20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071026

PAUL V. NOLAN, Esq.
5515 North 17th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
E-mail: pvnpvn~OL.com
October 26, 2007
Via entail and Express Mail Service
Mr. Steve Tedder
c/o Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
Parkview Building
Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Work: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Truck: 703-946-8153
RE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification & Section 404 Permit
Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse Removal
DWQ Project No. 2003-0179, Ver. 6, et. al.
Dear Hearing Officer Tedder:
In response to the public notice for the above captioned water quality certificate
proceeding, the Jackson County Government, the Macon County Government, and the
Town of Franklin ("Local Governments"), submit herein additional comments to the
above captioned application. The proceeding involves a combined application filed by
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC in March of 2007 for Issuance of a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification and a Section 404 Permit for the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and
Powerhouse. Thus, these comments, and previous comments, will also be provided to
the Corps of Engineers for its consideration in issuance of an individual 404 permit.
These comments supplement the comments made on behalf of the Local
Governments at the September 25, 2007 Public Hearing and comments filed by the
Local Government's August 14, 2007 letter addressed to Mr. Dorney.' Additional
comments have also been submitted on behalf of the Local Governments by letter
dated October 24, 2007 from Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
The August 14 comments were also submitted on behalf of Mr. T.J. Walker and the
Dillsboro Inn. Because the proposed action has the potential to affect adversely and
significantly the home and hospitality business of Mr. Walker that is located adjacent to the dam
site on the right bank, which has several local employees, and is a tourist attraction in and of
itself, additional comments are being filed by Mr. Walker and the Dillsboro Inn.

For the reasons stated herein, and in their previous comments, the Local
Governments request that the 401 certificate application be denied. The proposed
action of removing the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse is an INDUCMENT project that
is inextricably intertwined with the relicensing of multiple projects and has a significant
potential to affect adversely local communities and the environment.z As such, the
cumulative impacts associated with those projects as well as the consideration of
alternatives to dam and powerhouse removal must be assessed under NEPA by the
Corps and SEPA by the State of North Carolina.
Local Opposition
A significant number of local citizens and businesses oppose the inducement
project of dam and powerhouse removal. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a
collection of letters and comments collected recently since publication of the public
hearing. Additional comments and a petition exceeding over 1500 signatures opposing
dam removal, etc., were provided in the FERC relicensing proceeding (P-2602-005) and
can be found at FERC accession no. 20040115-0302.
Local businesses in the Town of Dillsboro have voiced significant opposition to
the proposed project because of the adverse impacts to the character of the area, e.g.,
historic setting of the dam and powerhouse, tourism and recreation. The Dillsboro Inn
provides services to clients year round that come to the Inn to enjoy the aesthetics of
the dam and falling water as well as fishing. Attachment 2 is a copy of a photo of a
fishermen's prize -note the snow on the vegetation -fishing is a year round
recreational opportunity. Attachment 3 is a letter from a regular tourist that comes to
the dam to fish. Attachment 4 is a petition signed by local businesses opposing dam
removal and Attachment 5 is a heart felt statement filed with FERC by Ms. Susan
Leveille - a local businesswomen who opposes dam removal, etc. raising concerns with
regard to historic and socio-economic issues.
Similar concerns were expressed at the September 25 hearing. Notable were
comments provided by the Jackson-Macon Conservation Alliance, expressing concerns
with dam and powerhouse removal from an environmental and socio-economic point of
view and requesting additional studies and those of TJ's Water Adventures, which also
submitted a petition calling for the provision of recreational additional flows. pl The Local
Governments believe that the provision of additional flows in other segments of the
Tuckasegee should be addressed in this proceeding as well as shoreline management
practices for the various impoundments involved in the settlements as they all have the
potential to affect water quality.
z Combined Application, Project Narrative ("Narrative") at 3 -role of the proposed project
with regard to two relicensing settlements and DWQ's execution of the agreements.
2

Approval of Dam Removal is Contrary to Public Policy for the Encouragement of
Renewable Power
The proposed dam and powerhouse removal project is not in the public interest.
It is contrary to state and federal policy encouraging the development of new and
existing renewable sources of power -exactly like the Dillsboro Dam site. A site that
with run-of-river operation and modern equipment and controls could significantly
increase the local communities' ability to utilize green power and access to local and
diverse power sources, especially during adverse generating conditions, e.g., not 100°k
dependent upon the grid. Moreover, redevelopment of the Dillsboro power site, or at
least its maintenance, with the addition of facilities for boat portage and fish passage,
will ensure that the local character and socio-economic characteristics of the local
communities will not be diminished or made subservient by the corporate objectives of a
utility that has assimilated the local power firm (Nantahala Power) recently merged with
Cinergy, and now proposes to build several coal-fired and nuclear plants.
Thus, in a previous submission, the Local Governments asked that the agency
take note of the ongoing proceeding before the NCUC for the encouragement of
renewable power sources in light of recent state legislation; the previous solicitation by
the applicant for renewable power including hydro similar to Dillsboro if operating and
relicensed as run-of-river plant, etc.
How much renewable power could be produced by a refurbished plant? The
hydraulic resources of the Dillsboro Dam, as licensed, were capable of producing
approximately 1.3 GWH -yet averaged when operating, significantly less. Jackson
County has proposed the redevelopment of the site, based upon studies conducted by
the applicant under the previous license, redevelopment alternatives for the Dillsboro
plant could produce from approximately 3.2 to 3.4 GWH with modest redevelopment to
current industry standards. In furtherance thereof, the Local Governments included in
their October 25, 2007 submission a copy of Jackson County's permit application for
comprehensive development of the Dillsboro Dam site and a response to FERC
confirming Jackson County's resolve and unequivocal intent to develop the site. In light
s It is a sad commentary that much of the country's hydro capacity at existing sites, even
with relicensing, is not being fully utilized. For example, in New York State the hydro power
owned by private entities, of which 80% plus is owned indirectly by foreign companies, could be
expanded by another 600 MW to 800 MW -comparable to the new coal and/or nuclear plants
being proposed by the applicant for the Carolinas.
Interestingly, a redeveloped Dillsboro project with generation of approximately 3.0 GWH
would compare favorably to the applicant's other small hydro projects. In 2006, Dillsboro
produced ZERO kWh, Bryson produced 1,668,000 kWh (approximately 1.7 GWH); Franklin
produced 124,000 kWh (approximately 0.12 GWH); Mission produced 3,780,000 kWh
(approximately 3.8 GWH); and, Queen's Creek produced 2,526,000 kWh (approximately 2.5
GWH).
3

of this resolve, an alternative to dam removal is the acquisition of the existing project by
Jackson County.
Yet, in return for these adverse impacts, including the power generation that will
not be developed in the next few years, the public is expected to accept benefits for
additional power generation at other hydro projects operated by the applicant such as
recreational flows for boating and fishing and a modest increase in some minimum flows
at two projects located upstream of the Dillsboro Dam. In truth, what the public is
getting is nothing more than, and in some cases most likely less than, what it would
have gained by the separate relicensing of each project involved in the two settlements.
Indeed, it is more than likely that the upstream minimum flows would have been more
and each river segment upstream of the Dillsboro Dam would have supported
recreational flows for boating and fishing. Furthermore, issues such as shoreline
management, recreational facilities and sediment and trash removal for the projects'
impoundments would have been resolved by more definitive plans and practices.
Instead, asilted-in, non-operating project that has grossly under-performed for
much of the latter half of its license term is to be removed. Removed at a time when the
need for alternative, non-fossil fuel based plants is exacerbated by concerns for air
pollution, global warming and dependence upon foreign oil. The removal of the
Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse is a gross sacrifice of an historic asset to the local
community.4
The proposed dam and powerhouse removal project, and adverse
environmental impacts associated therewith, will have unique and significant impacts
upon the local community's character, tourism, aesthetics (visual as well as noise
generated by spillage over the dam), businesses and current use of the dam for
recreation above and below the impoundment. In addition to these unique and
significant local impacts, there is a significant potential to devastate the critical habitat of
endangered and threatened species by the passage of sediment and colder waters,
delay the goals for restoration of the species, alter the ability of the river segments and
main stem to capture sediment and high flows, and delay for an unspecified period of
time utilization of the Dillsboro dam site's hydraulic capacity for the generation of
renewable power. Such adverse impacts and the loss of a renewable resource are not
in the public interests
4 The Local Governments acknowledged that the Town of Dillsboro and the City of Sylva
did execute the TCST Settlement as did some "departments" of Swain County. This
proceeding's record documents well the pernicious effect of the settlement upon those entities
as both Dillsboro and Swain have retracted their previous requests for a public hearing for this
application.
5 The Local Governments note that the applicant claims, Narrative at 43, without
dam removal it may produced less generation at its other projects - "a net greater loss of
4

Deficient Application
The March 2007 application is patently deficient and the 401 certificate request
should be denied. It does not provide sufficient information for the DWQ, and/or the
Corps, to fully assess the impacts associated with the proposed project upon water
quality, NEPA and SEPA considerations, and how those impacts will affect the current
resources and uses of the Tuckasegee River upstream and downstream of the site of
the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse.
The comments filed on August 14, 2007 by the Local Governments identified the
need for additional information. Comments made at the September 25, 2007 hearing
glaringly revealed a need for basic information such as the amount of sediment, the
composition of fill in the Dillsboro impoundment, the presence of obstructions, e.g.,
bridge debris, and the need for more recreational flows, in other river segments,
upstream of the Dillsboro Dam site, etc.
Failure to Provide Additional Information
Denial of the combined application is warranted under section15A NCAC 2H
.0506. Additional information requested by DWQ's letter of May 18, 2007 has not been
provided by the applicant. Moreover, the response was not available for public
inspection, when representatives for the Local Governments, on two separate
occasions sought to review the record in the Asheville office of DWQ. Thus, the Local
Governments only became aware of the information request and deficient response
shortly before the September 25 hearing,
Thus, the Local Governments learned belatedly that by letter dated June 27,
2007, the applicant proposed, in response to several information requests, to submit a
final dam removal and monitoring plan, after further modification pursuant to
consultation with various agencies, and after removing sand and/or during the
commencement of sand dredging. This post hoc proposal is insufficient and non-
responsive in light of the fact that the response was basically provided in the March
2007 combined application, which triggered the request for additional information in the
hydropower production due to higher continuous flows required for fishpassage and recreational
flows." This claim is unsupported by any minimum flow studies. One could just as easily say
that any net generation loss could be made up for by rewinding generators, improving their
insulation and/or replacing turbine blades with more efficient designs, etc. Thus, the crux of the
dam removal is to avoid fixing a broken project and avoiding the need to make improvements at
the other sites as the cheapest, but perhaps not best for the long term, its operate as is with
lower minimum flows.
5

first places Clearly, the response is nonsensical and clearly puts the cart before the
horse and impermissibly requires the agency to approve an action and then post hoc
accept additional informational in order to assess the need for mitigation.
The information necessary to develop a final plan, e.g., how much and types of
sediment currently in the impoundment and removal techniques therefore, etc., should
be obtained before issuance of the requested 401 certificate and/or 404 permit. The
feasibility of obtaining that information is demonstrated by the practical use of (1) over-
water Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys to map the approximate thickness of
the reservoir sediment, and (2) taking electromagnetic induction (EM) measurements of
the impoundment using a GEM2 or an EM31. Both instruments can provide metal
detection measurements up to about 15 to 20 feet below the water surface.
Failure to Address Cumulative Impacts, Additional Permits and
Involvement of Public Funds
Denial of the combined application is warranted because of the applicant's failure
to disclose the involvement of state, as well as federal and possibly local, public funds
and that the project, if approved, would involve the additional issuance of permits and
cumulative impacts. The combined application form clearly states (V. Future Project
Plans, p. 7) that the applicant does not anticipate requesting any future permits for this
project. The application states also that there are no cumulative impacts (XIV.
Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ), p. 12).
Cumulative Impacts are Involved. Despite these claims, the materials
attached to the combined application, though redacted by selective inclusion of only
6 It should be noted, and as incorporated by reference herein, the applicant provided a
similarly evasive response to FERC's request for an estimate of silt to be removed in front of the
forebay in FERC's 2004 request for additional information. See, FERC accession no.
20040930-0107. As noted in the applicant's response to item no. 8:
Some limited sediment removal on the left bank is anticipated to occur following the
drawdown of the Dillsboro Pond resulting from the staged dam removal. Conventional
earthmoving equipment such as a tracked excavator orfront-end loader would be
utilized for the sediment removal. Material removed would be disposed of at an offsite
location. Best management erosion control practices will be followed during the removal
and at the disposal site. An estimate of sediment to be removed on the left bank, if
any, cannot be made until the dam removal process is in progress and the left
bank area is dewatered. Comprehensive measures to control erosion and prevent
slope instability will be incorporated in the detailed dam removal and bank
stabilization plans.
(Emphasis added).
6

portions of the FERC July 2006 FEA, clearly demonstrated that there are cumulative
impacts associated with the proposed project; thus, justifying dam removal, etc., as
mitigation for other upstream projects' continued operation by the applicant. For
example, the FEA's discussion of cumulative impacts (p. 105) upon water quality and
quantity is deleted from the selected (redacted) provision of the FEA analysis as is the
assessment on cumulative impacts upon recreational resources.
Additional Permits will be Involve (or should be anticipated). The applicant
proposed in its 2004 submission of additional information to FERC that the former dam
site could be redeveloped as a whitewater park.' The construction of such a park would
require additional permits (FERC accession no. 20040930-0107, see Attachment A, p. 2
response to information request no. 2). There is also a proposal for the redevelopment
of the site that will be used for the stockpiling of dredging spoils/sand from the sand
mining operation. The creation of a recreational park will also require additional
permitting,
In addition, as noted in the Local Government's FERC Rehearing request (FERC
accession no. 20070820-5031, at 72) that as part of the inducement for support of the
dam removal project, the applicant had a study undertaken to assess impacts upon
aesthetic values such as noise made by the spillage of water over the dam and without
a dam. As noted in the rehearing request of the Local Governments, according to an
article on the study -The Restoration of the Tuckasegee River Following the Possible
Removal of the Dillsboro Dam, Brad Fairley B. Sc., MES, Kevin Williams BS, PE, PLS,
Katie McKeithan BS, EI, Stantec Consulting, Raleigh, NC:
The Dillsboro Dam is a small hydroelectric project located on the
Tuckasegee River in Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC. As part of a
relicensing package involving several hydro projects in the area, Duke
Power developed a trial balloon involving more than 30 items including
~ As noted in the additional information response:
The potential whitewater features envisioned include a short slalom course and one or
more features that would provide opportunities for rodeo/hole riding. Both the Slalom
and Rodeo parts of whitewater sport have world championship level competitions each
year and are popular in many countries ...Funding is being sought by groups with an
interest in whitewater recreation for a planning grant that would provide the information
needed to determine the options that are feasible for this site, their approximate cost,
and where they would be located. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), Duke Power, and
other entities would be an integral part of the planning process. The funding initiative is
in its initial stages and it is unknown at this time whether it will be successful. It is not
possible to provide estimated costs prior to completion of a planning study.
7

fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, recreational fishing, and boating.
One of the items on the list is the possible removal of the Dillsboro Dam
and the restoration of the Tuckasegee River to its natural condition.
Stantec was hired to determine the feasibility of restoring the river and to
answer two questions raised by stakeholders: "How would it look?" and
"How would it sound?"
Stantec carried out a Level I assessment of the Tuckasegee River and
developed a conceptual plan for restoration. The conceptual plan
involves narrowing the river channel, stabilizing the new banks, and
installing a "W" weir. In order to help the locals [no comment]
understand what the site would look like following dam removal and
restoration, Stantec prepared photo renderings of the site. Stantec
answered the question of how it sound, by taking noise readings at the
dam and at riffles similar to what would be created at the site of the dam.
The sound analysis showed that the newly created riffle would be as loud
as the dam and would generate a more constant sound.
(Emphasis added).
The combined application is devoid of any mention of the construction of a W-weir,
which would involve additional permitting.
Public Funding is Involved. Most significant, the applicant clearly misstates
the involvement multiple expenditures of public (federal/state/local) funds, etc. (IX.
Environmental Documentation, p. 11). As noted in the applicant's transmittal letter of
the application, as well as in the Narrative, the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and
Powerhouse are the center piece for mitigation for multiple projects subject to two
settlement agreements filed with FERC. See Applicant transmittal letter dated March
21, 2007. As such, removal of the dam and powerhouse affects the exercise of
authority by USF&WS to require upstream fish passage facilities at several sites,8 the
authority of DWO and USF&WS to recommend additional minimum flows for the various
bypass reaches of projects upstream of Dillsboro, DWO's issuance of a 401 certificate,
$ It should be noted that the USF&WS and other federal agencies, e.g., EPA, NOAH, now
refuse to sign such agreements, including those for the applicant's P-2232, because of
concerns that such agreements infringe upon their independent exercise of regulatory oversight.
See, e.g., United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, letter dated October
27, 2006, FERC accession no. 200610275039 (The USFWS, along with all other agencies of
the Department of the Interior, was unable to participate as "team members" under the terms of
the Catawba-Wateree State Relicensing Team Charter, since it would have interfered with the
performance of mandatory, statutory obligations by the Department). See, also, EAP Letter
date April 30, 2007, FERC accession no. 200705015049 ("However, EPA did not sign either the
AIP or the CRA due to concerns related to our statutory, regulatory role and other technical
issues.").
8

etc., are inextricably intertwined with the proposed project, which serves as an
inducement for the other projects' relicensing, the attraction of new and different uses of
the hydraulic resources of the site (e.g., whitewater boating). s
The two stakeholder settlements require the expenditure of federal and state
funds. In particular, the TCST Settlement Agreement requires the State of North
Carolina to fund, via cost sharing with the applicant, expenditures for bank repair and a
boat launch. See, e.g., Section 2.3 of the TCST that requires DPNA and the NCWRC to
"work together as follows: (1) DPNA and the NCWRC will utilize a 50°k / 50°k cost-
share for the bank repair and boat launch..."
The two settlements also call for the construction of other items by the applicant,
which if not built by the applicant ultimately will require the expenditure of state, federal
and or municipal funds to provided similar facilities.
DWQ and CORPS Environmental Analysis Under NEPA and SEPA are Required
The materials furnished with the combined 404/401 application are insufficient to
support the issuance of a 401 water quality certificate and any 404 related permit
(Individual, Nationwide and/or Regional). The USF&WS August 2006 Biological
Opinion is flawed and any reliance thereon by the DWO or the CORPS is unreasonable,
arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the Local Governments incorporate by reference,
as if fully set forth herein in full, their request for rehearing of the FERC July 19, 2007
License Surrender Order, wherein the August 2006 Biological Opinion's flaws and
agency reliance thereupon are discussed. See FERC accession no. 20070820-5031.
Moreover, the 2006 Biological Opinion does not address all of the species of
concern to the State of North Carolina. As noted in the September 29, 2004 submission
by the applicant of additional information to FERC (FERC accession no. 20040930-
0107). For example, Attachment B -Mussel Surveys Associated with the Duke Power -
Nantahala Area Relicensing Projects (TVA 2002), notes that:
At least 10 mussel species are believed to survive within streams near
Duke Power- Nantahala Area hydroelectric facilities in western North
Carolina: at least eight of these species likely persist in the Little
Tennessee River system and at least 8 species still occur in the Hlwassee
River system (Ahlstedt and Fraley 2000; C. McGrath, NCWRC, and J.
Fride USFWS, personal communication 2001). Two of these mussels are
federal endangered species [Appalachian elktoe and littlewing
9 The appropriateness of a state and/or federal agency executing settlements before the
filing of application and/or the substantial completion of the NEPA and/or SEPA process were
raised in the attachments to the August 14 comments.
9

pearlymussel, pegias fabule (I. Lea, 1838) in the Little Tennessee River],
two are listed as endangered in North Carolina [slippershell mussel,
Alasmidonta viridis (Rafinesque, 1820). In the Little Tennessee, and
Tennessee plgtoe, Fusconia barnesiana (I. Lea, 1838) in the Little
Tennessee and Hiwassee}; and two are listed as special concern in North
Carolina [wavy-rayed lampmussel, Lampsilis fasciola Raflnesque, 1820,
and rainbow, Villosa sp. cf. Ms (I. Lea, 1829) in the Little Tennessee and
Hiwassee] (Alderman, at el. 2001, Ahlstedt and Fraley 2000, North
Caroline Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001,
Tennessee Valley Authority 2001). Stream reaches near Duke Power-
Nantahala Area hydroelectric facilities known to contain Appalachian
elktoes are limited to scattered localities on the Tuckasegee River (Little
Tennessee River system) from the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir
upstream to the vicinity of Webster, NC (approximately 25 river miles) end
the Little Tennessee River from the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir
upstream to Fmnldin Dam (approximately 24 river miles) (Frldell 2001,
TVA Regional Natural Heritage Database 2001, C. McGrath, NCWRC,
personal communication 2001). The littlewing pearlymussel is believed to
inhabit this same reach of the Little Tennessee River (Alderman, et al.
2001, D. Biggins, USFWS, personal communication 1996). More detailed
distribution and life history information for these protected species is given
in section 3.0.
The 2006 Biological Opinion does not focus on all of these species and is flawed in its
assessment of the potential for harm to the existing elktoe populations and their critical
habitats. See Local Government's August 20 FERC Rehearing Request, at 78-90; see
also, August 14 Comments, Attachments C, D and E, which provide additional criticisms
of the Biological Opinion and surveys utilized therein by Fish and Wildlife Associates,
Inc.
The proposed project -dam and powerhouse removal -requires the harassment
and killing of an endangered species without full mitigation for loss of critical habitat and
individuals so that several projects located upstream and downstream of the proposed
project may be relicensed and continued to operate. Yet, the Biological Opinion admits
that it does not know how many will be taken (killed), reproduction delayed, etc., and
whether the resulting impacts associated with the permitted taking and the impacts
upon the critical habitat downstream of the dam's removal will cause irreparable harm to
the existing mussel population's ability to survive and, more importantly, thrive in
furtherance of the USF&WS' stated goal for de-listing the species in the future.
In essence, but without elaboration in the combined application, a non-
functioning ("inoperable since 2004 when damaged by flooding," Narrative at 5)
renewable resource is to be removed at a time of severe drought conditions in the State
and when the State has enacted public policy via statutes for the promotion of a
statewide renewable portfolio program that would accommodate the return of the
10

Dillsboro hydroelectric facilities to generation at levels significantly above its previous
operating history. In support of this statement, and as proof that there are feasible
alternatives provided for in the TCST and NCST settlements, see, e.g., section 6.12 of
TCST, which provides for alternatives should the dam not be removed -additional
minimum flows up stream of and a kayak portage facility at the Dillsboro Dam.
Moreover, the application is misleading as to its scope and fails to inform the
agencies and public of the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action of
dam and powerhouse removal as they relate to the relicensing of the applicant's
upstream projects. For example, the application's narrative states that "[a]II impacts
resulting from this project will be temporary in nature, and required to fulfill the goal of
dam removal, which itself is a natural resource enhancement measure. Therefore, no
compensatory mitigation is required to offset the impacts from this project." Narrative at
31. Removal of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse, which have been deemed eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is not a temporary impact -
indeed it and the altering of the uses of the site from power generation, swimming,
fishing, boating to whitewater recreation, which can have adverse impacts associated
with bank fishing are permanent changes.
The Preparation of an EIS is Required
The Local Governments respectfully assert that the NEPA and SEPA analysis in
the Sunset Bridge decision is instructive, if not controlling. 756 F. Supp. 904 (1990).
As noted therein, NEPA requires preparation of a detailed EIS for all major federal
actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. §
4332(2)(C). Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")
define the significant words and phrases of the statute. Specifically, "Major federal
actions" are those that are subject to federal control and responsibility. 40 C.F.R. §
1508.18. They include "projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted,
conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies." Id., § 1508.18(a). SEPA
follows a similar course.
Actions can "affect" the human environment both directly and indirectly. Id., §
1508.8. Indirect effects are later in time or removed in distance from the challenged
action, but are reasonably foreseeable. Id., § 1508.8(b). These would include the
promised development of parks within the site of the Dillsboro Dam and Impoundment,
the construction of a W-weir to replicate the current aesthetic effects of water passing
over the dam, the delay in power generation at the site, the continued provision of less
than optimal minimum flows at upstream sites.
The impacts may also include "growth inducing effects and other effects related
to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and
related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems."
Sunset Bridge. What are the impacts associated with white water use and a white
water park or newly created water course as attraction facilities versus the current uses
11

for fishing below the dam and above it? What is the impact associated with the
changes in uses by kayakers versus fishermen, etc.? These are just a few of the
questions not asked or even addressed in the combined application.
Effects include "aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether
direct, indirect, or cumulative." Id. What of the concerns as expressed by the local
tourism industry? See attachments 2 - 5.
The "'human environment' shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the
natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment."
Id., § 1508.14. "Economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require
preparation of an environmental impact statement." Id. "Significantly" as used in the
statute "requires considerations of both context and intensity." Id., § 1508.27.
"Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of
asite-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale
rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant." Id.,
§ 1508.27(a). Intensity "refers to the severity of the impact." The CEQ regulations set
out 10 factors that should be considered in evaluating intensity:
(1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may
exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be
beneficial.
(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or
safety.
(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild
and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human
environment are likely to be highly controversial.
(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment
are highly uncertain ["41 ] or involve unique or unknown risks.
(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a
future consideration.
(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually
insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance cannot be
avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small
component parts.
12

(8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic
Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or
historic resources.
(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or
threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical
under the Endangered Species Act.
(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law
or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

The Local Governments request that the agencies address the above questions
by preparing an EIS for all of the projects that the proposed dam and powerhouse serve
as an inducement in lieu of on-site, per project based mitigation through individual
relicensing.
Moreover, the issuance of a 401 certificate involves a regulated activity over
which the state has the exclusive authority to issue or deny a certificate. Thus, even in
the absence of state funding the requirements of SEPA are applicable and DWO, at a
minimum, should require additional information. Further, DWO should not engage in a
segmented review by focusing solely upon dam and powerhouse removal without
consideration of upstream and downstream impacts including the relicensing of all of
the projects included in the TCST and NCST settlements. Similarly, the CORPS should
not conduct a truncated and segmented environmental review under NEPA.
Clarification
If the application is not denied, then the its Narrative requires clarification and the
submission of additional information.
Multiple Pads. The combined application needs to be clarified as to whether
the applicant proposes the construction of two (2) temporary platforms, referred to as
pads, for the demolition of the dam and powerhouse. The applicant has maintained in
public documents filed with FERC that this proceeding is just for the one (1) pad for
access from the powerhouse. The application itself is confusing as to the entire scope
involved in the demolition of the dam and powerhouse. Cf., e.g., Narrative at 22 - "This
will be accomplished by creating a narrow and temporary working pad in the reservoir
adjacent to the upstream face of the dam." It is clear that there will be one or two pads
that extend for almost of the entire length of the dam -not just one pad in area of the
powerhouse. See, Narrative at 28 -two different pads will be constructed --one from
each bank of the river. Narrative at 31 states that two temporary pads will be used.
13

The discussion in the Narrative as to temporary impacts could mislead one to
understand that the only pad is the powerhouse pad.
Floating Boom. Clarification needs to be made as to whether one or more
booms will be located upstream and downstream of the dam. The Narrative at 25 notes
the placement of floating oil boom upstream of the dam. Figure 4.3-2 shows the boom
located downstream of the dam.
Upstream Impacts. The combined application does not address the
impacts of the proposed use of upstream projects for the provision of flows for the
movement of sediments. What are the impacts for those projects' impoundments, rivers
channels, by-pass reaches, etc.? These may be temporary impacts, but they still
require scrutiny. Moreover, in light of claims made by the applicant and some agencies
as to afree-flowing river, information should be provided that documents that the
Dillsboro dam has been "free-flowing" for several years now and could be so with run-
of-river operation. Basically, what is needed is the unvarnished truth that the flows at
the Dillsboro site are the product of the operations of the upstream projects' mode of
operation, including any peaking, reservoir filing, and recreational releases.
Removal of Dam and Powerhouse -Final Grade/Elevations.
Clarification and additional information is required with regard to the final grade
that will be established by removal of the dam, etc. The dam rests upon a ledge
outcropping. The schematics provided in the combined application indicate that
portions of the ledge will also be removed. The final grades and whether the rock
barriers located immediately below the dam will be altered needs to be addressed in
light claims made that the project will result in afree-flowing river. These and similar
sections in the two settlements call for NCWRC to share costs; provide services,
potential make contributions, forego costs and possibly fund later, etc. Hence, state
funds are involved.
Agency Potential Conflicts with Proposed Mitigation Measures. The narrative
provides several proposals with regard to mitigation for relocated Mussels. See, e.g.,
Narrative at 44 -Pre-Removal Monitoring. The proposals set forth in the combined
application, filed in March of 2007, need to be revised in light of the FERC's July 19
license surrender order. At a minimum, some consideration must be given that the
applicant simultaneously may have to comply with the FERC license surrender order
and terms and conditions of the requested 401 certificate and any terms and conditions
therein that are extended to a 404 permit.
14

Thank you far the opportunity to submit these additional comments, to the
comments filed on August 14, 2007, on behalf of Jackson County Government, Macon
County Government and the Town of Franklin.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Paul V. Nolan
Pa u I V N o l a n DN: cn=Paul V. Nolan, o, ou=Paul V.
Nolan, email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2007.10.26 15:42:51 -04'00'
Paul V. Nolan
cc: Ken Westmoreland, Manager, Jackson County
Sam Greenwood, Manager, Macon County
Joe Collins, Mayor, Town of Franklin
Verlin Curtis, Alderman, Town of Franklin
Susan Leveille, Chairwoman, Town of Webster Planning Baard
John Boaze -Fish and Wildlife Associates
T.J. Walker - Dillsboro Inn
Attachments:
15

Attachment 1

~~~®~0~1~ ~Bl~~~~~
~?~` 475 Haywood Road
f'~ ~oX755 ~~
Di~~sboro, NC 28725
B1B fB~-fJ0O-ini`oCawcsEca~o~inace~acom
September 11, 2007
Honorable Heath Shuler
512 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Detroit Lakes
35b Biltmore Ave. Suite 400
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: Dillsboro Dam
Dear Congressman Shuler:
About a year and a half, I relocated from Annapolis, MD to Dillsboro, NC. This small
tum of the century town has a certain ambiance personified by the Dillsboro dam. Having
worked with a Wayne Rogers of Synergies, a company that reclaims abandoned hydro-
electric dams to retttm them to useful service; I was disappointed to hear that Duke
Power was planning to remove this historic structure.
As an environmental planner specializing in secondary impact assessments, I know that
the negative impacts of removing such a structure out weigh the positive. Demolition will
release settled sediments as well as generate new sediments, noise and dust in a sensitive
area. As a Dillsboro merchant and Chairman of the local Planning Commission, I feel
that returning the power plant to active service will generate renewed interest in the town
and yield other economic benefits.
Please consider ALL of the arguments regarding the Dillsboro dam and recognize this
opportunity for you to support the residents Jackson County and the town of Dillsboro by
supporting their efforts to maintain and eventually restore ttus facility.
sincerely, -
/~
~~ "__ ° ,

y- r~_ ~~
.~-
~7ea~. (~N5¢,e5SQnRN 3huLne,
(-'1,~ oY~tmg ~s Clenra~. ~~y~~ ~ .~ ~~ve, Lice-d.~
i~l ~racksor~ ~un-~1- ~-II Inta, Ll~~, _'~~s}, (,le~ffi~ ~S
/r~ R~prc r~5 '~ro i7f-~ rPe,r~'1qu94L O~ ~s'f~ J5/,~ ~ 1 Sbotro ~!~-(Yl
~e I~o W i N ~ N'2W 5 Re~or`ls ~ ~/J,dc.~ `~Yaf- bade, ~u~en-
~~{~erJ~.s oti ~P_-P"~ouiwy, ~~ ~?*rm W,~a ~ ~eS.
m~, fio~ « t~,s ~~,a.~ ~0~.5 ~1-l-- n~IISf r
~cxJC_ '~~ Uit•r'l ~n)'Tnc.~, /}5 D~~aSe-cl_ -In
f~emoua..L a-~- ~~-~,~ D>arrl ? ~uYe-~f- his F~ f~~
~Hi~-- ~~~(~S~oro ~Sd,Qa~.~b Y !° G6/f1peN5rr7'~, ~f
~~~~(_, ~ea~J~-s Li ~~ q do~e~ Ocl~..l_ ~o rne.
l~y, ~p~L(~ Qy~j~ 1 D Y~ 1.5 "~'~j ~S ~ .~N Ll)h t4`3- MR NN~IC.
W~ II `~e> o1,wrnD b~ ~erw~es~..~ ~w.se, `~~y ~~'~,~,
W ~~ vt ~ 2~'r~~ 'QQl-pc.-s r of ~y ~ ~)o t+ s of ~+~`I-e. r~ I !~I f"
p~1C-E=- Vii) I Cho ? ~ c ti~ `~~. I,r I ~c~~ Dn) TY I
CRassr~~J.~, ${.~ P.{d~e_, ~.lli~~~4n.1~ ~~ ~Y'G'E~
~ ~ ~. ~.h u~-1~-~ ~ Tnl a oo ~f ~-F«~.~e 1 ~,r-u e.1~ xi~l
(32055//e.c{. ~e,se~ ~`lOdc.~I-l~Yaiu-s~ o~,C',oppi,~~ ~+~s/ ~iuc-~ ~r~
JI rrtll/heS 8~ a~/A~~I//ALL n, 4~w~ ~~P+Y'1 ON '7~'~ rt9/deft
1'i`11 I ~fi~ -to 6~ElJ I r5 ~i" ~ a c ~^~;IY~S ~ c~U ~j G~ 5 G LC E ~a r~s
eu+tc~n~-l-e~ eU~Y ose ~/o ~~ ~ ~rdeYL R s ~r2,
/3-5 ~ ~iAl~r _~ C~u.J~ L I rJ •~ ~i e~ .QeL eq,5~ ~e..
`-G'~Ooo~ c~r~res ~~- ~h~ ~Y I~S,~Or~ ~r+r~ ~7`~,--F-f~f~i-~.
~L~ ~C~F2 / ~ r U t~a~r /¢IYIAU ~t/ ~/ /x f D A/c~_.~ !"le1Uk~-
~(l /~ c.~~f'~e2 f~ ~~- 6Gy,~~TrD n~ ~jtlheYz~ Scotts C2ee~/~
`t"(ou~s ! lrJ`rD ~~ ~d~,E~,ees~e.e~ - h ~s eftus~ lh.~e.
_S~a~fi~ ('~.~x.K f~ Gorrce. ~~ of -fi bn~lY and dr

~-I e .~u,sh W~~~~- b lr~-K ~~~ - ~k~ d~ A ~ ~ ~ `, ~ '-t~~
~IpiJ~ '~~ ~'I ~LS~t'o ( ~r~(~~) ~1 //Yllmrrt7rc `f'I~ao4
I h15 -L ~~ 5 `~~c~- (!~~ VX~n't-~ U~/~lnor ~~ ~i~~5ba~e,
~~ ~~5~ ~,,~ s ~,u~ `~ ~1~511 u e5^s'e5 , wN~y 'rTSeC$
l1~flS C1flY ~ ~or ~~ W~~nI~L , lU~~~ ~ ~~J~-- ~ac.~.
rl 9.~.V, y-r ~ G A ^~ '~~ (~ 4~ IE'.~ ~ Q VJ~ I`1'~ ~5 1~
~V II 7
~~4~~e~nl ~n~ti ~~.y~ ~~~~ ~`~ ~Hm Loose .
°KnI~~ ~~+ Inei~ ~2 e /1~~`C" ~i,Jr-b/ ~ ~~oon/
~~j`~-~2C ~otn V//~J ~m r/I`e~ III ~dlDt,~.c ~IAY'~
~~ -i~- ~~~ r Phis /~~~ c/~tcse. ~{~~ c~~lrrs~~
~~~ irJ .~ .~ ~0~~- 511~~ `~,97` ~a~e +~~ X57``
~,, II ~~-~- hnppp-n~,
~S ~ar ~~Se,L~ ~ ~okje. ~` ~- ~B/+t i s// Le,~'i-
--~Y ~j~,~.r Ce~v~-~q'{-rbNS /a C'Nla~ ~ ~~ /1ft5
C~ // f CC11 ,~y
~~Cne~`~ ~~ /~ Y/~S~oric. 5/t'C-ca. r-/n~~ ocd-L C/f~
lN~ e.r~ ~o ~' IS~ o nJ ~h ~ ! u,c ~,
~N [eK.~J~
9cJh1e2
ALE n7ouvn~/~S~a~

.~nnxe S `~Yfiim
v ~~L~*
,~ ..
~~L :.xcY'
a,.w
r ~ ~1.t « Pt(~
,g.~ grant street
9zlrsdoro, .~'1~; 2872,6
828-6,31-3461
?Y~v~v. annaesw~iim. cam
?"o "1Nhom It May Concern:
I am -writing to you regarding the Diffs6oro dam .~Ne
have Been distressed to hear of aCCthe controversy sur-
rounding its future.
I can onCy speak for myseCf and our impressions when tive
first came to Dil~c6oro andsa~rv this 6eaut~Ctivater rac-
ing dotivn the river. 1Ne sat dy tFie river, as mostpeopCe
do, andCet the sound of the dam's crashing water take
our cares away.
It impressed us enough to seCCeverything and move here.
.~ls God ~wouCd Have it, ~-ve opened a store in DiCCsd oro, and'
(ave Been here 8 years and never Cooked d ack.
fur customers teCl us hotiv much they Cove it here, espe-
ciaCCy the Dam! It is not just that it is visuaCCy a pCeasure,
it is part of DiCCs6oro history. PeopCe tivaCk ativay with a
part- of us and the feeCing to return again andagain.
I •worry , if removed that this ~wiCCfiave not onCy a nega-
tive effect on the tourists t~ia.t come to see it, (rut of tFie en-
vironmentaCimpact it ~wilrcreate.
I hope tFiat you tivilCsee tivFiat 'we see, feeCtiv`iat tive feeC
and conserve this unique waterwvay in our river.
`1Nith deep concern,
Sinc reCy,, J
,Annie & ,Writs `Van~3er3-Coe
.f

~e.~t~er 1'7, aoo'7
~ ~
~~ a ~3 ~ `7~ S ~ ` ~.re.
,S r~c~Q.Q ~n~<~~~,
C_p ~ I ec~-e cQ -rc~~ j ~
~~~is~~~.~~ alb ~!
~~_ ~ ~e Gam2 ~m Q ~ ~ cTUe~t~
s ~~ t~ ~~-~~-
~.,~--ham
is ~ ~~5~~, e~x
~~ ~~ J
__ ~ .~ s
~U ~ ~ d ~~~y~ ~~~ , , a~ p G
C~.~r-OCR ~ ~, e ~',~ - ._Dze ~ ,
~fi ~=t-
~.~--~,~
c~ ~__
~ur~ Aga ~ ~,
C_I~~ ~

r}
C..._.
` ~( 4wn ~ 5 , v.A~- ,,
,-Q~ s ~~
S u ~'~' ,
~ ~~~
--r*- -o C
~- --~~ !~
.~ ~~:s~~
ey-- ~ ~
~ -r ~.
~~~

lyJ /

~~ ..,
<<
~, s-
n

We the undersigned petition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
Jackson County Commissioners regarding Duke Energy Corporations' Dam relicensing on
the 7uckaseegee River in Jackson County. We are in support of saving and improving the
Dillsboro Dam, enhancing and dredging the Dillsboro Lake and developing a river park sys-
tem above and below the Dillsboro Dam.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
r
~ U I`f I ~ s ~~ X31 SI+~
_ t ~~ » ~ I 5~
s 3=i 9 17
~C.~ v~7
~ @ ~~ -~7.~5~ 3
ouq~~ .~...2,C,,, ~ D. /SoK 9 ~ i~csnc.oev S~df 33/- Sl?!
' "~ ~ L~T~>< £2 g 3 ~c,c.s x.o ~~ 33I-tra
r( h~l~ r ~S-.~ ; h ` ~-~0
~ uJ - i1L~bor 28 ~~T~a-7Z~
a 32Z at^.e NC $28 ~
C' c.x~.
\ ~ '~ ~o~z~ c ~7r ..s:F6-9
~ ~Q. a~ _ >~.r~nw

-. ct~
0
.~ ~x.>~l•f~ =_~(L31x~ro f~;c,
a _ _ ~ z
:~44,-~YYa
t.
. A'~
-

,,
aa- ~~-5~{~
, ,
'"loo Marsh Li( Ate, GJa~ G `(~3/~0 212
.z ~- ~ N. ~, a ~~~(~
' ~ ar ~ ~r ti ~ .vc
~~b f~
_ SO /t SH UGC f~iC 5 LYA d ~`t`IG .~ c:

~I
~'~
~ f
~ a.ob
- ,p, p a ~ L2 a o

IT'S A TAILRACE RIVER BUFFER DAM
The Tuckaseegee River is a narrow gradient, cold flowage river
system with water-flow and flood control. Benefitting fish and
wildlife habitat, the dam & lake create year-round recreational
use, tourism development, and aworld-class trout fishery.
Save the Dam -Save the Lake!
~i
~,
,~

r
~ ~am ~f I~rl C~tcear~ "'
~e : D~ Il~~ro .,~awr, bi~~sbor~,NC
~ wv~ a~ o ~~e a S-r~-Q
Ca~` i n ~ ~i-~~~sal ava.
~ ~~
i~ a~~~~
p ~ -~~,
~ ~
e
~ -rte,. c,~.--
'D ~~ n
Q~r-~ t.nre S~~'V ~ ve- ~..2
~~ 1 ~' • l

r
~ ~ ,~
~~: .~~5 a
w~e ~ ~-~~
~-u-~e~~ ~~e~~~
at_r~ea•~z.~.~ ~.oa~e. ~-f -~
~ +~ , hire r ra; s.Q. -t-~'+r
~, ~ ~ r-~ilre.
axe.
-~ ~ ~~--
j~
/y.~ ~~,
~d~
a~7~
~c~,

~,"~-
~~~~
~~~ ~ ~~

Land ` h~

~Allstate0
Vou're in good hands.
To Whom It May Concern:
Monday, September 24, 2007
For the past 40 years my family has traveled from Florida to see the Beautiful Mountains
of NC and the tourism attractions in Cherokee. ARer many years we were continually
drawn towards this magnificent dam in this quaint, friendly town of Dillsboro. We loved
it so much, we bought a second home on the Tuckasegee down from the dam which we
still own. Other family has since moved here from Florida including me, Ashley Beth
Nottingham, for which I work in the established Allstate Insurance Co. located in
downtown Dillsboro. I look forward every morning seeing the beautiful falls before I
start my workday.
It would be a disgrace to detour the countless travelers whom pass by this wonderful
community and the financial impact on local businesses like ours.
The Dillsboro Dam is the reason I live here. Please don't take it away.
Very Sincerely, -
Ashley Beth No
Allstate Insurance Co.
36 Marsh Lily Dr
Dillsboro, NC 28779
$2$-631-9455
azssa-z

DATE: September 18"', 2007
TO: NC DWQ
SUBJECT: Yrews on Removal of Dillsboro Dam
First of ap I grew up in Dillsboro on North River Road. I can always remember
the significance of having such a wonderful side to view when driving by. K is a
part of my childhood and now an enjoyment of my aduR life.
Secondly, I am now a business co-owner in Dillsboro. It is such a part of the
town's charming appeal. 1 believe the Dam, abng with the railroad, are integral
factors of that appeal for tourism. Even though our business is mainly focused
toward local residents we da depend on tourism for part of our business income.
I, personally, was very upset to hear about the recent ruling about removal of the
dam. The dam has been in existence for 94 years. -Why rerrwve something that
is a part of the history of Dillsboro aRer all this time? All over America historic
sites are given great importance to retain them for historical purposes. Why than
would we want b remove one right here in Dillsboro?
Is there really a valid reason for removing iC] I've hearcl that part of the reason is
people who canoe/raft on the Tudcaseigee want in go further on the river without
having to exit the river due i4 the dam. These people and their supporters, 1
believe, have been very vocal opponents for removal of the dam. Shauki we
allow one fomt of sport or type of business tb de6ect to others? I don't believe so.
Could the dam be utilized more effectively as a power source? Could it provide
more electricity to the anew than in years past? Betng a lay person I danY have
the answers but (think these questions should be addressed when looking at the
overell pidure.
In dosing, 1 hope my views, along with similar views from others, wi8 impact
your decision in a positive way in favor of the Town of Dillsboro. In other vrords,
the decisia~ to remove the Dillsboro Dam will be reversed.
~.~
Debres Pithrran
ResidarK of t>rMsbor~o
& DiNeboro buehreas co-owner

~© ~~ i+ rua~ Conc.er-n~
.~. 6W p1 [:~ I~e.~Sl Hess i n ~; l I.sl~rp~
n C . ~ ~ S Ong C~~ vucznvl $NA~ l ~i ~ BPS
i n OU..r- -I-Dc,~n . 1- Itisflcc.~~ I~t.a~c #~ See ~,e
~i ll~rD 1~Gc.m r•ernoved - ~S ~ 10(..t.S~ Hess
C~Sn~er i fiS Dne O~ -~~ vua~,~ `-~-%n~S
~p~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ S-e e. ~c~ we rt-~e~ ~ !-
-b 1L~e.p pc.c~p~c ~.vrw~'v,_r~ I~au~ . = h~.~.
~- Gn ~ 1 Gl„rc.r, C.ca,~.c~ a G~-e_ ~ua-l ~ I~o,~ S .
1ti-e r~ d ~ pcst ~-~, e l~cU.-~ ~ ~ me s ~
C~~ ~pi n to Gv~r~ ant eC.~oDI• ~`"~
C~ I~.ftn --i •~~~~ DvY,~' WLtia .~S ~b 5i-F ~
~,~ Std. off' ~I-~.-e cc~.~ t,~in~ J--+-~~ l~~
'lS . `t1~~-~ ,~,,,j~ Icx~K-gin cam- ;t . L~,c
hct.~e ~, u~c~ ~..~,.-e- ~~~ ~s c~.
rCward -(~~r ~d~ t~,~~or~ -a--j i e.++~~5
~e.r~ ~ a~„~ ~~-. ~ ~ Hat
~}tr, ~ n~ - ways c~ -u.;gt~,~.~ ~ I e~S-~
j lna.,,..~C u ,
~~~~ ~
~~~ C~.ea~~ +~x
.~ ~ l~ nc

~~

~•
~..
,.,_ ~--
' ~% GJ~jor~ ~ JYjc~ ~ane~ra
CL~t'Sl~~ f ~ dQnt_- LOL~et.rCe~+_ ,v~~dvro~/~[C'.
~C2!K. - _ lt• .~3+..~5 [u.cs5 oz~ •u..~_ ax...~,en 2~ •~
! ~G~C~e.._- ~ e~ ~,~-o~oLc.. ~~ LJd u..[at. _.t~ 'fie ~~.
!,l.~ /L..[mO7lca~ • Z~s GL ~a~20~/Yjav ~s .Gc,~e4/ as
!ate ~mm-c~. ~~aol~ ,fib ~'t.esv ~2.0~~ ._ - - -- _ _ - -- __
s
yCta.1-k. ~r,~s~ ~b_ _ .e~~o±~ cis ~~ _~.
n _.__.. __ .. -_-_-- _ __ .
_.. _.../~.,~-.~~~-'_ t~-i~ i L -Q..c~~--- -- --~~ aLs !J/~51 ~_ Lis .
--- r ~ ~~~`~` _ - U
~c~t _ rY~n ~' ~ie_causr2__ a~' S~.~u ~.~~- ~-
;~
nn 11~ _-
~{ CictiJa~CO(~ ~ ~~lotlr~o_li.~---~~~c ~ _~h<c.r.
~ ~.~ ~~
y
f~ ~~
--
-- '-;~'~irs__~e.~k. ----~~s-~~__ C~~~ev~l "~etl(~?~~.399-/3a5_
igaEdvPSS fro ~~, ~~t. ~~ II rYl. ~opcr Bps ryas) ~~~;ya7
~,~rs~T a~ ~~~' ,~,2~ f~4 J~u ~,

9-ice fl~
// w4•~ Q/f.~ /~/Yt~iL! ¢'~' ~` ~~ ~~^~ `~/~^_a~~'~/~~~'r'~ L~V,r ~- ."t(^~/~f_(f~ ~L-f.~~!~`"f.~// ~
~ w' ~ ,- ~r l ~'L~~~vL ~. f ~ ~Q/ w •L -~N"u'Ll- ~ e~'-.!f !_ '(..~"~. d.~ ~q/ {"1` f~-K..
AYfiN"ri '(l~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ a- ~Cir1`~~-O~ c~o"c.,~ ~["= tla.. 4.. ~ ~ ,~,0 ~ j~"~-
~.~-v-~ T~-t.~~ff fir, v ~~ a-~.- _~c.~-Y~ , ~..c~~~~.~
°~-
~,
~ ,~~
era ~ ~~ ,~ ~ .~- ,~ ~ , ~`--
.. ~ „~.~„~c. a~u.c ~.u~. ,Gf~ rte.. ~h-Q- ~
~l ~~~~
~r
/gyp 5~ '~`~ "
~~~ ~~ ~ ~.:.C~ tle-~~ h 'C!.'
~~~

/ v L~l/~ ~-- ~G~ /~ G~ ~~f'I'(l~ir`-- ~_ ~ /.V, ~ L~..~ .L-~ rtti ~l
/,/ ' ~ ~ ~ 3d ~ ~
~LZ iw.~ LL.2.t fY"'Y •/ L.GL4.~. , L•~- ~/.E) tLF ti ~G j~7
/ ,./Il~//// //~~~ ~~ L
~~~~ /
~~- ~
~. ..~ ~-
~~`~ .
~~ ~~~~ .
~,~ ~~~~
~ ~~
~fso2. ,~~~ fj~,erese,ll C': r
goo ~ ~~~ ~~/~-y
5~ ~

September 19, 2007
To whom it may concern:
As a citizen and small business owner in Jackson County, NC I would like to express my
concern about the extremely negative impact that the removal of our River Dam in
Dillsboro will cause to our region.
This man made landmark has been for many decades a symbol of this unique area. This
dam is considered by many of our citizens and visitors like a "natural" monument.
Its removal will damage the beauty of our river and will hit in a negative way many small
businesses in our County.
Please, reconsider the decision and let the Magic Water Wall live for maw years to
come.
Sincerely,
Ydo Yumart
pwaer
Moonlight Spa

.~ M ~ 2
,.C~r l1.vl-

~N J, K /~ U
~ ~ ® ~~ asG t.~s L ~ R d~
Q
L
d L` 2. /J-x1r ~~~(GIL~
/~~ {1 C..
~I L / ~ 2 rf/GI~ 5 ~
r
/
I S h! ~'' i A ~ ~G ~Q ica~ :~/"/,$ ~G2 M R a( fd--+
~)
07 ~ n .. t~k G .~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ s

e f h~ a~ A `rhG d~ .~u~ ~ k~ ~

/CiQSd~ .~ ~naF 1a. h

~~ aT /f a ' s7.~ r~ms~ A u-U 12G~ G.AkJ'

e.,~ ~ (~:
msG ~~~ ur« ~ ~ ,u-,~~~.~ -Tye ~rls

T` Irr /N /v ~ N~~.

,~ 29.
,A M E"'t ~ ~ ` (4 ~ per'
~~ g- ~'6 _ p 2.3 ~

fip;q~__.___...._-.._._ CJ
Q Y
4_~~1~, _bc.~r.
~_A~._.

c~cxce,~~__ ~_._C;~eC__hc~n~,~.i5.(~mu~.._Y'n __
~tc~_~e_c~Q~onx~__n .~t~e._~:,ue~ b~~~~._tYl
y1S1Cw.~ un, , ~e~C U n, r s~rr-~e .
_._._- -------------__-__ __~l_eca~„_~~~~l~oe _..---____--
~il
4i~:
T

_ht]~~_~Ld~1~_.4~.f~S~]_.1~...~ ~n4 ~,~.ILf~S{__OCI-~A----__-_

n ~ 3 'a

o
_ D
`V ~ V

~.-
~ ~
-!.~ ~ C a -7.a
S 4 elro.

~r at}, 1g~ i r "';'*ir ~Yn .kst'.~~l~~i yet bC.-~}i?~~t`p ti~'lad~~L+Y~h.=
i

.SaTif~ /~~' yr9.4rt/Ek ~ ~y
~~o S~rf~

September 20, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
The pending removal of the Dillsboro Dam on the Tuckaseegee River is cause for great
concern. As a business owner of a nature store in Dillsboro, I have spoken with many
visitors who have enjoyed the beauty of the park area below the historical dam. The
ambiance of the waterfall is a draw for area visitors and recreation seekers.
Over the years, the dam has become a naturalized environment for native species both
avian and aquatic, with the stately Blue Heron being one of the most notable. Removing
the dam would immediately and drastically alter the currently stable environmental
conditions. Most notably, releasing the tremendous volume of silt from behirxl the dam
may dea-tabidize the river's ecolo~r for many miles -potentially the distance to Lake
Fontarxr.
Retention and renewal of the dam's hydroelectric potential has been supported by the
county. This would provide Dillsboro with electric service, while eliminating the
potential environmental hazards proposed by removing the dam. We strongly support the
county's proposal on behalf of our local wildlife and town visitors. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfitlly Submitted,
lam..,
L~u'r'L
obert W. Kirkland
lames Mastriano
The Nature Connection, Inc.
Dillsboro, NC 28725

DATE: September 18'", 2007
TO: NC DWQ
SUBJECT: Views on Removal of Dillsboro Dam
First of all 1 grew up in Dillsboro on North River Road. I can always remember
the significance of having such a wonderful site to view when driving by. It is a
part of my childhood and now an enjoyment of my aduR life.
Secondly, I am now a business co-owner in Dillsboro. It is such a part of the
town's charming appeal. I believe the Dam, along with the railroad, are integral
factors of that appeal for tourism. Even though our business is mainly focused
toward local residents we do depend on tourism for part of our business income.
I, personally, was very upset to hear about the recent ruling about removal of the
dam. The dam has been in existence for 84 years. Why remove something that
is a part of the history of Dillsboro after all this time? All over America historic
sites are given great importanos to retain them for historical purposes. Why then
would we want to remove one right here in Dillsboro?
Is there really a valid reason for removing it? I've heard that part of the reason is
people who canoelraft on the Tuckaseigee want to go further on the river without
having to exit the river due to the dam. These people and their supporters, I
believe, have been very vocal opponents for removal of the dam. Should we
allow one form of sport or type of business to detect to others? I don't believe so.
Gould the dam be utilized more effectively as a power source? Could it provide
more electricity to the area than in years past? Being a lay person I don't have
the answers but 1 think these questions should be addressed when looking at the
overall picture.
In closing, I hope my views, along with similar views from others, will impact
your decision in a posftive way in favor of the Town of Dillsboro. In other words,
the decision tp remove the DillsbOro Dam will be reversed.
Delores Pittrnan
Resident of Dillaboro
8 Dillsboro business co-oNmer

Attachment 2

-''

Attachment 3

Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050729-0091 Received by FERC OSEC 07/26/2005 in Docketlt: P-2602-005
~ ~' :' A L
July 13, 2005 ~~ AF~CF p~.t~
. „~T Iy
Re: Dillsboro Dam Re-licensing, P-2602-005 and 007 ~ IBS /0~ 2 CRY ~
6 ~p
To Whom It May Concern: ~~~;.!, -~ 4
... ; ;. J Frcr S
First of all, I am not an activist and this is the only letter of this type that I can recall '~~~SS~p
composing in my 47 years. 1 feel strongly enough however, about the subject that I am 'y
compelled to make my feelings known about the proposed removal of the Dillsboro Dam
on the Tuckaseegee River in Jackson County. 13e forewarned, my views are slanted - I
would much rather fish than paddle a kayak.
1 live in Asheville and upwards of twenty to thirty times a year, I make the fifty-minute
drive from my home to the Dillsboro Dam. I consider myself an avid fisherman and
there isn't a close second choice -anywhere - as my favorite spot. It tnily is unlike any
other location that I know of - and I have hunted and fished all over these mountains in
western North Carolina and upstate South Carolina.
The fish seem to congregate in the area from the dam to several hundred yards
downstream. On any given day, I feel confident that I am apt to land a trophy fish. It
trnly is a unique fishery, in the sense that I land rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout,
steelheads, walleye, and small mouth bass. There is no doubt in my mind that muskies are
also present -should one choose to pursue them. The removal of the dam will be the
death nail to all of these opportunities, for all of us that enjoy the challenge of this special
place. A premier fishing location will cease to exist. I will readily admit that I am not a
marine biologist or a scientist. However, common sense tells me that the overall ecology
of the river will change forever. When the dam is initially breached, tons of silt and
sediment will be released into the river. The downstream eco-system will be stunned and
likely devastated. Don't be taken aback by a fish kill of epic proportions!
1 seldom visit Dillsboro, when I am the only fisherman in the river. I hope others are
speaking their mind as well! Typically, I will have coffee and breakfast at the Huddle
House where it isn't uncommon to see other fishermen. Afterwards, it's likely that my
buddies and I will have lunch somewhere in town. We furthermore contribute to the
local economy by purchasing bait, gasoline, refreshments and ice. My wife and her
friends will come along occasionally, to take in several hotus of antique shopping, while I
fish. Occasionally I advise out-of--town friends to overnight with their wives in
Dillsboro. I make the morning drive to Jackson County. The men and I fish, whilst the
spouses engage in their tourist activities. Dinner usually follows in the evening.
My belief is fine -the proposed removal of the Dillsboro Dam is ill advised and I think
the logic -whatever it is -behind the proposed change is flawed. Certainties however do
exist: with the destnrction of the dam, fishermen will have no reason to return to
Dillsboro and consequently, our dollars will be spent elsewhere. I tnrst that business
owners and community leaders of Dillsboro are cognizant of this and I hope common
sense will prevail. It will be a much better idea to concentrate oa and advance efforts to

enhance and improve this special place rather than destroy it -forever changing the
fishery, the waterway and the community.
Sincerely
Steve Pope
204 Woodfield Drive
Asheville, NC 28803

Attachment 4

200610055049 Received FERC OSEC 10/5/2006 4:03:00 PM Docket# P-2602 005, et al.
200607105034 Received FERC OSEC 07/10/2006 01:53:00 PM Docket# P-2602-005, ET AL.
As a merchant in the Town of Dillsboro, North Carolina, I am very concerned about the
proposal by Duke Energy to take out the power dam on the Tuckasegee River at
Dillsboro. Not only is it of historical significance to the town and to Jackson County, but
also it is of great significance to the tourist-based economy of Dillsboro.
Dillsboro is a small town whose only industry is tourism. The dam, which was built early
in the town's history, has been an important focus of interest for the many visitors who
stop along U. S. Highway 441 going to or from the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park- It is a view remembered by visitors as "Dillsboro". And as our state and nation
emphasize the joys and educational values of "Historic Tourism", the value of the dam
being destroyed is very difficult to understand. Who benefits from it destruction?
Furthermore, the 200 plus residents of the Town of Dillsboro consider the dam to be part
and parcel of the town and its culture. Built by a man who was a well known leader in
the county and whose home overlooked the river at Dillsboro, the dam brought electric
power to Dillsboro and parts of the nearby town of Sylva long before anywhere else in
the area had electric power. It made possible industry in the area that otherwise would
not have been possible. And it improved dramatically the quality of life in the Town of
Dillsboro_ During the big flood of 1940, photographs show many residents gathering
along the edge of the river at the dam site, observing the damage to the dam and the
powerhouse. Its operation was of great significance to those residents- It still is to
today's residents.
I sign below to make known my objection to the dam at Dillsboro being taken down, or
rendered inoperable and being used by Duke as the primary mitigation for their
relicensing use of the natural water resources along the Little Tennessee River Basin.
~,
~~~~
~~ ~
U ~ ~J
t~ ce`~

/J , , ,~ S
-- ~,Y ~~
~~~ ~~G~-
,~ ~ /
l~

200610055049 Received FERC OSEC 10/5/2006 4:03:00 PM Docket# P-2602 005, et al.
200607105034 Received FERC OSEC 07/10/2006 01:53:00 PM Docket#
(page Z)

k.
~~~ .
//~

pvi,,P,, ~ K
P-2602-DD5, ET AL.
J t3~ Q w ~ e r--
-, ~ ~ I
~~
J l~~ ~ i.,.w her= / /
~~ 11 /(~~ I'~/~ _ Si-~o~ o~-1~J~~Z / (Z~S~L~~~T ~ 't=~^s~U ~r't2~J 42nc~~,~C~
~~~~~ lam. l„_~~_Jl..i
W~-~w~K ~ he- W .°~- <N c~-

Attachment 5

ORIGINAL
March 2, 2004
rn
Magalie R. Sales, Secretary r~
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission zr
888 First Street, N.E., Room lA -~r N
Washingtoq DC 20426 3m D
3~
N~
Ref: Scoping Comments for Nantahala Area EA = _
FERC Project Nos. 2061, 2602, 2603, 2619
Dear Secretary Sales:
As a lifelong resident of Jackson County, North Carolina and one who
has always lived within a few thousand yards of the Tuckasegee River, I
would hke to state some concerns with the proposals made by Duke Power
as they seek to receive the exclusive license to use this river for monetary
profit derived from the production of electric power. The river system
belongs to the people. Duke Power is asking to have the use of this natural
resource to achieve their goals. I believe that there need to be independent
studies that show the true consequences of changes Duke purposes to this
resource.
Although I have many concerns about our whole water system, its
preservatioq quality, accessibility by all citizens, and its use by Duke
Power, my comments here will focus on Duke's proposal for the Dillsboro
Dam. I believe that there needs to be serious and in-depth study of the
possible social, economic and historic impact of the removal of this dam.
The stakeholders did not address these concerns and Duke has not addressed
them in any fashion that indicates an understanding of these issues.
Contrary to statements made by Duke, the dam at Dillsboro is
historically more significant than the dam at Glenville or any other dam in
the county or region. An extensive study of the history of the dam needs to
be done. The history of electric power offered to the public in Jackson
County started in 1Jillsboro. About 1909, one of this county's most
prominent citizens and Di7lsboro resident C. J. Harris established a
hydroelectric site on the Tuckasegee in site of his home (The Ihllsboro and
Sylva Electric Light Company). The original wood dam was replaced in
1927 by the current structure and has been producing power ever since,
except for a brief period following the disastrous flood of 1940. C.J.
Harris's original home still overlooks the dam. Much of the history of this
U`O
r11~'t T•
~~~
~n,~.
T
col
"mod
~~
-cs
m

county is associated with his life and the co~nbutions he made to its social
and ewnomic growth. This dam is just one of lasting structures that attest to
these contributions.
2
This history greatly affects Dillsboro today. A small town with a
population of about 200 people, our only industry is tourism. I have owned
and personally operated a business here in Ihllsboro for thirty years. I know
first hand tbe need for our town to keep its history alive and well. We, as
merchants and residents, have worked hard to preserve the historic character
of our town and to strive to keep it from the disease of "tacky" that befalls so
many tourist towns. Founded in 1889, Dillsboro went through a period of
decline after rail service diminished all over the country. It has proved to be
a significant benefit that many buildings from the town's early days are st>71
here, allowing for their restoration and preservation. Historic tourism is
recognized by local, state and federal governments as making significant
contnbutions to the economy of our country. The Dillsboro Dam is not only
a significant part of the history of this town and this county and thus
important to our tourism, but it has aesthetic value significant to our tourism.
Study needs to be done on the impact of the possible removal of the dam
upon the type and quality of tourism that Dillsboro has chosen for its
economic base. Not every town seeks to be a Disney World or even a
rafting/kayaking haven hke Nantahala Outdoor Center, one of the largest
outfitters in the nation and located just one county away.
Which brings us to the Town of Dillsboro. As a member of the
Stakeholder process, they came late to the process, as did all of the
incorporated towns below the Glenville dam. The Town of Di7lsboro signed
the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholders Agreement with major
reservations. One of Weir main concerns was the removal of the Dillsboro
Dam. Little has been made of their concerns in the press, just the fact that
Wey signed on. This has been troubling to some and baffling to Wose in the
community that are in the dark as to the various levels of acceptance the
Stakeholders could choose.
Likewise, We proposed amount of compensation from Duke Power to
We Town of Dillsboro for We loss of this historic and aesWetic altribirte is
ba~irig to those even familiar to the process. The mitigation should deal
wiW this project and this project alone. The dam removal should not be used
for mitigation for other aspects of the greater relicensing project.

3
If indeed it is determined that the dam will come out, studies must be
done to determine how best for the removal to be accomplished. There is
the question of the sediment behind the dam and how it will be removed.
Duke has not shown that it knows what and how much other than sediment
is behind the dam. Studies must be done to determine this and to determine
how best of dispose of it in order to have minimum impact on tbe natural
environment of the river, including wildlife, shorelines, aesthetic beauty and
overall health of the river. How will all of this change affect the property
values along this portion of the river if the aesthetic beauty and the river's
health are impair+ed7 Studies need to be done.
Duke must then be responsrble for restoring this good health to the
river. And it must be responsrble for compensating the community for its
loss at a level that is wmmensurate with the loss. I am spealang not just of
monetary compensation to the Town of Dillsboro, but compensation to all
the citizens that might derive enjoyment from our waterways through the use
of parks, greenways, safe and restored riverbanks, and access to the water -
not just those who own canoes, rafts and kayaks. In what ways can these
needs be met? This is at least a 30-year license that Duke is seeking. The
loss of the dam will exceed that time span. Duke wishes to rid itself of a
small portion of this Tuckasegee River system that it obviously deems
unimportant. The Di7Lsboro Dam is very important to those of us who live
and earn our livelihood near the dam. It is important to the tourism that
brings us that livehhood. In fact, some entity decided that the dam was
important enough for the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
bur7d a scenic overlook just above the dam in the early 1980's using some
federal money for construction.
In closing let me say that I believe if tbe appropriate studies are
implemented that it will be shown that the Dillsboro Dam should not be
removed. I very much appreciate being given the opportunity to voice my
concerns.
Sincerely,
Susan Morgan e
Oaks Gallery
P. O. Box 310
Dillsboro, NC 28725

Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20040312-0326 Received by FERC OSEC 03/12/2004 in Docket#: P-2061-000
~~
~lxotor~.~b.s cif tb~ ~llsboro l~a~ takes dui the flood of ~ 940 ~o~. ~f ~~~so~al
colleetio~ of pbotorapbs belor~,n~ c~~ally to C. 7. arras.