20030179 Ver 6_Emails_20071024

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
From: Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:25:19 -0400
To: john dorney <[e-mail]>
Met with Scott Fletcher of Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc, and George Everett yesterday
afternoon. Also had Jeff Lineberger on the phone from Duke.
Without going into a lot of detail....
* They are agreeing to dredge out the sediment behind the dam. My recommendation will be for
approximately 70,000 cu yards to be removed prior to dam removal. This can be accomplished any
time prior to dam removal and the amount is to be 70,000 cu yards except if there is not 70,000 cu
yards available (ie the 100,000 cu yard estimate was wrong) or they need additional materials for bank
stabilization and contouring as the water is drawn down. They just need to account for the 70,000
removed one time. In other words, if they remove the 70,000 and some event fills it up again, they do
not have to remove any more. After the 70,000 is removed, the rest will be handled via the flush
method as they had originally proposed. They will basically submit this a a brief sediment removal
plan or attach additional information to the sediment study that was prepared by MacBroom.
* They will have the monitoring plan to you this Thursday. Should have all the components that were
requested including benthos.
*The removal of the dam will only include the artificial structure. The natural bedrock will remain
essentially undisturbed and no blasting will occur. This should leave some natural rock ledge for
aesthetics yet allow recreational and fish passage through this area of the river.
*As for the powerhouse, they can handle as they have proposed. 50 years of bat shit make this a health
hazzard anyway so it probably does need to go and their plan donates land just upstream for river
access.
If they get these item to us and we approve, then I'm good to go. Buzz if Questions.
Tedder
------- Original Message --------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]
Date:Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:50:22 -0400
From:John Dorney <john.dorney(a,ncmail.net>
To:Steve.Tedderna,NCmail.net ~~
References:<470E6431.5030007(a~ncmail.net>
I'll give her (Jenn Huff) and him (George Everett) another call. thankx
Steve Tedder wrote:
> Still not heard a word.
> My recommendations may be short and sweet come the 26th. They should
> have read the conditions in the previous 401 for the surrender of the
> license (#6). Adam removal plan (and to me that means sediment
> removal as well) and a monitoring plan should have come in with the
> 401 application.
> Unless I hear something soon, I may just recommend that the
> application is incomplete. Thus you get to send it back, they will
1 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
> have to come back with a complete package next time or the mitigation
> they proposed is out the door and things start all over again. Since
> we went to hearing on an incomplete package, the we can almost assure
> them that it will go back to hearing.
> Tedder
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:05:22 -0400
> From: Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Organization: NC DENR - Winston-Salem Regional Office
> To: john dorney <[e-mail]>
> Any luck getting up with Jeff Lineberger?/ I did get up with George
> last week and told him my concerns. Have not heard back nor had any
> calls from Duke.
> Tedder
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Dillsboro
> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:09:19 -0400
> From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> References: <[e-mail]>
> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> I just called and left a message but I'll be out of the office for most
> of the day so you may be able to reach him quicker. thankx
> Steve Tedder wrote:
> > Sure, call them and let them know where things are heading. If they
> > want to meet thats fine.
> > I'll call George and give him a heads up and maybe he can grease some
> > of the skids for us.
> > Tedder
> > Steve Tedder
> > [e-mail]
> > NC DENR Division of Water Quality
> > 585 Waughtown Street
> > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > (336)-771-4950
> > Fax [phone]
> >
> >
> > On 10/4/2007 4:36 PM, John Dorney wrote:
> » I talked to Chuck this morning and he completely agrees with your
> » (and my!) thoughts. he said we should also tell George Everett as
> » well as the normal Duke hydro contacts. do you want me to call them
> » since I have their numbers? please advise. thankx
> »
> » Steve Tedder wrote:
> »> Ok, see you tomorrow. If you think we need to discuss with Chuck
> »> and/or Coleen, I'll leave that up to you. If you and I get in
> »> agreement they probably will also. 'I don;t even have a problem
> »> with you running some on these preliminary thoughts by Duke and get
> »> their reactions. >:o Better to be above board now than wait
> »> till the last second and then they will probably really get pissed.
> »> I'm sure they assumed this was a formality to hold the hearing and a
> »> slam dunk 401. Might be, and mine will only be
> »> recommendations.....the Director gets the final call. Thats the
> »> process and I'm cool with that. Time is ticking and I want to make
2 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
> »> the most of the time from now till Oct 26th cause I think we only
> »> have 30 days after that for Coleen to make her decision.
> »> Everyone should know better than expecting a rubber stamp from
> »> Tedder. =-O
> »> I think we can come up with a reasonable compromise where Duke gets
> »> their credits and the locals see we did listen to their comments
> »> even if they were or were not on stakeholders group.
> »> Tedder
> »> Steve Tedder
> »> Steve.Tedderc~ncmail.net
> »> NC DENR Division of Water Quality
> »> 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> »> (336)-771-4950
> »> Fax [phone]
> »>
> »>
> »> On 10/2/2007 11:37 AM, John Dorney wrote:
> » » you've been thinking I see.
> » » We can certainly put the project on hold for the additional
> » » information as outlined in your email and we can require a specific
> » » sediment removal (and disposal) plan and monitoring plan before we
> » » approve the 401 rather than condition the 401 on a future promise
> » » which I agree is problematic. I don;t know if we need to put it on
> » » hold Why cant we just go ahead and say to Duke that unless its
> » » provide now and up front for our concurrence, then at the end of
> » » the comment perion on the 26 of October, my recommendation will be
> » » to put it on hold till this information is provided. If they mess
> » » around and not get it to us, I could also recommend another hearing
> » » once the record is more compete. The main question is to we put it
> » » on hold now for this additional information or wait until the
> » » comment period is over and then tell them they need to provide this
> » » information. Either way is fine with me but if we put it on hold
> » » before the comment period is over then we may need to send an
> » » additional letter with more issues for them to address based on the
> » » public comment. Again either is fine with me. Let me know what
> » » you decide. I'll be at the supervisor meeting tomorrow and we can
> » » chat then (or afterwards) if you want.
> » » I also need to get the Fish and Wildlife reports on sediment
> » » removal and toxicity that Mark Cantrell promised us - I'll email
> » » him after this.
> »»
> » » Steve Tedder wrote:
> » »> Let me ramble for a little and then give be a buzz sometime so we
> » »> can talk.
> » »> First, I realize we have to issue a!401 for the damn dam removal.
> » »> After three years of discussions, meeting, multiple agency sign
> » »> off, some stakeholders concurrence especially the other
> » »> environmental agencies, including DWQ, Why the Hell was a decision
> » »> made to even hold a hearing??????? That's where we messed up.
> »»>
> » »> When you take something to hearing the issue should be clear an
> » »> concise so the general public has a clue. Unless you were a
> » »> stakeholder that attended the many many meetings, there is no way
> » »> you understand the broader scope of this action to remove the dam.
> » »> That information is necessary for the public to make informed
> » »> comments. I'm not sure this was done, nor is even possible due to
> » »> the complexity and scope of the FERC process and license which is
> » »> driving this decision by Duke.
> »»>
> » »> Next, I have concerns about the completeness of the record. In
> » »> your May 2007 letter to Duke concerning additional information, I
> » »> got the feeling ,from their response ,that we were dancing round
> » »> the flag pole.
> » »> How do we issue a 401 if we do not have a detailed sediment
> » » > removal/control plan that we can approve along with the 401? Same
> » »> for the monitoring plan, same for the specifics and timing of the
> » »> draw down plan and clear documentation as to restoration and
3 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
> » »> stabilization of exposed banks.
> »»>
> » »> I do not think we can let these document be missing and just
> » »> assume they will be submitted eventually along with a mining
> » »> permit. WE do not issue that permit and our comments and concerns
> » »> do not have to be addressed by LQ even if we are in the same
> » »> Department.
> »»>
> » »> Dukes response to you was total ducking and weaving to prevent
> » »> these documents from being part of the 401 record. They apparently
> » »> want a blank approval 401 and then they will provide the guts of
> » »> their proposal. To me, as well as the public its like trying to
> » »> hit a moving target. I see the method behind the madness but I do
> » »> not think its the way to go.
> »»>
> » »> I need information on the damn dam construction. what is natural
> » »> ledge? What is constructed?
> »»>
> » »> How much sediment is behind the dam? I think its in the 105,000
> » »> cu yards. Have coring studies been conducted to show the depth
> » »> bank to bank and length behind the dam???
> »»>
> » »> Based on where this issue is in the entire process and based on
> » »> the various resource agency comments I would recommend removal.
> » »> However, here are some things I need to work out.
> »»>
> » »> * The reason I'm asking about the actual dam constructions (whats
> » »> natural and whats not) is to possible remove all the constructed
> » »> and leave most of the natural. You would probably have some
> » »> natural ledge and thus the aesthetics of the artificial dam will
> » » > remain visually. The demo/ construction could be done in a way
> » »> where there are passages (white water chutes) for recreational
> » »> boaters thus a natural fish ladder for species movement up and
> » »> down the stream. This way you preserve the "natural" historical
> » »> nature of the river, allow fish passage and extend the open water
> » »> free flowing environment of the Tuckaseegee.
> »»>
> » »> * The sediment removal is essential as far as my recommendation.
> » »> I will not support the flush it approach in my recommendations.
> » »> Therefore it is essential that we have the volume of sediment and
> » »> the distribution of the sediment know and available so we can
> » »> determine how far up stream from the dam they will need to
> » »> dredge. I know there is going to be some that goes downstream and
> » »> during all this dredging and removal there is going to be some
> » »> loss to the downstream. Many will bitch and moan and the TV crews
> » »> will show the turbid waters. We as an agency just need to have out
> » »> press release ready that shows all the work that went into the
> » »> plan, what is to be gained and all the various resource agencies
> » »> and even municipalities that signed off on this plan.
> »»>
> » »> *The pre and post monitoring plan must be finalized and approved
> » » > along with the 401. Again, this is not something to develop after
> » »> one has their 401 in hand. I think the monitoring must have a
> » »> benthos component and the chemistry should address potential toxic
> » »> releases (ie a metals component). Weekly turbidity and or TSS is
> » »> fine as we know that it will be elevated. We should know the
> » »> biological and habitat in the river below the dam. The key is to
> » »> monitor to show that after all this is over and done, that those
> » »> conditions have continued and we have the Biological data to show
> » »> it. The upstream is not as important as its already been impacted
> » »> for 80 years of un-natural flows and sediment accumulations. This
> » »> stretch will improve dramatically after we reach run of the river
> » »> situation.
> »»>
> » »> * Last is the power house. Some have stated that it needs to go
> » »> totally, others want to keep it. I think Duke should get a clear
4 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
,>
» »> (resolution) from the Town on this. If they want it to stay, Duke
» »> can deed it to the Town. If they want to then sell it, donate to
» »> WCU for education center or whatever, they can make the call... If
» »> they do not want to mess with it......then take it out totally and
» »> deed the access (land) to the town. Hopefully for public access.
»»>
» »> OK Now give me your feedback. My discussions have only been with
» »> you and at sometime I need to probably let Coleen /Chuck know my
» »> thoughts and if we need to have a heart to heart with Duke, so be
» »> it. Duke wants to get this 401 so they can proceed to get their
» »> FERC license on all the others. We need to use the 401 to get
» »> what we want and not be reliant on future submittals that we can
» »> argue about for months or years nor be reliant on other agency
» »> decisions such as LQ.
» »> The time to clean this up is now and once all the ducks in an
» »> order then we have the information to issue a sound 401 with not a
» »> lot of unknowns down the road.
»»>
»»>
»»>
»»>
»»> --
»»>
» »> Steve Tedder
» »> [e-mail]
» »> NC DENR Division of Water Quality
» »> 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
» »> (336)-771-4950
» »> Fax [phone]
» »
> »
> --
> Steve Tedder
> [e-mail]
> NC DENR Division of Water Quality
> 585 Waughtown Street
> Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> (336)-771-4950
> Fax [phone]
> --
> Steve Tedder
> Steve.Tedderc~ncmail.net
> NC DENR Division of Water Quality
> 585 Waughtown Street
> Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> (336)-771-4950
> Fax [phone]
Steve Tedder
Steve.TedderC~ncmail.net
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
5 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Dillsboro]]]
Steve Tedder <Steve.Tedder cr,NCmail.net>
WSRO
NC DENR
6 of 6 10/24/2007 8:18 AM