydro sites, even the small ones
and environmentally sensitive ones, would add only 762 megawatts.35
(19) Project Does NOT Qualify for WA Renewable Energy Standards,
contrary to SnoPUD Claims
SnoPUD is marketing this project as renewable energy36 when Washington State’s I-937
definition of renewable energy specifically excludes new hydro projects on fresh water.37
(20) Hydro is NOT Green Energy, contrary to SnoPUD’s Claims
SnoPUD’s website refers to hydropower as “A proven technology, competitive in price to other
green resources.”38 This statement implies that small hydro is green. According to NewScientist
Magazine, “The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says
Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ‘Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case,’ he says. Hydroelectric
dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce
more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.”39
Location of Proposed Dam on the Skykomish River
The threatened North American River Otter will be impacted by a dam and hydro power plant.
Expected impacts will be decreased food supply, loss of habitat, more pollution to which river
otters are very sensitive, and increased temperature of water.
1. http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/sunsetfalls/sfdocs.ashx?p=1959 FERC
Project No. 14295-000
2. A number of hydropower projects have been proposed at Sunset Falls over the years.
Puget Sound Energy explored the site early in the 20th century. Snohomish PUD was
awarded a preliminary permit for the site in September 1981 (FERC P-4786) but in
September 1984 made a decision not to further pursue the project after it was
determined that it was marginally feasible and had several sensitive issues. Pacific
Hydro submitted a permit application in October 1984 (FERC P-8644) that it
withdrew in September 1985. Sunset Falls LP submitted a permit application in
September 1991 (FERC P-11195) that it withdrew in September 1993. Tacoma Public
Utilities submitted a permit application in December 1991 (FERC P-11216) that it
withdrew in May 1992.
3. Revised Code of Washington 79A.55.
4. Revised Code of Washington 79A.55.005
5. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.55&full=true
6. http://www.nwcouncil.org/
7. Land Resource and Management Plan, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,
Appendix E, June 1990; NWPPC Protected Areas Amendment (Sept. 14, 1988).
8. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The federal law, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, that
provides for protection and recovery of endangered or threatened species of fish,
wildlife, or plant.
9. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedAnimals.jsp
10. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Newsroom/Archives/1997/loader.cfm?csModule=security
/getfile&pageid=21506
11. http://www.zoo.org/animal-facts/riverotter
12. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FRNotices/2005/loader.cfm?csModule=secur
ity/getfile&pageid=33909
13. http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Technical%20Report/TR4/page%2067(Geiger).pdf
14. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/7/implementation/default.aspx
15. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Newsroom/Archives/1997/loader.cfm?csModule=security
/getfile&pageid=21506
16. www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i937.pdf
17. http://snohomishobserver.com/2011/11/07/cant-win-for-losing/
18. http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/
19. http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/background/10ways.html
20. Hydropower Reform Coalition’s “Low Power, Big Problems: How Low-Power
Hydropower Dams Hurt Rivers” February 2009
21. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002642.html
22. http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/elwha-faq.htm
23. http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoringrivers/dams/background/faqs.html
24. http://www.waterfallsnorthwest.com/nws/falls.php?num=4664
25. Hydropower Reform Coalition “Low Power, Big Problems: How Low-Power
Hydropower Dams Hurt Rivers.” February 2009
26. Page 16 of the Sunset Falls Update Sept 2011
27. The preliminary permit application, at page 4, states that “estimated average
annual power generation is approximately 120,000,000 kWh corresponding to
average generation at 13.7 MW. FERC eLibrary Accession No. 20110928-5081.
28. http://snohomishobserver.com/2011/11/07/cant-win-for-losing/
29. http://snohomish.komonews.com/search/results?s=Controversy+over+proposed+S
unset+FAlls+hydropower
30. Motion to Intervene in Opposition, filed Dec 20, 2011, to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by American Whitewater, Project No. 14295-000
31. www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i937.pdf Section 3-10 (a)
32. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/May/25/130971.html
33. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPaCXSwjLA4
34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HLvk3xEQTk
35. The U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Washington, prepared in 1997 by
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, lists 249 existing dams in
Washington that do not produce power (such as flood control or storage dams) or
where the total power has not yet been fully developed (efficiency upgrades). The
report models potential development of 2,652 MW that could be added simply by
improving efficiencies or adding hydro to non-power dams. (Developing all the
state’s potential hydro sites through construction of new dams would only add
762MW).
36. http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/sunsetfalls.ashx?p=1956
37. www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i937.pdf
38. http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/lihydro.ashx?p=1517
39. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirtysecretrevealed.html