After concluding an intensive two-week stretch of successful meetings about the Susitna-Watana hydro-project, I was taken aback by Samuel Snyder's commentary (ADN, March 31). I was left wondering if we attended the same meetings and listened to the same discussions regarding this important Alaska project.
The Alaska Energy Authority entered a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process for the Susitna-Watana dam in 2011. An entire year was spent with federal and state resource agencies, stakeholders, scientists, Alaska regional and village corporations, tribes and nongovernmental and environmental organizations to develop an environmental study plan. Fifty-eight studies were submitted and approved by FERC that cover everything from the anadromous and resident fish species and water resources to Dall sheep and wolverine populations. To demonstrate the level of thoroughness, an entire study is solely dedicated to understanding the little brown bat in the Susitna basin. At no time during the 34-study development meetings and public comment periods or in FERC's Study Plan Determination were there any comments identifying "myriad significant errors in study design" as suggested. It is one of the most comprehensive efforts of its kind, and Alaskans had a say in the development of these plans.
We have worked to foster positive relationships with the federal resource agencies and welcome factual critique and comments of our work in order to improve the process. In fact, AEA recognized the additional workload this project represented and provided funding for two of the federal agencies to hire independent scientists to help develop the studies, provide review and comment on the implementation and data on the agencies' behalf.
Fast forward to today, and the state finds itself in a very different economic climate. However, our dedication to the scientific, public and licensing process remains. Every step of the Susitna-Watana project licensing process is public and information is publicly available. Every study conducted and every piece of data collected in the field is valuable to not only this licensing effort, but to fish and game management in the Susitna basin. We have also shared information with the natural gas pipeline licensing team to support the advancement of its project. There have been no appropriations made to the Susitna-Watana project since 2014. However, it remains our responsibility to protect the state investment made in the licensing effort and to make sure the information gathered as part of the project's study plan is publicly accessible and in a useable format.
As part of the FERC licensing process, AEA is required to present the data collected by highly-qualified contractors, the university and state agencies for peer review. Meetings were held in March to discuss the 58 studies and information at length. Snyder chose to characterize the meetings as contentious but neglected to mention the constructive dialogue. In fact, the National Park Service stated it had never seen such an in-depth study on recreation and aesthetics; the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office complimented both the quality of the cultural resources study and the expertise of AEA's contractors; and the National Marine Fisheries Service complimented the AEA and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys on the "excellent work" done on the climate change modeling. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and FERC never indicated the studies are flawed or characterized the data as "iffy." What a wasted opportunity to have a constructive conversation about the science rather than resorting to misrepresenting facts.
I find the assertion that we do not care about Alaska and are working to put our fisheries at risk, troubling. Our team understands the resource and cares about its value. Much of the study effort is devoted to aquatic resources. Multiple years of study have shown most of the Susitna basin salmon spawn in tributaries to the Susitna River, including nearly 99 percent of chinook salmon, well beyond the area of potential impact. In fact, chinooks are the only salmon within 30 miles of the proposed dam site, and multiple redundant counting methods all agree there are fewer than 50 adult chinook that pass upstream of the site in any year.
The Susitna-Watana project would displace approximately 1.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to the emissions from about 250,000 cars) from our air each year and would provide the basic energy to allow for the continued expansion of renewable energy projects. Hydroelectric power is part of Alaska's renewable-energy future, providing stable, affordable power to Alaskans.
AEA has authorization to use existing funds in order to complete this round of the public process and advance to a FERC Study Plan Determination that is expected this fall. At that time the project will be re-evaluated under the current fiscal climate. Additional information, including transcripts of the recent FERC meetings will be posted online at Susitna-WatanaHydro.org.
Betsy McGregor is environmental manager for Alaska Energy Authority.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.