[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32041-32042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15126]



[[Page 32041]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Record of Decision for the Interconnection of the Sutter Power 
Project With the Western Area Power Administration's Keswick-Elverta/
Olinda-Elverta 230-Kilovolt Double-Circuit Transmission Line

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) prepared this 
Record of Decision in response to a request submitted to Western for a 
direct interconnection of Calpine Corporation's (Calpine) proposed 
Sutter Power Project (SPP) with Western's electric transmission system. 
In response to this request, Western completed an Interconnection 
Feasibility Study that determined that Western would need to build 
certain direct interconnection facilities, and make modifications of 
associated facilities and operational adjustments to its transmission 
system to accommodate the SPP generation. Western has decided to move 
forward on an Interconnection Agreement with Calpine for the SPP 
including agreements for making the necessary modifications to 
Western's transmission system. Western has determined that no 
significant environmental impacts will result from the construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the SPP or its ancillary facilities. 
These facilities include a natural gas pipeline, a new switching 
station, and approximately 4 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) 
transmission line. This transmission line will act as a generation tie 
line. Western prepared this Record of Decision in accordance with the 
Council Envrionmental Quality regulations for implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and 
Department of Energy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 
1021).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loreen McMahon, Environmental 
Project Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area 
Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, 
telephone (916) 353-4460, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is the lead federal agency under 
NEPA for the SPP. The California Energy Commission (CEC), a regulatory 
agency of the State of California, has the statutory authority to 
license thermal powerplants of 50 megawatts (MW) or more and is the 
State lead agency for the SPP. CEC prepares environmental documentation 
equivalent to the California Environmental Quality Act. Western and CEC 
determined that joining the two processes would provide many benefits 
to the public. The CEC and Western released a joint Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS)/Final Staff Assessment (FSA) in October 1998, 
and subsequently held joint hearings on that document in November and 
December 1998. Following the release of Western's Draft EIS, Western 
determined that the next document in the CEC process, the Presiding 
Member's Proposed Decision (PMPD), would be an inappropriate vehicle 
for Western to present responses to comments on the Draft EIS. Western 
was concerned that this may appear that Western had predetermined the 
outcome of the review process. Therefore, Western prepared its own 
Final EIS, with input from the CEC.
    Western released the Final EIS in April 1999 (DOE/EIS-0294). 
Western identified Calpine's proposal as the preferred alternative. 
Calpine proposes to construct the SPP in Sutter County, California, on 
a portion of a 77-acre parcel of land owned by Calpine. The SPP project 
would consist of a nominal 500 MW net electrical output natural gas-
fired, combined cycle generating facility. The powerplant and Western's 
Keswick-Elverta and Olinda-Elverta double-circuit 230-kV transmission 
lines would be interconnected by a generation tie line consisting of 
approximately 4 miles of 230-kV transmission line and a 230-kV 
switching station at some point south and west of the plant. This 
generation tie line would be constructed as a double circuit 
transmission line, but initially operated as a single circuit. A new 
12-mile natural gas pipeline would be constructed to provide fuel for 
the project. SPP would be a ``merchant plant'', selling power on a 
short-term and midterm basis to customers, and on the spot market. 
Calpine will assume all economic costs. Power produced by this plant 
would be sold at the market price and made available to all market 
participants.

Description of Alternatives

    During the environmental analysis, the CEC siting process developed 
11 siting alternatives to the proposed location. Seven locations were 
dismissed as infeasible alternatives using selective factors included 
zoning issues, economic factors (whether it appeared feasible that 
Calpine could acquire the alternative site), and other environmental 
factors. The four remaining alternate sites were compared to the 
unmitigated impacts of the proposed SPP location. The potential impacts 
to each sensitive issue (water, air, natural resources, cultural 
resources, visual, noise, etc.) were analyzed and discussed in some 
detail in the Draft EIS/FSA.
    System alternatives were also proposed and developed as mitigative 
measures to the original proposal. The greatest potential for 
significant impacts in the original proposal was to water resources and 
associated biological impacts to aquatic dependent species. The project 
was originally planned to draw an average of 3,000 gallons of water per 
hour, cycle it 2.5 times through the plant for cooling and steam 
generation, then discharge the effluent into the surface drainage 
system currently used for agricultural irrigation runoff which drains 
into the Sutter Bypass. This discharge had the potential to have an 
adverse biological effect to species that use the Sutter National 
Wildlife Refuge. In response, Calpine agreed to design the plant with a 
100 percent dry cooling system. This alternative would reduce water 
usage by 95 percent and discharge no water to the surface drainage 
system. This would alleviate the impacts of the plant on aquatic 
resources and on sensitive species.
    A second system alternative was proposed to mitigate air pollution 
associated with the plant. Under the original alternative, the SPP 
would have an increased impact on ozone precursors including nitrous 
oxide (NOX) and airborne particulate matter 
(PM10). Sutter County is currently in a non-attainment area 
for PM10. Calpine proposed a series of mitigative measures 
to satisfy the concerns of the CEC, the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board, and the Feather River 
Air Quality Management District. These included measures such as the 
dry cooling design that reduces the production of PM10 by 
plant operations to near zero. Calpine also has agreed to adhere to 
stringent EPA control technology recommendations for ozone precursors 
(including NOX), and has developed a strategy to utilize 
emission offsets (Emission Reduction Credits) to fully mitigate the 
remaining releases of pollutants.
    The Draft EIS/FSA identified one issue as having a significant 
adverse impact that could not be mitigated. Based upon the analysis of 
the CEC staff, it was believed that the plant site and the transmission 
lines would have an adverse impact on the visual

[[Page 32042]]

resources of the project area. The analysis concluded the impact to a 
very few individuals at one particular location were great enough to 
raise the level of the visual impacts to significant. However, the CEC 
concluded in its PMPD that the Draft EIS/FSA analysis did not take into 
account the larger viewshed of the area and determined that the visual 
impacts were, therefore, not significant. Western agrees with this 
conclusion.
    A final issue concerned the impacts to existing wetlands at the 
proposed site location. Region IX of the EPA expressed concerns over 
the wetland impacts of the project proposal. These wetlands are within 
the original 77-acre parcel owned by Calpine. This parcel had been a 
seasonally flooded rice field when the existing Greenleaf I plant was 
constructed in 1985, but the portion of the parcel not built upon had 
been left fallow. The SPP will fill 5.83 acres of these former rice 
fields. The EPA pointed out that there was an alternative presented in 
the Draft EIS/FSA that would avoid impacts to all wetlands. However, 
that alternative was considered infeasible because Sutter County would 
not likely permit a conversion of currently cultivated agricultural 
land to industrial use, the landowners stated their strong opposition 
to selling to Calpine for any reason, and this location had the 
likelihood of impacting the nearby Sutter National Wildlife Refuge.
    Western has determined that the proposed action, with the system 
alternatives discussed above, is the environmentally preferable 
alternative. This alternative, with the mitigative measures outlined 
below, will not have a significant effect on any portion of the human 
environment.

Mitigation Measures

    Western and the CEC have detailed 165 different Conditions of 
Certification, or mitigative measures, to reduce the impacts of the 
SPP. Not all of these conditions are included to reduce significant 
environmental impacts, some are merely intended to apply to the SPP as 
standard operating procedures. These conditions of certification are 
part of the standard certification process of the CEC. However, the 
following presents an overview of the mitigative measures that Calpine 
will adopt to reduce the environmental impacts of the SPP.
    In terms of impacts to air resources, 44 separate conditions will 
apply to the construction and operation of the SPP. The plant itself 
will use the air-cooling alternative. Calpine must take a number of 
measures to reduce or avoid fugitive dust emissions during the 
construction phase of the project, such as paving roads, wetting open 
excavations, washing vehicles, and others. Calpine must obtain Emission 
Reduction Credits greater than 100 percent of the plant's emissions for 
all criteria pollutants. Other control technologies will reduce 
emissions to the lowest levels according to the best available control 
technology. Any potential for air emissions beyond the agreed upon 
levels, such as shutting down control equipment, or breaking or 
repairing this equipment, requires notification to the local air 
quality control district. Calpine must mitigate land use issues by 
construction and operation controls, such as using earth berms, 
vegetation screening, and lighting controls to reduce the impacts on 
the surrounding residents. Calpine must place the transmission lines to 
reduce to the greatest degree impacts to local farming practices. 
Calpine must also provide a new aircraft landing strip for use by the 
local farmers.
    Calpine has agreed to carry out certain measures to lessen the 
impacts to the socioeconomic resources. These include payments to the 
local fire protection district for new equipment and training for 
firefighters.
    The analysis in the Final EIS concluded that there was not a 
significant visual impact imposed by the project provided that certain 
measures were taken to lessen some of the impacts. Calpine must paint 
the existing plant, the new plant, and any other structures such as 
tanks, stacks, and fences with non-reflective colors so that they blend 
into the surroundings better. They must hood or direct exterior 
lighting onto surfaces to minimize light pollution, including fixes to 
the existing plant. They must landscape property to screen most of the 
plants from outside viewers. Finally, to the extent possible, they must 
not place transmission line structures directly in front of residences 
or in direct line-of-sight from a residence to the Sutter Buttes.
    Though the impacts to biological resources are expected to be 
minimal, Calpine must provide a biological monitor on site during all 
construction phases, and provide environmental awareness training for 
all employees. Certain restrictions must be observed, such as timing 
and monitoring of activities to minimize impacts to the giant garter 
snake, Swainson's hawk, and migratory birds. Finally, Calpine must 
provide funding to Wildlands, Incorporated, to acquire and manage lands 
to compensate for loss of habitat.
    Using the dry-cooling alternative will minimize overall impacts to 
water resources, and the plant must not discharge any wastewater into 
streams or surface water. The plant will provide sufficient on site 
stormwater retention to control a 10-year, 24-hour storm event so that 
the plant does not contribute to drainage problems. Calpine must 
mitigate impacted wetlands by purchasing land through Wildlands, 
Incorporated, at a ratio of one acre of compensatory wetlands for every 
acre disturbed.
    Qualified professionals must monitor all construction-related 
activities in all areas determined to be sensitive for cultural and 
paleontological resources.
    Specific mitigative measures have been proposed for the actions 
needed to accommodate the interconnection with Western's transmission 
system. The Mitigation Action Plan, prepared under 10 CFR 1021.331 and 
adopted as part of this Record of Decision, details the specific 
mitigation needed for the interconnection. These include the conditions 
placed upon the siting of the transmission line, which are discussed 
above. Also adopted as part of the environmentally preferred 
alternative, is the transmission line route with the switching station 
at the end of O'Banion Road.
    All practicable means have been taken to avoid or minimize the 
environmental harm of the environmentally preferred alternative. No 
significant environmental impacts will result from the construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the SPP or its ancillary facilities.

    Dated: May 25, 1999.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-15126 Filed 6-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P