Professor Paddle: Ernie's Canyon diversion possibility

There is a well established recreational use of this river which is why AW should be getting on top of this. I have no doubt Tom will be doing something.

This makes me want to cry, honestly.

Anyone who has been through the Italian/Swiss Alps or Japan looking for rivers will understand why.

Eventually, ALL rivers can be "diverted" or damned (I didn't say dammed on purpose).

I'd say 90% of people would rather have "cheap" power than the "power" of our rivers. I pray that my favorite runs will not end during my lifetime but realize will fall without folks like Tom O'Keefe.

I don't know how long our argument can hold, and that hurts. I wish I had a solution, but I can see every run I love being "diverted" simply because no fish can swim up Behemoth or Ohane Falls...

I don't have an alternative power source yet. I am working on refining one, and this type of story reinforces how important it is. I hope it works! Anybody here have any solutions? I'd love to help however I can, in the short term with protecting rivers... in the long term I hope I personally can make a dent... more to come hopefully, I'm not the brightest but I think my best friend may be!

There is hope, I'd like to hear more of that!

Travis has an interesting point in the fact that streams classed as "anadromous fish" streams are very difficult in todays world to get permitting to build much of any structure on or in. Most Class V runs and the like have point barriers restricting migration of "anadramous" fish, ie salmon and steelhead which are targeted, caught, and sold for money by tribes or other comercial companies. I find it interesting that it seems to be relatively easy to dam or divert a stream that has only resident fish ie trout and such which are not worth much economically to anyone. Either way a dam or diversion is extremely detrimental to them therefore is not green power in any shape or form. I for one cannot support the construction of any structure in the river that would alter flow in any way. I mean we have enough dams on other systems to provide power, why do we "need" this one. I have to agree with Ben here in the fact that this would be exactly like damming the Little White. Yes the LW gets run more but Ernies is non the less a valuable resource for boaters and whitewater aside, I see no reason to mess with it. Most boaters realize that gorges and canyons like this are some of the last wild places around, sometimes they exist with civilization at the rims yet the interiors are unfettered with the exception of course the requisite upstream redneck garbage reminents. A diversion is really just an extension of this garbage. Just my humble opinion.

Brian / James, great discussion on HHD and "the event" back in 09. According to ACE website (http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/report/hah.htm) the dam has usable storage of 1035' to 1206'.

If you look at the prior days weather, lots of low elevation snow on the ground. If you look at the prior days dam control, very low outflow from the reservoir (they were NOT lowering the reservoir level). If you look at the prior days forecast, warmer and wet. There was lots of talk about how this storm was well forecast. Hmmmm…. Noticed what happened when the forecasted storm hit. Reservoir Inflow spiked, they started spiking the outflow UNTIL they realized that the levee capacity downstream would be exceeded, so they cut dam outflow (red line) to basically zero! If you look at the corresponding gauge readings for downstream (Auburn) at this time, you’ll see that in-stream discharge there was still almost at levee topping levels. All due to side flow from rain on the lowland snow. So, the big question remains why didn’t the ACE, prior to the forecasted storm, increase outflow from HHD to lower the reservoir level. Usable storage goes down to 1035’, and they were sitting at 1070 feet – that’s 35 feet of reservoir head with which to play. To this day (I work in Kent), we still get our fall / winter flood warnings and associated evacuation plans, all centered around the limited storage capacity of the dam (and their associated need to potentially release beyond levee capacity) due to the “flood damage of 2009” which they claim was due to the flood. Or was it a combo of the flood and questionable reservoir management….?

I don't think there is any question everyone on this site is against putting any sort of dam or diversion on NF Snoqualmie. I don't see the relevance of the Green, which is managed for public safety. There is no such concern on Ernie's, on which any project would likely be more akin to the diversons on the Ashlu and Sultan Rivers. These rivers are both de-watered using a diversion and accompanying run of the river dam.

It may be true that the river is not accessible by anadromous salmon. However, if this is a rationale for decision-making, then the assumption has been that a dam may in some cases be the desirable outcome. This is patently wrong. The paddling community's position should be that this recreational area, which already sustains severe impacts to natural resources from roads and timber production, as anyone who is up there during a rainstorm can easily see. The area also support a suite of recreational interests, not just kayaking. People pay to access fees to use the area, so there are clear alternatives already in place for those whose aim is financial profit. This is most concernedly to us one of the most valuable whitewater resources in the state. People come from around the country to paddle this V+ test piece of American whitewater.

Nor least of all, the stream discharge baseflow suggests the amount of energy that would be gained is paltry relative to the gross statewide power production. One could argue that compromise would be to have power production while requiring a certain number of flow days, but this backyard run gets paddled tens of times a year, and it is very unlikely that so many days would be negotiated into any dam construction permits. With dams coming out on the Elwha and White Salmon, it seems there is a weight of support to protect this resource area by concluding that a diversion would degrade the overall value of the watershed.

The path to achieve the objective of stopping this project is to be a strong united voice by writing or attending meetings and supporting organizations such as AW, whose reputation provides it "a seat at the table".

chipper on the subject of relevance of the Green to the Ernies. It is relevant because were discussing the usage and purpose of these structures. The original thought was from Ben saying sure right now they might release boatable flows and only want to generate say 20mw, but what about 10 years from now.

As Brian said whether or not Howard Hanson was mismanaged we will never know. We can argue both sides till we drop, but what can not be argued is the purpose of the structure originally and now. Originally it was flood mitigation 100%, Nothing else. After many years it's purpose for Water supply became so significant that now almost all of the area east of HH is off limits since it is considered watershed. You want to talk about a change in usage. How do you think hikers felt when they found out parts of the PCT were being moved and planes were going to be patrolling them because they were entering a close proximity to the water shed? I am sure hikers used to think, wait what watershed? I have never heard of a water shed here, Oh that Howard Hanson just changed purposes. Rats

So how is this relevant. Well sure this N.F. Snoq starts as a minor power project, but as others know, there are a whole lot of other watershed areas nearby that are now gated and off limits (Tolt, Forks of Tolt, Cedar etc..) Howard Hanson moved in a very very similar manner. The only difference is that power generation was never part of it's history, only Flood Mitigation. Well if you ask me folks are going to be much more willing to allow a power project to expand into a bigger power project & water supply than they would a flood mitigation project since that is a whole change of original purpose.

Not to play devils advocate here, but the only way a dam on a river would equal the output of a nuclear plant would be what you see on the Columbia. You would need a thousand Nooksacks to equal one nuclear plant. Which is the problem.

Brian,

Totally realize we’re not talking a reservoir with vertical sides, and from a storage capacity perspective, a foot elevation change at lower levels doesn’t equate to a foot of change at higher levels. Not even close. Yes, 1035 is minimum low, with 1141 being the “conservation pool level”. Usable storage is claimed from 1035 to 1206 (totaling 106K acre feet) and the conservation storage range of 1035 to 1141 only accounts for 25K AF of that total. So with levels at the time before the event hovering in the 1070 range, they had little capacity left with which to draw down – well less than the 25K AF of the conservation pool. And considering there’s about 44K cubic feet in one AF, and inflow spiked (briefly) to 30K cf PER SECOND, any draw down of what was left would be negated by a few minutes of the max recorded inflow.

And yes, the concern was with the abutment and not the dam itself – where the dam is build against what appears to be ancient land slide material (separate conversation unto itself…). After this event, traceable die indicated water was passing through the abutment and an alarming rate, causing concern for further erosion. Hence, storage capacity was limited, leading to possible “action” in the downstream communities. Not because of potential dam failure, but due to the ACE being unwilling to impound water up the max 1206 reservoir level. Beyond a certain capacity, the plan was that outflow would have to match inflow, and that could easily top levees further downstream.

I’m still unclear how higher inflow (30K cfs) would damage the abutment, as I'm assuming we’re talking a rapidly rising pool level rather than a raging torrent. And a rapidly rising pool level still imparts less stress on its surroundings than a full pull – we’re just talking hydraulic head. It would be interesting to understand the cause / effect the significant inflow / outflow delta had on the abutment and it’s damage.

Ok, was finally able to connect with Thom yesterday and he does seem like a genuinely nice guy. I took around 4 pages of notes on what he had to say, and then I left them in the hotel so bear with me...

Thom says that the state, power companies and the company that owns the land around Ernie's actually call it Black Canyon. There is already on small power plant out there. The large waterfall on RL with the massive old growth directly below it is the run out of this power station.

They intend to put an inflatable rubber bladder type dam about a half mile from the beginning of the gorge. As far as I can tell it’s about a quarter mile from the old put in where the river makes almost a 90 degree to the left and a large sand/rock bar is on the RR.

The inflatable bladder would raise the water level to around 10 feet from where it is right now and this would spill over into a tunnel that would bypass all of Ernie’s. The power station and output would be in Ernie’s Grove, the end of the run.

Thom seemed very optimistic that they could maintain a relationship with boaters in the area and he wants to meet with us to figure out what we want. I obviously relayed the message that we are not particularly thrilled about possibly losing the best run in the state (my opinion). He said that the wheels are already in motion. It will be roughly a 4 year process to get the required permissions, build the tunnel and install the dam. It is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project so there will be a lot of red tape, good for us. The power company will need all of the federal components to work together to push this through. SO, we still have time at least.

I emailed Tom O'Keefe and briefly described the issue. So, hopefully it comes into the spotlight for AW.

I'm sorry this post is a bit splotchy; when I get home I will read through my notes and post them for you guys. Until then, get out there while we have it!!

Cheers

Dan

I will keep an eye on this. Snohomish PUD has preliminary permits to evaluate Calligan and Hancock Creeks, tributaries of the North Fork, for hydro and they intend to build these projects. We filed an intervention and raised concerns. One concern is that once infrastructure is in place for projects on those tributaries it could make the mainstem North Fork Snoqualmie more attractive for development. To date I have not seen any preliminary permit application though which would be the first step required prior to evaluating a site for development.

-- Tom

Correction. There is a preliminary permit application and FERC has recently opened the public comment period.

Details here:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31058/

Ok, here are the things I either left out from my notes or just want to expand upon:

First off, Thom made it very clear on several occasions during our conversation that anyone who hikes in and boats Black Canyon is TRESPASSING on land owned by Hancock Forest Management and that if we are caught our cars will be impounded and we will be arrested or at a minimum fined. I didn't argue with Thom, just tried to figure out of he was talking about the old put in that now has all the decorative wood railing around it. From what he explained, even if we walk down the gravel road with the gate on it, the new put in, we are still liable for prosecution. Hancock Forest Management has made it clear they will have any kayakers that are caught trespassing arrested. So, yeah. The only way we are allowed access to the North Fork from that area is if we buy the permit that the hunters and wood scavengers buy for a couple hundred bucks.

As far as the FERC permit:

All local federal and state agencies will have a say in the project and whether or not it happens. They will have to have a stream inflow requirement for fish. They want to meet with kayakers to talk about the construction of the Dam and the spill way.

The existing power plant on Black Creek:

Has been there for over 15 years now. Is 160 feet above the old growth waterfall on RL.

The power station currently puts out around 4 MW ( I was surprised about that one).

The Ernies Dam:

They want 900cfs to push the turbines. They are looking at "Black Canyon" because they want the area with the steepest gradient for efficiency. So no other place on the North Fork is as appealing from an energy generating perspective. Thom said that anything over 900 cfs they would "have" to allow to bypass the power station. He had a bunch of stats on flow levels over the years for Ernies. Stating that the average flow from Apr 1st to July 1st is greater than 500 cfs, with half of that time being greater than 1500 cfs. That means based on their own inflow needs, Ernies would be dry for half of the spring. He didnt seem to understand the issue there.

He stated multiple times that he would want to work out some kind of contract with the local boating community that specified a boatable water level but didnt really specify how we would guarantee it, request it, any of that. He seemed sincere when explaining that he wanted to grant us legal access to the river but didn't actually seem to know how he could make this happen. Per his flow statistics, the Dam would be shut off for most of July, August and September because if the inflow is less than 500 cfs theres no point in turning it on. I doubt that.

Take care and go get wet people!

Cheers

Just for the record I was part of a dinner meeting a couple months back with local management from Hancock. For the Snoqualmie Tree Farm public access by bike or foot is welcome (different story on Puyallup). If any one wants more details drop me a line but I will be following up on all this.

Wow! Never thought this would happen. Was this meant to stay 'under the radar'?

I thought there was a big drive on for alternative power that is not dam derived. Just cause these guys will work with boaters does not mean that they will not damage this canyon and its inhabitants. This is not needed and clearly a pork project for someone to make money at the expense of a public resource.

Originally posted by tiziak

First off, Thom made it very clear on several occasions during our conversation that anyone who hikes in and boats Black Canyon is TRESPASSING on land owned by Hancock Forest Management and that if we are caught our cars will be impounded and we will be arrested or at a minimum fined. I didn't argue with Thom, just tried to figure out of he was talking about the old put in that now has all the decorative wood railing around it. From what he explained, even if we walk down the gravel road with the gate on it, the new put in, we are still liable for prosecution. Hancock Forest Management has made it clear they will have any kayakers that are caught trespassing arrested.

I just checked directly with Hancock. Here is the response:
"The developer may have gotten bad information about walk-on access. You are welcome to walk-on at this time."

We hope to maintain a good relationship with Hancock and continue this policy. Note that this applies to access at the Spur 10 gate.

As of now, there are fewer than 10 comments posted.

Come on! Can EVERYONE please spend the 5 minutes to post a comment saying that you are against this project?

Simple directions:

Click -------> HERE <-------

-Click the Orange eComment Tab at the top of the page.

-Fill in your name and email

-Check your email for an email from FERC

-Search and select docket P-14110

-Write a comment!

If you want to register, you will be notified of other comments and updates. For that, go to:

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

For American Whitewater's links:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31058/

To see comments, go to:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/docket_search.asp

Search: P-14110

Just submitted my response. Dan or Ben, you should forward the link to WKC and all of the Portland folks as well if you haven't done that yet.

I just emailed around 70 people, so hopefully that will help. Spread the word!

I don't know too many of the Portland boaters though. Ben?

I just posted to PDX kayaker and Boof.com, and the comments are finally starting to stream in!

I don't want to outline all the strategy in a public forum but we are in good shape. Many permit applications don't get any public comments.

Just to clarify, more comments is a good thing.

I've tried viewing mine and a few other comments. Their document viewer appears to be cutting off a large portion of people's comments. I wonder if they are receiving half the words that are being typed. Tom, maybe you could look into this?