## DOE/EA-1625

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III Early Test

March 2009

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL ENERGY TEC HNOLOGY LABORATORYU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents i March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Summary 1 1.2 Purpose and Need 5 1.3 Legal Framework 8

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 15 2.1 Proposed Action 15 2.1.1 Project Location 15 2.1.2 First Stage: Drilli ng and Characterization 17 2.1.3 Second Stage: CO 2 Injection and Monitoring 21 2.1.4 Decommissioning 23

2.2 No-Action Alternative 23

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Elim inated from Detailed Analysis 24

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed 25

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH 26 3.1 Approach to the Analysis 26 3.2 Analysis of Significance 31

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS 33 4.1 Air Quality 33 4.1.1 Description 33

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather 33 4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status 33 4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality 34 4.1.1.4 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 35 4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 35 4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity 36 4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review 37 4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 37

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action 38

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects 38 4.2 Geology and Soils 38 4.2.1 Description 38 4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 43

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action 45

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 45

4.3 Water Resources 46 4.3.1 Description 46 4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 47

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action 47U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents ii March 2009 4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 47 4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains 48 4.4.1 Description 48 4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 52

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action 53

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects 53 4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation 53 4.5.1 Description 53 4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 55

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action 56

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects 56

4.6 Wildlife 56 4.6.1 Description 56 4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 58

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action 59

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects 59

4.7 Land Use 59 4.7.1 Description 59 4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 61

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action 61

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects 61

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources 62 4.8.1 Population 62 4.8.1.1 Description 62 4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 63

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action 63 4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 63 4.8.2 Employment and Income 64 4.8.2.1 Description 64 4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 64

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action 65 4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 65

4.8.3 Infrastructure 65 4.8.3.1 Description 65 4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 66

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action 66 4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 66

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation 67 4.8.4.1 Description 67 4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 67

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action 67 4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 68

4.8.5 Visual Resources 68 4.8.5.1 Description 68 4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 68

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action 68U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents iii March 2009 4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts 69

4.8.6 Noise 69 4.8.6.1 Description 70 4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 70

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action 72 4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts 72

4.8.7 Environmental Justice 72 4.8.7.1 Description 73 4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 73

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action 74 4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts 74 4.9 Human Health and Safety 74 4.9.1 Description 74 4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action 76

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action 79

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects 80

4.10 Cultural Resources 80 4.10.1 Description 80 4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action 82

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action 83

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects 84 4.11 Waste Management 84 4.11.1 Description 84 4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action 85

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action 86 4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts 86

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 88 5.1 Preparation for Development of this Environmental Assessment 88 5.2 Agency Coordination 88

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 88

5.2.2 State Historic Preser vation Office (SHPO) 88

5.2.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs 88

5.3 Public Involvement 89

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 90 6.1 Mangi Environmental Group 90

6.2 Wiebe Environmental Services 90

7.0 REFERENCES 91

8.0 GLOSSARY 99

Appendices Appendix A Air Emission Calculations 103 Appendix B Fish and Wildlif e Service Consultations 107 Appendix C Noise Calculations 118 Appendix D SHPO Consultation 120 Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Councils 127U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents iv March 2009 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts 3

Table 2.1.2. Materials Used and Pr oduced During the Project 19

Table 2.3. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 24 Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds 31 Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations 34 Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Comp ared to Applicability Thresholds 36

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for the Proposed Action 37 Table 4.2.1. Legend for NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site 43 Table 4.5.1. State Listed Plant Species in Adams and Franklin Counties, MS 54 Table 4.6.1. Federal & State Listed Wildlife Sp ecies in Adams & Franklin Counties, MS 57

Table 4.7.1-1. USGS Land Cover Classes for SE CARB Phase III Early Test Project Area 60

Table 4.7.1-2. NRCS Prime Farmland Classes for SE CARB Phase III Early Test Project Area 60

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 1999 64

Table 4.8.6. Common Sounds and Their Levels 69 Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Leve ls at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas 70

Table 4.8.6.2. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction 71 Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Na tural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005 76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 7 Figure 2.1.1. Phase III Early Test Study Area and Adjacent Land Use 16 Figure 2.1.2. Location of Proposed and Existing Wells 18 Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 1 27 Figure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 2 28 Figure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 3 29 Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 4 30 Figure 4.2.1-1. Generalized Stra tigraphic Sections/Hydrological F unctions as Related to the SECARB Project 40 Figure 4.2.1-2. NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site 42 Figure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies and Wetlands in the Project Area 49 Figure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains in the Project Area 51 Figure 4.10.1. Map of Cultural Resources in Proximity of the Proposed Action 81U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations v March 2009 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius °F Degrees Fahrenheit μg/m 3 Micrograms per Meter Cubed

3-D Three Dimensional AERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board

ANSI American National Standard Institute APC Mississippi Air Permit Program Regulations AQCR 005 Mobile-Pensacola-Panam a City-Southern Mississippi AQCR Air Quality Control Region ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

asl Above Sea Level BEG Texas Bureau of Economic Geology

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BMPs Best Management Practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board CCAR California Climate Action Registry CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Re sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) CF Center Frequency CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second

CH 4 Methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel

de minimus of Minimal Importance Denbury Denbury Resources Internati onal Company (Denbury Resources)

DNL Day-night Average Sound Level

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

e.g. Exempli gratia, for example

EA Environmental Assessment

EDR Environmental Data Resources

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EIV Environmental Informational Volume

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species ActU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations vi March 2009 et al. et alia , and others

et seq. et sequens, and the following one or ones

etc. et cetera , and so on

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

Ft Feet or Foot

ft 3 /sec Cubic Feet Per Second gal. Gallons GHG greenhouse gas Gt Gigaton

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons hp horsepower

HW Mississippi Hazardous Waste Ma nagement Program Regulations

Hz Hertz kg Kilogram

km Kilometer

km 2 Square Kilometer

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt hour

i.e. id est , that is

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

L Liter

lbs Pounds

Ldn equivalent day night level Leq Equivalent Sound Level

LW Mississippi Licensing of Well C ontractors Program Regulations

Lw sound power levels

m Meter

m 3 cubic meter
MARIS Mississippi Automated Resource Information Service mD millidarcy MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality MDOT Mississippi Departme nt of Transportation mg/L Milligrams Per Liter

mi 2 Square Miles

mm Millimeter

MMV Measurement, Mitigation, and Verification MSNHP Mississippi Natura l Heritage Program MSOGB Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board MW Megawatt

N 2 O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NETL National Energy Technology LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations vii March 2009 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NO

x Nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA Noise Sensitive Area

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

O 3 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety a nd Health Administration

Pb Lead

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

PM 10 Particulate Matter Less Th an 10 Microns in Diameter

PM 2.5 Particulate Matter Less Th an 2.5 Microns in Diameter

ppm Parts per Million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PUBHh Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded wetland

PWL Power Level

R&D Research and Development

R2USA Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rd. Road

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

sec second SECARB Southeast Regional Ca rbon Sequestration Partnership

SF 6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (Officer)

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO

x Sulfur Oxides

SSEB Southern States Energy Board

SW Mississippi Non-hazardous Solid Waste Program Regulations

T&E Threatened and Endangered

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Office)

TL Transmission Loss
tpy Tons Per Year UIC Underground Injection Control

UNFCCC United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change

USC United States Code

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological SurveyU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations viii March 2009 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VSP Vertical Seismic Profiling WPC State of Mississippi Water Pollution Control Law yd 3 cubic yardsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Use of Scientific No tation ix March 2009 USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION

Very small and very large numbers are sometimes wr itten using scientific not ation rather than as

decimals or fractions. This notation uses exponents to indicate the power of 10 as a multiplier (i.e., 10 n , or the number 10 multiplied by itself n times; 10 -n , or the reciprocal of the number 10 multiplied by itself n times).

For example: 10 3 =10 x 10 x 10 =1,000
______1

___ 10 -3 = 10 x 10 x 10 =0.001

In scientific notation, large num bers are written as a decimal between 1 and 10 multiplied by the appropriate power of 10:

4,900 is written 4.9 × 10 3 = 4.9 × 10 × 10 × 10 = 4.9 × 1,000 = 4,900

0.049 is written 4.9 × 10 -2

1,490,000 or 1.49 million is written 1.49 × 10 6

A positive exponent indicates a numbe r larger than or equal to one ; a negative exponent indicates

a number less than one.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 1 March 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is a natural and important compone nt of the atmosphere: animals and plants produce CO 2 during respiration, and plants need it for photosynthesis; however, high

concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere can exert a “gree nhouse” effect that traps heat within the Earth’s atmosphere. Global emissions of CO 2 from human activity ha ve increased from an insignificant level two centuries ago to over tw enty-one billion metric tons per year by 2003 (DOE, 2007a). The most notable human activ ity associated with the generation of CO 2 emissions is the combustion of carbon-based fuels (including oil, natural gas, and coal). Many scientists, including the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Ch ange (IPCC), recognize a danger

that even a modest increase in the Earth’s temperature (called “g lobal warming”) could alter the global climate and cause significant adverse cons equences for human health and welfare (DOE, 2007a).

In one of many governmental efforts to address the concerns outlined above, the Department of Energy (DOE) established the Carbon Sequestration Program in 1997 with the focus of conducting research and development (R&D) ac tivities to evaluate and develop carbon sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration involve s capturing and storing CO 2 emissions prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhanci ng natural carbon uptake and storage processes. Geologic sequestration i nvolves the permanent storage of CO 2 in deep unmineable coal seams, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or saline (saltwater-filled) formations. Impermeable caprocks and/or geologic structural or stratigraphic traps retain the CO 2 in the formation similar to natural gas storage tr apping mechanisms. As a part of th is program, DOE formed a nationwide network of regional partnerships to help dete rmine the best approaches for capturing and permanently storing gases that can contribute to global climat e change. The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are a government/industry effort tasked with determining the most suitable technologies, regulations , and infrastructure needs fo r carbon capture, storage, and sequestration in different areas of the country. The Regional Partnershi ps’ initiativ e is being implemented in three phases:

• Phase I, Characterization (2003-2005): Characterized opportunities for carbon sequestration, including potenti al geologic storage formations and trapping mechanisms;

• Phase II, Validation (2005-2009): Small scale fiel d tests are currently under way to verify the injection rates, storage media, and trapping mechanisms; and

• Phase III, Deployment (2008-2017): Conduct large volume carbon storage validation

tests.

Geographical differences in fossil fuel use and available sequestration sinks across the United States dictate regional appro aches to sequestration of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases. The seven partnerships that currently form this network include over 350 state agencies, universities, and private companies, spanning 41 states, two Indi an nations, and four Canadian provinces. In addition, agencies from six member countries of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum are participating in the Validation Phase field test s. The Southeast Regi onal Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) is one of these regional partnerships a nd this Environmental Assessment (EA) focuses on one of its proposed projects.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 2 March 2009 Early data collection and char acterization done through Phases I and II have shown that the Lower Tuscaloosa Massive Sand Unit is a large, regionally extensive saline formation with the potential to hold centuries of CO 2 emissions in the Southeast (SECARB, 2008; Hill, 2007). The Tuscaloosa Group is estimated to have a CO 2 storage capacity of 10,760 million metric tons to 43,040 million metric tons (SECARB, 2008). Th e Lower Tuscaloosa Formation is a key component of a larger, regional group of si milar formation called the Gulf Coast Wedge (SECARB, 2008; Hill, 2007; NETL, 2008a). The Gulf Coast Wedge is estimated to have enough capacity to store the estimated regional annual CO 2 emissions of 1.1 billion short tons (1 billion metric tons) for 300 to 1,200 years (NET L, 2008a). SECARB’s Phase III project would, if funded, further test this geologi c formation at two sites: 1) the Cranfield Oilfield, located near Natchez, Mississippi (the “Early Test ”); and 2) at a Southern Company CO 2 capture test location (yet to be determined). The Early Test is the only focus of this EA.

The DOE proposes to co-fund a project to inject and closely monitor the flow of approximately 1.7 million short tons (1.5 million metric tons) of supercritical carbon dioxide into the brinebearing Tuscaloosa Formation in an area within the lease boundaries of the Cranfield Unit oilfield, about 12 miles (19 kilometers (km)) eas t of Natchez, Mississipp i (Figure 2.1.1). The project team would be led by th e Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), and include the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the Universi ty of Texas at Austin as a subcontractor. The host site for the proposed project is ow ned by Denbury Resources International Company (Denbury). This field experime nt is known as the SECARB Phas e III Early Test project. The proposed injection period for this Phase III Early Test is 18 months followed by at least one year of post-injection monitoring.

Under the Proposed Action, three existing injecti on wells would be utilized and a fourth well

would be drilled to extend below the oil-brine interface. These f our primary injection wells (the three existing and a proposed ne w well) would use existing well pa ds used during the previous production at the Cranfield Unit a nd directionally drille d to the desired down-hole locations in the saline portion of the formation below the oi l-brine interface. Two observation wells would also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO 2 flood. Two additional water wells would be drilled to approximately 200 feet (61 me ters (m)) using a truck- mounted drilling rig to evaluate the performance of shallow gr oundwater monitoring st rategies.

CO 2 now being transported from a natural source at Jackson Dome (near Jackson, Mississippi) to Cranfield through the existing co mmercial Denbury Sonat pipeline (Figure 2.1.2) as part of an ongoing enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation w ould be used for this proposed project. Injection will occur primarily in existing wells. Three existing wells would be used and one new

well would be drilled to extend in to the brine layer in the down-d ip water leg of the formation. The focal point of the proposed activity is monitoring of the injected CO 2 to understand its subsurface flow mechanisms. The existing comple tions would remain open in the injection and monitoring wells for approximately 1 year to al low for continued monitoring of the subsurface

CO 2 flow after final injection.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 3 March 2009 The decision for DOE is to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action which includes data acquisition and the additional dr illing and injection activities associated with that data acquisition. Denbury intends to conduct EOR activ ities at this location regardless of DOE’s decision to participate or not participate. Table 1.1 below is based on that premise and illustrates

that there is little difference in potential environmental impact s between the Proposed Action and

the No-Action alternative.

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Air Quality Some temporary de minimus decrease
in localized air quality due to
increased emissions of diesel engines
used during EOR activities; however,
the project is not expected to produce
emissions that would impede the
area’s conformity with the State
Implementation Plan under the Clean

Air Act. Same as No-Action.

Geology and Soils Some long-term increase in subsurface
pressures due to CO 2 injection may
occur as part of EOR activity;
however, the Proposed Action is not
expected to cause measurable leakage

of CO 2 from the storage formation to

the surface or into another area in the

subsurface, and there is no more than
an imperceptible risk of inducing

seismic events due to increased
reservoir pressure. There is the potential for higher pressure in the reservoir due to the

additional amount of CO 2 injection called for beyond EOR activity.

Water Resources Any changes to water quality and
quantity would be expected to occur at

the lowest detectable levels. Full
recovery would occur in a reasonable

time. Some modest increase in water usage
is expected due to the drilling of
injection and monitoring wells
specific to NETL’s data needs.

Wetlands and
Floodplains No significant impacts to local
wetlands and/or floodplains are
expected and any impacts to wetlands
and/or floodplains would be confined
to the immediate project area and
would not cause any regional impacts. Same as No-Action.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 4 March 2009 Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Terrestrial Vegetation Some minor removal of trees around
the perimeter of old well sites will
occur; however, any changes to native
vegetation would be limited to a small
area and would not be expected to
affect the viability of the resources.
Full recovery would occur in a
reasonable time, considering the size
of the project and the affected

resource’s natural state. Same as No-Action.

Wildlife Some local disturbance and
displacement of wildlife may occur as
a result of EOR activity; however, any
changes to wildlife would be limited
to a small portion of the population
and would not be expected to affect
the viability of the resource. Full
recovery would occur in a reasonable
time, considering the size of the
project and the affected species’

natural state. Same as No-Action.

Land Use Any change in land use would be

limited to a small area and would not
noticeably alter any particular land use
at the project site or in adjacent areas.
The affected areas would fully recover
in a reasonable time once the project is
completed. Same as No-Action.

Population and
Employment Changes to the normal or routine
functions of the affected community
are expected to be short-term and are
not expected to alter existing social or
economic conditions in a way that will
be disruptive or costly to the
community. Same as No-Action.

Infrastructure The project will not noticeably affect
or disrupt the normal or routine
functions of public institutions, roads,
electricity and other public utilities
and services in the project area. Same as No-Action.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 5 March 2009 Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Parks & Recreation Any disturbance would be minor,
temporary in duration, and in character
with existing uses of the study area. Same as No-Action.

Visual Resources The EOR activity, along with planned
mitigation, will not permanently
change the visual landscape, because a

number of wells have existed in the

area since the 1940s. Same as No-Action.

Noise Noise levels in the project area will

not exceed ambient noise level
standards as determined by the

Federal, State, and/or local

government. Some additional localized noise may

occur due to utilization of an
additional compressor; however, this

noise will not exceed ambient noise
level standards as determined by the

Federal, State, and/or local

government.

Environmental

Justice Neither minority nor low-income
groups within the affected community
will experience proportionately greater

adverse effects than other members of
the community. Same as No-Action.

Human Health and
Safety The project, with current and planned
mitigation measures, would pose no

more than a minimal risk to the health
and safety of on-site workers and the
local population. Same as No-Action.

Cultural Resources The action would not affect the
context or integrity features (including
visual features) of a site listed or
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places or of other
cultural significance. Same as No-Action.

Waste Management The action, along with planned
mitigation measures, would not cause

air, water, or soil to be contaminated
with hazardous material that poses a
threat to human or ecological health
and safety. Same as No-Action.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The DOE’s National Energy Technology Laborat ory (NETL) has a mission to implement a research, development, and demonstration program to resolve the environmental, supply, andU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 6 March 2009 reliability constraints of produc ing and using fossil energy sources. One aspect of that mission,

the resolution of environmental constraints to producing and using fo ssil fuels, now requires NETL to review, and where possible, mitigate project ed impacts to global climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels. One possible mitigation technique under review is the capture and long-term removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere through a pr ocess called carbon sequestration. NETL is implementing the DOE Carbon Sequestra tion Program, which was established in 1997 to evaluate and develop carbon sequestrati on technologies. The focus of this Carbon Sequestration Program involve s capturing and storing CO 2 emissions prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhancing natural carbon uptake and storage processes. The principal goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to gain a scientific understanding of carbon sequestration options and to pr ovide cost-effective, environmen tally-sound technology options that ultimately may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas intensity and stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 (DOE, 2007a). One of those options, geologic sequestration, is the placement of CO 2 or other greenhouse gases into subsurface porous and permeable rocks in such a way that they remain permanently stored.

In 2003, DOE selected seven Regional Partnershi ps to evaluate and pursue opportunities for carbon sequestration infrastructure developmen t (Figure 1.2 below). The proposed Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partne rship (SECARB) Phase III Early Te st project is part of the Carbon Sequestration Program. The purpose of Phase III is to test the application of large volume sequestration of CO 2 in different geological formations in North America (DOE, 2007a).

Specifically, the SECARB Phase III Early Test w ill evaluate high rate/high volume injection of

CO 2 into a sandstone formation with properties si milar to those found in other locations across the nation that may be suitable for sequestration. Th is test is a key component needed to increase

scientific understandi ng of geological carbon sequestration a nd to test modeling and monitoring techniques to make sure that these technologies are available. Reliable modeling and monitoring are required to assure that geologic sequestrati on is an effective method for reducing atmospheric

concentrations of CO 2 (DOE, 2008a).

Although the processes of geologic sequestrati on are relatively we ll known, there is a need for additional research to: fill gaps in our scientific understanding of carbon sequestration; ensure the protection of human health and the environmen t; reduce costs; and facilitate the full-scale deployment of this technology. Extensive labor atory investigations, modeling studies, and

limited small-scale field studies have been completed to assess how CO 2 geologic sequestration would work in the subsurface. Comparing pred ictions from bench scale tests and numerical models with field results is necessary to valida te the models and demonstrate that scientific understanding is correct (DOE, 2008a).

While the oil and gas industry has ye ars of extensive experience with CO 2 injection for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), this information is inadequa te for this validation because the fate of the injected CO 2 has not been routinely quantified. CO 2 injected for EOR can be absorbed in the oil, held by capillary forces in pore space, trapped by buoyancy forces in stra tigraphic or structural compartments, dissolved in pore wa ter, produced and reused, or l eaked from the injection zone through the soils and/or penetrations. The absence of data to account for CO 2 fate in the complex EOR system leaves a gap in scientific understanding.U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Introduction 7 March 2009Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 8 March 2009 Another significant experience gap between EO R and the validation needed for full-scale geological CO 2 sequestration is related to the type of host rock best suited for sequestration. Geologic formations that could most easily receive and retain the large volumes of CO 2 , approximately 1 to 4 billion short tons/year (1 to 4 gigaton (Gt)/year), are thick, porous, and permeable sandstones (DOE, 2008a). Unfortunately, CO 2 these sandstones have not been monitored during EOR operations, due to the remote ness of the locations or other barriers to testing. For example, CO 2 is injected into thick, porous, a nd permeable sandstone beneath the North Sea, but it is not feasible to cl osely observe reservoir performance and CO 2 fate because monitoring wells are not an econom ic possibility in an offshore setting. Hovorka and others (2000) have inventoried 21 geologic formations in the onshor e U.S. that might serve as host injection reservoirs for CO 2 (DOE, 2008a). A large-scale test using these onshore sandstones in locations where extensive monitoring can also be conducted is needed.

To address these experience and data gaps, DOE is proposing to co-fund a field experiment in a regionally significant formation similar to those that could eventually be us ed to sequester large

volumes of CO 2 . This project would be onshore so th at it could be closely monitored to

determine whether the CO 2 remains within the injection zone and to maximize scientific understanding. Testing is bei ng conducted in a formation th at is being subjected to CO 2 injection, so CO 2 fate and movement within the form ation is somewhat already known. The demonstration would: (1) ensure that health and safety and en vironmental risks are minimized, (2) obtain results quickly so that experience can be used in moving to large pilots in other parts of the world, and (3) minimize costs during this pha se before stakeholders are ready for full scale deployment. The test location would provide an opportunity for matc hing numerical model

results with field observations under conditions of high volume in jection at a scale similar to

what would be done if CO 2 from a power plant was captured and sequestered.

1.3 Legal Framework

The legal framework for this EA involves both substantive legal requirements (what must be done or not done) and procedural legal requirements (how th e agency must carry out its responsibilities). DOE has prepared this EA in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,” co dified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Parts 1500 through 1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508) and DOE’s regulations for implementing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (10 CFR 1021). These regulations implement the procedural requirements of the NEPA, found in Title 40 of the United States Code in Section 4321 and following sections (42 USC § 4321 et seq .).

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the poten tial environmental consequences of a Proposed Action in their decisi on-making processes. NEPA encourages federal agencies to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The CEQ NEPA regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:

• Provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

• Aid in an agency's compliance with NE PA when no EIS is deemed necessary.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 9 March 2009 • Facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary.

Further, the CEQ NEPA regulations encourage ag encies to integrate NEPA requirements with

other environmental review and consultati on requirements. Relevant environmental requirements are contained in other federal stat utes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and their state counterparts. The following federal and state st atutes and regulations

are relevant to this EA. Fe deral and state permits that ma y be required are also listed.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC § 7401 et seq. , establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) developed by the United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the pervasive pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (both PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). The NAAQS are expressed as concentrations of the criteria pollutants in the ambient air, the outdoor air to which the general public is exposed. The CAA also contains emission control permit programs to protect the nation’s air quality and establishes New Source Performance Standards that establish design standards, equipment standards, work practices, and operational standards for new or

modified sources of air emissions. Where the NAAQS emphasize air qualit y in general, the New Source Performance Standards focus on particular industrial categories or sub-categories (e.g., fossil fuel fired generators, grain elevators, st eam generating units). Regulations implementing

the CAA are found in 40 CFR Parts 50-95. Mississi ppi has been delegated CAA authority under Title 49 Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code , and its relevant regulat ions are found in APC-S-1 through APC-S-10 (see: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase ).

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1251 et seq. , establishes a compre hensive framework of standards, technical tools, and financial assist ance to address “point source” pollution from municipal and industrial wastewat er discharges and “nonpoint s ource” pollution from urban and rural areas. Applicants for federal licenses or pe rmits to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to navigable waters must provide the federal agency with a state CWA Section 401 certification that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA. CWA Section 404 establishes a permit program to regulat e the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetl ands. CWA Section 402 es tablishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires point s ources of pollutants to obtain permits to discharge effluents and stor m water to surface waters. Regulations for implementing relevant CWA programs are foun d in 33 CFR Parts 320-331 and 40 CFR Parts 400-503. Mississippi has been delegated CWA authority under Title 49 Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code , and its relevant regulations ar e found in WPC-1 through WPC-6 (see: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase ).

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC 300 et seq. , gives EPA the responsibility andU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 10 March 2009 authority to regulate public dr inking water supplies by establis hing drinking water standards, delegating authority for enforcement of drinking water standards to the states, and protecting aquifers from hazards such as injection of wast es and other materials into wells. Important for this EA are the SDWA provisions relating to injection wells. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. In part, the SDWA requires EPA to develop minimum federal requirements for Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs a nd other safeguards to protect public health by preventing injection wells from contaminatin g underground sources of drinking water. Mississippi has been delegated SD WA authority under the Mississi ppi Safe Drinking Water Act, Title 41 Chapter 26 of the Mississippi Code , and its relevant regulations are found in LW-1 and LW-2 (see: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase ). UIC comes under the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board at rule 63 of the MSOGB Rules of Procedure (see: http://www .ogb.state.ms.us/rulebook.htm).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC § 6901 et seq. , regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. RCRA sets “cradle to grave”

standards for both solid waste and hazardous wa ste management. Certain wastes, such as domestic sewage and septic tank waste, agricultural wastes, indus trial discharges, some nuclear wastes, and mining overburden ar e specifically excluded because they are regulated under other statutes. RCRA regulations are found in 40 CFR Parts 239-282. Mississippi has been delegated RCRA authority under Title 49 Chapter 31 of the Mississippi Code , and its relevant regulations are found in SW-1 through SW-9 and HW-1 through HW-3 (see: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase ).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Co mpensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC § 9601 et seq ., also known as “Superfund,” established a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad fede ral authority to res pond directly to releas es or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA also establishes requirements fo r closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for the liability of persons responsible for the release of hazardous substances, and established a trust fund to pay for orphan facility cleanup and clos ure. Regulations for implementing CERCLA are

found in 40 CFR Parts 300-312.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 USC § 1001 et seq.

, requires federal agencies to provide informa tion on hazardous and toxic chemicals to state emergency response commissions, local emergenc y planning committees, and EPA. EPCRA’s goal is to provide this informa tion to ensure that local emerge ncy plans are sufficient to respond to unplanned releases of hazardous substances. Regulations implementing EPCRA are found in 40 CFR Parts 350-374. Mississippi’ s EPCRA authority is found in Title 49 Chapters 31 and 35

of the Mississippi Code

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 11 March 2009 National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preserva tion Act (NHPA), 16 USC § 470 et seq.

, requires DOE to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHP O) prior to any construction to ensure that no historical properties would be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservati on a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Regulations for impl ementing NHPA are found in 36 CFR 800-812. Mississippi’s historic preser vation authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi

Code

.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The Archaeological Resources Pr otection Act, 16 USC § 470aa et seq. , requires a permit for excavation or removal of archaeological resources from publicly held or Native American lands. The Act requires that excavations further arch aeological knowledge in the public interest, and that the resources removed remain the prope rty of the United States. Regulations for implementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 7 an d 36 CFR 296. Mississippi’s archaeological protection authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code

.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religi ons. The law ensures the protecti on of sacred locations, access of

Native Americans to those sacred locations and tr aditional resources that are integral to the practice of their religions, and establishes re quirements that would apply to Native American sacred locations, traditional resources, or tradi tional religious practices potentially affected by construction and operation of propos ed facilities. Regulations fo r implementing the Act are also found in 43 CFR 7. Mississippi’s Native American protection authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code

.

Native American Graves Prot ection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC § 3001, directs the Secretary of the Interior to guide the repatr iation of federal archaeological collections and collections that are culturally affiliated with Native American Tribes and held by museums that receive federal funding. DOE w ould follow the provisions of th is Act if any excavations associated with the proposed construction led to unexpected discoveries of Native American graves or grave artifacts. Regulations for implementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 10. Mississippi’s Native American protection author ity is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code

.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC 1531 et seq. , establishes a nati onal program for the conservation of threatened and endangered specie s of fish, wildlife, and plants, as well as theU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 12 March 2009 preservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. ESA Section 7 requires any federal agency authorizing, funding, or carrying out any acti on to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or th reatened species, or result in

the destruction or adverse modification of cr itical habitat of such species. Regulations implementing the ESA interagency consulta tion process are found in 50 CFR Part 402. Mississippi’s endangered species pr otection authority is found in Title 49 Chapter 5 Sections

101-119 of the Mississippi Code

.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act/Fi sh and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 USC § 2901 et seq. , encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife sp ecies and their habitats. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC § 661 et seq. , requires federal agencies undertaking projects affecting wate r resources to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state agency responsible for fish and wild life resources. Compliance with these statutes is internalized in the DOE NEPA process. Miss issippi’s fish and wildli fe authority is found in Title 49 Chapters 3 through 5 of the Mississippi Code

.

Noise Control Act

The Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC § 4901 et seq. , directs federal agencies to carry out programs in their jurisdictions to the fullest exte nt within their authority and in a manner that furthers a national policy of promoting an enviro nment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare. This would involve complying with applicable municipal noise ordinances to the maximum extent practicable.

Farmland Protection Policy Act

The Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 USC § 4201 et seq. , directs federal agencies to identify and quantify adverse impacts of federal progr ams on farmlands in order to minimize the unnecessary and irreversible c onversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Regulations implementing the Act are found in 7 CFR 658. Mississippi’ s farmland protection authority is contained in Title 69 Chapter 28 of the Mississippi Code

.

Occupational Safety and Health Act

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 USC § 651 et seq. , requires employers to furnish employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause de ath or serious physical harm to his employees, and to comply with occupational safety and health standard s promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA standard s are implemented under regulations found in 29 CFR Parts 1900-2400. Mississipp i regulates OSHA requirements through its Department of Employment Security.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 13 March 2009 Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act, 42 USC § 13101 et seq. , establishes a natio nal policy for waste management and pollution control that fo cuses first on source reduction, and then on environmentally safe waste recycling, treatment, and disposal. Three executive orders provide guidance to agencies to implement the Pollution Prevention Act: Executive Order 12873, “Federal Acquisition, Recycli ng, and Waste Prevention,” Exec utive Order 13101, “Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recyclin g, and Federal Acquisition” and Executive Order 13148, “Greening the Govern ment through Leadership in Environmental Management.”

Federal Aviation Administration Act

49 USC § 106(f) and (g) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a number of powers, including the authority to re gulate objects affecting navigable airspace. Regulations requiring FAA notificat ion if any structure of more than 200 feet (approximately 60 m) high would be constructed are found in 14 CF R Part 77. The FAA then determines if the

structures would or would not be an obstruc tion to air navigation. Mississippi regulates navigable airspace under Title 61 of the Mississippi Code

.

Executive Orders

A number of presidential executive orders, in addition to those noted above, provide additional guidance in developing this EA. Th e most relevant of them include:

• Executive Order 11514, “Protection and Enha ncement of Environmental Quality”

• Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”

• Executive Order 12856, “Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements” Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Ad dress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”

• Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species”

• Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Fe deral Agencies to Protect Migratory

Birds”

• Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management”

Federal executive orders can be accessed at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/

codification /.

Federal and State Permitting

The following are potentially applicable federal and state permitting requirements to construct and operate the proposed facilities.

• Acid Rain Permit, 40 CFR Part 72

• Airspace Obstruction Control Permit, 14 CFR Part 77

• Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Dete rioration permit, Acid Deposition Control permit, and Operating Permit, 40 CFR Parts 50-96U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 14 March 2009 • Clean Water Act, Section 401 Certifica tion, Section 402 NPDES Permit, Section 404 Wetlands Permit, and Pretreatment Authoriz ation for Discharge of Wastewater to Municipal Collection System, 40 CFR Parts 104-140, 403

• Safe Drinking Water Act Underground In jection Control Permit, 40 CFR Part 144

• Rivers and Harbor Act Permit, 33 CFR Part 322

• Notice to the Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 77

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Ac t (RCRA), 40 CFR Parts 239 through 299

• Sales Tap Approval, 18 CFR 157.21 1. Approval would be required to tap into or modify existing interstate gas pipelines.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 15 March 2009 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is for the DOE to provide 69 percent of the funds necessary to complete the project, to SECARB for a project led by the SSE B), in cooperation with Denbury, to inject and closely monitor the flow of approximately 1.7 m illion short tons (1.5 million metric tons) of supercritical carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation on the flank of the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone (Noceti, 2008a). The pr oposed injection period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months followed by at least one year of post-injection monitoring. This proposed field experiment is known as the SECARB Phase III Early Test project.

2.1.1 Project Location

The proposed activities would take place in an area of approximately 2 square miles (mi 2 ) (5 square kilometers (km 2 )) within the lease boundarie s of Denbury’s Cranfield Unit, an oil and gas field that was largely abandoned in 1965. The site is about 4 miles (6 km) northeast of Cranfield, Mississippi and about 12 miles ( 19 km) east of Natchez, Mississ ippi (Figure 2.1.1). Denbury is currently undertak ing a commercial CO 2 flood of this field (using the subsurface injection of

CO 2 to enhance the recovery of oil) . The Cranfield Unit is in a larg e, closed domical structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet (3,000 m) with a gas-tight geologic seal. This work will be done under Denbury’s existing Class II Underg round Injection Cont rol (UIC) Permit.

The target injection zone is desc ribed as sandstone, which is over lain by a series of relatively impermeable shale zones of the Middle Tu scaloosa Formation. The Middle Tuscaloosa Formation is a closed domical structure, expe cted to be at least 300 feet (approximately 90 meters) thick in the injection area. Further impermeable confining shale formations are the Midway-Navarro-Taylor, about 6,500 to 8,500 f eet (1,981 – 2,591 m) below grade, and the

Cockfield/Cook Mountain shale formation at 1,600-2,800 feet (488 – 853 m) depth.

In addition, the Selma-Austin chalks and marl s provide a buffering system below the MidwayNavarro-Taylor. Any carbon dioxide that may es cape the first confining layer would be reactive with the calcium carbonate, which would reduc e any further escape. Above the MidwayNavarro-Taylor shale formations, the previously produced and partially depleted Wilcox group of sands will provide a pressure sink due to earlie r extraction of oil and ga s. This pressure sink would serve to attract and hold any ga ses that may escape other entrapment.U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Proposed Action and Alternatives 16 March 2009Figure 2.1.1. Phase III Early Test Study Area and Adjacent Land UseU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 17 March 2009 2.1.2 First Stage: Drilling and Characterization

The Proposed Action calls for the use of four inj ection wells. Three of these wells have already been drilled by Denbury as a part of ongoing EO R operations. These three wells extend below the oil-brine interface into the deeper brine- bearing Tuscaloosa Formation below 10,000 feet. An additional injection well would also be dri lled to the same depth. These four primary injection wells would use existing well pads used during the previous pro duction at the Cranfield Unit and directionally drilled to the desired down-hole locations. Th e three wells already completed as a part of ongoing EOR are identified as selected study wells in Figure 2.1.2. The

fourth well will be drilled from one of two previous well pad sites, depicted as optional study

wells in the southeast section of the study area (Figure 2.1.2). Th e selection of the well pad for this fourth well would be determined by Denbur y based on cost, accessibility, and other factors unrelated to the study.

Since the well pads were abandoned in the mi d-1960s, Denbury will recondition them to support drilling operations. This reconditioning will incl ude land clearing of approximately one acre or less (0.4 hectare), leveling and fill activities, rebui lding access roads, laying connector pipelines, and extending other infrastructu re services as needed. The drilling, site preparation, and infrastructure construction must be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental protecti on. All planned well pad, pipeline, and road construction activity will be conducted as part of the EOR activity and will occur whether DOE funds the Proposed Action or not (i.e., No-Action alternative).U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Proposed Action and Alternatives 18 March 2009Figure 2.1.2. Location of Proposed and Existing WellsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 19 March 2009 Denbury is conducting all activities re lated to the drilling of the inje ction wells as part of current commercial operations. Under the Proposed Acti on, the wells would be drilled further than necessary (“extended”) for normal EOR operations. This “extensio n” of three of the four primary SECARB injection wells into the water le g of the formation has been completed and the fourth well will require only minor additional re sources (approximately 3 percent longer casing, more drilling mud, and higher fuel consumption dur ing drilling). Table 2 .1.2 lists the quantities

of materials to be used.

Table 2.1.2. Materials Used and Produced During the Project

Materials Used Materials Produced

Material Quantity Material Quantity

Water 500,000

– 840,000 gallons (gal). (1.8 – 3.2 million Liters (L)) Wastewater 1.39 – 2.31 million gal. (5.3 – 8.7 million L)

Diesel fuel 20,000 – 42,000 gal. (76,000 – 159,900 L) Solid waste 6,000 – 10,000 pounds (lbs). (2,700 – 4,500 kilograms (kg)) Steel pipe 738 short tons (670,000 kg) Drill cuttings Approximately 70,000 cubic yards (yd 3 ) (53,519 cubic meters (m 3 ) Explosives 33 pounds for wellbore

stimulation

(15 kg)

Gravel 5,000 – 9,000 yd 3

(3,800 – 6,900 m 3 ) Drilling mud 90,000 – 150,000 lbs (40,800 – 86,000 kg)

An additional compressor for the injection of the increased volume of CO 2 would be installed in conjunction with current compressors along existi ng Denbury pipelines if the Proposed Action is funded. The injected volume of CO 2 under the Proposed Action (1.7 million short tons or 1.5 million metric tons) is twice the amount needed for EOR, which means that Denbury under the No-Action alternative would only inject half of that amount ( DOE, 2008a). The collocation of the additional compressor at an existing comp ressor station should minimize any incremental increase in noise levels. The integrity of new well completions would be tested to assure that wells do not become leakage pathways. All exis ting wells in the area wi ll be identified and a search of publically available record s completed. Plug and abandonment records provide evidence that old wells in the study area have been properly plugged and abandoned and should not become leakage pathways.

Two observation wells would also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and would

be dedicated full time to continuous monito ring of the formation response to the CO 2 flood. The final selection of well pads for the locations of the two monitoring wells has not beenU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 20 March 2009 determined, but they would be sited close to one or more of the four injection wells. The monitoring wells would be used to characteri ze the subsurface formations and to improve evaluation and modeling of the pr oposed injection plume. The subsurface characterizations conducted during the drilling operations are to assess formation and fluid conditions, evaluate permeability and other modeling parameters of the injection formation, revise numerical models, and refine plans for injection operations. Shallow groundwater quality and soil conditions would

also be evaluated to establish baseline n ear-surface conditions in the study area.

Two additional water wells would be drilled to approximately 200 feet (approximately 61 m) using a truck-mounted drilling rig to evaluate the performance of surface-monitoring strategies. Near-Surface-monitoring activities planned durin g the first stage include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater ge ochemical measurement, and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. A gravel access road and drilling pad would not be required for these two wells. Cuttings fr om each of the water wells would result in less than 200 yd 3 (153 m 3 ) based on the volume of 6-inch well to a depth of 200 feet. Materials would be land farmed at permitted facilities w ithin the Cranfield Unit similar to other wells constructed by Denbury in the area.

The construction of all six of the primary deep wells for this study, including the four injection wells and the two observations wells, would require a total of an estimated 500,000 – 840,000 gallons (2 to 3 million L) of additional make- up water that would be obtained from existing Denbury water wells. All four injection wells , the three already comp leted and the planned fourth, were always a planned part of De nbury’s commercial EOR operations even if the SECARB study is not conducted (i.e., No-Action altern ative). Only about one-third of this total water usage, or approximately only 167,000 – 280,000 gallons (approximately 632,000 L to 1.1 million L) of makeup water, will be used for the drilling of the two deep observation wells which are being constructed solely for this study.

Labor requirements beyond those to be em ployed by Denbury for its on-going commercial operations would be limited to the crews need ed to drill the observation and groundwater monitoring wells. SECARB staff and contractors would conduct monitoring and maintenance of sampling equipment. The drilling of the obser vation wells would take approximately 6 weeks and would be conducted by contractors alr eady employed by Denbury for other deep well construction. Typical crews consist of 12 dr illing crew workers on a 24-hour per day schedule for 2 weeks and 6 completion crew workers on a 12-hour per day schedule for 4 weeks.

The drilling of the shallow gr oundwater monitoring wells would take approximately 1-2 days and would be conducted by a local, state-licensed operator contract by SECARB. A crew of 2-5 people is required for these temporary rigs.

On-going operation and maintenance of monitori ng equipment would be performed by SECARB personnel and contractors on a periodic, non-con tinuous basis approximately 4 times during the study period. Monitoring crews consist of 8 rese archers working for 2 weeks during each of the 4 study intervals.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 21 March 2009 The construction of the deep wells for this st udy would require a tota l of an estimated 20,000 – 42,000 gallons (75,708 – 158,987 L) of diesel fu el and an estimated 90,000 – 150,000 pounds (40,823 – 68,039 kg) of drilling mud. Of this usage, only an estimated 7,000 – 14,000 gallons (26,498 – 52,996 L) of diesel fuel and 30,000 – 50,000 pounds (13,608 – 22,680 kg) of drilling mud would be used for drilling the two deep obs ervation wells; the remaining materials will be used for Denbury’s commercial EOR operations even if the SECARB study is not conducted (i.e., No-Action alternative).

Drilling mud used for the construction of the obser vation wells would be tr eated and disposed of by Denbury in accordance with MSOGB regulations . Water-based bentonite drilling muds are sent by pumper trucks for reuse if possible or di sposed of on-site in permitted cutting pits. Specialty muds that cannot be recycled would also be disposed of at on-site permitted oilfield waste disposal sites. Existing MSOGB regulatio ns adequately protect the environment with strict standards of construction, operation, and maintenance; and provi de for penalties and appropriate remedial actions for failure to comply.

Power would be brought to the observation well site on poles or by buried conduit from nearby domestic power lines. Fences will be placed as needed to keep livestock away from wellheads.

Approximately 55,000 barrels of water would be produced during well development. Produced

freshwater would be land farmed and saline wa ter would be disposed of in existing MSOGB permitted oilfield disposal wells following best available practices.

Up to 2.31 million gallons (8,706,447 L) of wast ewater will be produced and collected in portable tanks and shipped by truck to an authori zed disposal site as part of the ongoing EOR. Up to 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) of solid waste will be disposed of at local commercial landfills. Using tank trucks with 6,000-8,000 gal capacity, it would require between 300- 400 truck trips to transport wastewater. Denbury disposal wells ar e at the Cranfield Unit; therefore, wastewater that would be generated as a result of the propos ed project would likely not require transport on public roadways. Non-drilling, non -hazardous solid waste is proj ected to be picked up by a commercial service on a monthly basis throughout the construction period and transported to a local permitted landfill. Figure 2.1.2 shows the location of the eight wells to be drilled for the Proposed Action.

2.1.3 Second Stage: CO 2 Injection and Monitoring

As part of the ongoing EOR, the CO 2 will be transported from a natural source at Jackson Dome (near Jackson, Mississippi) to Cr anfield through the commercial Denbury Sonat pipeline (Figure 2.1.2), which is a former natural gas pi peline that Denbury retrofitted for CO 2 transport in 2007. Distribution lines and compression will be developed by Denbury to bring CO 2 from the pipeline head to the injection wells (i.e., No-Action alterna tive). The total distance from Sonat pipeline to the 4 proposed injection wells varies from 2 to 5 miles depending upon the selected route (which has not been determined). The connector lines will be 2 5 / 8 or 3 inch in diameter with a

construction corridor of a maximum of 30 feet wide.

CO 2 injection will be regulated at the surface by controlling pressure and volume of injectionU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 22 March 2009 using standard industry practices. Denbury has previously conducted four other CO 2 floods into the Lower Tuscaloosa in Mississipp i, which provide the best pract ices under which this test

would be conducted. The CO 2 injection technology and methodol ogies used for EOR have been used by the oil and gas industry for many years, and Denbury has over 10 years of successful experience. Existing industry practices along with MSOGB regulat ions, have proven adequate to ensure the safe and reliable operation of injection wells for several decades. Preliminary modeling shows that the footprint (maximum horizontal extent in the subsurface), as well as maximum pressure buildup of the CO 2 plume, will be controlled by pressure drawdown at production wells in the oil-producin g rim. Down-dip spread of the plume is expected to be limited, with most of the plume moving up- dip toward the oil-producing area.

The injection rate and volume of CO 2 that is proposed for this study would primarily be through three existing EOR wells along with a fourth well that would be dr illed. Three of these injection

wells now extend into the brine la yer in the down-dip water leg of the formation. The injection rate would be increased to attempt to inject th e full 1.0 million metric tons/year (1.0 billion kg) into these four wells. However, if an adequa te injection volume cannot be achieved within regulated safety limits to avoid fracturing of the formation, other injection wells at the Cranfield Unit could also be used to inject the CO 2 necessary to achieve the target 1.0 million metric tons/year (1.0 billion kg) volumes required for the study.

The focal point of the proposed activity would be monitoring of the injected CO 2 to understand

its subsurface flow mechanisms. The monitori ng program would evaluate the movement of CO 2 and evaluate the performance of seals to assure CO 2 is retained within the target injection zone. Tracers (10 kg) would be injected with the CO 2 in minor amounts, and both the injection and monitoring wells would be sampled to identify the tracer and CO 2 concentrations. Geochemical tracer techniques would include is otopic profiles of injected CO 2 , introduced noble gases, and introduced perfluorocarbons.

Subsurface monitoring in the four injection wells, two observation wells, and selected other wells in the field will use wire-line and tubing-co nveyed instruments to assess pre-injection fluid and rock properties. Monitoring would in clude down-hole pressu re and temperature measurements, time-lapse logging, tilt and acous tic measurements, cross-well tomography, and fluid-sampling tools. Water level and quality w ould be sampled quarterly to semi-annually from existing and newly drilled muni cipal and make-up water wells located locally. Borehole geophysical (wire-line) logging w ould be conducted in the injection formation and above the injection zone, to verify that CO 2 is being properly cont ained. Repeat Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) and/or repeat three dime nsional (3-D) seismic surveys w ould assess the maximum lateral spread of CO 2

.

Planned surface monitoring activit ies at the two newly drilled near-surface water monitoring wells would include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater geochemical measurement, experimental and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. Soil gas, pore water, and shallow groundwater will be sampled and analyzed to establish background CO 2 concentrations. Because background values vary seasonally with changes in biologic activity, sampling will be rep eated. These points will also be monitoredU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 23 March 2009 throughout the injection and post-injection phases. Shallow auger holes will be used to sample soil gas.

The existing well completions would remain ope n in the injection and monitoring wells for approximately 1 year to allow post-injection monitoring. Monito ring would include pressure and temperature measurements and well logging, cross-well or surface seismic surveys, and geochemical sampling and analyses. Fluid monito ring frequency would decrease as changes in pressures and concentrations become minimal, indicating equilibration of the subsurface physical

environment. This stabilization is anticipated to occur less than one (1) year after the beginning of injection. Shallow groundwater dissolved gas and soil-gas con centrations would be monitored throughout this time at sample points established during pre-injection fiel d activities. Waste formation brine resulting from surface seismic surveys and geochemical sampling would be transported to an existing MSOGB-permitted Class 2 disposal well.

2.1.4 Decommissioning

It is not anticipated that a full decommissioning of the site would be requ ired after cessation of the proposed project. The site is part of an existing petroleum production area and will be decommissioned as part of that operation. In addition, Denbury would have the choice, after the proposed project, of incorporating the observati on wells into its EOR project (some wells may need to be re-completed for this option).

Pipelines are regulated in Missi ssippi by the Public Safety Commission which enforces the rules and regulations of the Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 (Walden, 2008). With or without the implementation of the Proposed Action, wells will be abandoned according to Mississippi Oil & Gas Board per Rule 63, Unde rground Injection Contro l, Section 10, Plugging and Abandoning regulations. The pipelines would continue to be used by Denbury after the study for EOR operations. Denbury will eventually abandon the pipelines at the completion of the EOR operation, but the exact abandonment methods will be determined by Denbury in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations at the time of abandonment (Walden, 2008).

Other equipment may be recycled or re-conditioned for future use or sale.

2.2 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action alternative mean s that DOE funds would not be used to support the proposed data collection at the target site. Without DOE funds, the data collection proposed would not occur because such data collection is unnecessary for the purposes of EOR at this site. With no intent to collect the proposed data set, those wells specific to such data collection would be unnecessary. Not conducting such tests would delay by severa l years the development of

information needed to assess te chnological options for geologic carbon sequestration. From an overall perspective, therefore, the No-Acti on alternative within the SECARB region would adversely affect the ability to provide options to help meet national objectives for greenhouse gas emission reductions by using sequestration as a m itigation option. Also, increased understanding

of subsurface behavior of CO 2 would not be gained, and the po ssibility of an example ofU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 24 March 2009 successful and safe sequestration within th e SECARB region could not be offered for consideration by the public , policy makers, and regulators duri ng any future consideration of regional CO 2 sequestration proposals. In the absence of an adequate base of knowledge, the complexities of future projects could result in long delays for public and regulatory approval, thereby jeopardizing goals for action on climate change issues.

The Proposed Action would be conducted in an oilfield in association with a planned EOR program by Denbury Resources. The proposed Cran field Unit site was dr illed and oil and gas extracted beginning in the 1940s a nd running through the 1960s. The prop osed site is in an area where drilling and other subsurface activities familiar to the surrounding communities have occurred for many decades in a mature oilfield se tting that provides abundant subsurface data. It is the intention of Denbury Resources to implem ent oil and gas removal at this site using CO 2 injection, with or without the da ta collection proposed by DOE. In other words, those potential environmental impacts associated with this EO R project would occur ev en if DOE were not involved. In fact, one of the primary reasons fo r selecting this site for the Proposed Action was to take advantage of the in frastructure developed for CO 2 -EOR efforts by the field operator. This presents SECARB with the opportunity to inject approximately 1.7 million short tons (1.5 million metric tons) of CO 2 over 1.5 years in the down-dip leg of an oil reservoir in order to test a number of commercial and experimental mon itoring protocols for carbon sequestration. Thus,

the No-Action alternativ e represents a lost opportunity to utilize the cost-savings, background data, and limited additional environmental impacts a ssociated with using the established oilfield. Choosing the No-Action alternat ive would delay development of technological options for geological CO 2 sequestration and possibly result in increased CO 2 emissions before any

stabilization efforts could be started.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Elim inated from Detailed Analysis

In order to evaluate the alternat ives provided below, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that the

decision under review in this EA is for the DOE to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action.

The alternatives offered below were considered by the SECARB partnership with a preferred option chosen and submitted to DOE for funding.

Two additional alternatives were available for satisfying DOE’s need for developing information on potential technological solu tions for geological carbon sequ estration in this region. Alternatives to the Proposed Ac tion include: (1) conducting the expe riment at another field site in the same sedimentary basin and (2) conducting the experiment in another geographic area (different sedimentary basin). These alternativ es to the Proposed Action are listed in Table 2.3 below, along with the primary reason fo r dismissing them from detailed analysis.

Table 2.3. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Alternative Reason for Dismissal

Alternative location in

same basin Any other alternative looses the a dvantages of working within an active oilfield EOR setting that also has a long history of data acquisition. Injection in a different

basin As above, this alternative would lack comparable subsurface data and oil industry infrastructure.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 25 March 2009 Many other basins in the Gulf Coast region contain formations suited to geological CO 2 sequestration (Hovorka et al., 2000 ). However, few of these basins are characterized by a high

concentration of both man-made and natural CO 2 sources and an abundance of available subsurface data in the form of well logs and 3-D seismic data. Fewer still have a robust on-site oil and gas industry presence, which would reduce Proposed Action costs.

The proposed early test would be conducted in the down-dip “water leg” of the Cranfield Unit operated by Denbury Resources, which is the Proposed Action. Large volumes of CO 2 can be delivered by Denbury’s Sonat Pipeline, which is supplied by abundant natural CO 2 from the nearby Jackson Dome. Denbury recently leased the mineral rights and unitized the necessary lands. Conducting the Proposed Action at this s ite would allow collection of high-quality data from a large volume CO 2 injection site. No other location o ffers these data collection and cost savings opportunities in this regi on, which is why other locations in this and other basins within the region were dismissed from further consideration by SSEB.

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed

The Purpose and Need section above highlighted the importance of th e overall program of evaluating carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one tool among many to address global climate change while providing this nation with a secure energy future. Because of the lack of potential impact to certain issues due to the specific characteristics of the Proposed Action, the following issues were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis:

• Right-of-Way Acquisition – There was no need for additional right-of-way.

• Forest Fragmentation – This is a site that was initially fragmented in the 1940s and no additional signifi cant forest clearing will be necessary.

• Increase Local Govt. Expenditures – The e xpected population dynamics of the temporary workforce are not expected to impose additional local govt. expenditures through need for new roads, schools, etc.

• Impact Property Values – This is a mi nor expansion of an existing industrial facility and not a new cons truction on a green-field

site.

• Alter Local Hydrology Patterns – None of the proposed co nstruction would impact drainage in the local watershed.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers – No listed W ild and Scenic rivers are within the general area of the proposed project site.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 26 March 2009 3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH

This chapter describes how the environmental review team analyzed the potential impacts of this Proposed Action (i.e., injection and analysis of potential for geologic storage of CO 2 in conjunction with enhanced oil recovery). Chap ter 4 provides a description of the affected environment and the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action along with an analysis of environmental effects if the Proposed Action was not implemented.

3.1 Approach to the Analysis

An Environmental Assessment is intended to be a cl ear, focused analysis of impacts. It is not intended to be merely a compilati on of encyclopedic information about the project or about the environment. Accordingly, the environmental re view team used a systematic approach to identifying, and then answering, th e relevant impact questions.

The initial step was to develop a detailed description of the com ponents of the EOR process to be

used at this oil field site al ong with those components that w ould be added by NETL to study the potential of geologic sequestration of CO 2 along with EOR at this site. This description was presented in Chapter 2.

For each project component, (e.g., underground injection of CO 2 ) the team sought to identify all the types of direct effects which that activity could cause on any environmental resource. For example, clearing a site of vegetation could cause soil erosion. In doing this preliminary identification of the types of impacts that potentially could occur, the team drew upon their experience with previous projects.

For each potential direct effect, th e team then sought to identify the potential indirect effects on other environmental resources. For example, so il erosion could cause sedimentation in nearby streams, which could in turn harm the fish and other species in the stream.

In some cases, the team identified multiple effects on the same resource which are shown in the diagram (Figure 3-1). Figure 3-1 is the overall Cause-Effect-Q uestion diagram for the entire project. This served as the framework of the anal ysis of impacts. That is, the team focused their efforts on answering these questions as to whether these effects would in fact occur, and if so, how extensive, how severe, and how long-lasting they would be.

Note that Figure 3.1 (the next 4 pages) contains references to the sp ecific section of the document where each impact is addressed. Also, note that most of the ac tions presented in the diagram relate to the EOR activity that will occu r at the project site whether the DOE chooses to fund or not fund the Proposed Project (i.e., No-Action alternative) ; no questions relating specifically to study actions are identified. Site clearing could

cause Soil erosion? which could

cause Damage to stream species? Site clearing could

cause Soil erosion? which could

cause Damage to stream species?U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 27 March 2009Site Selection,Preparation, &Constructionfor CO2Injectionwith EORRemove andDisturb Soils?Section 4.2Damage Wetlands?Section 4.4Generate Dust andEmissions?Section 4.1GenerateNoise?Section 4.8Increase Soil Erosion?Section 4.2.2Increase Run-off?Section 4.3.2Decrease in Soil Productivity?Section 4.7.2Degrade Water Quality?Section 4.3.2Increase Sedimentation?Section 4.3.2ContaminateSurface Water?Section 4.3.2Harm Human Health & Safety?Section 4.9.2Degrade AirQuality?Section 4.1.2Degrade Water Quality?Section 4.3.2Increase Turbidity? Section 4.3.2Harm Human Health and Safety? Section 4.9.2Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2Disturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.8.6.2Increase in Traffic Related Noise? Section 4.8.3Limit Future Land Use? Section 4.7.4Loss of Prime Farmland? Section 4.7.2Increase Risk forChemical/ FuelSpills?Section 4.9Contaminate the Soils? Section 4.2.2Harm Vegetation? Section 4.5.2Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2Contaminate Surface or Groundwater? Section 4.3.2HeavyEquipment willbe Used duringConstructionDamageArcheologicalor CulturalResources?Section 4.10Removal ofVegetation?Section 4.5Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2Loss of Habitat? Section 4.5.2Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2Harm Human Health and Safety? Section 4.9Increase Run-off? Section 4.5.2See aboveDrillingDisposal of WasteMud/Debris?Section 4.11Disposal of Waste Water? Section 4.11Generate Noise/Vibrations? Section 4.8.6SeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2injection with EORDegrade Habitat?Section 4.11.2Harm Aquatic Biota? Section 4.3.2Disturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.6.2Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 1U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 28 March 2009SiteSelection,Preparation,&Constructionof CO2Injectionwith EOR(continued)Increase Income and Spendingin the Local Area?Section 4.8.2Increase Local Jobs? Section 4.8.2Increase Local Tax Revenues?Section 4.8.2Purchase ofMaterials andEquipmentAlteration of Land Surface? Section 4.7 , 4.2.2, & 4.5.2There will bea commitmentof landSection 4.7Loss of Prime Farmland?Section 4.7Change in Land Use?Section 4.7Degrade Visual/Aesthetics?Section 4.8.5Environmental Justice?Section 4.8.7Create local jobs?Section 4.8Increase in Local Spending? Section 4.8.2Increase Local Population? Section 4.8.2Damage to Local Roads? Section 4.8.3Increased Risk to Pedestrians and Other Vehicular Traffic? Section 4.8.3 & 4.9.2Increase in Traffic?Section 4.8.3Transport ofEquipment,Materials, andPersonnel Toand From SiteIncrease in Congestion/Delays? Section 4.8.3Create Temporary Roads?Section 4.4 & 4.5Harm Wetlands/Wildlife?Section 4.4 & 4.6SeeHeavy EquipmentaboveIncreased Noise? Section 4.8.6Figure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 2U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 29 March 2009OperationandMaintenanceof CO2InjectionFacilitiesVisibility Changes?Section 4.8.5Changes to Human Health and Safety?Section 4.9Changes in Contribution to Climate Change?Section 4.1.2Transport,Storage, andHandling of CO2for InjectionDegrade Air Quality?Section 4.1Increase in EnergyUsage?Section 4.8.3Increase Risk for Accidents or Spills?Section 4.9Increase Local Traffic?Section 4.8.3Harm Human Health and Safety?Section 4.9Contaminate Surface or Groundwater?Section 4.3Increase in Noise andLight EmissionsDisturb or Displace Wildlife?Section 4.6Disturb Adjacent Property Owners or Sensitive Receptors?Section 4.8.6Prepare CO2Prior toInjectionDehydration of CO2Prior to Injection?Section 2.1.3Disposal of Condensate?Section 4.11Air Emissions Generated atthe Facility will ChangeHarm ProtectedSpecies?Section 4.6Productionof OilDispose of WasteMud/Debris?Section 4.11Disposal of Waste Water?Section 4.11Generate Noise/Vibrations?Section 4.8.6SeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2injection with EORDegrade Habitat?Section 4.4 & 4.5Harm Aquatic Biota?Section 4.3 & 4.6Disturb/Displace Wildlife?Section 4.6Harm Protected Species?Section 4.5 & 4.6SeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2injection with EORFigure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 3U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 30 March 2009SubsurfaceInjections of CO2inConjunction withEnhanced OilRecoveryHeavy Equipment will be Used DuringInjectionSeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2injection with EORPurchase of Materials and EquipmentTransport of Equipment, Materials, andPersonnel To and From SiteChanges to LocalEmploymentAvailabilityDisturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.6Increases inNoise andLightDisturbancesInjection ofCO2UndergroundIncreased Risk of CO2Leaks?Section 4.9Degrade Strata Stability?Section 4.2Change Aquifer Dynamics?Section 4.2Harm Vegetation?Section 4.5Harm Human Health andSafety?Section 4.9Increases inProduced WaterManagementIssues at theSurfaceIncreased Risk of Leaks and Spills?Section 4.9Harm Health and Human Safety?Section 4.9Increased Risk of Waste Water Containing VOCs?Section 4.9 & 4.11Increased Risk of Hole Stability and FlowControl Problems in Older Wells?Section 4.2 & 4.9Alter Underground Pressure Gradients?Section 4.2Degrade Potable WaterSupply?Section 4.3Increase Return to the Surface of CO2with Oil?Section 4.2Disposal of Waste WaterDegrade Water Quality?Section 4.3Degrade Air QualitySection 4.1SeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2injection with EORDegrade Air Quality?Section 4.1Degrade Water Quality?Section 4.3SeeSite Selection, preparation, & construction ofCO2injection with EORCause Soil Interactions?Section 4.2Cause Leaks of CO2? Section 4.9Changes in Contributionto Climate Change?Section 4.1.2See AboveIncrease in Oil ProductionIncrease in CO2and Other Air Pollutants? Section 4.1.2Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 4U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 31 March 2009 3.2 Analysis of Significance

The review team used a systematic process to evaluate the significance of the predicted impacts. This process involved comparing the predictions to the signifi cance criteria established by the

team and set out below in Table 3.2. These si gnificance criteria we re based on legal and regulatory constraints and on team member s’ professional technical judgment.

Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds

Impact Significance Thresholds

Resource Area An impact would be significant if it EXCEEDS the following conditions

Air Quality The project would not produce emissions that would impede the area’s conformity with the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.

Geologic Formations The Proposed Action would cause no measurable leakage of CO 2 from the storage formation to the surface or into another area in the subsurface, and there is no more than an imperceptible risk of inducing seismic events due to increased reservoir pressure.

Soils Any changes in soil stability, permeability, or productivity would be limited in extent. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time*, considering the size of the project. Mitigation, if needed, would be simple to implement and proven to be effective in previous applications.

Surface Water Any changes to surface water quality or hydrology would be confined to the immediate project area. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected area’s natural state.

Groundwater Any changes to groundwater quality and quantity would be at the lowest detectable levels. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time. Mitigation, proven to be effective in previous applications, would be implemented, if needed.

Wetlands and Floodplains Any impacts to wetlands and/or floodplains would be confined to the immediate project area and would not cause any regional impacts. Planned mitigation measures would fully compensate for lost wetland values in a

reasonable time.

Terrestrial Vegetation Any changes to native vegetation would be limited to a small area and would not affect the viability of the resour ces. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected resource’s natural state. Mitigation, proven to be effective in previous applications, would be implemented, if needed.

Wildlife Any changes to wildlife would be limited to a small portion of the population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected species’ natural state.

Threatened or Endangered Species Any effect to a federally listed species or its critical habitat would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the protected individual or its population. Th is negligible effect would equate to

a “no effect” determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service terms.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 32 March 2009 Land Use Any change in land use would be limited to a small area and would not noticeably alter any particular land use at the project site or in adjacent areas. The affected areas would fully recover in a reasonable time once the project is completed.

Population and Employment Changes to the normal or routine functions of the affected community are short-term or do not alter existing social or economic conditions in a way that is disruptive or costly to the community.

Infrastructure The project would not noticeably affect or disrupt the normal or routine functions of public institutions, roads, electricity, and other public utilities and services in the project area.

Parks and Recreation Any disturbance would be minor, temporary in duration, and in character with existing uses of the study area.

Visual Resources The action, along with planned mitigati on, would not permanently change the visual landscape in a way that is objecti onable to a number of local residents or frequent visitors. (or) The action, along with planned mitigation, would not change the visual

resource classification of the affected area.

Noise Noise levels in the project area would not exceed ambient noise level standards as determined by the Federa l, State, and/or local government.

Environmental

Justice Neither minority nor low-income groups within the affected community will experience proportionately greater adverse effects than other members of the community.

Human Health and Safety The project, with current and planne d mitigation measures, would pose no

more than a minimal risk to the health and safety of on-site workers and the local population.

Cultural Resources The action would not affect the context or integrity features (including visual features) of a site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or of other cultural significance. Following consultations with the SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and consultations with any other potentially affected groups including Indian Tribes, local governments, and the National Park Service (NPS), the

determination of effect under S ection 106 of the NHPA would be no adverse effect

.

Waste Management The action is unlikely to cause air, wate r, or soil to be contaminated with hazardous material that poses a threat to human or ecological health and safety.
* Recovery in a reasonable time: Constant, sustainable improvement is apparent and measurable when the site is routinely observed, and full recovery is achieved over a period of no more than several years.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 33 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFE CTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Description

This is a description of regional climate, ambi ent air quality with resp ect to attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and identification of a pplicable air quality regulations.

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather

The SECARB Phase III study area is located in the humid subtropical climate division characterized by high humidity (especially in summe r) and typically mild winters. The area has no dry season; even the driest summer month r eceives at least 1.2 inches (30 millimeters [mm]) of rain. Precipitation is rath er evenly distributed throughout th e year, but is markedly greater during summer or early spring, especially during frequent thunderstorms. Tropical hurricanes strike the coastal areas occasionally, and can bring very heavy rains. Snow fall is rare and melts almost immediately. January, historically th e coldest month, temperatures range from an average low of 38.8 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) (3.8 degrees Celsius (° C)) to an average high of 58.3° F (14.6° C). In July, historically the warm est month, temperatures range from an average low of 72.1° F (22.3° C) to an average high of 91.0° F (32.8° C).

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality St andards and Attainment Status

USEPA Region 4 and the State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), regulate air quality in Mississippi. The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401-7671q), as amended, gives USEPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary NAAQS (40 CFR Part 50) that set acceptable c oncentration levels for seven criter ia pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM 10 ), very fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NO

x ), ozone (O 3 ), and lead. Short-term standa rds (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributi ng to acute health eff ects, while long-term standards (annual averages) have been establishe d for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. Based on the severity of the pollution problem, non-attainment ar eas are categorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Each state has the author ity to adopt standards

stricter than those established under the fede ral program; however, the State of Mississippi accepts the federal standards.

Federal regulations designate Ai r-Quality Control Regions (AQ CRs) in violation of the NAAQS as “non-attainment” areas. Federal regulations designate AQCRs with levels below the NAAQS as “attainment” areas. “Maintenance” AQCRs are areas that have previo usly been designated “non-attainment,” and have been redesignated to “attainment” for a probationary period through implementation of maintenance plans. The SE CARB Phase III study area is completely within the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR (AQ CR 005) (40 CFR 81.144). Federal regulations designate AQ CR 005 as an attainment area fo r all criteria pollutants (40 CFRU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 34 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 81.338). Notably, the study area is also located more than 150 miles away from the nearest Class I visibility area (Breton Wilderness Area, Loui siana). Because the SECARB Phase III study area is in an attainment region, th e air conformity regulations do not apply. Although the area is in attainment, and the air conformity regulations do not apply, the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants and the applicability thresholds unde r the general conformity rules were carried forward for more detailed analysis to determine the level of impact under NEPA.

4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality

Worst case ambient air quality conditions can be estimated from measurements conducted at airquality monitoring stations (Table 4.1.1.3). It should be noted that the cited stations provide data from urban and industrial counties, such as Harrison County (Gulfpor t) and Jackson County (Pascagoula) and are not representative of the more rural study area. They are used here to demonstrate overall air quality in the region. Hence the levels outlined on Table 4.1.1.3 can be

considered a conservative worst case.

With the exception of the eight-hour O 3 standards, air-quality measurements are below theNAAQS (USEPA, 2008). The reported maximum of 0.091 parts per million (ppm) for the eighthour level exceed the standards of 0.08 ppm within the region. Ho wever, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations over each year has not exceeded 0.08 ppm; hence, the attainment status.

Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations

Pollutant and Averaging Time Primary NAAQS 1 Secondary NAAQS 1 Monitored Data 2 Location of

Station

CO

8-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 9 (None) (no data available)

1-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 35 (None) (no data available -

NO 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.053 0.053 0.006 Jackson County

Ozone

8-Hour Maximum 4 (ppm) 0.08 0.12 0.091 Harrison County

PM 2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 5 (μg/m 3 ) 15 15 14.8

24-Hour Maximum 6 (μg/m 3 ) 35 35 35 Lauderdale County

PM 10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 7 (μg/m 3 ) 50 50 22

24-Hour Maximum 3 (μg/m 3 ) 150 150 42 Jackson County

SO 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.03 (None) 0.002

24-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 0.14 (None) 0.011 Jackson County

3-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) - 0.5 0.034

1 - Source: 40 CFR 50.1-50.12. 2 - Source: (USEPA, 2008) 3 - Not to be exceeded more than once per year 4 - The 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average O 3 concentrations over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 5 - The 3-year average of th e weighted annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations from must not exceed 15.0 μg/m 3

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 35 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 6 - The 3-year average of the 98th perc entile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor must not exceed 65 μg/m 3

. 7 - The 3-year average of th e weighted annual mean PM 10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 μg/m 3

. ppm = parts per million μg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter

NO 2 = Nitrogen dioxide

4.1.1.4 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the at mosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change. Some greenhouse ga ses occur naturally in the atmosphere, while

others result from human activities such as the bu rning of fossil fuels. Federal agencies, states,

and local communities address climate change by prepari ng GHG inventories and adopting policies that will result in a decrease of GHG emissions. According to the Kyoto Protocol and California Climate Action Registry (CCA R), there are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (UNFCCC, 2007;CARB, 2007a). Although the direct GHG (CO 2 , CH 4 , and

N 2 O) occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have increased their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i .e., ending about 1750) to 2004, concentrations of

CO 2 have increased globally by 35 percent. With in the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 94 percent of all CO 2 emissions released in 2005. On a global scale, fossil fuel combustion added approximately 30 x10 9 short tons (27 x10 9 metric tons) of CO 2 to the atmosphere in 2004, of which the United States accounted for about 22 percent (USEPA, 2007a). DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) report indicates that U.S. CO 2 emissions have grown by an average of 1.2 percent a nnually since 1990 and energy-related CO 2 emissions constitute as much as 83 percent of the total annual CO 2 emissions (DOE, 2007b).

Since 1900, the Earth's average surface air temperatur e has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4oF since. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred with in the past 10 years, with the warmest year being 2005 (USEPA, 2007b). With this in mind, DOE while preserving their core operations is poised to support c limate-changing initiatives to reduce GHG emissions.

4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Short-term minor impacts to air quality would be expected with the implementation of the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect air emission would not be expected to exceed applicability thresholds, be “regionally significant,” or contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local air regulation. Therefore, exp ected emissions from the Propos ed Action would not impede the area’s conformity with state air emission st andards. Air emissions would be limited to temporary diesel emissions from drilling and cons truction equipment during well development as part of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Th ese activities are in a ddition to Denbury’s on-going commercial operations in the area. No emissi ons would result from injection or monitoring operations during the SECARB Phase III Early Test.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 36 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity

The general conformity rules requ ire federal agencies to determine whether their action(s) would increase emissions of criteria pollutants above preset threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(b)).

These de minimis (of minimal importance) rates vary depending on the severity of the nonattainment and geographic location. Because AQCR 005 is in attainment, the general conformity regulations do not apply. However, all direct and indirect emissi ons of criteria pollutants were estimated and compared to appl icability threshold levels of 100 short tons (91,000 kg) per year (tpy) to determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action w ould cause significant impacts. The proposed project actions would be only a small part of overall site actions related to EOR; therefore, the total direct and indirect emissions associated with the following activities include both ongoing EOR operations and projec ted proposed project ac tions were accounted

for:

• Site preparation & construction;

• Construction and operation of transport pipeline;

• Operation and maintenance of injection facilities, and

• Subsurface injections of CO 2

.

Construction emissions would primarily be due to the use of diesel dril ling rigs, mud pumps, diesel generators and motors, heavy construction e quipment, deliveries to th e site, the application of architectural coatings, and fugitive dust. Drill rig operations during well construction are anticipated to occur 24 hours per day and 7 days per week for no more than three months. There are no planned operational activities along the proposed pipeline or at the well sites that would generate emissions of cr iteria pollutants.

The total direct and indirect em issions associated with the Pr oposed Action would not exceed applicability threshold levels (Table 4.1.2.1). B ecause AQCR 005 is an attainment area, there is no existing emission budget. However, due to th e limited size and scope of the Proposed Action, it is not anticipated that the estimated emissions would make up 10 percent or more of regional emissions for any criteria pollutant and not be regionally significant. A detailed breakdown of drilling and construction emissions is located in Appendix A.

Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Compared to Applicability Thresholds

Annual emissions (Short Tons Per Year)

Activity (Year) CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 De

minimis

threshold

(Short

Tons Per

Year) Would

emissions

exceed applicability

thresholds?

[Yes/No]

Drilling and Construction (2008) 4.8 8.7 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.4

Operational

Emissions <none> 100 No

Notes: VOC is volatile organic compounds, and SO

x is sulfur oxides

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 37 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review

New stationary sources of emissions may be subject to both federal and state permitting requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deteri oration (PSD), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for selected categories of indus trial sources. These regulations are outlined in Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) , Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, APC-S-1 through 8. In addition, the prevention and elimination of waste by the pol lution of air is prohibited through the guidelines set out in the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Bo ard (MSOGB), Rule Book 4, Rule 45. The guidelines reiterate that all gas that is being vented shall be processed in a manner so that emissions do not exceed applicable standards. This is consistent w ith the state and federal regulations governing air pollution. In addition, the guidelines state all non-combustible gas, such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), etc., which is not being used for a useful purpose, shall be returned to the subsurface stratum from which it was originally produced if emissions to the atmosphere would exceed applicable standards (MSOGB, 2007). The pro posed SECARB Phase III site is located in an attainment area and would not introduce any new st ationary sources of air emissions. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the above stated regulations would apply.

All drilling and construction would be accomplis hed in full compliance with the Mississippi Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Ai r Pollution. The necessary facilities shall be constructed in a manner such as to prevent th e solids from becoming windborne and to prevent the materials from entering state waters w ithout the proper envir onmental permits. The construction shall be performed in such a manner so as to reduce fugitive dust emissions from

construction activities to a minimum.

4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming

Direct and Indirect CO 2 Emissions. For the proposed project, CO 2 would be transported from a natural source at Jackson Dome (n ear Jackson, Mississippi) to Cran field Unit and sequestered. It is anticipated that 1,650,000 short tons (1,500,000 metric tons) of CO 2 would be sequestered during the project injection period. However, the overall amount of CO 2 generated as a result of Proposed Action related activities would in crease by approximately 70,000 short tons (63,500 metric tons) due to the burning of diesel fuel during drilling, the addi tional electrical demand [estimated at 7.5 megawatt (MW)], and worker co mmutes. This constitutes a net decrease of approximately 1,580,000 short tons (1,430, 000 metric tons) of CO 2 emissions over the life of the project (Table 4.1.2.3). Notably, this is less than 0.0001% of the global CO 2 emissions.

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for the Proposed Action
Activity/Source Emissions (Short Tons) Drilling and Construction 154 Electricity Usage 70,342

Worker Commutes 362 Sequestration (1,653,450)

Total Emissions (1,582,592)U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 38 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Fugitive CO 2 Emissions and Compressor Blowdown. Because transport and compression of

CO 2 is an integral part of activities for th e Proposed Action, fugitive air emissions of CO 2 could occur during routine operations. Sources of em issions during sequestra tion operations could include injection and monitoring wells; and a boveground valves, piping, and well heads that comprise the transmission pipeline. In additi on, compressors are often equipped with automatic blowdown valves that depressuri ze compressors, bottles, separators , and interconnecting lines in

the event of a shutdown.

CO 2 that could be expected to be vented from th e area during this proposed project are similar in quantity to emissions that would otherwise have occurred from the compression unit, pipeline, and wells that will be in place due to EOR. Therefore, these sources of fugitive emission would

not increase overall CO 2 emissions.

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action

Selecting the No-Action alternativ e could have minor indirect impa cts to air quality. No-Action, meaning that this project is not carried out in any setting, would dela y planned larger-scale sequestration projects by perhaps several year s. The increased understanding of subsurface

behavior of CO 2 would not be gained, nor could an exam ple of successful and safe sequestration, on any scale, be offered to the public in suppor t of a larger, more expensive project. The complexities of a larger pilot might translate to long delays in public and regulatory approval, thereby jeopardizing goals of rapi d action on climate change issues. A 3-year delay in initiating large-scale sequestration efforts would lead to an increase CO 2 emissions by approximately 5% and atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 would increase by as much as 6 ppm before any

stabilization effort would be started.

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects

The State of Mississippi takes in to account the effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable emissions during the development of th e State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State of Mississippi accounts fo r all significant stationary, area, and mobile emission sources in the development of this plan. Estimated emissi ons generated by the Proposed Action would be de

minimis and would not be regionally significant. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would not impede the area’s conformity with the state’s air emissions standards and is not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.2 Geology and Soils

4.2.1 Description

The SECARB test site is topogr aphically heterogeneous, consis ting of undulating hills with flatter, lower-lying areas. Elevati ons across the test site span m easured in feet above sea level (asl) are between 280 feet (asl) (85.3m) and 400 feet (ft) (asl) (121.9 m) (DOE, 2008a). The

South Fork of Coles Creek subdivides the test si te providing surface drainage to the hilly uplands on both north and south aspects of the site.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 39 March 2009

& Environmental Effects The upper geology of the Cranfield area (Thompson, 1969), listed from younge st to oldest is:

• Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial sediments and loess

• Pascagoula – Hattiesburg – Cata houla (Miocene – Oligocene)

• Cockfield (Eocene)

• Sparta (Eocene)

• Wilcox (Eocene – Paleocene)

• Midway – Navarro – Taylor (Paleocene)

• Selma – Austin chalk (Upper Cretaceous)

• Tuscaloosa (Upper Cretaceous)

• Washita – Fredericksburg (Lower Cretaceous)

The geology consists of inter-bedded sandstone a nd shale formations in the upper sections with marl and chalk beds becoming more prevalent in to the Cretaceous deposits (Bicker, 1969). Limestone and salt deposits appear in the Lo wer Cretaceous and Jurassic deposits. Several unconformities are present throughout the geologi cal column. This lik ely reflects cyclical transgression and recession events. The target in jection zone is located in the Mississippi Salt Basin and is comprised of the deep saline Tu scaloosa Formation. The generalized subsurface geology of the Tuscaloosa Formation indicates a pr edominate presence of shale interspersed with highly-porous, lenticular sands tone strata. The regional stra tigraphy indicates that the CO 2 injection site will be into the Lower Tuscal oosa Formation, sealed by the overlying Middle and Upper Tuscaloosa units. Beneath the injection si te, the Washita-Fredericksburg Groups provide a

seal from downward mo vement of injected CO 2

.

Sand and shale units of the Tuscaloosa Group are over 1,000 ft (305m) thick (Chacko et al., 1997) and represent a complete depositional cycle. The Tuscaloosa Group comprises three units. The lower Tuscaloosa represents a transgressive st age of the depositional cycle and consists of an arenaceous and argillaceous lower unit. The marine shale forms the middle Tuscaloosa unit and represents the inundated phase of the depositional cycle. The ma rine shale is mostly gray to black, fissile and sandy at some locations thickening down-dip. In Pike County, Mississippi the marine shale is 500 ft (152 m) thick increasing to 800 ft (243 m) in the south-central area of Washington Parish, Louisiana (Chacko et al., 1997) . The project area is approximately 50 miles (80 km) northwest of these marine shale de posits. The upper Tuscaloosa sands and clays represent the regressive phase of the depositional cycle (Mancini and Puckett, 2005). It is difficult to distinguish the upper Tuscaloosa from the overlying Eutaw Formation because of their lithological similarity. The permeability of the lower Tuscaloosa Formation varies from 35 millidarcy (mD) to over 2000 mD with a porosity varying from 25% to 30%. The permeability of the Tuscaloosa shale, the first upper se al, is from less than 0.01 mD to 0.06 mD with porosities from 2.3% to 8.0%.

The 350 ft (106 m) to 560 ft (171 m) (Curry, 19 34) lower seal of the Washita Group has low permeability with porosities of 10% to 20% (Godda rd, 2001). Other seals such as the Austin chalk range in thickness from 200 ft to 600 ft (McNulty, 1976) with permeability from 0.05 mD to 2 mD with porosities of 2% to 5% (Goddard, 2001).

Structurally the test site is located within the Adams County Hi gh on the western slopes of the Leedo salt dome (Thompson, 1988) . There are no apparent fault zones within the area.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 40 March 2009

& Environmental Effects However, faults in the Tuscaloosa Formation ar e evident approximately 60 miles (96.6 km) to the east. The dip of the Tus caloosa Formation in the immediat e area of the proposed injection site is to the west (Thompson, 1988). Any migration as a result of CO 2 buoyancy would therefore be updip to the east a nd the apex of the Leedo salt dome located approximately 20 miles (32 km) to the east.

. Figure 4.2.1-1. Generalized Stra tigraphic Sections/Hydrological F unctions as Related to the SECARB Project Source: (DOE, 2008a).U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 41 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Information on soil types in the SECARB test region are mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as presented in Figure 4.2.1-2 (DOE, 2008a). The test region is characterized by heterogeneous soil series consisting of bot h upland and floodplain soil groups (NRCS, 2008a). Adjacent to the South Fork of Coles Creek, the soil type is predominantly Collins silt loam which is described as being ve ry deep and moderately drained and permeable and subject to flooding. Additionally, Creva sse-Bruno complex, Tippo, and Memphis silt loams are also present. The Bruno complex and Memphis series are particularly well-drained, produce negligible runoff and are moderately to highl y permeable. The highe r elevation ridges and hilltops along the South Fork of Coles Creek and predominantly throughout the test site is Memphis silt loam, although some interm ixed smaller amounts of Lucy-Memphis and Smithdale-Lexington-Memphis associations are pres ent. The Memphis series soils are described as very deep, moderately perm eable and well drained. Runoff poten tial for these soil types are described as being medium to high. Given the he terogeneous nature of soil types throughout the test site, the soil properties a nd thus runoff response is highly variable and dependent on land use/cover (NRCS, 2008a).U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 42 March 2009& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.2.1-2. NRCS Generated Map ofSoil Series at SECARB Test SiteSource: (DOE, 2008a).U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 43 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Table 4.2.1. Legend for NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name

Bv Bruno and Vicksburg soils

Co Collins silt loam

Cx Crevasse-Bruno complex Fa Falaya silt loam

Gu Gullied land

LME Lucy-Memphis association, hilly

MeA Memphis silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

MeB2 Memphis silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

MeC2 Memphis silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes

MeD2 Memphis silt loam, 8 to 17 percent slopes

MeF2 Memphis silt loam, 17 to 60 percent slopes

MGE Memphis-Gullied land association, hilly MnF Memphis-Natchez complex, 17 to 60 percent slopes

TaA Tippo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Vc Vicksburg silt loam, local alluvium

W Water

Wa Waverly silt loam

10 Ariel silt loam, occasionally flooded

14 Gillsburg silt loam, occasionally flooded

30B2 Memphis silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

30C2 Memphis silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes

30F2 Memphis silt loam, 8 to 40 percent slopes

56A Bude silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 70F Smithdale-Lexington-Memphis a ssociation, 5 to 40 percent slopes

73F1 Lorman silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes

94 Trebloc silt loam, frequently flooded Source: (NRCS, 2008a)

4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Geology: The Proposed Action would increase the pre ssure gradients with in the Tuscaloosa Formation resulting in the movement of multi-ph ase fluids. Hydrocarbon recovery will develop an emulsion of hydrocarbons, salin e water and gasses including CO 2 . The likelihood of

accidental surface releases increase slightly with the collection and disposal of saline water and gasses at the surface. Increasing formation pressures may, to a minor extent, increase the likelihood of well casing failures and gas migrati on resulting in potentia l leakage from aging wells. However, if operational protocols are followed, the activities planned for this CO 2 storage and EOR operations are not expected to cause measurable leakage of CO 2 from the storage

formation to the surface.

Soils: Actual and potential impacts to so ils would occur at all stages of this project. During the first stage, all major activities that would im pact soils would occur as part of Denbury’sU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 44 March 2009

& Environmental Effects commercial EOR operations even if the SE CARB study is not conduc ted (i.e., No-Action alternative). These activities w ould include the traffic of heavy equipment and light vehicles to reopen roads and drilling pads and lay pipelines. Re-established forest would be cleared and right of ways established for new high pressure CO 2 injection lines. Dr illing muds and drill cuttings (containing additives and oily saline cuttings) would be produced and land treated. There is a potential for fuels, lubricants, coolants , drilling muds and produced fluids to be spilled to ground. First stage activities w ould be undertaken in cleared (v egetation removed) areas, in undulating terrain consisting of he terogeneous (mix of properties) silt loam soils, and in an environment which receives heavy rains from tropi cal storms. Liquids re leased to the ground if not “cleaned up” would either be washed into the surrounding surface water or leached into the soil. While land treatment areas may be difficult to manage in this environment, Denbury has had over 10 years of experience in similar dril ling and EOR operations in this area and has successfully managed land trea tment in accordance with environmental regulations.

To mitigate potential soils and subsurface geolog y impacts from the construction stage if the Proposed Action is implemented, Denbury plans to:

• Re-establish oil production infrastructure on pre-disturbed lands thereby minimizing the development footprint to reconditioned well pa ds and flow lines w ithin a total area of approximately 2 mi 2 (3.21 km 2 ).

• Establish SECARB wells and infrastructure in forested areas away from land developed for agriculture crops.

• Integrate the SECARB project into their own EOR development thereby minimizing infrastructure and operational requirements.

• Directionally drill additional injection wells from existing (re-established) former well pads.

• Extend four injection wells into the brine wa ter leg down dip formation thereby reducing the incremental impact of the SECARB project from drilling.

• Handle and dispose of drilling mud and associ ated waste according to MSOGB rules and regulations.

• Install an additional compressor for the SECA RB project in-line with existing pipelines minimizing soil disturbance.

• Drill two observation wells from re-conditione d well pads already being used for EOR injection wells.

• Use smaller/lighter drilling and sampling eq uipment to establish groundwater monitoring

wells.

• Collect and then dispose of any brinish water produced to a permitted Class II injection

well.

During the second phase, the impacts would be rest ricted to light vehicl es accessing injection and monitoring locations to maintain operations a nd record observations. Impacts to soils could result from spillage of lubricants and fluids from the compressors or very minor loss of fluids collected from the sampling program. Leakage from the injection formation up into the soil profile is a possibility and could result from pipeline ruptures, casing leaks or formation fracturing. CO 2 gas accumulations in soil can caus e root function inhibition and oxygen deprivation to soil microbes and surface vegetation.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 45 March 2009

& Environmental Effects To minimize impacts to soils and subsurface geology if the operational phase of the SECARB Study is implemented, Denbury and SECARB plan to:

• Verify abandoned well integrity through the review of plug and abandonment records.

• Integrate SECARB operations into Denbury operations and maintenance into the EOR project to gain operational efficiencies.

• Monitor well casing vent flows.

• Test well completion integrity.

• Undertake soil-gas surveys using shallow a uger holes resulting in minimal surface soil

disturbance.

• Properly plug and abandon observation wells at the end of the SECARB study to help prevent CO 2 and saltwater migration up to the surface.

• Monitor the site at least one (1) year after the SECARB injections have been terminated.

• Collect and then dispose of any brinish wa ter produced as a result of sampling to a permitted Class II injection well.

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action

Denbury plans to develop the EOR regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test.

Geology: The only difference between a full impl ementation of the SECARB project and no implementation, from a geological perspective, would be the estab lishment of two deep observation wells by drilling into the brine wate r leg down dip of the target formation, the establishment of two shallow gr oundwater monitoring wells, and th e injection of the additional

volume of CO 2

.

Soils: Surface disturbance would be similar except for the disturbance and infrastructure needed to establish deep observation well s, shallow groundwater wells, th e compressor site, and the tests associated with operational monitoring of soils throughout the life of the SECARB project.

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects

Geology: The Proposed Action would cause an incr ease in pressure gradients within the Tuscaloosa Formation resulting in the movement of multi-phase fluids. Hydrocarbon recovery brought on by implementation of the Proposed Ac tion could develop additional emulations of hydrocarbons, saline water and gasses including CO 2 . The collection and disposal of saline water and gasses increases the lik elihood of accidental releases. In creasing formation pressures could increase the likelihood of well casing fail ures and gas migration resulting in potential leakage from aging wells.

At the termination of CO 2 sequestration, the injection and m onitoring wells would need to be properly abandoned to prevent poten tial releases both at the surf ace and along the well bore. The retained pressure in the target formation may result in a restriction with respect to future development of any remaining oil and gas resources or CO 2 disposal activities.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 46 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Soils: The SECARB study developed in conjunction with the EOR project would result in the following potential additional impacts to soil:

• The additional use and eventual land tr eatment of 33% more drilling mud (30,000 to 50,000 lbs. or 13,608 to 22,680 kg) plus cuttings w ith associated impacts to the receiving soils and potentially the surr ounding area (the lower sections of the wells are in oil and salt water bearing strata).

• Increased traffic (soil compaction and distur bance) due to establishment of groundwater monitoring wells and implem entation of soil and geologi cal monitoring programs.

• The potential for spillage to the soil surface of additional 167,000 to 280,000 gallons (631,978 to 984,207 L) of water (potentially in cluding additives and oil/salts from the subsurface formations) needed for the observation well drilling program.

Provided there are no spills or there is timely and effective spill response the cumulative impact

to the soils of the Cranfield Oil and Gas Field de velopment will be negligible. All activities by Denbury and SECARB including the construction, operation, maintena nce, and closure of wells, compressors, and related facilities would be requir ed to meet all MSOGB requirements. Existing MSOGB regulations adequately protect the enviro nment with strict sta ndards to prevent and contain spills, erosion, waste, and release of other materials; and provide for penalties and appropriate remedial actions for failure to comply.

Given the predicted impacts of the CO 2 injection to the geological formations at the SECARB site, we do not expect that they would exceed the impact significance threshold. Provided there are no spills or there is timely and effective in itiation of spill response, the cumulative impact to the soils of the Cranfield Oil and Gas Field development would be negligible.

4.3 Water Resources

4.3.1 Description

The regional topography is dominated by the drainage basin of the South Fork of Coles Creek.

The creek transects the area en tering along the eastern boundary a nd flows northwest. Tributary ephemeral streams enter the creek from the uplan d areas to the north and southwest. Natchez Lake is located approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of the area and the Mississippi River is located approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) to the west.

Flow from the South Fork Basin is monitored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Hydrometric records from 1999 to 2004 indicate peak discharge volumes of 22,500 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /sec) (637.1 m 3 /sec) (USGS, 2005). Water quali ty data collected on the South Fork of Coles Creek (1961-1982) indicate that the surface water is a moderately soft, sodium bicarbonate type (USGS, 2008a). The Missi ssippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) lists the South Fork of Coles Creek (MS454E) as an impaired water body in its 2008 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies (MDEQ, 2008).

Two major fresh water aquifer systems have been noted in the area. A phreatic (or unconfined) aquifer is located within the recent quaternary surficial deposits, while confined aquifers are located in the older, yet shallow Miocene and Oligocene geologic age deposits. The USGSU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 47 March 2009

& Environmental Effects determined that the elevation of the aquifer (base) where total dissolved solids (TDS) less than 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (less than 1,000 pp m) is at approximately 600ft (183m) (Gandl, 1982). Where TDS less than 3000 mg/L (less than 3,000 ppm), the base of useable-water quality, is between 1,200 and 1,400 ft (366-427m) depth. Th e depth of the potentially useable-quality water (less than 10,000 ppm/TDS) is betw een 1,400 and 1,600 ft depth (427-488m) (DOE, 2008a).

The fresh water aquifers are underlain by the co nfining Cockfield Formation. The Cockfield Formation represents a major regional aquifer sy stem which has been declining (both in quality and quantity) in recent years (USGS, 2005). The re sults of water quality testing have shown an increasing trend (5-year) in the levels of chloride in the Cockfield Formation in Washington County, north of the SECARB test site and the Cockfield Formation is not a part of USDW in the study area. It was also re ported that groundwater flow in this formation is complex and largely affected by anthropogenic behavior, indicated by the fall ing potentiometric levels and shifting well draw downs (Mason, 2001).

4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Production of emulsions of hydro carbons, saline water and gasses increase the potential for casing and pipeline failures, potentially increasing the number of spills. The effect of casing failures could be the migration of fluids into c onfined domestic use aquifers. Surface spills could result in infiltration to phreatic aq uifers and flow to surface water bodies.

To minimize soil and therefore groundwater an d surface water impacts during the operational phase of the SECARB Study, Denbury would impl ement, develop, maintain, monitor and abandon the SECARB project following the strategy outlined in Section 2.0 above.

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action

Denbury plans to develop the area for EOR regardless of whether the SECARB Phase III Early Test is implemented or not; therefore, the effect of the No-Action altern ative would be a lower probability of impacts to surface and groundwater resources as a result of less oil production and

CO 2 sequestration infrastructure de velopment and operational activity.

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects

The potential cumulative effects of the Proposed Action are similar to those outlined in Section

4.2.4 above for soils:

• The land treatment area would be a potenti al source of both surface and groundwater contamination. The heterogeneous soils in this area make the land treatment area development specifications very site specific (soils range from being very permeable to subject to severe erosion). The SECARB development would add 33 % to the volume of drilling mud potentially available for treatment.

• The potential spillage of an additiona l 167,000 to 280,000 gallons (631 978 to 984 207 L) of drilling waste water could impact both surface and groundwater quality.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 48 March 2009

& Environmental Effects • The drilling of two additiona l observation wells could poten tially provide a conduit for

CO 2 and salt water migration into the aquifer above.

• Containment of compressors leaking lubr icants and coolants will be required. Containment will be necessary for both the compressor itself and oil and coolant reservoirs to prevent spillage to th e ground and surface and groundwater impacts.

Other than observation well water samples, the SECARB project would produce negligible quantities of produced water. If there is soil erosion as a result of field re-development the incremental impact of the SECA RB project would have a neg ligible influence on overall soil erosion and potential surface water impacts. Op erationally, SECARB woul d not need any make

up water.

Provided there are no spills, or there is a tim ely and effective spill response, the cumulative impact to the surface and groundwater of the Cran field Oil and Gas Field development would be negligible and therefore is not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains

4.4.1 Description

Regionally, marshes, lakes, and swamps ar e numerous (Bailey, 1995), although none are found in the study area. One perennial stream, South Fork of Coles Creek, crosses the study area, as

well as several intermittent streams and four small freshwater ponds (Figure 4.4.1-1). Although some riverine wetlands occur in the study area, no jurisdictional wetl ands have been recorded in the National Wetlands Inventory within the project boundaries (USFWS, 1982).

National Wetlands Inventory map units of the site are classified as PUBHh and R2USA (USFWS, 1982). The PUBHh units are the fr eshwater ponds classifi ed as palustrine unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded dike d/impounded units (USFWS, 2008). Palustrine system designations include all non-tidal wetla nds dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. The R2 USA units are the riverine wetlands associated

with the South Fork of Coles Creek classified as riverine lower perennial unconsolidated shore temporarily flooded (USFWS, 2008). Riverine system designati ons include all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained in natural or arti ficial channels period ically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a conn ecting link between the two bodies of standing water. The lower perennial subsystem is ch aracterized by a low gradient and slow water velocity.U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 49 March 2009& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies andWetlands in the Project AreaU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 50 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Additionally, there is a small 100 year floodplain in the project ar ea associated with the South Fork of Coles Creek (Figure 4.4.1-2) (FEMA, 1977; FEMA, 1989). Normal and peak stream

flows of Coles Creek in this area are known fr om operation of a stream-gauging station near Fayette, MS (U.S. Geological Su rvey station 07290870) approxima tely 10 miles north of the project site. The drainage area for Coles Creek above the Fayette stream -gauging station totals 257 square miles. The gauge datum is 67.3 feet above mean sea level. Maximum discharge measured at the Fayette gauge between 1961 and 1995 was 75,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on April 12, 1974, which corresponded to a gauge height of 31.96 feet. Thus, the peak flood elevation near Fayette from 1961 to 1995 was 99.26 feet above sea level. This peak flood

elevation is sufficient to i nundate the lowland floodplains of Coles Creek; however, water elevations of the creek during high floods, such as in 1974, are more than 90 feet below the landsurface elevation of 190 feet above sea level at the pr oject site (USGS, 2008b).U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 51 March 2009& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains in the Project AreaU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 52 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action

If the northern optional study well is selected (see Figure 2.1.2) as th e fourth injection well, it is possible that the small freshw ater pond located nearby (see Figure 4.4.1-1) and any associated

wetlands would be affected since the well pad site is located ve ry close to the pond. Since the existing well pad was abandoned in the mid-1960s, it would be reconditioned to support drilling operations to include land clearing of approximately one acre or less , leveling and fill activities, rebuilding access roads, laying c onnector pipelines, and extending other infrastructure services

as needed. These activities increase the likeliho od of soil erosion and se diment delivery to the small pond through the disturbance of surface soils. The effects to the pond and wetland water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-te rm. Best management practices to control

erosion and sediment release would be uti lized during all construction activities.

It is also possible that constr uction activities could destroy some wetland surface area. However, while clearing land and installing other infrastruc ture, efforts would be made to avoid direct wetland damage.

Diesel fuel products would be needed for c onstruction of the deep well located near the freshwater pond; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to ente r the wetland. Again, best management practices would be used during handling of fuel to minimize the risk of spills.

The construction of Denbury pipelines and roadwa ys may cross streams or run adjacent or through wetlands. Disturbance of road surf aces and embankments caused by excavation and grading during installation of pipeline and roadways would likely cause soil erosion and sediment delivery to the streams and wetlands. Construction activities that would take place

within stream channels or wetlands would resu lt in potential contaminat ion (i.e., fuel or oil spills) of riparian and/or we tland vegetation and sedimentation, which could disturb organisms and raise water temperatures. Effects to st ream and wetland water quality and hydrology could

be adverse and short-term lasti ng only during constructi on activities. These activities, which will occur regardless of SECARB participation, w ould be conducted in accordance with best management practices of the industry and comp ly with all federal and state environmental regulations to minimize impacts.

Since none of the injection wells would be located in or near the floodplain of the South Fork of Coles Creek, construction activities would not cause any imp acts to this floodplain. Conversely, flooding of the South Fork of Coles Creek woul d not reach or damage the well sites. As described for wetlands above, pipeline and road s which may cross floodp lains could disturb floodplain soils and cause soil eros ion. However, floodplain struct ure and function would not be altered or compromised.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on wetlands and floodplains near or at some distance from the proj ect site. Wetland vegetation and water quality could be impacted by increased concentrations of CO 2 , possibly resulting in changes in species composition, plant death, chan ges in pH and water quality (International Energy Agency, 2007).U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 53 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Although leakage of CO 2 to the surface affecting wetlands an d floodplains in a widespread area is possible, it is more likely that any impacts to wetlands would be conf ined to the immediate project area and would not cause any regiona l impacts. Thus, impacts on wetlands and floodplains by the Proposed Action would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeas t Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not be implement ed. No additional impacts to wetlands or floodplains would occur as a result of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation.

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects

Past oil and gas development in the Cranfield Unit has likely resulted in impacts to area wetlands and floodplains. Wetlands and floodpl ains are subject to damage from ongoing activities in the area including hunting, cattle grazin g, and timber harvest operations; these activities are likely to continue in the future, along with Denbury’s comme rcial enhanced oil recovery operations. The proposed project could pose some threats to wetlands and floodplai ns, including soil erosion and sediment delivery, destruction of some wetland surface area, and risk of accidental fuel spills. It is also possible that an unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface would have wider spread consequences on wetlands and floodplains. Howeve r, given the larger im pacts to wetlands and floodplains from past, present, and future ac tivities, cumulative imp acts contributed by the proposed project would not ex ceed the significance threshold.

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation

4.5.1 Description

The proposed new CO 2 injection wells and observation well s would be located in an area characterized by the Bailey Ecoregion classifica tion as the Southeastern Mixed Forest Province of the Subtropical Division (National Atlas, 200 8). The area consists of wooded hills with deciduous and evergreen forests and flatter areas us ed for agriculture, consisting of pasture and row crops. Forest tree species include loblo lly and shortleaf pine, oak, hickory, and some adjacent gum and cypress. The main grasses are bluestem, panicums, and longleaf uniola. Dogwood, viburnum, haw, blueberry, Ameri can beautyberry, youpon, and numerous woody vines are common (Bailey, 1995). Moderate to high amounts of forest fragmentation occur in

isolated areas near the South Fork of Coles Creek.

A beech-magnolia forest in a recovering loess ravi ne habitat that has been listed as a natural community of concern by Mississippi Natural He ritage Program (MSNHP) has been reported in an isolated area near Highway 84 immediately south of the study area. The only other natural community of concern listed by th e MSNHP near the study site is in Natchez State Park. These sites are approximately one mile from the outer boundaries of the study area and more than two miles from the proposed injection well sites.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 54 March 2009

& Environmental Effects No critical habitats or federally listed plant species exist in the vicinity of the project site or in

Adams and Franklin counties. Table 4.5.1 lists the Mississippi state listed species that occur in Adams and Franklin counties, but not necessarily at the project location. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the project location an d has determined that no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species are likely to occu r at the project site, and that the project site would not be loca ted within officially designated cr itical habitat. Copies of the review request and the determination letter are included in Appendix B.

Table 4.5.1. State Listed Plant Species in Adams and Franklin Counties, MS

Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Adams County

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed pussytoes G5 S3? Carex decomposita Cypress-knee sedge G3 S3?

Celastrus scandens Climbing bittersweet G5 S2S3 Dryopteris australis Southern wood fern G3 S1 Erythrodes querceticola Low erythrodes G3G5 S1?

Herbertia lahue ssp. caerulea Herbertia G4G5 S2 Mikania cordifolia Florida Keys hempvine G5 S3S4 Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny spurge G4G5 S3

Phacelia dubia Small-flower scorpionweed G5 S?

Platanthera cristata Crested fringed orchid G5 S3 Schisandra glabra Scarlet woodbine G3 S3?

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia G4 S3S4 Trillium foetidissimum Fetid trillium G3 S3 Franklin County

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed pussytoes G5 S3? Hookeriopsis heteroica Trachyxiphium moss G2? S1? Lobelia appendiculata Appendaged lobelia G4G5 S2S3 Mikania cordifolia Florida Keys hempvine G5 S3S4 Schisandra glabra Scarlet woodbine G3 S3?

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia G4 S3S4 Trillium foetidissimum Fetid trillium G3 S3
Source: (MSNHP, 2008). (Note: Ranking definitions are as follows: G3 - Either very rare or local throughout its range or foun d locally in a restricted rang e or vulnerable to extinction

from other factors. G4 - Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range). G5 - Demonstrably secure globally. S1 - Critically imperiled in Mississippi (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulne rability to extinction due to so me natural or man-made factor. S2 - Imperiled in Mississippi because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S3 - Either very rare and local in Mississippi (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or vulne rable to extinction from other factors. S4 - Apparently secure in Mississippi (may be rare in parts of range))U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 55 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Construction activities associated with the Propo sed Action would necessitate removal of plants where land is cleared for well reconditioning, and fo r installation of roads, pipelines, and power lines; however, much of the project area has already been disturbed dur ing past oil and gas activities. Trees and ground cover would be remove d for site preparation. Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or f oot traffic) during construction, injection, and monitoring in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.

It is estimated that a total of one to two acres of vegetation would be disturbed by installation of wells, roads, pipeline, and power lines. The majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, minimizing adverse impacts on vegetation. Well reconditioning would include land clearing of approximately one acre or less, which would occur regardless of SECARB participation. A gravel access road and drilling pad would not be required for the two water wells, so no additional land would be cleared. Construction of ro ads, pipeline, and power lines would require some additional land clearing, but li kely not more than on e acre. There would also be localized vegetation disturbance from foot traffic during inst allation, injection, and monitoring; however, this area would likely be minimal and limited to the areas immediately surrounding the equipment.

Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or on equipment. New introductions could allow for exotic plants to be come established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported material does not contai n exotic plant material would be implemented.

As no critical habitats or federa lly listed plant species exist in th e vicinity of the project site, there would be no impacts on threatened or endangered species.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on vegetation near or at some distance from the project site. Although atmospheric CO 2 promotes plant growth, increased concentrations in the soil could lead to root asphy xiation and plant death (International Energy Agency, 2007). Impacts of seepage on on-shore ecosystems could also include altered biological divers ity and changes to the composition and numbers of species in the local environment. The range of effects on terrestrial ecosystems could extend to entire ecosystems and could be chronic, acute, or lethal depending on species affected and

concentrations of CO 2

.

Any changes to native vegetation would be lim ited to a small area and would not affect the viability of the resources. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected resource’s natural st ate. Therefore, impacts on terrestrial vegetation would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 56 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.5.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeas t Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to terrestrial vegetation would

occur as a result of this alte rnative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation.

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects

Vegetation in the Cranfield Unit ha s been previously cleared for c onstruction of wells, roads, and related infrastructure as part of past oil and gas operations. The area has and continues to be used for hunting, cattle grazing and timber harvest. Each of these activities involves removal, trampling, or destruction of vegetation and di sturbance of ground cover. Additionally, if enhanced oil recovery by Denbury is successful, othe r oil fields in the general area of the project site may be worked over again, contributing to vegetation impacts in th e region. Land clearing as part of the proposed project would be limited to well pad sites of one acre or less, associated road construction or reconditioning necessary to provide access to the sites, and pipeline

construction for CO 2 and product recovery. Most of this activity would occur on property already disturbed by prior drilling and other acti vities and would be conducted as part of Denbury’s commercial enhanced oil recovery operations. It is also possible that an unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface would have wider spread consequences on vegetation. Overall, cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, pr esent, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions would not exceed the significance threshold.

4.6 Wildlife

4.6.1 Description

Common mammals that occur in rural areas east of the Mississippi River include white-tailed deer, beaver, raccoon, skunk, rabbit, squirrel, mole, and shrew. Common birds include bobwhite quail, mourning dove, meadowlark, robin, hawks, and owls. Black bass, bluegill, and catfish are commonly found in area streams. Common snak es include cottonmouth moccasin, copperhead, rough green snake, rat snake, coachwhip, and spec kled kingsnake. Fen ce and glass lizards are also found, as is the slimy salamander.

The closest wildlife refuge, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge, is a protected area for the bald eagle and least tern. This refuge is located approximately 20 miles (32 km) southwest of the project area on the east bank of the Mississippi Ri ver about 10 miles (16 km) south of the City of Natchez, Mississippi.

Table 4.6.1 lists the federal and stat e listed species for Adams and Franklin counties. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the experi ment location and has determined that two federally listed threatened or endangered wildlif e species and one recently de-listed species could be found on or near the project area. Copies of the review request and the determination letter are included in Appendix B.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 57 March 2009

& Environmental Effects

Table 4.6.1. Federal & State Listed Wildlife Species in Adams & Franklin Counties, MS

Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Federal Status Adams County Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner G5 S3
Graptemys

ouachitensis Ouachita map

turtle G5 S4?

Paravitrea significans Domed supercoil G? S?

Potamilus capax Fat pocketbook G1 S1 Endangered
Scaphirhynchus

albus Pallid sturgeon G1 S1 Endangered

Ursus americanus

luteolus Louisiana black

bear G5 S1 Threatened

Franklin Alloperla natchez Natchez stonefly G2 S2 Crystallaria asprella Crystal darter G3 S1 Haploperla chukcho Chukcho stonefly G2 S2

Homoeoneuria

cahabensis Cahaba sandfilterning mayfly G2 S1S3

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker G3 S1 Endangered

Procambarus penni Pearl blackwater crayfish G3 S3

Uniomerus declivis Tapered pondhorn G5 S2

Ursus americanus

luteolus Louisiana black

bear G5 S1 Threatened

Source: (MSNHP, 2008; USFWS, 2005). (Note: Ranking definitions are as follows: G1 - Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. G2 - Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. G3 - Either very rare or local throughout its range or foun d locally in a restricted rang e or vulnerable to extinction

from other factors. G5 - Demonstrably secure globally. S1 - Critically imperiled in Mississippi (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vul nerability to extinction due to so me natural or man-made factor. S2 - Imperiled in Mississippi because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S3 - Either very rare and local in Mississippi (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or vulne rable to extinction from other factors. S4 - Apparently secure in Mississippi (may be rare in parts of range).

The federally listed threatened Louisiana black bear occurs primarily in bottomland hardwood and floodplain forests along the Mississippi River and the southern part of the state. The Louisiana black bear can survive under a range of habitat types, but some necessary habitat requirements include hard mast, soft mast, escape cover, denning sites, forested corridors, and limited human access. Den trees, bald cypress, and tupelo gum with visible cavities with aU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 58 March 2009

& Environmental Effects minimum diameter at breast height of 36 inches (0.9 m) occurring along water bodies should be preserved if possible.

The red-cockaded woodpecker, federally listed e ndangered, excavates nesting cavities in mature pine trees. All cavity trees, active and inact ive, are important a nd should be avoided. Additionally, older pine stands within a half-mile (0.8 km) of roosting trees is considered foraging habitat and should not be disturbed.

Although the bald eagle was officially remove d from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in 2007, it continues to be pr otected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Ba ld eagles nest in Mississippi from December through mid-May in mature trees near marshes or open water.

4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Construction activities for installation of wells, roads, pipeline, power lines, and vehicle traffic, lighting during night work, and human presence would cause temporary displacement and

disturbance of resident wildlife for the 18 mont hs duration of the cons truction and injection period and one year of monitoring. Species are e xpected to return to th e area after construction and injection is completed, although there may still be some minimal disturbance during the additional year of monitoring and during decommissioning activities. Th ese impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site.

It is estimated that a total of one to two acr es of wildlife habitat would be disturbed by installation of wells, roads, pi peline, and power lines. Well reconditioning would include land clearing of approximately one acre or less, which would occur regardless of SECARB participation. A gravel access road and drilling pad would not be required for the two water wells, so no additional land would be cleared and no habitat lost in their installation.

Construction of roads, pipeline, and power lines would require some additional land clearing, but likely not more than one acre. There would also be localized habitat disturbance from foot traffic during installation, injec tion, and monitoring; however, this area would likely be minimal and limited to the area immediately surrounding the equipment.

Two federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species a nd one recently de-listed species could occur in the vicinity of th e project site. It is possible th at proposed activities in the area could cause impacts to Louisiana black bear habitat by increasing human disturbance, fragmenting forests, and removing den trees. Similarly, proposed activi ties could disturb redcockaded woodpecker foraging habitat or cavit y trees, and bald eagles are vulnerable to disturbance during courtship, ne st building, egg laying, incubati on, and brooding. However, if any habitat for these three species exists in the area, it has likely been disturbed by past oil and gas operations, and land clearing under the Proposed Action woul d be minimal. Mitigation measures would be in place to avoid removing black bear den trees, red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees, or bald eagle nest trees. These species would be subject to the same temporary displacement and disturbance as other wildlife species from activities associated with the Proposed Action; however, if any of these species are actually found in the vi cinity of the projectU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 59 March 2009

& Environmental Effects area, mitigation measures would be in place to minimize such disturbance, for example, ceasing all activity near a den, cavity or nest tree. Therefore, a dverse impacts on threatened or endangered species could occu r, but would be minimized.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on wildlife near or at some distance from the proj ect site. Effects of a leak would decrease in severity in a series of concentr ic rings, with those organisms cl osest to the leak suffering from

acute or even lethal concentrations of CO 2 (International Energy Agency, 2007). Changes in subsurface biogeochemical processes could lead to changes in soil pH with associated negative effects on microbial populations, leading to a ch ange in nutrients present which would progress up the food chain. Changes in th e quality of groundwater could have serious consequences on

water resources. Both food chain and water re source impacts would likely have detrimental

effects on animal health. Additi onally, prolonged exposure to high CO 2 concentrations may result in increased risk of asphyxiation for some wildlife (International Energy Agency, 2007).

Any impacts on wildlife from the Proposed Action would be limited to a small portion of the population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the proj ect and the affected species’ natural state. Therefore, impacts on wildlife would not be ex pected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeas t Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to w ildlife would occur as a result of this alternative beyond imp acts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation.

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects

Wildlife and habitat in the Cranfield Unit have be en, and continue to be, subject to disturbance and damage from hunting, timber harvest, traffi c, Denbury’s commercial enhanced oil recovery operations, and past oil and gas operations. Habitat disturbance associated with infrastructure as part of the proposed project would be limited, and wildlife displacement and disturbance would be temporary lasting only for the duration of th e construction, injecti on, and monitoring period. Similar impacts could occur to any threatened an d endangered (T&E) specie s if they are present in the area. It is also possibl e that an unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface would have wider spread consequences on wildlife and habitat. Cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be limited to a small portion of the wildlife population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Recovery of this resource from any temporary change would occur in a reasonable period of time and not exceed the impact significance threshold

4.7 Land Use

4.7.1 Description

The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partne rship Phase III Early Test project would beU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 60 March 2009

& Environmental Effects situated in an approximately two square mile (5.2 km 2 ) area within the northeast corner of Adams County and northwest corner of Frank lin County in southweste rn Mississippi. The project area is approximately tw elve miles (approximately 19 km) east of Natchez, Mississippi, and four miles northeast (approximately 6 km) of the unincorporated village of Cranfield. The setting of the project area can be characterized as rural. Land cover classes identified by the U.S. Geological Survey and the percentage of cover types within the study area are displayed below

in Table 4.7.1-1.

Source: (USGS, 2001)

Approximately 80% of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project area would be locate d within the boundaries of the Cr anfield Oil and Gas field. Oil and Gas recovery operations began at Cranfi eld in 1943 and, and soon became Mississippi’s second largest oil and gas fiel d (Cockrell, 2005). By 1965, the field was largely abandoned. However, Denbury currently is conducting commerc ial operations in the pr oject area, including well drilling and access road construction (DOE, 2008a).

Currently, predominant land uses in the project ar ea and in the immediate vicinity include timber production, gravel quarrying, and o il production, in addition to some farming for crops such as cotton, corn, soybean, grain, and hay/pasture (D OE, 2008a). Major transportation arteries providing access to the project ar ea include U.S. Highways 61 and 84. Direct access to well sites is provided by a network of local and private gr avel roads. Recreational lands in direct proximity to the project area include Natchez State Park.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified areas of prime farmland within the project area. Descriptions of prime farmland types and the pe rcentages of these types within the study area are displayed below in Table 4.7.1-2.

Table 4.7.1-2. NRCS Prime Farmland Classe s for SECARB Phase III Early Test
Project Area

Prime Farmland Class Percentage of Study Area

All Areas are Prime Farmland 9%

Prime Farmland if Drained 6% Prime Farmland if Protected from Flooding 8% Prime Farmland of Statewide Importance 8%

Not Prime Farmland 69%

Source: (NRCS, 2008b) Table 4.7.1-1. USGS Land Cover Classes for SE CARB Phase III Early Test Project Area

Land Cover Type Percentage of Study Area

Forest 76%

Scrub/Shrub 14% Developed Open Space 4% Pasture/Hay 3% Crops 3%

Wetlands less than 1%U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 61 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, four injection well s would be repositioned and drilled to extend below the oil-water interface into the deeper brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation. These four primary injection wells would be drilled from existing well pads used during the previous production at the Cranfield Unit a nd directionally drille d to the desired down-hole locations. Three of these wells have already been comple ted as part of ongoing EOR. The fourth well would be drilled from one of two previous well pad sites. Because, the well pads were abandoned in the mid-1960s, Denbury will recondition them to support drilling operations. This reconditioning will include land clearing and leveling activities of less than one acre, as well as the construction of a gravel acc ess road to safely operate a drilling rig. Two groundwater monitoring wells would also be dr illed but would not require a road or pad, as they could be

drilled with a truck-moun ted rig. Additionally, a CO 2 compressor would also be installed in conjunction with an existing Denbury compressor st ation. Fences may be installed on an asneeded basis to keep livestock away from wellh eads. No permanent surface facilities would be required.

Because of the project area’s hist orical use as an oil and gas fi eld, the relatively small amount of land clearing that would take place as part of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not likely have a substantial impact on land use within the project area. The small well pads, requiring less th an one acre of land clearing, are similar to other well pads in the Cranfield Unit and would not likely have a substantial impact on the forest, pasture, or prime fa rmland resources in the project ar ea. Additionally, all of the land clearing activities asso ciated with the Sout heast Regional Carbon Se questration Partnership Phase III Early Test project will be conducted by Denbury regardless of the implementation of the Phase III Early Test project. As such, activ ities associated with the Phase III Early Test project would likely be consistent with current land uses in the project area, and would not substantially alter land use patterns. Furthermor e, because monitoring and injection operations would take place in subsurface formations at depths of up to 10,000 feet (approximately 3,000 m), impacts to surface land use would not likely exceed the significance threshold.

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeas t Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to land use would occur as a result of this alternative beyond imp acts that would occur regardle ss of SECARB participation.

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects

Because of the project area’s histor ical use as an oil and gas fiel d within the Cranfield Unit, as well as Denbury’s ongoing commercial enhanced oil recovery efforts, any cumulative effects to land use within the project area as a result of implementation of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase II I Early Test project would not likely alter any particular land use at the project site or in adjacent areas. Because land cleari ng activities associ ated with the Phase III Early Test project is a component of Denbury’s current commerci al operations and areU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 62 March 2009

& Environmental Effects a small spatial percentage of the overall study ar ea, cumulative impacts to other adjacent land uses (such as timber production, farming, and recr eation) would not likely be substantial as a result of implementation of the Phase III Early Test Project.

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources

This socioeconomic assessment considers how the proposed project activity would affect people, institutions, communities, and the local economy, as well as larger infrastructure, social and economic systems. This section describes the so cioeconomic conditions that may be affected by implementation of SECARB and addresses the potential impact that may result from actions undertaken as a part of this project.

4.8.1 Population

4.8.1.1 Description

The study area includes portions of two counties in Southwestern Mississippi, Franklin and Adams, which together constitute the larger , geographic boundaries for the assessment of socioeconomic effects. Major concentrations of population located in or near the study area include the incorporated commun ities of Roxie (population 569), a pproximately six miles east of the study area boundary in Franklin County, a nd the city of Natche z (population 18,464), approximately 12 miles (approximately 19 km) west of the study area boundary in Adams County. Several smaller unincorporated settle ments (population under five hundred residents) are also present, including Hamburg, Orange, Fa yette, Leesdale, and Cranfield. Census block

data indicate a total of 135 indi viduals living in 67 housing units dispersed in areas adjacent to the study area.

Franklin is an almost entirely rural county with a 2000 population of 8,448 (Census, 2007). Since 2000, the estimated population shows a declin e of 2.1 percent to a 2006 estimate of 8,269. Franklin County supports a total of 4,119 housing units with an average dens ity of 7.3 units per square mile and a population density of 15.0 persons per square mile (Census, 2000a). For the year 2000, the occupancy rate for all units in the county was 78 percent (Census, 2000b). The median age of Franklin County residents, 37 years, is slightly higher than that for the state as a whole, 33.8 years. Approximately 72.7 percent of the population is 18 years or older, with 6.5 percent under the age of five and 15.2 percent aged 65 and over (Census, 2000b).

Located to the west of the study area, Adam s County contained a population of 34,340 residents

in 2000. Estimates for 2006 indicate that the coun ty population has declined by five percent to 32,626 (Census, 2007). In 2000, there were a total of 15,175 housing units in the county, with an occupancy rate of 90.1 percent and an average de nsity of 33 units per square mile. Population density for 2000 was 74.6 persons per square mile (Census, 2000a). With a median age of 38.1 years, the county population is older than that of the state. Residents aged 18 years and older comprise 73.2 percent of the population. Childre n five years of age and younger represent 6.8 percent of the county’s populat ion and persons 65 years of age and older account for 15.6 percent (Census, 2000c).U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 63 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to require only minimal additional labor requirements beyond that already establishe d as part of Denbury’s current operations. Additional employment under this alternative would be limite d to drilling crews for the observation and monitoring wells and personnel to perform ongoing maintenance of sampling equipment. Drilling companies already contr acted by Denbury for EOR operations would likely be used for the construction of the deep observation wells. A local wate r well driller would be

contracted to drill the shallow groundwater monitoring well. As a result, no substantial impact would be associated with changes in the co mmunity character, demographic composition, or housing availability beyond that already exis ting for Denbury’s ongoing operations in the Cranfield Unit. A slight but temporary increas e in local population may be experienced during the construction phase; however, any such increa se would be small and of short duration. Ongoing operation and maintenance of monitori ng equipment would be performed by SECARB personnel and contractors on a periodic, non-con tinuous basis approximately 4 times during the study period. Monitoring crews consist of 8 re searchers working for 2 weeks during each of the 4 study intervals. Local resources and accommodati ons would not be substantially affected and no change to community character and setting would be anticipated.

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action

The study area is an established oil field setting where drilling and other subsurface activities familiar to the surrounding communities have occu rred for several years. Current and planned activity at this site would be conducted as a part of Denbury’s current co mmercial operations and would be expected to continue irrespective of any additional data collection activities. Current operations may be expected to have a minor influence on loca l employment and correspondingly on local residential patterns. However, any such increase would be expected to be small and of no substantial consequence to the size and composition of the local population. Since ongoing

activities at the Cranfield Unit would be sim ilar to those already existing at the site, no substantial impact to community charac ter and setting would be anticipated.

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects resulting from the a ddition of the Proposed Action to ongoing Denbury

commercial activities would be limited to the ad ditional temporary workfo rce required during the drilling phase and some minimal addition of la bor during the operation an d maintenance phase. These requirements are minimal and would not be expected to stress local resources and accommodations. The proposed activity is in charact er with existing operations at the site and would add only minimally to existing conditions in the study area. None of these impacts could be expected to exceed the significance threshol d. Therefore, no substantial impact would be associated with the Proposed Action when taken in to consideration with other current or future actions proposed for the site.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 64 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.8.2 Employment and Income

4.8.2.1 Description

The economy of Franklin County is characteri zed by its relative si ze and diversity, with manufacturing, information services and retail trade among the leading economic sectors (BLS, 2006). In 2006 Franklin had a per capita personal income of $20,628 (BEA, 2006). Employment statistics for March 2008 indicate that th e county supported a to tal labor force of 3,332 workers, with an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. This repres ents a decrease of 0.6 percent from the 2007 annual average unemploym ent (BLS, 2008). The largest occupational categories for the Franklin County workforce in 2000 were sales and office occupations – 24.2 percent; management, professional, and relate d occupations - 23.3 per cent; and production and transportation – 20.3 percent (Census, 2000d). Median household income in 2000 was $25,234. A summary of income distribution by household is presented in Table 4.8.2.1.

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 1999

Franklin County Adams County

Number Percent Number Percent Less than $10,000 702 21.7 2,928 21.4 $10,000 to $14,999 312 9.7 1,480 10.8 $15,000 to $24,999 606 18.8 2,382 17.4 $25,000 to $34,999 442 13.7 2,041 14.9 $35,000 to $49,999 450 13.9 1,828 13.3 $50,000 to $74,999 496 15.4 1,585 11.6 $75,000 to $99,999 125 3.9 761 5.6 $100,000 to $149,999 58 1.8 324 2.4 $150,000 to $199,999 7 0.2 109 0.8 $200,000 or more 30 0.9 255 1.9 Total Households 3,228 100.0 13,693 100.0 Source: (Census, 2000d)

Leading sectors of the Adams County economy in clude construction, mining, retail trade and accommodation and food services. Per capita personal income for the county in 2006 was $27,413 (BLS, 2006). As of March 2008, the county’s civilian labor force totaled 13,963 with an unemployment rate of 6.2 percent. This represen ts a slight increase over the early part of the year, but is down 0.1 percent from the 2007 annual average (BLS, 2008). The largest occupational categories for the Adams County wo rkforce were management, professional, and related occupations - 27.8 per cent; sales and office occupati ons - 26.4 percent; and service occupations - 18.5 percent. Median househol d income was $25,234 (Census, 2000d). Income distribution for Adams County is presented in Table 4.8.2.1.

4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The addition of the SECARB test activities to th e current Denbury oil reco very operations at the Cranfield Unit would be expected to result in minimal change to the conditions of the local economy. Labor requirements, beyond those alrea dy identified for ongoing operations, would beU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 65 March 2009

& Environmental Effects small and would be limited to the crews nece ssary to drill the observation and groundwater monitoring wells and necessary personnel for ongoing maintenance and monitoring activity. These would not be expected to contribute substa ntially to overall labor and income growth in the local economy. Resource demands from the local economy would not be sufficient to stress any currently existing supply levels. The provision of additional CO 2 by Denbury will add only a small increment to its existing income from the Cr anbury unit. As a result, no substantial impact to the local economy would be expe cted under this alternative.

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action

Denbury’s commercial operations at the site represent the exis ting conditions for the local economy. Any resource and labor requirements a ssociated with site ope rations have already been incorporated into the local economy and do not have a substantial adverse effect. This would be expected to result in an overall bene ficial effect from expenditures for supplies, materials, construction services and labor to the extent that they are available from the local economy. Since Denbury operations at the Cranfield Unit have been ongoing for decades, it is likely that several new business entities have been developed in the local market to supply needed goods and services. These entities would experience a di rect benefit. However, the extent to which resources and labor are supplie d from the local economy is dependent on need, availability, and price at the time the requireme nt is experienced. Some additional expenditure outside the two-county area may be required for materials and serv ices not locally available.

Current Denbury operations at the Cranfield Un it are pre-existing in th at they would occur whether or not the SECARB project is implemente d. Existing recovery operations would be expected to continue and potential ly expand at the Cranfield Unit. The costs of operations at the Cranfield Unit include 26 well workovers (p roduction wells) at an estimated $570,000 each (total: $14.82 million) and 20 injection wells at an estimated cost of $1.3 million each (total: $26 million), totaling $40.82 million. Current labor availability and existing unemployment rates would indicate that requirements for employment at the Cranfield site would not stress the local labor market or the provision of services and accommodations in the local area.

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects are the result of the increm ental impact of the Proposed Action when added to the other past present or reasonably foreseeab le future actions. The site selected for the Proposed Action is an existing commercial oil field that has been in operation for several decades. The Proposed Action would add only incrementally to the existing conditions and therefore would not be expected to contribute substantially to any significant change in employment, labor market conditions, services and resource availabil ity, or local income generation. Therefore, it would not exceed the significance threshold.

4.8.3 Infrastructure

4.8.3.1 Description

The road system in and around the study area is a mixture of highway, paved secondary roadsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 66 March 2009

& Environmental Effects and unpaved service roads. The study area itself is traversed by two primary local roads: Tate Road (Rd.), running north to south through the western portion of th e study area; and Moss Grove Rd., intersecting with Tate Rd. and runni ng east to west across the Adams County portion of the Study area. A network of unpaved roads services the various ope rating units within the study area.

Three major highways are located in the near vici nity of the study area. These roads represent the primary surface access routes for the Cranfi eld site. U.S. Highways 98/84 runs east-west approximately two miles (approximately 3 km) to th e south of the study area. Traffic count data from the Mississippi Department of Transpor tation (MDOT) estimates the average annual daily traffic to be 4600 vehicles per day for this se gment. U.S. Highway 61 runs southwest to northeast approximately three m iles north of the study area w ith an average volume of 6500 vehicles per day. To the west of the study ar ea, State Route 33 runs north-south, intersecting with U.S. Highway 84 in Franklin County and U. S. Highway 61 further to the north in Jefferson County. Average daily estimates for this segm ent are calculated at 1100 vehicles per day (MDOT, 2006).

There are no utility transmission lines within th e boundaries of the study ar ea. A single pipeline

crosses the southwest corn er of the study area in Ad ams County (Figure 2.1.2).

4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The introduction of the proposed SE CARB activity to the existing cond itions at the Cranfield site would add only minimally to current levels of tr affic and road use. Any increases would be temporary and would not be expected to substantially alter existing patterns.

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action

Current operations at the Cranfield Unit have not resulted in a substantial impact to local traffic. However, some temporary increase in heavy tr uck traffic may be expe rienced along the major highways and local service roads as equipment and supplies are tr ansported to the site during construction activities. No substantial disruption to local traffic or degradation of service is anticipated along these major road ways. Some minor disruption of local traffic may occur on unpaved service roads as heavy trucks are moved to the site. There are no public utilities at the site which might be disturbed during either the construction or ongoing operations phase of the project.

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts associated with implement ation of the proposed alternative would be temporary and minimal, if noticeable at all. The area and its asso ciated road network have been part of ongoing oil and gas field operations fo r several decades. There are no planned or reasonably foreseeable actions proposed for the ar ea that may affect local road use or traffic patterns. The introduction of a temporary increa se in traffic during construction operations can be easily accommodated by the existing road syst em with only minor disr uptions. The project would not noticeably affect or disrupt the normal or routine functions of public institutions,U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 67 March 2009

& Environmental Effects roads, electricity, and other publ ic utilities and services in th e project area. Continuing operations of the SECARB wells following construction would have no additional impact and would not exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation

4.8.4.1 Description

The two Mississippi counties that contain the stu dy area offer a variety of park, national forest and dispersed outdoor recreational opportunities. Facil ities in the Franklin County area include:

• The Homochitto National Forest – 189,000 acres located to the south of the study area with the nearest piece to the project area bounda ry being approximately 2 miles (3 km), extending west into Adams county and nor th into Jefferson, Lincoln, and Copiah counties;

• The Clear Springs Recreation area – (approximate ly 13 miles (21 km) to the southeast of the project area boundary) a part of the Homo chitto National Forest, activities include camping, swimming, fishing and picnicking;

• Okhissa Lake is approximatel y 19 miles (31 km) to the so utheast of the project area boundary; and

• The Homochitta River – (approximately 14 miles (23 km) to the south of the project area boundary) suitable for canoeing, river rafting, swimming, and fishing.

Located immediately, as in sharing a border with the project area, to the northwest of the study area in Adams County, the Natchez St ate Park includes scenic trails and facilities for picnicking, swimming, boating, fishing and overni ght lodging. Within the vicinity of the proposed project site, a number of private holdings offer hunting excursions and overnight lodging for guests.

4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Additional drilling operations related to the SECA RB project would be exp ected to generate only minimal impact to recreationa l activities in the immediately surrounding area of the Cranfield Unit. Some disruption of hunti ng activity during the c onstruction phase may be anticipated as equipment, materials, supplies and workers are moved throughout the site. However, any such disruptions would be temporary and easily acco mmodated by the landowners who, for the most part, also hold mineral rights to the properties involved. No di sruption would be expected during the ongoing maintenance and monitoring phase.

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action

Parks and recreational o pportunities in the surrou nding region and within the study area itself have existed along with Denbury drilling operations and extraction operations for several years. No additional impact would be anticipated form current oil and gas recovery operations at the

site.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 68 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts

The addition of the proposed SECARB action to ongoing activities at the Cranfield Unit and in the surrounding area would have no substantial imp act to the use of National Forest lands, state parks, or other recreational oppor tunities in the two-county area. As noted under the Proposed Action, some temporary disruption may occur in th e study area itself during drilling operations. However, any disturbance would be minor, tempor ary in duration and in character with existing uses of the study area and is not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.8.5 Visual Resources

4.8.5.1 Description

There are no scenic vistas or aesthetic landscape s in the vicinity of the proposed project. The Cranfield Unit where the study is located is an oil and gas fiel d that was largely abandoned in 1965. The field site is adjacent to the site wher e Phase II SECARB research is now under way.

Facilities constructed un der the proposed project would not contrast with the present landscape as gravel roads and well sites ar e common in the vicinity of th e study area and are consistent with existing timber, gravel, and oil production uses.

4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, installa tion of two observation wells and two shallow water wells, a network of distribution pipeline s to individual well sites, and associated land clearing, access roads, and power lines would minimally alter the visual elements of th e project area as it is located in an abandoned oil and gas field. The wooded nature of the area would furthermore provide a tree buffer to shield a ny new visual elements from off-s ite viewers. Additionally, the four injection wells and related pads, pipelines, and access roads would be constructed regardless

of SECARB involvement.

Facilities constructed un der the proposed project would not contrast with the present landscape as gravel roads and well sites ar e common in the vicinity of the study area. The proposed project

would not interfere with visual re sources, eliminate scenic views, or alter the present landscape. The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on terrestrial ecosystems, having impacts on visual re sources if areas of vege tation are altered. Any minor changes that may result from implem entation of the Proposed Action in species composition, frequency and density of plants, or vegetation dieback are not expected to alter

visual elements in the landscape and viewsheds.

Overall, it is not likely that the Proposed Action would change the visual landscape in a way that would be objectionable to local re sidents or frequent visitors; thus impacts on visual resources would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeas t Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership PhaseU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 69 March 2009

& Environmental Effects III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to vi sual resources would occur as

a result of this altern ative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation.

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Visual quality at the Cranfield Unit has been predominantly altered by the past oil and gas operation under which drilling rigs and wells were installed and th en abandoned, land was cleared, and gravel roads were constructed. Other ongoing activi ties which have affected the visual quality of the area ar e hunting camps and removal of tr ees as part of timber harvest operations. Additionally, Denbury’s current commercial enhanced oil recovery operations could potentially further alter the visu al elements of the area. Given the larger impacts to visual resources from past, present, and future activit ies, cumulative impacts added from the proposed project would not change the visual resource clas sification of the affected area and not exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.8.6 Noise

Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirabl e because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage heari ng, or is otherwise intrusive. Human response to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of th e noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise is often generated by activities part of everyday life, such as constr uction or vehicular traffic.

Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pr essure level, described in decibels (dB), is used to quantify sound intens ity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of a sound pressure level to a standard reference le vel. Hertz (Hz) are us ed to quantify sound frequency. The human ear responds differently to different frequencies. A-weighing, described in a-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates this frequency response to express accurately the perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in daily life and their approximate level in dBA are provided in Table 4.8.6.

Table 4.8.6. Common Sounds and Their Levels

Outdoor Sound level (dBA) Indoor Snowmobile 100 Subway train

Tractor 90 Garbage disposal Noisy restaurant 85 Blender Downtown (large city) 80 Ringing telephone Freeway traffic 70 TV audio Normal conversation 60 Sewing machine

Rainfall 50 Refrigerator Quiet residential area 40 Library Source: (Harris, 1998)

The dBA noise metric describes steady noise levels. Although very few noises are, in fact, constant; therefore, a noise metric, Day-nigh t Sound Level (DNL) has been developed. DNL isU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 70 March 2009

& Environmental Effects defined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a 10-dB penalty added to the nighttime levels (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.). DNL is a us eful descriptor for noise because (1) it averages ongoing yet intermittent noise, and (2) it measures total sound energy over a 24-hour period. In addition, Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is often us ed to describe the overall noise environment. Leq is the average sound level in dB.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs federal agencies to comply with applicable federal, state, interstate, and local no ise control regulations. In 1974 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prov ided information suggesting that continuous and long-term noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally unacceptable for noisesensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. The State of Mississippi has no state-wide noise regulation. The closest to wns of Natchez and Roxie have local nuisance noise ordinances. However, both are greater th an 5 miles away (8 km) from the study area.

4.8.6.1 Description

Existing sources of noise near the pipeline and drilling site include local road traffic, highaltitude aircraft overflights, and natural noises such as leaves rustling, and bird vocalizations. The areas surrounding these locations can be categorized as very quiet rural area. The noise environment consists of very light traffic conditi ons where very few automobiles and trucks pass. The background sound is likely distant traffic noi se from Interstate 84. Existing noise levels (DNL and Leq) were estimated for the proposed sites and surrounding areas using the techniques specified in the American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer

present . Table 4.8.6.1 outlines the closet Noise Sens itive Areas (NSAs) such as residents, schools, churches, and hospitals, and the estimat ed existing noise levels at each location.

Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Leve ls at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas

Closest Noise Sensitive Area (NSA) Estimated Existing Sound Levels (dBA)

Distance Direction Type Land Use Category DNL Leq (Daytime) Leq (Nighttime)

8800 ft (2680 m) SSW Residence

4400 ft (1340 m) E Residence Very quiet,

sparse suburban or

rural

residential

areas 45 43 37

Source: (ANSI, 2003)

4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects to the noise environment would be expected with the implementation of the Proposed Action. The effects would be primarily due to heavy equipment noise during construction and drilling of the injection, observation and groundwater monitoring wells, and the operati on of an additional proposed compressor as part of theU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 71 March 2009

& Environmental Effects SECARB Phase III Early Test. These activities would be in addition to Denbury’s on-going commercial operations in the area.

Construction Noise . There would be some form of modera te to heavy construction at the well locations. Individual pieces of construction equipment typically gene rate noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Table 4.8.6.2 presents typi cal noise levels (dBA at 50 feet) that USEPA has estimated for the main phases of outdoor construction.

Table 4.8.6.2. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction

Construction Phase Leq (dBA) at 50 feet from Source

Ground Clearing 84 Excavation, Grading 89

Foundations 78

Structural 85 Finishing 89 Source: (USEPA, 1974)

With multiple items of equipment operating conc urrently, noise levels can be relatively high during daytime periods at locations within severa l hundred feet of active construction sites. The zone of relatively high construc tion noise levels typically extends to distances of 400 to 800 feet (122 – 244 m) from the site of major equipment operations. Locations within 1000 feet (305 m) would experience substantial levels (greater than 62 dBA) of c onstruction noise. However, there are no NSAs within 1000 feet (305 m) of the construction sites. Th ese effects would be temporary, and would be considered minor. The equipment mufflers would be properly maintained and in good working order to reduce these already limited effects.

Drilling Noise. The Proposed Action would involve dri lling operations for the monitoring wells. Components of the drilling equipment include the drill rig, mud pumps, and diesel generators. Drilling equipment is expected to operate twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, for up to three months. The nearest NSA is 4400 feet (f t) [1340 meters (m)] eas t of the closest well location. A DNL of 43 dBA and a Leq of 37 dBA we re estimated for the drilling operations at

this distance. This is less than or equal to the estimated backgr ound level for this area and would not likely be audible. These effects would be temporary, an d would be considered minor.

Detailed noise calculations are located in Appendix C.

The generator and combined diesel driven syst ems would have the standard exhaust muffles. Barriers can be installed around the noisy componen ts to diminish the noise, but would not likely be necessary given the distance to the neares t NSA. Drilling noise would be expected to dominate the soundscape for all on-site personnel. Pe rsonnel, and particularly equipment operators, would don adequate personal hear ing protection to limit exposure and ensure compliance with federal health and safety regulations.

Operational Noise . The only major noise-producing equipmen t that could be expected during the operation stages of the study is an additional in-line CO 2 compressor. This compressor would operate 24 hours per day 7 days per week during the injection phase. The exact location of theU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 72 March 2009

& Environmental Effects compressor is unknown and associated manufactur ers specifications have not been finalized. Dresser-Rand will supply CO 2 compressors to Denbury for inj ection operations at Cranfield. Compressors already in use or ordered for th e operations are 2,325 horsepower models 2HHEVG-2. Since the additional compressor to be used for the SECARB study would be collocated with existing Denbury compressors , the incremental increase in noise levels will be less noticeable. For analysis purposes, a 10,000 horsepower (hp) [7462 kilowatt (kW)] reciprocating compressor was chosen to represen t a worst case noise scenario. This is both the largest and loudest off-the- shelf compressor use for CO 2 pipeline applications (Ariel Corporation, 2008; Bies, 2003). A compressor of this size and type would be loud enough to generate a DNL greater than 65 at all NSA within approxima tely 1200 feet (approximately 366 m) of its location. Based on the pipeline route in the study area, it is unlikely that any NSAs would be within 1200 feet (approximately 366 m) of the compressor. In addition, because of the remote location it is unlikely that there would be a violation of the local noise ordinances. In the final design stages, extra care w ould be taken to insure the si ze, type, and location of the compressor is consistent with all federal, stat e, and local guideline with respect to noise.

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action

The No-Action alternative would have no impacts to noise becaus e no additional drilling would occur, and no additional equipment would be in stalled. Noise levels would remain consistent with that attributable to activities that will be completed by Denbury as part of their EOR operations regardless of the implementation of th e SECARB Phase III Early Test. As a result,

minimal differences exist between the build and no build scenarios with respect to noise.

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Action would introduce long-term in cremental increases the noise environment.

All noise associated with the project would be in addition to Denbury’ s on-going commercial operations in the area. These increases would be relatively small and have a minor cumulative

effect on the overall noise environment but woul d not be expected to exceed ambient noise standards beyond the proposed project boundary.

4.8.7 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (The White House, February 11, 1994), requires that Federal Agencies consider as a part of thei r action, any disproportio nately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects to mi nority and low income populations. Agencies are required to ensure that these potential effects are identified and addressed.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines envi ronmental justice as; “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless or race, color, national or igin, or income with respect to the development, implementati on, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” For purposes of assessing environm ental justice under NEPA, the CEQ defines a minority population as one in whic h the percentage of minorities exceeds 50U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 73 March 2009

& Environmental Effects percent or is substantially higher than the percentage of minoriti es in the general population or other appropriate unit of ge ographic analysis (CEQ, 1997).

Consideration of the potential c onsequences of the Proposed Ac tion for environmental justice requires three main components:

• A demographic assessment of the affected community to identify the presence of minority or low income populations that may be potentially affected;

• An assessment of all potential impacts identified to determine if any result in significant adverse impact to the affected environment; and

• An integrated assessment to determine whet her any disproportionately high and adverse impacts exist for minority and low-inco me groups present in the study area.

4.8.7.1 Description

In 2000, minority populations constituted 37.2 per cent of the total population of Franklin County, or 3,143 individuals. This is slightly lower than the 38.6 per cent minority component for the population of the State of Mississippi as a whole. Hispan ic or Latino populations (of any race) represented 0.5 percent of the total population, or 45 indi viduals. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, those living at or below the poverty lin e, constituted 24.1 percent of the population or 2,010 individuals in 2000 as compared with a 19.9 percent rate for the state as a whole (Census, 2000b).

Minority populations make up approximately 54 percent of the total population of Adams County, or 18,531 individuals. Hispanic or Latino re sidents (of any race) constitute 0.8 percent of the total population or 273 indi viduals. In 2000 there were 8,775 individuals living at or below the poverty level, or 25.9 percent of the population. As a result, Adams County displays a higher minority percentage of its population and a highe r percentage of persons living at or below poverty than the State of Mississi ppi as a whole (Census, 2000c).

Of the two incorporated communitie s near the study area, the town of Roxie, in Franklin County contains a resident minority population of 60.3 pe rcent, or 337 individuals (Census, 2000e) and the city of Natchez in Adams County incl udes a minority population of 44.2 percent or 10,189 individuals (Census, 2000f). Individuals livi ng at or below the poverty level constitute 25.5 percent and 28.6 percent of these communities’ populat ions respectively. Census block data for

the areas in and immediatel y surrounding the study area indi cate a minority population of 74 individuals or 55 percent of the total population of 135 residents (Census, 2000g).

4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Minority and lower income groups are generally present in the study ar ea and the immediately surrounding communities in gr eater numbers than for either count y or for the State of Mississippi as a whole. However, both direct and indirect effects associated with the implementation of this

alternative would be an ticipated to be minimal for all popul ations in the immediate study area and for the surrounding communities of Frank lin and Adams Counties. Therefore, no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low income communities would be expected.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 74 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action

The present level of acti vity associated with Denbury’s current commercial operations would be expected to continue with little or no additional adverse impact to the local community, its labor force, employment patterns, demographic character istics, level of diversity, infrastructure or

economic characteristics. Current operations may be expected to have a minor influence on the local social community, but any ch anges would be small and in keep ing with the character of the existing community.

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts

The proposed activity considered by this asse ssment would add only minimally to existing conditions in the study area and surrounding communitie s. As a result, any incremental impact

would not be sufficient to consti tute a substantial impact and w ould most likely be experienced evenly across all populations. Th erefore, neither mi nority nor low-income groups within the affected community will experience proportionately greater adverse effects than other members of the community.

4.9 Human Health and Safety

4.9.1 Description

Section 4.1 above discusses the pote ntial for local air qua lity impacts as a result of the Proposed Action. Air pollution causes human health pr oblems. Air pollution can cause breathing problems; throat and eye irritatio n; cancer; birth defects; and da mage to immune, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems (USEPA, 2 007c). National and state ambient air quality standards represent the maximum allowable atmos pheric concentrations that may occur and still protect public health and welfar e with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition, OSHA regulations specify appr opriate protective measures for all employees.

Spills from the construction of the facility and operation are also a source of possible impacts to human health and safety. Spills can introduce so il contamination and allow exposure pathways to workers and the public. The risks and eff ects of a spill depend on its composition. A common

material used in construction and operation at this site that can be spilled is diesel. Diesel irritates the lungs and is a sk in irritant. Enough diesel expos ure can cause death or nervous system damage (ATSDR, 2007). Similarly, wast e management also is a source of possible human health and safety risks from expos ure to contaminants (See Section 4.11).

One potential impact to human health a nd safety within the project site is CO 2 leaks. CO 2 is heavier than ambient air, colo rless, and odorless, which makes it an invisible hazard (DOE, 2007a). Since it is denser th an ambient air, leaked CO 2 will typically pool in hollows and confined spaces until dispersed by wind or othe r ventilation methods (DOE, 2007a; IPCC, 2005).

CO 2 under pressure or at high concentration leve ls can cause suffocation and permanent brain injury from lack of air (DOE, 2007a). Headach e, impaired vision, labored breathing, and mental confusion also can occur from exposure to CO 2 (IPCC, 2005). The pressure drop from CO 2U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 75 March 2009

& Environmental Effects leaks from vessels (pipes) creates a cold hazar d, which even the vapor can cause frostbite (IPCC, 2005). Generally, the pooling and la rge, rapid releases of the CO 2 are the situations of concern for human health and safety instead of small grad ual leaks due to concentr ation level differences (IPCC, 2005; DOE, 2007a).

No general CO 2 exposure standards exist yet for th e general public (DOE, 2007a). The immediately dangerous to life and health level of exposure for CO 2 is 5% or 40,000 ppm. For up to several hours, exposure to 0.5 to 1.5% CO 2 in the air typically is not harmful for people with normal health. However, people with impaired h ealth (such as cerebral disease), children, and people involved in complex tasks are mo re susceptible to the effects of CO 2 exposure. CO 2 exposure impedes people’s performance of complex tasks by causi ng labored breathing, headache, and mental confusion. The occ upational standard of maximum allowable

concentration of CO 2 in air for eight hours of continuous exposure is 0.5%, and for a short period, it is 3.0% (IPCC, 2005).

CO 2 leaked in high concentrations can cause human health issues in the water as well as air.

CO 2 underground injection can contaminate groundwater if the CO 2 migrates to underground aquifers (See Section 4.3). This contamination can occur by the CO 2 causing the mobilization of

chemicals such as metals in the soil into the aquifers. Despite monitoring and permitting requirements (USEPA’s UIC program), the ri sk to human health from potable water contamination still exists from underground in jection. Similar to air emissions of CO 2 , gradual

releases of CO 2 into water sources typically do not cause substantial harm to human health, but rapid releases could (DOE, 2007a).

Since CO 2 is neither toxic nor explosive, emergency procedures need only be rudimentary. The worst case would be a sudden, complete failur e of pipe. This would release all the CO 2 in the pipe. The result would be dry ice formation at the break due to the sudden expansion, plus release of a large gas cloud as the su percritical fluid is converted to CO 2 gas. The gas is nontoxic, but a sudden, large release might displace ai r for nearby workers at the Cranfield Unit, but is unlikely to present a hazard at the village of Cranfield.

This scenario, though highly unlikely, will be modeled, taking into account the sudden release and its atmospheric dispersion. If the modeling, contrary to exp ectations, suggests a possibility of negative health effects due to air displacement, Denbury woul d install further automatic lowpressure shut-downs. High pressure shut-downs would be included. The effect of this would be

to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that could escape in a sudden, co mplete failure of the pipe. This technique is in wide use for public protect ion in the sour gas indus try in Alberta, where large amounts of highly toxic hydr ogen sulfide might be released during a line break. It is evidently successful; although a few sour gas line breaks have occurred, there have never been fatalities or injuries among the public over the last 5 decad es (AERCB, 2008).

The integrity of the system against carbon dioxid e release will be dependent on the following:

• Continuous corrosion testing, with corro sion coupon testing as a minimum.

• Frequent moisture testing of the dehydr ated gas supplied by the Sonat pipeline.

• Continuous pressure monitoring of the flow lines, with automatic shut-down systems at strategic locations within the facilities.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 76 March 2009

& Environmental Effects Between 1994 and 2006, there were 31 CO 2 pipeline accidents reported, and there were no injuries or fatalities from these incidents in the United States (DOE, 2007c). Some historical

causes of CO 2 pipeline incidences are relief valve failure (4 failures), weld/gasket/valve packing failure (3 failures), corrosion (2 failures), and outside force (1 failure). The incident rate from

1990 to 2002 for CO 2 pipelines in the United States was 0.0002 mile -1 yr -1 (0.00032 km -1 yr -1 ) (IPCC, 2005). This rate of failure is compara tively small. For comparison with natural gas pipelines, see Table 4.9.1.

Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Natural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005
Category Natural Gas CO 2 Miles of Pipeline 304,001 (in 2003)

490,000 km 3,300

5,300 km

# of Incidents 960 12

Property Damage per Incident $484,000 $42,000

Injuries from Incidents 82 0

Fatalities 29 0

Source: (DOE, 2007a)

The workers on the project would be subject to the same types of health risks that are generally associated with their professions (DOE, 2007a). There is a rate of 15.2 deaths per 100,000 for construction workers, which is the third highest ra te of death from injury (NIOSH, No date).

The construction incident rate of total recordable cases of non- fatal occupational injuries and illnesses in 2006 was 5.9 per 100 full-time workers (BLS, 2007).

4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes pipe-laying; co nstruction and operation of compression units; transportation of CO 2 ; drilling of observation wells; a nd injection of supercritical CO 2 much of which will be conducted by Denbury even if the SECARB study is not implemented.(See Section 2.1). These all present risks to human health and safety. The materials and equipment used for construction and operation would meet prescribed standards (DOE, 2008b). Having a general public outreach program to inform the audiences about CO 2 sequestration could reduce the risks and consequences of health and safety issues like accidents.

The equipment that would be used for the im plementation of the Proposed Action represents only minimal risks to human health and safety under normal operating conditions (DOE, 2007a). Thus, if Best Management Practices (BMPs), maintenance, and regula tions are followed, the equipment should pose little impact to human h ealth and safety. Drilling into pressurized

formations could release flammabl e gases like methane. Preventative measures to minimize well blowouts or venting of dangerous gases shoul d be implemented. Measures to avoid the equipment failure caused by high pressure would be executed (DOE, 2007a).

Since most of the construction and operation activities of the Propos ed Action are on Denbury property, the increase in traffic from workers and delivery of e quipment and materials would beU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 77 March 2009

& Environmental Effects partially limited to onsite, which reduces risk to pedestrians and the ge neral public. However, the Proposed Action would still repr esent an increase in traffic, wh ich increases the potential for accidents. However, this incremental increase in traffic would be very limited and would be a de minimus increase to the larger and more fre quent movement of materials for Denbury’s EOR operations. The additional worker travel trips to and from the site would be limited to the 6 – 12 crew members during the 6 weeks of drilling ope rations. Minor additional travel would occur during the 4 (four), 2-weeks peri ods when the researchers are on site for monitoring activities.

Primary access to the site for delivery and comm ute trips would be from Highway 84 onto the gravel roads (Tate and Moss Grove Roads) to the well locations. None of the local access roads go through or near the Natchez State Park. Minor gravel road extensions (estimated at less than 3 miles total) may be required to reach re-condi tioned well sites. Additional travel would not substantially increase the volume of traffic on lo cal roadways as described in Section 4.8.3 and should not impact human health and safety concerns.

Air emissions from the Proposed Action are not an ticipated to be regionally significant (See Section 4.1). The CO 2 used by Denbury does not contain significant concentrations of contaminants. Denbury receives weekly analyses of the CO 2 from the provider. This reduces the risk of additional air pollutants from the contaminants in case of a leak. Following the mitigation measures and BMPs will reduce any impacts to human health from air quality. Further, workers would follow OSHA procedures , which would further reduce the impact to human health. Denbury has performed similar activities for over a decade without major incident. Therefore, the risks to human health and safety due to air emissions would be expected to be below the impact significance thresholds.

The soils in the area are erodibl e (See Section 4.2); however, with BMPs in place, water contamination, which could lead to human health and safety risks, would not be expected to be a major issue (DOE, 2008b) (See Section 4.3). Since construction involving oil and gas development is exempt from NPDES perm itting, no NPDES construction permit will be obtained. However, BMPs would be followe d to minimize storm water pollutants (DOE, 2008a). Further, produced freshwater would be used for farming, and saline water would be disposed of in existing permitted oilfield dispos al wells following BMPs. Wastewater would be collected in portable tanks and shipped to author ized disposal sites by tr uck (DOE, 2008b). This would reduce the risk of impacts to human health from wastewater. Therefore, the overall effect of the Proposed Action to surface water quality w ould be expected to be below the significance

threshold.

No hazardous or toxic materials are used in the Denbury EOR operations at Cranfield, and none would be used during the study. If safety pro cedures and BMPs are followed, spills and leaks from equipment and processes would be of low concentrations as well as non-hazardous and not toxic. This would represent a low risk to hum an health and safety (DOE, 2007c). Under normal conditions, hazardous and toxic materi als can be used safely when appropriate safety precautions are followed (DOE, 2007a). The CO 2 used in the Proposed Action has no substantial

concentrations of VOC or other contaminan ts. Analyses of the composition of the CO 2 occur weekly, and Denbury receives these results from the CO 2 provider. Therefore, impacts to human health due to spills and leaks would be below the significance threshold.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 78 March 2009

& Environmental Effects The design of the Proposed Action’s measurement, mitigation, and verification (MMV) plan is to avoid, detect, and correct any unintended CO 2 emissions. The geological seals of project site

make CO 2 migration highly unlikely (DOE, 2008a) (S ee Section 4.2). However, groundwater monitoring would still occur to de tect problems and initiate corre ctive action if necessary (DOE, 2008a; DOE, 2008b) (See Section 4.3). This woul d allow for early detection and appropriate measures to be initiated if there were any probl ems. This reduces the risk to human health and safety. The maximum surface injection pressure w ould be balanced with the anticipated fracture pressure for the area. This reduces the po ssibility of air and water contamination by CO 2 from fractures (See Section 4.2).

The Proposed Action calls for soil gas monito ring (DOE, 2008b). Pipe line inspection and monitoring would reduce the risks of failures an d thus to human health. One of the major concerns regarding pipeline safety is water and other contaminants causing corrosion leading to pipe failure (DOE, 2007 a). However, the CO 2 would be conditioned to reduce the risk from pipeline failure. As part of its co mmercial EOR operation, Denbury dewaters the CO 2 at the Jackson Dome source and ships it dry through th e pipeline. No significant moisture or contaminants are present in the CO 2 that would increase the risk of corrosion. Pipelines are operated in accordance with the MSOGB regulations and include appropriate shut off systems in case of rupture. All the monitoring for CO 2 (Section 2.1.3) will reduce the risk for CO 2 leaks, and the mitigation measures will reduce the consequences of any incidents.

The Health and Safety Plan for the Cranfield Unit would be updated to include the Proposed

Action activities should DOE c hoose to fund the Proposed Action. BMPs would be followed (DOE, 2008a; DOE, 2008b). One item in the Health a nd Safety Plan calls for backup alarms that must be operable on all equipment (Denbury, No date ). This monitoring system will help detect and prevent further leaks from the system (DOE , 2008b). The workers on the project would be subject to the same types of health risks that are generally associated with their professions (DOE, 2007a). Protective equipment such as hard hats, safety shoes, hearing protection (ear plugs), gloves, and safety glasses will be wo rn (DOE, 2008b). Any further safety equipment needed for the possible hazards would be used su ch as a respirator or dust mask for someone working with equipment that generates dust. Following safety pr otocols would minimize occupational hazards (DOE, 2007a).

The risks to human health and sa fety from a rapid release of CO 2 as a result of activities associated with the Proposed Action would depe nd on amount released a nd conditions (such as wind direction and strength) at the time of the release (DOE, 2007c). A sudden and rapid release

of CO 2 from equipment, such as a wellhead being removed, would likely be detected quickly. The processes for containing well blow-outs would be employed to stop such a release. Workers on-site would be the primary group a ffected. If concentrations of CO 2 greater than 7 to 10% in the air were created, it woul d cause immediate danger to hu mans. Depending on the amount released and the pressure, the leak could take hours to days to contain, but it could take as little as minutes (IPCC, 2005; Heinrich et al., 2004). However, the leaked CO 2 amount is likely to be minimal compared to the amount in jected due to dispersion of CO 2 in the ground away from injection site (Heinrich et al ., 2004; IPCC, 2005). Once the releas e is over, no lingering effects would occur (Heinrich et al., 2004). Since CO 2 injection would occur even in the No-ActionU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 79 March 2009

& Environmental Effects alternative, the increased risk from short-term testing and monitoring under the Proposed Action is minimal. Further, the oil and gas industry em ploys engineering and admi nistrative controls to manage these types of hazards regularly (IPCC, 2005). Therefore, while the risk of accidents exists, the risks to human health and safet y, with the proper response plans and monitoring,

would be below the si gnificance threshold.

There are buffers around the Denbury project area of undeveloped, wooded lands. This reduces the impacts to the general public as it allows more time to respond to leaks and space to vent

CO 2 before it affects the general public (DOE, 2008b). A local emergency response plan would help reduce the risk of impact to the workers and the general public (DOE, 2007a). The primary human health risk from the Proposed Action to the general public would be pipeline leaks releasing CO 2 (DOE, 2007a). A rapid release of CO 2 has a very low probability due to monitoring, proper siting, and BM Ps (DOE, 2007a). The risks would be minimized by having appropriate safety and operating procedures currently in place fo r gas processing facilities and pipelines including monitoring and inspect ions (DOE, 2007a). In general, CO 2 injection has occurred safely for over twenty years with o il and gas activities (NETL, 2008b). The injection associated with the Proposed Action does not pr esent much additional risk than current Denbury

CO 2 injection for the past ten years. Therefore, with proper safety procedures and plans, the risk to the general public should not exceed the significance threshold.

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, Denbury Resources would still continue oil recovery using EOR techniques. Thus, the construction and opera tional activities from the EOR, such as the drilling of injection wells, CO 2 compression and pipelines, and use of heavy machinery, would

still occur under the No-Action alternative. Thes e activities represent a po tential risk to human health and safety as described previously. Ho wever, the data would not be collected for CO 2 storage research. Thus, the in frastructure for the data colle ction and increased volume of CO 2 injected, such as the extra compressor and the obse rvation wells, would not occur. Overall, this would result in less construction and operation ac tivities, which provides fewer opportunities to for risks to human health and safety.

As the types of activities in the No-Action alternative and Proposed Action are the same, the risks to human health and safety of the No-Action alternative ar e similar to the Proposed Action.

The No-Action alternative activities are at reduced potential ri sk to human health and safety as the scale of the project is smaller under the No-Acti on alternative. Therefor e, all of the risks to human health and safety are less than those unde r the Proposed Action. The exception would be in regards to the fact th at the Proposed Action’s purpose is to further the research for options in preventing global climate change. Possible deaths from sea levels rising, deaths from increased severity of storms, increase respiratory diseases, and increased deaths from heat are some of the wide variety of potential human h ealth and safety impacts from global climate change (Miller, 2003). However, as many other projects are in operation or being propos ed to assist in the reduction of risk for global climate change, not all of the global climate change risks are

attributable to the No-Action alternative. Neve rtheless, the No-Action alternative does represent some risk to human health and safety, but not a substantial one.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 80 March 2009

& Environmental Effects 4.9.4 Cumulative Effects

Because of the overlying impervious seams above th e injection zone, it is not likely that injected

CO 2 would find its way to the surface or into fres hwater aquifers after se questration at greater than 10,000 feet (approximately 3,000 m). The main issues concerning human health and safety from EOR (whether the Proposed Action or No-A ction alternative is chosen) are operational integrity ones, such as ensuring high quality cement work in the wells. The only reasonable manner in which carbon dioxide could escape b ack to surface and/or affect potable water resources is by way of operationa l error or inadequacy, such as flow of gas behind cement or poor well abandonment, exceedance of fracture pre ssures or fracture gradients, or overpressuring

of flowlines.

The cumulative impacts of ex isting activities in and around the project area with the implementation of the Proposed Action does not repr esent a substantial risk to human health and safety with existing and upcoming mitigation and sa fety procedures in place. Therefore, there

are no substantial cumulative effects from the Pr oposed Action. As described in the previous section, not funding the Proposed Action (the No-Action alternat ive) could have an adverse impact to the progress towards solutions for globa l climate change. However, since this is a single project of many, the cumulative impacts to human health and safety of the No-Action

alternative would not exceed the significance threshold. Therefor e, both the No-Action and the Proposed Action would pose no more than minimal risk to the health and safety of on-site workers and the local population with BMPs a nd mitigation in place and thus not exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.10 Cultural Resources

Cultural and historic resources are protected by a variety of la ws and regulations, including the

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the Arch aeological Resources Protection

Act. Section 106 of the National Historic Pr eservation Act and implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) outline the procedures to be followed in the documentation, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to any federal undertaking that has the potential to affect cu ltural resources. The Mississipp i Department of Archives and History is the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Mi ssissippi (MDAH, No date).

4.10.1 Description

Within two miles of the proposed project area, no known archeological or cu ltural sites are listed in state and federal records (EDR, 2008; MARI S, 2008; DOE, 2008a). The closest site on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is Bedford Pl antation, approximately 1.8 miles (approximately 2.9 km) to the north from the project boundary (MARIS, 2008). However, there are three cemeteries within the project ar ea, Tate, Farrar, and Hickory Grove.U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 81 March 2009& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.10.1. Map of Cultural Resourcesin Proximity of the Proposed ActionU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 82 March 2009

& Environmental Effects There are no known Native American or Tribal ar eas within or near th e project area (EDR, 2008; DOE, 2008a; MARIS, 2008). The closet one is over 100 miles (approximately 160 km), which is the Bogue Homa community that is land owne d by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MARIS, 2008). The Mississippi Band of Chocta w Indian Reservation, which consists of multiple scattered communities a nd lands such as the Bogue Homa community, is approximately 200 miles (approximately 300 km) northeast, near Philadelphia, Mississippi. No federally recognized tribes have land claims or reservat ions in the two countie s of the project area (Lavallee, 2006). Some recognized Native American Tribes with cultural interest in Mississippi according to the SHPO are Chickasaw, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indi ans, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, and TunicaBiloxi Indians of Louisiana. C onsultation letters were sent to the Tribes (Appendix E). Only the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma responded, and the c onsultation resulted in no objection to the project.

No surveys of the study area have been perfor med to date. A survey would provide more definitive information regarding the actual pres ence or absence of cultural resources including archeological.

Regarding the potential for fossils in the area; fo ssils are formed in sedimentary rock. Because there is no surface sedimentary rock in the project area, there are no expected accessible fossils in the project area (See Section 4.2).

4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The potential for impacts to cultural resources would be greatest during the construction phase. Discovery of previously unknown cultural resources can occur during constr uction activities in historically undisturbed areas. The construction noise and ear thmoving activities can also deteriorate the use of the area for Native American activities (DOE, 2007a).

Some construction activities occu rring under the Proposed Action ha ve the potential to disturb

cultural resources such as la nd clearing, transporting equipmen t, leveling, drilling, and laying pipelines. These earthmoving activities could ca use an adverse impact to cultural resources by altering drainage patterns, creating fugitive dust, and crushing the resources. Altered drainage patterns and runoff could deteriorate the artifact s or move them. Fugitive dust could cover and remove, in the case of paintings, artifacts. Spil ls from refueling equipment could also damage cultural resources, which could redu ce the information potentially gained by the items. Further, construction activities could alter or destroy the context of the cultural re sources. Operational impacts include use of heavy equipment, which is described above, and improved access to the area, which increases the possi bility of illegal collection of properties (DOE, 2007a).

There would be limited additional construction occurring under the Proposed Action compared to the No-Action alternative. Thus, the Propos ed Action could be expected to cause only a limited increase in potential for disturbance fo r cultural resources. The project area is a previously disturbed si te (DOE, 2008a). Consequently, sin ce no cultural resources have beenU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 83 March 2009

& Environmental Effects found to date, there is less possibility for di scovering cultural resour ces during the Proposed

Action.

As there is no surface sedimentary rock, the risk to fossils (paleontological resources) that could be used for scientific/educational purposes is ne gligible (See Section 4.2). Due to the trees on the project site and distance to the nearest NRHP site (1.8 mile s or 2.9 km), there would be no substantial visual resources impacts to any known eligible or existing NRHP site. Consultation letters were sent to the Tribes, and no Tribal objections were voiced (A ppendix E). There are three cemeteries in the project area, which would need consideration.

A consultation letter was sent to the SHPO (Appendix D). The onl y concern raised by the SHPO was regarding two burial sites, one off of Rice Road and one near Sibley, Mississippi. Both of these are away from the project area. Thus, th e SHPO consultation resulted in no objections to the project (Noceti, 2008b).

If cultural resources were discovered during th e construction, the constr uction would be stopped, and SHPO, any relevant Tribes, or other agencies consulted. If the cultural resources were found to be substantial, then the construction compone nt would need to be s ited elsewhere or other acceptable mitigation performed as SHPO and any relevant Tribes or agencies dictate.

Based on the information above, the Proposed Action would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold for cultural resources.

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, Denbury Resources would still continue oil recovery using EOR techniques. Thus, the construction and opera tional activities from the EOR, such as the drilling of injection wells and use of heavy m achinery, would still occu r under the No-Action alternative. These ground-distur bing activities represent a potentia l risk to cultural resources as described previously. However, data would not be collected for CO 2 storage research. Thus, the

infrastructure for the data coll ection and increased volume of CO 2 injected, such as the extra compressor and the observation wells, would not be needed. Overall, this would result in less ground disturbance and provides fewe r opportunities to disturb cultural resources. Further, most

of the sites for the No-Action alternative are al ready disturbed, which reduces the possibility of finding previously unknown cultural resources (DOE, 2008a).

As the types of activities in the No-Action alternative and Proposed Action are the same, the

risks to cultural resources under the No-Action a lternative are similar to the Proposed Action.

The No-Action alternative act ivities are at reduced potential risk to cultural resources as the scale of the project and disturbance is smal ler under the No-Acti on alternative.

As there is no surface sedimentary rock, the risk to fossils (paleontological resources) that could be used for scientific/education purposes is neg ligible. Due to the trees on the project site and distance to the nearest NRHP site (1.8 miles or 2.9 km), there should be no substantial visual resources impacts to any known eligible or existi ng NRHP sites. Consulta tion letters were sent to the Tribes (Appendix E). No Tribal objections were voiced about this project. As mentionedU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 84 March 2009

& Environmental Effects in Section 4.10.2, a letter was sent to the SHPO (Appendix D). The SHPO consultation resulted in no objections to the project. There are three cemeteries in the project area, which would need

consideration.

If cultural resources were discovered during th e construction, the constr uction would be stopped, and SHPO, any relevant Tribes, or other agencies consulted. If the cultural resources were found to be substantial, then the construction compone nt would need to be s ited elsewhere or other acceptable mitigation performed as SHPO and any relevant Tribes or agencies dictate.

Based on the information above, the No-Action alternative is not e xpected to exceed the significance threshold fo r cultural resources.

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects

Currently, the only projected types of activities in the project area will be other oil and gas activities; therefore, the Proposed Action and th e No-Action alternative will be only a small component to potential cumulativ e impacts. Since there are no s ubstantial impacts to cultural resources, the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts to cultural resources in th e vicinity of the project area. As impacts to cultural resources are generally local (heavy mach inery crushing resources, etc.), the Proposed

Action and the No-Action alternative both are un likely to contribute to impacts to cultural resources outside the vicinity of the project area and would not exceed the significance threshold.

4.11 Waste Management

4.11.1 Description

Whether the Proposed Action is implemented or not , a number of wastes would be generated due to ongoing EOR which could potentially include:

• Slash from tree clearing and drilling pad redevelopment,

• lubricating oils and greases,

• used solvents,

• used hydraulic fluid,

• metal parts, wire and cable,

• oily rags,

• domestic sewage,

• domestic solid waste,

• contaminated soil from spills,

• discarded cement,

• containers (metal, w ood, plastic, etc.),

• produced water (oily and/or saline), and

• drilling mud and cuttings.

The project Environmental Information Volume (EIV) (DOE, 2008a), indicates that Denbury plans to dispose of associated drilling wastes generated by drilling operations in accordance withU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 85 March 2009

& Environmental Effects MSOGB regulations. As appropriate, wastes may e ither be injected into permitted Class II UIC

wells or land-farmed onsite within the Cranfield Unit.

According to the EIV (DOE, 2008a) Denbury, on behalf the SECARB project (were the Proposed Action implemented), is to inject 0.5 million metric tons of CO 2, in addition to 1

million metric tons of CO 2 that will be injected as part of the commercial EOR operations. The project EIV (DOE, 2008a) fu rther states that during th e second stage (monitoring and injection operations) there woul d be no fuel or waste storage areas anticipated and solid or hazardous waste would be not produced. However, the second stage would require added compression capacity for the SECARB injection wells. The operation of a compressor would generate waste products which could include:

• Used lube oil,

• Wastewater (wash water),

• Spent glycols

• Used metal parts,

• Used gaskets,

• Oily rags,

• Filters,

• Containers,

• Contaminated soils from spills and leaks, and

• Domestic wastes.

In addition, as a part of the geochemical monito ring, sampling tracers will be used and there may be some waste formation brine produced thr ough observation well sampling. These activities will generate:

• Tracer containers, and

• Small volumes of produced water

All wastes generated during operation of drilling, compression, or other facilities at the study site will be disposed of in accordance with MD EP regulations. Existing MSOGB regulations adequately protect the environment with strict standards for the collect ion, containment, and disposal of solid waste; and provide for penaltie s and appropriate remedial actions for failure to comply.

4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Four injection wells will be completed as a re sult of Denbury’s commerci al EOR operations even if the SECARB project is not conducted. Extendi ng the four injection wells into the water leg down-dip of the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation requi red for the SECARB project will create only minor additional drilling muds and cuttings whic h would easily be managed with the wastes from the commercial EOR operations. The impacts related to these additional wastes would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

The drilling of the two deep SE CARB project observation wells and the extension of four injection wells would require the us e of 30,000 to 50,000 pounds (13,600 – 23,000 kg) of additional drilling mud. The EIV (DOE, 2008a) i ndicates that Denbury plans to dispose ofU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 86 March 2009

& Environmental Effects associated drilling wastes generated by dr illing operations in accordance with MSOGB regulations. Drilling wastes may e ither be injected into permitted Class II UIC wells or landfarmed on site within the Cranfield Unit.

The operation of one additional compressor would be completed as part of the SECARB project and would be used to inject CO 2 through the four injection wells. The SECARB project calls for

an addition 0.5 million metric tons adde d to the 1 million metric tons of CO 2 to be transported and injected as part Denbury’s commercial EOR operations. The National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (DOE, 2007a) “Carbon Sequestra tion Program Environmental Reference

Document” estimates that 0.006 gallons (0.02 L)/metric ton CO 2 of used oil would be generated and 3.3 gal. (12.5 L)/metric ton CO 2 of wastewater would be generated from the compression and transportation of CO 2 by pipeline to injection wells ( DOE, 2007a). Based on these numbers

it is estimated that the SECARB project would generate 3000 gall ons (11,350 L) of used oil from the dedicated compressor and a further 1.65 million ga llons (6.2 L) of wastew ater could also be generated from dehydration a nd preparation of the CO 2 for transport at its source. These waste streams, however, should not pose substantial wast e management problem as they are not unique to the oil production industry and could be handl ed with wastes created as part of Denbury’s commercial EOR program.

Geochemical tracer techniques would include (1) isotopic profiles of injected CO 2 , (2) introduced noble gases, and (3) introduced perfluorocarbons. N oble gases and perfluorocarbons have no known human or eco-toxicity (DOE, 2007a). Disposal of the associated containers should not pose any substantial risk.

Any waste formation brine resulting from ge ochemical sampling of observation wells as proposed in the EIV (DOE, 2008a) would be transported to a MSOGB-permitted Class II disposal well.

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action

Denbury plans to develop the commercial EOR progr am regardless of the implementation of the SECARB project and only minor re ductions in drilling waste woul d result with No-Action by not drilling the two observation wells. Any drilling wastes created from the drilling of the two deep SECARB project observation well s would not be created under the No-Action alternative.

The additional compressor that would allo w for increased injection volumes of CO 2 , 0.5 million metric tons (0.5 million short tons) associated wi th the SECARB project w ould not be installed. Therefore, no associated used oil, wastewater or other waste products wo uld be generated from its operation.

Under the No-Action scenario no tracers would be injected; and, no waste formation brine from geochemical sampling would be produced.

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts

Potential cumulative impacts related to drilli ng the observation wells include disposal ofU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 87 March 2009

& Environmental Effects produced brines in permitted Class II injecti on wells and the handli ng and management of additional drilling muds. Provi ded all regulatory re quirements are met the cumulative waste impacts, related to the drilling requirements of the SECARB projec t, would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

Potential cumulative impacts related to the wast e products from the compression and injection of

additional CO 2 for the SECARB project relate to th e volumes of lube oil and wastewater generated. Due to the Denbury’s commercial EOR infras tructure and other resources available to handle these waste streams, it is not antici pated that these waste streams would have any

cumulative effects that would exceed the significance threshol d.

There are likely to be negligible cumulative impacts regarding wastes related to sampling and monitoring of the wells due to the small volumes of waste generated.

Overall, the proposed SECARB project would not cau se air, water or soil to be contaminated with hazardous materials (assuming appropriate drilling waste management and compressor waste containment strategies are in place), to a degree that wo uld pose a threat to human or ecological health and safety.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Consultation and Coordination 88 March 2009 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Preparation for Development of this Environmental Assessment

A kick-off meeting was held on May 14, 2008, at the NETL office in Morgantown, West Virginia, with representatives from NETL, the University of Texas, and Mangi Environmental Group, to formally begin the EA process.

Subsequent to that meeting a review was made of available information necessary for the completion of the EA and data gaps were submitted to NETL.

A site visit was made in May 22, 2008 by members of the team charged with the development of

this EA.

5.2 Agency Coordination

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regula tions for implementing NEPA allows federal agencies to invite comment from tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as other federal agencies in the preparation of EAs. The pur pose of this coordinati on is to obtain special expertise with respect to environmental and cultura l issues in order to enhance interdisciplinary capabilities, and otherwise en sure successful, effective cons ultation in decision-making.

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the USFWS is to conserve, protect , and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing be nefit of American people. Anal ysis addressed issues raised by USFWS in the body of the document.

See Appendix B for letters sent to and received from agency.

5.2.2 State Historic Preserv ation Office (SHPO)

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) re quires DOE to consult with the SHPO prior to any construction to ensure that no historical properties woul d be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford th e Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the propose d project. As stated in Section 4.10, DOE reviewed issues with SHPO, and the SHPO had no objections to the project.

See Appendix D for letter sent to and received from the SHPO.

5.2.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. The law en sures the protection of s acred locations, access of

Native Americans to those sacred locations and tr aditional resources that are integral to theU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Consultation and Coordination 89 March 2009 practice of their religions, and establishes re quirements that would apply to Native American sacred locations, traditional resources, or tradi tional religious practices potentially affected by construction and operation of propos ed facilities. Only one Tribe responded (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), and the results of the consultation were no objection.

See Appendix E for letters sent to and received from the Bureau of Indi an Affairs and Tribal

Councils.

5.3 Public Involvement

The public comment period on the Draft EA wa s August 25 to September 25, 2008. An article informing the public of the availability of the Dr aft EA at the Natchez Public Library ran in the

Natchez Democrat on August 24 th and 31 th and September 7 th , 14 th , and 21 st . DOE received no comments from the public (Noceti, 2008c).U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ List of Preparers 90 March 2009 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group

Jim Mangi; Contract Management Randy Williams; Program Manager, SECARB Pr oject Manager, No-Action, Alternatives Dick Wildermann; Alternate Project Manager, Proposed Action, Purpose and Need, Threshold Significance Criteria, Project Location Meghan Morse; Associate Project Manager, Do cument/Administrative Record Management, Human Health and Safety, Cultural Resources; Cause-Effect-Questions Eveline Martin; Wetlands, Wildlife, Terrestrial Plants, Visual Resources Tim Lavallee; Air Quality, Noise Bud Watson; Legal Framework Rick Heffner; Socioeconomics Mark Blevins; Land Use, GIS

6.2 Wiebe Environmental Services

Jason Breakey; Operations/Program Manager Ed Osborne; Project Management, Soils John Railton; Review for Threshold Impact and Public Significance Harald Thimm; Construction, Operation and Decommissioning. Craig Robertson; Hydrology and Geology Kai Nielsen; Waste Management Kate Forbes; Background Res earch and Report Preparation.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 91 March 2009 7.0 REFERENCES

(ANSI, 2003). American National Standards Institute. 2003. A merican National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer present . New York: Acoustical Society of America.

(AERCB, 2008). Alberta Energy Re sources Conservation Board. 2008. The Public Interest: Health Effects of Sour Gas . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gat eway/PTARGS_0_0_315_247_0_43/http%3B/ercbConten t/publishedcontent/publish/ercb_home/public_zone/s our_gas/the_public_inter est/HealthEffects.a

spx

.

(Ariel Corporation, 2008). Ariel Corporation. 2008. KBB & KBV Gas Compressor . Accessed

June 2008 at http://www.arielcorp.com/ar iel_products.aspx?id=49

.

(ATSDR, 2007). Agency for Toxic Subs tances and Disease Registry. 2007. ToxFAQs TM : Automotive Gasoline. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts72.html

.

(Bailey, 1995). Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoreg ions of the United States . Accessed

June 2008 at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris /emrishelp2/bailey_s_ecoregions_map.htm

.

(BEA, 2006). Bureau of Economic Analys is, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2006. Regional

Economic Accounts . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regi onal/bearfacts/action.cfm

.

(Bicker, 1969). Bicker, A.R., Jr. 1969. Geologic Map of Mississippi : Mississippi Office of Geology. Accessed October 2008 at http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Geo logy_GeologicMapofMiss issippi/$File/Surface_ Geology_MS.pdf?OpenElement

.

(Bies, 2003). Bies, David A. 2003. Engineering Noise Control . New York: Spoon Press.

(BLS, 2008). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Information and Analysis . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm#data

.

(BLS, 2007). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Incidence rates of total recordable cases of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by quartile distributi on and employment size, private industry, 2006. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1769.pdf

.

(BLS, 2006). U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat istics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2006 . Accessed June 2008 at http://data.bls.gov/LOCATION_QUOTIEN T/servlet/lqc.ControllerServlet

.

(CARB, 2007a). California Air Resource Board. 2007. Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas Emissions (Draft). Propos ed Subchapter 10, Article 1, Sections 95100 toU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 92 March 2009 95133, Title 17, California Code of Regulations . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact /2007/ghg2007/modifications.pdf

.

(CARB, 2007b). Californi a Air Resource Board. 2007. Air EMission FACtors (EMFAC) Model. Accessed July 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/o nroad/latest_version.htm

.

(Census, 2007). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2007. Table 1, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Mississippi: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-28)

. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.census.gov/popest/count ies/tables/CO-EST2006-01-28.xls

.

(Census, 2000a). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000 . Accessed June 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servle t/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US28&-
_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=ST-2

.

(Census, 2000b). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: Franklin Count y Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) 100-Percent Data . Accessed July 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFact s?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_stree t=&_county=Franklin&_cityTown=Franklin &_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on& pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y

.

(Census, 2000c). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: Adams County Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) 100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFF acts?_event=Search&geo_id=05000US28037&_geoC
ontext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C05000US28037&_s treet=&_county=Adams&_cityTown= Adams&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_ sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV= &pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factshee t_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_S AFF&_ci_nbr=null &qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry =.

(Census, 2000d). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3, DP-3.Profile of Selected Ec onomic Characteristics: 2000 . Accessed October 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/serv let/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&- qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name =DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tree_id=403&- redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_cal ler=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US28001&- geo_id=05000US28037&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

.

(Census, 2000e). U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: Roxie town, Mississippi, Summa ry File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFF acts?_event=Search&geo_id=05000US28037&_geoC
ontext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C05000US28037&_s treet=&_county=Roxie&_cityTown= Roxie&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=& pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet _1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&q r_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry =.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 93 March 2009 (Census, 2000f). U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: Natchez city, Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SA FFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US2864080&_ge

oContext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C16000US2864080 &_street=&_county=NAtchez&_city Town=NAtchez&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_la ng=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_ useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_n br=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry =.

(Census, 2000g). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed

Tables . Accessed July 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGe oSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U& _lang=en&_ts=234886326406

.

(CEQ, 1997). Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act . Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C. December 10, 1997.

(Chacko et al., 1997). Chacko J.J, Jones, B.L., M oncrief J.E., Bourgeois, R. and Harder B.J.

1997. An Unproven Unconventional Seven Billion Ba rrel Oil Resource - the Tuscaloosa Marine

Shale . Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Basin Research Institute, Louisiana State University.

(Cockrell, 2005). Cockrell, A. 2005. Drilling Ahead: The Quest for Oil in the Deep South, 1945- 2005. University Press of Mississippi . Accessed on June 2008 at http://books.google.com/books?id=9bd9n1VvYgwC&pr intsec=frontcover&dq=cockrell+drilling +ahead&sig=ACfU3U09AzSvQTn L5PJPu_Y2anKfDYDcvg#PPP1,M1

.

(Curry, 1934). Curry, W.H., 1934. Fredericksburg- Washita (Edwards-Georgetown) Contact in Edwards Plateau Region of Texas: Geological Notes. AAPG Bulletin

. 18(12): 1698-1705.

(Denbury, No date). Denbury Resources. No date provided . Health and Safety Plan: Cranfield Phase II Monitor Well-Sandia Project No. 956-BEGA . 70 pp.

(DOE, 2008a). U.S. Department of Ener gy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Environmental Information Volume (EIV) fo r the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test . 24 pp.

(DOE, 2008b). U.S. Department of Ener gy National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Environmental Questionnaire (EQ) for th e Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test . 19 pp.

(DOE, 2007a). U.S. Department of Ener gy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Program Environmental Reference Document . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ carbon_seq/refshelf/nepa/index.html

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 94 March 2009 (DOE, 2007b). U.S. Department of Ener gy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. International Energy Outlook 2007 . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/

.

(DOE, 2007c). U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. FutureGen Environmental Impact Statement

. Accessed on June 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologi es/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/

.

(EDR, 2008). Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2008. EDR NEPACheck® for Tate Road & Moss Grove Rd, Roxie, MS 39661. Inquiry Number 2237507.2s. 32 pp.

(FEMA, 1989). Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Adams County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas . Accessed July 2008 at https://msc.fema.gov

.

(FEMA, 1977). Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1977. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Franklin County, Mississippi . Accessed July 2008 at https://msc.fema.gov

.

(Gandl, 1982). Gandl, L.A. 1982. Characterization of Aquifers Desi gnated as Potential Drinking Water Sources in Mississippi (U SGS Open File Report 81-550) . 90 pp.

(Goddard, 2001). Goddard, D.A. 2001. Quick Look Handbook Onshore Louisiana Petroleum Producing Formations . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.enrg.lsu.edu/pttc/ publications/fin alquicklook.PDF

.

(Harris, 1998). Harri s, Cecil M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Meas urement and Noise Control

. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

(Heinrich et al., 2004). Jason J. Heinrich, Howard J. Herzog, and David M. Reiner. 2004. Environmental Assessment of Geologic Storage of CO 2 . Accessed July 2008 at http://sequestration.mit. edu/pdf/LFEE_2003-002_RP.pdf

.

(Hill, 2007). Hill, Gerald R. 2007. Factsheet for Partnership Field Validation Test. Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/p roceedings/07/rcsp/factsheets/3- SECARB_Large%20Scale%20Saline%20Formation%20Demo.pdf

.

(Hovorka et al., 2000). Hovorka, S. D., Romero, M.L., Treviño, R. H., Warne, A.G., Ambrose, W.A., Knox, P.R., and Tremblay, T.A. 2000. Sequestration of Greenhouse Gases in Brine

Formations . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/dispslsaln.htm

.

(International Energy Agency, 2007). International Energy Agency. 2007. Study of Potential Impacts of Leaks from Onshore CO 2 Storage Projects on Terrestrial Ecosystems . Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Technical Study. Report Number: 2007/3.

(IPCC, 2005). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage . Accessed on June 2008 atU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 95 March 2009http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCSfinal/IPCCSpecialReportonCar bondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm

.

(Lavallee, 2006). Lavallee, J. 2006. Native American Consultation Database Search (NACD).

Accessed June 2008 at http://home.nps.gov/nacd/

.

(Mancini and Puckett, 2005). Mancini E.A. and Puckett, T.M. 2005. Jurassic and Cretaceous Transgressive-Regressive (T-R) Cycl es, Northern Gulf of Mexico, USA

. Stratigraphy. 2 (1): 31-

48.

(MARIS, 2008). Mississippi Automated Re source Information Service. 2008. Download Data:

Statewide Themes . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.maris.state.ms.us/HTM/D ownloadData/Statewide-Theme.htm

.

(Mason, 2001). Mason, P.G. 2001. Monitored Salinity and Water Leve ls in the Cockfield Aquifer, Washington County, Mississippi. Hydrologic Investigations Report . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/L&W_Index?OpenDocument

.

(McNulty, 1976). McNulty, C.N. Jr. 1976. Globotruncana fornicata Zone of Upper Austin Group (Cretaceous), Northeast Texas: GEOLOGI C NOTES. AAPG Bulletin. 60(11): 2058-2062.

(MDAH, No date). Mississippi Department of Archives and History. No date provided. Historic

Preservation . Accessed June 2008 at http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/

.

(MDEQ, 2008). Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Total Maximum Daily

Load Section . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/T WB_Total_Maximum_Daily_Load_Section?Open

Document

.

(MDOT, 2006). Mississippi Department of Tran sportation, Office of Intermodal Planning. 2006. Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2006 . Accessed June 2008 at www.gomdot.com/divisions/intermodalplanning/Resources/Maps/TrafficVolumeMaps.aspx

.

(Miller, 2003). Miller, G. Tyler. 2003. Environmental Science

. 9 th edition . Pacific Grove,

California: Brooks/Col e-Thomson Learning.

(MSNHP, 2008). Mississippi Na tural Heritage Program. 2008. MMNS: Science: Natural Heritage Program: Search Online Data-NHP Online Data . Accessed October 2008 at http://museum.mdwfp.com/science/nhp_online_data.html

.

(MSOGB, 2007). Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board. 2007. Rule Book . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.ogb.state.ms.us/docs/RuleBook06-2007.pdf

.

(National Atlas, 2008). National Atlas. 2008. Map Layers . Accessed June 2008 at http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbio#chpbio

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 96 March 2009 (NETL, 2008a). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Program Facts: Carbon Sequestration: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership—Deployment Phase

. Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/p ublications/factsheets /project/Proj493.pdf

.

(NETL, 2008b). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain: What Do They Tell Us about the Security of Engineered Storage of CO 2 Underground? Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publicatio ns/factsheets/program/Prog064.pdf

.

(NIOSH, No date). National Inst itute for Occupational Safety a nd Health (NIOSH). No date provided. NIOSH Topic: Construction Safety. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/t opics/constructionsafety/

.

(Noceti, 2008a). Noceti, P. NEPA Docume nt Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. Consistency between the EAs and some outstanding issues. July 25, 2008.

(Noceti, 2008b). Noceti, P. NEPA Document Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. Fwd: Non-issue- Burial sites near Propos ed Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III Early Test . August 4, 2008.

(Noceti, 2008c). Noceti, P. NEPA Docume nt Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. Public Comments to Public Draft EA . September 26, 2008.

(NRCS, 2008a). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions . Accessed June 2008 at http://soils.usda .gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html

.

(NRCS, 2008b). Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Digital Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database fo r Adams and Franklin Counties, Mississippi . Accessed June 2008 at http://soildatamart.nrcs.u sda.gov/County.aspx?State=MS

.

(SECARB, 2008). Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. 2008. Phase III Early and Anthropogenic CO 2 Injection Field Tests . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.secarbon.org/nonpublic /secarbfactsheetssebIII.pdf

.

(Thompson, 1988). Thompson, D.E., 1988. Structural Features of Mississippi . Accessed June

2008 at http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/Geolog y_StructuralFeaturesMapof Mississippi/$File/St ruc_Feat_MS.pdf?OpenElement

.

(Thompson, 1969). Thompson, D.E. 1969. Geological Age Map of Mississippi . Accessed June

2008 at http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/Geolo gy_GeologicalAgeMapofMississippi/$File/Geol ogic_Age_MS.pdf?OpenElement

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 97 March 2009 (UNFCCC, 2007). United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change. 2007. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accoun ting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts . Accessed June

2008 at http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/accounting_reporting_and_review_under_the_kyoto_prot ocol/application/pdf/rm_final.pdf

.

(USEPA, 2008). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2008. USEPA AirDATA Website

. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/

.

(USEPA, 2007a). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of US Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005 . EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15, 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

(USEPA, 2007b). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2007 . Climate Change . Accessed June

2008 at www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions

.

(USEPA, 2007c). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. 2007. Basic Information: Air and

Radiation . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html

.

(USEPA, 1974). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Pub lic Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Accessed October 2008 at http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels 74/levels74.htm#table%20of%20contents

.

(USFWS, 2008). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2008. Wetlands Geodatabase

. Accessed June 2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er .usgs.gov/NWI/codes.html

.

(USFWS, 2005). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2005. Mississippi List of Threatened and Endangered Species by County . Accessed June, 2008 at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/j ackson/MSspecieslist10-05.pdf

.

(USFWS, 1982). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 1982. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Cont erminous United States - Mississippi. Accessed

June 2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er.us gs.gov/NWI/download.html

.

(USGS, 2008a). United Stat es Geological Survey. 2008. Water Quality Samples for the Nation, USGS 07290860 South Fork Coles Creek NR Church Hill, MS. Accessed June 2008 at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qwd ata?site_no=07290860&agency_cd=USGS&begin_date =&end_date=&TZoutput=0&format=html_table&qw _attributes=0&invent ory_output=retrieval &rdb_inventory_output=value&qw_sample_wide=wide&rdb_qw_attributes=0&date_format=Y YYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=brief_list

.

(USGS, 2008b). United States Geological Survey. 2008. USGS Surface-Water Data for the

Nation. Accessed July 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw

.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 98 March 2009 (USGS, 2005). United States Geological Survey. 2005. Water Resources Data Mississippi Water Year 2004: Water-Data Report MS-04-01 . Accessed June 2008 at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wdr/wdrMS041

.

(USGS, 2001). U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2001)

. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_multizone_map.php

.

(Walden, 2008). Walden, S. Consultant. 2008. Personal Communication. DOE SECARB EA Questions . July 28, 2008.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 99 March 2009 8.0 GLOSSARY

Ambient – The natural surroundings of a location.

Anthropogenic – Man-made.

Asphyxiation – A condition of severely deficient supply of oxygen to the body that arises from being unable to breathe normally.

Attainment areas – A zone within which the leve l of a pollutant is considered to meet United States National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

A-weighted decibels – An expression of the rela tive loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the

human ear.

Best management practices – Innovative, dyna mic, and improved environmental protection practices applied to oil and na tural gas drilling and production to help ensure that energy development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Brine – Water saturated or nearly saturated with salt.

Capillary forces – Capillary motion, or wicking is the ability of a substance to draw another

substance into it.

Carbon Sequestration – The capture and storage of carbon long-term in an effort to avoid release

of that carbon as carbon di oxide in the atmosphere.

CO 2 flood – If a well has been produced before and has been designated suitable for CO 2 flooding, the first thing to do is to restore the pressure within th e reservoir to one suitable for production. This is done by injecting water (with the production well shut off) which will restore pressure within the reservoir to a suitable pressure for CO 2 flooding. Once the reservoir is at this pressure, the next step is to inject the CO 2 into the same injection wells used to restore pressure.

The CO 2 gas is forced into the reserv oir and is required to come into contact with the oil. This easier movement of oil to the production well. Normally the CO 2 injection is alternated with more water injection and the water acts to sweep the oil towards the production zone.

Criteria pollutants – The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set standards for six common air pollutants. These commonly foun d air pollutants (also known as "criteria pollutants") are found all over the United States. They are particle pollution (often re ferred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead.

Cumulative effects – Those effects on the environm ent that result from the incremental effect of the action when added to past, present and reason ably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 100 March 2009 Day-night Sound Level – The A-weighted equivale nt sound level for a 24 hour period with an additional 10 dB imposed on the equivalent sound levels for night time hours of 10 p.m. to 7 am.

Decibel – A unit of measurement that expresses the magnitude of a physical quantity (usually intensity) relative to a specified or implied reference level . The decibel is useful for a wide variety of measurements in science (for this application, it is sound).

Directionally drilled – Wells that are drilled inten tionally to a location othe r than directly beneath

the wellhead location.

Downdip – Located down the slope of a dipping pl ane or surface. In a dipping (not flat-lying) oil and gas reservoir that contains gas, oil and water, the gas is updip (above) the gas-oil contact location. This oil-gas contact location is downdip (bel ow) the gas, and th e oil-water contact location is still farther downdip.

Downhole – A location in the geologic strata that is lower/below a designated location.

EA – (Environmental Assessment), A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and anal ysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact st atement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

EIS – (Environmental Impact Statement), A deta iled written statement required by Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Ac t, analyzing the environmental impacts of a Proposed Action, adverse effects of the project th at cannot be avoided, a lternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment ve rsus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and i rretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Environmental Justice – The confluence of soci al and environmental movements, which deals with the inequitable environmental burden born by groups such as racial minorities, women, or residents of developing nations.

Equivalent Sound Level – The leve l of a steady-state noise without impulses or tone components which is equivalent to the actual noise emitted over a period of time.

Erodible – The erodibility of soils can be described as their sensit ivity to the effects of wind and water on the soil structure. This property is e xpressed as an erodibility index, where low values indicate high susceptibility to erosion, and high values corres pondingly indicate a low susceptibility to erosion. The erodibility index is determined by combining the effects of slope and soil type, rainfall intensity and land use. These aspects are represented by terrain morphology (soil and slope), mean annual rainfall, and broad land use patterns.

FONSI – (Finding of No Significant Impact), A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an Environmental Assessment, that brieflyU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 101 March 2009 presents why a Federal action will have no signif icant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, ther efore, will not be pr epared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Greenhouse gas – Greenhouse gases are the gases present in the earth 's atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat into space and theref ore contribute to global temperatures.

Hazardous Waste/Materials – Waste substances which can pose a s ubstantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.

Hertz – The frequency of sound waves.

Kilowatt – A measurement of electric power.

Leachate – The liquid that drains from an area.

Median Household Income – The median househol d income is commonly used to provide data about geographic areas and divide s households into two equal segments with the first half of households earning less than the average househol d income and the othe r half earning more.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Stan dards established by the EPA that apply for outdoor air throughout the country. Primary standards are designe d to protect human health, with an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease.

NEPA – (National Environmental Policy Act), Re quires all agencies, including Department of Energy, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public part icipation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate be tter environmental deci sion making (40 CFR 1500).

New Source Performance Standards – Are pollution control standards issued by the EPA. The

term is used in the Clean Air Act Extension of 1070 to refer to air polluti on emission standards, and in the Clean Water Act referring to standard s for discharges of industrial wastewater to

surface waters.

Nonattainment Areas – The Clean Air Act and Amendments of 1990 define a "nonattainment area" as a locality where air pollution levels pe rsistently exceed national standards or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that fails to meet standards. Designating an area as nonattainment is a formal rulemaking pr ocess, and EPA normally takes this action only after air quality standards have been ex ceeded for several consecutive years.

Nonpoint Source Pollution – Water pollution affec ting a water body from diffu se sources, rather than a point source which discharges to a water body at a single location.

Palustrine – Non-tidal wetlands.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 102 March 2009 Particular Matter – Small solid partic les and liquid droplets in the sir.

Perfluorocarbons – (PFCs), Compounds derive d from hydrocarbons by replacement of hydrogen atoms by fluorine atoms. PFCs are ma de up of carbon and fluorine atoms only.

Permeability – Formations that transmit fluids readily, such as sandstones, are described as permeable and tend to have many large, well-connected pores.

Petroliferous – Containing petroleum.

pH – The measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

Phreatic – The term is used in geology to refer to matters relating to groun dwater below the static

water table.

Point Source Pollution – single identifiable localized source of air, water, thermal, noise, or light pollution.

Porosity – a measure of the void spaces in a material.

Potentiometric – A potentiometric sensor is a ty pe of chemical sensor based on the measurement of a potential under no current flow. The measured potential may then be used to determine the analytical concentration of some components of th e analyte gas or solution.

Quaternary Surficial – Pertaining to or occurring on or near the earth's surface and related to a specific geologic period in time.

Riparian – The interface between la nd and a flowing surface water body.

Stakeholders – A person, company, group of peopl e, etc., that have a concern and financial

interest in an issue.

Standard Industry Practices – Activ ities in an industry that are considered a usual practice.

Stratigraphic – A branch of geology, studies rock layers, and layering.

Supercritical CO 2 – Carbon dioxide that is in a fluid state while also being at or above both its critical temperature and pressure.

Tomography – Imaging by sections.

Unitize – To separate, classify, or package in discrete units.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A 103 March 2009 APPENDICES

Appendix A Air Emissi on Calculations

Table A-1. Drilling Emissions

H

eavy Equipment Use

Equipment Type Number o f

Units Days on

Site Hours Per Day Operating

Hours Bore/Drill Rigs 2 60 24 2880

Generator Sets 4 60 24 5760 Other Construction Equipment 3 60 24 4320

D rillin g Equipment Emission Factors (lbs/hour)
Equipment CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2. 5 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.5281 1.3416 0.1295 0.0017 0.0591 0.0591

Generator Sets 0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430 Other Construction Equipment 0.4504 1.1575 0.1215 0.0013 0.0503 0.0503 Source: (CARB, 2007b)

D rilling Equipment Emissions (tons)
Equipment CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2. 5 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.7605 1.9319 0.1865 0.0025 0.0851 0.0851

Generator Sets 0.9968 2.0103 0.3095 0.0020 0.1238 0.1238 Other Construction Equipment 0.9728 2.5002 0.2624 0.0027 0.1087 0.1087 Total Equipment Emissions 2.7300 6.4424 0.7585 0.0073 0.3176 0.3176

D rilling Worker Commutes

Number of Workers 30 Number of Trips 2 Miles Per Trip 30 Days of Drilling 90

Total Miles 162000

Pollutant CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2. 5 Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 Total Emissions (lbs) 1708.85 178.67 174.83 1.74 13.78 8.57 Total Emissions (tons) 0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043 Source: (CARB, 2007b)

Total Drilling Emissions (tons)
Activity/Source CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2. 5 Heavy Equipment 2.7300 6.4424 0.7585 0.0073 0.3176 0.3176

Worker Commutes 0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043 Total Drilling Emissions 3.5845 6.5318 0.8459 0.0081 0.3245 0.3219U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A 104 March 2009 Table A-2. Construction Emissions
Construction Equipment Use

Equipment Type Number

of Units Days

on Site Hours

Per Day Operating Hours Graders Composite 1 90 7 630 Excavators Composite 1 90 7 630 Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1 90 7 630 Off-Highway Trucks Composite 1 90 7 630 Air Compressors 1 60 4 240

Cement & Mortar Mixers 1 60 7 420

Cranes 1 60 7 420

Generator Sets 1 60 7 420

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 60 7 420

Construction Equipment Emission Factors (lbs/hour) Equipment CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Graders Composite 0.6561 1.6191 0.1936 0.0015 0.0840 0.0840 Excavators Composite 0.5828 1.3249 0.1695 0.0013 0.0727 0.0727 Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1.5961 3.2672 0.3644 0.0025 0.1409 0.1409 Off-Highway Trucks Composite 0.8499 2.7256 0.2730 0.0027 0.0989 0.0989 Air Compressors 0.3782 0.7980 0.1232 0.0007 0.0563 0.0563

Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.0447 0.0658 0.0113 0.0001 0.0044 0.0044

Cranes 0.6011 1.6100 0.1778 0.0014 0.0715 0.0715

Generator Sets 0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.4063 0.7746 0.1204 0.0008 0.0599 0.0599
Source: (CARB, 2007b)

Construction Equipment Emissions (tons) Equipment CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Graders Composite 0.2067 0.5100 0.0610 0.0005 0.0265 0.0265 Excavators Composite 0.1836 0.4173 0.0534 0.0004 0.0229 0.0229 Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 0.5028 1.0292 0.1148 0.0008 0.0444 0.0444 Off-Highway Trucks Composite 0.2677 0.8586 0.0860 0.0008 0.0312 0.0312 Air Compressors 0.0454 0.0958 0.0148 0.0001 0.0068 0.0068

Cranes 0.1262 0.3381 0.0373 0.0003 0.0150 0.0150

Generator Sets 0.0727 0.1466 0.0226 0.0001 0.0090 0.0090

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.0853 0.1627 0.0253 0.0002 0.0126 0.0126 Total Equipment Emissions 1.4904 3.5582 0.4151 0.0032 0.1683 0.1683

Delivery of Equipment and Supplies

Number of Deliveries 2 Number of Trips 2 Miles Per Trip 60 Days of Construction 90

Total Miles 21600

Pollutant (pounds/mile) CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A 105 March 2009

Total Emissions (lbs) 474.10 512.19 64.64 0.55 18.49 15.97 Total Emissions (tons) 0.2371 0.2561 0.0323 0.0003 0.0092 0.0080
Source: (CARB, 2007b)

Worker Commutes

Number of Workers 20 Number of Trips 2 Miles Per Trip 40 Days of Construction 90

Total Miles 144000

Pollutant (pounds/mile) CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 Total Emissions (lbs) 1518.97 158.82 155.40 1.55 12.25 7.62 Total Emissions (tons) 0.7595 0.0794 0.0777 0.0008 0.0061 0.0038
Source: (CARB, 2007b) Total Construction Emissions (tons) Activity/Source CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Construction Equipment 1.4904 3.5582 0.4151 0.0032 0.1683 0.1683 Delivery of Equipment and Supplies 0.2371 0.2561 0.0323 0.0003 0.0092 0.0080

Worker Commutes 0.7595 0.0794 0.0777 0.0008 0.0061 0.0038

Total Construction Emissions 2.4869 3.8937 0.5251 0.0042 0.1837 0.1801U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A 106 March 2009 Table A-3. CO 2 Emission Calculations Drilling and Construction

Total Fuel 14000 Gallons

Total Fuel 52995.6 Liters

Emission Factor 2.6304 kg CO 2 per liter

Total Emissions 139399.6 kg

Total Emissions 154 Tons

Electricity Usage Electricity Usage (Compressor) 7462 kW

Hours 13140 Hours

Power 98050680 kWh

Emission Factor 0.6510 kg CO 2 /kWh

Total Emissions 63830993 kg

Total Emissions 70342 Tons

Worker Commutes

Number of Workers 20 Workers Number of Trips 2 Trips Miles Per Trip 30 Miles Days of Operation 549 Days

Total Miles 658800 Miles

Emission Factor 1.1 lbs/mile

Total Emissions 724371.8 lbs Total Emissions (tons) 362.2 tons Source: (CARB, 2007b)

Total CO 2 Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Activity/Source Drilling and Construction 154 Electricity Usage 70342

Worker Commutes 362 Sequestration (1653450)

Total Emissions (1582592)

Note: kWh is kilowatt hour.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 107 March 2009 Appendix B Fish and Wildli fe Service ConsultationsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 108 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 109 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 110 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 111 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 112 March 2009 Figure 1 SECARB Phase III Study AreaU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 113 March 2009 Figure 2 SECARB Phase III Topographic MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 114 March 2009 Figure 3 SECARB Phase III Aerial MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 115 March 2009 Description of the Proposed Action

S OUTHEAST R EGIONAL C ARBON S EQUESTRATION P ARTNERSHIP (SECARB) P HASE III E ARLY
T EST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, thro ugh a cooperative agreement with the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of supercritical CO 2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources International Company (Denbury). The CO 2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation on the flank of the structure, down-dip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin.

Activities will take place in a rural area in sout hwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from ju st under 280 feet above sea level near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Cr eek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a co mmercial CO 2 flood of this field, which is in a large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal.

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes

of CO 2 . This project will be closely m onitored to document that the CO 2 remains within the injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 1) The first stage is the drilling and character ization stage when injection wells, deep observation wells, and shallow groundwater wells will be drilled; a compressor will be installed; and various te sts will be conducted to veri fy and refine information regarding the subsurface structure of the st udy area. The injection well drilling, site preparation, infrastructure construction, wast ewater disposal, and other activities will be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental protection. 2) The second stage is the injection and mon itoring stage when increased volumes of

CO 2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by Denbury for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected into selected deep (completed greater than 10,000 ft below su rface) wells by Denbury at the Cranfield Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will conduct rigorous monitoring of the deep injection, groundwater quality, and soil-gas conditions to assess and document the results of the study.

The injection of CO 2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The dri lling, site preparation, and infrastructure construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations a nd acceptable industry practices fo r environmental protection. TheU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 116 March 2009 vast majority of the project’s tasks and s ubsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO 2 injection wells into the brine water leg downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO 2 injector wells injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfiel d Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve the target CO 2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric t ons per year required for the study. The wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation.

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO 2 flood. Surface-monitoring activities planned incl ude soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater geochemical measur ement, experimental EM and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and trace r injections. Two shallow wate r wells drilled to 200 feet are proposed to evaluate the performan ce of surface-monitoring strategies.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 117 March 2009U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 118 March 2009Appendix C Noise CalculationsTable C-1. Drilling NoiseFeet MetersNSA 14400 1341Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBDrill Rig (@25 Feet)93 97 94 91 92 91 88 81 76Power Level (PWL)121 125 123 120 121 120 116 109 105Transmission Loss (TL)Enclosure (1/2" wood)0.5 -5.5 -11.5 -17.5 -23.5 -29.5 -35.6 -41.6 -47.6PWL with enclosure122 23 17 11 5 -1 -7 -13 -19Mud Handling (Shakerand Pump) (@25 Feet)89 90 88 81 79 78 75 74 68PWL118 119 117 110 108 107 104 103 97Generators (Light Plant)325 435.5CF5 9 3 7 15 19 25 35 43Exhaust NoiseLw 145.1 140.1 136.1 142.1 138.1 130.1 126.1 120.1 110.1 102.1 134MufflerCorrection 25 25 29 29 27 25 24 23 23PWL 115.1 111.1 113.1 109.1 103.1 101.1 96.1 87.1 79.1 107CF4 11 13 13 12 9 8 9 17Inlet NoiseLw 107.6 PWL 103.6 96.6 94.6 94.6 95.6 98.6 99.6 98.6 90.6 105CF22 14 7 7 8 6 7 13 20Casing NoiseLw 118.1PWL96 104 111 111 110 112 111 105 98 117Excavator (@25 Feet)84 85 81 81 81 78 73PWL29 113 114 110 110 110 107 102 29Total Sound Intensity2.4907 1.0575 1.0167 0.3944 0.2741 0.3185 0.2104 0.0725 0.0122Total PWL124120120116114115113109101128Hemispherical Spreading-76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 -1 -4 -7 -12 -31 -56Flat Sound Level47 44 43 38 34 32 25 1 -32Octave Band AWeighted Correction-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1U.S. Department of EnergySECARB Phase III Early TestNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 119 March 2009A-Weighted Sound Level8 18 27 29 31 32 26 2 -3337Ldn withoutBarrier43Notes:Calculations based on available data fromtypical equipment set-ups, actual equipment would vary dependenton results of geotechnical evaluation andsite specific design.Calculations do not account for effectof topographic features, reflection, and natural barriersNote: Lw is sound power level, CF is centerfrequency, and Ldn isequivalent day nightlevel.Table C-2. Compressor NoiseFeetMetersCritical DistanceCalculation1200 366Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBReciprocating Compressor10000.0CF11 15 10 11 13 10 5 8 15Lw 128.7PWL118 114 119 118 116 119 124 121 114 128Total Sound Intensity0.5923 0.2358 0.7457 0.5923 0.3737 0.7457 2.3581 1.1819 0.2358Total PWL118114119118116119124121114128Hemispherical Spreading-65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -8 -15Octave Band A-WeightedCorrection-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level(without barrier)14 23 37 43 47 52 56 48 3258Ldn 65U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 120 March 2009 Appendix D SHPO ConsultationU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 121 March 2009 Figure 1 SECARB Phase III Study AreaU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 122 March 2009 Figure 2 SECARB Phase III Topographic MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 123 March 2009 Figure 3 SECARB Phase III Aerial MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 124 March 2009 Description of the Proposed Action

S OUTHEAST R EGIONAL C ARBON S EQUESTRATION P ARTNERSHIP (SECARB) P HASE III E ARLY
T EST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, thro ugh a cooperative agreement with the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of supercritical CO 2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources International Company (Denbury). The CO 2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation on the flank of the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin.

Activities will take place in a rural area in sout hwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from ju st under 280 feet above sea level near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Cr eek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a co mmercial CO 2 flood of this field, which is in a large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal.

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes

of CO 2 . This project will be closely m onitored to document that the CO 2 remains within the injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 1) The first stage is the drilling and char acterization stage wh en injection wells, deep observation wells, and shallow gr oundwater wells will be drilled; a compressor will be installed; and various tests will be conducted to verify and refine information regarding the subsurface structure of the study area. The injection well drilling, site preparation, infrastructure construction, wastewater disposal, and other activities will be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable i ndustry practices for environmental protection. 2) The second stage is the injection an d monitoring stage when increased

volumes of CO 2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by Denbury for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected into selected deep (completed greate r than 10,000 ft below surface) wells by Denbury at the Cranfield Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will conduct rigorous monitoring of the d eep injection, groundwater quality, and soil-gas conditions to assess and document the results of the study.

The injection of CO 2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The dri lling, site preparation, and infrastructure construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicableU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 125 March 2009 federal and state regulations a nd acceptable industry practices fo r environmental protection. The vast majority of the project’s tasks and s ubsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO 2 injection wells into the brine water leg downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO 2 injector wells injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfiel d Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve the target CO 2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric t ons per year required for the study. The wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation.

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO 2 flood. Surface-monitoring activities planned incl ude soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater geochemical measur ement, experimental EM and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and trace r injections. Two shallow wate r wells drilled to 200 feet are proposed to evaluate the performan ce of surface-monitoring strategies.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 126 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 127 March 2009 Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal CouncilsU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 128 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 129 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 130 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 131 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 132 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 133 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 134 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 135 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 136 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 137 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 138 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 139 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 140 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 141 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 142 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 143 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 144 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 145 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 146 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 147 March 2009 Figure 1 SECARB Phase III Study AreaU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 148 March 2009 Figure 2 SECARB Phase III Topographic MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 149 March 2009 Figure 3 SECARB Phase III Aerial MapU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 150 March 2009 Description of the Proposed Action

S OUTHEAST R EGIONAL C ARBON S EQUESTRATION P ARTNERSHIP (SECARB) P HASE III E ARLY
T EST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, thro ugh a cooperative agreement with the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of supercritical CO 2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources International Company (Denbury). The CO 2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation on the flank of the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin.

Activities will take place in a rural area in sout hwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from ju st under 280 feet above sea level near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Cr eek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a co mmercial CO 2 flood of this field, which is in a large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal.

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes

of CO 2 . This project will be closely m onitored to document that the CO 2 remains within the injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 1) The first stage is the drilling and char acterization stage wh en injection wells, deep observation wells, and shallow gr oundwater wells will be drilled; a compressor will be installed; and various tests will be conducted to verify and refine information regarding the subsurface structure of the study area. The injection well drilling, site preparation, infrastructure construction, wastewater disposal, and other activities will be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable i ndustry practices for environmental protection. 2) The second stage is the injection an d monitoring stage when increased

volumes of CO 2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by Denbury for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected into selected deep (completed greater than 10,000 ft below surface) wells by Denbury at the Cranfield Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will conduct rigorous monitoring of the d eep injection, groundwater quality, and soil-gas conditions to assess and document the results of the study.

The injection of CO 2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The dri lling, site preparation, and infrastructure construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicableU.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 151 March 2009 federal and state regulations a nd acceptable industry practices fo r environmental protection. The vast majority of the project’s tasks and s ubsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO 2 injection wells into the brine water leg downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO 2 injector wells injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfiel d Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve the target CO 2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric t ons per year required for the study. The wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation.

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO 2 flood. Surface-monitoring activities planned incl ude soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater geochemical measur ement, experimental EM and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and trace r injections. Two shallow wate r wells drilled to 200 feet are proposed to evaluate the performan ce of surface-monitoring strategies.U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 152 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 153 March 2009U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 154 March 2009