Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4079Susitna River: Do We Really Need To Dam It? Li ke a ll f ree-fl ow in g ri ve rs, t he Su sitna is a co mplex syst e m o f in ter-re la t ed resou rces . Beginn in g in the south- ern fla nk of the Al ask a R:111 ge , it trave ls a 27 5-mile j o urn ey tlowi ng into Cook Inl et west o f An c h o rage. The up p e r Su sitn a is h ome t o the m ost h eavi ly -hunte d ca rib o u he rd i n A lask a a n d h as hi s t o ri ca ll y co ntri bute d a la rge po rtio n o f th e m oose harv est in the s t at e. T h e Su sitna va ll ey c ulm in a t es a t D evil 's C an yon, o n e of the m ost c h a ll engin g whitewat e r a reas in th e co ntin e n t. Dow n strea m , the Sus itn a pro du ces the m aj o rity of sal m o n to th e Cook In le t f ish e ri es, p rov idin g a re n ewabl e r esource h a rv est e d by tho u sa nd s of s p o rt a nd comm e rc ia l f ish e rme n . The Al ask a Powe r Autho rity , a gove rnme nt age n cy, h as proposed con stru c tio n o f t wo massive dams a t Devil 's Ca n y on a nd Wa t a n a Cree k to ge n e r ate hy dro-e lec tric ity fo r Al ask a 's "R ai l b elt ", (the K e n ai Pe nn in sula , A nch o rage a nd Silver (Coho)SO% Fairb a nks). Results of the c urre nt $3 0 million feasibility studie:s a re not due until 19 82 , when th e Govern o r a nd th e Legisl:a tu re will d e cid e the Su sitn a 's future. Altth o u gh the cost s and impact s of th e proj ec t a re n o t yet full y kn o wn , pre limina ry f ind in gs indica t e th a t h y dro - e lectrii c deve lopm e nt on th e Sus itna co u ld se r iou sly a ffe ct the r iw e r 's re sources . Bw t o ne thing is clear : t h o u sand s of Alaskan s d e p e nd o n the Susitn a Rive r fo r live lih ood and recreation . We mu s t ex - amine: th e imp act s a n d a lte rn a tives o f this proj ect b e fore a d e cisi1o n is m a d e. Mam y A laskans feel it is t o o ea rl y t o be "fo r" o r "again- s t" t h1 e Su sitn a d a m s. In st ead , it w ill t a k e ca re ful cons id e r- a tio n by all o f u s to d e t e rmine the best u se o f th e Su sitna Ri ve r..-F=~=a 1Pink (Humpback) 50% Chum 75% Red (Sockeye) 30% King (Chinook) T he Susit na K ing ru n makes u p one of t w o runs in Cook Inl e t. Numbe rs presentl y n o t known. Salmon Runs At Stake According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Susitna project "will create adverse impacts to fisheries resour- ce s both upstream and, more important- ly , downstream of the proposed dams". The Susitna is a silt-laden , glacial river. Over 80% of its flow occurs during spring and summer, providing access to sloughs and tributaries used by spawning salmon. In winter , the main channel of the Su- sitna runs clear. This allows the juvenile salmon to migrate from freezing tributar- ies and sloughs to use the Susitna as their main winter rearing habitat. The proposed dams would store the river 's summer flow for winter release, causing potentially large impacts to sal ... mon spawning and winter habitat. - - -Decreased summer flow could reduce salmon access to sloughs and tributaries needed for spawning. -- -The dams would release silt-laden summer flow during winter, causing year- round siltation and possibly destroying critical winter rearing habitat. Both these factors could have serious effects on the salmon fisheries. What are the potential losses to the Cook Inlet salmon industry? How much do we value these fisheries? Alaskans must answer these and other difficult questions before a decision is made on the Susitna project.F====a The Susitna River contrilbutes the rna jority of salmon to the Cook Inlet fisheries S(.(UjA. L14k.t. £~~e. ChAkA-chM,u14 Spo<t fi'h•nnen flo'k to Montad and other tributaries <:f the Susitna to reel in the abundant salmon. X~nai Ptnnin.suCa Each year, commercial fishing in Cook Inlet employs many Alaskans and makes an important contribution to our econ- omy. I nformation sources: A laska Dept. of Fish & Gam e, U .S. Dept . of Fish & Wi ld life, U.S. Army Corps of En gineers, Alaska Power Auth ority, Instit u te of Social & Economic R esearch an d Al aska Center for Policy Studies. For more information contact: FAIRBANKS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 218 Driveway Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 907-452-5021 Poster published by the Fairbanks Environmental Center Caribou Threatened The heartland of range for the Nel c hina caribou herd lies in the tUpper Susitna country. Numbering some 22,000, this is the largest ~remaining herd south of the Brooks Range and the most heavily- ! hunted in Alaska. In 1979, over 5 ,600 people applied for permits Ito hunt the Nelchina herd. Water-level fluctuation s of up to 125 feet in the proposed Watana 1 reservoir would cause extreme icc shelving. This would pose a ser- i ious hazard to caribou and could result in high mortality during at- 1 tempted crossings. ~:::::::::::::::;:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The calving grounds of the Nelchina herd arc adjacent to the pro- 1 posed Watana reservoir. The 54-mile reservoir would pose a majo r I barrier, possibly causing the caribou to stop migrating across the Susitna. A resulting reduction in range could cause a drama tic pop- ' ul ation decline in the Nelchina herd. An integral part of the Susitna project would be construction of 1 permanent roads from the Parks Highway to the Devil's Canyon . and Watana dams and from the Denali Highway to the Watana site. ·The Denali-Watana road would cut through the middle of the car- . ibou range. These new roads and spin-off development of sur- . rounding lands could place additional pressure on the herd. It is impossible to predict exactly what effect the Susitna project 1would have on caribou. But it may well threaten the future of this IIast large herd in south-central Alaska and the unique wilderness !hunting it offers. Loss Of Critical M oose W in ter R a n ge Moose depend heavily upon the Su- sitna 's river bottoms for winter habitat both above and below the proposed dam sites. This winter range results from the sea- sonal flooding of the Su sitna, allowing willow to colonize the dry stream beds. The dams would eliminate this seasonal flooding and the growth of winter moose browse vegetation . Without annual flood s, these areas could become mature stands of hardwoods and provide little or no moose forage . The proposed Watana dam site would inundate some 35 ,000 acres of critical winter habitat. which supports 4 ,000 to 5,000 moose. t!=-=~ A Shaky Propo sitiom Approximately 50.000 acres and Be miles of river basin would be inundated. Major caribou migration routes t T !\~ekhlf"d c:ar•bo1 Gcalvmg grounds The upper Susitna basin lies in a z one of high seisnnic ac tivity, crossed by three major faults and several smaUier ones. The active Susitna fault runs directly between 1 the two propose d dam sites and tl1e De nali fault lies witlhin 40 mile s. Geologic knowledge of the area is incomplete. But : re - cent reports show that 114 earthquakes were recor<Xled within 60 miles of the dam sites, betwee n March 11JJ75 and December 1977. In addition to natural sei smic activity , filling the re- servoirs could trigger earthquakes. This has happeme d with other large dam projects. And there is no way t to fully evaluate the effects of reservoir loading until 1 the dams are built. A major quake could cause structural damage or gen- erate huge wave s which c ould over-top the dams. Either way, massive floods could swamp th e Parks Highway, d e- vastating Talke etna and other downstream communities. No one is sure the dam s can b e design e d to withstand a major earthquake . But eve n if safe dam s can be built, the cost could b e a stronomical. The price tag of the Su sitna project is alread y estimated at $3 to S6 billion! Engineering against the high seismic risks could e scalate co sts even more. Are Alaskans ready to take the risk and pay the price for Susitna power? F==~ Susitna Hydro ... A Question of Priorities The front of this poster shows that the Susitna River plays an important role in the lives of many Alaskans. Thousands of sport and commercial fishermen depend on Susitna R1ver salmon for their recreation and livelihood. Alaskans heavily use the Susitn:a basin to hunt the Nelchina caribou herd and abundant moose. The Susitna flats is a major waterfowl hunting area. Preliminary assessments by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game show that the proposed hydro~lectric project will have negative effects on the big game and fisheries. The question is: How great will the impacts be? As we explore that question, Alaskans should examine all possible ways to meet our electrical needls. Our Future: Our Choice What type of energy future do you want for Alaska? Remember that the energy choices we make today will greatly influence Alaska's future. Our choice should involve building projects that are economical, safe, renewable and which av,.oid large impacts on Alaska's natural resources and human environment. Consider the abundant energy sources we have in Alaska .. Do we really have to dam a vital river like the Susitna to meet only 13 % of our energy needs? (See "Alaska's Energy Picture", below). Susitna hydro is NOT the only answer. We have many other options. The "Railbelt " area of Alaska is energy-rich. There are numerous potential dam sites. The Beluga coal fields (near Anchorage) and the Healy fields are the most notable of many coal deposits. Conservation and increased efficiency have great potential for reducing our energy demands. Solar, natural gas, geothermal, tidal and wind power round out the amazing variety of energy sources in the Railbelt. We have a choice. We can assume rapid growth in Al laska's population and energy consumption. We can dam the Susitna and risk losing one of our richest river systems to generate more power than we need. Or we can increase our energy efficiency, build smaller-scale, localized hydro-projects and develop a mix of other sources. This path could lead to a future where our mo£t v.ital rivers still run free and Alaskans continue to enjoy self-sufficiency based on our diverse renewable resources. Energy Options Polar Solar At the Arctic Circle, there are 230 hours more sun- light than at the equator. The technology for solar energy provides the means for individuals to meet their own energy needs. Three solar technologies have the greatest promise for helping meet Railbelt energy needs: PASSIVE SOLAR makes maximum use of sunlight for space heating by effective siting and design of build- ings. Recent analysis show that the combination of im- proved insulation standards and designing buildings to collect sunlight through south-facing windows can re- duce fuel consumption for space heating by 60 to 73%. At the Arctic Circle, there are 230 hours more sunlight than at the equator. ---ACTIVE SOLAR provides hot water and space hea- ting by solar collectors that heat air or water for circula- tion throughout the building. It is estimated that one- half of the Railbelt's single-family residence hot water needs could be met through active solar. PHOTOVOILTAICS (or solar cells) convert sunlight direr.tly into electricity. Presently costing $7 to $12 per peak watt of el1ectricity compared to a cost of $1.40 to $3 for Susitna lhydro, solar cells are projected to reduce to$ .50 to $1 a peak watt by 1986. The potential! of solar power in Alaska's Railbelt is truly exciting. 11t is not the whole answer, but an impor- tant part of it. s;olar in combination with increased con- servation could keep our energy needs at reasonable le- vels. By contr<DIIing our consumption, we will have greater flexibilityr in choosing hydro sites. t==~ Our Cheapest, Cleanest Energy Source Right now, we have an energy source available which produces no pollution and causes no damage to fish, wildlife or other natural resources. It costs very little, compared with other sources. And it doesn't need big bureaucracy to build or operate it. Instead, it relies on the Alaskan traditions of indivi- dual initiative and independence. What is this remarkable energy source? Conservation .... energy efficiency. Recent research shows that energy consumption in the average Alaskan home could be cut in half, with an · investment of less than $5000. The cost of the Susitna project is currently estimated at $3 to $6 billion. This works out to a cost of $30,000 to $60,000 per electrical user to build the Susitna project. If we directed our money and effort into improving the efficiency of our homes, we could reduce the total energy consumption of the Railbelt by 25%! If we directed our money and effort into improving the efficiency of our homes we could reduce the total energy consumption of the Rail belt by 25% . Since 1975, p,eople in Fairbanks have shown how in- dividual efforts ccan dramatically reduce consumption. For the last fourr years, the per-customer rate of con- sumption at Golden Valley Electric Association (Alaska's second-largest utility) has declined by an aver- age of 1 2% a yearr. For the last four years, the per -cus:tomer rate of consumption at Golden Valley Electric Association has declined 1by an average of 12% per year. In the same period, the number of insulation busi- nesses in Fairbanlks has dramatically increased. Alaskans are learning that a kilowatt saved is cheaper and just as useful as a kilowa1tt produced. It's clear that a real commitment to conservation can go a long, long wray toward keeping our energy needs at reasonable levels.F====. Localized Hydro Susitna hydro is not the only answer. The Devil's Camyon and Watana dams would produce three times the amount cof power currently used by Railbelt utility customers. The needJ for this large output was once justified by projections which r:predicted Railbelt power consumption to increase 4 to 10 times tby 1995. But recently, detailed studies show Railbelt demand \/Will only double in the next 15 years, allowing us to developJ smaller projects to meet our energy needs more efficiently. Lake Chakachamna and Bradley Lake, in southcentrall Alaska, are two likely sites which do not support substantial fish and wildlife populations. Such localized projects could be licensed and built more quickly. The jobs created would mo1re likely go to local workers and be spread more evenly around t t he state. Construction of smaller-scale projects would make Alaskan communities more self-sufficient and encourage more •efficient use of electricity. Hydro-power can provide Alaska with clean, renewabJie ener- gy ---without major environmental costs. But we must : careful- ly choose damsites and build projects which: 1. are the least harmful to the state's natural resourrces; and 2. fit our REAL energy needs, not inflated energY{ growth assumptions. Alaska's Energy Picture Alaska's undeveloped hydro resources are the lar- gest in the nation. There are over 700 potential sites identified in Alaska. From this, 76 of the more favorable sites are represented in the above map. Talk of the "energy crisis" has led many Alaskans to believe we have a shortage of energy. This isn't so. In fact, we have a tremendous variety of energy sources for the future. Electricity will play an important role in Alaska's energy future. To plan our energy future, we need to take a look at our present energy picture. Right now, transportation accounts for almost half our total energy use. Residential and commercial hea- ting accounts for 38%. ELECTRICITY MAKES UP ONLY 13% OF OUR ENERGY USE. So it's clear that the Susitna dams or any other elec- trical projP.ct will not contribute to the major part of our energy needs. But let's take a closer look at our current electrical picture. In the Anchorage area, most of the electricity is generated from natural gas. Fairbanks depends pri- marily on oil and coal. Until recently, these fuels were inexpensive. This caused utilities to promote heavy electrical consum- ption for such uses as home heating. Rate structures have reflected this. Customers who consume large amounts of electricity receive a discount, while those who conserve are penalized. But this strategy has begun to backfire. In Fair- banks, Golden Valley Electric Association has greatly over-built new generating facilities. Rates have sky- rocketed and consume rs have begun to show dramatic efforts at conservation. This has postponed the need for Golden Valley to build new generators, until after 1990. But the Fairbanks experience illustrates an important lesson : Electricity is premium energy. It should be used for lighting, electronics, communi- cations and other specialized applications. But our hea- ting needs can best be met by other, less expensive means. ALASKA 'S E N E RGY P IE Heatin g (n o n -e lectri c) 3 8 % Tran sportati o n 4 9% HOW DO WE U S E O U R EN E R G Y ? FAIRBANKS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 218 Driveway Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage Paid BULK RATE Permit No. 201 Fbks., AK