|
Speakers list pros and cons of Duke's proposed compensation package
By Lynn Hotaling
(Part two of a series)
Some 40 speakers voiced their opinions Dec. 8 and 9 to federal energy officials in town to hear public comment on Duke Power's relicensing applications for its six Jackson County hydroelectric projects.
As part of that effort, Duke officials met with representatives (stakeholders) of more than 30 agencies, local governments and organizations for more than three years to negotiate a Settlement Agreement, signed in October 2003, that details the environmental enhancements the power company is willing to provide in return for using public waterways to generate electricity. That agreement was then sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission along with Duke's applications.
Key components of that agreement are: designated stream flows, which will benefit boaters and fishermen on different days; expanded lake access areas with lighting, wildlife viewing platforms and rest room facilities; fishing trails; information signs and kiosks; more consistent lake levels; boat put-ins and take-outs, including new ones below Cedar Cliff Dam, at Cullowhee Dam, and in Barkers Creek and Whittier; purchase of a 150-acre tract adjoining the Blue Ridge Parkway that will be transferred to the U.S. Forest Service once Duke receives new licenses; $200,000 for soil and water conservation, spread among five counties; $40,000 for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife fish study; $40,000 toward a brook trout restoration project; recreational flows seven days per year for kayaking in the West Fork bypass region; and $350,000 to Jackson County for greenways or improvements at Andrews Park.
The linchpin of the Settlement Agreement is the removal of the Dillsboro Dam, and Duke has filed an application to surrender that license.
Several speakers, including outfitter James Jackson, said the agreement strikes a good balance among a number of competing interests and represents a good compromise.
"This is part of the process," Jackson said. "Everybody didn't get exactly what they wanted, but people worked together and made compromises. Hopefully, we'll all continue to work together."
Outfitter Shane Williams echoed Jackson.
"A lot of people worked in good faith on the settlement," Williams said. "It didn't please all the parties, but it pleased a lot of folks, and I think it's a good agreement."
Josh Egenolf of American Whitewater, Bob Hathcock of Nantahala Outdoor Center and Mark Cantrell of U.S. Fish and Wildlife expressed similar opinions, as did whitewater instructor Sam Fowlkes.
"I encourage the commission to consider the stakeholders' agreement as the preferred alternative," Cantrell said. In addition to the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and the restoration of 1 mile of impounded river, the plan includes money for fish habitat enhancement, recreation and public information, he said.
"Duke brought in everyone," Hathcock said. "It took a lot of give and take to reach this agreement, which I'm very proud of."
Fowlkes, who lives on the Tuckaseigee River near Dillsboro, said he thinks Duke is offering the area a good deal. Proposed enhancements like additional launch points, parking and rest rooms will help attract paddling clubs from across the country to the Jackson County area.
"Overall, my vote is 'yes,'" he said.
Others, however, said the process was flawed, and that the agreement doesn't offer the region and Jackson County enough compensation for the utility's use of public resources.
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland said Jackson County, site of five Duke hydroelectric projects, is shortchanged in the agreement.
"It's not equitable to the county and the region, and it fails to place emphasis on matters people are most interested in," Westmoreland said. Though a participant in the stakeholders' process, Jackson County chose not to sign the Settlement Agreement and has engaged Alexandria, Va., attorney Paul Nolan to intervene on its behalf.
"Jackson County policy is based on what seems to be the best interest of all," Westmoreland said.
While county officials would like to see more funding for greenways and improvements to Andrews Park included in the settlement, they only oppose one aspect outright, Westmoreland said, and that is the proposed recreational flows in the West Fork bypass region. The county's opposition to that proposal, which would release enough water for boaters to use that section seven times each year, is centered around safety concerns, he said.
Others who felt the Settlement Agreement does not go far enough to protect the environment and compensate the county included Tom Massie, Susan Leveille, Roger Turner, David Wheeler, Jeannette Evans and Timm Muth.
Massie, representing the Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District, said the district did not sign the agreement because it doesn't include enough funding for erosion control. He also said Duke's plan to allow sediment to flush downstream if Dillsboro Dam is removed is unsound.
Leveille, who represented the town of Webster on the stakeholders' team, said she didn't sign the agreement because it does not meet the needs of Webster.
"No attention is paid to people who want peaceful enjoyment of the river," she said. "I don't feel that Duke is offering the residents or Mother Nature adequate compensation."
Turner, of Western North Carolina Alliance, termed the stakeholders' process "flawed" and questioned how removing the Dillsboro Dam could be used as mitigation for an entire watershed. Duke should provide conservation easements for the lakeshore buffer zones, he said.
"The state and federal resource agency representatives did not adequately represent the public interest," he said. Agencies Turner was referring to include U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the N.C. Division of Water Quality, agencies given "mandatory conditioning authority" by the Federal Power Act. Under the provisions of that law, those agencies are charged with carefully examining all such agreements and making sure that provisions necessary to protect resources are included.
Wheeler, representing the Watershed Association of the Tuckaseigee, also said he didn't think the proposed dam removal is sufficient mitigation. Instead, he proposed Duke include money to purchase property along the river for habitat protection; money for improvements at Andrews Park; and an effort to mitigate the effects of fluctuating water levels on ecosystems.
"The overall amount of the settlement is much too small," he said.
Evans, also a supporter of conservation easements, said she wished Jackson County had received a more equitable settlement.
"I look at it as paying rent," she said. "I pay rent on the property I use for my business, and it's a more significant amount than Duke will be paying."
Muth, a mountain biking guide, said he's a former utility engineer and that Duke's "numbers" don't add up.
Saying that he based his calculations on information Duke had filed with FERC, Muth said that he figures Duke makes 5 cents profit on each kilowatt hour generated for a total of $5.4 million per year for the five Jackson County lakes. That adds up to $216 million over the span of a 40-year license, he said. On the other hand, Muth said he added up the figures in the Settlement Agreement and determined Duke proposes to spend $830,000, or three-tenths of 1 percent of their profit, in compensation to the region.
"I'm not trying to bust on Duke – they give great service," he said. "I looked at the numbers, and they just don't seem fair to me."
Duke engineer Jeff Lineberger, who did not get an opportunity to speak before the meeting's time was up, disagreed with Muth's calculations.
Including Duke's lost generation, the cost of the settlement to the utility is more in the neighborhood of $5 million initially and an additional $1.6 million per year for the term of the license, Lineberger said. In addition, Muth's figures don't include operating costs, the cost of transmitting electricity to where it's needed, or the cost of the relicensing process itself.
"The bottom line is that FERC will judge the impact of our projects and make us address those," Lineberger said. "This isn't buying a license – it's addressing the impact of these projects."
Lineberger also took issue with a statement by attorney Nolan that Duke may sell its local generating facilities after new licenses are secured.
"It was implied that Duke may just turn around and sell," Lineberger said. "As far as I'm concerned, Duke intends to be here at least 50 years. We've been a good neighbor and a responsible operator, and I don't think it's fair to make comments with the intent of inciting those who might read it in the newspaper."
FERC officials will continue to accept written comments on Duke's relicensing applications through Jan. 10. For information on how to file a comment, visit FERC's Web site, www.ferc.gov.
(Editor's Note: While almost twice as many people spoke against some part of the agreement as those who expressed support for the entire plan, speakers were not united in which portions they opposed. Most dissenting discussion centered around three topics – removal of the Dillsboro Dam, Duke-owned buffer zones around the lakes, and recreational flows for kayakers down the West Fork. The Jan. 6 installment will include public comment on those issues.)
|
