Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 1999 / Notices 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 DoubleCircuit 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:

mcmahon@wapa.gov.

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
32042 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 1999 / Notices

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6358–5]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Agricultural Health

Study: Pesticide Exposure Study

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

EPA is planning to submit the following

proposed Information Collection

Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

entitled: ‘‘Agricultural Health Study:

Pesticide Exposure Study’’ EPA ICR

Number: 1906.01. Before submitting this