Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upper Kenai Hydro... say it isn't so?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Upper Kenai Hydro... say it isn't so?

    The undoing of PNW salmon runs has been attributed to unsustainable abuses in the dreaded 4 H's....

    Habitat.
    Harvest.
    Hatcheries.
    Hydropower.

    The only dam I know of in the Kenai system sits at the top of Cooper Creek.

    Now I understand that HEA (Homer Electric? if I remember correctly) has 4 new hydro projects in the pipeline. Grant, Ptarmigan, Falls and Crescent. Permits were issued in October.

    :eek: :confused: :eek:

    Cutting edge salmon scientists also cite a 5th H that society has conveniently ignored in the PNW salmon crisis (as well as the collapse of salmon on the East Coast and Europe).... and that is History. Why would we risk dooming these fish to the mistakes of the past?

    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    sigpic
    The KeenEye MD

  • #2
    I believe the hydro projects are not direct dams but tunnel through the mountain to a lower spot type projects (like eklutna tailrace) or dams above fish barriers (waterfalls). Cresent lake is pretty well suited for it. Comparing these projects to projects in the PNW is a pretty bad comparison. When fish have to navigate 5 or 10 dams to spawn and get to the ocean thats a problem, thats why these projects are located at the headwaters. Also we can be thankful that there are no hatchery fish in the system, the habitat above kenai keys is pristeen, and the harvest is managed decently.

    Its small scale headwaters projects like these that Alaska must embrace IMO for a future in renewable energy.

    I would like to see a revamp of the cooper creek dam for sure to allow more and warmer water into that creek, maybe as a condition for permits for these projects.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by fishNphysician
      Permits were issued in October.
      Lets not mislead. The permits are 3-year FERC permits simply issued to study the feasibility of the potential projects. Nothing more.

      Originally posted by fishNphysician
      Why would we risk dooming these fish to the mistakes of the past?
      Who says we would? Unlike the dams in your state, the environment and resources are of primary concern and will take precedence.

      The projects on the drawing board are low-impact involving no dams, large structures, and they would not harm the environment, resource, or fish habitat. They are simply alternatives being considered as a result of the current natural gas energy concerns for Southcentral Alaska.


      "The hydro designs being considered are low-impact, meaning they don’t involve dams or large structures, and would be designed to not harm the environment or fish habitat, Gilbert said. At least three of them would probably be run-of-river designs, where the stream’s natural water flow is used to generate power, rather than storing water to create a higher flow, Gilbert said.

      The prevailing option so far is to install a siphon that diverts water a couple hundred feet down a pipe, called a penstock, into a small power plant. Water runs through turbines to generate electricity and is returned to the stream. Power is run through wires to the existing transmission line along the Seward Highway corridor nearby.

      That sort of water conveyance system would involve an intake structure to hold the pipe mouth in place, a duct to divert water into the pipe and a trap to keep branches and other debris out of the pipe. The power plant would be relatively small, access corridors would be built to the plant and the intake site, and power lines would be strung from the plant to the existing transmission line.

      Intakes and outlets of the system would be placed to avoid fish habitat, Gilbert said. “There is evidence of natural anadromous fish usage on all four sites, especially down where the creeks empty into Trail Lake, for instance,” Gilbert said.

      Another option would be an in-stream system, where turbines are situated in the waterway, water is diverted through the turbine and released back out, with the power plant right there, necessitating only one access road. That may be possible in Falls Creek, for instance, which doesn’t seem to support anadromous — meaning migratory — fish at its headwaters, Gilbert said.

      So far, Grant Lake doesn’t seem to support anadromous fish populations, Gilbert said, so they may consider water storage at that site. To do so, a larger structure — but not big enough to qualify as a dam by FERC standards — would be built at the siphon intake across the outlet of the lake, he said.

      “Again, it would be the subject of study..." - The Redoubt Reporter

      Comment


      • #4
        is there nothing sacred

        Ptarmigan and Grant projects would be located in prime spawning habitat that is currently being ultilized by salmon. Why would we even consider allowing this type of project or any other for that matter in these Kenai tribs is beyond me.

        Cresent & Falls would seem to be less likely to be as much as a problem as I believe that these would be in places not being utilized by spawning fish but what about the other impacts that something like this would have on the drainages?

        HEA probably said that the Cooper Creek hydro project would not impact the fish that used Cooper Lake or Cooper Creek habitat when it was built. Now look it at all these years later. What a shame this was ever allowed to happen at Cooper Creek. The old timers say that Cooper Creek was another Russian River. This would mean Kenai Kings, spring rainbows, silver salmon, pink salmon, dolly varden, red salmon, and pink salmon all use to spawn here. Now they are all pretty much gone except for a few dollies. Unbelievable.

        If HEA is really looking to be eco friendly this time around why don't they start with Cooper Creek and restore it and use that area as a testing ground for their new way of doing things?

        I'm with you Doc when will we ever learn?
        Last edited by iceblue; 01-26-2009, 19:47. Reason: spelling

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
          Also we can be thankful that there are no hatchery fish in the system,

          That's what I use to think.

          Help me out with this Nerka, Yukon, et al, but there are hatchery fish in the Kenai system. I was told of this by Fish and Game and I thought it had to do with Hidden Lake?

          Comment


          • #6
            There are hatchery sockeye planted at Hidden lake. Remember a few years back when there were so many hatchery sockeye returning to Hidden Lake that it led to the big fiasco of how to prevent more from going up Hidden lake Creek itself?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by iceblue
              If HEA is really looking to be eco friendly this time around why don't they start with Cooper Creek and restore it and use that area as a testing ground for their new way of doing things?
              Please inform yourself. The latest relicensing agreement requires restoration of the 4.5 miles and a rise in water temperature to accomodate suitable spawning and rearing conditions similar to pre-dam conditions.

              Originally posted by iceblue
              HEA probably said that the Cooper Creek hydro project would not impact the fish that used Cooper Lake or Cooper Creek habitat when it was built.
              The project was completed in 1959. And I don't believe it was done by HEA. Things were a little different back then. Alaska's fishery management system was just coming on board. Knowledge of the fishery and the importance of habitat was lacking. Most of the sport fisheries did not even exist. Hindsight.

              Originally posted by iceblue
              Why would we even consider allowing this type of project or any other for that matter in these Kenai tribs is beyond me.
              I believe we now live in a time of technology and regulation where these types of projects can co-exist with fish.

              iceblue, exactly what about these project ideas do you find will harm the fishery?

              Comment


              • #8
                What exact items that I am afraid will harm the current fisheries or watersheds? Well, how about pretty much everything that has happend with Cooper Creek up to now.

                Why would HEA wait until they were forced to be more eco friendly in order to be granted other "projects" or for a relicensing of the current agreement?

                It should of been done when the technology was proven to work and not put off until they were forced to do something.

                Do we need to look at alternate energy sources? Yes, but lets clean up the mess created from the last hydro project put in the Kenai River drainage first.

                Comment


                • #9
                  CEC

                  Cordova Electric Co-op has two small projects like these. The first one at Humpback creek seems to work well enough except for a couple small problems. And the salmon that spawn in the creek don't seem to have been affected. The main problem is in the fall when leaves start falling, the screen that prevents wood from entering the pipe get clogged with leaves and water backs up. The grates on the dam get clogged too. They have to send someone out to keep things cleared or they get a washout. There's a raceway that leads from the dam to the pipe and I've seen it completely filled with rocks and boulders. This thing is about 100 yards long. It's usually more an annoyance than anything serious, but the generator does get shut down there because of it sometimes.

                  The Power Creek plant is another story. They always seem to have problems with that plant. The first flood that happened after the plant was built filled the tube with rocks and gravel. It took a large crew days to get that thing cleaned out. I don't think the engineering was up to par on that project. And the sockeye and silver runs into Eyak River seem to have declined since Power Creek came online. Not necessarily because of the dam, but it should be looked into. There has also been a big influx of sport fishing on the Eyak since the dam came online and there have been severe floods. Could be a combination of things.
                  An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                  - Jef Mallett

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    iceblue, your comparison to the Cooper Creek dam isn't logical. You might want to do some research and contact someone at HEA.

                    The Cooper Creek project began pre-statehood, over 50 years ago, without much regulation, scrutiny, or concern for the fishery resource. I was here.

                    The recent hydro projects being studied now are nothing like that. They would be low-impact, involving no dams or large structures and designed not to harm the fishery resource. Assuming new hydro projects would have the same results as the Cooper Creek dam just doesn't hold water (literally).

                    There are already two similar low-impact hydro projects certified by the Low Impact Hydro Institute in Southeast Alaska that are providing clean, low-cost energy without any kind of negative effects on the environment or resources. They both met criteria including river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed protection, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural resource protection, and recreation. There is no reason for HEA to not look into similar projects here.

                    HEA has always strived to be eco friendly and studied ways to provide electricity to the people in the best way, dating back to 1945. Natural gas has been the answer. But the recent concern for cost and availability of current supplies of natural gas have caused HEA to study a way to provide another means and diversification than our reliance on natural gas.

                    Relicensing is something that happens periodically by law. It gives agencies a chance to review the impacts of the project. The relicensing process for the Cooper Creek dam began 7 years ago.

                    As for "cleaning up the mess created by the last hydro project"...As I already posted, the relicensing of the Cooper Creek facility mandates restoring the river flows and habitat making the creek once again available for spawning and rearing.

                    I think the permits issued to study the hydro projects are good. They will help us determine the impacts to our fisheries, if any. I'm sure they will be scrutinized heavily. If the projects turn out feasible and resource-friendly, then I see no reason not to move forward.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      time to think about this

                      HEA listed a number of projects and they do impact salmon streams. Roads for construction, water flow alteration, water temperature alterations, and vegetation removal will all take place so there is a reason for concern on some systems. However, HEA is doing the studies and to date has not been able to answer some basic questions - they need more time to put it all together. In fact, they have not had public scoping meetings to identify all the concerns. I would suggest everyone follow this process and become involved.

                      There are some reasons to support small hydro-projects since they are cleaner than coal and other forms of generating electricity. I do not support some of the four projects that HEA is proposing because the energy produced does not justify the risk to 30,000 sockeye spawning in one system for example.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's the sentiment that counts!

                        You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nerka again.
                        Can't say I didn't try...

                        Thanks for that post, nerka!
                        "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                        sigpic
                        The KeenEye MD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                          HEA listed a number of projects and they do impact salmon streams. Roads for construction, water flow alteration, water temperature alterations, and vegetation removal will all take place so there is a reason for concern on some systems. However, HEA is doing the studies and to date has not been able to answer some basic questions - they need more time to put it all together. In fact, they have not had public scoping meetings to identify all the concerns. I would suggest everyone follow this process and become involved.

                          There are some reasons to support small hydro-projects since they are cleaner than coal and other forms of generating electricity. I do not support some of the four projects that HEA is proposing because the energy produced does not justify the risk to 30,000 sockeye spawning in one system for example.

                          Thanks for the info Nerka, good stuff. Could you be a little more specific as to the possible impact to salmon streams, particulary those in the Kenai tribs?
                          I am not overly familiar with which watersheds may be affected.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by yukon View Post
                            Thanks for the info Nerka, good stuff. Could you be a little more specific as to the possible impact to salmon streams, particulary those in the Kenai tribs?
                            I am not overly familiar with which watersheds may be affected.
                            I hate to speak for HEA projects because they are not well defined right now. However, the Ptarmigan Creek project would take water out of the lake or just downstream and then discharge it back into the creek above the area used for spawning sockeye and other species. This looks good to an engineer but one must remember that to generate electricity year round the flow patterns in the creek have to be altered and thus the temperature profile as well. This could have serious impacts on eggs rearing in the gravel.

                            The Falls Creek and Grant Lake projects had one option of taking the flow from Falls Creek and diverting it to Grant Creek to get enough water. Again there are impacts on flow and temperature profiles just to mention two.

                            All projects will require major construction activities in the watersheds and the associated impacts. HEA does not have an easy road here and the idea that they are promoting low impact hydro-projects is from my perspective somewhat misleading. I believe the engineers believe they are doing it right and they have made public statements they want to do it right. But underlying all the talk is the desire for electricity and low cost so how salmon fit in will be in the actions not the talk.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              History.... is speaking loud and clear. Anybody lis'nen?

                              Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                              But underlying all the talk is the desire for electricity and low cost so how salmon fit in will be in the actions not the talk.
                              Small fast flowing creeks and rivers were historically home to some of the most damaging and prolific "small hydro projects" in Europe and the East Coast. Running water was either used directly or diverted to mobilize paddle wheels, harnessing the energy of moving water to power the first mills and small factories (long before the advent of coal-fired steam power) with immeasurable impacts to wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

                              None of those folks thought they were doing the fish any harm.

                              Intentionally altering anadromous fish-bearing habitats out of convenience to suit the will and whims of mankind historically ends up with the same predictable result.... depleted fish populations. Yeah, they want to do it for clean cheap energy, a commendable goal to strive for, as most of us would concede. But remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

                              The true costs of "cheap" hydro-electricity are never considered from the outset... the true costs are never realized until it's too late.

                              Salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin costs over $500,000,000 a year and the price-tag continues to sky-rocket in unsustainable fashion. Suddenly all that electricity ain't so cheap. I realize the Upper Kenai watershed is no Columbia River, but apart from size and scope, the principle ethical dilemma is the same. Creating "renewable" energy at the expense of depleting renewable natural resources.

                              Not worth it, folks. Not worth it! The potential loss of infintely renewable and sustainable fish resources is too big a price to pay.

                              The fish deserve better... way better!
                              "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                              sigpic
                              The KeenEye MD

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X