Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
02/08/2024 10:15 AM House ENERGY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and Fish and Wildlife Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
February 8, 2024
10:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative George Rauscher, Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Thomas Baker
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Jennie Armstrong
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND FISH AND
WILDLIFE PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SAMANTHA OWEN, Senior Regulatory Consultant
McMillen, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and
Fish and Wildlife Program presentation.
JULIE HASQUET, Sr. Manager
Corporate Communications
Chugach Electric Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
additional information during the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation.
TONY ZELLERS, Chief Operating Officer
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in support
of the selected project alternative.
ANDREW LAUGHLIN, Chief Operating Officer
Chugach Electric Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in support
of the selected project alternative.
EMILY COHEN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in support
of the dam removal project alternative.
BRENDA HEWITT, Tribal Administrator
Native Village of Eklutna
Eklutna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in
opposition to the selected project alternative and spoke on the
1991 agreement.
JULIAN RAMIREZ, Salmon and Clean Water Organizer
The Alaska Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in support
of the full restoration of the Eklutna River.
CHENNERY FIFE, Southcentral Alaska Engagement Manager
Trout unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and Fish and Wildlife Program presentation, testified in support
of the dam removal project alternative.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:16:40 AM
CHAIR RAUSCHER called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. Representatives McKay, Baker,
Prax, Schrage, Armstrong, and Rauscher were present at the call
to order. Representative Wright arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^PRESENTATION(s): Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and Fish and
Wildlife Program
PRESENTATION(s): Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and Fish and
Wildlife Program
10:18:00 AM
CHAIR RAUSCHER announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and Fish
and Wildlife Program.
10:18:52 AM
SAMANTHA OWEN, Senior Regulatory Consultant, McMillen, Inc.,
began a PowerPoint presentation on the Eklutna Hydroelectric
Project and Fish and Wildlife Program [hard copy included in the
committee packet], with slide 1, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
-The Eklutna Watershed provides a variety of benefits
to the community:
• Eklutna Lake provides 90% of Anchorage's Public
water supply. [image of people drinking from an AWWU
portable water station.]
• Eklutna Lake functions as a battery, storing
spring and summer runoff to provide power during
winter. [image of Eklutna Lake dam at head of river]
• Eklutna Lake, located within Chugach State4 Park,
is a popular spot for a variety of recreational
opportunities. (image of person riding a bike
alongside Eklutna Lake.)
MS. OWEN moved forward to slide 2, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
-Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
• Owned and operated by Chugach Electric, Matanuska
Electric, and the Municipality of Anchorage.
• Provides 24% of Chugach's renewable energy, and 45% of
MEA's renewable energy.
• Maximized during a cold spell or potential gas supply
emergency.
• Offsets approximately 86,000 tons of carbon each year.
• Lowest-cost energy in Southcentral Alaska.
• Could be used to regulate other future renewables like
wind and solar.
MS. OWEN explained what percent of energy generation the current
dam contributes to Chugach Electric, Matanuska Electric, and the
Municipality of Anchorage, noting that it mainly serves as an
emergency relief system in the case of a gas shortage. She
moved to slide 3, which showed a map of the Eklutna River and
surrounding area and how it relates to the project. In the
lower left corner, a larger map of the Cook Inlet Region of
Southcentral Alaska is displayed to show exactly where the
project is located. In the upper right corner, a map key is
displayed. She explained the key, highlighting important
places, parts of the river, infrastructure, and the history of
the Eklutna River dam, from the initial dam's construction to a
lower dam's removal.
10:24:11 AM
MS. OWEN moved to slide 4, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
-Reservoir Operations
• Relatively consistent power generation year- round.
• In the spring and summer, the glacier is melting, and
inflows exceed outflows, so the lake level increases.
• In the fall and winter, the glacier stops melting, and
outflows exceed inflows, so the lake level decreases.
• The intake is at El. 793 feet.
• The minimum regulated lake level is El. 814 feet.
• The spillway crest is at El. 871
MS. OWEN said the slide's graph showed how water levels rise and
fall each year, with different colored lines to display
different years. She explained how the water level is
influenced by yearly snow/glacial melt and rainfall, as well as
the minimum lake level needed to run the current dam.
10:26:00 AM
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 5, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
-Low Lake Levels
• The outlet of Eklutna Lake is at El.860 feet.
• The lake is below this elevation for approximately 9
months every year (winter, spring, summer).
• During that time, the lake is hydraulically
disconnected from the dam, and a pond forms between
the dam and the lake.
MS. OWEN said the slide contained an image of an aerial photo of
the headwaters of the Eklutna River in late spring,
demonstrating the lowest water levels of the year, with arrows
to point out specific areas of the image, such Eklutna Lake, the
pond above the dam, and Eklutna Dam itself. She described the
image and explained how one of the biggest challenges of the
Eklutna Hydroelectric Project was the low water levels.
10:27:33 AM
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 6, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
-Development in the Eklutna Watershed
• 1914-U.S. Congress authorized construction of the
Alaska Railroad
• 1929-Private Company constructed first hydroelectric
project on the Eklutna River
• 1935-Palmer Highway constructed
• 1955-Federal Government finished constructing the
Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
• 1961-U.S. Army started construction of a road Eklutna
Lake (now the lakeside trail)
• 1965-Eklutna Dam replaced after earthquake
• 1970-Chucagh State Park established and Railroad
begins gravel mining
• 1975-New Glenn Highway Constructed
• 1988-Eklutna Water Project constructed
• 1989-Purchase Agreement signed
• 1991-Fish and Wildlife Agreement signed
• 1995-U.S. Congress authorized sale of the Eklutna
Hydroelectric Project
• 1997-Finalized sale of the Project to the three local
utilities (Transaction date)
• 1998-ADFG started stocking Eklutna Tailrace
• 2016-Old Glenn Highway bridge was replaced
• 2018-Lower dam removed by The Conservation Fund,
Eklutna, Inc, and the Native Village of Eklutna
MS. OWEN Walked through the history of the Eklutna Watershed's
development, particularly how each event relates to one another
and how it affects the project today.
10:31:14 AM
MS. OWEN discussed the "1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement," on
slide 7, the details of which are on slide 8, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
-Study Program must:
1. Examine and quantify, if possible, the impacts of fish
and wildlife from the federal Eklutna project.
2. Examine and develop proposals for the protection,
mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
affected by the project.
3. Consider the impact of fish and wildlife measures on
electric rate payers, municipal water utilities,
recreational users, and adjacent land use...
4. As well as available means to mitigate these impacts
MS. OWEN explained a 4-step process outlined by the 1991 Fish
and Wildlife agreement to determine the impacts to fish and
wildlife. She moved to slide 9, which explained the governor's
obligations/considerations, and which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
-Governor must give equal consideration to:
1. Purposes of efficient and economical power production
2. Energy conservation
3. Protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement
of fish and wildlife
4. Protection of recreation opportunities
5. Municipal water supplies
6. Preservation of other aspects of environmental quality
7. Other beneficial public uses
8. Requirements of State law
MS. OWEN moved to slide 10, titled "Study Results," which
displayed a series of images that explain the salmon study - its
process and results. She explained the methodology, timeline,
and stakeholders that were involved in the 5-year long salmon
study. She said that McMillen, Inc. studied "everything they
could think of," including fish counts and habitat, sediment and
spawning grounds, wetlands and wildlife, a recreation survey, a
simulated operations module, and finally a lot of engineering to
outline all of the potential designs.
MS. OWEN mentioned slide 11, titled "Alternatives Analysis," and
moved on to slide 12, titled "Stakeholder Engagement," which
displayed the logos, emblems, and seals of various public and
private entities involved in the Eklutna Hydro Project. She
moved to slide 13, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
-Alternatives Analysis
• Series of 5 meetings
• April through August 2023
• Iterative Process
o Participants submitted comprehensive alternatives
o Each alternative was evaluated using models developed
o Participants has multiple opportunities to revise
alternatives based on modeling results
o Revised alternatives were reevaluated
MS. OWEN, responding to questions from Chair Rauscher, noted
that there are a couple of different species in Eklutna Lake,
but most commonly kokanee, which are unique to other kokanee.
The lake is currently not stocked, but there were a couple
instances in the '80s and '90s where some fish were stocked in
the lake by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). The
lake is glacially fed from Eklutna Glacier and has extremely
high sediment levels and turbidity, which she cited as one of
the reasons for the lack of primary production in the lake.
10:38:08 AM
MS. OWEN continued her presentation on slide 14, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alternatives Analysis 14
• Series of 5 Meetings
• April through August 2023
• Iterative Process
o •Participants submitted comprehensive alternatives
o •Each alternative was evaluated using the models
developed
o •Participants had multiple opportunities to revise
alternatives based on modeling results
o •Revised alternatives were reevaluated
MS. OWEN explained how each project alternative was studied, how
models were developed, and how the models of the project
alternatives were revised throughout the analysis.
10:39:26 AM
MS. OWEN moved to slide 15, which showed a graph of a cost-
benefit analysis on the project. She discussed project
alternatives, who is associated with each alternative, and three
categories of cost-breakdown shown on the graph. She said that
less water for generation means more money spent on gas
generation, as well as explained the 1991 Fish and Wildlife
Agreement's requirements as they relate to cost.
10:42:57 AM
MS. OWEN moved to slide 16, which showed a table explaining the
benefits of the preferred alternatives in terms of acres of
habitat gained. She then skipped to slide 18, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
What's Included in the Draft Program?
•Year-Round Base Flows
•Periodic Channel Maintenance Flows
•New AWWU Bridges
•Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
MS. OWEN explained that the document had studies of year-round
base flows, periodic channel maintenance flows, new Anchorage
Water and Wastewater Utility bridges, and a monitoring and
adaptive management plan for the yearly water flow and salmon
runs.
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 19, which explained the proposals and
how the project owners will be utilizing existing AWWU
infrastructure to provide habitat in certain areas of the
tunnel. She then showed slide 20, which explained how much
water would need to be released (in cubic feet per second) into
the river in order for the salmon to maintain their maximum
salmon habitat, while not decreasing salmon habitat or taking
too much water away from the lake.
10:50:36 AM
MS. OWEN, in response to Representative Schrage, said that there
is no real quantification or study of the salmon species that
historically spawned in the Eklutna River, other than a study on
sediment deposits. Along with that, she said, there is
traditional knowledge from the Native Village of Eklutna.
10:54:08 AM
MS. OWEN continued on slide 21, which showed a winter flow
analysis graph. She said the idea is to promote favorable ice
conditions for salmon to have proper rearing habitat in the
winter. She explained what types of ice are beneficial and
harmful to salmon and how they could influence the formation of
ice with controlled water releases. She continued to slide 22,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Periodic Channel Maintenance Flows will Maintains
Spawning Habitat over Time
• Automate the existing drainage outlet gate
• 220 cfs in 3 out of 10 years
• Will occur in the fall when the lake is high
• Shaped to prevent any fish stranding during
downramping
The slide also displayed a graph of how periodic
releases of water would work for the benefit of
salmon. She explained that releases of water would
occur during the fall, that releases would clean the
gravel, and that it would come from the existing gate
at the top of the river.
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 23, "Allows for Adaptive Management
to Improve Habitat Over Time," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
•Committee includes Parties to the 1991 Agreement and
NVE
•Water Budgets
•Instream Flows 24,280 AF ± Banked Water
•Channel Maintenance Flows 2,913 AF for each 10-Year
Period
•Monitoring
•Flow Meters
•Funding Commitment for Other Monitoring Efforts
•Conduct Adult Salmon Surveys
•Record Winter Water Temperatures in Rearing Reaches
•Measure Sediment Grain Size in Spawning Reaches
•Assess Straying Rate from the Tailrace to the River
•Adaptive Management
•Based on Monitoring Results
•Committee can Request Alternative Flows within Water
Budgets
MS. OWEN explained adaptive habitat management and proposals to
begin a committee to oversee the management and maintenance of
the salmon habitat in the Eklutna River.
11:00:52 AM
MS. OWEN continued to slide 24, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Includes Engineering Measures to Protect the Public
Water Supply
•Close coordination with AWWU during design
•Will not impact AWWU's water rights
•Construction of 8 new bridges
•New Isolation Valve Structure
•Replacement of Outdated Communication System
•New Redundant Flow Meters
•These improvements total $7.3M
MS. OWEN described engineering measures to be taken to protect
the public water supply, including the construction of eight new
bridges, use of isolation valves, and the replacement of an
outdated communications structure, among other things. Ms. Owen
mentioned that "a bunch of engineering measures were included in
our design to make sure we are addressing any and all of their
[AWWU's] concerns."
MS. OWEN, in response to a series of questions, answered that
the cost is included in the project owner's program; the project
owners would be paying the $7.3 million, not AWWU. She noted
that the Municipality of Anchorage is one of the project owners,
that they are in one of various cost-sharing agreements for this
project. She advised that the Anchorage Assembly itself isn't
an owner but will pay for some of the costs, likely through an
appropriation of funds.
11:05:03 AM
JULIE HASQUET, Sr. Manager, Corporate Communications, Chugach
Electric Association, confirmed there is a taxpayer impact and
the Municipality of Anchorage will pay a portion of the bill.
MS. OWENS continued her presentation on slide 25, which showed a
table of types of costs and their associated value. It also
discussed who is paying for what and how much the total
expenditure of the project would be after each cost type was
taken into account.
MS. OWENS moved on to slide 26, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
What's Not Included in the Draft Program?
•Higher Year-Round Flow Releases from the AWWU Portal
Valve (at river mile 11)
•Incremental gains in habitat are minor when compared
to increased costs
•Year-Round Flow Releases from the AWWU Pipeline (at
river mile 5.5)
•Significantly reduced habitat gains for almost the
same cost as the AWWU Portal Valve alternative
•Year-Round Flow Releases from a New Bypass Tunnel (at
river mile 11.5)
•Significantly increased costs for almost the same
habitat gains as the AWWU Portal Valve alternative
•Year-Round Flow Releases from Eklutna Dam (at river
mile 12)
•Requires the power plant to be shut down through the
winter to keep the reservoir high
•Replacement Dam (at river mile 12)
•Cost prohibitive and decreases reservoir storage
capacity by 40%
•Fish Passage
•Concerns regarding viability, effectiveness of
downstream passage, presence of IHN, and potential
impacts to water quality
MS. OWEN explained what was not included in the draft program
and why. She touched on why there weren't higher flow releases
at different parts of the watershed, why a replacement dam
wouldn't be viable, and why there aren't more proposed options
for fish passages.
11:13:38 AM
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 27, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Summary
•Benefits all 4 species of salmon currently spawning
in the Eklutna River
•Provides habitat in 11 out of 12 miles of the river
•Achieves 96.5% of max spawning habitat for Chinook
below the AWWU Portal Valve (99.6% for coho)
•Allows for adaptive management to improve habitat
over time
•Maintains Eklutna hydro as a year-round resource
(especially during cold spells)
•Protects the public water supply
•Indirectly benefits wildlife
•Avoids impacts to recreation
•Minimizes costs to rate payers and taxpayers
•Minimizes increases in carbon emissions
•Achieves an equitable balance of costs, benefits, and
impacts
MS. OWEN summarized the proposed project draft that was chosen
along with its benefits and compromises. She explained that the
chosen project draft provides the most benefits to fish,
wildlife, and recreation, while providing the most amount of
generation and the smallest burden on rate payers and taxpayers.
MS. OWEN moved on to slide 28, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Comments on the Draft Program
•The Project Owners submitted the Draft Program to the
Signatories to the 1991 Agreement and the Native
Village of Eklutna on October 27, 2023 for review and
comment
•All comment letters are available on the Project
website (www.eklutnahydro.com)
•The Project Owners met with the Signatories to the
1991 Agreement and the Native Village of Eklutna in
December 2023 to attempt to resolve differences
•Discussions centered around
• Flow Release Location
• Flow Regime and Water Budget
• Water Banking
• Physical Habitat Manipulation
• Fixed Wheel Gate
• Fish Passage
• Climate Change
• Lakeside Trail Repairs
• Monitoring Efforts
• Success Criteria
• Adaptive Management Committee
• Dam Removal
MS. OWEN explained slide 28, which touched on comments sent in
about the draft program proposal. She emphasized that the
project managers met with the Native Village of Eklutna and the
signatories in December 2023, and those discussions centered
around fish passage and flow release management.
MS. OWEN discussed slide 29, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Dam Removal
The Native Village of Eklutna has proposed to remove
the dam/project in 10 years after replacing it with
another renewable energy source
•Wind, solar, and run-of-river hydro are NOT firm
energy sources
•Storage hydro is a firm energy source, however
identifying, studying, licensing, designing, and
constructing new hydro project(s) of the equivalent
size will likely
•Take more than 10 years
•Have new environmental impacts
•Be very expensive
•This would also set back the long-term timeline for
reaching the utilities overall renewable energy goals
MS. OWEN highlighted that at first, the Native Village of
Eklutna's preferred alternative at the end of the alternative
analysis study was the replacement dam option, but that has
since changed to the dam removal option, as of a letter received
in November, and replacing it with a new renewable project in 10
years. She explained the implications of dam removal.
11:18:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE observed that "we" have known this has
been an issue since 1991 and, thus, have had more than 30 years
to plan for an alternative.
MS. OWEN, in response to several questions from Representative
Schrage, explained that the original intent of the 1991
agreement was to mitigate the existing project, and that she
does not believe that the project owner's intent of the
agreement was to remove the project or build a new one. She
said that sockeye salmon are mentioned specifically in the
divestiture summer report that went to Congress in 1992, but the
1991 agreement itself does not specify a specific outcome,
although many different options were evaluated that would
achieve the same goal of mitigating impact to sockeye salmon.
CHAIR RAUSCHER handed the gavel to Representative McKay.
11:23:02 AM
MS. OWEN continued the presentation on slide 30, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dam Removal (cont.)
•Without the dam or hydro project, flows in the
Eklutna River would be
•1200 cfs every July/August
000 cfs every few years
•4000 cfs every 10 years
•AWWU's pipeline is buried for 6 miles under/adjacent
to the riverbed
•Significant scour impacts to the water supply
pipeline would be likely
•Hydro project owners legally cannot negatively impact
the public water supply
•Significant impacts to the downstream railroad and
highway bridges would also be likely
•The Project Owners are conducting a more detailed
assessment of dam removal which will be included in
the Proposed Final Program
30
MS. OWEN elaborated on the dam removal and its impacts. She
illustrated the differences in the river's flow regime, as well
as emphasized that whatever generation is lost would have to be
made up for by a different sector of energy.
11:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY handed the gavel back to Chair Rauscher.
MS. OWENS continued on slide 31, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
January 2024 Cold Snap
•Majority of generation in southcentral Alaska is
natural gas.
•However, during a cold snap, natural gas is needed
for heating.
•During the recent cold snap, Enstar requested that
the utilities maximize hydro to reduce gas
consumption
•So the utilities ran Eklutna (and other hydro) at max
capacity
•On December 30th started at 13% hydro for CEA/MEA
•By January 1st increased to 23% hydro for CEA/MEA
11:25:45 AM
TONY ZELLERS, Chief Operating Officer, Matanuska Electric
Association, Inc., spoke on how cold snaps affect energy
infrastructure, specifically hydro infrastructure. He mentioned
the recent cold snap in January 2024, and how valuable
hydroelectric power generation is during cold snaps.
11:27:57 AM
ANDREW LAUGHLIN, Chief Operating Officer, Chugach Electric
Association, spoke on how much energy Chugach Electric receives
from hydroelectric generation, about 15 percent of its
generation annually. He made a point that during peak times,
hydroelectric generation can make up to 25 percent of Chugach
Electric Association's generation.
11:29:43 AM
TONY ZELLERS, in response to committee questions, related that
how long infrastructure lasts during an extended cold snap
depends on how much water is in storage. He said there is no
data showing how many thousand cubic feet (Mcf) would've been
saved had people reduced their thermostats during the cold snap.
11:32:11 AM
MS. HASQUET added that Chugach Electric follows the lead with
Enstar and stays in communication.
11:33:45 AM
MS. OWENS continued to the final slide, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Next Steps
•February 19, 2024 Public comment deadline
•April 2024 Submit Proposed Final Fish and Wildlife
Program to the Governor
•60 days for Parties to review and submit comments to
the Governor (May/June)
30 days for Project Owners to submit responses to the
Governor (July)
•Additional 2 months for Governor to consider
(Aug/Sep)
•October 2, 2024 Deadline for Governor to issue
Final Fish and Wildlife Program
32
MS. OWEN explained the public comment deadline, the proposed
fish and wildlife plan submission date, and the deadline for the
governor's decision.
11:35:08 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 11:35 a.m.
11:35:55 AM
CHAIR RAUSCHER opened public testimony on the Eklutna
Hydroelectric Project and Fish and Wildlife Program
presentation.
11:36:20 AM
EMILY COHEN, representing self, testified that the project
alternative proposed by the project owners is insufficient to
restore a thriving salmon population in all parts of the Eklutna
River, as well as the habitat above the dam in the lake. She
said it would be meaningful to have a thriving salmon run so
close to Anchorage.
11:38:12 AM
BRENDA HEWITT, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Eklutna,
testified that the 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement was kind of
a promise by the project owners that 30 years from its inception
they would look at ways to mitigate the impact of the dam. She
said that all of this work and research has been done behind
closed doors, that there has not been enough transparency, and
that they haven't listened to the Native Village of Eklutna
through their numerous discussions.
11:42:18 AM
JULIAN RAMIREZ, Salmon and Clean Water Organizer, The Alaska
Center, testified that the entire process done by the project
owners has failed to include public opinion and also failed to
acknowledge the benefits of introducing another salmon run in
Alaska. He said that it would have great benefits to the
commercial fishing industry, considering the dwindling salmon
returns across Alaska. In response to Representative Prax, he
confirmed that he was challenging the statistics about salmon
numbers and flow rates presented today. He offered his
understanding that the numbers are estimated by a co-author of a
study that was previously cited, the marine nitrogen study for
potential based on lake size, turnover, and historical records
of fish. He said he would share the data.
11:47:57 AM
BRENDA HEWITT, in response to Representative Schrage, explained
that in 1929, no one knew of the impacts that the dam would have
on the fish in the river. She cited "traditional ecological
knowledge," saying that was the most valuable resource in
understanding the wild salmon runs that once populated the
Eklutna River.
11:50:23 AM
CHENNERY FIFE, Southcentral Alaska Engagement Manager, Trout
unlimited, testified that she thinks the proposed project plan
does not meet the requirements of the 1991 agreement. She said
that it ignores public comment, the Native Village of Eklutna,
community leaders, and the late Don Young. She said there are
better options for hydroelectric generation that don't affect a
salmon run.
11:52:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX indicated he would like the testifiers'
remarks in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether there is any legislative
involvement in this issue or it is ultimately up to the
governor.
CHAIR RAUSCHER remarked that the legislature has no involvement
unless it wants to get involved.
11:54:38 AM
MS. OWEN clarified that the governor has the final say on the
final Fish and Wildlife Program.
11:55:11 AM
Chair Rauscher closed public testimony.
11:55:33 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-2-8 Eklutna Presentation_House Energy Committee.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2024 10:15:00 AM |
Eklutna |