HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140428 Ver 1_Emails_20140501
Higgins, Karen
From:Kelly W. Sackheim <kelly@kchydro.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:08 AM
To:Ellis, John; Tarver, Fred
Cc:Young, Michael A SAW; Banaitis, Carol M SAW; Goudreau, Chris J.; 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; LackeyKA@bv.com; Wilson Laney; Pace.Wilber@noaa.gov; Pete Benjamin
Subject:Concerns duly noted, Not applying for FERC Pilot Two-Year Process on May 5
Having told the FERC that I would be applying, I will file something on Monday and send a copy to this same
distribution, but I wanted to alert you all even before I've had an opportunity to draft a filing that I will be
telling the FERC that, less than 4 months after being granted the preliminary permit, I have not been able to
assemble the information for this project that was generated previously with adequate time for agency review
and feedback to ensure that my assumptions are accurate.
I concur that it is unreasonable to expect the agencies to provide any new information on this project at this
time. I regret that I have not yet had the opportunity to prepare the summary of our meeting and the progress
made by the City of Raleigh, that I believe includes the "list of needed studies and anticipated duration" because
the plan of development that I propose is in fact the same as proposed by the City of Raleigh.
Because I understood that the City of Raleigh had addressed the environmental issues during the two years
studies were performed (with the exception of performing a baseline assessment of fish populations in the
project area), and subsequently determined that the potential financial return was insufficient for the City, I
anticipated that the agencies would not be unduly pressed in finalizing their review within the proposed time
frame.
The FERC point of contact for the 2-year pilot is Nicholas Jayjack at (202) 502-6073
Nicholas.Jayjack@ferc.gov
From my perspective, the FERC two-year process is designed to START when the FERC has some confidence
that the applicant can address all concerns raised during consultation and submit a final license application
within one year. In contrast to the other licensing processes, the applicant is expected to have expended more
time and effort working with the agencies to resolve potential issues before the FERC is engaged in the two-
year process. Presumably, if the issues can be resolved by the applicant to complete a final license application
within a one-year time frame, the FERC anticipates concluding its environmental review and issuing the license
at the end of the next year.
Thank you for your feedback,
Kelly
On 4/30/2014 10:56 AM, Tarver, Fred wrote Re: Next Steps before May 5, 2014 for FERC P-14521 Falls Lake
2-yr Licensing Application:
All,
I’ve attached the FERC’s notice for this process. Upon review one wonders if this is the appropriate
avenue given the lack of time and information.
1
On 4/30/2014 9:06 AM, Ellis, John wrote 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 <kelly@kchydro.com> 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 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.
2
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: (916) 877-5947 (-kwhs, reliably receives cell texts but not necessarily without
considerable delay)
nationwide ph: (301) 401-5978 (-kws8)
fax: (603) 571-5947
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.
3