United States    Forest       Washington      14th & Independence SW

Department of    Service      Office          P.O. Box 96090

Agriculture                                   Washington, DC 20090-6090

                                                                              

                                              File Code: 1570-1 (L)

                                                         NFS #97-13-00-0074-A215

                                                   Date:  August 15, 1997



Mr. Richard Roos-Collins
Natural Heritage Institute               CERTIFIED MAIL - R.R.R.

114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA  94104

Dear Mr. Roos-Collins:

This concerns your appeal filed on July 17, 1997, and the July 18, 1997, amendment, of Regional Forester (RF) G. Lynn Sprague's June 2, 1997, letter transmitting the revised terms and conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act for the Haas Kings River hydroelectric project, FERC No. 1988, Sierra National Forest.  This appeal was filed on behalf of the American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) and Friends of the River (FOR).  This review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 215 of the Secretary's Appeal Regulations.  


On January 15, 1997, the RF provided FERC with the final 4(e) conditions for a new license for the continued operation of the Haas Kings River project.  On March 7, 1997, you appealed RF Sprague's January 15, 1997, decision notice (DN) regarding the section 4(e) conditions for relicensing this project.


You attended informal disposition meetings with the Forest Service at which you provided information to the Forest Service regarding recreational flows on the North Fork of the Kings River.  The Forest Service is considering the information you provided as part of its analysis of flow requirements below the Balch Afterbay and the Dinkey Siphon.  At this time, the Forest Service has not prescribed any section 4(e) flow conditions for these reaches of the river.  If the RF decides to issue flow conditions below the Afterbay and Siphon, the RF would first have to determine whether these reaches should be conditioned as part of the Haas Kings license (FERC No. 1988) or whether the reaches should be conditioned as part of the Balch project license (FERC No. 175).


If the RF determines that it would be appropriate to issue flow conditions for these reaches and that the conditions should be incorporated into the Haas Kings license, action would be taken once the RF has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and a DN for the flow conditions have been issued.  You would then have the right to appeal the DN pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215.  You would also have the right to appeal flow conditions that are incorporated into the Balch license; however, that appeal would be a separate action from the current proceedings involving the Haas Kings project.


The specific event triggering your appeal was a letter of June 2, 1997, written by the RF to FERC transmitting minor revisions to existing 4(e) conditions.  The revisions to the conditions did not constitute a decision by the RF because the environmental effects of the new conditions were supported by the existing environmental assessment.  Since there is no decision, we are dismissing your appeal of the June 2 letter and the record is closed pursuant to 36 CFR 215.15(a)(2).


Sincerely,

/s/ Kenneth Johnson
(for)

JANICE H. MCDOUGLE
Appeal Deciding Officer

cc:  Regional Forester, R-50074_A215_