Overview
Title
Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments; Cocheco Falls Associates
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is deciding whether to let Cocheco Falls Associates keep running a small dam in New Hampshire. They are asking people to help them learn more and share their thoughts by a certain date.
Summary AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is reviewing an application from Cocheco Falls Associates for a new minor license to operate the Cocheco Falls Dam Project in New Hampshire. The project, located on the Cocheco River, includes a dam, power generation facilities, and fish passage systems, and is operated in a run-of-river mode to maintain flow consistency. Interested parties can submit requests for additional studies or to be cooperating agencies by February 27, 2021. The Commission is also providing a timeline for processing the application, which includes opportunities for public input and additional information requests throughout 2021.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) details a hydroelectric application filed by Cocheco Falls Associates. This application seeks a new minor license for the Cocheco Falls Dam Project in Dover, New Hampshire. The project involves a river dam, power generation facilities, and systems to aid fish passage. Operating in what is known as a "run-of-river" mode, the project aims to maintain a constant flow that mimics natural river conditions.
Summary of the Document
The central focus of the document is the regulatory process for relicensing the dam. Aimed at those potentially impacted or involved, the notice outlines how interested parties can engage with the application process. It provides detailed instructions on submitting additional study requests or becoming cooperating agencies, highlighting a deadline for these actions as February 27, 2021. Additionally, it presents a procedural timetable, indicating key stages of the review process expected to unfold throughout 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document:
Lack of Clarity on Requirements: The necessity for an upstream eel passage facility is mentioned, yet the document provides no explanation for this requirement. Understanding such requirements is crucial for stakeholders and the public alike.
Omissions in Cost Information: The document excludes any data concerning the costs or funding associated with the required changes, creating uncertainty around the financial burden on the applicant or public resources.
Ambiguity in Stakeholder Roles: Many individuals and agencies are referenced; however, their specific roles and responsibilities remain insufficiently detailed, potentially leading to confusion over who oversees different project facets.
Technical Language: The language used in the procedural schedule is technical and may be challenging for the general public to comprehend without additional explanations or definitions.
Unclear Consequences for Deadlines: The document does not elaborate on the repercussions for missing procedural deadlines. This is essential information for stakeholders to plan and participate effectively.
Missing Environmental and Social Impact Details: Surprisingly, there is a lack of discussion about how the proposed project, including its operational changes, might affect the environment and local communities.
Impact on the Public
The re-licensing of the Cocheco Falls Dam could affect the community around the Cocheco River widely. Public participation and awareness are crucial, as any alterations in the dam's operation can influence local ecosystems and water management. However, the document's technical nature and lack of detailed environmental impact assessment may impede public understanding and involvement.
Stakeholder Impact
For specific stakeholders, notably Cocheco Falls Associates, regulatory compliance and potential infrastructure changes could incur significant costs, challenging their operational budget. Environmental agencies may also find the absence of specific impact assessments a barrier to evaluating the project comprehensively.
Overall, while the document attempts to guide public and stakeholder engagement in the licensing process, its deficiencies in clarity, detail, and environmental assessment might challenge effective participation and decision-making.
Issues
• The document does not provide a clear explanation or justification for the need to design and install an upstream eel passage facility within four years of the effective date of a subsequent license. More context or reasoning for this requirement would be beneficial.
• There is no specific cost or funding information related to the required changes or installations (e.g., upstream eel passage), making it difficult to assess potential financial impacts.
• The document frequently references different key players and stakeholders but does not clearly specify their roles or responsibilities. This could lead to confusion about who is accountable for various parts of the project.
• Language used in the procedural schedule section is technical and might be difficult for a layperson to understand without additional context or definitions.
• The document does not clearly explain the consequence of missing deadlines in the procedural schedule, which could be crucial for stakeholders involved.
• No information is provided on the potential environmental and social impacts of the project, which are often key considerations in hydroelectric projects.