HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140428 Ver 1_Emails_20140502
Higgins, Karen
From:Matthews, Monte K SAW <Monte.K.Matthews@usace.army.mil>
Sent:Friday, May 02, 2014 10:40 AM
To:Tarver, Fred; Goudreau, Chris J.; Burdette, Jennifer a; Higgins, Karen; Deamer, Nora;
fritz.rhode@noaa.gov; john_ellis@fws.gov
Cc:Banaitis, Carol M SAW
Subject:FW: \[EXTERNAL\] Concerns duly noted, Not applying for FERC Pilot Two-Year Process
on May 5 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Just passing on the Corps' response to the April 30th email from Kelly Sackheim (see below).
Good to see everyone the other day -
Monte
Monte Matthews
US Army Corps of Engineers
Assistant Operations Project Manager,
Piedmont Region
PO Box 144
Moncure, NC 27559
(919) 542-4501 x23
-----Original Message-----
From: Banaitis, Carol M SAW
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:09 PM
To: Kelly W. Sackheim
Cc: Young, Michael A (Tony) SAW; Williams, Greg L SAW; Matthews, Monte K SAW; Matics, Dana L SAW; Brown, Daniel S
SAW
Subject: RE: \[EXTERNAL\] Concerns duly noted, Not applying for FERC Pilot Two-Year Process on May 5
Kelly,
Based on the email below - it appears that you are not planning to apply for the Pilot Two-Year Process, so your needs
for the endorsement and list of studies/available information may have changed at this time.
I have coordinated with the other Corps personnel who attended last week's meeting, but at this point, with as little
information as we have about the proposed plan, we would not be able to provide the "1. A written statement from the
federal dam owner that your proposed "plan of development is conceptually feasible." Also, re the #2 need, we don't
have enough information at this time to comment on the adequacy of available information and the need for additional
studies.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input and if you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Carol M. Banaitis, R.F.
1
Piedmont Operations Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Rd.
Wake Forest, NC 27587
ph. 919-846-9332 x 226
Visit us on facebook at:
www.facebook.com/FallsLakeNC
www.facebook.com/JordanLakeNC
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly W. Sackheim \[mailto:kelly@kchydro.com\]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:08 AM
To: Ellis, John; Tarver, Fred
Cc: Young, Michael A (Tony) 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: \[EXTERNAL\] 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,
2
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.
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
3
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: (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.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
4
5