20140428 Ver 1_Emails_20140513

Higgins, Karen
From:Kelly W. Sackheim <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:37 PM
To:[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc:Banaitis, Carol M SAW; Young, Michael A (Tony) SAW; Williams, Greg L SAW;
Matthews, Monte K SAW; Matics, Dana L SAW; Brown, Daniel S SAW; Fritz Rohde -
NOAA Federal; John Ellis; Deamer, Nora; Higgins, Karen; Burdette, Jennifer a; Tarver,
Fred; Goudreau, Chris J.
Subject:FERC Two-Year Pilot Licensing Application NOT filed for P-14521-NC Hydroelectric
Project at Corps' Falls Lake Dam
Messrs. Jayjack, Turner and Spencer:

I thank you and the other FERC staff who met with me on April 29. As reflected below, my belief was not shared by the
dam owner or cooperating agencies that sufficient progress was made by the City of Raleigh that I could continue to
complete the FERC process on an expedited basis.

I remain hopeful that I can, nonetheless, proceed to develop and submit a FERC license application consistent with
existing regulations within the one year period envisioned in the pilot process, while concurrently addressing the
requirements of the Corps 408 process, that I believe is the more critical path to obtaining approval to construct and
operate a hydroelectric facility at this site.

I will be providing information as I am able to assemble and develop data and analysis for Corps and other agency
feedback over the course of the summer and into the fall. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Kelly Sackheim

Principal, KC Hydro family of companies
nationwide ph: [phone] (-kws8)
fax: [phone]
www.kchydro.com

On 5/1/2014 12:08 PM, Banaitis, Carol M SAW wrote 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 \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
> 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;[e-mail];
> Wilson Laney;[e-mail]; 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) [e-mail]
> >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
>
2