|
Tonight’s session likely to be replay of 2004 FERC hearings
By Lynn Hotaling
When federal power officials listen to local comments on the recent Draft Environmental Assessment for Duke Energy’s relicensing applications tonight (Thursday), it may seem like “deja vu all over again.”
That’s because positions don’t seem to have changed much during the 18 months since Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff members last listened to public comment here. That was in December 2004, and FERC regulators were in town to hear area residents’ opinions prior to writing last month’s draft EA that would allow the removal of the Dillsboro Dam. For the most part, the FERC proposal follows the recommendations of the Tuckaseigee Cooperative Stakeholders Team, which Duke endorses.
Tonight’s session is scheduled from 6 until 9 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the Justice Center. Those wishing to speak may sign up upon arrival on sheets that will be available a few minutes before the meeting, and, if there is a large turnout, as is anticipated, each speaker will have a time limit, according to FERC’s Carolyn Holsopple. The meeting will be recorded by an official stenographer.
The draft EA covers Duke’s hydroelectric projects on the East and West forks of the Tuckaseigee River (Glenville/Thorpe, Tuckasegee, Cedar Cliff, Bear Creek, Wolf Creek and Tanassee Creek) and the surrender of the Dillsboro project. It evaluates the environmental consequences of the operation and maintenance of Duke’s Tuckaseigee River hydroelectric projects.
The draft is the FERC staff’s initial set of recommendations to the commission and is issued for public review and comment. Its recommendations are based on proposals from the FERC staff, Duke Energy, state and federal agencies, and other parties. After a comment period, FERC licensers will finalize a set of recommendations that either the commission or a designated panel will consider with regard to granting new licenses.
According to Duke District Manager Fred Alexander, the power company expects to see final environmental assessments and new licenses for its Jackson County projects by the end of this year.
Overall, Duke Energy is pleased with the draft EA because it “accurately and fairly” assesses the resource issues presented and makes recommendations that are “balanced and appropriate,” Alexander said.
“Duke Energy is particularly pleased with – and fully supports – the DEA’s rejection of all the measures related to the projects included in the Preferred Settlement Agreement that a number of entities (including Jackson County’s commissioners and Webster’s town board) filed with the Commission in these and related proceedings on June 16, 2005,” Alexander said. “As explained in detail in Duke Energy’s July 6, 2005, comments on the Preferred Settlement Agreement, and as numerous other agencies and parties explained in their comments, the measures included in the Preferred Settlement Agreement are unreasonable, unsupported and contrary to the public interest.
“The DEA’s rejection of those measures therefore was entirely appropriate and supported by the record,” Alexander said.
While Duke is pleased, Jackson County and environmental group Western North Carolina Alliance are not.
“WNCA finds the DEA disappointing in many respects, especially in its total disregard of continued shoreline degradation on lakes managed by Duke Power,” said the Alliance’s Roger Turner, pointing to a 2004 Lake Glenvills study by retired Western Carolina University biology professor Dan Pittillo.
According to Turner, that study documents a significant loss of plant species diversity within Glenville’s shoreline under Duke’s management.
Another issue not adequately addressed by FERC’s draft EA is the continued “privatization” of shorelines including at Bear Lake and the loss of public access, Turner said.
“FERC has not considered alternative settlement proposals, such as the Jackson-Macon Preferred Settlement Agreement, which balances the full economic and environmental costs of producing power (on public waters) by asking for increased mitigation for ecosystem protection and restoration,” Turner said. “We support a legal challenge to the DEA for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act.”
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland initially declined comment in advance of tonight’s meeting but said the county, which hired attorney Paul Nolan in 2004 as part of its effort to oppose the Cooperative Stakeholders agreement, has “concerns” about the draft EA.
“Nothing really has changed,” he said. “Our concerns (with the draft EA) are similar to the concerns we had before with the Stakeholders’ agreement.”
The June 2005 filing of Jackson County’s alternate agreement triggered outcries from the resource agencies who support the recommendations of the Stakeholders’ agreement, which includes the removal of the Dillsboro Dam.
The Jackson agreement was filed with FERC as an alternative to the Cooperative Stakeholders Agreement signed by Duke and more than 30 area groups.
The Jackson filing lacks support from any of the entities with legal authority (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Water Quality Division) under the Federal Power Act; all three signed the Stakeholders agreement.
Jackson’s plan differs significantly from the Stakeholders agreement, which has also been approved by major regional and local non-governmental groups as well as some local governments. The Jackson proposal provides the Dillsboro Dam remain in place (and be given to Jackson County as a charitable donation); it delays (for at least 10 years) recreational kayaking water releases in the Tuckaseigee’s bypassed West Fork and a portage trail that would give the public access to High Falls and boaters access below the falls; it would allow lakeshore property owners to obtain leases for the power company’s 10-vertical-foot lakeside buffer zone; it would require Duke to conduct dredging operations at all its reservoirs; and it would require large annual cash payments to Jackson and Macon counties.
In addition to Duke, the Stakeholders Agreement has the support of the towns of Sylva and Dillsboro, the Eastern Band of Cherokee, Swain County’s Economic Development Commission and Soil and Water Authority; N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation; N.C. Wildlife Federation; Tuckaseigee Outfitters Association; Nantahala Outdoor Center; and some 15 other area, state and national organizations.
Jackson County’s alternative agreement has the support of the Macon County Commissioners, the towns of Webster and Franklin, several local agencies (Jackson County Soil and Water, Jackson County Greenways and Jackson County Parks and Recreation), three Cashiers-area homeowners’ groups (Friends of Lake Glenville, Cullowhee Falls and Cullowhee Forest), the Glenville Community Development Club and T.J. Walker of the Dillsboro Inn.
Two area environmental groups – Western North Carolina Alliance and the Watershed Association of the Tuckaseigee River – were among the initiators of Jackson County’s opposition to the Stakeholders’ Agreement, though neither endorsed the county plan when it was filed last summer.
WNCA, however, filed a separate document with FERC that expresses its support for the Jackson plan with the exception of its provisions for shoreline management and public access.
For more information on all aspects of relicensing, visit www.thesylvaherald.com and check the archives for Sept. 29, 2005; July 14, 2005; June 2, 16 and 30, 2005; May 12 and 26, 2005; Jan. 6, 2005; and Dec. 9, 16 and 23, 2004.
|
