United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Washington Office

14th & Independence SW

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC   20090-6090

 

File Code:

1570-1 (L)

02-13-00-0019-A215

 

Date:

October 31, 2002

 

Nino J. Mascolo, Senior Attorney

Southern California Edison

P.O. Box 800

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Rosemead, CA  91770

 

 

Dear Mr. Mascolo:

We have completed our review of the issues raised in your appeal regarding the July 30, 2002, decision made by Acting Regional Forester (RF) Gilbert Espinosa establishing the final 4(e) conditions for relicensing the Lower Tule Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 372, administered by the Sequoia National Forest.  The Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) dated July 30, 2002, adopts the analysis and environmental assessment (EA) issued by FERC with proposed changes for mitigation and Federal Power Act section 4(e) conditions.

This review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR Part 215 of the Secretary of Agriculture’s Appeal Regulations.  In accordance with 36 CFR 215.16, an informal disposition meeting was held on September 27, 2002, in Porterville, California.  There was no resolution to the issues at the informal disposition meeting concerning Conditions 1 through 3, 7, 11 through 28.  However, the Forest reached agreement with you on changes that you proposed to Condition 29.

In accordance with 36 CFR 215.19, the Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) has reviewed the appeal and written a recommendation on the disposition of the appeal.  As support to this response, I hereby adopt the enclosed ARO’s October 17, 2002, recommendations.

Based upon my review of the appeal, the arguments presented in your appeal, the ARO’s recommendation, the RF’s decision is affirmed with the exception of Condition No. 1.  I am remanding Condition No. 1 of the RF’s decision for further consideration.  I am advising the RF to identify the need for Condition No. 1 and any evidence in the record supporting the need for this condition.  It appears that Condition No. 2 may be sufficient to address changes to the project.  If so, I recommend deletion of Condition No. 1.

 

Further, no additional evidence or data have been provided to indicate that the process used by the Forest Service, including the NEPA process, was legally flawed.  Accordingly, I find that all issues raised in your appeal were adequately addressed in FERC’s Final EA and/or the DN or FONSI.  I also find the decision to be consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Service policies relevant to relicensing of hydroelectric projects.

 

 

 

 

Nino J. Mascolo, Senior Attorney                                                                                                2

 

My decision on this appeal constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture (36 CFR 215.18).

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Gloria Manning

 

GLORIA MANNING

Appeal Deciding Officer

 

Enclosure

 

cc: 

Regional Forester, R-5

Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FERC, 888 First St., N.E., Washington, DC 20426 (8 copies)

 

Dpaul/R5 (FERC Coordinator)

Bdiebel/r5 (Hydro Coordinator)

Btimberlake/wo (NFS Appeals Coordinator)

Mjanopaul/wo (WO FERC Team Leader)

Bbibb/wo (Appeal/Litigation Coordinator)

 

                                                   Caring for the Land and Serving People