HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071024 (3)Comments for North Carolina Division of Water Quality re Duke Po...
Subject: Comments for North Carolina Division of Water Quality re Duke Power 401 Certification
From: ssduffey@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:44:18 -0400
To: John.Dorney@ncmail.net
CC: jandmtoomey@peoplepc.com
To: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attention: John Dorney
From: Samuel Duffey
Date: October 24, 2007
This correspondence (which has been sent by email and by fax-919-733-6893) serves as a formal
follow-up and addendum to the comments that I made in person at the September 25, 2007 Hearing
(the "Hearing") convened by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ("DWQ").
Dam Removal
The majority of the oral comments made at the Hearing were opposed to the removal of the Dillsboro
Dam in Jackson County, North Carolina (the "Dam"). These comments were made by
residents interested in protecting North Carolina's water quality in their area. I urge that the DWQ take
the oral comments made by interested citizens of Jackson County at the Hearing seriously and
carefully consider their merit. It might be easy for the DWQ to reach a conclusion that Duke Power
means well and that the input from state or federal employees on water quality is sufficient, but the
DWQ's role in the removal of the Dam is unique. The role of the DWQ in the Dam removal issue
is limited to protecting the quality of North Carolina's water and trout habitat. Issues not related to
water quality or trout habitat (such as hydropower generation, costs to Duke, re-licensing of Duke
Power by FREC) are not relevant to the DWQ. The federal regulatory scheme for hydropower
recognizes the important responsibility vested in the DWQ by the citizens of North Carolina -the
DWQ is the "gate keeper" for the citizens of North Carolina to maintain the quality of North Carolina
's water consistent with the best interests and desires of the citizens of the state. Perhaps the most
important voice should be the residents of the area.
Many citizens testified that the Dam should remain and I agree. The removal of the Dam will result in
many adverse consequences with no identified water quality or trout habitat improvements. The
negatives include the increase in silt down stream of the current Dam, the destruction of a historic
landmark and the reduction of hydro generating capability. The DWQ's mandate to protect water
quality and trout habitat requires that DWQ not permit the Dam to be removed if removal adversely
impacts water quality or trout habitat. Of course, to fulfill its responsibility DWQ must know
with reasonable certainty what the impact on water quality and trout habitat will be if the Dam is
removed.
As many interested citizens commented at the Hearing, this responsibility vested in the DWQ has not
been fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled until Duke Power is fully and legally committed with regard to
the removal of silt from behind the Dam before the Dam is removed. It is clear that flushing down
stream any of the silt built-up behind the Dam will adversely impact water quality and trout
habitat-any debate regarding adverse impact is limited to how much will water quality and trout
habitat be damaged? or how long will the water quality and trout habitat be impaired? Duke Power's
1 of 4 10/24/2007 5:10 PM
Comments for North Carolina Division of Water Quality re Duke Po...
proposal is ambiguous and open-ended allowing Duke Power to remove the silt or, in their discretion,
to flush an unlimited amount of silt down stream. Apparently, Duke Power's decision as to how much
silt they will choose to flush down stream will depend on their arbitrary discretion and may be largely
based on the cost of silt removal and their ability to sell the silt for a profit.
Duke Power's lack of a commitment regarding not flushing silt down stream represents a "trust me"
approach to environmental protection. The state of North Carolina and the DWQ abandoned the "trust
me" approach (which is always desired by developers and others with economic interest such as Duke
Power) long ago in favor of assuring that water quality and trout habitat will be protected for all
citizens. For the DWQ not to impose a definitive requirement that "all silt will be removed by Duke
Power and no silt will be flushed down stream by Duke Power" would represent both a breach of the
DWQ's mandate and the public trust. It would also represent an inappropriate delegation by DWQ of
its ultimate responsibility to maintain water quality and trout habitat.
It is urged that the DWQ determine that the removal of the Dam under the current circumstances will
negatively impact water quality and trout habitat. If on the other hand, the DWQ should be inclined to
not find that the removal of the Dam will damage water quality and trout habitat, I urge that the
DWQ exercise its full responsibility and require that "all silt be removed by Duke Power and that no
silt be flushed down stream by duke Power" as a condition to the finding by DWQ that the removal of
the Dam will not damage the water quality and trout habitat. Please keep in mind that Duke Power has
always had the responsibility to remove silt collecting behind the Dam that Duke Power was permitted
to build. Duke Power should have been removing the silt on a regular basis but apparently Duke
Power elected to avoid the incremental cost of silt removal. Duke Power is now proposing that the
DWQ accept the flushing (or worse, asking the DWQ to give Duke Power broad discretion to flush silt
down stream in the exercise of its discretion) as an environmental cost to the citizens of North
Carolina for the Dam removal. In its arrogance, Duke Power admits that the decision to remove the silt
or flush the slit down stream (which will obviously damage the water quality and trout habitat) will be
made by Duke Power based on economic considerations such as their ability to sell the silt. The
responsibility of DWQ is clear that as a condition to approving the removal of the Dam Duke Power
must be required to remove all silt and to not be permitted to (or granted any discretion to) allow any
silt to be flushed down stream.
Proposed Recreational Water Releases into the West Fork.
The Notice of Hearing was limited to the removal of the Dam. At the Hearing, I requested that the
DWQ hold an additional public hearing to address the proposed recreational water releases into the
West Fork. There is much citizen disagreement with the proposed recreational water releases into the
West Fork and I again urge that a public hearing on the West Fork issue be noticed. Because I cannot
predict if such a Hearing will be held, I will also provide my preliminary comments in this letter with
regard to the proposed recreational water releases into the West Fork.
The responsibility of the DWQ is to determine for its citizens if the proposed action (in this case, the
discretionary water releases into the West Fork) will negatively impact water quality or trout habitat in
the West Fork. As you know, no water is currently being released by Duke Power into the West Fork
for generation or otherwise because duke Power makes all of its water releases for power generation
through a pipe called the West Fork Bypass which goes around the West Fork. The proposed
recreational water releases are not designed to improve trout habitat or water quality. Rather the
recreational water releases are only designed to create an artificial white water rafting environment on
eight days each year to allow occasional kayaking on the West Fork. The proposed recreational water
2 of 4 ] 0/24/2007 5:10 PM
Comments for North Carolina Division of Water Quality re Duke Po...
release does not provided for a small amount of additional water flow but rather will increase the flow
by such a quantity of water that will change the West Fork from a peaceful and small river to a Class
IV or Class V rapids. I urge that the DWQ fully and completely examine the impact of such sporadic
releases of enormous quantities of water on both the water quality in the West Fork and the trout
habitat in the West Fork.
I believe that it is undeniable that the proposed water releases will have obvious negate impacts on
both water quality and trout habitat and should be rejected by the DWQ. Jackson County has gone to
significant lengths to protect the banks and vegetation along the West Fork by creating and enforcing a
thirty (30) foot set back along the West Fork. The Jackson County set back prevents any destruction,
alteration or removal of native vegetation within 30 feet of the river bank. The obvious reason is to
protect the bank from erosion, to protect water quality from slit run-off into the West Fork during rains
and to protect the vegetation overhang the river which is necessary for healthy trout habitat. The
Jackson County ordnance is compelling evidence of the public importance to water quality and trout
habitat of maintaining the river bank and vegetation in a natural and undisturbed state. The benefits of
the Jackson County ordinance will be reversed by the recreational water releases.
Citizens that observed the test recreational water releases conducted by Duke Power have confirmed
that the recreational water releases increased the natural flow in the West fork by a factor of 10, that
the water flow was outside of the river bank by in some cases up to 30 feet and that the velocity of the
water was equal to a Class IV or Class V rapid. It is clear that such a violent change in water flow will
destroy most vegetation that currently holds the soil along the bank, will erode the bank and will kill or
knock down many trees that currently overhanging the West Fork. It is not arguable that the water flow
from the recreational water releases will have a significant negative impact on water quality and trout
habitat. The negative impact will include increased silt run-off into the West fork from rains which is
currently controlled by vegetation, erosion of the bank and loss of vegetation and trees that provide the
shading that protects the trout habitat. Additionally, the recreational water releases are so large and
violent that they will dramatically erode the river banks which will destroying the natural condition of
the banks which currently constitute an important part of the trout habitat and which currently protects
the bank from further erosion and silt run-off.
The proposed recreational water releases will have an impact similar to rare rain storms like the recent
hurricanes. The citizens of North Carolina and the DWQ know well the negative impact on water
quality and trout habitat which results from the occasional disastrous rain storm and there should be no
confusion, the recreational water releases will have a similar impact on water quality and trout habitat.
There is a big difference: the proposed recreational water releases are not the result of uncontrollable
acts of nature but rather are voluntary acts of man.
The DWQ is the "gate keeper" for assuring that the high quality North Carolina water and trout habitat
is maintained for all generations. DWQ's responsibility to the citizens and future generations of North
Carolina is made even more serious by the reality that water quality and trout habitat once lost or
compromised is frequently gone forever. It would be a serious mistake for the DWQ to permanently
compromise the water quality and trout habituate of the West Fork in an effort to convert the West
Fork into a Class IV or Class V rapids for 8 days a year to accommodate the occasional use by a very
few kayakers.
Sincerely,
Samuel Duffey
3 of 4 10/24/2007 5:10 PM
Comments for North Carolina Division of Water Quality re Duke Po...
Owner of Lot 79 Cullowhee Forest ,Glenville ,North Carolina
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
4 of 4 10/24/2007 5:10 PM