Everyone thanks for the responses this was all very helpful. I have attached
two emails I used to forward these responses to my coworkers for anyone who
missed part of this. One is Dave's email with all the attachments. The other
contains all the other responses. Thanks again
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Vadas, Robert (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 2:12 PM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Interesting e-mail thread, but would someone send me Gerritt's response?
IFC-listserv e-mails sometimes get "lost in the ether" (including Jason's
original msg.).
Thx, Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Brummond, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:51 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Jason
I have been involved in one TLP involving a project similar to the one Dave
provided information on, with the primary difference being the water source was
surface water. The fishery and hydrology impacts where straightforward and more
importantly the applicant operated with integrity and open communication like
Gerrit described. I also knew that I could address the hydrology impacts
through the water right process as my agency had instream flow rights on the
source stream. TLP worked well in that case.
Presently I am working on a re-licensing where the project owner has proposed
TLP. We tried to push back on TLP because the owner is making it clear they do
not believe fisheries mitigation is any longer necessary. We were unsuccessful
in attempting to oppose TLP for internal reasons (that is what happens when the
project owner is a sister agency that has the Governor’s ear). We see TLP as a
way of lessening FERC involvement thus decreasing the likelihood that fisheries
mitigation will be required as part of the new licensing. During the original
licensing FERC pushed hard on the fisheries issues which was not lost on the
owner in requesting TLP this time around.
Andy
________________________________________
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Jason Persinger <Jason.Persinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 7:27 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: FERC Relicensing question
Hey everyone.
We have a FERC Relicensing that is just getting starting and yesterday the
Licensee indicated there preference for using the traditional process instead
of the integrated process. I am hoping some of you that have been through
these efforts before can help inlighten me on the differences between the two
processes. So the agency can better determine whether or not we are ok with
the traditional process in this case or if we should push for the intergrated
process.. Any help would be appreciated. I can provide more specific details
if needed, but at this stage was really just wanting to improve my
understanding of the pro's and con's of each process.
Thanks
Jason
You can post messages to the IFC list by using the following address:
IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note the limit for attachments is 5 MB.
Note that emails are not secure, consider confidential information when posting.
Do NOT include other people in the ???To:??? or ???Cc:??? headings. If they
are not on the IFC list server, the message gets bounced out of the system. If
you want to send your message to other folks, please do it in a separate email.
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.instreamflowcouncil.org&data=02%7C01%7Cjason.persinger%40mdc.mo.gov%7Cb0159ccb940845c2363b08d6b2e82644%7C5e016b8a23ed43f5a521168c5e91bb13%7C1%7C0%7C636893107473161612&sdata=0unvp9eoSNht5Ojd4Rfxgi0dAnUZkBl%2BuPK7MKZdQFU%3D&reserved=0
You can post messages to the IFC list by using the following address:
IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note the limit for attachments is 5 MB.
Note that emails are not secure, consider confidential information when posting.
Do NOT include other people in the “To:†or “Cc:†headings. If they
are not on the IFC list server, the message gets bounced out of the system. If
you want to send your message to other folks, please do it in a separate email.
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.instreamflowcouncil.org&data=02%7C01%7Cjason.persinger%40mdc.mo.gov%7Cb0159ccb940845c2363b08d6b2e82644%7C5e016b8a23ed43f5a521168c5e91bb13%7C1%7C0%7C636893107473161612&sdata=0unvp9eoSNht5Ojd4Rfxgi0dAnUZkBl%2BuPK7MKZdQFU%3D&reserved=0
(�Ƨ��-��,j
���ax�B�+-o+��x-���Z0�xu��
f����zX���+��-z�^�)���+j�Zr���"��6�^��zf��ƫzz-��.��(�ȝz�(���z{bjX�~��jب�^��,�)�
�NN)ܖ�^��^����W���^N�+
�^iا����j����'��)b�� �����z��� ���w v����az̬��*.���� �ܨ����Ơz�(��~�d��^jǝ�+b�� ��ڵ�j)p�����jg�
(�w"��
--- Begin Message ---The other responses. Might still be good to get a call with Gary or one of
- From: Jason Persinger <Jason.Persinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller@xxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Novinger <Doug.Novinger@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Rice <Christopher.Rice@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:22:58 +0000
his people as well but hopefully this clarifies the process somewhat.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Brummond, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 1:51 PM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Jason
I have been involved in one TLP involving a project similar to the one Dave
provided information on, with the primary difference being the water source was
surface water. The fishery and hydrology impacts where straightforward and more
importantly the applicant operated with integrity and open communication like
Gerrit described. I also knew that I could address the hydrology impacts
through the water right process as my agency had instream flow rights on the
source stream. TLP worked well in that case.
Presently I am working on a re-licensing where the project owner has proposed
TLP. We tried to push back on TLP because the owner is making it clear they do
not believe fisheries mitigation is any longer necessary. We were unsuccessful
in attempting to oppose TLP for internal reasons (that is what happens when the
project owner is a sister agency that has the Governor’s ear). We see TLP as a
way of lessening FERC involvement thus decreasing the likelihood that fisheries
mitigation will be required as part of the new licensing. During the original
licensing FERC pushed hard on the fisheries issues which was not lost on the
owner in requesting TLP this time around.
Andy
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of McHugh, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:51 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
From my limited experience in Vermont, where we currently have a mix of
projects going through via ILP and TLP, I’d echo the opinions/thoughts shared
already.
The only thing I might add is that in the absence of the structured timeline
and formal check-ins that the ILP brings, the TLP introduces a slight risk that
important work (= studies) gets delayed until the last minute (depending on the
applicant, communication, etc.). This can prove challenging if you’re juggling
multiple relicensings and workloads collide at the wrong time. On the other
hand, the TLP’s flexibility can make it easier to juggle multiple concurrent
relicensings…
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Gerrit Jobsis
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:32 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Hi Jason,
We've found that the traditional process can work well if the applicant commits
to an enhanced consultation process with agencies and other stakeholders. We've
also had problems with some integrated and alternative processes when the
applicant runs a disingenuous process. The most important thing for using the
TLP, ALP or ILP processes is the integrity of the applicant and their
commitment to running an open and trust-building process. One difference is the
TLP has more flexibility whereas the IPL is driven by shorter and often
restrictive timelines. Examples of good enhanced consultation processes for
TPL are Saluda (P-516), Parr-Fairfield (P-1894) and Catawba-Wateree (P-2232).
Prior to supporting a TLP, I recommend getting in writing from the applicant
the protocol they will use for enhanced consultation. And regardless of the
process don't expect FERC to be a neutral arbiter. They almost always defer to
the applicant and only seem to care if the timeline is met, not the quality of
the process.
Gerrit
_____________________________________________
Gerrit Jöbsis, Senior Director
Rivers of Southern Appalachia and the Carolinas
(Office) 803.771.7114 (Mobile) 803.546.7926
AmericanRivers.org
Instagram I Facebook I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Cain, Nicole E
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:50 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Hello Jason,
Have you been through any of the information provided by FERC on their website?
I've found that their material has been very clear to understand. They have a
great primer for quicker reading and their handbook covers every step in all of
the processes if you want something more in-depth. They do a good job in both
detailing the differences in the three processes.
I am in the process of crafting an SOP for our biologists to follow here in NY
state in respect to these different processes, so my understanding is still
developing but if I can help at all...
The biggest difference between the ILP and TLP is the level of FERC
involvement. The ILP provides a timeline with set timelines and steps to
follow, with some variation, and FERC interacting more closely with all the
participants in the licensing process. This is especially great for those
projects that might have more in-depth environmental concerns and impacts that
may need to be addressed with greater interaction. The TLP has distinct steps,
but much less interaction from FERC and no firm timelines, and works better for
projects that will have little to no change in their project operations or
whose environmental concerns and impacts are relatively low.
Thus far my interactions with both have been fairly good. FERC generally does a
fair job of dictating which licensing procedure to follow. If the resources
involved in this project are of great concern, there are any management plans
in place for it or biota within it, and there are any proposed changes in the
project facilities and operations, then an ILP would be better, but if not then
a TLP should be okay, the same protections can still be brought forward and
addressed through studies and NEPA compliance actions.
Nicole E. Cain
Biologist 1 (Ecology), Division of Fish & Wildlife
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4756
P: (518) 402-8847 | F: (518) 402-8925 | nicole.cain@xxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Jason Persinger
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:27 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: FERC Relicensing question
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or
click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Hey everyone.
We have a FERC Relicensing that is just getting starting and yesterday the
Licensee indicated there preference for using the traditional process instead
of the integrated process. I am hoping some of you that have been through
these efforts before can help inlighten me on the differences between the two
processes. So the agency can better determine whether or not we are ok with
the traditional process in this case or if we should push for the intergrated
process.. Any help would be appreciated. I can provide more specific details
if needed, but at this stage was really just wanting to improve my
understanding of the pro's and con's of each process.
Thanks
Jason
You can post messages to the IFC list by using the following address:
IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note the limit for attachments is 5 MB.
Note that emails are not secure, consider confidential information when posting.
Do NOT include other people in the To: or Cc: headings. If they are not on the
IFC list server, the message gets bounced out of the system. If you want to
send your message to other folks, please do it in a separate email.
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Furl%3Fk%3D925074a2-ce7578c1-92528d97-0cc47aa88e08-51d228cb699ef5ee%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.instreamflowcouncil.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjason.persinger%40mdc.mo.gov%7C303d5dfd5ff646022a0b08d6b2bb2aa8%7C5e016b8a23ed43f5a521168c5e91bb13%7C1%7C0%7C636892914279892829&sdata=etL22Dm0FwU7vjhqoYChm%2BjQgwkFHHEiUbVTvqXRt%2FE%3D&reserved=0
You can post messages to the IFC list by using the following address:
IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note the limit for attachments is 5 MB.
Note that emails are not secure, consider confidential information when posting.
Do NOT include other people in the “To:†or “Cc:†headings. If they
are not on the IFC
list server, the message gets bounced out of the system. If you want to send
your
message to other folks, please do it in a separate email.
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.instreamflowcouncil.org&data=02%7C01%7Cjason.persinger%40mdc.mo.gov%7C303d5dfd5ff646022a0b08d6b2bb2aa8%7C5e016b8a23ed43f5a521168c5e91bb13%7C1%7C0%7C636892914279892829&sdata=L5juxZ3jjA6QHCXLEyH36M8%2BThAfB3lkF9oINHRK40Q%3D&reserved=0
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Here is one of the responses I got back from IFC members related to traditional
- From: Jason Persinger <Jason.Persinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller@xxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Novinger <Doug.Novinger@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Rice <Christopher.Rice@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:18:30 +0000
versus integrated. I will combine the ones without attchements into a chain
to reduce the number of emails I need to send.
Jason
From: ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ifc_mail-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of David Weedman
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:19 AM
To: IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IFC_mail: Re: FERC Relicensing question
Morning Jason,
While my experience with FERC licensing projects is limited (N=1), I support
what Gerrit and Nicole have shared with you. Our FERC project is ongoing, and
somewhat unique in that it is an off-channel closed loop hydropower pumped
storage facility, using groundwater for initial filling and make-up water. I've
attached several comment letters submitted by us (sadly, the AzGFD letter got
lost on a manager's desk and not submitted until after the deadline), a power
company (Salt River Project) and an indian tribe to the project developer in
response top their request to use the TLP. All 3 of us recommended the ILP. The
developer submitted a response letter to FERC on the comments which is also
attached. I suggest a quick read of the letters for identification of concerns
with, and differences between, the two options, as well as the developers
response letter. Lastly, FERC approved the applicant's request for use of TLP
(attached).
Have fun with this!
David Weedman
Aquatic Habitat Program Manager
Ofc. (623) 236-7607
Cell (602) 710-9132
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:27 AM Jason Persinger
<Jason.Persinger@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jason.Persinger@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hey everyone.
We have a FERC Relicensing that is just getting starting and yesterday the
Licensee indicated there preference for using the traditional process instead
of the integrated process. I am hoping some of you that have been through
these efforts before can help inlighten me on the differences between the two
processes. So the agency can better determine whether or not we are ok with
the traditional process in this case or if we should push for the intergrated
process.. Any help would be appreciated. I can provide more specific details
if needed, but at this stage was really just wanting to improve my
understanding of the pro's and con's of each process.
Thanks
Jason
You can post messages to the IFC list by using the following address:
IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:IFC_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Note the limit for attachments is 5 MB.
Note that emails are not secure, consider confidential information when posting.
Do NOT include other people in the "To:" or "Cc:" headings. If they are not on
the IFC
list server, the message gets bounced out of the system. If you want to send
your
message to other folks, please do it in a separate email.
www.instreamflowcouncil.org<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.instreamflowcouncil.org&data=02%7C01%7Cjason.persinger%40mdc.mo.gov%7C8d4d482440aa46399d9208d6b2c7aae8%7C5e016b8a23ed43f5a521168c5e91bb13%7C1%7C0%7C636892969074538132&sdata=LtVqMi0%2Bx2QUxeOP02B2z7j0FKZbk4KtxC9It8pd730%3D&reserved=0>
Attachment: BCV Letter Regarding Use of TLP.pdf
Description: BCV Letter Regarding Use of TLP.pdfAttachment: AGFD Response Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage NOI PAD Application.._.docx
Description: AGFD Response Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage NOI PAD Application.._.docxAttachment: SRP opposing Big Chino TLP.pdf
Description: SRP opposing Big Chino TLP.pdfAttachment: FERC Comments by Yavapai-Apache Nation P14859.pdf
Description: FERC Comments by Yavapai-Apache Nation P14859.pdfAttachment: FERC letter granting Big Chino TLP status.pdf
Description: FERC letter granting Big Chino TLP status.pdf
--- End Message ---
