|
Area residents speak their mind about removal of Dillsboro Dam
By Lynn Hotaling
Both opponents and supporters of removing the Dillsboro Dam took advantage of a meeting called last week to share their views with federal power regulators. The meeting was called to consider relicensing the 90-year-old hydroelectric facility.
Representatives of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission were at the Justice Center Feb. 10 to take comment on Duke Power Co.'s relicensing application for Dillsboro and three other small Duke power plants located in Swain, Macon and Clay counties. However, after a brief introductory description of the others, Dillsboro was the only facility discussed during the two-hour session.
That's because the utility is also seeking relicensing of its other five Jackson County hydroelectric facilities (Thorpe, Tuckasegee, Cedar Cliff, Bear and Tanassee Creek), and, as part of mitigation requirements built into that process, Duke has proposed eliminating the 90-year-old Dillsboro Dam. The dam removal plan has proved controversial because of the dam's visible location in Dillsboro.
"Our intent is still to remove the (Dillsboro) dam within three years of receiving permission from FERC,” Duke Area Manager Fred Alexander said earlier this month. Duke will file a request June 1 asking FERC to allow removal of the dam, he said.
In the meantime, Duke needed to file an application to relicense its Dillsboro plant, Alexander said.
Located on the main stem of the Tuckaseigee River, the Dillsboro power plant has an estimated annual generation of 912,330 kWh. As proposed in the relicensing settlement agreement, removing Dillsboro's dam assisted Duke in maintaining flexibility and reliability in its larger hydro projects, according to an information sheet Alexander distributed at last week's session.
No speakers during the Feb. 10 meeting seemed concerned with whether Duke should continue operating the tiny power plant. Instead, speakers focused on the pros and cons of dam removal, and how much "mitigation credit” Duke should receive in the event the dam is removed.
After pointing out that they were in Sylva to gather information relating to the four small power plants' continued operation, FERC officials listened without comment while about a dozen area residents stated their views on the dam's future.
"The proposal we have in front of us is to relicense all four projects,” said a FERC representative. "As far as we're concerned right now, (dam removal) is not on the table - no one's filed a request for it. If and when Duke amends its application and says the plan is to remove the dam, we'll consider it.”
Dillsboro property owners Susan Leveille and T.J. Walker spoke in favor of the dam remaining intact for aesthetic and historic reasons.
"I've been a merchant in Dillsboro, on the river, for one-third of the life of the dam,” Leveille said. "I've watched visitors. The dam is a point of identification for Dillsboro, which has only one industry - tourism.”
"The dam is a historical resource,” Walker said. "It's the only dam and powerhouse that's right in town.”
Walker also said the value of the dam is being "overlooked and transferred to other projects.
"All mitigation credits for (Dillsboro Dam's) removal should be applied to that section of the river alone,” Walker said.
Speakers in favor of removing the dam included Justin Padgett, Sam Fowlkes, Bob Hathcock and Steve Yurkovich.
Padgett and Fowlkes said they thought the rapids that would be created by the dam's removal would be an ideal location for whitewater rescue training.
Hathcock said he could empathize with Walker's feeling that Dillsboro would be taking the brunt of Duke's entire relicensing agreement, but that he believed removing the dam was the best solution.
"I truly believe the river running right through Dillsboro could be a much greater attraction,” Hathcock said.
Yurkovich, who said it was important to make the determination based on science, spoke of the tremendous "misinformation” that surrounds the dam removal proposal. Biodiversity is low in the impoundment behind the dam but is much greater above and below the dam, he said.
"One purpose of relicensing is to create a better environment,” he said. "If the dam is removed, we're starting to restore the natural environment.”
David Wheeler of the Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River said he'd like to see a cost and environmental study done of the dam removal and more information on the fate of the endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel. He also expressed concern about the composition of the sediment behind the dam and said it was important to have a physical analysis to determine whether metals or toxic compounds are present.
Wheeler also expressed dissatisfaction with the stakeholders' process that led to the agreement that includes the proposal to remove the Dillsboro Dam.
"The profit and operating costs for each of the Nantahala area dams shouldn't be an issue, but the whole stakeholder process was driven by what Duke felt it could afford for mitigation,” he said.
Wheeler asked FERC officials to consider mandating that Duke could not raise electricity rates based on mitigation requirements attached to relicensing and said Duke representatives had intimidated local government officials with threats of rate hikes if mitigation requirements were too expensive.
Tom Massie of Sylva, an elected member of the Soil and Water Conservation board, also raised the issue of the sediment behind the Dillsboro Dam and said the $40,000 included in the agreement for soil and water conservation efforts is not enough to have much of an impact. An economic assessment should be prepared to determine the "economic benefit from a private corporation (Duke) using a public resource (the Tuckaseigee River),” Massie said.
As far as mitigation credits for the Dillsboro Dam's removal, Massie said he didn't think "Dillsboro should mitigate anything but Dillsboro.”
Duke's application to relicense the four small dams is "the tail wagging the dog,” Massie said.
"The main event is the large dams,” Massie said. "Dillsboro is inconsequential.”
Another point of contention during the Feb. 10 meeting was the duration of the licenses Duke is seeking. Massie and others said they disagreed with the 40-year licenses Duke is seeking and would prefer to see the facilities licensed for shorter periods.
John Wishon of Duke Power said Duke is not requesting 40-year licenses and that the duration of new licenses would be up to FERC officials.
Duke Power is seeking relicensing of its Jackson County hydroelectric facilities because current operating licenses expire in 2005 and 2006.
|
