Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 7964-7972 [E7-3022]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7964-7972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3022]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
https://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html and on the project's Web 
site at https://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-
eis.html, and the ROD and SA will be available on both Web sites in the 
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 https://
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