[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38953-38954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14184]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2031-046]


Springville City, Utah; Summary of Teleconference

May 31, 2002.
    a. Date and time of Teleconference: Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:00 PM 
EDT.

[[Page 38954]]

    b. FERC Contact: Jim Haimes, project coordinator, at 202-219-2780 
or at [email protected].
    c. Participants: Representatives of the Office of Energy Projects 
(OEP) who included Edward Abrams, Sean Murphy, Charlene Scott, and Jim 
Haimes; Matthew Cassel and Jaime Tsandes of Psomas, environmental 
consultant for the City of Springville, Utah, licensee; and John Logan 
and Garish Willis, representatives of the Forest Service (FS).
    d. Agenda: (1) Introduction; (2) Introduction of Participants; (3) 
Discussion of Issuance of the Commission's Environmental Assessment 
(EA) for the relicensing of the Bartholomew Hydroelectric Project 
(project); (4) Commission Staff's EA Recommendation to Eliminate 
Preliminary 4(e) Conditions 17, 20, and 21 Submitted by the FS; (4) 
Scheduling of Final 4(e) Conditions; and (5) Follow-up Actions.
    e. Discussion: (1) FS representatives expressed concern that the 
Commission's EA issued on May 13, 2002, for the relicensing of the 
project was not a draft EA but rather a final EA. Prior to issuance of 
this document, the FS expected to have considerably more time than 45 
days, the public comment period indicated in the EA, to complete its 
NEPA and administrative responsibilities necessitated to formulate and 
obtain a Finding Of No Significant Impact conclusion for its list of 
final 4(e) conditions.
    OEP representatives explained that the Commission's policy 
regarding EAs has changed; whenever a project relicensing involves 
minimal conflicts and disputes, Commission staff will issue only one EA 
rather than draft and final documents. In fact, footnote 5 of the 
Scoping Document (SD) issued on March 30, 2001, for the subject 
relicensing indicated as follows:
    If there are relatively few comments and recommendations filed in 
response to this scoping document and our public notice indicating that 
the subject application is ready for environmental analysis, staff will 
consolidate the environmental review process by excluding the Draft EA 
and issuing an EA that provides 45 days for public comment. Any 
comments filed on the EA would then be considered in the Commission 
order approving or denying a new license for the Bartholomew Project.
    (2) Staff's EA concluded that the FS did not provide adequate 
support for its:
    (1) Condition 17, requiring the City to install continuous 
recording flow gages and a bypass system at each of its spring 
collection boxes on FS land; (2) Condition 20, requiring the City to 
develop a plan to protect federally listed and sensitive plant and 
wildlife species on FS lands; and (3) Condition 21, requiring the City 
to develop an avian collision and electrocution hazards plan. 
Therefore, staff recommends in the EA that the FS exclude these 
conditions from its list of final 4(e) conditions.
    After discussing each of the aforementioned items, the following 
conclusions and decisions were reached.
    (i) Because of a misunderstanding regarding data on flows that are 
available for diversion to the Upper Bartholomew Powerhouse, the FS 
originally concluded that the licensee was diverting more than the 10 
cubic feet per second (cfs) permitted by the City's existing water 
rights. The FS now understands that diverted flows do not exceed 10 
cfs; therefore, its Condition 17 probably is not needed.
    (ii) The FS does not want the licensee to conduct further studies 
and analysis now regarding the impacts of project operation and 
maintenance on existing federally listed and FS sensitive species that 
may be located on project lands within the Uinta National Forest. 
Instead, the FS wants the Commission to retain the authority to require 
the licensee to conduct future surveys and analysis for any newly 
listed or additional FS sensitive species that potentially could be 
located near project facilities on FS land. Therefore, the FS intends 
to modify its Condition 20 accordingly.
    (iii) Commission staff concludes that, because all portions of 
project-related electric lines on FS lands are underground, there is 
inadequate support to include Condition 21, which would require the 
licensee to develop a plan to protect avians against electrocution and 
collision with the project's power lines. FS representatives agreed 
that existing data provided by the licensee indicate that all project-
related power lines on FS lands do not pose a hazard to avians.
    Nevertheless, FS representatives still are of the opinion that 
small portions of existing non-project, above ground electric lines 
operated by the City may cross FS lands. Based on available 
information, the FS representatives agreed to eliminate Condition 21 
from the list of 4(e) conditions. However, they retain the right to 
require the licensee to conduct additional surveys pursuant to the new 
FS Special Use Permit to be issued for the project.
    f. Follow-up Actions: Psomas will supply the FS with a detailed 
analysis of the capacity of Springville City's water collection system, 
which would allow the FS to drop its gaging request. FS representatives 
stated that they would like to revise this condition to require the 
City to continue to operate and maintain wildlife watering troughs in 
the upper portions of the project. Sean Murphy, the OEP biologist 
assigned to the subject project, will assist John Logan of the FS in 
drafting appropriate revised language for FS Condition 20.
    The meeting participants agreed that the currently required FS 
conditions would be less costly and more effective if the revisions 
agreed upon at the teleconference were included in the list of final 
conditions filed by the FS. FS representatives expressed concern that, 
under its current policy, the Commission could issue an order providing 
the City with a new license for the project before the FS provides its 
list of final 4(e) conditions. OEP representatives discussed the 
possibility of the FS providing its final 4(e) conditions in an 
expeditious manner; FS representatives, however, responded that the FS 
would be unable to provide its final conditions before September 19, 
2002.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-14184 Filed 6-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P