<< Back 12/4/02 The Dam Debate: Ideas exchanged, no resolution reached on Dillsboro Dam removal By Don Hendershot T. J. Walker, owner of Dillsboro Inn, is continuing his efforts to preserve the Dillsboro Dam. Removal of the dam is one of the mitigation options Duke Power is considering with regards to its relicensing efforts. Walker held a public meeting at the inn last month and appeared before Jackson County commissioners Nov. 21. Bob Dalley, an engineering professor at Western Carolina University and long-time fisherman and outfitter on the Tuckasegee, spoke at the public meeting at the inn. Dalley called the trout fishing in the mile-long reservoir behind the dam “world class” in the wintertime. “The Dillsboro reservoir holds a lot of trout in the wintertime; more than any other river in the region. I regularly meet fishermen from Ohio, Tennessee and South Carolina,” Dalley said. He said the north side of the reservoir would make a great park with trails for jogging and biking and fishing platforms. “Most towns would give their eyeteeth for a mile stretch of narrow-gradient, deep water,” said Dalley. He urged that the community consider the economic potential and get serious and use technology to create a first class recreational facility. He said that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) used re-regulating weirs in the Hiawassie, Holston and Clinch rivers to improve water quality and fish habitat. He said the same technology could be used on the Tuck to maintain a constant flow and protect the environment. Charlie Saylor, aquatic biologist for TVA, said the weirs were indeed boons for aquatic habitat in the Hiawassie, Holston and Clinch, but he didn’t know if they would be applicable in the Tuckasegee. Saylor said the weirs had to be placed very close to the reservoir (Lake Glenville in the case of the Tuck) and, “the lay of the land and the gradient have to be just right.” Chris Goudreau of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission agreed with Saylor and said that even if a re-regulating weir could be installed below Lake Glenville that it would have very little effect on the flow at Dillsboro. Goudreau said one of the main functions of a re-reg weir was to stabilize base flow where lack of oxygen is a problem. “Oxygen is not an issue on the Tuckasegee,” he said. At Tuesday’s meeting, Goudreau said NCWRC’s job was to look at more than just trout. “We have 40 other species of fish to consider,” he said. Dalley had a different perspective, however. “What is the value of a snail darter compared to a trout?” he asked. “We need to look at the whole picture. We need to develop this resource to get the greatest benefit for the most people ... People don’t come from all over the U.S. to catch a snail darter.” Later, Goudreau said that from an ecological perspective a free flowing stream was better than a slow moving one and that he didn’t think removing the dam would have a negative impact on fishing. “Most trout fishermen wade, and we would gain an additional mile for those wading anglers,” he said. Mark Cantrell of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also spoke at the meeting. He said the present discussion was not the first time dam removal had been addressed in Jackson County. He read an account from The History of Jackson County which noted that the Jackson County government ordered the removal and/or breaching of four dams between Cullowhee and Barker’s Creek back in 1874. He said that action was taken so redhorse (large suckers, which were a staple in many diets) could move freely up and downstream. Cantrell said that many native species, including the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel, would benefit from river restoration at Dillsboro. He said the elktoe, which is found above and below the reservoir, is absent from the reservoir because of the sediment buildup. “Dillsboro reservoir makes a bad lake and a worse river,” Cantrell said. In an interview after the meeting, Cantrell said the reservoir was a specialized, limited-size reach of river and he felt there would be more recreational opportunities in a natural riparian habitat and that Dillsboro should capitalize on those opportunities. When Walker appeared before commissioner, he said he was surprised the county wasn’t “all over” the dam issue. He said that while biologists had presented a good argument for dam removal, that they were overlooking significant economic and cultural potential. “Biologists are more concerned with diversity of fish. They’re not concerned with trout,” he said. Walker said there needed to be more studies regarding the historical significance of the dam and the economic potential of establishing a cold water fishery. “There have been no economic impact studies done and very little environmental study,” Walker said. “I think some of these environmental agencies want a feather in their cap at our expense.” Dillsboro Alderman Emma Wertenberger said the town was at a disadvantage when discussing the dam. She said whenever the town raises an issue, “everyone wants to know what expert gave you that recommendation. It’s like David versus Goliath. We have no clue what our rights are in regards to FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that oversees relicensing]. Even if, in the end, it is decided the best thing to do is remove the dam, that should be an economic gain, not an economic loss. We need to be ready to go to Duke instead of them and Fish and Wildlife dictating to us. If we don’t they will do whatever they want.” “I think if some entity would come up with a plan [to preserve and operate the dam] Duke would give it to them. But Dillsboro doesn’t have the money,” Walker said.