Dillsboro Inn owner T.J. Walker, standing on his porch overlooking the Dillsboro Dam and Tuckaseigee River, is concerned about potential negative impacts to his bed and breakfast should Duke Power decide to remove the 80-year-old dam. The power company has included the elimination of the dam in a proposal presented last week that is intended to stimulate discussion among a group of business and property owners along the river and the power company's lakes in Glenville and Canada communities. - Herald photo by Lynn Hotaling As part of an effort to satisfy the interests of those who live or work along Jackson County's river and lakes, Duke Power officials have proposed eliminating Dillsboro's 80-year-old dam and powerhouse. The projected dam removal is part of a broader proposal Duke presented last Thursday (March 21) to a team of "stakeholders" who have been meeting for the past 18 months as the power company proceeds through a federal relicensing process. Removing the dam would be beneficial to both boaters and migratory fish, said James Jackson of Cullowhee, who represents the Tuckasegee Gorge Association in the stakeholders' group. Eliminating the dam at Dillsboro would add about 11 miles of unimpeded river for boating, according to a fact sheet prepared by Duke, which would bring the total number of unimpeded miles on the Tuckaseigee above Fontana Dam to 32. Removing the dam was not debated by the entire group at last Thursday's meeting. The entire proposal, which also includes target stream flows and lake levels as well as improved recreational access, was discussed instead in small groups. All indications were that most people there either favored the dam's removal or were neutral about it. When participants were asked to place colored stickers by individual items, 10 people placed blue stickers by removing the dam, which indicated strong approval. Only four people gave it a yellow sticker to indicate strong dissatisfaction. The other 10 to 15 people present did not place a sticker by it at all, indicating a neutral position on dam removal. Dillsboro Inn owner T.J. Walker, who was added as a stakeholder during Thursday's meeting, is opposed to the idea of eliminating the dam. "(Removing the dam) would significantly decrease my property value," Walker said. "I've put as much money into renovations as I paid for the inn. I had no idea they would even think of removing the dam." Water flowing over the dam serves as a noise buffer and is one of the amenities his guests enjoy the most, Walker said. The dam and powerhouse have historical significance as well, he said. "When I came here, it reminded me of a European setting," Walker said. "The dam is unique - it's in the town of Dillsboro - and it should be featured historically." Instead of contemplating the dam's removal, Duke Power should spend money on it and make it more of a tourist attraction, he said. "The dam is so close to downtown Dillsboro I'd like to see a substantial upgrade so people could walk down and look at the historical significance of the dam and powerhouse," Walker said. Putting his personal and business interests aside, Walker addressed some of the environmental issues raised by Duke's initial plan, which also includes proposals governing lake levels and minimum stream flow. Specifically, Walker mentioned the presence of endangered elk-toe mussels in the streambed below the dam. "If the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority couldn't disturb them to bury a line in the streambed, how can the power company remove the dam without affecting the mussels," Walker said. After the rare mussels were found in the Tuckaseigee, TWSA revised its plans and attached its pipe to the U.S. 441 bridge to avoid disturbing the mollusks' habitat. Dillsboro Mayor Jean Hartbarger declined comment on the power company proposal until after Dillsboro's town board members discuss the dam's possible removal during their April 1 board meeting. Dillsboro is a small but profitable hydroelectric project that was built about 1927 to supply power for the Dillsboro and Sylva Electric Co. Nantahala Power and Light purchased the facility in 1957; Duke Power purchased NP&L in 1988. The former NP&L service area is now known as the Nantahala Area of Duke Power. Dillsboro's generating capacity is 225 kw, and its average annual generation is about 1,350 megawatt hours. Duke could replace Dillsboro's total power output in less than a day of additional operation of the utility's 10 other area hydroelectric plants. Eliminating the Dillsboro Dam is one of some 30 items listed in a "trial balloon" Duke released March 21 to an existing stakeholder team. The proposal would include turning over the powerhouse and an additional 3 acres across the river to the town of Dillsboro. Before the dam can be removed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must give permission, said Fred Alexander, district manager for Duke/Nantahala. Other thresholds that must be achieved before a viable agreement to remove the dam can be reached are a consensus agreement by the stakeholder team and Duke Power; an environmentally responsible and economically feasible plan; and a plan that assists Duke in retaining continued flexibility in hydro operations in the Nantahala Area, Alexander said. "The purpose of the trial balloon is to stimulate discussion within the Tuckaseigee River Cooperative Stakeholder Team concerning how a variety of river and relicensing interests could fit together in a consensus agreement," Alexander said. Duke is currently seeking relicensing from FERC for its Western North Carolina hydroelectric projects, six of which are on the East and West forks of the Tuckaseigee River in Jackson County. Current licenses will expire in 2005 and 2006, and relicensing applications are due in 2003. As a result of public and agency input, a large number of studies related to the plants and rivers were undertaken and most are now completed, Alexander said, with results now available via the Internet at nantahalapower.com. Duke and the interested parties formed the Tuckaseigee River Cooperative Stakeholder Team, a voluntary group. The stakeholder team is not a FERC requirement but rather a method of systematically organizing and educating the variety of organizations that were already self-identified as being interested in relicensing, Alexander said. A consensus agreement from the stakeholder team should speed relicensing, Alexander said, because the FERC would prefer to review a relicensing application that has been obtained through input from the various groups. "Otherwise, we - all of us stakeholders collectively - would be asking a federal agency to work out something we ourselves could not agree upon," Alexander said. "The stakeholder team is separate from the official FERC relicensing process. It is running parallel and where consensus is achieved, we'll incorporate it in our license application. So even though literally separate, the team can have an important influence." |