By ALEX GIMARC
Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued his final Eklutna Fish and Wildlife program this month.
Documents supporting the decision can be found at the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project website. This project is comprehensive, with significant local, state and national interest. Everything is thoroughly documented. And there are a lot of documents.
The 1991 purchase agreement required the governor to give equal consideration to the eight following factors to “ensure Eklutna [is] best adapted for power generation and other beneficial public uses.” These factors are:
- Efficient and economical power generation and other beneficial public uses
- Energy conservation
- The protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat)
- The protection of recreational opportunities
- Municipal water supplies
- The preservation of other aspects of environmental quality
- Other beneficial public uses
- Requirements of state law
Note that all of this falls directly out of the 1991 purchase agreement and must be addressed as part of this Final Program.
Dunleavy’s 30-page Decision Memorandum has a three-page transmittal letter and announced with State of Alaska Press Release 24-047. Depending on how deep you want to dig into the Eklutna Fish and Wildlife Program, I would start with the press release, move to the transmittal letter, and then to the 30-page program detail. Supporting documents for all this can be found in the Eklutna Hydro Project Documents page.
The adopted Final Program will restore year-round water flow to the Eklutna River. This will require purchasers to provide funding for monitoring, habitat enhancement, lakeside trail repairs, creation of a “Monitoring and Adaptive Management Committee,” a pair of limited program re-openers for possible replacement of the existing outlet and spillway of the dam, and potential construction of a fish passage into and out of Eklutna Lake.
Left unsaid is the observation that a continuous flow of water out of the lake will eventually require a higher water level in the lake. Water levels in the lake are highly variable over the course of the year leading to periodic dry riverbeds in sections. Note that a 2017 paper by Loso, et al found no evidence of a former red salmon population spawning in the lake, although they could not preclude the existence of such a population before the original dam was constructed in 1929.
From here, the Final Program is a reasonable approach that balances everything the governor was asked to do with the 1991 purchase agreement. Commentors provided significant and what appears to me to be reasonable input. The only significant disagreement appears to be a group from Eagle River calling itself The Conservation Fund that is dedicated to removing the dam.
As I read the approved Final Program, it will be more difficult for a future governor, legislature or Anchorage Assembly majority to remove the dam.
From here, the approved Final Program is a reasonable approach to maintenance and improvement of what we have at Eklutna.
The Governor, his team and the owners of Eklutna should be congratulated on a job well done under potentially difficult circumstances.
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
Maybe it’s the new math, but explain this disconnect from reality.
How do you produce “efficient and economical power” by reducing the ability to create it?
Excellent question but the answer is money and power not fish returns.
You can’t just ignore the remaining seven bullet points that had to be taken into consideration, when you take all factors into consideration and prioritize them some get more consideration than others. What you are left with is “efficient and economical power” with all factors of the agreement that must be followed accounted for. Is there a way to produce more “efficient and economical power” than what this agreement allows, absolutely, but reality is that you can’t just ignore the agreement.
I read the Conservation Fund complaint and couldn’t help but see the intense hypocrisy of these self proclaimed earth justice warriors. While they put all of their focus on a singular issue, they completely ignore what that means in the big picture. Hydro power is the cleanest source of reliable energy in the world. If ones like the Conservation Fund were to be successful in ruining a significant base load power source which also happens to be the main water source for the municipality of Anchorage, what then? The power required to replace what would be lost would all come at a significantly higher environmental cost. One would think these anti-everything folks would collaborate to get the biggest bang for their buck. Instead, they are using the shotgun approach to fight everything and getting nowhere. Sad really, many good ideas come out of necessity, but when you shoot holes in everything, people lose all interest and view you as just another complainer with a narrow focus agenda.
The key finding is “found no evidence of a former red salmon population spawning in the lake”.
It is impossible to create a valid concern to justify demolishing the existing vital infrastructure in favor of historically non existent critical habitat for a historically non existent fish resource.
1929 is within both the written and living memory time period for documenting the existence of a Native community specifically located in the effected drainage that depended on a stable existing resource.
Creating mythical “tribes” to “recognize”, along with funding micro governments and outside attorneys with macro budgets to represent fraudulent claims has become popular.
The issue created out of complete BS, that there was a distinct tribe, dependent on, and to this day suffering from the lack of, a non existent resource is well funded, weaponized and deployed against the vital interests of current inhabitants.
If the proponents of destroying vital infrastructure prevail, the loss of critical “clean”, “sustainable” and “renewable” energy and clean water would harm the surviving descendents of said “tribe” far more than attempting to introduce a non native salmon population into a watershed that never could naturally support one.
In this case, the interests of the “tribe”
are best served by reliable power generation for its’ casino project to create the resources needed to “subsist” on.
The chances are good that the Anchorage Assembly and others may have tried – and failed – to create a mythical fish run. We will see this play again in the future in another context.
Based on that part of Cook Inlet, there are probably a few silvers and pinks up Eklutna. Don’t expect they get too high. Note that all 5 species are found up Rabbit Creek, which is really small, though they don’t make it all that high. Cheers –
Well stated. Thank you, Brian.
“……….Left unsaid is the observation that a continuous flow of water out of the lake will eventually require a higher water level in the lake…….”
Yeah, saying that brings up the delicious twist: the “Remove The Dam” movement will result in a bigger dam. The irony is beautiful………..if, indeed, this is irony and not a plan from the beginning by some really ingenious people. My hat is off to you. I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Stick it to them some more, please.