|
|
|
|
History and Accomplishments: |
| |
|
History |
|
In
1998 groups from local, state (NC & SC), and Tribal governments, as
well as conservation and recreation organizations began to meet to take
advantage of the “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity presented by the
expiration in 2008 of Duke Energy’s 50 year old license for 13 hydropower
facilities and 11 reservoirs along the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. From
these meetings the Catawba~Wateree Relicensing Coalition (CWRC) was formed
and received 501 (c) (3) status in November 2000. |
|
|
|
CWRC
is a two state (North and South Carolina) grassroots coalition whose
mission is to give an independent voice to the relicensing effort and
facilitate a relicensing process to protect, enhance, and restore the
natural, cultural, recreational and economic resources of the Catawba-Wateree
River basin through: |
|
|
| |
Ø Educating the general public about
their environmental and conservation rights in hydro-dam relicensing
and encouraging them to participate in a collaborative relicensing
effort; |
| |
ØAdvocacy for the public benefits of
all people from a public resource; and, |
| |
ØProviding technical input for
environmentally sound relicensing study requests in watershed
management, fish passage, water flow levels, water quality/quantity,
recreation/public access needs, land use/planning, cultural/historic
and terrestrial resources. |
|
|
|
|
Programs & Strategic
Priorities |
CWRC has been
recognized nationally as a leader in creating a grass roots organization to
work collaboratively with a diverse group of stakeholders in a
process traditionally known for adversarial relationships. CWRC currently
works with over 50 local, state, and federal organizations to insure that
this relicensing process is inclusive, transparent and fair to all
stakeholders. |
|
|
|
This relicensing
is the only opportunity stakeholders may have to evaluate our river’s
present condition and work together to ensure the Catawba River Basin is
managed in a comprehensive, sustainable manner that meets the needs of
current and future generations. The new license will include important
recreation, conservation, and water quantity and quality measures that will
determine the very character of our river basin for the next 30 to 50 years.
This will be the last chance in our lifetime to use an opportunity of this
magnitude to ensure: |
|
|
| |
ØEnhanced
protection of fish and wildlife habitat; |
| |
ØSufficient
and appropriate mitigation for impacts associated with hydropower
facilities; |
| |
ØRegional
economic prosperity with the quality of life based on a foundation
of a healthy, sustainable river system; |
| |
ØRecreational
opportunities that include local fishing holes, hiking trails and
places to swim; |
| |
ØClean
energy – efficiently produced with hydropower generation; |
| |
ØClean,
fairly allocated water for our communities; |
| |
ØAdditional
access to the river for the boating and non-boating public; |
|
|
|
|
CWRC has built a
solid relationship with Duke Energy and participates in all the teams
engaged in the process. We believe the river is a shared public resource and
should be managed for the benefit of all stakeholders. We continue to work
to identify key consensus goals. Current program priorities include: |
|
|
| |
ØOutreach
and coordination of regional activities and perspectives such as the
regions water resource needs, erosion control and recreation plans; |
| |
ØResearch,
document and cross reference studies, interests, and impacts; |
| |
ØEducate,
assist and meet with stakeholders, government officials, State
agencies and NGOs and bring relevant programs and efforts into the relicensing process; |
| |
ØAdvocate
to protect and enhance biodiversity, file comments with FERC,
intervene on the process, Shoreline Management Plan and other
issues; |
| |
ØProvide
specialized training to stakeholders on key relicensing issues and
processes via CWRC sponsored workshops. |
|
|
|
|
Current strategic priorities include: |
|
|
| |
ØFair
and balanced use among stakeholders of the river’s resources gained
through a collaborative process; |
| |
ØClean
water to meet diverse stakeholder uses; |
| |
ØLand
around the Catawba-Wateree to meet recreation needs and
environmental health needs for future generations; |
| |
ØHabitat
protection and enhancement, optimal flow regime for fishes, wildlife
and natural vegetation; |
| |
ØAdequate
water supply; |
| |
ØFlexible
(adaptive) management of the river system over the term of the
license. |
|
|
|
|
Accomplishments |
|
CWRC’s first
three years focused on building collaborative relationships with
stakeholders throughout the basin through meetings, newsletters, newspaper
articles and referrals. Our accomplishments include: |
|
|
| |
ØFrom
August 2000 through September 2002 the Coalition held six (6) public
stakeholder conferences offering relicensing education from
nationally recognized experts and the identification of issues. |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
was written up in Hydropower Magazine (June 2001) and have earned
the interest of the industry and the FERC. |
| |
|
| |
ØIn
April 2002 hosted a trust building workshop for 40 participants
based on the Legal Institute Analysis Model used by USGS. |
| |
|
| |
ØParticipated
in a panel discussion at Hydrovision 2002 – the bi-annual
international conference for the hydropower industry. |
| |
|
| |
ØSecured
a meeting (October 2002) with Chairman Patrick Wood of the FERC who
is personally interested in our success as a coalition as a means to
realizing the reform efforts being made by the FERC. |
| |
|
| |
ØParticipate
with the Bi-State Catawba River Task force. |
| |
|
| |
ØIntervened
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Duke
Energy’s Shoreline Manage Plan (SMP). |
| |
|
| |
ØFiled
detailed comments with the FERC on the Draft Environmental
Assessment of the SMP in February 2003. |
| |
|
| |
ØDuring
March, 2003 we attended the eight (8) public consultation meetings
Duke held and at those meetings gave a public overview of our
efforts to have a new license that will reflect the greater public
benefit regarding equitable environmental and conservation
practices. |
| |
|
| |
ØIn
March and April 2003 CWRC participated in FERC rulemaking workshop
sessions and post-workshop drafting sessions dealing with the
proposed rule language as the FERC rewrote its own rules for the
relicensing process of all hydroelectric dams. CWRC provided
comments and recommendations to FERC on collaborative approaches
versus the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). |
| |
|
| |
ØIn
April and May, 2003 CWRC held two (2) issues and study requests
workshops with 30 different entities from NC and SC represented
(also in attendance were representatives from FERC and
representatives from the Duke Energy relicensing team). These
conferences were educational workshops designed to train agencies
and NGO’s on how to file study requests and what should be included. |
| |
|
| |
ØMay
30, 2003, CWRC filed with Duke Energy and the FERC a 39 page “Issues
and Study Requests Document” that included comments on the First
Stage Consultation Document that Duke had filed with FERC in late
February (CWRC’s document was complied from issues identified over
the past 4 years through discussion with communities and the general
public, along with those gleaned from the eight public meetings held
by Duke that CWRC representatives attended). |
| |
|
| |
ØThrough
a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Natural
Resources Leadership Institute (NRLI) at NC State University, CWRC
and Duke Energy collaborated on a pre-relicensing trust building
meeting focusing on enhancing the capacities of stakeholders to work
toward an eventual consensus agreement for a new hydropower license. |
| |
|
| |
ØAs
a direct result of the CWRC’s concern and recommendation, Duke held
a national search for a hydropower facilitator to guide the process
until the application is filed with the FERC. CWRC participated in
writing the Proposal Request, vetting applicants, and influencing
the final choice, along with a group from Duke, state agencies and
federal agencies that we were instrumental in convening. |
| |
|
| |
ØBecause
CWRC has continued to build a solid working relationship with Duke
Energy we have successfully influenced their choice of relicensing
process to a more collaborative traditional “Hybrid” with enhanced
public participation instead of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP)
which allows for limited public input. North and South Carolina
State Relicensing Teams (SRTs) have been formed with membership
based on key relicensing representatives from state and federal
resource agencies, Duke Energy, and non-government organizations
(NGOs). CWRC has two primary seats (one each in North and South
Carolina) on the SRTs and two alternates. |
| |
|
| |
ØThe
SRTs will be advised by regional Advisory Groups (AGs) from North
and South Carolina. There will be two groups of AGs in each of the
states (NC Foothills, NC Metro, SC Piedmont, SC Lower Catawba) and
will consist of a defined number of members that equitably represent
local issues and interest to the SRTs. CWRC has board members and
participants on each of the four AG teams. |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
has participants on the Duke Energy Resource Committee that designs
the study plans and will have participants that serve on the
Technical Teams that carry out the studies. |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
has taken a lead role in developing the Charter which will guide
behavior throughout the relicensing process for the State
Relicensing Teams (SRTs), Advisory Groups (AGs) and Duke Energy. |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
is in regular communication with officials from the SC Department of
Natural Resources (SC DNR) officials, NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NC DENR) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
has developed an educational speaker’s bureau where staff and board
members speak about the relicensing process with State and Local
government agencies, NGOs, conservation groups, churches and clubs. |
| |
|
| |
ØIn
November 2003 CWRC held a “Hydropower Water Quality Certification
Workshop”. This workshop was held for North and South Carolina state
agency employees that have a direct responsibility for each state
401 Water Quality Certification. The objectives for this workshop
were to (1) facilitate a coordinated relicensing effort among state
and federal water quality agencies; (2) help educate decision makers
on their authorities and responsibilities under the Clean Water Act,
and (3) provide examples of hydropower water quality certifications
from other states. |
| |
|
| |
ØCWRC
continues to meet regularly with officials of the utility, Duke
Energy. |
|
|
|
|
Back
::
Top |
|
|