20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071024 (4)

Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
Main Office at: P. O. Box 241 Tel [phone]
25 Water Tower Lane Whittier, NC 28789 Fax [phone]
Whittier, NC 28789
Email [e-mail]
October 24, 2007
John Dorney
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Subject: Response to 401/404 Permit Application, Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse
Removal FERC # 2602
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. wishes to provide the following comments on the
401/404 Permit Application as consultants for Jackson County, Macon County, and the
Town of Franklin as well as being environmental professionals and property owners in
Jackson and Swain Counties.
Tempe of Permit
The appropriateness of the Nationwide and Water Quality Certifications chosen for this
401/404 is somewhat in question. An Individual Permit may be more appropriate due to
the level of impacts and conflicting issues involved. There is considerable public
opposition to the removal of the dam, the release of the sediment, the loss of the historic
buildings and dam, and the loss of recreational fishing opportunities. These concerns
prompted the Division of Water Quality to hold a public hearing.
The Division of Water Quality is directed to comply with 15A NCAC 02H.0506. The
application thresholds that "total stream impacts of greater or equal to 150 cumulative
feet of stream length for the entire project" must be addressed and receive approval. The
permit application lists impacts to 102 linear feet of stream from temporary fill
placement. Nowhere does it list the impacts of release of sediment to the 32+ miles of
stream below the dam. When this is included, an Individual Permit would be more
appropriate. The dam belongs to Duke Energy. The sediments that it has trapped over
the years should be removed by Duke prior to removal of the dam. Any development
that proposed to release 100,000+ tons of unwanted dirt down a river would not be
allowed to do this. Removal of a dam is not sufficient justification for allowing
100,000+ tons of sediment to be flushed into a stream, designated critical habitat for an
endangered species and trout waters.

Having prepared numerous permit applications, it is a fact that the application must
contain and specifically state all actions that the applicant proposes to undertake, submit
detailed plans showing how and where things will be altered, document all impacts,
document avoidance and minimization of impacts, and consider secondary and
cumulative impacts. DWQ requested additional information on May 24, 2007 and the
response on June 27 from Jeff Lineberger states that the plans will be revised after the
sand dredging is completed and will be provided at that time. Surely DWQ is not
planning to issue a permit without having detailed plans.
This 401/404 application does not provide the specific details of the plan for sediment
removal or containment. It does not adequately address secondary or cumulative
impacts, especially of sediment releases.
More in-depth studies need to be conducted to show the direct impacts of the dam
removal to the river ecosystem. An EIS level of investigation would be more appropriate
considering the scope of the impacts.
Alternatives Analysis
The attached instructions from Henry Wicker (Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Project Manager) as to how the 404 permit process works clearly states that the Corps of
Engineers must consider alternatives. The Alternative Analysis provided in the permit is
quite limited. The Alternatives discussed are the Preferred Alternative, No Action, and
the Preferred Alternative with Additional Measures Recommended by Staff.
Impacts
The secondary and cumulative impact sections are inadequate. Cumulative impacts from
past, present or future foreseeable actions that will in combination with the proposed
action result in unacceptable losses to the environmental resources. There are many other
small and large impacts resulting in sediment entering the Tuckasegee River and hence
endangering the aquatic community. Farming, commercial development, sub-divisions,
road construction are just a few of these. Loss of riparian vegetation due to commercial
and residential development along the banks of the river is a high hazard for bank
instability. There has been no attempt in the EA to enumerate or quantify these
cumulative impacts. Secondary impacts might include erosion of banks due to the
flushing flows proposed, unprecedented sediment loads abrading and smothering aquatic
life, oxygen depletion as trapped organic materials and oxygen deprived sediment are
released, and possible release of nutrient rich material causing increased growth of algae.
On June 7, 2007, a 36 foot high earthen dam broke on the Balsam Mountain Preserve
sending a surge of mud down Sugarloaf Creek into Scotts Creek, then into the
Tuckaseigee River and all the way to Fontana Lake. The sediment clogged Sugarloaf and
Scott Creeks, piling up in the pools and eddies, even on the banks in some cases. Where
Scotts Creek enters the Tuckasegee, there were pools filled with sediment and deltas

formed at the confluence. To date, the Preserve is tasked with removal of 1000 cubic
yards of sediment. Given that the amount of sediment backed up behind the Dillsboro
Dam is 100,000 tons and that the proposal is to release all or most of this sediment, the
effect of this sediment on the endangered species and the fishes downstream needs to be
assessed prior to any action.
During the week of June 25, 2007, sediment losses from sub-division development on the
East Fork of the Tuckasegee sent muddy water down the Tuckaseigee River once again.
No documentation of the amount lost is available. The cumulative impacts from the
Balsam Mountain Preserve dam failure, the East Fork sediment events and other areas
that are being impacted along the Tuckaseigee River have not been addressed in the
cumulative impacts.
The summer of 2007 has received almost no rain events. According to the Coweeta
Research Laboratory in Macon County, 2000 was the record year for least precipitation in
the Coweeta Basin and that 2007, at the current point in the water year, is 13 inches
below the record. Although the project area is not within the Coweeta Basin, it is
experiencing the same drought conditions. Boulders, rocks and gravel bars have been
exposed this year that have not been dry in the last 50 years. The region is considered in
the D4, exceptional drought condition according to the USDA, National Drought
Mitigation Center. Given the current condition of the river and the stress on the
biological community, avoidance and minimization of impacts should be reconsidered.
Water Quality
On Page 24 of the Biological Opinion, the FWS acknowledges that cold water releases
from upstream hydro projects are a limiting factor in the ability of the mussels to colonize
the upper reaches of the Tuckaseigee River.: ,This fact is not acknowledged in the 401
permit application at the same time. Also, there is no reference to the impacts the
issuance of this 401 permit will have on the water quality in the Tuckaseigee River
between Dillsboro and Fontana.
Threatened and Endan er~pecies
FWS guidelines call for mussel surveys to be conducted as follows: An area one (1) river
width upstream of the proposed action and four (4) river widths downstream of the
proposed action be surveyed and the location of all mussels found are to be mapped for
future reference. In this case, an area 300 feet above and 1200 feet below Dillsboro Dam
has to be surveyed and the location of all mussels mapped. The consultant for Duke
Energy only surveyed 300 feet downstream and a short distance above the lake in 2002.
No map of the locations of the mussel was made by the investigators.
FWS guidelines for endangered species surveys call for studies to be repeated after two
(2) years, if the action has not been undertaken. The Biological Opinion was issued in
2006 using data from 2002.

In September 2004 remnants of two hurricanes came through west North Carolina. The
resulting rainfall, probably totaling more than 15 inches, caused extensive flooding and
damage to banks of streams and rivers throughout western North Carolina. The resulting
sediment is still evident in the Tuckasegee River in the form of sand bars, silt
accumulation on rocks and growth of algal mats holding both sand and silt. This
sediment is only slowly working its way downstream. The NC Wildlife Resources
Commission in conjunction with the US FWS is attempting to resurvey known areas of
elktoe occurrence and determine the effects of the floods on these endangered mussels.
The current status of the elktoe population all the way to Fontana Lake should be
determined and included in the information provided in this permit.
There have been relocations of endangered mussels on many projects over the years. No
documentation is provided for the survival rate of relocated specimens. If this is
available, it should be included in the assessment.
On June 7, 2007, a 36 foot high earthen dam broke on the Balsam Mountain Preserve
sending a surge of mud down Sugarloaf Creek into Scotts Creek, then into the
Tuckaseigee River and all the way to Fontana Lake. The sediment clogged Sugarloaf and
Scott Creeks, piling up in the pools and eddies, even on the banks in some cases. Where
Scotts Creek enters the Tuckasegee, there were pools filled with sediment and deltas
formed at the confluence. To date, the Preserve is tasked with removal of 1000 cubic
yards of sediment. Given that the amount of sediment backed up behind the Dillsboro
Dam is 100,000 tons and that the proposal is to release all or most of this sediment, the
effect of this sediment on the endangered species and the fishes downstream needs to be
assessed prior to any action.
During the week of June 25, 2007, sediment losses from sub-division development on the
East Fork of the Tuckasegee sent muddy water down the Tuckaseigee River once again.
No documentation of the amount lost is available. The cumulative impacts from the
Balsam Mountain Preserve dam failure, the East Fork sediment events and other areas
that are being impacted along the Tuckaseigee River have not been addressed in the
cumulative impacts.
The summer of 2007 has received almost no rain events. According to the Coweeta
Research Laboratory in Macon County, 2000 was the record year for least precipitation in
the Coweeta Basin and that 2007, at the current point in the water year, is 13 inches
below the record. Although the project area is not within the Coweeta Basin, it is
experiencing the same drought conditions. Boulders, rocks and gravel bars have been
exposed this year that have not been dry in the last 50 years. The region is considered in
the D4, exceptional drought condition according to the USDA, National Drought
Mitigation Center. Given the current condition of the river and the stress on the
biological community, avoidance and minimization of impacts should be reconsidered.
Mitigation

The Division of Water Quality Guidance for FERC permits and relicensing (August 24,
2007) states that review process follows the guidelines of avoid the impact, minimize the
impact and then mitigate the impact. The following guidelines in the guidance deal with
the mitigation.
However, this permit application states that no mitigation is necessary. Based on
DWQ guidelines, this statement is certainly in question. First, the 401/404 permit is
the state and federal concurrence that the applicant has fulfilled its responsibilities in
complying with state and federal environmental laws. Duke Energy is required to obtain
this permit for the relicensing of the five hydro projects and nine dams on the Tennessee
River drainage. Renewal of the licenses to operate these nine dams gives Duke Energy
the right to use state waters for profit over the next 30-50 years. There is compensation
due to the state and the public for use of these resources. Impacts to the various natural
resources, both aquatic and riparian should be carefully examined to insure that it is fair,
comparable to what anon-service commercial organization would be expected to
provide, and sufficient for the time period in question.
Sincerely,
Pamela M. Boaze
President
Cc: Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
Sam Greenwood, Macon County Manager
Verlin Curtis, Town of Franklin Alderman
Paul Nolan, attorney at lawyer
Tom Walker, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Office

Appendix
Attached email
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: CCSD (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:39:42 -0400
From: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW <Henry.M.Wicker.JR(a~saw02.usace.army.mil>
To: Fish and Wildlife Associates <fwa(a,dnet.net>
CC: Jones, Amanda D SAW <Amanda.D.Jones cr,saw02.usace.army.mil>
References: <4703CE14.7040001(a,dnet.net>
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Pam,
CCSD will need to have a least a preliminary dam design which includes the
spillway. This will need to be done for Crooked Run and Knob Creek Reservoir
alternatives too. They will also need to identify fill and flooding impacts to
wetlands and waters of the US. The purpose of the preliminary design is to show
the impacts of the fill for the dam and associated flooding and also potential
downstream impacts from the flows from the dam. I know that CCSD preferred
alternative is to build a reservoir on the First Broad River, but they will need to
show what the impacts are from the other alternatives for comparison. The
NEPA process (EIS) discloses information about alternatives. The 404 permit
process identifies and permits the "least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative". We will have to let the NEPA process work in order to make the
correct 404 permit decision. I believe you could do a preliminary design knowing
that you may not be firm that constructs the dam.
Henry

From: Fish and Wildlife Associates [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 1:15 PM
To: Jones, Amanda D SAW; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW
Subject: CCSD
Amanda and Henry,
I appreciate all your suggestions at the meeting yesterday. I have a couple of questions
that I did not bring up yesterday. What level of dam design will be needed for the EIS?
Also, given the agreement that we signed, will a firm need to contract directly with
CCSD for this design?
Sincerely,
Pam Boaze
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 241
Whittier, NC 28789
fwaCdnet.net
[phone]
[phone] fax
This