Overview
Title
Fiske Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission looked at Fiske Hydro, Inc.'s plan to close a power project in New Hampshire and decided it wouldn't hurt the environment much. People can see the detailed report on their website and can send in their thoughts by March 5.
Summary AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding the Fiske Hydro, Inc.'s request to surrender its license and shut down the Fiske Mill Hydroelectric Project in New Hampshire. This review concluded that the surrender wouldn't significantly affect the environment. The public can view the EA on FERC's website and is encouraged to submit comments by March 5, 2025. FERC aims to promote public participation and can be contacted for assistance with the process.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a Federal Register notice by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding the Fiske Hydro, Inc.'s proposal to surrender its license for the Fiske Mill Hydroelectric Project located on the Ashuelot River in Hinsdale, New Hampshire. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate this proposal. Ultimately, the Commission found that surrendering the license and decommissioning the hydroelectric project would not significantly affect the environment. The public is encouraged to view the assessment and provide comments by March 5, 2025.
General Summary
The FERC is assessing the environmental impacts of Fiske Hydro, Inc.'s request to halt operations and surrender its license for a small hydroelectric project in New Hampshire. As part of this assessment, FERC has determined the action should not pose a significant environmental threat. The public can access the detailed EA on FERC's website and is invited to participate in the review process by submitting comments or inquiries.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One significant issue with the document is the lack of specificity regarding the potential impacts on the local environment and community once the project is decommissioned. This absence of detailed information could leave residents and local authorities without a clear understanding of what to expect.
Furthermore, the invitation for public comment would be more effective with examples or guidance on the types of feedback that would be most helpful. While the document provides extensive instructions on how to file comments, clearer guidance might encourage more meaningful participation.
The document notes that the project is located off federal land but does not elaborate on how this impacts the jurisdiction and procedures of the surrender process. This could be confusing for those unfamiliar with federal and state regulatory distinctions.
The conclusion that the project surrender is not a major federal action lacks context within this notice, making it difficult for lay readers to understand the basis for this determination.
Impact on the Public
In broad terms, the document's dissemination allows FERC to engage the public in environmental and regulatory decision-making processes. However, there is an opportunity for improved public understanding and involvement by clarifying the assessment's findings and implications.
The complexity of the submission process, with multiple contact points and instructions, could discourage public participation. Simplifying these processes would likely increase public feedback.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For local residents and businesses in New Hampshire, the surrender of the Fiske Mill Hydroelectric Project’s license may have mixed effects. On one hand, positive impacts could include potential environmental restoration and changes in land use that might benefit the community. On the other hand, there may be concerns about how the cessation of the project could alter river dynamics, local ecosystems, or affect recreational activities.
For Fiske Hydro, Inc., the license surrender reflects a shift in operational priorities or business model, possibly suggesting a strategic withdrawal from operations perceived as economically unsustainable or environmentally burdensome.
Private landowners and local authorities may need clarification on post-decommissioning responsibilities, particularly regarding any physical infrastructure changes.
As this process unfolds, stakeholders would benefit from a single, clear point of contact or even a decision tree to help guide them through the complex regulatory terrain and offer reassurance about their roles and responsibilities.
Issues
• The document lacks specificity regarding potential impacts on the local environment and community if the license is surrendered and the project decommissioned.
• While the document provides information on how to file comments, it might be beneficial to include examples of the type of comments or information that would be most helpful to the review process, for better public engagement.
• The document states the project is not on federal lands, but it does not clarify the jurisdictional impact of this on the surrender process or environmental assessment.
• The EA's conclusion that the surrender would not constitute a major federal action is stated without detailed context or a summary of the findings that support this conclusion.
• The instructions for non-electronic submissions could be more straightforward by consolidating the address information into a single paragraph.
• The variety of contact points and addresses provided could potentially overwhelm or confuse individuals trying to engage with the process. A single point of contact or a decision tree might simplify this.
• The citation of complex regulations, such as '18 CFR part 380', assumes a level of legal knowledge that the general public may not have.