A music teacher wrote this, just an ordinary very concerned citizen. It got wide play statewide because it speaks directly to the issue of why Alaska remains unique:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130519/natural-gas-prospects-susitna-dam-not-needed

“One reason the legislature approved $95 million more for the dam this session is because they, too, haven’t yet grasped how fundamentally the dam would change Alaska—removing funds for better alternatives, reducing the reasons we live here, maybe even shifting our license plate motto from “The Last Frontier” to “America’s Biggest Dam.” (The Alaska Energy Authority is proud that their engineering design for the dam includes an expansion in height after initial construction to make it one of the 10 tallest on the planet.)”

http://www.thecordovatimes.com/article/1316why-is-the-state-adamantly-pursuing-the

John Seebach, Senior Director, Federal River Management, American Rivers
June 17, 2011 | Dams & Dam Removal, Hydropower

Conventional hydropower is one of the oldest and most well-established among a growing number of technologies that provide low-emissions alternatives to fossil-fuel energy. Nationally, hydropower accounts for nearly 8.2% of total electric generation. American Rivers has actively supported the continued operation of many hydropower facilities across the country. We recognize that hydropower – done right – is an important part of our nation’s energy mix. But the key lies in getting it right. When it’s done wrong, hydropower is far from clean. Hydropower is unique among renewable resources because of the scale at which it can damage the environment when it’s done poorly. Unless a hydropower dam is sited, operated, and mitigated appropriately, it can haveenormous impacts on river health and the livelihoods of future generations that will depend on those rivers. Poorly-done hydropower has caused some species to go extinct and put others, including some with extremely high commercial value, at grave risk. That’s not something we should take lightly.

While we’re very skeptical of the need for new dams or projects that dewater healthy streams, we think there’s a lot of new hydropower capacity out there that can be developed responsibly. The National Hydropower Association estimates that America could double its hydropower capacity without building a single new dam. We’ve worked closely with industry on policies that would encourage the responsible development of these types of hydropower projects: efficiency improvements that enable more power to be generated from the same water, new capacity added to existing hydropower dams, and adding turbines to non-powered dams. As a class, these types of projects are cheaper to build, easier to permit, and much less harmful to the environment than new dam construction, so we’re doing all we can to encourage developers to put their energy here. We’re also looking closely at new hydropower technologies that don’t involve dams or diversions to see if those may prove to be an effective – and cleaner – alternative than traditional hydropower.

We must encourage responsible development while also continually holding developers and federal operators accountable for their environmental impacts and insisting on the strictest performance standards. We must remove obstacles to development while recognizing at the most basic level that a high level of environmental performance and the costs of achieving it are not an “obstacle” to development but a fundamental and necessary component of it. We must help new development to take place while also accepting that, as the Obama Administration’s 2010 interagency hydropower policy memorandum acknowledges, “[N]ot every site is appropriate for new hydropower production.”

Because the proposed Susitna dam would be just 65 miles upstream, Denali Nordic Ski Club’s race committee chose this year’s three-rivers route in part to make people aware of the dam’s potential impacts. Increases in water flows would be greatest in winter and result in open, flowing water all the way downstream to Talkeetna and beyond, putting an end to safe transportation and recreation uses — such as the Oosik.

The Coalition was invited by the race committee to help get the word out about the dam. We did a booth at registration, provided a flyer (see it here or see excerpt below) for each skier’s race packet, showed videos at the apres-ski party, and posted Burma Shave-type signs along the ski trail: The Susitna’s fate lies / With the state legislature / You think salmon would vote / For big hydro or nature? / No Su Dam!

We had a lot of good conversations with folks, and many signed on as members of the Coalition or promised to check out our website and sign on there…

So if you are reading this because you heard about us this weekend in Talkeetna, WELCOME Oosikers and friends! If you haven’t already signed on to help us convince decision makers to stop this dam, please go to our “Join Us” page now — or at least as soon as you get back in from a good ski on yet another gorgeous March day!

Excerpt from the flyer:

Discharges from the dam would bring constantly- fluctuating winter flows up to 10 times greater than normal, creating extensive stretches of open water and unsafe ice conditions far downstream of the dam.  Winter impacts would be severe for certain uses:

• Skiing, dog mushing and snowmachining – the frozen Susitna serves as a transportation corridor to remote homes and cabins, training grounds and the race trail route for Iditarod mushers, links to numerous snow machine trails throughout the upper Valley and venue for the Oosik Ski Race.
• Wildlife – the frozen river and islands are essential wildlife habitat and offer moose access to life-sustaining winter browse. Spring break-up supports healthy willow growth and riparian zones that also support our local moose populations.
• Salmon – fry and juveniles that over-winter in the river rely on natural water cycles and temperatures to survive.

email -  susitnadamalternatives@gmail.com

Check out our More Info page, to see these letters and some of the comments submitted to FERC — including two comments from the Coalition.  And click here to listen to KTNA’s interview with Jan Konigsberg about the politicization of the FERC process.

Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) released for public comment on July 16, 2012 58 proposed individual studies grouped under 13 general resource categories. These studies are being done in order for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to develop the Environmental Impact Statement and to evaluate whether to issue a license to build the dam. The study goals are to develop adequate information about the existing environment in order to analyze project impacts. The comment period ended November 14.

There were 41 study plan comments: 23 from individuals, 10 from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), 7 from state and federal government agencies, 1 from Alaska Native Corporation.

The majority of the comments stated that the 2 year Integrated Licensing Process study plan process was not scientifically defensible. The majority also supported a National-Level Economic Valuation Study. This study, originally proposed by 11 NGOs, would evaluate the importance of a free flowing Susitna River on a national level. It is the only study that AEA has outright rejected.

There were also many comments on the following issues:

• Depending on data from the original two-dam Susitna Hydro Project studies from the 1980’s is not scientifically defensible.
• The study data must be transparent and available to the public as it happens.
• The studies must be peer reviewed.
• There must be a climate change study for impacts on the whole Susitna River Watershed.
• Greenhouse Gas emissions from proposed reservoir inundation and permafrost disturbance and melting must be studied.

WHAT’S NEXT? AEA will review the comments and come out with a final Revised Study Plan on December 14, 2012. The public comment period to FERC on this will be from December 14 to January 18, 2013. FERC will then make its decision on the final study plan February 1, 2013.

For more detailed information on the process and comment details from the government agencies, see the More Information page.