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

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