PUD Archives - Tulalip News

PUD Fish Passage Project: great for the fish, great for the environment

Marie Zackuse, Tulalip Tribes Chairwoman.

By Micheal Rios, Tulalip News

On Thursday, May 11, Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) officials joined with the City of Everett, the Tulalip Tribes, and various state and federal resource agencies to recognize the success of the Fish Passage Project. The location of this gathering was on-site at the Jackson Hydroelectric Project Powerhouse in Sultan, Washington.

“It’s an honor to be here today to celebrate completion of the PUD Fish Passage Project. We raise our hands to all of you who have helped ensure safe passage of our precious salmon,” stated Tulalip Chairwoman Marie Zackuse during the Sultan celebration. “Our water and salmon are the foundation of our culture. Our people occupied lands ranging from the islands near Seattle, north to the Canadian border and east to the Cascades. Some of our people descended from a village near the mouth of the Sultan River. Today, one-hundred years after the diversion dam was built, we can finally welcome our salmon home.”

Back in 1919, the City of Everett oversaw the first timber crib dam on the Sultan River built for water supply. In 1929, a decade later, Everett built a new concrete diversion dam at the same location to meet water needs of their growing region. The way the diversion was managed, there were times of the year that the Upper Sultan River was completely dry. Although the Lower Sultan River received enough water from other tributaries to allow salmon to spawn, miles of the Upper Sultan River were no longer accessible to spawning fish resulting in massive population losses.

Fast forward to 2011, when the PUD received a new 45-year hydroelectric license, requiring volitional fish passage construction at the Diversion Dam based on a biological need for more habitat. In May to December 2016, the Diversion Dam received several modifications that allow for unrestricted access (upstream and downstream) for resident and anadromous fish to additional six miles of habitat, an area not accessible to them since 1929. Within the few short months since the dam’s modifications, Natural Resources and Fisheries staff have already seen Coho and Steelhead return in the area above the dam and anticipate Chinook will return in the upcoming season.

“Creating passage for fish past the 1930’s era diversion dam was a significant endeavor, but the best part is the fish are already taking advantage of this new opportunity,” said PUD Natural Resources Manager Keith Binkley. “These actions, as well as others on the horizon, are indicative of the substantial and collaborative effort by those of us who know and care about this river system.”

Earlier this year, the PUD’s Diversion Dam Project received the National Hydropower Association’s “Outstanding Stewards of American’s Waters Award” in the category of “Recreational, Historical, & Environmental Enhancement.”

For more information on the PUD Fish Passage Project and several other projects taking place in the Jackson Hydroelectric Powerhouse house area please visit www.snopud.com/jhp

Tidal Power Project In Puget Sound Abandoned By Utility

A crew deploying a "sea spider" in 2011 to collect data from the floor of Puget Sound in Admiralty Inlet. After eight years of testing and permitting processes, the Snohomish County PUD has decided to halt the project. | credit: Ashley Ahearn | — A crew deploying a “sea spider” in 2011 to collect data from the floor of Puget Sound in Admiralty Inlet. After eight years of testing and permitting processes, the Snohomish County PUD has decided to halt the project. | credit: Ashley Ahearn |

By Courtney Flatt, Northwest Public Radio

A long-awaited tidal energy project in Puget Sound has come to halt. The project was set to generate electricity and connect it to the grid – the first project of its kind in the world. But it just got too expensive.

The Snohomish County Public Utility District had hoped to install two underwater turbines in Admiralty Inlet near Puget Sound’s Whidbey Island. The pilot turbines would have generated enough power for about 200 homes and stayed in the water up to five years.

The U.S. Department of Energy had said it would pay for half the project, but the department recently said it couldn’t keep paying after eight years of permitting and testing.

Steve Klein, the PUD’s general manager, said new types of renewable energy need support.

“Tidal, wave, and ocean generation are kind of where wind (power) was 10 or 15 years ago. Even wind needed that support, that research, that involvement from a number of different parties,” Klein said.

Watch: video of a crew putting tidal energy test equipment in Admiralty Inlet

Klein said the PUD is still looking for partners to help pay for the construction, but that it probably won’t look into another tidal power project any time soon if it can’t find other financing.

Some had worried the tidal energy project would harm marine life like resident orcas that regularly swim in the waters. A study by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found adult male orcas would likely not suffer significant damage if they came into contact with the turbine blade.

The project received a federal license in March.

The PUD spent about $4 million on the project, with funding from grants and the sale of renewable energy credits from wind projects. The PUD expected to finish construction of the tidal energy project by 2016.

Feds license PUD’s tidal power project

By Chris Winters Friday, March 21, 2014

Herald Writer

EVERETT — The Snohomish County Public Utility District on Thursday received federal approval for plans to place two large turbines on the sea floor off Whidbey Island.

The pilot project has been in development for years, and if the PUD’s Board of Commissioners signs off on the project, it may be a few more years before the turbines are installed.

Snohomish County PUDThis artist's rendering shows the tidal energy turbine Snohomish County Public Utility District plans to test to determine if tidal energy is a viable source of electricity. — Snohomish County PUD
This artist’s rendering shows the tidal energy turbine Snohomish County Public Utility District plans to test to determine if tidal energy is a viable source of electricity.

The project is a test to see if using tides to generate electricity is technically, commercially and environmentally viable, said Craig Caller, an assistant general manager for the PUD.

It would be the first time tidal power turbines in Puget Sound would be connected to the larger electricity grid.

So far, the PUD has raised about $13 million in federal Department of Energy grants, which is expected to cover about half the cost of the project. The rest would come from a mix of more grants and money from the utility’s Resource Reinvestment Reserve, Caller said.

The test area is 200 feet deep in Admiralty Inlet, less than half a mile off the west shore of Whidbey Island and not far from the Keystone ferry slip and Fort Casey State Park.

The utility is to operate the turbines for three to five years, during which time it will study the turbines’ actual performance versus the expected output, maintenance requirements, underwater noise and response of nearby fish and marine mammals.

Gathering that data will determine whether the utility proceeds with a commercial deployment. Right now there isn’t enough data to make even an educated guess as to tidal power’s viability.

“It’s in its infancy. It’s about where wind technology was decades ago,” said Dave Aldrich, president of the PUD’s Board of Commissioners.

In issuing the license, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled that the PUD has addressed concerns raised by Native American tribes and an undersea cable company.

The Tulalip Indian Tribes, the Suquamish Tribe and the Point No Point Treaty Council, representing the Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam tribes, opposed the project, saying the turbines posed a risk to fish and fishing nets and would force the state to close the area to fishing.

A data communications company, Pacific Crossing of Danville, Calif., also protested the project. The company operates more than 13,000 miles of undersea fiber-optic cable that pass through Admiralty Inlet to Harbour Pointe from Asia and California. It is concerned cables would be damaged by the operation of the turbines.

Caller said that FERC in its ruling said the turbines posed no risk either to undersea cables or marine wildlife, nor would they impede the tribes’ fishing rights.

Officials from the Tulalip Tribes and Pacific Crossing could not be reached for comment.

In the Orkney Islands off the coast of Scotland, another pilot project using the same model of turbines found there was no danger to wildlife.

“What they found consistently over that time is that when the turbine is rotating, that fish and mammals simply avoid it,” Caller said.

The turbines are to be made by the Irish firm OpenHydro. They are approximately 20 feet in diameter, weigh 414 tons each and sit 65 feet high on a triangular platform 100 by 85 feet.

At peak generation, the turbines could produce 600 kilowatts of electricity. But because this is a pilot project, it is unlikely the turbines would ever generate that much electricity for the grid, Caller said,

If the PUD’s board votes to move forward with the project — Aldrich said it likely will — the utility will need to obtain permits from Island County, where the power would be brought to shore, order the turbines and hire contractors.

It’s brand new territory for the utility, and installation of the turbines is years away.

“We’re pioneers if we go through with this,” Aldrich said.

Chris Winters: 425-374-4165 or cwinters@heraldnet.com.

Federal agency approves PUD’s study of proposed dam

By Bill Sheets, Herald Writer

A plan for studying issues related to a possible mini-dam on the South Fork Skykomish River near Index has been approved by a federal agency, despite Tulalip Tribes concern that the study won’t accurately assess the possible effects on fish.

The Snohomish County Public Utility District study plan will not gather enough information to determine the planned weir’s potential effects on juvenile salmon that migrate downstream, said tribal environmental liaison Daryl Williams in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“We have met numerous times with PUD and have provided extensive comments regarding the study plans and the proposed project but believe our comments were not adequately addressed,” Williams wrote in the letter, dated Feb. 18.

FERC determined that the PUD’s study plan was mostly adequate and sent a letter to the utility Jan. 30 giving it the go-ahead. Some small changes were recommended. Williams’ letter was in response to approval of the study.

The PUD could have the study done and ready for public comment by early 2015, spokesman Neil Neroutsos said.

If the utility formally applies to build the mini-dam, which it has yet to do, FERC would have the final say.

The possibility of any type of dam on the scenic stretch of river above Sunset Falls has drawn fierce resistance from neighbors and environmental groups.

The $133 million project would involve diverting water from a pooled area behind a seven-foot inflatable weir above Sunset Falls into a 2,200-foot pipeline downstream to a powerhouse just below the falls. It’s expected to generate enough power for about 10,000 homes. Some water would be allowed to flow over the weir.

Chinook, coho, pink and chum salmon spawn above the falls and head downstream.

The tribes have listed several conditions under which they’d support the project. They include assurance that stream flow will be adequate and establishment of a reliable fish-counting system. They don’t believe the PUD’s study plan accomplishes those goals.

Kim Moore, an assistant general manager for the PUD, acknowledged some differences with the tribes but said he thought the Tulalips and the utility staff were in agreement on most of the points.

“I was caught off guard by the tone of this letter” from the Tulalips, Moore said.

The South Fork Skykomish River is listed as a protected area by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a regional planning group based in Portland.

The designation does not prevent development, but FERC must take it into account in its decision on the project.

The PUD has asked the council for a rule change that would allow a mini-dam in a protected area if it can be shown that it’s helpful to fish and wildlife. A decision on that request could come this summer, council spokesman John Harrison said.

The Tulalips have said they could back the rule change if their conditions are met. Otherwise, “it is exceedingly difficult for the tribes to support exempting this site from the protected areas list,” Williams wrote in the Feb. 18 letter.

The PUD has agreed to monitor fish passage after the dam is built but did not include a fish count in the study to be done beforehand. Officials say it’s difficult to accurately measure the number of fry and fingerlings headed downstream.

“It’s an expensive proposition and it’s hard to get really good data,” Moore said.

FERC agreed with the PUD on that issue.

“Studying the out- migration timing of smolts in the project area is unnecessary because the timing is adequately understood,” the FERC letter reads.

The utility and the tribes also disagree on the amount of time needed to measure river flow to make sure that enough water will run over the weir to carry young fish downstream.

The PUD’s plan is to sample one migration season — this spring and summer. The tribes want two years of data.

“We don’t think there’s a need,” Moore said.

The agency again agreed with the PUD, in part. It recommended that the utility study at least three different flow conditions to provide a range of scenarios. If not enough data are collected this year, more studies could be required next year.

Moore said the PUD is doing the fish studies it believes are required by the federal government, 17 in all.

He hopes to work things out with tribal officials.

“We have overall a good relationship with the Tulalips,” Moore said. “I do not think we’re that far apart, quite frankly.”

Williams, too, said agreement is possible.

“I think there’s still some room to work with the PUD to try get part-way there on some of the issues, but we’re not there yet,” he said.

Snohomish County utility awaits approval for tidal turbine

In this June 13, 2011 file photo, the Energy Tide 2, the largest tidal energy turbine ever deployed in the U.S., appears on a barge in Portland, Maine. Scientists at the University of Washington have determined that Admiralty Inlet, in Puget Sound, is an excellent place to test tidal turbines. (AP Photo/File)

BY Tim Haeck on January 15, 2014 MyNorthwest.com

A public electric utility in Everett could be among the first in the nation to generate power from the tides.

Scientists at the University of Washington have determined that Admiralty Inlet, in Puget Sound, is an excellent place to test tidal turbines.

“Admiralty Inlet stacks up pretty well, worldwide, in terms of its actual tidal energy resource,” said Craig Collar, assistant general manager at Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1. Currents have been clocked at 6-7 knots, he said.

The PUD is pledged to maintain carbon-free power sources. It has wind power and is exploring geo-thermal energy, as well.

“We’re highly dependent on the Bonneville Power Administration,” said Collar. “That’s a lot of eggs in one basket and it only makes sense to diversify.”

The advantage of tidal power: tides are reliable and predictable.

The disadvantage is you have to pick the right spot.

The utility wants to place two turbines, each about 20-feet in diameter, on the bottom of Admiralty Inlet, 200 feet below the surface. The more than $20 million pilot project, funded in half by the U.S. Energy Department, is at least six years in development. It’s been delayed, in part, by a challenge from a California company that owns two trans-ocean fiber optic telecommunications cables.

“The turbines, as currently proposed, are dangerously close to our cable,” said Kurt Johnson, chief financial officer of Pacific Crossing. He’s worried that turbine deployment and maintenance could damage the cables.

“Pacific Crossing is not against tidal energy, or even this specific project. All we’re really asking is that the PUD locate the turbines a safe distance from our cable.”

“In fact, we have done that,” said Collar. “This project is now several hundred feet away from their cable, so the crux of the matter is our project simply doesn’t represent any risk whatsoever to their cable.”

Collar said an environmental review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), draws the same conclusion.

“The facts are they’ve got a six-inch wide lease, we’re several hundred feet away, we have a deployment accuracy of less than ten feet, we won’t use any anchors at all in the deployment operation or maintenance of these devices,” said Collar.

Tribal and environmental groups have also challenged the project out of concern for fish and orcas.

“But the truth is these turbines rotate quite slowly, more the speed that we’d visualize for a turnstile, taking several seconds just to make a single revolution,” Collar explained.

The utility is awaiting approval of a license from FERC and some state and local permits. The soonest the turbines could be deployed would be 2015.

It’s not known if tidal power will prove effective around here.

The Snohomish County PUD No.1 will hook up the turbines to the power grid but Collar said this pilot project is more about collecting data than generating electricity. If approved, the turbines will operate for three-to-five years and be removed.

Ruling on tidal turbines delayed; sparring continues

By Bill Sheets, The Herald

EVERETT — While a decision on whether tidal power turbines may be installed in Admiralty Inlet has been delayed in part by the federal government shutdown, sparring between the proponent and opponents has continued.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had planned to decide whether to approve the Snohomish County Public Utility District’s $20 million tidal power pilot project as early as this past summer, but now it will likely wait at least until December, according to the utility.

The federal energy agency has been awaiting a report on the project from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Completion of that report came later than expected and has been further delayed by the government shutdown, PUD officials said.

The tidal power plan has faced stiff opposition from Pacific Crossing of Danville, Calif., which owns two transoceanic cables that run through the inlet between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend.

Four Indian tribes, including the Tulalips, also say the project could affect salmon migration and fishing.

Officials with the PUD say the concerns either are unfounded or have been addressed. A 215-page environmental study issued last year by the FERC concluded that the turbines pose no threat to the cables, wildlife habitat or fishing.

Under the plan, two 65-foot-tall turbines, each resembling a giant fan sitting on a tubular platform, would be placed 200 feet underwater to capture the current. The turbines are made by OpenHydro of Ireland.

At peak output, the turbines are expected to generate 600 kilowatts between them, enough to power 450 homes. Most of the time, the output will be less, PUD officials say. This would be a demonstration project intended to determine whether more turbines could be effective in the future, officials say.

The cables, only a couple of inches in diameter, contain fiber-optic lines that transmit data through the Internet and social media, said Kurt Johnson, chief financial officer for Pacific Crossing. The lines are encased in steel and polypropylene.

The cable network extends a total of more than 13,000 miles in a loop from Harbour Pointe in Mukilteo to Ajigaura and Shima, Japan, and Grover Beach, Calif.

The turbines would be placed about 575 feet and 770 feet from the cables. Pacific Crossing and its trade group, the New Jersey-based North American Submarine Cable Association, say the standard should be around 1,600 feet.

Pacific Crossing has submitted several more sets of comments to FERC since last winter.

The cable interests believe the lines could be damaged by placement of the turbines or by boats dropping anchors in the area.

“Our ultimate concern is the adequate and safe separation of the turbines from our cables,” Johnson said. “We’re kind of concerned this project will become a precedent for authorizing projects such as this at an unsafe distance from submarine cables.”

The company pointed out that an agreement between utilities and cable companies in the United Kingdom established 500 meters — about 1,600 feet — as the minimum distance between offshore wind farm turbines and undersea cables.

On its website, the cable association says that although the agreement pertains to wind projects, the agreement could be applied equally to tidal and wave energy projects.

Officials with the PUD disagree.

“The bottom line is it’s an apples and oranges kind of thing,” said Craig Collar, assistant to PUD general manager Steve Klein.

The PUD earlier submitted to the federal agency a list of precautions that crews would take when operating near the turbines. For example, boats would stay running when in the area to eliminate the need for dropping an anchor, Collar said.

On the issue of turbine placement, OpenHydro officials have told those at the PUD that they can get the turbines within 10 feet of their target locations, Collar said.

In response to the environmental study, the Tulalip Tribes, the Suquamish Tribe and the Point No Point Treaty Council, representing the Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam tribes, each sent letters disputing its conclusions.

Fishing gear could get hung up in the turbines, and the structures could potentially harm migrating salmon, said Daryl Williams, environmental liaison for the Tulalip Tribes.

Tribes fish for halibut, crab and shrimp in the area, he said.

“We’ve already lost most of our fishing area due to shipping traffic and piers and anchor buoys and the other things that get in the way of drift gillnets,” Williams said.

The turbines take up but a tiny part of the large inlet, Collar said.

“This project is so small, it doesn’t in any material way impede the tribes’ fishing rights,” he said.

Williams said the very conditions that determined the placement of the turbines — strong currents — could steer migrating salmon into the turbines. Chinook salmon and sturgeon travel as deep as 150 feet below the surface, he said.

“When the fish are migrating, they travel with the current so they don’t burn much energy while swimming,” Collar said. “We don’t think the studies are going to identify what the impacts are to migrating fish.”

The PUD is working with the University of Washington on state-of-the-art sonar equipment and underwater cameras that will be deployed to monitor fish passage near the turbines.

The tribes are skeptical, Williams said.

“Our fish are already in bad shape in the Puget Sound area and we’re throwing in one more obstacle to recovery.”

Proposed hydro-energy project has Index saying ‘no dam way’

Snohomish County PUD wants to install a small, inflatable dam at this bend on the south fork of the Skykomish River.Bellamy Pailthorp / KPLU News — Snohomish County PUD wants to install a small, inflatable dam at this bend on the south fork of the Skykomish River.
Bellamy Pailthorp / KPLU News

June 19, 2013

By Bellamy Pailthorp

At a time when Washington state has been making headlines for the largest dam removal project ever on the Elwah River, Snohomish County is proposing a new one.

The Snohomish County Public Utility District says the proposed dam’s modern low-impact design would help the county diversify its energy portfolio and meet the future power demands of a growing population.

But the location of the proposed dam—on a wild and scenic stretch of the Skykomish River near the small town of Index—has many locals banding together against the project.

Jeff Smith (center, in tan shirt) welcomed a public tour by FERC and the PUD at his property, which borders on the proposed dam site.Bellamy Pailthorp / KPLU News — Jeff Smith (center, in tan shirt) welcomed a public tour by FERC and the PUD at his property, which borders on the proposed dam site.
Bellamy Pailthorp / KPLU News

‘No dam way’

Driving east on Highway 2, evidence of the brewing controversy near Index is hard to miss. Printed signs and hand-painted placards line the roads, calling on the PUD not to dam the Skykomish.

“Did you see our address sign that says ‘no dam way?’” asks homeowner Jeff Smith with a laugh.

Smith is trying to maintain his sense of humor about it all. His riverfront property sits right on the edge of the proposed dam site.

For decades, Smith’s family has enjoyed communing with nature on the shore of the Skykomish as the river rushes by. To the west, the craggy peak of Mount Index looms, to south and east are peaks in the Wild Sky and Alpine Lakes Wilderness areas.

“A lot of people call this truly one of the most spectacular places in the country,” Smith said. “And of course, we believe it’s an inappropriate place to put an industrial project that puts a yoke on a wild and scenic river. And we think it should be allowed to stay free.”

Meeting a growing demand

A powerhouse would be built to the left of Sunset falls, shown here. PUD says they would not be de-watered, just diminished as with hydro at Snoqualmie or Niagra Falls.

The Skykomish is one of only four rivers in Washington that has earned the wild and scenic designation, which is meant to discourage development.

But the Snohomish PUD has obtained the preliminary permit to put in an inflatable dam on the river. The idea is the dam would take advantage of the water’s power as it flows toward two sets of dramatic waterfalls.

The utility recently toured the site with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as part of its first scoping meeting. The commission will determine what kinds of environmental studies will be required for the licensing process.

Snohomish PUD Assistant General Manager Kim Moore pointed across the river, explaining to FERC and the public exactly how the inflatable structure made of steel and rubber would work.

“This is a big inner tube, which has compressed air that allows us to lower or raise it to keep the river at a steady height. Right now, with this kind of flow, probably it would be all deflated,” Moore told the tour.

Moore said the dam would lie flat about a third of the year, not producing power at those times. And there would always be some water flowing over the dam; it would adjust with the strength of the river to keep water levels safe for endangered fish and minimize its environmental impacts.

The dam would provide power for about 10,000 homes—or about 1 percent of the utility’s demand—at a cost of up to $170 million.

The utility says it’s the lowest cost “renewable energy” project it has found. The utility is also actively pursuing additional wind power and exploring geothermal, tidal and large-scale solar installations. Bottom line, says Moore: the utility wants to wean off of dirty fossil fuels.

“So this prevents a natural gas plant or coal plant, you know, because we’re still growing,” he said. “The county’s growing, we’re adding people and there’s a need for additional energy.”

‘Simply inappropriate’

Those arguments haven’t stopped the opposition.

More than a hundred people squeezed into the Index Fire House for the evening scoping meeting. And of the nearly three dozen people commenting, only one man spoke in favor of the dam. The man said the dam could reduce flooding and improve roads in the area.

But the rest of the commenters did not agree. Along with local residents, representatives of groups including the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters joined the chorus of dissenters. Also testifying was Tom O’Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director with American Whitewater.

“I have tremendous respect for my colleagues here at the PUD. I have worked with these folks for over a decade, ” O’Keefe said. “But sometimes your friends make mistakes. And this project is simply inappropriate in our view.”

FERC is taking comments on the plan for the proposed Skykomish River dam proposal through July 19. The final decision on the license is expected to take about five years.