|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 10+-years archives of 39,000 files from June 1996 to December 2006 (~4.1 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, cryptome2.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
23 February 2007
[Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 7964-7972]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22fe07-36]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Site
Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/
EIS-0385), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), to assess the environmental impacts associated with a proposal
to expand the crude oil storage capacity of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR) from 727 million barrels (MMB) to 1 billion barrels, and
to fill the Reserve to the full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels.
The proposal was to develop one new storage facility and expand the
capacity of two or three existing SPR storage facilities.
After careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the
alternatives, along with an evaluation of SPR distribution
capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and
operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations, DOE
has decided to develop a new 160 MMB SPR storage facility at Richton
(Mississippi), expand the storage capacity at the existing Bayou
Choctaw (Louisiana) SPR facility by 33 MMB, expand the storage capacity
at the existing Big Hill (Texas) SPR facility by 80 MMB, and fill the
Reserve to 1 billion barrels of oil as authorized by Congress.
This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for
implementing NEPA and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021). The accompanying Floodplain Statement of Findings has been
prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations ``Compliance with
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR Part
1022). Because the decision differs somewhat from the alternatives
evaluated in the EIS, DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) (DOE/
EIS-0385-SA-1) to determine whether a supplement to the final EIS is
required. DOE has determined that the minor modification to the Bayou
Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB
compared to 20 MMB as described in the final EIS, is not a substantial
change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental
concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action
or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR
1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not
needed.
ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html and on the project's Web site at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-
.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-
near future. Copies of the final EIS and this ROD and SA may be
requested by contacting Donald Silawsky at the Office of Petroleum
Reserves (FE-47), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-1892, by facsimile
at 202-586-4446, or by electronic mail at donald.silawsky@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the site
selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contact
David Johnson at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-42), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585, by telephone at 202-586-4733, by facsimile at 202-586-7919, or
by electronic mail at david.johnson@hq.doe.gov. For general information
on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
[[Page 7965]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-
586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT, Pub. L. 109-58). Section 303 of EPACT states that: ``Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall complete a proceeding to select, from sites that the
Secretary has previously studied, sites necessary to enable acquisition
by the Secretary of the full authorized volume of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.''
EPACT Section 301(e) directs the Secretary to ``* * * acquire
petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill * * *'' the SPR to 1 billion
barrels, the capacity of the SPR authorized by the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. Thus, the purpose and need for agency action is to
select and develop sites necessary to add 273 MMB of new storage
capacity to the SPR, so that SPR capacity can be expanded from 727 MMB
to 1 billion barrels.
On January 23, 2007, the President proposed an expansion of the SPR
to 1.5 billion barrels. Any DOE proposal in this regard, however, is
independent of the current expansion to 1 billion barrels and would be
subject to a separate NEPA review process.
NEPA Review
DOE determined that the proposed SPR site selection and expansion
constitute a major Federal action that may have a significant impact on
the environment within the meaning of NEPA. For this reason, DOE
prepared an EIS, Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385).
DOE published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on September 1, 2005
(70 FR 52088), and held four public scoping meetings. Copies of the
comment letters received during the scoping period and complete public
scoping meeting transcripts are available at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html
.
DOE filed the draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on May 19, 2006. EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in
the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 30400), starting the 45-day
public comment period that ended on July 10, 2006. DOE considered all
comments in preparing the final EIS, which was filed with EPA on
December 8, 2006. Copies of the comment letters and oral testimony
received during the public comment period are available at the Internet
site listed above. The comments and DOE's responses are also set forth
in the final EIS.
The EPA published a NOA of the final EIS in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75540). As discussed further below, DOE
prepared an SA, Supplement Analysis to the Site Selection for the
Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS-0385-SA-1), to address a minor modification to the
Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB
compared to 20 MMB discussed in the final EIS. DOE determined that a
supplement to the final EIS is not required.
Proposed Action
DOE's proposed action is to develop one new site, expand capacity
at two or three existing sites, and fill the SPR to its full authorized
volume of 1 billion barrels. Storage capacity would be developed by
solution mining of underground storage caverns in salt domes and
disposing of the resulting salt brine by ocean discharge or underground
injection. New pipelines, marine terminal facilities, and other
infrastructure would also be required. Proposed construction and
operation activities include clearing and preparing sites; constructing
pipelines and facilities for raw water intake, disposing of brine, and
distributing crude oil; constructing transmission lines to provide
electrical power to the sites; and constructing or augmenting support
buildings and other facilities.
Alternatives
In developing the range of reasonable alternatives, DOE first
considered expansions of three existing storage sites, which would
capitalize on existing site infrastructure and operations and thereby
minimize development time and construction costs. DOE, however, cannot
reach its goal of 273 MMB of additional storage capacity by expanding
only at existing sites. Therefore, the alternatives considered are a
combination of one new site and two or three expansion sites, as shown
in the table below.
Alternatives Considered in Final EIS and SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epansion sites and added
New sites and capacity analyzed capacity Total new capacity*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruinsburg, MS (160 MMB)................. 113 MMB a................... 273 MMB or
Chacahoula, LA (160 MMB)................. Bayou Choctaw (33 MMB)......
Big Hill (80 MMB) OR........
Richton, MS (160 MMB).................... 115 MMB b................... 275 MMB or
Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB)......
Big Hill (80 MMB)...........
West Hackberry (15 MMB) OR..
Stratton Ridge, TX (160 MMB)............. 116 MMB b................... 276 MMB.
Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB)......
Big Hill (96 MMB)...........
No-action alternative.................... None........................ None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on the proposed action for this EIS, DOE would not fill the SPR beyond 1 billion barrels if it developed
more than 273 MMB of new capacity.
a Alternative considered in SA.
b Alternative considered in final EIS.
A brief description of each new site and expansion site is below:
Potential New Sites and Associated Infrastructure
As required by EPACT Section 303, DOE limited its review of
potential new sites for expansion of the SPR to: (1) sites that DOE
addressed in a 1992 draft EIS for site expansion (DOE/EIS-0165-D); and
(2) sites proposed by a state in
[[Page 7966]]
which DOE has previously studied a site. Five sites met those
conditions and were considered in the draft EIS: Richton, MS, and
Stratton Ridge, TX, which were addressed in the 1992 draft EIS;
Chacahoula and Clovelly, LA, which the Governor of Louisiana requested
that the Secretary of Energy consider; and Bruinsburg, MS, which the
Governor of Mississippi requested that the Secretary of Energy
consider.
Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, DOE determined that
development of a new SPR site at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port's
(LOOP) Clovelly facility was not feasible because of geotechnical
issues and thus is not a reasonable alternative. LOOP's development on
the salt dome and the small size of the dome required that DOE propose
placing new SPR caverns below and in between Clovelly's existing
caverns. DOE found that this configuration presented several risk
factors to the integrity of the Clovelly caverns and infrastructure and
overall operation of the proposed site. DOE therefore removed the site
from detailed consideration in the final EIS.
Sandia National Laboratories completed a Geological Technical
Assessment (Sandia Assessment) of the Bruinsburg salt dome just before
the final EIS was published that indicated that the salt dome may not
be able to provide the needed storage capability; however, DOE retained
it as a potential new site in the final EIS because DOE needed time to
further analyze the results of the study. See below for additional
information regarding the Bruinsburg site and the Sandia Assessment.
Bruinsburg, MS
The Bruinsburg salt dome is located in Claiborne County, MS, 10
miles (16 kilometers) west of the town of Port Gibson and 40 miles (64
kilometers) southwest of the City of Vicksburg. The proposed storage
site of approximately 266 acres (108 hectares) encompasses a cypress
swamp, cotton fields, forested areas, and a bluff overlooking the
Mississippi River. The infrastructure associated with the Bruinsburg
storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at
Peetsville, MS, and Anchorage, LA. Water for cavern development,
maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River.
The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all
data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources.
These data are from well and seismic studies and include data compiled
by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of
Geology, as well as proprietary seismic data. In addition, Sandia
contracted for two new seismic survey lines on the Bruinsburg salt dome
in order to define the extent of the salt formation available for
cavern development. DOE has analyzed the results of the Sandia
Assessment and concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the
capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB
capacity required.
Chacahoula, LA
The Chacahoula salt dome site is located 40 miles (64 kilometers)
north of the Gulf of Mexico in northwestern Lafourche Parish, southwest
of Thibodaux, LA. The proposed storage site of approximately 227 acres
(92 hectares) lies largely underwater in wetlands. No new terminals
would be required for this proposed new site since the terminal(s)
already exist and the current distribution capacity is sufficient to
handle the potential increase in oil storage and distribution
associated with the Chacahoula site. Water for cavern development,
maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway.
Richton, MS
The Richton salt dome is located in northeastern Perry County, MS,
18 miles (29 kilometers) east of Hattiesburg, MS. The proposed storage
site of approximately 238 acres (96 hectares) is comprised of an
actively managed pine plantation with a small emergent wetland area.
The infrastructure associated with the Richton storage site would
include new terminals with a tank farm at Liberty, MS, and Pascagoula,
MS. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come
from both the Leaf River and the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula.
Stratton Ridge, TX
The Stratton Ridge salt dome is located in Brazoria County, TX, 3
miles (4.8 kilometers) east of Lake Jackson-Angleton, TX. The proposed
storage site of approximately 269 acres (109 hectares) is currently
used for cattle ranching and has some forested wetlands. The
infrastructure associated with the Stratton Ridge storage site would
include a new terminal with a tank farm in Texas City, TX. Water for
cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the
Intracoastal Waterway.
Potential Expansion Sites and Associated Infrastructure
Bayou Choctaw, LA
The Bayou Choctaw storage site occupies a 356-acre (144-hectare)
site in Iberville Parish, LA, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest
of Baton Rouge. The Mississippi River is located about 4 miles (6.4
kilometers) east of the salt dome, and the Intracoastal Waterway is
about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) to the west. The general area is
swampy with an elevation ranging from less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) to
more than 10 feet (3 meters) above mean sea level. Water for cavern
development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal
Waterway.
In the final EIS, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw
site by 20 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 10 MMB
caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility, a 0.6-mile
(0.9-kilometer) brine disposal pipeline, and a 96-acre (39-hectare)
brine injection field. In the SA, DOE considered the expansion of the
Bayou Choctaw site by 33 MMB, which would involve the development of
two new 11.5 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility
and use of an existing commercial cavern. The length of the brine
disposal pipeline and the size of the brine disposal injection field
would be the same if Bayou Choctaw is expanded to 20 MMB or 33 MMB.
Expansion beyond 33 MMB is limited due to the size of the salt dome.
Big Hill, TX
The Big Hill SPR storage site is located in Jefferson County, TX,
17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of Port Arthur. The existing site
occupies approximately 250 acres (101 hectares). The surrounding area
is predominantly rural with agricultural production as the primary land
use. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come
from the Intracoastal Waterway. The Big Hill storage site has a current
capacity of 170 MMB and could be expanded by acquiring land and
developing several additional caverns.
West Hackberry, LA
The West Hackberry SPR storage site occupies a 565-acre (229-
hectare) site in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern
Louisiana. The site is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers)
southwest of the city of Lake Charles and 16 miles (26 kilometers)
north of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is predominantly disturbed
grassland habitat. No new infrastructure would be
[[Page 7967]]
needed for this site to be expanded. The West Hackberry storage site
has a current capacity of 227 MMB and could also be expanded by
acquiring land and developing or acquiring additional caverns. However,
the West Hackberry site no longer has the offshore brine disposal
system necessary to support a cavern development operation. There are
three existing commercial caverns on the salt dome that could be
acquired to increase the site capacity by 15 MMB, to a total capacity
of 242 MMB, without developing new caverns. Therefore, DOE has
considered a maximum potential expansion of 15 MMB at the West
Hackberry site.
Preferred Alternative
The final EIS identifies the Richton alternative with expansion of
Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry as the Preferred
Alternative. The SA revised the Preferred Alternative to be the Richton
alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts
that could occur from the construction and operation of a new SPR
storage site and the expansion of two or three of the existing sites.
The final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 10 resource areas.
Of these 10 areas, the largest potential impacts are to land use, water
resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. Although
impacts occur in other resource areas, these impacts are smaller and of
similar magnitude across all alternatives. Below is a brief summary of
the impacts associated with these four resource areas for each
alternative. For each alternative, there is a discussion of each new
site and the expansion sites associated with each new site.
Land Use
Bruinsburg Alternatives: There is a potential land use conflict for
the Bruinsburg site where the expansion of an existing pipeline route
would cross the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, Natchez Trace
Parkway, and the proclamation boundary of the Homochitto National
Forest.
There are no potential land use conflicts at the Bayou Choctaw and
Big Hill expansions sites. At West Hackberry, there were no land use
conflicts at the time that the final EIS was issued because there were
no ongoing commercial operations in the caverns in the West Hackberry
salt dome. Comments on the final EIS indicate that Sempra Pipeline and
Storage Corporation plans to use the caverns for commercial operations.
This potential conflict is discussed further below in the Comments
Received on the Final EIS and Basis for Decision sections.
Chacahoula Alternatives: There are no potential land use conflicts
for the Chacahoula site. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion
sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives.
Richton Alternatives: For the Richton site, the terminal, tank
farm, refurbished docks, and raw water intake structure at Pascagoula
would be at the former Naval Station Pascagoula, a Base Realignment and
Closure site for which future uses have not been determined. Potential
land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for
the Bruinsburg alternatives.
Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The proposed Stratton Ridge site would
have potential land use conflicts with Dow Chemical Company's use of
salt from the Stratton Ridge salt dome and where a corridor containing
a raw water intake pipeline, brine disposal pipelines, and two power
lines would cross the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and privately
owned land in the Refuge's proclamation area. In addition, the crude
oil pipeline would cross the Refuge in an existing pipeline rights-of-
way. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same
as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives.
Water Resources
Bruinsburg Alternatives: Construction and operation of the
Bruinsburg site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect
35 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and
drawdown would come from the Mississippi River, and would not have a
significant impact on water resources.
Construction and operation associated with the expansion of the
Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry sites and associated
infrastructure would potentially affect 12, 4, and 3 water bodies,
respectively. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown
at Bayou Choctaw would come from Cavern Lake, which is fed by the
Intracoastal Waterway. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and
drawdown at Big Hill would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Water
for maintenance and drawdown at West Hackberry would come from the
Intracoastal Waterway. None of these uses of water would have a
significant impact on water resources. Since DOE would acquire caverns
at West Hackberry, construction of new caverns would not occur at this
site. A small increase in the size of the security buffer around the
site would be needed, but this would not have a significant impact on
water resources.
Chacahoula Alternatives: Construction and operation of the
Chacahoula site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect
18 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and
drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not
have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water
resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the
Bruinsburg alternatives.
Richton Alternatives: Construction and operation of the Richton
site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 63 water
bodies. The primary raw water source for cavern development,
maintenance, and drawdown would be the Leaf River, which has a highly
variable flow. A secondary raw water intake system, presented in the
final EIS, would withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula
and transport it to the Richton storage site for cavern development,
maintenance, and drawdown during low flow conditions in the Leaf River.
If low flow conditions exist in the Leaf River during a drawdown event
for a Presidentially declared national emergency, DOE would withdraw
water from the Gulf of Mexico and from the Leaf River to reach the
necessary distribution rate. DOE would not withdraw water below the
minimum instream flow that is protective of aquatic resources, except
for a drawdown for a Presidentially declared national emergency. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would establish the minimum
instream flow during DOE's consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act; the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
(MS NHP) would provide input during this consultation. Impacts on water
resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the
Bruinsburg alternatives.
Stratton Ridge Alternatives: Construction and operation of the
Stratton Ridge site and associated infrastructure would potentially
affect 17 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and
drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not
have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water
resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the
Bruinsburg alternatives.
[[Page 7968]]
Biological Resources
This summary of impacts to biological resources considers Federally
threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat (EFH), and
wetlands. Impacts to these resources at expansion sites are common to
all alternatives and are described first, separately from the
descriptions of impacts of the alternatives, which focus on impacts at
the new sites.
Expansion at existing sites would not affect any Federally
threatened or endangered species. The Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry
expansions would not affect EFH. The Big Hill expansion would cause a
temporary impact to about five acres of EFH due to pipeline
construction.
The discussions below regarding total wetland acres affected for
the new site alternatives include the wetland impacts associated with
the expansion sites, in all cases including expansion at West Hackberry
(without which five fewer acres of wetlands would be affected).
Expansion sites: Construction and operation of the Bayou Choctaw
expansion site would potentially affect 34 acres of wetlands. About 24
acres of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and
about 3 acres of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to
emergent wetland. Construction and operation of the Big Hill expansion
site would potentially affect 189 acres of wetlands. About 9 acres of
ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 1
acre of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent
wetland. Expanding the West Hackberry site would convert 5 acres of
palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands to emergent wetlands.
Bruinsburg Alternatives: The Bruinsburg site and associated
infrastructure may affect the fat pocketbook mussel and the pallid
sturgeon, both of which are Federally endangered species. The site and
associated infrastructure would not affect EFH.
The Bruinsburg alternatives would potentially affect about 708
acres (287 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss
through filling of about 156 acres (63 hectares) and a permanent
conversion to emergent wetlands of about 123 acres (50 hectares) of
relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 118
acres (48 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared
by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-
of-way during construction. The total affected acreage includes the
three expansion sites described above.
Chacahoula Alternatives: The Chacahoula site and associated
infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species
that is proposed for de-listing, and the brown pelican, a Federal
endangered species. Chacahoula would affect about 1,067 acres of EFH,
for the most part a temporary impact due to pipeline construction.
The Chacahoula alternatives would potentially affect 2,502 acres
(1,013 hectares) of wetlands. About 182 acres (74 hectares) of
ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 699
acres (283 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently
converted to emergent wetland. About 505 acres (204 hectares) of
forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction
activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The
total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described
above.
Richton Alternatives: The Richton site and associated
infrastructure may affect two Federal listed species (the yellow-
blotched map turtle and the Gulf sturgeon) and a Federal candidate
species (the pearl darter, considered by DOE as a ``listed species'').
Based on comments from and consultation with USFWS and MS NHP, the
withdrawal of water from the Leaf River may have an adverse effect on
the yellow-blotched map turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and the pearl darter.
The Leaf River and Mississippi Sound are designated critical habitat
for the Gulf sturgeon. Development of the Richton site would
temporarily affect about 183 acres of EFH due to construction, and fill
an additional 43 acres of EFH for a new terminal and raw water intake
structure at Pascagoula. Brine pipeline construction may affect
submerged aquatic vegetation.
The Richton alternatives would potentially affect 1,557 acres (630
hectares) of wetlands. The majority of the wetland areas affected (more
than 1,400 acres [583 hectares]) by the Richton alternatives would be
located in the long pipeline rights-of-way, which total over 200 miles
and which pass through some forested and emergent wetlands. The Richton
alternatives would permanently fill about 59 acres (24 hectares) of
forested wetlands and about 295 acres (119 hectares) of forested
wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 506
acres (205 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and
cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the
rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion
sites described above.
Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The Stratton Ridge site and associated
infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species
that is proposed for de-listing. Seventeen acres of EFH would be
permanently affected due to the construction and operation of a raw
water intake structure.
The Stratton Ridge alternatives would potentially affect 841 acres
(349 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through
filling of 227 acres (92 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically
important forested wetlands. About 70 acres (28 hectares) of forested
wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 9
acres (4 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared
by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-
of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites
described above in detail for the Bruinsburg alternatives.
Cultural Resources
The proposed action would have the potential to damage or destroy
archeological sites, Native American cultural sites, or historic
buildings or structures; or to change the characteristics of a property
that would diminish qualities that contribute to its historic
significance or cultural importance. Below are the potential impacts
for each alternative:
Bruinsburg Alternatives: SPR development at the Bruinsburg site
could result in potential adverse effects on the historic setting of
the Civil War landing of the Union Army in Mississippi and an
associated route of troop movements in an area that could become
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a core study
area. A portion of the Bruinsburg site is likely to contain
archeological remains of troop presence, and remains of at least one of
the ships that sank during the invasion is likely to lie northwest of
the facility boundary. There would be possible effects to Native
American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. As
described in the final EIS, these adverse effects could be mitigated
through measures such as data recovery from an archaeological site,
preparation of education materials for the public, or use of vegetation
to screen project facilities from visitors in the historic properties.
Chacahoula Alternatives: There would be likely adverse effects to
Native American and historic sites along Chacahoula pipeline rights-of-
way that could be mitigated. There would be
[[Page 7969]]
possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill,
and West Hackberry. These adverse effects could be mitigated.
Richton Alternatives: There are likely adverse effects to Native
American archaeological sites within the Richton storage site and along
Richton pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be
possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill,
and West Hackberry. These effects could be mitigated.
Stratton Ridge Alternatives: There are likely adverse effects to
Native American archaeological sites within the Stratton Ridge storage
site and along Stratton Ridge pipeline rights-of-way that could be
mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at
Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These effects could be
mitigated.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
DOE received eight comment letters on the final EIS: three letters
from elected officials, two from Federal agencies, two from private
companies, and one from a property owner. Below is a brief summary of
each comment letter and DOE's response.
DOE received two comment letters regarding DOE's selection of
Richton rather than Bruinsburg as its preferred new storage site. These
comment letters were from U.S. Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Second
District, Mississippi, and Mr. Allen Burks of the Claiborne County
Board of Supervisors. Congressman Thompson expressed some concerns with
the selection of Richton and his belief that the Bruinsburg site is a
more favorable site since it would have fewer environmental impacts and
cost less than the Richton site. Mr. Burks requested the
reconsideration of the Bruinsburg site because, in his view, it offers
significant cost, environmental, operational, and distribution
advantages over the Richton site. DOE did not select the Bruinsburg
site for several reasons, as discussed below; however, the primary
reason was the small size of the salt dome. As discussed above, based
on the Sandia Assessment, DOE concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome
only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than
the 160 MMB capacity required. The Richton salt dome, on the other
hand, is very large and can easily accommodate the planned capacity of
160 MMB.
Congressman Thompson also expressed concerns regarding the risk
from hurricanes and brine disposal impacts associated with the Richton
site. The SPR's storage of oil in underground storage caverns in salt
formations is the safest and most secure form of storage available. The
depth of the storage caverns and the self-sealing characteristic of the
salt formation make salt dome storage virtually immune to natural
disasters, such as hurricanes, and would not create a safety hazard for
the population of Mississippi. In addition, Richton's location over 80
miles from the Gulf coast provides a significant land mass buffer
against potential damages from the hurricane effects to surface
buildings and structures at the storage sites. Congressman Thompson
also expressed concern about brine disposal in the Gulf of Mexico.
Based on DOE's experience with the SPR, the disposal of brine in the
Gulf of Mexico has been proven to be reliable and cost effective and
has had no harmful impacts on the fish population.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour supported the selection of
Richton as preferred, but added that he believes Bruinsburg remains an
important site for future consideration. Governor Barbour submitted for
the record an independent geological evaluation prepared by Mr. Karl
Kaufman of Valioso Petroleum Company, Inc., that questions the
completeness and accuracy of the geological interpretations presented
in the Sandia Assessment. Mr. Kaufman stated that the Sandia Assessment
grossly understates the true areal extent of the Bruinsburg salt dome
because well control data have been ignored, spatial uncertainty has
not been resolved and additional data have not been considered. A
second comment letter from Charles Morrison Consulting Geophysicist,
Inc., stated that the Sandia Assessment was highly flawed and possibly
biased in regard to the geological and geophysical conclusions reached.
DOE and the geotechnological staff at Sandia National Laboratories
have reviewed the concerns expressed by these geological consultants
and have confirmed their prior geological findings, as to the
insufficient salt dome size. The Sandia Assessment is based on a
comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both
published and oil-industry sources, including both existing and new
well and seismic data, as discussed above.
Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation submitted a comment
informing DOE of its recent purchase of the property adjacent to the
existing West Hackberry site, formerly owned by Dominion Natural Gas
Storage, Inc., which DOE discussed in the final EIS. Sempra stated that
the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure
portfolio, and is expected to be in service in April 2009. Sempra also
stated its understanding that DOE would weigh the cost of land
acquisition during its decisionmaking. DOE has not selected West
Hackberry for expansion for the reasons stated below.
A comment submitted by the owner of land that overlays a salt dome
in Claiborne County inquired whether DOE will select other storage
sites, in addition to the Richton site. DOE will only construct one new
storage site in its planned expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels.
The National Park Service's Natchez Trace Parkway stated its
support for the selection of Richton as the preferred alternative
because it would have no environmental effect on the Parkway. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service field
office in Temple, TX, acknowledged and approved of the characterization
of important farmlands for the Big Hill and Stratton Ridges sites in
the final EIS.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Chacahoula, Bruinsburg, Richton, and Stratton Ridge
alternatives, which include the expansion of existing storage sites,
all have the potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources.
After considering the impacts to each resource, DOE has identified the
Bruinsburg and Stratton Ridge alternatives as the environmentally
preferable alternatives. The Chacahoula alternatives would affect
hundreds more acres of ecologically important forested wetlands than
any other alternative. The wetlands at the proposed Chacahoula site are
also relatively contiguous and in a mostly undisturbed area in
Louisiana, which adds to the ecological function and value of the
wetlands. The Richton alternatives would affect several hundred acres
of wetlands through more than 200 miles of pipeline and power line
rights-of-way. Most of the wetland impacts associated with the Richton
alternatives, however, would either be temporary or be a permanent
conversion, meaning that some of the function of the wetlands would be
retained. Nonetheless, total acreage of wetlands affected from rights-
of-way for the Richton alternatives would be greater than from the
Stratton Ridge or Bruinsburg alternatives. USFWS and MS NHP identified
two Federally listed species and a Federal candidate species that may
be adversely affected by the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River.
The Richton alternatives are also the only alternatives that may affect
[[Page 7970]]
designated critical habitat of a protected species.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
DOE included a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment as appendix B in
the final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been prepared in
accordance with DOE's regulations ``Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,'' 10 CFR Part 1022. DOE has
concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to construction
within floodplains for the individual proposed new SPR sites or
expansion sites. Site locations, the location of onsite facilities, and
site access roads are dictated by the locations and configuration of
the salt domes, which constitute a unique geologic setting. In
addition, DOE needs a raw water source that is adequate for solution
mining of storage caverns. Similarly, because the salt dome sites are
largely located in lowland areas surrounded by wide expanses of
floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to the location of
the pipelines running to and from these sites within floodplains. The
raw water intake structures and associated pipeline rights-of-way also
are water dependent because of their function and therefore cannot be
located outside of the floodplain associated with the water source.
Pipelines, power lines, and roads cannot avoid crossing waterways and
the associated floodplains. DOE considered alternatives for minimizing
the potential impacts of pipeline and power line rights-of-way in
floodplains and wetlands. The primary approach that DOE employed was to
select pipeline and power line rights-of-way along existing rights-of-
way. The Gulf Coast consists of a large number of gas and oil fields
and associated facilities, which offer a network of existing pipeline
and power line rights-of-way. This network of utilities enabled DOE to
minimize the potential impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Floodplain
maps of all the alternatives considered in the EIS are available in
appendix B of the final EIS.
To comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and
DOE's regulations, DOE will follow the U.S. Water Resources Council's
(1978) Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive
Order 11988 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Unified
National Program for Floodplain Management while planning its
mitigation strategy for the selected SPR alternative. Those actions
would include the following: the use of minimum grading requirements to
save as much of the site from compaction as possible; returning the
site and rights-of-way to original contours where feasible; preserving
free natural drainage when designing and constructing roads, fills, and
large built-up centers; maintaining wetland and floodplain vegetation
buffers to reduce sedimentation and discharge of pollutants to nearby
water bodies, where feasible; constructing stormwater management
facilities (where appropriate) to minimize any alteration in natural
drainage and flood storage capacity; directional drilling of larger
wetland and stream crossings, where feasible; locating buildings above
the base flood elevation or flood proofing; complying with the
floodplain ordinance/regulations for the jurisdiction where the
selected alternative is located; and performing a hydrological
demonstration (using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System or an approved
floodplain model) to confirm that proposed fill and structures within
the floodplain would not increase the base flood elevation.
Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in
accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in
special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable
structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to
be watertight. DOE would coordinate with and secure approval from the
floodplain coordinator at the appropriate state agency or the local
government, if it has adopted the NFIP, during the design stage/site
plan process.
Decision
DOE has decided to: construct a new storage facility at Richton,
MS, with a total capacity of 160 MMB of crude oil; expand the storage
capacity of two existing SPR sites by a total of 113 MMB by developing
8 new 10-MMB caverns at Big Hill, TX, developing 2 new 11.5-MMB caverns
at Bayou Choctaw, LA, and acquiring an existing privately-owned 10-MMB
cavern that lies within the Bayou Choctaw site; and fill the SPR to 1
billion barrels, as authorized by Congress.
Basis for Decision
DOE's decision is based on careful consideration of the
environmental impacts of the alternatives along with an evaluation of
SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments,
projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing
commercial operations.
The Stratton Ridge alternatives were not selected based on the new
storage site's location within the Seaway crude oil distribution
complex and the site's potential impacts to existing commercial
operations. The SPR currently has two large sites, Bryan Mound and Big
Hill, which can adequately serve refiners in the Seaway distribution
complex. Additional storage in this area would not enhance the SPR's
distribution capabilities or address the SPR's need for increased oil
storage in the Capline distribution complex, which serves the refiners
on the lower Mississippi River and the Capline Interstate Pipeline
system. In addition, Dow Chemical Company, which occupies the majority
of the Stratton Ridge salt dome, relies on the salt for its
petrochemical operations. Dow submitted comments on the draft EIS
stating that the property is critical to its future salt needs and
continuing operations of Dow Chemical in Freeport, TX.
The primary reason for not selecting the Bruinsburg alternatives is
the small size of the salt dome, which only has the capacity to store
up to 70 MMB of oil, as discussed above. Also, due to its location,
development of the caverns at Bruinsburg would require disposing of
large volumes of brine through underground disposal wells. DOE has
extensive experience with underground brine disposal wells for smaller
volumes. Injection wells can be difficult and expensive to operate, the
geology must be appropriate for wells to be drilled, and the receiving
aquifer must be hydrologically suited for injections. Disposing of
large volumes of brine through underground injection at Bruinsburg
presents significant development risks.
The Chacahoula alternatives were not selected based on significant
potential environmental impacts to the Louisiana wetlands. The entire
site is located in an ecologically important bald cypress forested
wetland area. The alternatives were estimated to potentially impact a
total of 2,502 acres of wetlands, requiring extensive wetland
mitigation.
The Richton alternatives present significant benefits relative to
the other alternatives by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution
capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System as well as
refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome
is large and undeveloped, which provides DOE with sufficient capacity
to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other
commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. The Richton site is
also located approximately 80 miles
[[Page 7971]]
from the Gulf coast, providing a significant buffer to the potentially
damaging effects of hurricanes on surface structures at the storage
site.
The decision announced by DOE in this ROD differs from the
Preferred Alternative identified in the final EIS, which included
expanding the storage capacity of 3 existing SPR facilities (West
Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, LA, and Big Hill, TX) by a total of 115
MMB, and constructing a new 160-MMB SPR facility at Richton, MS. The
ROD replaces the planned expansion of West Hackberry (by 15 MMB) with a
larger expansion of storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw (by 33 MMB
instead of 20 MMB). This decision was based on: (a) The recent
acquisition by a private company of the existing caverns at West
Hackberry; (b) the need for additional stocks at Bayou Choctaw to
address refiner demands; and (c) the need for an additional cavern at
Bayou Choctaw to support the site's maximum drawdown operations.
In comparing expansion options at Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry,
DOE considered several factors. First, as discussed in the final EIS,
the three commercial caverns that DOE had proposed to acquire at West
Hackberry were purchased by Sempra Pipelines and Storage Corporation in
August 2006 as part of its Liberty Gas Storage System and in
conjunction with the Cameron Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal
(currently under construction). As discussed above, Sempra has
submitted comments on the final EIS stating that the property is a
critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio and the West
Hackberry storage facility is expected to be in service in April 2009.
As a result, DOE may not be able to acquire the West Hackberry caverns
at a reasonable cost.
Second, DOE needs additional crude stocks at Bayou Choctaw to
address the refiners' demands along the Mississippi River. The new 160-
MMB facility at Richton, MS, will have the capability to distribute
crude via pipeline to the Capline Pipeline System serving refiners in
the Midwest, but not to refiners along the lower Mississippi River. The
SPR facility at Bayou Choctaw has the capability to distribute oil by
pipeline to a number of refiners along the Mississippi River, but is
very limited in its current crude storage capabilities. As these
refiners are highly dependent on foreign crude supplies, the expected
demand during a supply interruption would far exceed the inventories
currently available at Bayou Choctaw. This situation is expected to
worsen in the future by the announced doubling of crude processing
capacity of the Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA.
Third, an additional storage cavern at Bayou Choctaw supports the
site's maximum drawdown capabilities. Due to the location of one of the
existing caverns at the edge of the salt dome, DOE has placed
constraints on the cavern's capacity and operations. An additional
cavern would be of significant benefit to achieving and maintaining the
site's maximum drawdown rate in the event of a drawdown of the Reserve.
For these reasons, DOE has concluded that increasing the storage
capacity at Bayou Choctaw to 33 MMB, in lieu of an expansion at West
Hackberry, will provide greater benefits to the SPR in terms of
enhanced oil import protection capability. This proposed increase in
the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw is also considered superior to
the option of increasing the capacity of the Big Hill site by 96 MMB,
which would not satisfy the need for additional Capline system stocks
and would increase the Big Hill site storage capacity to more than 250
MMB, creating the need for additional oil drawdown and distribution
infrastructure.
Based on the SA, DOE determined that the additional expansion at
Bayou Choctaw is not a substantial change to the proposed action that
is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40
CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the
SPR final EIS is not needed.
In conclusion, the selection of a new site at Richton with
expansion of the existing Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill sites offers DOE
significant benefits by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution
capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System, refiners
along the lower Mississippi River, as well as refineries and marine
facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome provides DOE with
sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without
potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical
risk.
Mitigation
DOE has developed general mitigation measures to address potential
impacts. Examples of general mitigation include programmatic agreements
for dealing with impacts to cultural resources. Under the terms of
programmatic agreements signed by DOE, the State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) in the three states where the Richton site and the
Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansion sites are located, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and tribes, as appropriate, DOE will
identify and resolve adverse effects to historic properties in
locations selected for expansion or new development. At those
locations, DOE will conduct field reconnaissance and additional
documentary research and consultations as appropriate to identify
cultural resources including historic properties; that is,
archaeological or historical sites, structures, districts, or
landscapes that are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. For identified historic properties, DOE will assess
potential project effects and resolve adverse effects in consultation
with the SHPOs and the tribes that are concurring parties or
signatories to the programmatic agreements.
The wetlands permitting process provides other examples of general
mitigation measures. DOE will prepare the appropriate application for a
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 401
Water Quality Certificate from each relevant state agency. This permit
process requires a comprehensive analysis of alternatives to avoid
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States, an
analysis of measures taken to minimize impacts, and a compensation plan
to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States,
including wetlands. Avoidance and minimization strategies could include
measures such as refinement or modification of facility footprints to
avoid wetlands, minimization of slopes in fill areas, use of
geotechnical fabric under wetland fills to minimize mudwave potential,
and restoration of the disturbed wetlands outside the permanent
footprint of the facility. The compensation plan will be developed by
DOE and submitted with the permit application. The compensation plan,
in addition to avoidance and minimization strategies during and after
construction, will include provisions for compensation sites (e.g.,
conservation easements or similar mechanisms), restoration, and post
restoration monitoring to evaluate the success of the mitigation.
Additional detail on mitigation measures is included in section
3.7.2.1.3 of the final EIS, and on potential compensation sites in
appendix O of the final EIS.
Mitigation measures specific to the selected Richton alternative
have not been adopted at this time because DOE and the regulatory
agencies agreed that the substantial amount of resources needed to
develop mitigation measures
[[Page 7972]]
specific to each alternative during the preparation of the EIS would
have been impracticable and inefficient in light of the large number of
alternatives located across three states and crossing numerous agency
jurisdictional boundaries.
Instead, DOE will work with USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and
other Federal, state, and local natural resource agencies to develop
specific mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to endangered
species, EFH, wetlands, and other resources, as described in the final
EIS. The mitigation plan for the alternative selected in this ROD will
be developed during the permitting process, after wetland delineations
and jurisdictional determinations and a functional assessment of
affected wetlands is completed. DOE will also complete a formal
consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries and prepare a Biological
Assessment as mandated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
for any endangered species that may be affected by the selected
alternative. Through these activities, DOE will develop and adopt a
detailed mitigation plan to take all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm, as required by 40 CFR 1505.2(c).
Dated: February 14, 2007.
Samuel W. Bodman,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. E7-3022 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P