|
Federal officials OK removal of Dillsboro Dam
By Lynn Hotaling
Duke Energy cleared another hurdle last week (July 19) in its bid to obtain new operating licenses for its Jackson County hydroelectric plants when federal regulators issued an order supporting removal of the 94-year-old Dillsboro Dam.
Built by early Jackson County entrepreneur C.J. Harris to provide power for his Harris-Rees Tannery and light the streets of Sylva and Dillsboro, the dam has been a lightning rod of controversy since Duke made its removal the linchpin of a 2003 Settlement Agreement filed with its license applications. A number of stakeholders, including all three given authority under the Federal Power Act – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and N.C. Division of Water Quality – signed the agreement and favor the dam’s removal. All three favor a free-flowing river and the restoration of a “riverine” environment.
 |
A ruling last Thursday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission means the 94-year-old Dillsboro Dam is one step closer to demolition. Taking out the dam is the linchpin of a Settlement Agreement signed in 2003 as part of Duke Energy’s application for new operating licenses for five of its six Jackson County hydroelectric plants. Duke has agreed to surrender its Dillsboro license and remove the dam and powerhouse as mitigation for the effects of its larger generating stations on the East and West forks of the Tuckaseigee River. Duke’s plans also require water quality certificates from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of Water Quality. One necessary approval – for surrender of the license – was granted by the state in 2005, and Duke has applied for approval of plans to remove the dam and sediment behind it. – Herald photo by Nick Breedlove
In addition, removing the 12-foot high dam would open up an additional 10 miles of free-flowing river above Fontana Lake.
“In consultation with various state and federal natural resource agencies, we anticipate finalizing plans and schedules to remove the dam within three years,” said Fred Alexander, Duke’s business relations manager for the Nantahala Area.
Duke’s Dillsboro project includes a powerhouse and a rock-and-masonry 310-foot-long dam. Its reservoir size is approximately 15 acres with negligible storage capacity. It is the smallest of Duke’s 31 hydroelectric plants, the second smallest Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-licensed water-powered electricity-producing facility in North Carolina, and the 53rd smallest of more than 1,000 FERC-licensed hydro projects in the nation.
“This is good news for the river environment, fishing, boating, and – as odd as it sounds – for preservation of more renewable hydro power,” Alexander said of last week’s FERC ruling.
Dam removal will also allow some aquatic species to move more freely up and down the river and restore approximately 4,000 feet of lake bed to river habitat. This is particularly important for the Tuckaseigee’s endangered freshwater Appalachian elktoe mussel population, he said.
“Removing Dillsboro Dam will help protect reservoir levels for Nantahala Lake in Macon County and Lake Glenville in Jackson County. It will also help preserve water for public recreation down the Nantahala Gorge, benefiting Macon and Swain counties,” he said.
State and federal resource agencies agreed in 2003 that removal of the Dillsboro Dam would provide environmental mitigation for the current renewal of the company’s federal operating licenses for its southwestern North Carolina hydropower facilities.
“As a result, far more valuable renewable hydro generation is preserved than lost with the removal of Dillsboro Dam,” Alexander said. “We believe it is a good thing that federal licenses for hydro projects expire, leading to periodic reevaluation of environmental, public recreation and generation needs. The removal of Dillsboro Dam is the result of compromises reached during a 9,000-man-hour stakeholder process. Its removal is environmental mitigation that reduces the amount of water that would otherwise be lost for power generation from much larger and more efficient hydro stations such as Thorpe, Nantahala, Bear Creek, Tannassee Creek, and Cedar Cliff.
“In short, with Dillsboro Dam gone, more renewable energy will be preserved,” Alexander said.
Duke’s goal is to start the removal process in January, and, If not then, in January 2009, Alexander said.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees with Duke’s assessment of FERC’s July 19 order. In a statement issued Tuesday, USFWS signified its approval of the ruling that includes the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and powerhouse.
“We’re pleased FERC took this step and we can begin gearing up for the dam’s removal. The restoration of a free-flowing Tuckaseigee River through Dillsboro will be a biological boon,” said Mark Cantrell, a biologist with USFWS.
According to Cantrell, federal law requires operators of private hydropower facilities to address impacts to fish and wildlife resources, including the limitation of up- and downstream fish movement caused by the dam. The removal of the Dillsboro Dam is seen as a large step toward addressing those impacts on the Tuckaseigee River, he said.
Dam removal will restore nearly a mile of the river and create a stretch of unimpounded river more than 29 miles long. The result will be improved paddling opportunities, an improved fishery, and an improvement in the plight of the Appalachian elktoe mussel, which is currently found both below the dam and above the reservoir, Cantrell said.
The dam’s removal will open up new habitat behind the dam and reconnect the bisected population, allowing them to interbreed, thus improving their genetic diversity, and with it, their ability to survive, he said.
“A cornerstone of the natural heritage of the Southern Appalachian region is free-flowing rivers that are home to a diversity of life, and when the dam is taken out, the still pool that now sits behind the dam will once again become a flowing river. Over time, we’ll see native wildlife, not only fish, but mussels and aquatic insects too, begin to populate the newly restored section of river,” said Cantrell.
He also pointed out that while the removal of the dam is good from a biological perspective, it also has economic potential.
“From an economic perspective, it also means that boaters and anglers will have more opportunity to enjoy a free-flowing river, and Dillsboro is perfectly located to take advantage of that by being the river’s gateway community,” Cantrell said.
One of the next steps in the process of removing the dam is moving the Appalachian elktoe mussels found below the dam to a site upstream, moving them away from possible harm while the dam structure is removed. The movement of the mussels is scheduled to begin later this year. After the dam is removed and the river becomes stable, the mussels will be replaced.
Though the N.C. Division of Water Quality has already issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification supporting dam removal, Duke Energy applied for a permit that will allow installation of a temporary work pad for equipment, an access road and dredging. This permit must be granted before dam removal can begin, according to John Dorney, supervisor of wetland development with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of Water Quality.
The initial plan for Dillsboro Dam removal calls for the sediment – sand – behind the dam to be allowed to move down river as it would have naturally in a free-flowing river, but Alexander said Duke is now pursuing a permit that would allow a second option, sand mining (dredging), for sediment removal. Whether it can be acted upon depends on the commercial value of the sand, and it will not be possible to obtain a sufficiently large sample to make that determination without the permit Duke has requested, he said.
Dorney, who is an NCDWQ decision-maker with regard to water quality certifications, said that his division is treating the dam removal and dredging application as one request, and that the NCDWQ backs removal of the dam.
“Our staff position is that we support the removal of the Dillsboro Dam as adequate mitigation (for Duke’s hydroelectric projects),” he said Tuesday. Though Duke’s initial proposal did not include dredging, the fact that the power company now proposes to dredge and is seeking a permit to do so seems “reasonable,” Dorney said.
According to Dorney, NCDWQ can place conditions on what Duke can and can’t do, and that any such conditions become part of the FERC ruling as well due to the authority given the agency under the Clean Water Act.
“Federal regulators can be more restrictive than we are, but they can’t be less so,” Dorney said.
The comment period on Duke’s water quality certification application runs through Aug. 15, Dorney said.
Not everyone is pleased with last week’s FERC decision, and one of those is John Boaze, whose Whittier consulting firm, Fish and Wildlife Associates, has been hired by Jackson County to oppose Duke’s relicensing efforts.
“I hate to see a landmark go,” Boaze said Tuesday. “I think Duke got a sweet deal from the resource agencies because they wanted to remove the dam.”
According to Boaze, who Jackson County has paid $35,518 through June 22, taking the dam out “will kill some mussels.”
Relocating a portion of the mussel population during dam removal will save some, but those that aren’t moved will be affected, he said.
Boaze also mentioned a Jackson County proposal that Duke should turn over the Dillsboro plant to the county rather than surrender it.
“Jackson County would like to have the plant,” he said. “That’s ‘green’ power they’re getting rid of.”
Boaze also questioned a stipulation in the FERC order that the dam be removed in low-flow times, saying that would increase any harmful effects on downstream aquatic life.
He also said that if the dam is to be removed, Duke’s current plan to dredge first would minimize the impact because there would be less sediment present to wash downstream.
Boaze said he didn’t know if Jackson County, which has since 2005 retained energy attorney Paul Nolan to represent its interest in Washington, D.C., planned to oppose last week’s FERC ruling. County Manager Ken Westmoreland was unavailable for comment on Tuesday.
If the dam is removed, the town of Dillsboro, which has already received $50,000 from Duke, stands to gain title to the riverfront land created when the impounded water is drained and the river returns to its natural channel. The money the town has already been given went toward the purchase of the Monteith property that Dillsboro is currently developing into a park and museum.
The lengthy FERC order includes the statement that ... (removal of the Dillsboro hydroelectric project) will result in greater upstream and downstream fish movement, wider distribution of Appalachian elktoe mussels, as well as improvement of recreational opportunities in the Tuckaseigee River. For these reasons, surrender of the Dillsboro Project ... will benefit environmental resources in the Tuckaseigee River, and is in the public interest.”
The full FERC order can be read online at http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2007/071907/H-1.pdf
|
