|
FERC staff’s final EA OKs Dillsboro Dam removal
By Lynn Hotaling
The historic Dillsboro Dam is one step away from becoming history.
In a final environmental assessment issued Friday (July 14), members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff have recommended issuing new licenses for five of Duke Energy’s hydroelectric plants in Jackson County and endorsed the removal of the Dillsboro Dam. However, the staff’s recommendation must be upheld by the federal commissioners before it takes effect.
The final environmental assessment prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff includes removal of the 94-year-old Dillsboro Dam as part of Duke Energy’s relicensing applications. First proposed by Duke in 2002, the potential removal of the historic dam has proved to be the most contentious part of an agreement signed by Duke and various local governments and agencies. Jackson County commissioners and the town of Webster retained an attorney and consultant in an attempt to block the dam’s removal. – Herald photo by Nick Breedlove
Like a draft EA issued in May, the FERC staff’s final environmental assessment is a more than 400-page document that covers all aspects of Duke’s hydroelectric projects on the Tuckaseigee River in Jackson County as well as Duke’s Bryson Plant (on the Oconaluftee in Swain County), and it reaches the same conclusion as the FERC staff’s preliminary EA:
“After evaluating Duke’s proposal and the recommendations from resource agencies and interested parties, we considered what environmental measures would be necessary or appropriate for continued operations of the projects,” the report’s summary states. “Based on this analysis, we recommend licensing the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson projects as proposed by Duke with some additional staff-recommended measures, and the surrender of the Dillsboro Project with removal of the dam and demolition of the powerhouse.”
According to Duke spokesman Fred Alexander, the “additional (FERC) staff-related measures,” which were also stipulated in the draft EA, would be required at the Bryson plant.
With last week’s final EA, FERC staff members have recommended the Dillsboro Dam’s removal.
In writing the final EA, FERC staff members consistently agree with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement signed by Duke and the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team, an agreement that is opposed by Jackson County government, the town of Webster and several other groups.
Jackson County filed a document with FERC in June 2005 that local leaders say would more adequately compensate Jackson County for Duke’s use of public waterways to generate electricity and block the removal of the Dillsboro Dam. County officials retained energy attorney Paul Nolan of Alexandria, Va., to intercede on the county’s behalf; to date, Nolan has received $55,646 from county coffers. A consultant, John Boaze and his firm, Fish and Wildlife Associates, has received $27,319 to assist with that effort. Duke’s 2005 county tax bill was $253,597.
Under the Cooperative Stakeholders’ Agreement, which Duke has signed, Jackson County would receive some $350,000. County leaders maintain that amount is not sufficient and also contend that Duke should give the Dillsboro Dam to the county so that it could remain in place.
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland and commissioners’ Chairman Brian McMahan both declined to comment Monday saying they had not had a chance to review the document.
Alexander in May described the relicensing process as “long and complex,” adding that it began in November 1999 with a public meeting for all interested elected officials, known groups or individuals interested in relicensing, and news media.
“We look forward to receiving new licences soon and implementing projects to benefit public recreation and the environment along the Tuckaseigee River,” he said.
Alexander said last month that the next step after a final EA is typically issuance of a new license.
Duke’s Jackson County reservoirs include Wolf Creek, Tanassee Creek, Bear Creek and Cedar Cliff on the Tuckaseigee’s East Fork and Glenville and Tuckaseigee on the river’s West Fork. The six reservoirs power five hydro plants (Wolf Creek and Tanassee Creek lakes are connected and supply the same turbine). The Dillsboro plant is on the Tuckaseigee’s main stem, and the Bryson plant is on the Oconaluftee River at Ela.
Duke operates projects containing 11 generating plants and 13 dams in its 1,729-square-mile Nantahala Area that comprises Jackson, Cherokee, Graham, Macon, and Swain counties.
Removal of the Dillsboro Dam, which Duke officials say they agreed to in order to preserve generation at their larger, more efficient plants, has been the most controversial feature of Duke’s mitigation package since it was first mentioned more than four years ago in March 2002. Most speakers during a June 8 public hearing on the draft EA were either concerned with the dam or lakeshore property boundaries and buffers at Lake Glenville, Those who spoke about the dam represented both sides. Those in favor of removing the dam touted the benefits to river health and increased boating opportunities that would become available with the dam’s demise. Advocates of keeping the dam, which was built by early entrepreneur C.J. Harris in 1914 to power his Harris-Rees tannery and later provided electricity to the Dillsboro and Sylva Electric Co., cited the structure’s historic significance and scenic appearance.
For more information on relicensing and the various filings by parties on both sides, visit www.thesylvaherald.com and check the archives for July 13, 2006; June 8 and 15, 2006; May 18, 2006; 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.
|
