Santee-Cooper Licensing

[Tuffy]

I was under the impression that their licensing renewal was complete. I now understand that, while due this year, they have asked for a one-year extension. I also understand that DNR is currently "negotiating" with them over various issues such as water-flow. Is that the case? If so, are there areas (surely) where DNR needs some public support? DT?

[Sprigtale]

Santee Cooper is too powerful. DNR wont have any luck getting any kind of concessions.

[Tuffy]

There's some truth in that, but not an absolute. Besides, don't leave that here long enough for NAB to see.

[DUCKMAN]

FERC requires SC to do certain things with the environment/recreation/natural resources, etc. They are the ones who hold the trump cards and SC says YES SIR or they get shut down! Every year they have to show that they have satisfied the FERC agreements.

[Tuffy]

DM...Check your PMs and let me know about interest. Friend is waiting on a call from me.

[Nab]

Tuffy - I have heard also that it has not happened, but if you read Santee Cooper's website it says it happened last March.
I would like to know if Santee Cooper is supplying any money for wildlife as was requested by the SC wildlife and fisheries coalition - and if so who has or will be receiving it - Duck Tape, you involved with this group - anyway that you could find out about this money - if it is part of the deal and if so who is getting it.

[Rubberhead*]

The FERC would never jeopardize Santee Cooper's ability to generate electricity. The real question is how many operational and financial concessions can be forced out of Santee Cooper by the "interested parties".

[Stripa Swipa]

I believe the anadromous fish issues and the USFWS support of them are pulling the weight for the flow issue.

[Rock & Rye]

Guys, moving this off main to wildlife politics or it will just get buried by mumbojumbo... normally would just do it but this time giving a heads up

[Tuffy]

I didn't see your post, but noticed that. I thought about that when I posted it where I did. I've always had such a hard time finding past posts that I got in the habit of putting everything here.

Can we change the search function to search across all forums? Gives me fits like it is.

As for the issue: I spent some time this week talking to DNR and S-C on this. I came away feeling good about the people and views involved in the details, but a little realistic about my expectations. NAB, the question of mitigation money never crossed my mind when I had the right folks on the phone, but the S-C guy didn't mention it in the "what-can-you-do-for-us" context. I'd be surprised if that was in the package. It's hard for them to accept some "responsibility" that would require that when their position is that they "do what they can" to satisfy all stakeholders. Frankly, I believed a lot of what I was told, much based on the sources. I don't think there is any money from S-C, any blatant disregard for wildlife/fisheries, or anything else to really aggravate me except the general state of southern rivers and the Army C.O.E. stances, perhaps.

[Rubberhead*]

I was responsible for the management of the Santee Cooper system (Lakes Marion and Moultrie, and the Santee and Cooper Rivers) from 1993 to 1998. Believe me, Santee Cooper performs quite a balancing act to consider all the various interests involved in the lakes and rivers.

I always like to tell the true story that I got a phone call one morning from a DNR biologist responsible for passage of anadromous fish. He asked me to please run more hydro at St. Stephens to provided an attractant flow for the saltwater run fish like the blue-backed herring. As soon as I hung up, the phone rang and it was a DNR freshwater biologist that asked me to please quit running any water at St. Stephen because the falling lake levels would mess up the crappie that has just started bedding.

If the DNR fishery biologists can’t agree on how to manage the system, it is impossible to hope to get others to agree.

[Tuffy]

It's good to know you're here with your knowledge and experience. In fairness, I think DNR has combined some responsibilities in the fisheries area. One name comes to mind that would be the source of their "input" on that kind of thing these days. Still, your point is my point in that DNR helps S-C and all of us if they task themselves with establishing their "postions" on those kinds of things and communicate them better.

We should be interested in the relicensing and, probably, realistic about what S-C can do FOR us. I think this is their index page for the subject:

http://www.santeecooper.com/environment/ferc/index.html

[Rubberhead*]

I tell that story not to make the DNR look bad but to point out that there are so many intersts pulling on that system that it is impossible to create an operational plan to works for everyone.

My rule of thumb for lake operations was to make sure that everyone was equally mad at me because if I tried to make some group happy it would make another group doubly hanked with me.

The problem for duck hunters is that, according to the DNR waterfowl biologists I used to work with, lake operations for best waterfowling are exactly opposite to the long-existing "rule curve". The Rule Curve has the lakes up in summer and down in winter was as waterfowl managers would prefer the lake to be down in summer and up in winter.

[Tuffy]

This is some complicated stuff and involves Major League politics and bureaucracies. Still, we're gonna have to get our licks in with everyone else and there are some parts of it that even I think I understand.

The bottom line for us might very well be that more of a "flow-through reservoir" has the most positive benefits to our natural interests. With NO dam (tempting typo opportunity) effect at all, we would be at the mercy of Mother Nature and we wouldn't like everything she did, but the floods and droughts would do wonders for natural vegetation and fish production for most species. It would be about the only thing to slow the lake succession effects that are what we are really feeling on the lake after all is said and done.

That situation would actually benefit S-C in a big sense. Water power is cheaper than their alternatives and they'd rather be using it. The problems really show up on both the input and output sides. The input is impossible to control because of Mother Nature and, more discouragingly perhaps, the other upstream users of those rivers. We really need to develop a SE Water Management Authority and it is coming too late in the game. There is some effort along those lines in Atlanta, but political pressureinterest on Duke and S-C and federal agencies would help them to do that sort of thing. The Mother Nature issues, as I said, are probably more helpful than anything any of us would decide to do, even with perfect control.

The output side is the real holdup and I think that S-C is much more on our side than we give them credit for being. The Army COE has long ago taken the position that S-C can't send much flow down the Cooper because of the sediment it carries. I think that the science and facts in S-C's hands dispute that, but they never have been able to win many points in that debate. They need the State behind them a little more on that and the COE has Charleston convinced, it seems. On the Santee, the obstacle seems to be more based on private landowners' fears of flooding and lawsuits associated with it. IMO, this is one of those "rediculous" cases of letting a special interest and their lawyers cause the whole train to either stop or take a dirt-road detour. That has to be resolved and Archibald Rutledge ain't there to tell his neighbors to straighten up.

Anyway, that's my take on the real issues involved. I expect to have my hands on some science involving the lake, but don't expect it to change much of what I THINK I understand now. I haven't seen anything to make it look like a "nature vs. S-C" issue and I just can't see where "mitigation money" comes into it. I COULD see S-C buying into a refuge/preserve/impoundment on the upper end of the lake as a part of their PR for dealing with the growing lake development. In that regard, I think they would have a lot of respect for SNWR if there were anything in that area they were asked.

I strongly encourage everyone to take advantage of the relicensing as an opportunity to talk about the future of the lakes, if nothing else. It won't take much research to jump beyond my understanding of the issues and everyone that cares should be willing to do some of that.

[scduckhuntr]

Hey tuf correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken S-C only gets approximately one percent of their energy needs from hydro electricity right? I read that somewhere, and I believe it's pretty close to being accurate. [img]graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Tuffy]

I don't know that number, but it is pretty low, but I would not have thought it that low. They would prefer it to be higher as water is cheaper.

They want to run it; I think we want them to run it, for the most part. They just need water to run and freedom to send it down the rivers below them.

[Tuffy]

It always disappoints me that this topic never gets anymore interest than it does. S-C IS the lakes. We don't care about any inland habitat issues if we're not very interested in their views, licenses, and issues.

[Tuffy]

ttt... This one, too.

DT... I thought this subject was of special interest to you? The fact that it is still to be completed causes me some confusion with some of our conversations in the past. You did know they are asking for an extension, right?

[Tuffy]

Was due to be March, but I think there is an extension request being made by S-C. I was wondering where you were yesterday on this one.

This was my project-of-the-week. I learned a new word...limnology. And met a couple of interesting people. There's a good man involved at S-C.

I suppose you missed the part in another place about the history group, too? Didn't anyone tell you that the legislature is a PT job?

[Tuffy]

DT... Waiting for your words and thoughts on this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you agree that this should be interesting to us, right?