Proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project Record of Decision

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Bonneville Power Administration

Proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project Record of

Decision

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE.

ACTION: Record of decision for BPA to purchase electrical power from

the proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project.

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

SUMMARY: BPA has decided to purchase electrical power to be generated

by a privately-owned gas-fired combustion turbine (CT) plant in the

Frederickson Industrial Area, Pierce County, Washington. The proposed

Tenaska Washington II Generation Project (Tenaska Project) would

produce 240 average megawatts (aMW) of electrical energy and would be

developed and operated by Tenaska Washington Partners II, L.P.

(Tenaska), a developer of generation resources. BPA expects the Tenaska

Project to be in commercial operation by July 1996.

BPA has statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to

its utility, industrial and other customers in the Pacific Northwest.

The Tenaska Project is needed to meet electrical power supply

obligations of these customers. The Tenaska Project would also meet a

number of other system requirements. Included among these is firming

otherwise non-firm hydroelectric power so that it can be sold as higher

value firm power. The Tenaska Project offers an energy resource which

can provide BPA the flexibility to operate an increasingly constrained

hydro system. The Tenaska Project would also help alleviate potential

power system stability problems in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound

Area Electric Reliability Plan (PSAERP) Final Environmental Impact

Statement, DOE/EIS--0160, April 1992).

BPA's purposes for this action are to: (1) Meet contractual

obligations to supply requested, cost-effective electric power to BPA

customers, having considered potential environmental impacts and

mitigation measures in its decision; (2) assure consistency with BPA's

statutory responsibilities, including the 1980 Pacific Northwest

Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act),

which requires consideration of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning

Council's Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Power Plan) and Fish

and Wildlife Program; and (3) develop a competitive, long-term resource

acquisition program based on experience gained from the pilot

acquisition program that led to the Tenaska Project proposal.

To reach the decision to purchase, BPA prepared the Proposed

Tenaska Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)(DOE/EIS-

0194, January 1994). The FEIS was tiered to the Resource Programs

Environmental Impact Statement which considered the environmental

tradeoffs among the resource types available to meet BPA's need.

The FEIS evaluated all three components of the proposed Tenaska

Project: (1) The power plant, (2) the electrical transmission

interconnection with BPA's South Tacoma Switching Station, and (3) the

modifications to convert the Switching Station to a Substation. In

addition to identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the

proposed project at the proposed project site, the FEIS also evaluated

a No Action alternative. By contract, the proposed project is required

to meet all Federal, state, and local requirements. The FEIS fulfills

the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the

State of Washington's legislative equivalent, the State Environmental

Policy Act (SEPA). In the case of the Tenaska Project, the state lead

agency, Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services, has

satisfied the requirements of SEPA in part by reviewing and adopting

BPA's EIS effective March 4, 1994. BPA has determined that this

acquisition is consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council's

Power Plan. This determination was affirmed by the Northwest Power

Planning Council in its determination of July 28, 1993.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The Environmentally

Preferred Alternative is the No Action alternative. Although pursuit of

the No Action alternative would avoid environmental impacts resulting

from construction and operation of this proposed project, it would not

meet BPA's needs. It should be noted that this site will likely be

developed for industrial use because the proposed site is an industrial

park.

Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative is the Proposed

Action. Adoption of the Proposed Action will meet BPA's needs.

Mitigation Action Plan: A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP), developed

from the FEIS analysis, is attached. It addresses the protection of

soils, water quality, air quality, biological resources, historical and

cultural resources, and public health and safety. Environmental

agreements with local agencies have been made. Other mitigation

agreements will be completed prior to construction.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine S. Pierce, NEPA

Compliance Officer for the Office of Energy Resources--RAE, Bonneville

Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208, telephone

(503) 230-3962. Copies of the Proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation

Project FEIS, the comments we received on this EIS, this Record of

Decision and Mitigation Action Plan, the Record of Decision for the

6(c) process, and the 1990 and 1992 Resource Programs, are available

from BPA's Public Involvement Office, P.O. Box 12999, Portland, Oregon

97212. Copies of the documents may also be obtained by calling BPA's

Public Involvement Office at (503) 230-3478 or BPA's nationwide toll-

free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. Information may also be

obtained from:

Mr. George Bell, Lower Columbia Area Manager, Suite 243, 1500 NE

Irving Street, Portland, Oregon 97232, (503) 230-4552.

Mr. Robert N. Laffel, Eugene District Manager, Alvey Substation,

86000 Franklin, Eugene, Oregon 97405, (503) 465-6952.

Mr. Wayne R. Lee, Upper Columbia Area Manager, Crescent Court

Building, Suite 500, 707 West Main, Spokane, Washington 99201, (509)

353-2518.

Ms. Carol Fleischman, Spokane District Manager, Crescent Court

Building, Suite 500, 707 West Main, Spokane, Washington 99201, (509)

353-3279.

Mr. George E. Eskridge, Montana District Manager, 800 Kensington,

Missoula, Montana 59801, (406) 329-3060.

Mr. Terence G. Esvelt, Puget Sound Area Manager, Suite 400, 201

Queen Anne Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109-1030, (206) 553-

4130.

Mr. Thomas V. Wagenhoffer, Snake River Area Manager, 1520 Kelly

Place, Walla Walla, Washington 99362, (509) 527-6226.

Ms. C. Clark Leone, Idaho Falls District Manager, 1527 Hollipark

Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401, (208) 523-2706.

Mr. James R. Normandeau, Boise District Manager, Room 450, 304 North

Eighth Street, Boise, Idaho 83702, (208) 334-9137.

For information on DOE NEPA activities, contact Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight, E-H 25, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,

20585, telephone (202) 586-4000 or 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

BPA is a self-financing Federal power marketing agency with

statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to utility,

industrial, and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. Consistent

with the 1991 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Power

Plan) and the Northwest Power Act, under Sections 6(a)(1) and 6(a)(2),

BPA has initiated a dynamic resource acquisition program to acquire new

conservation and generating resources. BPA is using four approaches:

billing credits, competitive acquisition, contingency options, and

unsolicited proposals to acquire energy for the region. The acquisition

of electrical energy from the proposed Tenaska Project represents a

portion of a larger plan to meet BPA's customers' current and future

needs for electricity.

BPA periodically prepares a Resource Program that explains how BPA

proposes to meet its expected load obligations. Within each Resource

Program, alternatives are examined which are composed of different

combinations of resource types from BPA's resource stack. BPA's

planning model relies on this resource stack in simulating resource

acquisitions and serves as a basis for BPA's resource planning

decisions.

In developing a Resource Program, BPA prepares load forecasts

jointly with the Northwest Power Planning Council. A range of forecasts

is prepared to reflect uncertainties about future load growth. A range

of load/resource balances is prepared by comparing the capability of

the existing Federal system resources to the range of projected Federal

system loads over the next 20 years. In a parallel process, BPA and the

Northwest Power Planning Council develop new resource supply forecasts

to plan acquisition of cost-effective resources as needed to meet load

growth.

The 1990 Resource Program identified actions BPA would take to

develop new resources to meet the power requirements of its customers.

The types of actions to acquire new resources included billing credit

acquisition, conservation acquisition, competitive bid from ``all

sources,'' hydro efficiency improvements, geothermal pilot project, and

a Resource Contingency Plan. As outlined in the 1990 Resource Program,

the primary reasons BPA selected this combination of resource actions

are to: manage risk appropriately; provide flexibility and diversity;

reflect existing and potential capability to develop new resources; and

maintain budget and rate impacts within bounds. In October 1992, BPA

issued the 1992 Resource Program. This program recommended the

development of new resources in addition to those outlined in the 1990

Resource Program.

Guided by the recommendations in BPA's Resource Program, BPA

commenced a pilot resource acquisition process to test various

approaches for acquiring a diverse portfolio of cost-effective,

reliable, and environmentally sound resources. The Competitive Resource

Acquisition Pilot Program was one of several methods that BPA tested to

acquire energy resources. The primary objective of the pilot program

was to provide BPA with the ability to systematically solicit,

evaluate, and select cost-effective resource proposals that are offered

for purchase. A secondary objective was for BPA to assess the benefits

and costs of using a competitive process for developing cost-effective

new energy supplies. BPA issued a Request for Proposals in 1991 for 300

aMW of firm energy. In response to this solicitation, BPA received 102

resource proposals totaling 5,209 aMW of generation and 116 aMW of

conservation. BPA evaluated the proposals based on system cost, project

feasibility (including location) and environmental criteria. Based on

the evaluation, BPA selected three generation projects and all cost-

effective conservation projects for further consideration and review

towards satisfying this 300 aMW target. The Project is one of the

generation projects chosen in this process.

On September 11, 1992, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register.

Announcement letters were mailed out, newspaper advertisements printed,

and newsletters circulated for the September 29, 1992, public scoping

meeting. Issues raised during the public scoping process were addressed

in the EIS. An EIS Implementation Plan was developed from comments and

questions submitted during the scoping period. The Implementation Plan

was approved by the DOE for preparation of the Draft EIS. Copies of the

DEIS were mailed out for review, and a Notice of Availability was

published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal

Register on August 20, 1993. In addition to written comments, a public

meeting was held on September 8, 1993, to receive oral and written

comments from the interested public. These comments were also

considered in the development of the FEIS. The FEIS was published and

distributed in February 1994. The EPA's Notice of Availability was

printed in the Federal Register on February 25, 1994.

Notice of this Record of Decision will be distributed to the known

interested and affected public, and the Record of Decision will be

published in a subsequent Federal Register Notice.

II. Alternatives

A. No Action

Under the No Action alternative, BPA would not proceed with the

conversion of the South Tacoma Switching Station nor acquire the energy

output from the proposed Tenaska Project, thereby foregoing the

opportunity to reduce BPA's projected energy deficit and additional

benefits with this particular project. In that event, it is unlikely

that the proposed project would be implemented without a commitment

from another party to acquire the energy output.

B. The Proposed Action

The proposed action is the purchase by BPA of electrical power

which will be generated at a privately-owned gas-fired combustion

turbine plant in the Frederickson Industrial Area, Pierce County,

Washington. The proposed Tenaska Project would generate 240 aMW of

electrical energy and would be built and operated by Tenaska. The

proposed action also includes transmission (underground) by Tenaska and

conversion of a switching station to a substation by BPA. Electricity

generated at the proposed power plant would be supplied to BPA's South

Tacoma Substation facility for distribution through the regional power

grid.

C. Other Actions

Because the proposed action will not satisfy BPA's total need for

electrical energy, implementing the proposed action will not foreclose

consideration of other potential BPA resource actions.

Resource types potentially available to meet future load growth

include:

Conservation (commercial, residential, and industrial

sectors);

Renewables (hydropower, geothermal, biomass, wind, and

solar power);

Cogeneration;

Combustion turbines;

Nuclear power; and

Coal and clean coal.

These resource types were competitively evaluated in BPA's Resource

Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement.

III. Decision Factors and Issues

Both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives were

evaluated against the purpose of and need for action for the Tenaska

EIS (see the Summary of this Record of Decision). The other actions

which could be taken to meet BPA's need will be evaluated independently

(see page 6 of this Record of Decision). Only the Proposed Action would

satisfy BPA's need for electrical power. The No Action Alternative

would not meet this need.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The Environmentally

Preferred Alternative is the No Action alternative. Although pursuit of

the No Action alternative would avoid environmental impacts resulting

from construction and operation of this proposed project, it would not

meet BPA's needs. It should be noted that this site will likely be

developed for industrial use because the proposed site is an industrial

park.

Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative is the Proposed

Action. Adoption of the Proposed Action will meet BPA's needs.

Meeting BPA's Contractual Obligations: The Proposed Action would

help assure BPA can meet its contractual obligations to supply

requested, cost-effective electric power to its customers, having

considered potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The

No Action Alternative would not reduce potential energy deficits.

Consistency With BPA's Statutory Responsibilities: The Proposed

Action is consistent with BPA's statutory responsibilities, including

the Northwest Power Act (which requires consideration of the Northwest

Power Planning Council's Plan and its Fish and Wildlife Program). BPA

determined that this acquisition is consistent with the priorities

established in the Council's Plan and the Northwest Power Planning

Council supported this determination.

Developing a Competitive Long-Term Acquisition Program: The

development of a competitive, long-term acquisition program will be

based partly on the experience gained from the pilot acquisition

program that led to the proposed Tenaska Project. Pursuing the Proposed

Action is consistent with the objectives of the Competitive Resource

Acquisition Pilot Program. It will provide BPA the ability to

systematically evaluate and select resource proposals and to assess

using a competitive process to develop new cost-effective energy

supplies.

In addition, the Proposed Action is consistent with the preferred

alternative identified in BPA's April 1993 Record of Decision on the

Resource Programs EIS. Under the preferred alternative, BPA would rely

heavily on combustion turbines for meeting future power needs. The

Resource Programs Environmental Impact Statement discussed operating

characteristics of combustion turbines, including their ability to firm

non-firm hydropower and to provide added flexibility to the BPA system

operating in conjunction with the hydro system. The Proposed Action is

consistent with these abilities. The Proposed Action would also help

alleviate power system stability problems in the Puget Sound Area which

were discussed in BPA's PSAERP EIS. The PSAERP assumed that a minimum

of 400 MW of new resources would be built in Puget Sound Area by 2003.

The Tenaska Project would be part of this 400 MW.

As BPA embarked on its competitive acquisition process for

additional conservation and generation resources, the underlying need

for acquisition of new resources was the avoidance of electricity

deficits caused by growing customer loads. In the time period since the

DEIS was issued for comment, BPA has become involved in a major effort

(Competitiveness Project) to reassess its role, and therefore, its need

for resources. That process is still very much in development. However,

preliminary indications suggest that BPA's load growth may not be as

great as was predicted in the 1990 and 1992 Resource Programs. BPA has

examined the Tenaska Project in light of these tentative conclusions

and finds that even if preliminary projections become reality, the

Tenaska Project would still be needed and justified to meet load.

IV. Environmental Consultations, Review, and Permit Requirements

BPA reviewed the status of all Tenaska Project permits and

licenses; engaged in consultations with Tenaska and appropriate

federal, state and local agencies and interested parties to ensure the

Project satisfies federal, state, and local environmental plans and

programs and environmental mitigation plans; and ensured that all

environmental consultations and review requirements were addressed.

Development of the Tenaska Project would be consistent with

environmental policies established by NEPA and by the Washington SEPA

(SCL 1980).

The following is a discussion of the findings by environmental

topic:

1. Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat

A response letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to a

request for information on state or Federally-listed rare, threatened,

or endangered species indicated that there are none in the vicinity of

the proposed power plant. No protected species were observed during the

field surveys.

Five sensitive species: The western bluebird, western gray

squirrel, mountain quail, Tacoma western pocket gopher, and the white-

top aster (Aster curtus) could be potentially impacted by the proposed

project; however, only the white-top aster was observed during the

field surveys. Anticipated impact to these species is determined to be

minor. Specific measures to address the propagation of the white-top

aster are contained within the MAP.

2. Fish and Wildlife Conservation

The proposed Tenaska Project is consistent with the Power Plan,

including its fish and wildlife components. The site is located in an

upland area with disturbed wildlife habitat. Water resources that

promote fish and wildlife habitat have not been identified at the

proposed Tenaska Project site. Industrial facilities, scattered

residential units and undeveloped areas surround the site. Upland weedy

fields make up 85 percent of the site and are rated as moderate habitat

for wildlife but rated as low habitat value for vegetation. Wooded

areas, which comprise 15 percent of the site, are rated as moderate

habit for wildlife and vegetation.

3. Heritage Conservation

No cultural resources were identified or discovered by the archival

search or the field survey. A copy of the cultural resources survey

report has been sent to the Washington State Historic Preservation

Office.

4. State, Area-Wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency

a. Land Use

The proposed Tenaska Project would alter land use at the site from

vacant to industrial use. The site is located within the Frederickson

Industrial Area, which is zoned for heavy industrial use, and the

Project is consistent with land use designations.

b. Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act

The Northwest Power Planning Council was established by the

Northwest Power Act. The goal of the Council's 1991 Power Plan is to

``assure the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical

and reliable power supply'' (Council, 1991). One of the Council's

authorities is a review of the Administrator's determination under

section 6(c) review, as directed by the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C.

839d(c)(1)-839d(c)(5). Section 6(c) requires both the BPA Administrator

and the Council to determine that a project of at least 50 aMW and five

years duration is consistent with the Power Plan. BPA has conducted a

formal review pursuant to section 6(c). The BPA Administrator

determined on May 28, 1993 that the proposal to acquire up to 240 aMW

of firm energy from the Tenaska Project is consistent with the Power

Plan. The Council found on July 28, 1993 by unanimous vote that the

proposal is consistent with the Power Plan.

c. Notice to the Federal Aviation Administration

No structures exceeding 30 meters (100 feet) above ground are

planned at the Tenaska Project. No notice to the Federal Aviation

Administration is required as no structures to be constructed at the

Project are equal to or greater than 61 meters (200 feet) in height.

Two airports are in proximity (one 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) due east

and the other 5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles) due west) of the proposed

facility. A small private airstrip is located approximately 1,219

meters (4,000 feet) south of the proposed plant site. Aircraft

approaching for landing or takeoff would be sufficiently above ground

over the proposed facility site to be unaffected by hot gas emission

from the power plant stack. Aircraft approaching and taking off from

McChord Air Base (approximately 9.6 kilometers (six miles) northwest)

would not be affected by the proposed power plant's facilities and no

regulation would apply.

d. Construction-Related Permits

The Pierce County Department of Permits and Land Services regulates

development activities via Ordinance No. 90-132, Site Development

Regulations. The application for Site Development Permit for the

proposed Tenaska Project was submitted to the Department of Permits and

Land Services for review on January 11, 1994.

5. Coastal Zone Management Program Consistency

The proposed Tenaska Project is not located in the coastal zone,

nor will it affect the coastal zone.

6. Floodplains

The Tenaska Project site is not within a floodplain or area which

is susceptible to flooding.

7. Wetlands

Wetlands do not occur at the project site and therefore,

construction activities do not require permits for alteration of

wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act nor under the

Washington Shoreland Management Act.

8. Farmland

The Farmlands Protection Policy Act directs Federal Agencies to

identify and quantify adverse impacts of Federal programs on farmlands.

The Tenaska Project site is currently vacant and zoned for heavy

industrial use. The Soil Conservation Service indicated that no prime

or unique farmland exists at the site.

9. Recreation Resources

No public recreation occurs at the proposed Tenaska Project site as

it is privately owned and zoned for heavy industrial use. It is

unlikely that the proposed Project would interfere with the present use

of any recreation resource in the vicinity.

Separate from the EIS process, the National Park Service recently

provided comments to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

(PSAPCA) addressing the Park Service's concerns about impacts on Mount

Rainier National Park resources from existing levels of ozone and

nitrogen deposition. The Park Service noted the potential emissions

from the Tenaska Project could add to the nitrogen oxides deposition.

These concerns were considered by PSAPCA with respect to the issuance

of the amendment to Tenaska Project's air quality permit and were

adequately addressed in their permitting process. The U.S. Forest

Service recently provided comments to PSAPCA addressing the Forest

Service's concerns about the potential acidification and loss of water

clarity in an alpine lake (Summit Lake) within the Class II Clearwater

Wilderness (located on the northwest corner of Mount Rainier). The

Forest Service noted the potential emissions from the Tenaska Project

could add to the SO2 and NOx deposition. These concerns were

considered by PSAPCA with respect to the issuance of the amendment to

Tenaska Project's air quality permit and were adequately addressed in

their permitting process.

10. Global Warming

Several greenhouse gases would be emitted by the proposed Tenaska

Project. These may include Federally regulated criteria air pollutants

such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Emission levels of these gases by the

proposed Tenaska Project would be below the Puget Sound Air Pollution

Control Agency's threshold standards for both emissions and ambient air

quality.

11. Permit for Structures in Navigable Waters

The proposed Tenaska Project does not include work or structures

that are in, on, or over any navigable waters of the United States as

defined in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. 403.

12. Permit for Discharges into Waters of the United States

The proposed Tenaska Project is located in an upland area and there

is no proposed discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of

the United States.

13. Permit for Right-Of-Way on Public Lands

The proposed Tenaska Project would be located on private land.

14. Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities

The proposed Tenaska Project does not include the operation,

maintenance, or retrofit of an existing Federal building, or the

construction or lease of a new Federal building.

15. Pollution Control

Tenaska has identified procedures to be used during the project

construction and operation to achieve compliance with Federal, state,

and local regulations and ordinances. These regulations and ordinances

concern the following: procurement of goods and services from the EPA

listed facilities, clean air standards, water quality standards, solid

waste disposal, hazardous waste handling and disposal, drinking water

standards, noise abatement, pesticide control, asbestos, Toxic

Substance Control Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act, and radon.

The Tenaska Project would lie in an area that is designated as a

nonattainment area with respect to ambient air quality standards for

carbon monoxide and ozone. The PSAPCA has established significant

impact threshold criteria for new pollutant sources in areas that are

out-of-compliance with ambient air quality standards. The proposed

Tenaska Project would be in compliance for emissions of carbon monoxide

and volatile organic compounds, as well as in compliance with all other

applicable air pollutant emission and ambient air quality standards.

Operation of the proposed Project would produce noise. The

predicted noise level at the nearest residence would be 46 decibels

(dBA) compared to an applicable standard of 50 dBA. The maximum

predicted noise level at the neighboring property line in an industrial

area would be 66 dBA compared to an applicable standard of 70 dBA.

Noise levels would be in compliance with local, state and federal

requirements.

Process, sanitary, and cooling system wastewaters would be routed

to the Pierce County sewage system. The wastewater stream from the

proposed Tenaska Project would be lightly polluted from cooling tower

blowdown, which contains salts and possible traces of chemicals used to

control algal growth in the cooling towers. This discharge would not

affect Pierce County's ability to meet its wastewater discharge

standards.

Water supply needs would be met with the existing available

resources from Tacoma Public Utilities. Water supply to the area would

likely be expanded, as industrial growth occurs, with the construction

of an additional trunk line from a local reservoir and possibly from

local wells.

The Clover-Chamber Creek Basin aquifer system was recently

designated as a sole-source aquifer by the EPA. The water quality of

the aquifer will be preserved by the implementation of the Preparedness

and Prevention Measures, a Contingency Plan, and a Spill Prevention

Control Countermeasure Plan in compliance with Tacoma-Pierce County

Health Department regulatory requirements.

V. Mitigation

The proposed Tenaska Project already includes many features

designed to reduce environmental impacts. By incorporating

environmental protection features into the Project design and operation

plan, some impacts would be prevented. The discussion of these design

features can be found in the Tenaska FEIS under Section 5.14, ``Project

Design Features for Reducing Environmental Impacts'' and summarized in

Table 4.7-1 of the attached MAP.

All practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental

impacts have been adopted. Please see the attached MAP for details.

In addition to the requirements of the state and local reviewing

agencies which are based on existing regulations other than SEPA, the

Pierce County Environmental Official has determined that other

mitigating measures will be necessary to ensure that the proposal will

not have a significant impact on the environment. These mitigating

measures are required under the Substantive Authority of SEPA in

accordance with the guidelines contained in section 17.08.170 of the

Pierce County Code and are enumerated below.

Ground Water Mitigation Measures

1. Hazardous materials tank containment structures shall meet all

local, state, and federal (if applicable) standards for construction.

2. The applicants shall submit and comply with a Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure Plan and a Hazardous Materials Management

Plan.

3. The storm water system design must meet the water quality

standards, requirements, and best management policies specified in the

Washington State Department of Ecology's Storm Water Management Manual

for the Puget Sound Basin.

4. Prior to the arrival of hazardous materials on-site, a ground

water monitoring well is to be installed down-gradient of the facility

(as the site allows) and a sampling program will be developed to

include annual sampling of the monitoring well for hazardous materials

present on the site. The sampling program and its results shall be

submitted to the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.

VI. Monitoring and Enforcement

The MAP for the Tenaska Project states the mitigation measures

necessary to reduce the environmental impacts identified in the FEIS.

Tenaska will provide a monthly report to BPA during the pre-

construction and construction phases, on the progress made on

mitigation actions which have been identified, as plans and agreements

are put in place and fully implemented. Tenaska will provide a report,

on a frequency and schedule to be mutually agreed to by Tenaska and

BPA, on the progress made on mitigation actions to be addressed during

the Tenaska Project operations phase.

VII. Decision

Upon consideration of the entire record, BPA has decided to

purchase electrical power from the proposed Tenaska Project.

Issued in Portland, Oregon on March 29, 1994.

Randall W. Hardy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-9169 Filed 4-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P-M