Feds take public testimony on proposed Susitna River dam

Anchorage Daily News ^ | March 26th, 2012 | Anchorage Daily News

[thackney]

A federal agency is holding public "scoping" meetings this week for a large hydroelectric dam project proposed for the Susitna River.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was to take public testimony about the Susitna dam project starting Monday evening in Anchorage. The public meetings are the first step for a required federal Environmental Impact Statement. Through the environmental review, the federal government determines whether and under what conditions to issue a license for the project.

The latest cost estimate to build the dam is $4.3 billion, but some legislators think that is on the low side. The Legislature last year approved $66 million toward the project.

[thackney]

Early Studies and Initial FERC process

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation first studied the Susitna River’s hydroelectric potential in the early 1950s, with a subsequent review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970s. In 1980, the Alaska Power Authority (APA), now known as the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); commissioned a comprehensive analysis to determine whether hydroelectric development on the Susitna River was viable. Based on those studies, the APA submitted a license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1983 for the Watana/Devil Canyon project on the Susitna River (commonly known as the Susitna Hydroelectric Project). The license application was amended in 1985 for construction at an estimated cost of $5.4 billion (1985 dollars).

From 1978 to 1986, the State of Alaska expended $145 million (of $227 million appropriated) on extensive field work, biological studies, and activities to support the FERC license application. Financing difficulties, along with the relatively low cost of gas-fired electricity in the Railbelt region, the declining price of oil throughout the 1980s, and the financial burden on the State budget, the APA terminated the project. Though the APA concluded that project impacts were manageable, the license application was withdrawn in March 1986.

Recent Plans and Legislation

In 2008, the Alaska State Legislature, in the FY 2009 capital budget, authorized AEA to reevaluate the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as it was conceived in 1985. The authorization also included funding a Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) to evaluate various sources of electrical power to satisfy the area’s long-term energy needs. Future demand predictions, and options to meet the demand, such as from renewables, demand-side management, and energy efficiency, were evaluated. The latter two options were recommended regardless of the new electrical generation option selected.

In 2010, legislation directed the State to receive 50 percent of its electrical power from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025. Hydropower currently provides approximately 24 percent of the electrical energy used in Alaska. The RIRP concluded that the only way to supply 50 percent of Alaska’s electricity from renewable and alternative sources is from a large hydroelectric project in the Railbelt region.

From:
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org

[thackney]

Project Description

The proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately half-way between Anchorage and Fairbanks on the upper Susitna River. The Susitna-Watana dam would be located within a steep-sided valley of the Susitna River at River Mile 184 above the mouth, approximately 34 miles upstream of the Devil’s Canyon rapids. The single dam would be at the same location below Watana Creek as in the larger two-dam Susitna Hydroelectric Project proposed in the 1980’s

he proposed dam would be 700 feet high, with a resulting reservoir 39 miles long and up to 2 miles wide.

The 700-foot high Susitna-Watana dam would have a 557-foot difference between tail water and the maximum pond elevation of 2,014 feet. The resulting reservoir would be 39 miles long and up to 2 miles wide. Installed capacity of the power plant would be 600 MW, with an average annual generation of 2,600 GWhrs.

The powerhouse, dam, and related facilities would be linked by a transmission line connecting to the Railbelt Intertie, and road and/or railroad access from the Parks and/or Denali Highway corridors.

[Eska]

I've been up to Portage Creek at bottom of Devil's Canyon; don' think you can get up past the canyon. There are some inscriptions on a rock there at Portage Creek, dated late 1890's. Apparently, there was a bunch of Colonists that planned a new community a few hundred miles up past canyon. When they got to Devils Canyon, they gave up on the idea and the community itself. Pretty rugged country up there.

I'd like to see the dam built, salmon don't even spawn much further up than the canyon. But in Alaska, there are some things talked about but never happen. I had an old friend here in Alaska that was here in 1942. He said after WWII, everybody thought there would be a road to Nome pretty quick, but as usual; some things in Alaska never come to pass. Moving the capital, dam on Susitna, ect.

[thackney]

I've been up to Portage Creek at bottom of Devil's Canyon; don' think you can get up past the canyon.

I've taken Steve Mahay's Riverboat Tour from Talkeetna to the entrance of Devil's Canyon. I believe Steve is the only one to drive a boat up it, but a few rafters have lived going down it.

http://www.mahaysriverboat.com/denalialaska-mahay.com/dct.htm

There really is no way for more than a couple salmon a year to survive the trip past Devil's Canyon. This is one of the few places in the world that can claim Class VI rapids.

[vpintheak]

Dam it! We need Susitna now!

Let’s do it. We are still barely a country of can do people!