Tag Archive for: salmon

Murky Waters Ahead, Troubled Waters Behind: What’s Happening with the Eklutna River?

/in , , ,

I can’t say how many times I’ve seen a headline recently asking what is going on with the Eklutna River (Well, actually I can. Twice. Check out Emily Goodykoontz’ and Alex DeMarban’s article or Nat Herz’ podcast. I highly recommend checking out these pieces for a lay of the land understanding of what’s occurred.) 

But, my question, and one many people are asking now is: what just happened? And what’s next?

On April 15, the Matanuska Electric Association Board of Directors approved a resolution to send the Final Fish and Wildlife Program to the Governor.

On April 24, the Chugach Electric Association Board of Directors did the same.

The Final Fish and Wildlife Program does not right a historical wrong, and does not give salmon a chance to return to the lake. Instead, it relies on the previously proposed AWWU portal (now called the Eklutna River Release Facility) to restore just 11 miles of the river. The best that it does is offer extremely limited “reopeners” – opportunities for the Project Owners to revisit the project 10 years after the implementation of the proposed Final Program – this would, at the latest, take place in 2042. These reopeners are only helpful if a new technology comes along to allow for cheap fish passage (the project owners have maintained that they won’t pay for it), or inflows to the lake increase dramatically. 

We’re entering the final phases of approval of the plan. Although the plan was sent to the Governor, the ball is now in a couple of resource agency’s court: US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service now have 60 days to submit comments on the final program. After that, the owners of the project will have 30 days to submit responses to these comments. 

As it stands, all of this information will be sent to Curtis Thayer, Executive Director of the Alaska Energy Authority. Curtis will then compile a report and submit it to the governor. The governor has to make his decision by October 2nd. 

The Alaska Center will continue to call on our utility cooperative to exercise their power to right a historic wrong and restore a free-flowing river from the ocean to the lake that can support salmon – the heartbeat of Alaska.

Four out of five Alaskans who submitted comments on the draft program supported river restoration and/or fish passage. We thank you for lifting your voices throughout these last months. Stay tuned and stay with us!

Stream regards,
The Alaska Center

Hot Takes in a Cold Place: Something Smells Fishy in Southcentral Alaska

/in , , , , , ,

Have you ever attended a public comment meeting that didn’t want the public to comment? 

I have. 

Six, actually. 

All in one week!

The owners of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project held information–erm, “public comment”–meetings last week in Palmer, Anchorage, and Eagle River. 

They were certainly “informational,” to say the least. Charts, numbers, and graphics, oh my. Cherry-picked information to intentionally mislead information could be found throughout, such as:

  • Intentionally skimming over the fact that sockeye will be unable to spawn and rear their young in the lake with the current proposed plan
  • Claimed to restore 99.6% of habitat (below the dam – failed to mention the miles of potential habitat above the dam).
  • Pointed out that 11 out of 12 miles of river will be restored. Which sounds pretty good, if you forget that this is only about 1/3 of historic fish habitat destroyed by the dam.
  • Failed to mention that the dam currently supplies just about 2-3% of electricity on the grid. They’d rather mention the percentage that it makes up of their renewables portfolio – why is that, you might ask? Well, potentially because they’ve refused to build their renewables portfolio for so long. But what do I know?

Perhaps the most important thing that the project owners (represented by an out-of-state consulting group…) failed to mention is the century of cultural harm that this dam has inflicted upon the Native Village of Eklutna. 

They were, however, eager to mention the negotiation meeting they held with the Native Village of Eklutna in December.

The negotiations meeting… from which NVE’s position was not taken into account in the project proposal. 

And I forgot to mention; the Native of Eklutna, on whose land the dam was installed without consultation nor consent, did not get a voice at the meeting. The project owners, quite literally, refused to give the Native Village of Eklutna a seat at the table. 

After stripping them of their fish and river for one hundred years, after Eklutna, Inc. has provided land for schools, power plant sites, and utility easements, and at a time in which the country is finally recognizing the need for reparations and tribal sovereignty. 

They couldn’t find the time, nor humanity, to give Eklutna people an effective voice in the decision-making about their traditional Eklutna River salmon resources. 

Not one chair. 

Shameful, rises to mind. A few other words too, but I won’t include those here. 

These were not public comment meetings. Sure, they had a table (out of the way of their posters and presentation and scientists) to receive written comments. But the public was not allowed to voice their concerns in a forum for others to hear. When folks did begin to ask questions or provide comments in a public forum, as is typically allowed at a public comment meeting, representatives from MEA and CEA shut them down and directed them to talk with one of their “experts,” in private. 

Shameful. Shady. Something smells fishy in Southcentral Alaska. It’s not the Eklutna River.  And it doesn’t seem like it will be, anytime soon. 

Unless we take action. Join me in telling the project owners what we think about their plan, and their treatment of Eklutna people.

Eklutna, Inc. continues to take the stance that fishing access will be open to all Southcentral anglers once the fish return. Together, we can make this change for the better. For the future.

The most impactful thing you can do right now is submit a unique comment. If you don’t have time, here’s a prefilled comment.

The fish still have a chance. The Native Village of Eklutna still has a chance. Justice still has a chance. 


In solidarity for justice and the Eklutna River’s future,

Julian Ramirez, Salmon and Clean Water Organizer

The Alaska Center

Simple Steps for Salmon Protection

/in , ,

When the legislation creating a Wild Salmon Day for Alaska was considered in the Alaska State Legislature, we knew it was an important bill. Even if it is mainly a symbolic gesture of our collective goodwill toward the salmon that swim through the life of our Alaskan society and culture, it was a good bill because it was a simple bill.

At the same time, in hindsight, there is nothing simple about our relationship with salmon. Those who have relied on salmon and protected them for millennia might see the designation of a calendar day in honor of salmon as cheap, considering that it is integral to the existence of their people. There is also nothing terribly simple about the economic impact of wild salmon. Sport and commercial fishers view the same wild salmon run on often sharply divergent terms, and the management of these fish can raise all sorts of claims of political bias.
Wild Salmon Day, if anything, provides us with a point of reflection, and for that, it is crucial. We, who are so blessed to experience, eat, watch, hook, net, paint, write about, and otherwise contemplate these salmon, also are called upon to protect them. When it comes to protection, there is also a level of complexity; the simple answers are there but none are a fix-all.

We had great runs this summer in Bristol Bay, partly due to global warming trends increasing the freshwater food for juvenile salmon. While the salmon were flooding into Bristol Bay, catastrophic low returns have beset the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. The trawl sector undoubtedly bears some responsibility for killing off thousands of Y/K bound salmon as bycatch. So too do the Area-M fishers. And beyond that, the causes are giant, terrifying, and vague: ocean warming, river warming, ocean acidification, competition from hatchery fish, ocean regime change? The answers to the questions on how we protect wild salmon should be clear, but they are manyfold.

We know these things: we need to keep voting the right people into office who value salmon and will push for policy to protect their habitat, ensuring that our salmon runs thrive in all parts of our state. We must respect Indigenous stewardship and sustainability practices as we work to protect our wild salmon from future harm. We must come together in community to celebrate and honor the resource.
We must work throughout the year to protect our salmon for future generations. It is that simple.

On August 10 in Anchorage and August 14 in Fairbanks, come together to celebrate Wild Salmon Day and learn about how you can use your voice in a multitude of ways to protect our salmon.

Now through August 16, you have the chance to vote for leadership that will protect our salmon. We have endorsed Mary Peltola in part because of her commitment to protecting our salmon. Learn more about our endorsements and how and where to vote this election.
Today until September 6 you have the opportunity to have your voice heard to ensure EPA protections and to Stop Pebble Mine once and for all.

The solutions to the myriad of salmon issues we face aren’t simple but the end goal is: Protecting our Salmon for generations to come.
The Alaska Center

It’s baaaaack!

/in , , ,

Last week, we wrote about the approximately $5 Million that the Governor is requesting for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to hire 32 full-time staff to take over and administer wetland dredge and fill permitting currently done by the federal government EPA. Ironically, at the same time that DEC is asking for more responsibility over permitting (to benefit large scale mining development); they are also trying to dodge their responsibility to administer protections for high ecological value waters under the federal Outstanding National Resource Waters. Instead, they have introduced HB 398, which would require that the Legislature take responsibility.

HB 398 is the 2022 version of a bill that has been around for many many years, and different legislative sessions – yet has never enjoyed enough support to pass. In essence, it would require that high-value water protection be determined by the state legislature instead of through DEC regulation. HB 398 seeks to make it impossible for Alaskans to protect waters of high ecological value as Tier III waters under the Clean Water Act. Right now, federal law requires states to craft a process for citizens to nominate pristine high-value (fish spawning, culturally critical, etc.) top Tier or Tier III waters for protection from pollution. DEC is legally authorized to protect waters under a Tier III status, but they don’t want to do it.

Instead of DEC simply taking legal responsibility to protect high-value waters nominated by Alaskans, they propose HB 398, which creates more bureaucracy, expense, and red tape that strips Alaskans of our right to protect our waters. This bill is bad.

It would remove Alaskan’s right to have a voice in protecting water in Alaska by putting the power in the hands of politicians instead of the experts with Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge.

It would allow committee chairs in the House and Senate to prevent Tier III nominations from moving through the Legislature, creating a de facto ban on water protections.

It would take power away from Alaskans and give an upper hand to outside mining companies and big businesses with no interest in protecting our fisheries and the clean water.

It would create additional bureaucracy, expense, and political paralysis that leaves our most essential and vulnerable waterways unprotected.

It would put our $2 billion salmon industry at risk.

It would silence constituents from being a part of the decision-making process around the use of waters integral to our cultures, livelihoods, and survival.

Legislative attorneys have time and again concluded that DEC can already establish and administer a process for Alaskans to seek the protection of high-value water through agency regulation. DEC has time and time again sought to shirk its responsibility, hiding behind bogus legal interpretations and philosophical objections.

Why should the Legislature approve increasing the budget to give DEC the complex responsibility of permitting mining projects in wetlands that support our salmon when, simultaneously, DEC is telling everyone with HB 398 that it does not want to be the agency to protect salmon?

Keep an eye on this bad bill.

Wetland Permitting

/in , ,

The Dunleavy Administration is making a push in their budget proposal this year to take over wetland development permitting from the federal government. The proposed allocation of 4.9 million dollars in the Governor’s budget before the legislature would initiate a process where the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would assume “primacy” from the federal Environmental Protection Agency over permitting development activities that impact wetlands protected under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Well-functioning and intact wetlands are critical to the protection of salmon, especially in their early stages of life. Wetlands and peatlands also serve a climate-protecting function, a major force in earthly carbon sequestration. The Biden Administration will likely be expanding the protection of wetlands which was decreased under the Trump Administration.

There are downsides with the state primacy of wetland permitting. The cost and complexity of a wetland permitting program is the main factor why only three states out of fifty have assumed primacy. This year, Alaska’s fiscal situation, buoyed up by high oil prices and federal dollars, is not in the long-term position to attract and retain the 28 new full-time employees requested to administer the wetland permitting function or even ensure these positions have funding into the future. Indeed, DEC has seen some of the most aggressive budget cuts of all state agencies over the past decade. (None of this is to point out the blatant irony of our red-pen Governor proposing a budget growth to make the state pay for something that the Federal Government provides freely.)

The cozy relationship between industry and regulatory agencies in Alaska is another cause for concern. The current Commissioner of DEC used to lobby on behalf of the Pebble Mine project when he was a government relations staff for the Anglo-American mining company. Wetland permits are critical to large mining and other industrial operations, so putting this authority in a shop run by a mine promoter is, well, probably a pretty bad idea.

Under federal primacy, the EPA must conduct government-to-government consultation with Alaska Native Tribes regarding wetland permit decisions to seek input and mitigate impacts to the land and water on which Tribal members rely. Should the State of Alaska take over the wetland permitting program, Tribal consultation is not a legal requirement. For this reason alone, the legislature should scrap the state primacy proposal.

Our salmon runs are in a perilous state across much of Alaska. One outlier is Bristol Bay, where the rivers flow from millions of acres of intact wetlands, the beating heart of the largest and last greatest sockeye run on earth. The Dunleavy Administration, DEC, and mine promoters want state primacy over wetland permitting to streamline the industrialization of areas like the Bristol Bay watershed. Unable to prevail in the court of public opinion or with the Federal EPA, the Dunleavy Administration is now attempting an end-run around both to permit the Pebble Mine with a budget allocation that would put an enforcement agency in place more closely tied to big industrial concerns.

On Monday, March 14th, at 9 a.m., the Senate Finance Committee will hear from DEC on its wetland permitting primacy proposal. Tune in.