of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713. [¶ 62,019] Koppers Industries, Inc., Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities Qualifying Status, Docket No. QF85-718-004 Order Granting Application for Recertification as a Qualifying Small Power Production Facility (Issued January 16, 1991) Donald J. Gelinas, Director, Division of Applications. On December 4, 1990, Koppers Industries, Inc. (Applicant), of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed an application with the Commission for recertification of a facility as a qualifying small power production facility pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations. The instant recertification is requested due to an increase in the net electric power production capacity from 8.85 MW to 11 MW. Notice of the application was published in the Federal Register with comments, protests or interventions due on or before January 14, 1991.2 No comments, protests or motions to intervene have been filed. It is found that: Based on the information provided by the Applicant, the facility continues to meet the maximum size criteria established in section 292.204(a) of the Commission's regulations regarding qualification as a small power production facility. It is ordered: The application for recertification of qualifying status filed on December 4, 1990, by the Applicant, pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations and section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, is hereby granted provided that the facility is owned and operated in the manner described in the application.3 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Division of Applications, pursuant to section 375.308 of the Commission's regulations. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713. [¶ 62,020] Yuba City Cogeneration Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership, Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities - Qualifying Status, Docket No. QF90-151-001 Order Granting Application for Certification as a Qualifying Cogeneration Facility (Issued January 16, 1991) Donald J. Gelinas, Director, Division of Applications. On November 5, 1990, Yuba City Cogeneration Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership (Applicant), of Sacramento, California, 1 The original certification was issued on November 20, 1985 (33 FERC ¶ 62,218 (1985)). A recertification was issued on October 1, 1987 (41 FERC 162,007 (1987)). 2 55 Fed. Reg. 52,299 (1990). 3 Certification as a qualifying facility serves only to establish eligibility for benefits provided by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as filed an application with the Commission for certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to section implemented by the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 292. It does not relieve a facility of any other requirements of local, state or federal law, including those regarding siting, construction, operation, licensing and pollution abatement. Certification does not establish any property rights, resolve competing claims for a site, or authorize construction. 292.207 of the Commission's regulations. The The facility will be located in Yuba City, Based on information provided by the Applicant, the facility satisfies the operating and efficiency standards established in section 292.205 of the Commission's regulations. Applicant states that no electric utility, electric utility holding company or any combination thereof has any ownership interest in the facility. The facility thus satisfies the ownership criteria set forth in section 292.206 of the Commission's regulations. It is found that: The topping-cycle cogeneration facility, as described in the application submitted by the Applicant, meets the requirements established in section 292.203(b) of the Commission's regulations regarding qualification as a cogeneration facility. It is ordered: The application for certification of qualifying status filed on November 5, 1990, and completed on December 17, 1990, by the Applicant, pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations and section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, is hereby granted provided that the facility is owned and operated in the manner described in the application.2 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Division of Applications, pursuant to section 375.308 of the Commission's regulations. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713. [¶ 62,021] Duke Power Company, Project No. 2232-254 - North Carolina Order Approving Nonproject Use of Project Lands (Issued January 16, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On December 10, 1990, Duke Power Company, licensee for the Catawba-Wateree Project, filed for approval to lease project lands to Mr. William McKinnell III. The licensee is requesting the approval in order to grant afterthe-fact approval for an earthfill encroachment of approximately 0.39 acre constructed before 1976. The licensee included in the filing letters of consultation with appropriate local, state, and federal agencies. No objections to granting the proposal were stated. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 155 Fed. Reg. 49,680 (1990). 2 Certification as a qualifying facility serves only to establish eligibility for benefits provided by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as implemented by the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 292. It does not relieve a facility of any noted that such earthfills are illegal and are detrimental to fish habitat. Because of the after-the-fact nature of the earthfill activity, the NCWRC did not recommend mitigative measures. Copies of the instrument of conveyance have been included which contain the necessary covenants required by the Commission. Removal of the earthfill at this time would cause greater environmental disruption than is posed by allowing it to remain in place. To prevent further disturbance of the area, the lease proposal should be granted. other requirements of local, state or federal law, including those regarding siting, construction, operation, licensing and pollution abatement. Certification does not establish any property rights, resolve competing claims for a site, or authorize construction. The Director orders: (A) The licensee's filing of December 10, 1990, for approval of a lease of project lands to William McKinnell III, is approved. (B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commis sion may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,022] Great Northern Paper Company, Project No. 2520-008 - Maine Order Approving Article 403 Filing (Issued January 16, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On October 1, 1990, Great Northern Paper Company (licensee) filed drawings and plans pursuant to article 403 of license for the Mattaceunk Project. Article 403 requires the licensee to submit functional design drawings and a schedule for installation, operation, and maintenance of upstream fish passage facilities for Atlantic salmon. Article 403 also requires the submittal of a monitoring plan and schedule for evaluating the effectiveness of the passage facilities. Prior to receiving a new license for the Mattaceunk Project on September 30, 1988, the licensee had completed most of the requirements of article 403. Thus, after issuance of the new license, the licensee appealed the Commission's licensing order. The licensee requested that the Commission clarify the intent of article 403 with respect to previous agreements that the licensee had reached with the consulted resource agencies. On February 9, 1990, the Commission issued an order that stated that the intent of article 403 was not to require additional modifications to the existing fishway, if with the modifications proposed to date, the fishway is found to be suitable by all parties to provide efficient passage of Atlantic salmon. Further, the Commission stated that nothing in article 403 supports an interpretation that a prior agreement would be superseded by the article's requirement for modifications to fish passage facilities. The licensee has completed modifications to the fish passage facility and evaluated its effi ciency, as evidenced by as-built drawings and resource agency letters. The Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, by letter dated March 18, 1988, stated that it concurred with the licensee that the fish passage facility and passage efficiency is suitable for Atlantic salmon, but requested that counts of salmon usage for 1988 and 1989 be completed. The licensee states that it has filed the results of such monitoring with the agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by letter dated May 7, 1987, also concurs that the licensee's fish passage facility's configuration, attraction water supply, and overall passage efficiency are suitable for Atlantic salmon. The licensee's October 1, 1990 filing complies with the requirements of article 403 of the license for the Mattaceunk Project and should be approved. The Director orders: (A) The drawings and plans filed on October 1, 1990, by Great Northern Paper Company, pursuant to article 403 of license for the Mattaceunk Project, are approved. (B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,023] Ptarmigan Resources & Energy, Inc., Project No. 3174-012-Colorado Order on Fish Monitoring Study (Issued January 16, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On November 28, 1990, Ptarmigan Resources & Energy, Inc. (licensee) filed the results of a fish monitoring study, pursuant to Ordering Paragraph B of the order issued April 23, 1987 [39 FERC ¶ 62,083], for the license of the Vallecito Hydroelectric Project. Ordering Paragraph B of that order required the licensee to file the results of the fish monitoring study along with the comments of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). If the results of the study indicate significant project effects on fish resources, then the licensee was required to submit a schedule for installing the fish bypass facility required by article 402 of the project license. The licensee conducted 26 monitoring sessions between December 1987 and July 1990 in the outlet channel using a sock-shaped net. No fish were caught during 17 of the monitoring sessions; however, 42 kokanee salmon and 1 pike were caught in the remaining 9 sessions. Because the kokanee salmon fishery in Vallecito Reservoir is regarded as "put and take", the licensee evaluated project effects on the fish resources of the reservoir on an economic rather than ecological basis. Therefore, the licensee, CDW, and FWS agreed that if the annual monetary value of the catch exceeded $9,400, this would indicate significant fish escapement from the reservoir. The monetary value of the catch was based on the amount and size of fish caught multiplied by their respective value as determined by the monetary values of freshwater fish established by the American Fisheries Society. The licensee calculated that the 43 fish caught by the net represented an annual fish passage of only $269.23. The licensee concluded that, because there is relatively little fish passage through the outlet channel, they would not proceed with a proposed turbine mortality study, and did not file a schedule for installation of a fish bypass facility. The CDW and the FWS, in letters dated November 6 and November 21, 1990, respectively, concurred with the licensee's conclusion that fish escapement through the outlet tunnels is minimal. The annual fish escapement monetary value calculated by the licensee was well below the value identified as indicating significant project effects on fish escapement from the reservoir. Therefore, based on the available information, it appears that a fish bypass facility, as required by article 402, would not be necessary at this time. However, it should be noted that, if new information concerning project effects on fish resources becomes available, the Commission has reserved the authority to require additional measures as necessary to protect fish resources, pursuant to article 15 of the project license. The Director orders: (A) The November 28, 1990 filing fulfills the requirements of article 402. (B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,024] Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, Project No. 2727-020 - Maine Order Revising Minimum Flow Study Plan (Issued January 16, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On September 4, 1990, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (licensee) filed the results of a minimum flow study pursuant to article 404 of the license for the Ellsworth Hydroelectric Project. Article 404 requires that the licensee develop a plan and schedule to determine the effectiveness of minimum flow releases required by license article 401. Depending on the results of the study, the licensee could be required to provide recommendations for changes in project operations to protect the fish resources below the project. The study plan was approved by order dated August 8, 1990 [52 FERC ¶ 62,110], and con¶ 62,024 sisted of monitoring the effects of the 250-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) flow required below Ellsworth Dam on alewife, in relation to dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, temperature, and tidal stage. In that order, the Commission reserved the right to require the licensee to schedule further monitoring, if necessary, after review of results. The 1990 study results indicate that DO concentrations were not significantly reduced under the conditions of the study. In commenting on the results, the Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission (letter dated August 29, 1990) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (letter dated September 5, 1990) stated that the goal of the study, to monitor "worst case" conditions, was not met. It appears that the alewife run was nearly half of the previous fiveyear average and that no sampling took place during the period of greatest alewife concentration below the project. The agencies recommended that the study be repeated in future years, when the anadromous fish runs are high. The licensee, in response to the agency comments, proposes to further monitor the alewife run. When the annual run reaches numbers equal to the five-year average of 675,000, based on the daily trap catch, the licensee would repeat the study. The licensee should be required to repeat the study when "worst case" conditions exist, i.e. when high temperature and large numbers of alewives are present coincidentally below Ellsworth Dam. Until the study is completed under these conditions, it is not possible to ascertain the adequacy of the 250-cfs minimum flow. The Director orders: (A) The plan to study the adequacy of the 250-cubic-feet-per-second minimum flow downstream of the Ellsworth Hydroelectric Project, approved by order issued August 8, 1990, is revised to require the licensee to schedule additional monitoring during those May-June periods when the alewife run equals or exceeds 675,000. Further, the licensee shall, upon completion of monitoring under conditions required above, file the results of the study with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, the Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and the Commission. The licensee shall also file for Commission approval any recommendations for changes in project operations needed to protect anadromous fishery resources in the Union River, a schedule for implementing any recommendations, and the comments of the agencies on the recommendations. The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to continue the study or to require changes to the measures. (B) The licensee shall file with the Commission, by September 1 of each year, a summary of Union River alewife trapping records. (C) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,025] Sayles Hydro Associates, Project No. 3195-038 - California (Issued January 16, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On May 29, 1990, Sayles Hydro Associates (licensee) filed a Streamflow Gaging Draft Monitoring Plan as required by article 446 of the license for Sayles Flat Project, FERC Project No. 3195. On November 26, 1990, Sayles Hydro Associates (licensee) filed a supplement to the plan, defining the location of the streamflow gage. Article 446 requires that the licensee, after consulting with the Forest Service (FS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB), and the U.S. Geological Survey (GS), develop a plan to install continuously recording stream gages to monitor the minimum flow releases required by article 445. The plan consists of a summary of the basic configuration and location of the streamflow gage agreed upon at the August 20, 1990, meeting by representatives from the GS, the CWRCB, and the licensee's consultant, Thomas Payne and Associates. The licensee consulted with the CDFG, the CWRCB, the FS, the City of Sacramento (SAC), and the FWS in a letter dated October 12, 1990, on the proposed plan. The GS, the FS, and the CWRCB agreed to the plan in their comments submitted with the November 26, 1990 filing. The CDFG, the FWS, and the SAC did not comment on the plan. The proposed streamflow gage monitoring plan would adequately monitor the minimum flow releases required by article 445. The plan does not include a streamflow gage installation date nor provisions for reporting violations of the required flow to the Commission. The gage should be installed and functioning properly before operation of the plan commences. The licensee should notify the Commission within 30 days from the date data become available to the licensee indicating a violation of the license. |