|
County’s ‘preferred’ relicensing plan filed with federal officials
Document backs keeping Dillsboro Dam
By Lynn Hotaling
Local officials June 16 filed a document that local leaders say will more adequately compensate Jackson County for Duke Power’s use of public waterways to generate electricity.
The proposal is also backed by Macon County’s commissioners and town officials in Webster and Franklin. Both Webster and Macon County held special meetings in May to act on the plan in advance of an announced filing date of May 27 or June 1.
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland described the plan, filed as an alternative to the Cooperative Stakeholders Settlement Agreement filed by Duke Power, during the Webster town board’s May 27 session. That meeting marked the first time a county official had spoken publicly about the proposal, which was drafted by Alexandria, Va., energy attorney Paul Nolan.
Because Nolan is representing Jackson County in relicensing proceedings, talks between him and county officials have taken place in closed session. Commissioners again discussed relicensing during a June 20 closed session, Westmoreland said.
As of mid-May, Nolan had been paid $58,956 by Jackson County.
According to Westmoreland, Jackson County would derive a greater benefit from its proposed agreement than from Duke’s agreement for several reasons.
The county’s plan places emphasis on conservation, restoration and recreation and does not take away anything Duke offered in its Settlement Agreement signed by the power company and about 35 local governments (including the towns of Dillsboro and Sylva and the Eastern Band of Cherokee), natural resource agencies, state, and federal and local organizations. The only exception, he said, is that the county plan would delay recreational kayak releases on the Tuckaseigee’s West Fork, an area currently bypassed by the system of tunnels and steel pipeline that carries water down from Lake Glenville to the Thorpe powerhouse.
The alternate plan would also require Duke to contribute more money for erosion control. Duke’s agreement calls for a one-time payment of $40,000 to Jackson County Soil and Water; the proposal mandates an additional $150,000 per year for each of the recommended 40 years that would be covered by new licenses.
And Jackson County’s alternate plan eliminates the linchpin of Duke’s proposed mitigation concession – the removal of the Dillsboro Dam – and specifies that it should remain in place and be turned over to the county to operate.
Preserving the dam was the aspect of the county plan that Westmoreland devoted the most time to during the May 26 Webster town board meeting.
According to the county manager, the dam should stay in place due to rising energy costs and its intrinsic value as a symbol of Dillsboro. He also cited environmental concerns such as sedimentation and potential harm to populations of endangered Appalachian elktoe mussels that could occur during dam removal.
Duke has operated the Dillsboro plant inefficiently, producing only half the power the plant is licensed for, Westmoreland said. In addition, engineering studies have shown that Dillsboro’s generator could be inexpensively upgraded to double power production, he said.
According to Westmoreland, the premise U.S. Fish and Wildlife gave for dam removal was for migration of the elktoe mussels. However, there are already mussels above the dam as well as below, he said. A study the county has found indicates that temperature is the most controlling factor for the mussel and that dam removal could diminish elktoe populations, Westmoreland said.
The county also objects to Duke’s plan to “flush” the sediment behind the dam down river during removal.
“Sediment is our biggest pollution problem,” Westmoreland said.
Another benefit of the Dillsboro Dam is that it provides some flood protection, and that during last September’s floods it prevented the Dillsboro Inn, located just downstream, from being inundated, Westmoreland said.
On the opposite side of the dam removal issue is U.S. Fish and Wildlife, one of the agencies given statutory authority by the Federal Power Act to ensure that relicensing decisions are made with the overall health of the river in mind. Also supporting removal are a number of local outfitters’ groups, who say opening up more of the Tuckaseigee to boaters will be a positive. A Western Carolina University professor familiar with dam removal projects also supports removing the dam.
“Fish and Wildlife is pleased that Duke has applied to FERC to decommission and remove the Dillsboro project,” said the agency’s Mark Cantrell. “We’ve evaluated the plan and believe that with close monitoring during demolition we can ensure minimal effects of sediment downstream.”
Benefits to removal include restoration of the impounded reach and re-establishment of a river continuum, Cantrell said.
“Extensive flowing, unimpounded reaches of river are very important to fish and wildlife-based recreation and the economy of Western North Carolina,” Cantrell said. “We have seen incredible improvement in the water quality and corresponding uses of the Tuckaseigee River since Mead’s paper plant closed in the mid-1970s. Removal of Dillsboro Dam will continue these improvements.”
With regard to elktoe mussels, Cantrell said removing the Dillsboro Dam would have no effect on river temperature, but that it would restore free-flowing conditions to the impounded area.
“So far, we have been unable to discern any environmental benefits of the Dillsboro Dam – it does not improve temperature or water quality. It’s only value seems to be its hydroelectric potential that is very limited and does not outweigh its environmental impairments,” Cantrell said.
Geologist Rob Young, the WCU professor who has worked on several dam removal projects, has said that “science” backs removing the Dillsboro Dam.
Young, a member of Webster’s appointed planning board, intended to point out some of the environmental benefits of dam removal during the town board’s June meeting. He was unable to do so because Webster leaders approved the county plan May 26. Young was in the Pacific Northwest working on the Elwha River dam removal project when the special meeting was held.
“I really wanted to talk to people about dam removal,” he said. “I didn’t want anyone to use technical stuff as a reason to vote against the original (Cooperative Settlement) agreement.”
Removal plans for the much larger Elwha and Glines Canyon dams in the Olympic National Park are similar to the one for Dillsboro in that dredging will not precede dam removal, Young said.
That method involves a gradual breaching of the dam to allow monitored amounts of sediment to be flushed downstream as the river returns to its natural channel, he said. Sediment behind Dillsboro is estimated to be about 100,000 cubic yards, while the two Elwha River dams trap a combined 18 million cubic yards, Young said.
Duke Power sees several benefits from removing the Dillsboro Dam, according to Duke District Manager Fred Alexander.
“(Dam removal) will help protect lake levels for Lake Glenville in Jackson County and Nantahala Lake in Macon County as nothing else (will), Alexander said. “It will also help preserve water for public recreation down the Nantahala Gorge.”
Signers of the Settlement Agreement agreed that removal of Dillsboro Dam would provide environmental mitigation for the current renewal of the company’s federal operating licenses.
“As a result, far more valuable renewable hydro generation is preserved than lost with the removal of Dillsboro Dam,” Alexander said.
While Alexander acknowledged that it might seem “strange” that removal of a hydroelectric dam could strengthen Duke’s overall generating capacity, he said more water power will be lost if the Dillsboro Dam remains in place.
“The literal trade-off is give up Dillsboro Dam and its generators that produce 3/10 of 1 percent of Nantahala Area generating capacity, or lose a yet to be determined amount of water from Glenville and Nantahala lakes that would otherwise run generators that make 65 percent of the area’s hydroelectric power. That loss will be made up with more expensive power from other sources,” Alexander said.
If the dam is not removed, several sections of the Settlement Agreement will no longer apply, according to Alexander, which means state and federal agencies, Duke, and other parties will revisit the minimum flows from reservoirs on the Tuckaseigee and Nantahala rivers. This “minimum flow” is water from lakes that bypasses hydropower generators to enhance aquatic habitat, and the result is expected to be less water available for making power, maintaining lake levels or scheduling releases to support downstream recreation, Alexander said.
Addressing the efficiency of Duke’s Dillsboro plant, Alexander said improvements aimed at boosting generation have been studied and deemed not economically feasible.
With regard to any flood control the dam might provide, Alexander said it’s non-existent.
“Dillsboro reservoir is maintained at full pond and cannot be drawn down. It therefore provides no flood control whatsoever,” Alexander said. “Because Dillsboro Inn is in a low-lying area immediately adjoining the river, it is quite possible that the inn would have been flooded last September but for the coordinated operation of Duke’s larger, upstream plants.”
According to Alexander, the Dillsboro plant and surrounding land are subject to significant damage by flood waters. The former powerhouse was carried away during the 1940 flood, and the present building was flooded twice last September after Hurricanes Frances and Ivan and two weeks ago as a result of Tropical Storm Arlene.
Duke is seeking relicensing of its Jackson County hydroelectric facilities because current operating licenses expire this year and next.
Federal power officials are expected to decide later this summer whether to allow Duke to decommission and remove the Dillsboro Dam.
|
