```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2096-2105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Proposed Abengoa Biorefinery Project Near Hugoton, Stevens County, KS 
(DOE/EIS-0407)

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) prepared 
an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0407) to assess the 
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action of 
providing Federal financial assistance to Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of 
Kansas, LLC (Abengoa Bioenergy) to support the design, construction, 
and startup of a commercial-scale integrated biorefinery to be located 
near the city of Hugoton in Stevens County, southwestern Kansas (the 
Project). The integrated biorefinery would use a combination of biomass 
feedstocks, such as corn stover and wheat straw, to produce ethanol and 
to generate sufficient electricity to power the facility and supply 
excess electricity to the regional power grid. The Project site 
comprises approximately 810 acres of row-cropped agricultural land. The 
biorefinery facilities would be developed on 385 acres of the Project 
site, and the remaining 425 acres would remain agricultural and act as 
a buffer between the biorefinery and the city of Hugoton.
    After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts 
and other factors such as program goals and objectives, DOE has decided 
that it will provide Federal funding under Section 932 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) of up to $71 million (2009 dollars), 
subject to annual appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy for the Project. 
A separate decision will be made regarding a potential loan guarantee; 
and if DOE decides to proceed to consider the loan guarantee, DOE would 
consider using the Final Abengoa Biorefinery EIS to comply with NEPA 
review requirements for the loan guarantee. If DOE determines that the 
Final Biorefinery EIS sufficiently addresses all activities covered by 
the loan guarantee, DOE could either issue a Record of Decision (ROD) 
deciding to issue a loan guarantee, or amend this ROD.

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: http://nepa.energy.gov/ and on the 
Abengoa Biorefinery Project Web site at: http://www.biorefineryprojecteis-abengoa.com. This ROD also is available on 
these Web sites. Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD may be obtained 
from Ms. Kristin Kerwin, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 1617 Cole 
Blvd., Golden, CO 80401; telephone: 720-356-1564; or fax: 720-356-1650.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
this Project, the EIS or the ROD, contact Ms. Kristin Kerwin by the 
means specified above under ADDRESSES. For general information on the 
DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: 202-586-
4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a toll-free message at: 1-800-472-
2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD pursuant to the 
Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 1500-1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This 
ROD is based in part on DOE's Final EIS for the Proposed Abengoa 
Biorefinery Project (DOE/EIS-0407, August 2010).

Background

    Under EPAct 2005, Congress directed DOE to carry out a program to 
demonstrate the commercial application of integrated biorefineries for 
the production of biofuels, in particular ethanol, from lignocellulosic 
feedstocks. Federal funding for cellulosic ethanol production 
facilities is intended to further the government's goal of rendering 
ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012, and along with 
increased automobile fuel efficiency, reducing gasoline consumption in 
the United States by 20 percent within 10 years.
    To implement its responsibilities under EPAct 2005, DOE issued a 
funding opportunity announcement in February 2006 for the design, 
construction, and startup of commercial-scale integrated biorefineries. 
In February 2007, the Department selected Abengoa Bioenergy and five 
other applicants for negotiation of award. Abengoa Bioenergy proposed 
an innovative approach to biorefinery operations that would involve 
production of biofuel and energy in the form of steam that could be 
used to meet energy needs and displace fossil fuels, such as coal and 
natural gas. The

[[Page 2097]]

proposal also included an integrated grain-to-ethanol facility.
    In January 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy modified its proposal by 
omitting the integrated grain-to-ethanol facility and including a 
steam-driven turbine that would generate sufficient electricity to 
power the production facility and supply excess electricity to the 
regional power grid. In addition, Abengoa applied for a loan guarantee 
from the Department's Loan Guarantee Program pursuant to Title XVII of 
EPAct 2005, and from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural 
Development Biorefinery Assistance Program pursuant to Section 9003 of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Department of 
Agriculture Rural Development was a cooperating agency in the 
preparation of the EIS.
    DOE considered Abengoa Bioenergy's proposed project changes and 
concluded that the Project remained eligible for Federal funding under 
Section 932 of EPAct 2005. On August 28, 2009, the Department 
determined, however, that it would not proceed with Abengoa's request 
for a DOE loan guarantee.
    On December 22, 2009, after publication of the Draft Abengoa 
Biorefinery Project EIS on September 23, 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy filed 
a revised loan guarantee application, and in March 2010, the Department 
determined that the proposed biorefinery was eligible for consideration 
under Title XVII, Section 1703 of EPAct 2005, and requested that 
Abengoa submit the Part II portion of its loan guarantee application. 
Abengoa submitted the Part II application on May 14, 2010.
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to issue a loan guarantee for 
the construction and startup of the biorefinery. DOE is reviewing the 
Part II submission and, pending the results of the Part II review, will 
decide whether to initiate the due diligence, underwriting, and 
negotiation phase of the loan guarantee process. If DOE initiates that 
process with Abengoa, DOE's proposed action (that is, to issue a loan 
guarantee) would be subject to NEPA review. If DOE decides to proceed 
to consider the loan guarantee, DOE would consider using the Final 
Biorefinery EIS to comply with NEPA review requirements for the loan 
guarantee. If DOE determines that the Final Biorefinery EIS 
sufficiently addresses all activities covered by the loan guarantee, 
DOE could either issue a Record of Decision deciding to issue a loan 
guarantee, or amend this Record of Decision.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development also 
considered Abengoa's application for a loan guarantee and did not 
approve it for funding in Fiscal Year 2009. Should Abengoa submit an 
application for a loan guarantee in the future, Rural Development will 
use DOE's Final Biorefinery EIS as part of its evaluation of project 
eligibility and sufficiency.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    EPAct 2005, Section 932, directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct 
a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application for bioenergy, including integrated biorefineries that can 
produce biopower, biofuels, and bioproducts. In carrying out a program 
to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated biorefineries, 
EPAct 2005 authorizes the Secretary to provide funds to biorefinery 
demonstration projects to encourage (1) the demonstration of a wide 
variety of lignocellulosic feedstocks; (2) the commercial application 
of biomass technologies for a variety of uses, including liquid 
transportation fuels, high-value bio-based chemicals, substitutes for 
petroleum-based feedstocks and products, and energy in the form of 
electricity or useful heat; and (3) the demonstration of the collection 
and treatment of a variety of biomass feedstocks. Accordingly, DOE 
needs to implement Section 932 of EPAct 2005 and support advanced 
biofuel production pursuant to the Renewable Fuel Standard established 
by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). EISA 
2007's Renewable Fuel Standard requires the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that transportation fuel sold or 
introduced in the United States contain at least 36 billion gallons per 
year of biofuels by 2022, and includes specific provisions for advanced 
biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass-based diesel fuels. 
Thus, DOE's purpose is to demonstrate that commercial-scale integrated 
biorefineries that use a wide variety of lignocellulosic (second-
generation) feedstocks to produce biofuels, bio-based chemicals, and 
biopower can operate without direct Federal subsidy after construction 
costs are paid, and that these biorefineries can be easily replicated.

EIS Process

    In August 2008, DOE published in the Federal Register its ``Notice 
of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of 
Wetlands Involvement for the Abengoa Biorefinery Project near Hugoton, 
KS'' (73 FR 50001), starting a 45-day public scoping period during 
which DOE held a public scoping meeting in Hugoton, Kansas. In April 
2009, DOE re-opened public scoping and published in the Federal 
Register its ``Amended Notice of Intent to Modify the Scope of the 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Abengoa Biorefinery Project near 
Hugoton, KS'' (74 FR 19543). The amended notice informed the public 
about changes in the Project relevant to the scope of the ongoing EIS. 
The Department conducted a 30-day public scoping period and held a 
second public scoping meeting in Hugoton, Kansas. During these scoping 
periods, the Department received oral and written comments of the 
following three types: Expressions of support for the Project, 
statements of no negative environmental impacts, and requests for 
additional information from Federal and state agencies and members of 
the public.
    On September 23, 2009, DOE published in the Federal Register its 
Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Abengoa Biorefinery Project Near Hugoton, Stevens County, KS (DOE/
EIS-0407D) (74 FR 48525). DOE's Notice of Availability invited the 
public to comment on the Draft EIS during a 45-day public comment 
period, and described how the public could submit oral and written 
comments on the Draft EIS. DOE's Notice also announced a public 
hearing, which DOE conducted in Hugoton, Kansas on October 21, 2009. On 
September 25, 2009, EPA listed the Draft Abengoa Biorefinery Project 
EIS in its weekly notice of availability (74 FR 48951).
    The Department received approximately 40 comments from six 
commenters during the public comment period. DOE prepared a comment-
response chapter for the Final Biorefinery EIS (Chapter 10), which 
provides each comment and DOE's response. One commenter reiterated 
comments submitted during public scoping, and another commenter 
submitted suggestions regarding region-specific studies for corn stover 
removal and runoff index scores for agricultural lands. One commenter 
recommended that the proposed transmission line be designed to protect 
migratory birds and raptors. A few commenters expressed concern about 
landfill management of refinery waste. A couple of commenters expressed 
support for the Project. One commenter submitted a number of comments 
regarding the impacts of biomass harvest on soil sustainability, 
potential impacts to groundwater, the timeframe for construction of the 
grain-to-ethanol facility, the use of the latest

[[Page 2098]]

biorefinery design for the air quality analysis, the site selection 
process, and the reliance on irrigated corn crops.
    DOE issued the Final EIS and on August 20, 2010, EPA listed the 
Final Abengoa Biorefinery Project EIS in its weekly notice of 
availability (75 FR 51458). The Final EIS reflects changes resulting 
from public comments, and, accordingly, the responses in the comment-
response chapter identify sections of the Final EIS to which changes 
have been made. The Final EIS also reflects changes based on new and 
updated information. Substantive changes in the Final EIS are indicated 
by vertical change bars shown in the margins. DOE received one comment 
on the Final EIS from EPA, Region VII. EPA stated that DOE had 
adequately addressed the concerns expressed in EPA's comments on the 
Draft EIS.

Proposed Action and Project Description

    DOE's Proposed Action is to provide Federal funding of up to $71 
million (2009 dollars), subject to annual appropriations, to Abengoa 
Bioenergy to support the design, construction, and startup of the 
biorefinery, whose total anticipated cost is approximately $685 million 
(2009 dollars).
    The biorefinery would be constructed on a 385-acre parcel near 
Hugoton, Kansas. Abengoa Bioenergy has optioned an additional 425 acres 
immediately east of the biorefinery parcel, between the biorefinery and 
the Hugoton city limits, as a buffer area. The optioned parcel would 
continue to be used as agricultural land, and might be used to test 
production of biomass feedstocks.
    The biomass-to-ethanol and -energy facility proposed by Abengoa 
Bioenergy would use lignocellulosic biomass (biomass) as feedstock to 
produce biofuels. Biomass, including corn stover, wheat straw, milo 
stubble, mixed warm season grasses (such as switchgrass), and other 
available materials, would be harvested as feedstock and fermented to 
produce ethanol.
    The biorefinery would also produce biopower, or bioenergy, in the 
form of electricity. The bioenergy generation facilities co-located at 
the site would use direct-firing (that is, using the biomass as a solid 
fuel in a boiler) to produce steam. Steam produced in the biomass 
boilers would be used for facility processes and to produce 
electricity.
    Under the Proposed Action, the biorefinery would process 
approximately 2,500 dry short tons per day of feedstock, which would be 
obtained from producers within 50 miles of the Biorefinery Project 
site. The biorefinery would produce up to 19 million gallons of 
denatured ethanol per year and 125 megawatts of electricity. Seventy-
five megawatts of electricity would be sold commercially.
    Construction of the biorefinery would take approximately 18 months 
and would require infrastructure improvements, such as construction of 
site roads that would tie to Rural Road P, a 1.5-mile-long electrical 
transmission line, and an approximately 0.5-mile railroad spur on the 
Biorefinery Project site that would tie into the Cimarron Valley 
Railroad. Temporary connections to utilities would include electricity, 
cable, telephone, and a nonpotable water line. Temporary potable water 
and sanitary facilities would be provided onsite until construction of 
permanent, onsite facilities.
    Harvested bales of biomass would be transported to a 10-acre onsite 
storage yard or to one of seven offsite storage sites to be located 
within 30 miles of the Biorefinery Project site. Each offsite storage 
location would be about 160 acres and would have no permanent 
structures. Combined, these sites would store enough biomass to support 
biorefinery operations for up to 1 year. Bales of corn stover and other 
biomass ready to be processed at the biorefinery would be transported 
to a bale barn and sent by conveyor for grinding and cleaning. The 
ground feedstock would then enter the production process or be stored 
temporarily in silos onsite. In addition, wood waste would be used as 
boiler fuel to generate electricity. Up to 1,000 tons per day would be 
brought from various sources by rail and truck to the biorefinery.
    The ethanol production process would involve the following steps: 
(1) Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation, (2) distillation and 
dehydration, and (3) ethanol denaturization and storage. During 
hydrolysis and fermentation, the feedstock would be treated with 
enzymes and genetically modified organisms (enzymatic hydrolysis) to 
simultaneously break down the cellulose and ferment the recovered 
sugars. The resulting ``beer,'' which would be 4 to 5 percent ethanol 
at that point, would then be distilled and dehydrated to remove water 
and residual solids. Distillation would also destroy genetically 
modified and other organisms.
    The facility design incorporates two 45,200-gallon-capacity shift 
tanks to hold the anhydrous ethanol produced during each 8-hour shift. 
The storage tanks would be enclosed in a bermed area to contain spills. 
Gasoline would be added to denature the ethanol and make it unfit for 
human consumption prior to temporary storage and loading of the product 
into tanker railcars for shipment.
    Solids would be recovered from the distillation process. 
Approximately 120,000 dry short tons of solids, referred to as lignin-
rich stillage cake, would be produced per year. The stillage cake would 
be transferred by conveyor to an onsite third-party lignin producer. 
After extracting the lignin, the lignin producer would return the 
lignin-poor stillage cake to the biorefinery and Abengoa Bioenergy 
would use it as fuel for the solid biomass boilers. Until a lignin 
extraction facility is built, Abengoa would burn the lignin-rich 
stillage cake as solid fuel in the biomass boilers. As an option, 
Abengoa could use lignin-rich stillage cake as fuel for the solid 
biomass boiler during the life of the biorefinery.
    The biomass receiving, grinding, and storage operations would be an 
enclosed system with a high-velocity, positive pressure collection 
system to transfer airborne particles to a dirt loadout tank. The 
loadout tank, grinding activities, and associated transfer points would 
have fabric filter dust collectors (baghouses). Volatile organic matter 
released during processing would be captured in a vent scrubber.
    Approximately 1,900 dry short tons per day of biomass feedstock 
would be supplied to the boilers. The biomass boilers would also burn 
much of the waste resulting from ethanol production, including fines 
collected during milling, stillage cake, and syrup from the 
distillation process. These processes would produce approximately 
127,000 tons of ash annually. This ash would contain potassium and 
phosphorus and would be marketed to the contracted feedstock producers 
as a soil amendment. If there is no market for the ash, it would be 
sent to landfills.

Alternatives

    In addition to the Proposed Action, the EIS analyzes an Action 
Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

Action Alternative

    Under the Action Alternative, DOE would provide Federal funding to 
support the design, construction and startup of a biorefinery that 
would use a two-stage process to produce fermentable sugars for 
bioethanol production and that would produce syngas using a 
gasification system. A syngas boiler as well as the biomass boilers 
would produce steam. Steam would be used for ethanol production

[[Page 2099]]

processes and electricity production. Under the Action Alternative, the 
biomass boilers and the turbines would be used to generate electricity 
solely to operate the plant and would be smaller than those for the 
Proposed Action.
    The biorefinery would produce approximately 12 million gallons per 
year of denatured ethanol, 19,000 short tons per year of lignin-rich 
stillage cake, and 20 megawatts of electricity for use at the facility.
    The milling process for the Proposed Action and Action Alternative 
is the same. Once milled, the feedstock would be pretreated with dilute 
acid to remove hemicellulose and pectin (the Proposed Action is a one 
stage process and does not include two pretreatment stages as does the 
Action Alternative). It is this pretreatment step and the subsequent 
processing of the fractionated biomass where the two-stage process 
differs from the one-stage process described in the Proposed Action. 
After this pretreatment, two types of hydrolysate or pretreated biomass 
would be processed in two separate steps. One type contains a 
hydrolysate primarily consisting of hemicellulose and pectin, which 
would be further saccharified to fermentable sugars; these simple 
sugars would then be fermented to ethanol. The second type includes the 
cellulose-rich, lignin-rich fiber hydrolysate, which would be further 
processed with enzymes to produce simple sugars that would be 
simultaneously fermented to ethanol. Each separate step produces beers 
containing between 4 and 5 percent ethanol and both beers would be 
conveyed to distillation operations for purification. Volatile organic 
matter released during both of these processes would be captured in a 
vent scrubber.
    Approximately 71,000 dry short tons per year of soluble and 
insoluble solids would be recovered from the bottom of the distillation 
column. The soluble solids would be concentrated to a thin stillage 
syrup in an evaporator and would be combusted in the biomass boilers. 
About 130 dry short tons per day of insoluble, lignin-rich stillage 
cake would be transferred to an onsite processing facility for 
extraction of lignin. After the lignin was extracted, the lignin 
producer would return the lignin-poor stillage cake to the biorefinery, 
and Abengoa Bioenergy would use it as fuel for the solid biomass 
boiler. Until a lignin extraction facility is built, Abengoa would burn 
the lignin-rich stillage cake as solid fuel in the biomass boiler. If 
recovery of lignin is not economically feasible, the lignin-rich 
stillage cake would be used as fuel in the biomass boiler.Denaturing 
the produced ethanol and loadout for the Proposed Action and Action 
Alternative would be the same.
    Syngas produced in the gasification plant under the Action 
Alternative would be used to operate a fire-tube boiler to produce 
steam. A small biomass solids boiler would also produce steam to power 
the biorefinery process operations only. Steam would be used to operate 
a small turbine that would produce 20 megawatts of power.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not provide Federal 
funding to Abengoa Bioenergy to support the design, construction, and 
startup of a biorefinery. Abengoa would not build a biorefinery and the 
biorefinery parcel would remain agricultural land. The Department 
recognizes, however, that Abengoa could pursue alternative sources of 
capital for development of the biorefinery.

Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
the Proposed Action, Action Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative 
on potentially affected resource areas. These include: land use; air 
quality; hydrology; biological resources; utilities, energy, and 
materials; wastes, byproducts, and hazardous materials; transportation; 
aesthetics; socioeconomics; cultural resources; health and safety; and 
environmental justice. DOE also considered potential impacts on these 
resources from accidents and acts of sabotage. No wetlands would be 
filled and no floodplains would be affected. The EIS also considered 
cumulative impacts, that is, impacts from the Project combined with 
those from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
actions. The following sections discuss the potential impacts.

Land Use

    Operation of the biorefinery would require approximately 880,000 
dry short tons of lignocellulosic feedstock per year. Abengoa Bioenergy 
anticipates that, at the start of operations, the primary feedstock 
would be corn stover, with secondary feedstocks consisting of grain 
sorghum stover, wheat straw, and mixed warm season grasses. 
Approximately 20 percent of the total feedstock demand would consist of 
corn stover for cellulosic ethanol production, with the remaining 80 
percent consisting of any combination of feedstocks for bioenergy 
production.
    DOE conservatively estimates that the total annual demand for crop 
residue by the biorefinery would equal about 60 percent of the targeted 
crop residues that could be sustainably removed from the 50-mile region 
surrounding the Biorefinery Project site. The demand for corn residue 
for ethanol production would be about 20 percent of the amount that 
could be sustainably removed from irrigated corn acreage. Thus, 
production of targeted crop residues exceeds biorefinery demand and 
Abengoa would have flexibility in feedstock procurement. DOE 
anticipates the demand for crop residue by the biorefinery would have a 
negligible impact on changes in land use type, including use of lands 
in the Conservation Reserve Program, because there would be no 
incentive to alter land use type for the purpose of meeting demand.
    Over time, it is anticipated that mixed warm season grasses (such 
as switchgrass) would replace corn residue as the primary feedstock for 
producing ethanol resulting in (1) beneficial environmental impacts 
where marginal cropland was converted, and (2) minimal environmental 
changes where land use types such as nonharvested cropland, former 
Conservation Reserve Program acreage, and pasture were converted. The 
beneficial environmental impacts of converting marginal cropland to 
mixed warm season grasses are related to establishment of a crop that 
is resistant to many pests and plant diseases; uses relatively less 
water, fertilizer, and pesticides; and establishes deep roots that 
store carbon in the soil. Increased mixed warm season grasses 
production would not be expected to result in an adverse impact to land 
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
    Contracts between Abengoa Bioenergy and producers of biomass would 
include a requirement that crop residues would be harvested in 
accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for 
minimizing wind erosion. DOE concludes that, on a regional basis, 
removing crop residue following these guidelines would have a 
negligible adverse impact on soil organic matter content. On a field-
by-field basis, crop residue removal would have a negligible to minor 
adverse impact on soil organic matter content. Any adverse impact to 
soil organic matter content would be limited to land for which the 
producer was compensated for residue removal.
    Development of the biorefinery would result in the irreversible 
conversion of 385 acres from agricultural to industrial use. The 
Proposed Action is consistent with existing land use and zoning at the

[[Page 2100]]

Project site. The reduction in irrigated farmland associated with the 
water rights Abengoa Bioenergy would transfer to industrial use at the 
biorefinery would be a negligible change in regional irrigated 
cropland.

Air Quality

    Construction of the biorefinery would cause emissions from various 
activities including use of heavy diesel-operated equipment, 
disturbance of the soil, grading activities, material transport, and 
material handling. These activities would be short term or intermittent 
in nature and would only occur during the 18-month construction phase. 
Best management practices would be employed to minimize these 
emissions.
    Concentrations of criteria pollutants estimated to be released 
during operation of the biorefinery would be well below the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The estimated concentrations from the 
biorefinery, combined with ambient background concentrations of 
pollutants in the region, are about 67 percent of the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for 24-hour PM10, 12 percent for 
nitrogen dioxide, and less than 10 percent of the standard for other 
pollutants. DOE concludes that air emissions would not harm human 
health and the environment.
    The biorefinery also would be a source of greenhouse gases, with 
carbon dioxide the most abundant. The boilers would be the main source 
of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. 
Biomass fermentation and distillation processes also would emit carbon 
dioxide. The total emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (used to 
represent the contribution of all gases) from operation would be 3.61 
million tons per year. According to the DOE Energy Information 
Administration, the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 was 
7,775 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, with 6,409 million 
tons of the total from energy-related carbon dioxide. The projected 
greenhouse gas emissions from the biorefinery would be 0.046 percent of 
the total U.S. carbon dioxide equivalent value.
    Although the biorefinery would be a source of greenhouse gas 
emissions, operation of the biorefinery would provide a net reduction 
in greenhouse gas emissions when considering the emissions produced 
during the lifecycle of ethanol production and use relative to the 
lifecycle of gasoline production and use. To determine the level of 
greenhouse gas reduction from the Proposed Action, DOE used the 
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation 
(GREET) Model, developed by DOE's Argonne National Laboratory. The 
GREET Model examines ``well-to-wheel'' fuel lifecycles by considering 
factors such as producing raw materials for fuels, refining the raw 
materials into fuels, and using the fuel in vehicles.
    The Abengoa Biorefinery Project would reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions not only by producing a fuel that displaces gasoline, but 
also by producing power that displaces electricity from other 
electricity generating sources. The GREET Model combines these 
reductions and other factors into a single metric to express the net 
effect on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to a baseline 
scenario in which the biorefinery is not built. Because the majority of 
the electricity the biorefinery would produce would be exported rather 
than used for biorefinery operations, the greenhouse gases displaced by 
the biorefinery would be larger than the greenhouse gases emitted by 
biorefinery operations, thus causing a decrease in greenhouse gas 
emissions that exceeds 100 percent. As a comparison, if only enough 
electricity was produced to run the biorefinery (none would be sold to 
the grid), the percent reduction under the Proposed Action would be 69 
percent as compared with the baseline where the biorefinery is not 
built and passenger vehicles use 100 percent conventional or 
reformulated gasoline.

Hydrology

    Wastewater, petroleum products, and hazardous chemicals would be 
generated by the biorefinery. Planned releases of wastewater would be 
limited to the non-contact wastewater that would be used for irrigation 
of the buffer area. Petroleum products and hazardous chemicals used 
during construction and operations would be managed within secondary 
containment on the site, and there are no surface waters in the nearby 
area that would be affected by accidental releases.
    Disturbed and built-up land areas would result in increased runoff; 
this runoff would be directed to natural low areas within the 
biorefinery parcel. Changes in infiltration would be minor and likely 
would be limited to small changes in the exact locations where 
infiltration would occur. Alterations to surface water drainage would 
be limited to minor changes within the 385-acre parcel and possibly 
within the buffer area. Natural low areas where runoff accumulates 
would not be altered. The Department concludes the potential for 
adverse impacts to surface waters from the Proposed Action is 
negligible.
    Construction of the biorefinery would require approximately 220 
acre-feet of water, and operations would require about 2,900 acre-feet 
of water per year. DOE estimates that an additional 46 acre-feet of 
groundwater would be withdrawn per year by the city of Hugoton to meet 
the domestic needs of biorefinery workers, bringing the total annual 
estimated demand to support the biorefinery to approximately 2,950 
acre-feet per year.
    Abengoa Bioenergy has optioned existing irrigation water rights 
from eight wells to meet the water demand for construction and 
operation of the biorefinery under the Proposed Action. The maximum 
permitted withdrawal associated with those water rights is about 7,240 
acre-feet per year, and the total volume discharged from those wells in 
2008 was about 4,380 acre-feet. Thus, use of those water rights for 
operation of the biorefinery would result in a reduction of more than 
4,290 acre-feet compared with the permitted annual volume, and a 
reduction of more than 1,430 acre-feet compared with withdrawals during 
2008. DOE concludes that operation of the biorefinery would result in a 
beneficial decrease in groundwater withdrawals from the High Plains 
aquifer.
    Changes in cropping practices as a result of the Proposed Action 
are not expected to occur. Further, increases in water withdrawals for 
agricultural purposes in Kansas are limited by State water 
appropriation regulations, although increases in Oklahoma and Colorado 
may be allowed. Thus, DOE concludes that changes in water use in the 
region resulting from changes in land use to meet the demand of the 
biorefinery for biomass are not expected to occur.
    Any spills of hazardous materials would be handled in accordance 
with a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan, which would 
minimize or eliminate potential impacts to the groundwater quality from 
construction and operation of the biorefinery.

Biological Resources

    There are no Federal- or state-endangered and/or threatened 
species, candidate species, or state species in need of conservation 
present or within 1 mile of the Biorefinery Project site. DOE concludes 
that construction and operation of the biorefinery would have no 
impacts on threatened or endangered species or their designated 
critical habitat.

[[Page 2101]]

    To construct the biorefinery, the biorefinery parcel, which is 
currently used for dry-land farming, would be converted to industrial 
use. There would be some minor, short-term adverse impacts to 
biological resources from the construction and some minor, long-term 
adverse impacts from the operation of the biorefinery, but these 
impacts would affect only common species on or within 1 mile of the 
Biorefinery Project site. The analysis of potential changes in land use 
resulting from the Proposed Action indicated that conversion of 
Conservation Reserve Program lands to tilled cropland from the Proposed 
Action is not expected, and other changes in land use would be minimal. 
Thus, DOE does not expect the Proposed Action to impact biological 
resources within the region surrounding the Project site.

Utilities, Energy, and Materials

    Biorefinery workers and their families would rely on the city of 
Hugoton water system, the city of Hugoton sewage system, and the 
Stevens County landfill. The Hugoton water system also would supply 
potable water for the biorefinery facilities. Anticipated demands are 
well below the excess capacity of the City water system. The sewage 
collection system in Hugoton has sufficient capacity to accommodate use 
of the system by construction and operations workers and their 
families. In addition, the Stevens County landfill has enough capacity 
to handle the increase in solid waste during construction and 
operations due to the influx of workers and their families living in 
Hugoton.
    The biorefinery would require no electric power from the regional 
grid during operations. Rather, the biorefinery would supply 75 
megawatts of electricity to the grid during normal operations, which 
equals 5.8 percent of the production capacity in the western-central 
region of Kansas, but only about 0.2 percent of current summer demand 
in the Southwest Power Pool. The amount of natural gas and diesel fuel 
required for normal operation of the biorefinery is approximately 0.1 
and 0.05 percent, respectively, of the amounts of these fuels used in 
Kansas and would not adversely impact their supply and distribution in 
the region.
    The Proposed Action would involve a commitment of building 
materials. With the possible exception of stainless steel, these 
materials would be available and their procurement would not decrease 
availability to other users in regional markets. Components used in 
stainless steel production (such as chromium and nickel) are in high 
demand and, at times, affect availability of stainless steel. However, 
the amount of stainless steel required for construction of the 
biorefinery is a very small portion of the amount that moves through 
the U.S. market annually.

Wastes, Byproducts, and Hazardous Materials

    The wastes and byproducts the biorefinery would produce include 
construction wastes, wastewater, solid biomass boiler ash, distiller's 
residual biomass solids (stillage cake), stillage syrup, wastewater 
treatment facility sludge, lignin, genetically modified organisms, dirt 
and fines resulting from biomass processing, municipal solid waste, and 
hazardous waste.
    Solid biomass boiler ash and lignin are byproducts that could be 
sold to consumers within the 50-mile region of influence. Abengoa 
Bioenergy would burn stillage cake, dirt and fines from biomass 
processing, and genetically modified organisms in the solid biomass 
boilers as part of the Proposed Action. Domestic and process wastewater 
would be treated in the onsite wastewater treatment facilities, and 
treated process wastewater would be recycled in the ethanol production 
process. Wastewater treatment facility sludge would be used in the 
boiler fly ash pelletization process or burned in the solid biomass 
boilers. Abengoa would use non-contact wastewater for crop irrigation 
on the buffer area, and would treat, recycle, and/or dispose of boiler 
bottom ash, municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and construction 
debris at permitted facilities within the region of influence.
    The Stevens County landfill would not have adequate capacity to 
receive the construction wastes generated and maintain its small arid 
landfill exempt permit status (limited to 20 tons per day); revising 
that permit would be expensive. The non-recycled construction waste 
streams would be split among other permitted landfills and transfer 
stations within 35 miles of the biorefinery without significantly 
affecting their capacity. Less than 1 ton per day of municipal solid 
waste would be generated during the expected 30-year operating life of 
the biorefinery and would be sent to the Stevens County landfill. This 
waste stream would be about a 3 percent increase to the landfill's 
current waste stream and would reduce the life of the landfill by less 
than 1 year.
    The onsite wastewater treatment facility would treat all process 
wastewater generated at the Biorefinery Project site and would not 
discharge any to the Hugoton wastewater system. Wastewater treated 
onsite would be reused in the ethanol production process. Wastewater 
that would not be recycled and reused in the production process or 
treated onsite (non-contact wastewater) would be produced at a rate of 
370 gallons per minute and would be used to irrigate biomass crops on 
the buffer area. This water would be conveyed to two 11.5-acre storage 
ponds prior to application to the buffer area. Wastewater treatment 
facility sludge would be used in the boiler fly ash pelletization 
process or burned in the solid biomass boilers. Based on an agronomy 
study, the chemical composition of the wastewater and the anticipated 
stipulations of a required discharge permit, DOE does not anticipate 
adverse impacts from the land application of wastewater, including odor 
or aesthetic impacts. Abengoa Bioenergy would have to modify the 
facility water balance and wastewater treatment facility design if 
lignin was extracted from the stillage cake, thereby generating 
additional wastewater.
    Chemicals required for operation of the biorefinery would be 
received by truck or rail and off-loaded and transferred by an enclosed 
chemical delivery system to storage tanks, silos, or other chemical 
storage facilities. Chemicals would have to be obtained from outside 
the region. The demand for chemicals for the biorefinery would be an 
insignificant percentage of the production in the United States.
    The Project would generate 2,000 pounds per year of hazardous waste 
(for example, spent solvents, waste ethanol, and caustics). Those 
wastes would be collected and treated/disposed of by licensed hazardous 
waste facilities. DOE does not anticipate adverse impacts from the 
handling and disposal of hazardous wastes generated at the biorefinery 
because Abengoa Bioenergy's proposed hazardous waste management 
practices will be implemented.
    Genetically modified organisms used in the enzymatic hydrolysis 
process would be killed by a heat sterilization process and would be 
contained in the beer column bottoms. The bottoms stream would be 
dewatered and the residual solids sent to the solid biomass boiler for 
burning.
    The solid biomass boilers would generate up to 16 tons of bottom 
ash per day. The bottom ash would be sent to the Seward County 
landfill. Disposal of the bottom ash at this landfill over the life of 
the biorefinery would reduce the life of permitted landfill space by 
about 2.2 years. In addition, the solid biomass boilers would generate 
up to 350 tons of fly ash per day. Abengoa Bioenergy plans to sell the 
fly ash as a nutrient

[[Page 2102]]

replacement co-product to biomass producers in the region. If the ash 
could not be sold or otherwise used in a beneficial manner, it would 
require disposal at permitted solid waste disposal facilities. The 
Stevens County landfill does not have adequate capacity to receive this 
amount of ash without a permit modification, so this waste stream would 
be split among permitted landfills and transfer stations within 35 
miles of the biorefinery. However, impacts on existing permitted solid 
waste disposal facilities could be problematic if a significant 
percentage of the boiler fly ash was not marketable as a soil amendment 
byproduct. The loss of land used for landfill disposal of solid wastes 
generated during construction and operation of the biorefinery would be 
an irreversible and irretrievable loss of resources.

Transportation

    There would be approximately 32,000 truck shipments of materials 
during construction, and about 80,000 to 116,000 truck and 1,300 to 
6,600 rail shipments per year during the 30-year operating period of 
the biorefinery. DOE estimates there would be 35 to 41 traffic 
fatalities during the 30-year operations period due to these shipments 
and the commuting of workers, the majority (32 to 38) of which would be 
due to shipments of biomass, chemicals, denatured ethanol product, and 
waste. For perspective, over the 30-year operations period, there would 
be an estimated 13,400 traffic fatalities in Kansas and 820 traffic 
fatalities in the nine counties surrounding the Project site.
    DOE estimates that 1,075 rail carloads of denatured ethanol and 
waste and 211 to 5,554 rail carloads of biomass and chemicals would be 
shipped to and from the biorefinery per year of operation, which is 
equivalent to about 49 to 241 additional trains per year. This would 
result in an increase in the approximately 600 trains per year that 
travel on the Cimarron Valley Railroad, but is less than the capacity 
of 40 to 60 trains per day on that line. Thus, the additional rail 
traffic for the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the 
operations of the Cimarron Valley Railroad.
    Increased truck traffic would result in increased pavement 
deterioration. For biomass, chemical, and waste shipments associated 
with the Proposed Action, DOE estimated the annual cost of this 
pavement damage to range from $580,000 to $840,000.

Aesthetics

    DOE considered the potential impacts of the Abengoa Biorefinery 
Project on views in the area surrounding the Biorefinery Project site 
and evaluated how noise and odor from the biorefinery could affect 
residents in the area.
    Visual Resources--The tallest structure at the biorefinery 
considered under the Proposed Action would be approximately 115 feet, 
but many of the other structures would be 40 feet tall or less. The 
biorefinery would be visually similar to the grain storage silos and 
elevators, chemical tanks, and other structures located adjacent to the 
Biorefinery Project site and would be visible from surrounding vantage 
points, such as the city of Hugoton and the Forewinds Golf Course. The 
Proposed Action would require a new 1.5-mile-long transmission line 
that would be visible from Road P and Road 11 near the Biorefinery 
Project site, but would result in minimal visual impacts to viewers 
from a distance.
    The biorefinery would operate 24 hours a day, 350 days a year, and 
thus would be a source of night lighting.
    Noise--Workers would be exposed to noise during construction from 
construction equipment and trucks traveling to and from the biorefinery 
construction site. Workers would also be exposed to noise from 
equipment and biorefinery processes during operations. Best management 
practices would be employed to limit noise, and a hearing conservation 
program would be implemented; therefore, permissible noise exposure 
levels are not expected to be exceeded.
    The nearest residence to the Biorefinery Project site, 
approximately 0.6 mile away, may experience some annoyance from 
construction noise. The noise level at that distance would be 
approximately 56 decibels which is approximately the same noise level 
as a normal conversation.
    In addition to being temporary, EPA states that this noise level 
should not interfere with daily activities such as conversation, 
working, or recreation. As such, the impact would be small. At 0.6 
mile, noise from wood hog operations could be distinguishable from 
other background sources of noise. Noise from biorefinery operations 
would attenuate to below background levels beyond 0.6 mile. Therefore, 
except for the residence at the northwest property boundary, DOE does 
not anticipate impacts to members of the public from construction or 
operation of the biorefinery due to noise.
    During construction, there would be about 70 truck shipments to the 
biorefinery site per day, or about one truck arriving every 12 minutes 
(assuming all traffic occurs from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.). During operations, 
202 trucks per day are expected (one truck every 4 minutes). The routes 
taken by those trucks through and around Hugoton would vary, but it is 
anticipated that at least 50 percent of the traffic (one truck every 8 
minutes during operations) would use the truck bypass and affect two 
residences along Road Q. Along a route that passes the Stevens County 
Hospital, several schools, and places of worship, trucks are 
anticipated to pass at a rate of one every 21 minutes during 
operations. Noise from these passing trucks would frequently interfere 
with outdoor conversations and cause annoyance indoors. Rail traffic 
would increase by about 255 trains per year. Most of the rail shipments 
would carry wood waste and are expected to occur on weekdays during 
normal working daylight hours.
    Odor--Odors may result from emissions of volatile organic 
compounds, including ethanol, and hazardous air pollutants, and from 
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Engineered controls implemented to 
minimize these emissions would reduce odors from the biorefinery. Air 
dispersion modeling indicates that no odorous compounds would be 
detected at the biorefinery parcel fence line or offsite locations 
where the public would commonly be located. Therefore, DOE anticipates 
no impacts to the public from the release of odorous compounds.

Socioeconomics

    DOE evaluated the potential impacts of construction and operation 
of the biorefinery on socioeconomic variables, including population and 
housing, employment and income, taxes, and public services, in Stevens 
County and the three surrounding counties; that is, Morton and Seward 
counties in Kansas and Texas County in Oklahoma.
    The Proposed Action would require 256 workers at the peak of 
construction. About 190 of those positions likely would be filled by 
people who would migrate into the four-county region, which would 
result in a temporary increase in the population in the region of less 
than 1 percent and would have little impact on the availability or cost 
of housing or on public services. In addition to the jobs directly 
associated with the construction of the biorefinery, 88 indirect jobs 
are expected to be created during the peak period of construction. DOE 
estimates that during construction, there would be about 110 additional 
students enrolled in local school districts. This represents a 1.0

[[Page 2103]]

percent increase in enrollment in the region. During the 12-month 
period of the most-intense construction activity, the region could 
experience an approximately $17-million infusion of earnings, which 
equals about 1 percent of the 2006 per capita income in the region.
    The anticipated life of the biorefinery is 30 years, during which 
it would employ 43 people. This would result in a regional increase in 
the local population of less than 0.1 percent, and would have little or 
no impact on housing, public services, or educational services. During 
operations, the region would experience an annual $4.4 million infusion 
in earnings. In addition, 23 indirect jobs are expected to be created 
during the operations phase.

Cultural Resources

    No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places 
are within or on properties adjoining the Biorefinery Project site. 
Based on DOE review of published information, coordination with the 
State Historic Preservation Officer, and the results of a Phase I/II 
investigation of a 160-acre portion (areas investigated were 
coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer) of the 
Project site, construction and operation of the biorefinery would not 
result in adverse impacts to State-preserved or National Historic 
Register sites, sites of prehistoric or early historic occupation, or 
historic resources of local significance. When selected, offsite 
biomass storage locations will be evaluated for cultural resources in 
coordination with the Kansas State Historical Preservation Office to 
ensure no adverse impacts.

Health and Safety

    DOE estimated health and safety impacts to workers from industrial 
hazards using incidence rates for 2007 for both nonfatal occupational 
injuries and occupational fatalities from the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Members of the public would not be located 
within the Biorefinery Project site and would not be affected by 
industrial hazards at the biorefinery.
    The potential for adverse impacts to health and safety from the 
Proposed Action would be very minor. During construction, the 
industrial health and safety impacts to workers are estimated to be 14 
total recordable cases (that is, work-related deaths, illnesses, or 
injuries that result in the loss of consciousness, days away from work 
restricted work activity or job transfer, or required medical treatment 
beyond first aid), 7 days away from work, and 0.026 fatality. During 
operations, the total annual industrial health and safety impacts to 
workers from all operations at the biorefinery (such as, ethanol 
manufacturing, milling and grinding operations, and electric power 
generation) are estimated to be 2.7 total recordable cases, 0.94 day 
away from work, and 0.0014 fatality. Based on these results, DOE 
concludes that a fatality would be unlikely. No adverse health impacts 
to members of the public from air emissions under normal operations are 
anticipated.

Facility Accidents and Sabotage

    Based on the operational history of existing ethanol plants, DOE 
concludes that the hazards of ethanol production to members of the 
public are minor, and that accidents during biorefinery operations are 
not likely to result in permanent health effects to offsite members of 
the public. In some accident scenarios, such as the failure of an 
ethanol or gasoline storage tank, workers could be injured or killed 
depending on the location of the worker at the time of the event.
    DOE considered the most hazardous intentional destructive act to be 
the deliberate destruction of a toxic chemical storage tank. The 
consequences of such an act would be similar to the accidental failure 
of a toxic chemical tank and would be limited to injury and, in 
unlikely circumstances, death to nearby workers.

Environmental Justice

    No impacts to communities with high percentages of minority or low-
income populations were identified that would exceed those identified 
for the general population. In addition, during the scoping process, 
DOE identified no unique exposure pathways, sensitivities, or cultural 
practices that would result in different impacts on minority or low-
income populations. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts would 
be unlikely as a result of the Proposed Action.

Potential Impacts of the Action Alternative

    Under the Action Alternative, the environmental impacts would be 
similar to those of the Proposed Action. For most resource and subject 
areas, there are no or minor differences between those alternatives. 
Differences exist between the alternatives for the following resource 
and subject areas.
    Air Quality--The Proposed Action would result in a greater 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (340 percent) than the Action 
Alternative (39 percent) by producing more fuel with biomass-derived 
ethanol and producing more electricity from biomass.
    Utilities--The Proposed Action would produce and sell electricity 
in excess of that required to operate the biorefinery equal to about 5 
percent of the production capacity in west-central Kansas. The Action 
Alternative would produce less electricity and would require electrical 
power from the regional grid to operate the biorefinery equal to about 
1 percent of the combined production capacity of two suppliers in the 
region.
    Transportation--The Proposed Action would require substantially 
more truck shipments than the Action Alternative during operations; 
thus, the number of traffic accidents and amount of road damage would 
be proportionally greater under the Proposed Action.
    Noise--For operations, because there would be more truck shipments 
for the Proposed Action, local residents would experience noise from 
truck shipments more frequently under the Proposed Action than under 
the Action Alternative.
    Socioeconomics--Approximately 10 percent more workers would be 
employed at the biorefinery under the Proposed Action, and more 
earnings would be infused in the local economy.
    Under the Action Alternative, the biorefinery would produce 33 
percent less ethanol [12 million gallons (45 million liters)] and 80 
percent less biopower (20 megawatts) than under the Proposed Action. In 
addition, less salable byproducts, such as lignin and lignin-rich 
stillage cake, would be produced under the Action Alternative.

Potential Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

    Under the No-Action Alternative, none of the adverse impacts 
identified above for the two action alternatives (for example, 
emissions of air pollutants, use of land for disposal of solid wastes, 
increase in truck traffic, and associated increase in accidents and 
noise) or beneficial impacts (for example, increased employment, 
decrease in groundwater use, and increase in the electrical production 
capacity for the region) would occur. Further, the benefits that would 
be gained from the development, demonstration, and commercial operation 
of an integrated biorefinery that uses lignocellulosic feedstocks would 
not be realized. In addition, no benefits would be realized from the 
development of a renewable energy system that would reduce air 
pollutants and sequester emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, 
the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions estimated to occur if the 
Proposed

[[Page 2104]]

Action were implemented would not be realized with the continued use of 
gasoline instead of biofuel and no generation of biopower.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The Proposed Action and Action Alternative would result in both 
beneficial and adverse potential environmental impacts (summarized 
above and in Table 2-2 of the EIS). Potential beneficial impacts 
include those associated with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 
and a decrease in water withdrawals; adverse impacts include those 
associated with a substantial increase in transportation activity and 
minor impacts from air emissions. On balance, DOE regards the No-Action 
Alternative, which would result in no change in existing environmental 
conditions, as the environmentally preferred alternative.

Decision

    DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action to provide Federal 
funding of up to $71 million (2009 dollars), subject to annual 
appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC (Abengoa 
Bioenergy) to support the design, construction, and startup of the 
Abengoa Biorefinery Project. DOE has also decided to adopt the 
mitigation measures discussed in the Final Abengoa Biorefinery EIS and 
summarized below under ``Mitigation''.

Basis of Decision

    DOE's decision is based on the importance of achieving the 
objectives of the EPAct 2005 and careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts presented in the Final Biorefinery EIS. This 
Project will support advanced biofuel production pursuant to the 
Renewable Fuel Standard established by EISA 2007, which requires EPA to 
ensure that transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the 
United States contain at least 36 billion gallons per year of biofuels 
by 2022. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate that commercial-
scale integrated biorefineries that use a wide variety of 
lignocellulosic (second-generation) feedstocks to produce biofuels and 
biopower can operate without direct Federal subsidy after construction 
costs are paid, and that these biorefineries can be easily replicated.
    The Project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only by 
producing a fuel that displaces gasoline, but also by producing power 
that displaces electricity from other electricity generating sources. 
In addition, this Project would have economic benefits in the region. 
The Project would require 256 workers at the peak of construction and 
during the 12-month period of the most-intense construction activity, 
the region could experience an approximately $17-million infusion of 
earnings. Over the anticipated life of the biorefinery of 30 years, it 
would employ 43 people and the region would experience an annual $4.4 
million infusion in earnings.
    To meet the mandates of the EPAct 2005 and other governing 
policies, it is in the best interest of DOE to select and fund the most 
technologically and economically viable alternative. Production of more 
ethanol and production of biopower would make the Proposed Action a 
more economically viable alternative than the Action Alternative. The 
Proposed Action, therefore, better meets the direction of Section 
932(d)(2) of EPAct 2005, which directs the Secretary of Energy to 
select only proposals that ``demonstrate that the project will be able 
to operate profitably without direct Federal subsidy after initial 
construction costs are paid.'' In addition, the Proposed Action more 
fully supports the intent of the Section 932(d)(1) of EPAct 2005 to 
encourage the commercial application of biomass technologies for a 
variety of uses, including high-value bio-based chemicals and energy in 
the form of electricity and useful heat. For these reasons, DOE 
determined the Proposed Action more fully meets its purpose and need, 
and has decided to implement the Proposed Action.
    This decision incorporates all practicable means to avoid or 
minimize environmental impacts. DOE plans to review annual monitoring 
reports to assess the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS and 
the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

Mitigation

    DOE's decision incorporates best management practices and 
additional measures to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts 
during the design, construction, and operation of the Project. DOE will 
require Abengoa Biorefinery to implement the best management practices 
outlined in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, of the Final Biorefinery EIS, for 
the following resource areas: land use; air quality; geology and soils; 
surface water; groundwater; biological resources; utilities, energy, 
and materials; wastes and hazardous materials; visual resources; noise; 
odor; cultural resources; and health and safety.
    DOE regards mitigation measures as activities or actions that would 
be above and beyond (in addition to) best management practices. DOE 
requires that the participants comply with all applicable Federal, 
state, and local environmental laws, orders, and regulations. 
Mitigation measures beyond those specified in permit conditions will be 
addressed in a mitigation action plan (MAP) that DOE will prepare 
pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.331. The MAP will explain how the mitigation 
measures will be planned, implemented, and monitored and is an adaptive 
management tool. Mitigation conditions in it will be removed if 
equivalent conditions are otherwise established by permit, license, or 
law, as compliance with permit, license or regulatory requirements are 
not considered mitigation activities subject to DOE control and are 
therefore not included in MAPs.
    DOE will ensure that commitments in the ROD are incorporated into 
DOE's Cooperative Agreement with Abengoa Bioenergy. The MAP and annual 
monitoring reports will be available on the DOE NEPA Web site (http://www.nepa.energy.gov) and the DOE Golden Field Office Web site (http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/Reading_Room.aspx). DOE will make copies of 
the MAP available for inspection in appropriate locations (e.g., local 
library or DOE reading rooms) for a reasonable time. The Department 
also will provide copies of the MAP and annual reports upon request.
    In the Final EIS, DOE stated that mitigation measures for the 
following resource areas were being considered: air quality, biological 
resources, visual resources, odor, socioeconomics, wastes and hazardous 
materials, and transportation. Upon consideration of the findings 
presented in the Final EIS, DOE has determined that no mitigation is 
required for air quality, odor, or socioeconomic impacts. The required 
implementation of air quality best management practices presented in 
Section 6.1 will adequately minimize impacts and therefore no 
additional mitigation is required. While the EIS concludes that odor 
may result from emissions of volatile organic compounds, it also 
concludes, based on air dispersion modeling, that there are no 
anticipated impacts to the public from the release of odorous compounds 
and therefore no mitigation is required. The EIS concludes that the 
impacts to community services would be temporary and not likely to 
place an undue demand on community services, and therefore no 
mitigation is required.
    Biological Resources Mitigation. While the EIS concludes that DOE 
does not expect the Proposed Action to

[[Page 2105]]

impact biological resources (including threatened and endangered 
species) within the region or the Project site, DOE acknowledges that 
the new transmission line should be designed to minimize impacts to 
raptors and migratory birds. At this time it is uncertain whether 
Abengoa or Pioneer Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Pioneer Electric) will 
be responsible for the design and construction of the new transmission 
line, or if an existing transmission line will be upgraded by Pioneer 
Electric to serve the biorefinery. If Abengoa is responsible for the 
design and construction of the transmission line, DOE will require that 
the line be designed and constructed to minimize the risk of 
electrocution to raptors and migratory birds. If Pioneer Electric is 
responsible for the design and construction of the new transmission 
line or the upgrade of the existing line, DOE will have no authority to 
impose mitigation measures. However, a transmission line constructed or 
upgraded by Pioneer Electric would be subject to additional NEPA review 
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS). 
Further, Pioneer Electric would follow RUS standards for design and 
construction of transmission lines, which include consideration of 
raptors and migratory birds.
    Visual Resources Mitigation. The buffer area will only be used for 
agricultural activities, thereby maintaining the current visual status 
of this area. To minimize visual impacts from nighttime light, the 
biorefinery will have the minimum amount of downward-facing or 
directional lighting necessary for safe operation.
    Wastes and Hazardous Materials Mitigation. Abengoa will develop and 
implement a waste management plan for construction and operation of the 
biorefinery. Abengoa will also develop and implement a contingency plan 
for alternative beneficial uses of the solid biomass boiler fly ash in 
the event that the waste management plan is not effective.
    Transportation Mitigation. To the extent practicable, Abengoa will 
stagger workforce schedules to minimize traffic delays and congestion. 
Abengoa will develop safety-based criteria to be used, in part, to 
select carriers, including elements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration regulations, as well as provisions for drivers to be 
paid hourly and receive bonuses for accident-free driving, mandatory 
safety training, and avoidance of teen-age drivers and drivers having 
less than 5-years experience. Abengoa will require carriers and drivers 
to meet the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations. In 
addition, to the extent practicable, Abengoa will maximize the use of 
rail shipments to and from the Project site and will ensure the onsite 
rail system does not block railroad crossings near the site.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 15th day of December 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department 
of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-480 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```