20140428 Ver 1_Emails_20140430 (2)

Higgins, Karen
From:Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:07 AM
To:Kelly W. Sackheim
Cc:Young, Michael A SAW; Banaitis, Carol M SAW; Goudreau, Chris J.; Tarver, Fred;
Matthews, Monte K SAW; Burdette, Jennifer a; Higgins, Karen; Deamer, Nora; Matics,
Dana L SAW; Williams, Greg L SAW; Fritz Rohde - NOAA Federal; Bulleri, Michael;
Waldroup, Kenneth; [e-mail]; Wilson Laney; [e-mail]; Pete
Benjamin
Subject:Re: Next Steps before May 5, 2014 for FERC P-14521 Falls Lake 2-yr Licensing
Application
Kelly,

So are you saying you would like for the agencies to provide you with a list of needed studies and anticipated
duration in essentially 3 days and without you providing us any real information regarding what you are
proposing? This request is also recognizing there are other customers with projects for review that arrived
before your April 30, 2014 email and thus are already in line to be reviewed. Would this be fair to those
customers?

If this is the approach FERC anticipates using in the pilot process I question if it is a feasible
option. Additionally, in all the FERC processes I've participated in over the past 20+ years we are provided a
bit of information regarding what the project will look like and how it will operate so we can develop
comments/study needs. In all the other FERC processes we are allowed 30 days to provide comments after we
receive details of the project. If the pilot process is no longer going to do these it leads to further questioning
re: if this is the process to use. All of this is especially true based upon the efforts/money that has been
invested in restoring diadromous fish populations in this basin. Falls Reservoir and Dam are a key part of the
current success and a component in future efforts. I expressed my concerns of using the pilot process as we had
no information regarding the actual process. What I'm reading now has further enhanced those concerns and
thus I'm still not comfortable with supporting the process.

Who is your FERC contact for this project?

John

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Kelly W. Sackheim <[e-mail]> wrote:
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to meet, and your feedback that will likely allow me to proceed with
FERC's 2-yr licensing pilot rather than the FERC Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) that was used by the City
of Raleigh in its investigation of the hydroelectric development potential of this site, or the FERC Integrated
Licensing Process (ILP) designed to address complex environmental issues, but more unwieldy for a small,
simple project such as the existing infrastructure and operational parameters accommodate at Falls Lake Dam.

I met with FERC staff yesterday and reviewed that, rather than making it a priority to obtain a FERC license
before expending effort to meet other requirements to construct and subsequently generate electricity at Falls
Lake Dam, I intend to focus concurrently on obtaining Corps 408 authorization. The FERC two-year process
plan envisions the filing of a final license application within one year, after completing studies and applying for
for water quality and coastal zone certifications, then FERC issuance of its draft Environmental Assessment and
1

associated draft programmatic agreement (PA), section 10(j) letter, and section 7 ESA informal consultation
letter, as necessary, approximately 8 months later.

The FERC two-year process plan appears more than adequate to address concerns associated with the
integration of the proposed hydroelectric project into environmental protection and enhancement plans pursued
by the Corps and other resources agencies at this site. No inherent conflicts have been identified between the
Corps 408 process and the FERC two-year process plan. In the presumably unlikely event that the Corps finds
that staff are overburdened by undertaking both processes simultaneously, I propose that the response deadlines
for the FERC two-year process plan be relaxed.

The FERC requires that I include in my application by the May 5 deadline (this coming Monday), two
elements:
1. A written statement from the federal dam owner that my proposed "plan of development is conceptually
feasible."

Tony or Carol - would you be able to convey to me by e-mail an affirmation that my proposal to install
hydroelectric generating facilities inside the existing intake structure at Falls Lake Dam is conceptually
feasible? Clearly, to ultimately obtain approval, the engineering design will need to ensure that flood flow
discharge capacity is not diminished (presumably by raising equipment that would impede flow out of the
water's path), that flows would remain available as required for safe downstream and eventual upstream fish
passage, and downstream water quality would not be diminished by electric generation.

2. Written comments from "federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations,
and the public" on the adequacy of available information and the need for studies, including the anticipated
scope and duration of the studies.

While I will summarize the input that you provided at our meeting last week, as well as the comments provided
previously in the record of the City of Raleigh's evaluation of this same project, should you have any further
comments that you would like to convey, I will transmit them to the FERC as well.

Once again, thank you for your participation in the review of this project.

Sincerely,
Kelly Sackheim
Principal, KC Hydro family of companies
travel ph: [phone] (-kwhs, reliably receives cell texts but not necessarily without considerable delay)
nationwide ph: [phone] (-kws8)
fax: [phone]
www.kchydro.com
On 4/10/2014 4:42 PM, Kelly W. Sackheim wrote Re: Confirming 10 am @ Falls Lake Dam Re: April 24, 2014
Participation Requested: FERC P-14521 Falls Lake 2-yr Licensing Meeting:
The Corps has graciously offered their conference room at Falls Lake, and morning seems to be
possible for those who have replied thus far. As some will be traveling several hours, I would
like to set the meeting for 10 am, with the expectation that we should be able to conclude by
lunchtime, although I would welcome the opportunity for further discussion as may be
productive.

2