20030179 Ver 6_Emails_20061101

Dillsboro Dam removal and other possible FERC-related hearings
Subject: Dillsboro Dam removal and other possible FERC-related hearings
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, O1 Nov 2006 10:08:10 -0500
To: Roger Edwards <[e-mail]>, Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>,
Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
CC: Marc Bernstein <[e-mail]>, " [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
just an FYI at this point although we will all need to make a decision regarding a
recommendation to Alan Klimek soon about a hearing.
It is all rather confusing but I have letters from the Town of Dillsboro (since
retracted), from Swain County (partially retracted), from the Town of Franklin, from
Cherokee County, from Jackson County and from Macon County all asking for hearings
at various places across the mountains (notably in Sylva, Franklin, Murphy, and
Hayesville) on the FERC relicensing for several projects in the area. The letters
are confusing since some are retracted and some are partially retracted but most
are still requesting hearings. The common thread in the letters seems to be
opposition to the removal of Dillsboro dam as compensatory stream mitigation for
the other dams. There is also some support in the tourism industry in Swain County
(according to the Sept 13 letter) for removal of the dam. Finally there is a
newspaper article talking about the tons of sediment that is now in the lake behind
the dam after the 2004 storms. Removal of the dam would have to take this sediment
load into account in order to protect downstream water quality. Finally, I have a
letter (via email) from Paul Nolan (attorney for Jackson County) to FERC stating
that DWQ has had numerous requests for hearings and has not acted on them and
therefore asking FERC to consider this fact in their relicensing of the surrender of
the license for Dillsboro dam.
I just talked to Jeff Lineberger with Duke and he is preparing a letter outlining
all the hearings that have been held in the area over the past several years (mainly
for the FERC Environmental Assessment). Duke would prefer that we not have a
hearing since there have been so many but will not object to a hearing if we decide
to hold one. Jeff suggested Franklin as a central location for a hearing if we
decide to have one.
Once I get Jeff's letter, I'll make sure that you all have a copy so we can then
decide what to recommend to Alan about a hearing. The 401 rules (15A NCAC 2H .0504
are rather broad and state that "If the Director determines that it is in the
public interest that a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing public comment
and additional information be held...".
My tentative recommendation (pending receipt of Duke's letter) is to have one
hearing in Franklin since the controversy seems to be mainly around removal of
Dillsboro dam. The tough part is one of timeing for any hearing. A 404 Permit (and
corresponding Certification) will be needed for removal of the dam. Since we
issued a 401 for the FERC license surrender, it is not clear what permit we would
have a hearing for at this time. I guess we could committ to having a public
hearing for the 404 Permit for the dam removal once FERC decides on the license
surrender. That may be several years off but would address the question raised by
numerous elected officials about a hearing.
Again this is a complex situation and I am sorry for the length of the email (I hate
lengthy emails!).
1 of 1 11/1/2006 10:08 AM