agency action. Request for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days from the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,129] Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Docket No. CP91-601-000 Order Approving Abandonment (Issued February 26, 1991) Kevin P. Madden, Director, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation. On December 7, 1990, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) filed in Docket No. CP91-601-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon the sale of natural gas to West Texas Gas, Inc. (West Texas), all as more fully set forth in the application. By order issued September 30, 1985, in Docket No. CP85-381-000 et al., 32 FERC 61,481, CIG was authorized, among other things, to sell up to 500 Mcf of natural gas daily and 65,000 Mcf annually to West Texas, under Rate Schedules SG-1 and EX-1. Pursuant to such authorization CIG made deliveries, ranging from individual maximum daily volume obligations of 50 Mcf to 500 Mcf, at seven locations in Moore County, Texas, and at five locations in Sherman County, Texas, at farm taps primarily to serve the fuel needs of agricultural irrigation pumps. CIG states that West Texas has indicated that it no longer desires to purchase and has not purchased any gas from CIG since the termination of the service agreement on September 30, 1990. CIG states further that it is providing transportation for gas purchased by West Texas from alternative gas suppliers utilizing the sales delivery locations as transportation delivery points under transportation service agreements with various shippers now selling natural gas to West Texas. As a result, gas service to West Texas' ultimate consumers has not been terminated or interrupted with CIG's termination of sales to West Texas. No facilities are proposed to be abandoned herein. CIG requests retroactive abandonment authorization to coincide with the September 30, 1990 contract termination date. Retroactive authorization will be denied because CIG has not advanced any reason therefor. Approval of the abandonment would not be a major federal action having a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Since the sale of natural gas is in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the abandonment thereof is subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on December 24, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 52,876) K N Energy, Inc. filed a timely motion to intervene.1 No further motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or protests to the granting of the application have been filed. At a hearing held on February 22, 1991, there was received and made a part of the record in this proceeding all evidence, including the application and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorization sought herein. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 (A) Permission for and approval of the abandonment by CIG of the sales of natural gas, hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the application, are granted, effective the date of this order, conditioned upon CIG's compliance with Part 154 of the Commission's regulations. (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. section 385.713. [¶ 62,130] South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District, and East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Project No. 2937-008- Washington Order Amending License and Revising Annual Charges 'Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation of Rule 214. (Issued February 28, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On December 18, 1990, an order amending the license and revising annual charges for Project No. 2937 was issued. Subsequently, by letter dated January 24, 1991, the licensee informed staff that it had made an administrative error when reporting the project's installed nameplate capacity to be 9,400 kW and that the project's actual installed nameplate capacity is 9,367 kW. Therefore, this order amends the license and revises the annual charges to show the correct installed nameplate capacity. The Director orders: (A) Ordering Paragraph (B) of the license for the Quincy Chute Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2937, is revised to show the authorized nameplate capacity to be 9,367 kW. (B) Article 40 is amended effective August 1, 1982, to read as follows: "For the purpose of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the Act, a reasonable amount, as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission's regulations in effect from time to time. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 12,489 horsepower." (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. [¶ 62,131] Georgia Power Company, Project No. 2237-004 - Georgia (Issued February 28, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On January 19, 1991, Georgia Power Company filed an as-built revised exhibit L drawing for the Morgan Falls Dam, FERC Project No. 2237. The revised exhibit L drawing shows the removal of the center line bridge support beam. the approved exhibit L drawing reproduced on silver or gelatin 35-mm microfilm mounted on Type D (3 1/4" x 7 3/8") aperture cards for each drawing. In addition, the licensee shall file two Diazo-type duplicate sets of aperture cards. The original set and one duplicate set of aperture cards should be filed with the Secretary of the Commission's Atlanta Regional Office. The FERC drawing number (2237-13) shall be shown in the margin below the title block of the microfilmed drawing and also in the upper right corner of each aperture card. The top line of aperture card shall show the FERC exhibit (i.e., F-1, G-1, L-1), Project Number, Drawing Title, and date of this order. (D) 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. [¶ 62,132] Idaho Power Company, Project No. 1971-027 - Idaho Order Granting and Modifying a Request to Temporarily Waive Reservoir Elevation Requirements (Issued February 27, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. Idaho Power Company (licensee) filed on February 5, 1990, and amended on February 21, 1990, a request for temporary waiver of the requirements of article 42(b) of the license issued August 4, 1955. This article requires the licensee to reduce the elevation of Brownlee Reservoir to 2034 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) by March 1 of each year. This measure ensures Brownlee Reservoir has sufficient storage for flood control purposes. The licensee seeks the waiver from February 28, 1991 through February 27, 1992. Based on predicted weather and runoff forecasts, the licensee requests authority to maintain Brownlee Reservoir at 2062.1 feet m.s.l. In a letter dated February 13, 1991, the North Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers (Corps) concurred with the licensee's request. The Corps states that, since the forecasted inflow to Brownlee Reservoir is expected to be 61% below normal, the Corps will need only 40% of the 500,000 acre-feet of storage provided when the reservoir is at 2034 feet m.s.l. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife also concur with the licensee's request. The licensee's request should be approved since it would benefit project purposes without adversely affecting environmental resources or the Corps' Snake River flood control capabilities. If emergencies beyond the licensee's control occur, or if the Corps determines the need to increase Brownlee Reservoir's storage capacity to 500,000 acre-feet, the licensee should immediately institute procedures to ensure compliance with article 42(b). The Director orders: (A) The licensee's request to temporarily waive the requirements of article 42(b) from February 28, 1991 through February 27, 1992, as modified în Ordering Paragraph (B), is granted. (B) If emergencies beyond the licensee's control occur, or if the Corps determines the need to increase Brownlee Reservoir's storage capacity to 500,000 acre-feet, the licensee shall immediately institute procedures to ensure compliance with article 42(b). (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. [¶ 62,133] Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company, Docket No. CP88-541-000 (Issued February 28, 1991) Kevin P. Madden, Director, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation. By order issued June 5, 1990, 51 FERC ¶ 62,206, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company (Great Lakes) was authorized to construct and operate facilities to provide transportation service for Southeastern Michigan Gas Company (Southeastern). To provide the transportation service, Great Lakes, among other things, proposed construction of a meter station at Muttonville, Michigan. By letter filed January 7, 1991, Great Lakes requested authority to relocate the Muttonville Meter Station approximately 0.4 mile downstream on its existing pipeline, which would necessitate the construction of approximately 0.3 miles of 8-inch-diameter nonjurisdictional pipeline. Based on information filed with the Commission on September 12, 1990, it has been determined that construction of the relocated Muttonville Meter Station, and the related nonjurisdictional facilities, would not significantly affect the human environment. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, the authorization issued June 5, 1990, is amended to permit Great Lakes to relocate the Muttonville Meter Station. [¶ 62,134] French Paper Company, Project No. 10624-000 - Michigan Order Issuing License (Constructed Minor Project) (Issued February 28, 1991) Fred E. Springer, Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing. French Paper Company filed a license application under Part I of the Federal Power Act (Act) for continued operation and maintenance of the existing French Paper Project located on the St. Joseph River in Berrien, County, Michigan. The St. Joseph River is a navigable waterway of the United States,' and the project was found jurisdictional under Docket No. UL-87-4. Notice of the application has been published. The comments filed by agencies and individuals have been fully considered in determining whether to issue this license. The Michigan Commission of Natural Resources (MCNR) filed a motion to intervene in order to be a party to this proceeding. The MCNR's concerns relate to the project's effects on environmental resources and are addressed below and in the attached environmental assessment (EA). License Term/Back Annual Charges This project should have been licensed in 1938, the year in which the Commission determined the reach of the St. Joseph River on which the project is located to be a navigable waterway. For projects involving no substantial new construction the Commission's practice is to issue licenses that expire 30 years from issuance. Therefore, because this project should have been previously licensed and for the purposes of assessing annual charges, this license will be backdated 20 years and will expire February 28, 2021, approximately 30 years from the issuance date of this order. Annual charges will be assessed from the license effective date. Moreover, in order to place this licensee in the same position as it would have been had the project been licensed in 1938, the licensee will be required to pay an amount equivalent to the annual charges that would have been due for the period between January 1, 1938, and the effective date. Comprehensive Development Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the Act require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is or is proposed to be located. When we review a proposed project, the environment, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other nondevelopmental values of the involved waterway are considered equally with power and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, a hydropower license should 1 See 3 A.R. 86 (1923). be issued, we must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision. No reasonable action alternative to the proposed action has been identified for assessment. Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed project and the no-action alternative documented in the EA, we have selected the proposed project, with additional mitigative and enhancement measures as the preferred option. We have selected this alternative because: (1) with mitigation, the environmental effects of continued project operation are minor; and (2) the benefits of continued operation of the project are much more preferable to the negative effects that would result from the no-action alternative of deactivating an existing hydroelectric facility. In making this decision, we considered the relative importance of the environmental resources at the project and in the St. Joseph River, mitigative measures needed to protect and enhance these environmental resources, benefits of the project versus the no-action alternative, and consistency of the proposed project with applicable comprehensive plans. The EA evaluates the effects of continued project operation on the environmental resources of the project area and provides a discussion of mitigative measures that would protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance these environmental resources. These measures were developed after careful consideration of site-specific studies conducted by French Paper, the results of other studies conducted on the St. Joseph River, research on the environmental effects of hydropower development, and agency comments and recommendations on the proposed project. The mitigative and enhancement measures that we believe, would fully protect the environmental resources include: (1) measures to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity from construction of the recreation facilities; (2) run-of-river project operation to minimize upstream water level fluctuations and to protect fish and wildlife habitat in the impoundment; (3) measures to verify run-of-river operation; (4) measures to enhance the effectiveness of upstream fish passage facilities; (5) measures to facilitate downstream fish passage; (6) measures to protect water quality in the project area; (7) measures to protect cultural resources; and (8) construction of recreation facilities and public access to enhance fishing and boating opportunities in the project area. The above measures have been agreed to by the applicant. The mitigation for downstream fish passage, which would require up to ten 12-hour shutdowns of power generation per year (equivalent to 5 days shutdown), would cause a loss of 150,000 kWh/year of project energy. This loss would represent a small portion of the total energy generation and would not be significant. We have determined that, the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project as licensed here would be minor short-term increases in erosion and sedimentation and minor disturbance and displacement of wildlife species on approximate 0.5 acre in the project area caused by construction of recreation facilities. In addition, until upstream fish passage facilities are completed and operational, and until provisions for downstream fish passage are implemented, the project would prevent upstream fish passage of fishes and reduce the potential for safe downstream fish passage at the French Paper Company Project. Some small percentage of anadromous fishes may still be lost to entrainment within the project facilities, even with the required downstream fish passage provision. We have determined there would be several benefits of the project operation as licensed here as compared to the impacts of the noaction alternative. First, the project's annual power generation would increase from 5,000,000 kWh to 10,850,000 kWh.2 This 10,850,000 kWh of relatively low-cost energy would be generated annually using clean, domestic, reliable, and renewable energy. However, if a license were denied, in which event the project would have to be deactivated, the equivalent to the pro 2 French Paper reports that the current estimated average annual plant output is 5,000,000 kWh. Taking into account its planned upgrading of the project generating equipment, and also taking into account the proposed constant flow release of 120 cfs for operation of the proposed fish ladder, French Paper estimates the annual generation would increase to 11,000,000 kWh. Ours and the fishery agencyrecommended mitigation for downstream fish passage, which would require up to ten 12-hour shutdowns of power generation per year (equivalent to 5 days shutdown), would cause a further, insignificant loss of 150,000 kWh/year of project energy. Consider¶ 62,134 ject's power generation would need to be produced by the consumption of about 18,297 barrels of oil or about 4,528 tons of coal annually in fossil-fueled, electric-generating plants. The production of power from a coal plant equivalent to that produced by French Paper's generators would release, into the atmosphere, about 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide, 20.9 tons of nitrous oxides, 2.1 tons of carbon monoxide, and 12,662 tons of carbon dioxide annually. Sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide are considered significant contributors to the production of acid rain, and carbon dioxide is considered to be a significant contributor to global warming. Additional public benefits would result from our requirement to construct fishing and boating facilities. On-going improvements to fish passage in the St. Joseph River are expected to bring about a popular sport fishery resource and increase the potential for water-based recreation in the region. Our requirement that French Paper provide canoe portage and boating access facilities would increase opportunities for the public to use this resource. In addition, the fishery resource and associated fishing opportunities would benefit from our mitigative measures (i.e. measures to enhance upstream and downstream fish passage) to protect fish resources at the project. Section 10(a)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Under section 10(a)(2), federal and state agencies filed 47 comprehensive plans that address various resources in Michigan. Of these, the staff identified and reviewed 3 plans relevant to this project.3 No conflicts were found. |