STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE PLAN

EXPANSION TO ONE BILLION BARRELS

SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS PURSUANT TO THE ENERGY POLICY AND 

CONSERVATION ACT, AS AMENDED

June 2007 

Office of Petroleum Reserves 

U. S. Department of Energy 

Washington, D.C. 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. PURPOSE................................................................................................................1 

II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................1 

III. EXPANSION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES.........................................................1 

 Expansion Objectives..............................................................................................2 

 Distribution Objectives............................................................................................2 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND SITE SELECTION....................................3 

 Alternatives Considered..........................................................................................3 

 Environmental Review Process...............................................................................3 

 Site Selection Criteria.............................................................................................4 

 Site Selection Decision...........................................................................................4 

V. STORAGE FACILITIES.......................................................................................4 

 Richton, MS...........................................................................................................4 

 Big Hill, TX...........................................................................................................5 

 Bayou Choctaw, LA..............................................................................................5 

VI. DISTRIBUTION PLAN........................................................................................6 

VII. OIL FILL PLAN....................................................................................................7 

VIII. SPR EXPANSION COST.....................................................................................7 

IX. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY......................................................................8 

 Project Management..............................................................................................8 

 Proposed Development Schedule..........................................................................8 

APPENDIX A. RECORD OF DECISION........................................................................9 

APPENDIX B. SPR SITES AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM......................................21 

APPENDIX C. PROJECTED EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT 

 SCHEDULE..........................................................................................25 
 1

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE PLAN 

EXPANSION TO 1 BILLION BARRELS 

I. PURPOSE 

This document sets forth the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) plan for expansion of the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) from 700 million barrels to 1 billion barrels of crude 

oil, including expansion of SPR storage facilities beyond the current capacity of 

approximately 727 million barrels to 1 billion barrels. This plan is submitted pursuant to 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (Public Law 94-163) (EPCA). 

Section 159(j) of EPCA states: “If the Secretary determines expansion beyond 

700,000,000 barrels of petroleum product inventory is appropriate, the Secretary shall 

submit a plan for expansion to the Congress.” 

II. BACKGROUND 

EPCA authorized the establishment of the SPR to reduce the impact of a severe energy 

supply interruption, and to carry out the obligations of the United States under the 

International Energy Program. EPCA stated that the policy of the United States is to 

provide for the development of a SPR of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum products. 

The SPR currently is comprised of four storage sites along the Gulf Coast: Bryan Mound 

and Big Hill in Texas; and West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw in Louisiana. Three of 

the sites, Bryan Mound, West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, were acquired in the 

1970’s and developed to meet the initial storage goals set forth in the EPCA. The Big Hill 

site was developed in the 1980s to expand the SPR to a capacity of 750 million barrels. 

Two other sites also created in the 1970’s were subsequently decommissioned in the 

1990’s. Currently, the SPR storage sites have a combined storage capacity of 727 million 

barrels, and a drawdown capability of 4.4 million barrels per day. 

On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) 

(Public Law 109-58). Sections 301 and 303 of EPAct require acquisition of petroleum to 

fill the SPR to its authorized one billion barrel capacity “as expeditiously as practical 

without incurring excessive costs or appreciably affecting the price of petroleum products 

to consumers”; promulgation of procedures for the acquisition of petroleum for the SPR, 

to include procedures and criteria for the review of requests for the deferrals of scheduled 

deliveries; and selection of sites necessary to expand the storage capacity of the SPR to 

one billion barrels. 

III. EXPANSION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 

The SPR Expansion Plan is based on the continuation of the same major policies utilized 

in the implementation of the current Reserve: 

• U.S. Government Ownership (storage facilities and petroleum) 
 2

• Centralized U.S. Gulf Coast Reserve 

• Underground Salt Dome Storage Technology 

• Crude Oil Storage only 

The SPR will continue to develop and store petroleum in underground caverns in salt 

dome formations along the Gulf Coast. These facilities provide the highest security and 

safety, lowest environmental risks, and lowest development and operational costs for 

large petroleum stockpiles. 

Expansion Objectives 

The SPR currently has four storage sites with a combined capacity of 727 million barrels. 

The SPR expansion project will increase: 

• SPR storage capacity from 727 million barrels to 1 billion barrels; and 

• The maximum SPR drawdown rate from 4.4 million barrels per day to 

approximately 5.9 million barrels per day. 

The SPR gives first consideration to expansion of existing sites which capitalize on 

existing site infrastructure and operations, and thereby minimize development time and 

construction and operations costs. However, the amount of new capacity that is 

reasonable to develop at an existing site is limited by the physical size of the salt dome, 

the site’s infrastructure for cavern development, and the availability of the commercial 

petroleum distribution infrastructure to support the increased rate of oil withdrawal from 

the site. As a maximum, the total storage capacity of any existing or new sites will be 

limited to approximately 250 million barrels due to security issues and limitations on the 

commercial distribution network. 

Distribution Objectives 

A major consideration in the selection of a new storage site is SPR distribution 

capabilities. The Capline (lower Mississippi River) region has become a highly critical 

area for crude oil importation and distribution with the growth in its regional refining 

industry, oil production from the Gulf of Mexico, and the importation operations of the 

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). The SPR’s oil storage and drawdown capabilities 

in the Capline region will be enhanced by expansion. 

The Capline region is one of the largest crude importing regions within the Gulf Coast. It 

serves a total of 27 refineries, 12 located on the lower Mississippi River and 15 located in 

the Midwest, which import more than 1.5 million barrels per day. The SPR currently has 

one storage site in the Capline region with only 76 million barrels, approximately 10 

percent of the SPR’s total inventory, and a maximum drawdown rate of 515,000 barrels 

per day, which is approximately one-third of the region’s refinery crude importation rate. 

Additional SPR stocks are needed to address this region’s refinery demands in the event 

of a petroleum supply disruption. 
 3

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND SITE SELECTION 

 EPAct required the Secretary of Energy to complete an environmental review and site 

selection process for the expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. Section 303 of EPAct 

states: 

Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall complete a 

proceeding to select, from sites that the Secretary has previously studied, sites 

necessary to enable acquisition by the Secretary of the full authorized volume of the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In such proceeding, the Secretary of Energy shall first 

consider and give preference to the five (5) sites assessed in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0165-D). However, the Secretary, in his discretion, may 

select other sites as proposed by a State where a site has been previously studied by 

the Secretary to meet the full authorized volume of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Alternatives Considered 

In developing the range of reasonable alternatives, DOE first considered expansions to its 

existing storage sites, which would capitalize on existing site infrastructure and 

operations. Three of the SPR’s four sites were identified as having the potential for 

expansion; these sites were West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw in Louisiana, and Big 

Hill in Texas. However, the expansion capability of the three existing sites is insufficient 

to achieve the required 1 billion barrels of capacity, and a new site of approximately 160 

million barrels is required. 

As required by EPAct, Section 303, DOE limited its review of potential new sites for 

expansion of the SPR to: (1) sites that DOE addressed in the 1992 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS); and (2) sites proposed by a state in which DOE has previously 

studied a site. The following five sites met those conditions and were considered in the 

draft EIS: 

• Richton, MS, and Stratton Ridge, TX, which were addressed in the 1992 draft 

EIS; 

• Chacahoula and Clovelly, LA, which the Governor of Louisiana requested that 

the Secretary of Energy consider; and 

• Bruinsburg, MS, which the Governor of Mississippi requested that the Secretary 

of Energy consider. 

Environmental Review Process 

On September 1, 2005, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. In the Notice of 

Intent, DOE proposed to expand storage capacity at three of the four existing SPR storage 

sites and develop one new storage site in the Gulf Coast region. DOE completed its 

Public Scoping process on December 19, 2005. 

On May 19, 2006, DOE completed and issued a Draft EIS addressing potential 

expansions of three existing SPR sites and five new site candidates. The main 
 4

environmental risks to the project are related to facility development in wetland areas, 

brine disposal from solution mining operations, air quality impacts, and potential oil 

spills. 

On December 7, 2006, DOE completed and issued a Final EIS identifying the expansion 

of three existing SPR sites, Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry, and the 

development of the Richton site as its “Preferred Alternative.” 

Site Selection Criteria 

In the evaluation and selection of sites for expansion, DOE used four primary criteria: 

• SPR Distribution Capabilities; 

• Project Technical Risks – geotechnical, construction, and hurricane; 

• Environmental Impacts; and 

• Projected Life Cycle costs 

In addition, DOE decision-making took into consideration the potential operational 

impacts associated with existing commercial operations. 

Site Selection Decision 

On February 14, 2007, the Secretary of Energy signed a Record of Decision, selecting 

sites for the expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. The sites selected were Richton, 

MS for a new 160 million barrel storage facility, Big Hill, TX for an expansion of 80 

million barrels and Bayou Choctaw, LA for an expansion of 33 million barrels. The 

Richton site was selected based on its salt dome which is large and undeveloped, its 

enhanced distribution capabilities, its inland location which reduces potential hurricane 

impacts, and its minimal impacts to wetland environments. The Record of Decision is 

provided in Appendix A. 

V. STORAGE FACILITIES 

Under the SPR Expansion Plan, the SPR’s storage capacity will be increased from 727 

million barrels to 1 billion barrels, an increase of 273 million barrels. In accordance with 

the Record of Decision, the SPR will develop a new 160 million barrel storage site at 

Richton, Mississippi and expand two of the SPR’s existing sites, Big Hill in Texas and 

Bayou Choctaw in Louisiana, by 80 million barrels and 33 million barrels respectively. 

Richton, MS 

The Richton salt dome is located in Perry County, MS, 18 miles east of Hattiesburg, MS 

and 3 miles northwest of Richton, MS. The SPR will require approximately 235 acres of 

the undeveloped salt dome to construct a new storage site consisting of 16 10-millionbarrel solution-mined caverns (160 million barrels). The site will also require the 

construction of several pipelines: a 10-mile water pipeline to the Leaf River, a 108-mile 

brine disposal pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico, a 118-mile crude oil pipeline to the Capline 

Pipeline System at Liberty, MS, and an 88-mile crude oil pipeline to refining and marine 
 5

facilities in Pascagoula, MS. The site will have a drawdown rate of 1 million barrels per 

day. 

Big Hill, TX

The Big Hill site is the newest SPR site and was developed during the 1980s to a storage 

capacity of 170 million barrels. The site has excellent expansion capabilities with 

undeveloped salt dome property to the north. The SPR will acquire approximately 133 

acres of salt dome property and expand the site’s capacity to 250 million barrels through 

the development of 8 new 10-million-barrel caverns (80 million barrels). The SPR will 

also increase the site’s drawdown rate from 1.1 to 1.5 million barrels per day, and 

construct a new 26-mile crude oil pipeline to existing terminals in the Beaumont/Port 

Arthur area for oil distribution. 

Bayou Choctaw, LA 

The Bayou Choctaw site is the smallest SPR site with only six existing caverns and a 

storage capacity of 76 million barrels. The site is limited in its expansion capability due 

to the small size of the salt dome and other commercial storage operations on the dome. 

The SPR will expand the site’s capacity to 109 million barrels through the development 

of two new 11.5-million-barrel caverns (23 million barrels) on existing SPR property and 

the acquisition of one existing 10-million-barrel cavern, for an increase of 33 million 

barrels. The SPR will increase the site’s drawdown rate from 515,000 to 600,000 barrels 

per day. Additional brine disposal wells will be constructed to accommodate the cavern 

solution-mining and increase the site’s oil fill rate to 225,000 barrels per day. 

The following table summarizes the planned increase in the SPR’s site storage capacities 

and drawdown capabilities. 

SPR EXPANSION PLAN 

CURRENT EXPANDED 

Distribution 

System 

Storage Facility Storage 

(MMB)* 

Drawdown 

(MB/D)* 

Storage 

(MMB)* 

Drawdown

(MB/D)* 

Seaway Bryan Mound 254 1,500 254 1,500 

West Hackberry 227 1,300 227 1,300 Texoma 

Big Hill 170 1,100 250 1,500 

Bayou Choctaw 76 515 109 600 

Capline Richton (New) -- -- 160 1,000 

Total Program 727 4,415 1,000 5,900 

 * MMB = million barrels; MB/D = thousand barrels per day 
 6

VI. DISTRIBUTION PLAN 

The enhancement of drawdown and distribution capabilities of the Reserve has been a 

primary objective of the SPR’s expansion to 1 billion barrels. The SPR Distribution Plan 

for the 1-billion-barrel program and the connections to pipelines, terminals and refining 

centers is illustrated in Appendix B. 

The SPR expansion provides for an increase in the SPR’s maximum drawdown rate from 

the current 4.4 million barrels per day to 5.9 million barrels per day. This rate is required 

to maintain a drawdown capability of at least 50 percent of the projected U.S. crude 

import rate in 2020, and will provide the capability to replace lost imports even under 

severe embargo interruptions. All storage sites will have the capability to drawdown and 

distribute their entire inventory stocks within 180 days. 

The SPR expansion to 1 billion barrels will significantly enhance the current oil 

distribution capabilities of the SPR. The expansion provides additional oil storage and 

drawdown capabilities within the Capline region to enhance coverage of this region. The 

planned expansion of the Bayou Choctaw storage site will increase both its storage and 

drawdown capabilities to supply the lower Mississippi River refineries in the Capline 

region with additional emergency stocks. The Richton site will provide storage and 

drawdown capabilities to supply the Midwest refineries via a connection to the Capline 

Interstate Pipeline System at Liberty, MS. In addition, the Richton site will be pipeline 

connected to new refining and marine facilities at Pascagoula, MS. The SPR plan also 

provides for the construction a new marine terminal in the Port of Pascagoula to support 

the Richton site’s needs for oil fill and distribution. 

The planned expansion of the Big Hill storage site will increase both its storage and 

drawdown capabilities to the Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX refining center. This area has 

adequate refinery demands and marine facilities to support the increased drawdown 

capabilities. 
 7

VII. OIL FILL PLAN 

DOE will use the Procedures for the Acquisition of Petroleum for the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve (10 CFR Part 626), published November 8, 2006, which establishes 

the rules and procedures for acquiring SPR crude oil. 

DOE’s preference would be for the continuation of the DOE/Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Program to transfer Federal Royalty oil from the Outer Continental Shelf to fill the 

SPR. This program has been successful for DOE and DOI. 

Little to no significant oil market price impacts are anticipated from SPR fill. Current 

world oil production is approximately 85 million barrels per day and projected to 

increase. This volume will be sufficient to meet the world demand for petroleum as well 

as to accommodate planned SPR fill rates and requirements. More specifically, the SPR 

fill requirements would be spread over at least 10 years and the annual average fill rate 

would likely not exceed 100,000 barrels per day before 2014, and 150,000 barrels per day 

after 2014.

VIII. SPR EXPANSION COST 

The current estimated costs for the expansion of the SPR are based on conceptual designs 

which were completed during 2006. The total estimated capital cost of facilities for SPR 

expansion to 1 billion barrels starting in 2008 and completing in 2018 is approximately 

$3.67 billion. The cost of operating and maintaining expansion facilities following 

construction is estimated to be $35 to $40 million per year. The estimated costs of the 

three site expansion projects are as follows: 

ESTIMATED EXPANSION COST 

(Millions of Dollars) 

Bayou Choctaw, LA (33 MMB) $220.0 

Big Hill, TX (80 MMB) $493.4 

Richton, MS (160 MMB) $2,951.7 

(including Distribution Facilities Cost of $250 million) ________ 

TOTAL FACILITIES $3,665.1

The projected cost of crude oil to fill the SPR from 700 million barrels to 1 billion barrels 

is $18.125 billion based on the current SPR expansion development plan and forecasted 

crude oil prices of $56.20 to $65.10 per barrel. However, the cost of the oil stored in the 

Reserve is not an unrecoverable expenditure to the Nation, but the acquisition of an asset 

which will maintain substantial economic value. The Government’s oil within the 

Reserve can someday be sold and the proceeds returned to the U.S. Treasury. 
 8

IX. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 

Project Management 

The DOE’s SPR Project Management Office (SPRPMO) in New Orleans, LA will be 

responsible for implementing the expansion project, including developing business and 

contracting strategies; acquiring property and pipeline rights-of-way; conducting design 

and construction; and operating the facilities. The SPRPMO manages and operates the 

existing sites, and the expansion facilities will be integrated into the existing system when 

completed. 

Expansion facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable 

federal and state requirements and regulations. For example, DOE capital asset 

procurement and management requirements such as DOE Order O 413.3, Program and 

Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, along with its associated 

manuals and guides, provide direction for managing and controlling the expansion project 

in terms of maintaining budget and schedule; meeting environmental, safety and health 

standards; and meeting mission requirements. 

Proposed Development Schedule 

The expansion project estimated schedule, showing when expansion capacity would 

become available, is provided as Appendix C. Development of all the expansion sites 

would commence in fiscal year 2008, and completion of the last site would occur in the 

latter part of 2018. All project activities, and the timeline for their completion, are subject 

to necessary funds being made available. 

The development schedule in Appendix C also provides an estimate of when new storage 

capacity will become available for oil fill as each site completes its cavern development 

(or cavern acquisition) activities. 
 

APPENDIX A 

RECORD OF DECISION 

9
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

10
7964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

request to the program contact person 

listed in this section. 

VIII. Other Information 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: February 16, 2007. 

Deborah A. Price, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. E7–3036 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission. 

* * * * * 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. 

DATE & TIME: Wednesday, February 21, 

2007, 8 a.m.–8:30 a.m. 

PLACE: Ritz-Carlton Atlanta, 191 

Peachtree Street, NE., Ballroom PreFunction III/IV, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 

(404) 659–0400. 

AGENDA: The Commission will consider 

accrediting iBeta Quality Assurance and 

SysTest Labs LLC. to receive federal 

approval to test voting systems against 

federal voting system standards and 

guidelines based upon the 

recommendations of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) as required by the Help America 

Vote Act (HAVA). 

This meeting will be open to the 

public. 

STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION

CIRCUMSTANCES: This notice of a meeting 

will not be published in the Federal 

Register 7 days prior to the meeting 

date. Late notice was unavoidable due 

to the combination of two factors: (1) 

The time required for EAC to properly 

evaluate the January 18, 2007 

recommendations EAC received from 

NIST to federally accredit two voting 

system test laboratories and (2) to serve 

the public interest by having the two 

federally accredited labs in place 

immediately in order to begin testing 

voting systems against federal voting 

system standards and guidelines. With 

the 2008 elections schedule fast 

approaching, it is most critical that the 

federal voting system testing process 

begin at the earliest possible date. 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566–

3100. 

* * * * * 

Gracia M. Hillman, 

Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–809 Filed 2–16–07; 4:21 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–M 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings: Site Selection 

for the Expansion of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD). 

SUMMARY: DOE has prepared an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0385), pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), to assess the 

environmental impacts associated with 

a proposal to expand the crude oil 

storage capacity of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve (SPR) from 727 

million barrels (MMB) to 1 billion 

barrels, and to fill the Reserve to the full 

authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. 

The proposal was to develop one new 

storage facility and expand the capacity 

of two or three existing SPR storage 

facilities. 

After careful consideration of the 

environmental impacts of the 

alternatives, along with an evaluation of 

SPR distribution capabilities, geological 

technical assessments, projected costs, 

and operational impacts associated with 

existing commercial operations, DOE 

has decided to develop a new 160 MMB 

SPR storage facility at Richton 

(Mississippi), expand the storage 

capacity at the existing Bayou Choctaw 

(Louisiana) SPR facility by 33 MMB, 

expand the storage capacity at the 

existing Big Hill (Texas) SPR facility by 

80 MMB, and fill the Reserve to 1 

billion barrels of oil as authorized by 

Congress. 

This ROD has been prepared in 

accordance with the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508) for implementing 

NEPA and DOE’s NEPA Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The 

accompanying Floodplain Statement of 

Findings has been prepared in 

accordance with DOE’s regulations 

‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements’’ (10 CFR Part 1022). 

Because the decision differs somewhat 

from the alternatives evaluated in the 

EIS, DOE has prepared a Supplement 

Analysis (SA) (DOE/EIS–0385–SA–1) to 

determine whether a supplement to the 

final EIS is required. DOE has 

determined that the minor modification 

to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, 

i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB 

compared to 20 MMB as described in 

the final EIS, is not a substantial change 

to the proposed action that is relevant 

to environmental concerns, and there 

are no significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts, within the 

meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 

CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a 

supplement to the SPR final EIS is not 

needed. 

ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on 

the DOE NEPA Web site at http:// 

www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ 

documentspub.html and on the project’s 

Web site at http:// 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/ 

reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html, and the 

ROD and SA will be available on both 

Web sites in the near future. Copies of 

the final EIS and this ROD and SA may 

be requested by contacting Donald 

Silawsky at the Office of Petroleum 

Reserves (FE–47), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, by 

telephone at 202–586–1892, by 

facsimile at 202–586–4446, or by 

electronic mail at 

donald.silawsky@hq.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the site selection 

for the expansion of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve, contact David 

Johnson at the Office of Petroleum 

Reserves (FE–42), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, by 

telephone at 202–586–4733, by 

facsimile at 202–586–7919, or by 

electronic mail at 

david.johnson@hq.doe.gov. For general 

information on the DOE NEPA process, 

contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office 

of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC–

20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

11
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 7965 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 

202–586–4600, or leave a message at 

800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

On August 8, 2005, the President 

signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT, Pub. L. 109–58). Section 303 of 

EPACT states that: ‘‘Not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall complete a 

proceeding to select, from sites that the 

Secretary has previously studied, sites 

necessary to enable acquisition by the 

Secretary of the full authorized volume 

of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.’’

EPACT Section 301(e) directs the 

Secretary to ‘‘* * * acquire petroleum 

in quantities sufficient to fill * * *’’ the 

SPR to 1 billion barrels, the capacity of 

the SPR authorized by the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act. Thus, the 

purpose and need for agency action is 

to select and develop sites necessary to 

add 273 MMB of new storage capacity 

to the SPR, so that SPR capacity can be 

expanded from 727 MMB to 1 billion 

barrels. 

On January 23, 2007, the President 

proposed an expansion of the SPR to 1.5 

billion barrels. Any DOE proposal in 

this regard, however, is independent of 

the current expansion to 1 billion 

barrels and would be subject to a 

separate NEPA review process. 

NEPA Review 

DOE determined that the proposed 

SPR site selection and expansion 

constitute a major Federal action that 

may have a significant impact on the 

environment within the meaning of 

NEPA. For this reason, DOE prepared an 

EIS, Site Selection for the Expansion of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ 

EIS–0385). DOE published a Notice of 

Intent to Prepare an EIS on September 

1, 2005 (70 FR 52088), and held four 

public scoping meetings. Copies of the 

comment letters received during the 

scoping period and complete public 

scoping meeting transcripts are 

available at http:// 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/ 

reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html. 

DOE filed the draft EIS with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

on May 19, 2006. EPA published a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register on May 26, 2006 (71 

FR 30400), starting the 45-day public 

comment period that ended on July 10, 

2006. DOE considered all comments in 

preparing the final EIS, which was filed 

with EPA on December 8, 2006. Copies 

of the comment letters and oral 

testimony received during the public 

comment period are available at the 

Internet site listed above. The comments 

and DOE’s responses are also set forth 

in the final EIS. 

The EPA published a NOA of the final 

EIS in the Federal Register on December 

15, 2006 (71 FR 75540). As discussed 

further below, DOE prepared an SA, 

Supplement Analysis to the Site 

Selection for the Expansion of the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ 

EIS–0385–SA–1), to address a minor 

modification to the Bayou Choctaw 

expansion site, i.e., an increase in 

capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 

MMB discussed in the final EIS. DOE 

determined that a supplement to the 

final EIS is not required. 

Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action is to develop 

one new site, expand capacity at two or 

three existing sites, and fill the SPR to 

its full authorized volume of 1 billion 

barrels. Storage capacity would be 

developed by solution mining of 

underground storage caverns in salt 

domes and disposing of the resulting 

salt brine by ocean discharge or 

underground injection. New pipelines, 

marine terminal facilities, and other 

infrastructure would also be required. 

Proposed construction and operation 

activities include clearing and preparing 

sites; constructing pipelines and 

facilities for raw water intake, disposing 

of brine, and distributing crude oil; 

constructing transmission lines to 

provide electrical power to the sites; 

and constructing or augmenting support 

buildings and other facilities. 

Alternatives 

In developing the range of reasonable 

alternatives, DOE first considered 

expansions of three existing storage 

sites, which would capitalize on 

existing site infrastructure and 

operations and thereby minimize 

development time and construction 

costs. DOE, however, cannot reach its 

goal of 273 MMB of additional storage 

capacity by expanding only at existing 

sites. Therefore, the alternatives 

considered are a combination of one 

new site and two or three expansion 

sites, as shown in the table below. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN FINAL EIS AND SA 

New sites and capacity analyzed Epansion sites and added 

capacity Total new capacity* 

Bruinsburg, MS (160 MMB) ..................................................

Chacahoula, LA (160 MMB) .................................................

113 MMBa ............................................................................

Bayou Choctaw (33 MMB) 

Big Hill (80 MMB) OR 

273 MMB or 

Richton, MS (160 MMB) ....................................................... 115 MMBb ............................................................................

Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB) 

Big Hill (80 MMB) 

West Hackberry (15 MMB) OR 

275 MMB or 

Stratton Ridge, TX (160 MMB) ............................................. 116 MMBb ............................................................................

Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB) 

Big Hill (96 MMB) 

276 MMB. 

No-action alternative ............................................................. None ..................................................................................... None. 

* Based on the proposed action for this EIS, DOE would not fill the SPR beyond 1 billion barrels if it developed more than 273 MMB of new capacity. aAlternative considered in SA. 

bAlternative considered in final EIS. 

A brief description of each new site 

and expansion site is below: 

Potential New Sites and Associated 

Infrastructure 

As required by EPACT Section 303, 

DOE limited its review of potential new 

sites for expansion of the SPR to: (1) 

sites that DOE addressed in a 1992 draft 

EIS for site expansion (DOE/EIS–0165–

D); and (2) sites proposed by a state in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

12
7966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

which DOE has previously studied a 

site. Five sites met those conditions and 

were considered in the draft EIS: 

Richton, MS, and Stratton Ridge, TX, 

which were addressed in the 1992 draft 

EIS; Chacahoula and Clovelly, LA, 

which the Governor of Louisiana 

requested that the Secretary of Energy 

consider; and Bruinsburg, MS, which 

the Governor of Mississippi requested 

that the Secretary of Energy consider. 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

draft EIS, DOE determined that 

development of a new SPR site at the 

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port’s (LOOP) 

Clovelly facility was not feasible 

because of geotechnical issues and thus 

is not a reasonable alternative. LOOP’s 

development on the salt dome and the 

small size of the dome required that 

DOE propose placing new SPR caverns 

below and in between Clovelly’s 

existing caverns. DOE found that this 

configuration presented several risk 

factors to the integrity of the Clovelly 

caverns and infrastructure and overall 

operation of the proposed site. DOE 

therefore removed the site from detailed 

consideration in the final EIS. 

Sandia National Laboratories 

completed a Geological Technical 

Assessment (Sandia Assessment) of the 

Bruinsburg salt dome just before the 

final EIS was published that indicated 

that the salt dome may not be able to 

provide the needed storage capability; 

however, DOE retained it as a potential 

new site in the final EIS because DOE 

needed time to further analyze the 

results of the study. See below for 

additional information regarding the 

Bruinsburg site and the Sandia 

Assessment. 

Bruinsburg, MS 

The Bruinsburg salt dome is located 

in Claiborne County, MS, 10 miles (16 

kilometers) west of the town of Port 

Gibson and 40 miles (64 kilometers) 

southwest of the City of Vicksburg. The 

proposed storage site of approximately 

266 acres (108 hectares) encompasses a 

cypress swamp, cotton fields, forested 

areas, and a bluff overlooking the 

Mississippi River. The infrastructure 

associated with the Bruinsburg storage 

site would include new terminals with 

a tank farm at Peetsville, MS, and 

Anchorage, LA. Water for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Mississippi River. 

The Sandia Assessment is based on a 

comprehensive evaluation of all data 

readily available from both published 

and oil-industry sources. These data are 

from well and seismic studies and 

include data compiled by the 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of 

Geology, as well as proprietary seismic 

data. In addition, Sandia contracted for 

two new seismic survey lines on the 

Bruinsburg salt dome in order to define 

the extent of the salt formation available 

for cavern development. DOE has 

analyzed the results of the Sandia 

Assessment and concluded that the 

Bruinsburg salt dome only has the 

capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, 

which is less than the 160 MMB 

capacity required. 

Chacahoula, LA 

The Chacahoula salt dome site is 

located 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of 

the Gulf of Mexico in northwestern 

Lafourche Parish, southwest of 

Thibodaux, LA. The proposed storage 

site of approximately 227 acres (92 

hectares) lies largely underwater in 

wetlands. No new terminals would be 

required for this proposed new site 

since the terminal(s) already exist and 

the current distribution capacity is 

sufficient to handle the potential 

increase in oil storage and distribution 

associated with the Chacahoula site. 

Water for cavern development, 

maintenance, and drawdown would 

come from the Intracoastal Waterway. 

Richton, MS 

The Richton salt dome is located in 

northeastern Perry County, MS, 18 miles 

(29 kilometers) east of Hattiesburg, MS. 

The proposed storage site of 

approximately 238 acres (96 hectares) is 

comprised of an actively managed pine 

plantation with a small emergent 

wetland area. The infrastructure 

associated with the Richton storage site 

would include new terminals with a 

tank farm at Liberty, MS, and 

Pascagoula, MS. Water for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from both the 

Leaf River and the Gulf of Mexico at 

Pascagoula. 

Stratton Ridge, TX 

The Stratton Ridge salt dome is 

located in Brazoria County, TX, 3 miles 

(4.8 kilometers) east of Lake JacksonAngleton, TX. The proposed storage site 

of approximately 269 acres (109 

hectares) is currently used for cattle 

ranching and has some forested 

wetlands. The infrastructure associated 

with the Stratton Ridge storage site 

would include a new terminal with a 

tank farm in Texas City, TX. Water for 

cavern development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway. 

Potential Expansion Sites and 

Associated Infrastructure 

Bayou Choctaw, LA 

The Bayou Choctaw storage site 

occupies a 356-acre (144-hectare) site in 

Iberville Parish, LA, about 12 miles (19 

kilometers) southwest of Baton Rouge. 

The Mississippi River is located about 4 

miles (6.4 kilometers) east of the salt 

dome, and the Intracoastal Waterway is 

about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) to the 

west. The general area is swampy with 

an elevation ranging from less than 5 

feet (1.5 meters) to more than 10 feet (3 

meters) above mean sea level. Water for 

cavern development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway. 

In the final EIS, DOE considered the 

expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 

20 MMB, which would involve the 

development of two new 10 MMB 

caverns within the existing boundaries 

of the facility, a 0.6-mile (0.9-kilometer) 

brine disposal pipeline, and a 96-acre 

(39-hectare) brine injection field. In the 

SA, DOE considered the expansion of 

the Bayou Choctaw site by 33 MMB, 

which would involve the development 

of two new 11.5 MMB caverns within 

the existing boundaries of the facility 

and use of an existing commercial 

cavern. The length of the brine disposal 

pipeline and the size of the brine 

disposal injection field would be the 

same if Bayou Choctaw is expanded to 

20 MMB or 33 MMB. Expansion beyond 

33 MMB is limited due to the size of the 

salt dome. 

Big Hill, TX 

The Big Hill SPR storage site is 

located in Jefferson County, TX, 17 

miles (27 kilometers) southwest of Port 

Arthur. The existing site occupies 

approximately 250 acres (101 hectares). 

The surrounding area is predominantly 

rural with agricultural production as the 

primary land use. Water for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway. The Big Hill 

storage site has a current capacity of 170 

MMB and could be expanded by 

acquiring land and developing several 

additional caverns. 

West Hackberry, LA 

The West Hackberry SPR storage site 

occupies a 565-acre (229-hectare) site in 

Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in 

southwestern Louisiana. The site is 

located approximately 20 miles (32 

kilometers) southwest of the city of Lake 

Charles and 16 miles (26 kilometers) 

north of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is 

predominantly disturbed grassland 

habitat. No new infrastructure would be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

13
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 7967 

needed for this site to be expanded. The 

West Hackberry storage site has a 

current capacity of 227 MMB and could 

also be expanded by acquiring land and 

developing or acquiring additional 

caverns. However, the West Hackberry 

site no longer has the offshore brine 

disposal system necessary to support a 

cavern development operation. There 

are three existing commercial caverns 

on the salt dome that could be acquired 

to increase the site capacity by 15 MMB, 

to a total capacity of 242 MMB, without 

developing new caverns. Therefore, 

DOE has considered a maximum 

potential expansion of 15 MMB at the 

West Hackberry site. 

Preferred Alternative 

The final EIS identifies the Richton 

alternative with expansion of Bayou 

Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry 

as the Preferred Alternative. The SA 

revised the Preferred Alternative to be 

the Richton alternative with expansion 

of Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill. 

Analysis of Environmental Impacts 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

that could occur from the construction 

and operation of a new SPR storage site 

and the expansion of two or three of the 

existing sites. The final EIS presents the 

environmental impacts for 10 resource 

areas. Of these 10 areas, the largest 

potential impacts are to land use, water 

resources, biological resources, and 

cultural resources. Although impacts 

occur in other resource areas, these 

impacts are smaller and of similar 

magnitude across all alternatives. Below 

is a brief summary of the impacts 

associated with these four resource 

areas for each alternative. For each 

alternative, there is a discussion of each 

new site and the expansion sites 

associated with each new site. 

Land Use 

Bruinsburg Alternatives: There is a 

potential land use conflict for the 

Bruinsburg site where the expansion of 

an existing pipeline route would cross 

the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, 

Natchez Trace Parkway, and the 

proclamation boundary of the 

Homochitto National Forest. 

There are no potential land use 

conflicts at the Bayou Choctaw and Big 

Hill expansions sites. At West 

Hackberry, there were no land use 

conflicts at the time that the final EIS 

was issued because there were no 

ongoing commercial operations in the 

caverns in the West Hackberry salt 

dome. Comments on the final EIS 

indicate that Sempra Pipeline and 

Storage Corporation plans to use the 

caverns for commercial operations. This 

potential conflict is discussed further 

below in the Comments Received on the 

Final EIS and Basis for Decision 

sections. 

Chacahoula Alternatives: There are 

no potential land use conflicts for the 

Chacahoula site. Potential land use 

conflicts at the expansion sites are the 

same as described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 

Richton Alternatives: For the Richton 

site, the terminal, tank farm, refurbished 

docks, and raw water intake structure at 

Pascagoula would be at the former 

Naval Station Pascagoula, a Base 

Realignment and Closure site for which 

future uses have not been determined. 

Potential land use conflicts at the 

expansion sites are the same as 

described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 

Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The 

proposed Stratton Ridge site would have 

potential land use conflicts with Dow 

Chemical Company’s use of salt from 

the Stratton Ridge salt dome and where 

a corridor containing a raw water intake 

pipeline, brine disposal pipelines, and 

two power lines would cross the 

Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and 

privately owned land in the Refuge’s 

proclamation area. In addition, the 

crude oil pipeline would cross the 

Refuge in an existing pipeline rights-ofway. Potential land use conflicts at the 

expansion sites are the same as 

described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 

Water Resources 

Bruinsburg Alternatives: Construction 

and operation of the Bruinsburg site and 

associated infrastructure would 

potentially affect 35 water bodies. Water 

for cavern development, maintenance, 

and drawdown would come from the 

Mississippi River, and would not have 

a significant impact on water resources. 

Construction and operation associated 

with the expansion of the Bayou 

Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry 

sites and associated infrastructure 

would potentially affect 12, 4, and 3 

water bodies, respectively. Water for 

cavern development, maintenance, and 

drawdown at Bayou Choctaw would 

come from Cavern Lake, which is fed by 

the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for 

cavern development, maintenance, and 

drawdown at Big Hill would come from 

the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for 

maintenance and drawdown at West 

Hackberry would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway. None of these 

uses of water would have a significant 

impact on water resources. Since DOE 

would acquire caverns at West 

Hackberry, construction of new caverns 

would not occur at this site. A small 

increase in the size of the security buffer 

around the site would be needed, but 

this would not have a significant impact 

on water resources. 

Chacahoula Alternatives: 

Construction and operation of the 

Chacahoula site and associated 

infrastructure would potentially affect 

18 water bodies. Water for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway, which would not 

have a significant impact on water 

resources. Impacts on water resources at 

the expansion sites are the same as 

described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 

Richton Alternatives: Construction 

and operation of the Richton site and 

associated infrastructure would 

potentially affect 63 water bodies. The 

primary raw water source for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would be the Leaf River, 

which has a highly variable flow. A 

secondary raw water intake system, 

presented in the final EIS, would 

withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico 

at Pascagoula and transport it to the 

Richton storage site for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown during low flow conditions 

in the Leaf River. If low flow conditions 

exist in the Leaf River during a 

drawdown event for a Presidentially 

declared national emergency, DOE 

would withdraw water from the Gulf of 

Mexico and from the Leaf River to reach 

the necessary distribution rate. DOE 

would not withdraw water below the 

minimum instream flow that is 

protective of aquatic resources, except 

for a drawdown for a Presidentially 

declared national emergency. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

would establish the minimum instream 

flow during DOE’s consultation with 

USFWS under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act; the Mississippi 

Natural Heritage Program (MS NHP) 

would provide input during this 

consultation. Impacts on water 

resources at the expansion sites are the 

same as described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 

Stratton Ridge Alternatives: 

Construction and operation of the 

Stratton Ridge site and associated 

infrastructure would potentially affect 

17 water bodies. Water for cavern 

development, maintenance, and 

drawdown would come from the 

Intracoastal Waterway, which would not 

have a significant impact on water 

resources. Impacts on water resources at 

the expansion sites are the same as 

described for the Bruinsburg 

alternatives. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

14
7968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

Biological Resources 

This summary of impacts to biological 

resources considers Federally 

threatened and endangered species, 

essential fish habitat (EFH), and 

wetlands. Impacts to these resources at 

expansion sites are common to all 

alternatives and are described first, 

separately from the descriptions of 

impacts of the alternatives, which focus 

on impacts at the new sites. 

Expansion at existing sites would not 

affect any Federally threatened or 

endangered species. The Bayou 

Choctaw and West Hackberry 

expansions would not affect EFH. The 

Big Hill expansion would cause a 

temporary impact to about five acres of 

EFH due to pipeline construction. 

The discussions below regarding total 

wetland acres affected for the new site 

alternatives include the wetland 

impacts associated with the expansion 

sites, in all cases including expansion at 

West Hackberry (without which five 

fewer acres of wetlands would be 

affected). 

Expansion sites: Construction and 

operation of the Bayou Choctaw 

expansion site would potentially affect 

34 acres of wetlands. About 24 acres of 

ecologically important forested 

wetlands would be filled and about 3 

acres of forested wetlands would be 

permanently converted to emergent 

wetland. Construction and operation of 

the Big Hill expansion site would 

potentially affect 189 acres of wetlands. 

About 9 acres of ecologically important 

forested wetlands would be filled and 

about 1 acre of forested wetlands would 

be permanently converted to emergent 

wetland. Expanding the West Hackberry 

site would convert 5 acres of palustrine 

scrub-shrub wetlands to emergent 

wetlands. 

Bruinsburg Alternatives: The 

Bruinsburg site and associated 

infrastructure may affect the fat 

pocketbook mussel and the pallid 

sturgeon, both of which are Federally 

endangered species. The site and 

associated infrastructure would not 

affect EFH. 

The Bruinsburg alternatives would 

potentially affect about 708 acres (287 

hectares) of wetlands. This includes a 

permanent loss through filling of about 

156 acres (63 hectares) and a permanent 

conversion to emergent wetlands of 

about 123 acres (50 hectares) of 

relatively rare and ecologically 

important forested wetlands. About 118 

acres (48 hectares) of forested wetlands 

would be disturbed and cleared by 

construction activities within the 

temporary easement of the rights-of-way 

during construction. The total affected 

acreage includes the three expansion 

sites described above. 

Chacahoula Alternatives: The 

Chacahoula site and associated 

infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, 

a Federal threatened species that is 

proposed for de-listing, and the brown 

pelican, a Federal endangered species. 

Chacahoula would affect about 1,067 

acres of EFH, for the most part a 

temporary impact due to pipeline 

construction. 

The Chacahoula alternatives would 

potentially affect 2,502 acres (1,013 

hectares) of wetlands. About 182 acres 

(74 hectares) of ecologically important 

forested wetlands would be filled and 

about 699 acres (283 hectares) of 

forested wetlands would be 

permanently converted to emergent 

wetland. About 505 acres (204 hectares) 

of forested wetlands would be disturbed 

and cleared by construction activities 

within the temporary easement of the 

rights-of-way. The total affected acreage 

includes the three expansion sites 

described above. 

Richton Alternatives: The Richton site 

and associated infrastructure may affect 

two Federal listed species (the yellowblotched map turtle and the Gulf 

sturgeon) and a Federal candidate 

species (the pearl darter, considered by 

DOE as a ‘‘listed species’’). Based on 

comments from and consultation with 

USFWS and MS NHP, the withdrawal of 

water from the Leaf River may have an 

adverse effect on the yellow-blotched 

map turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and the pearl 

darter. The Leaf River and Mississippi 

Sound are designated critical habitat for 

the Gulf sturgeon. Development of the 

Richton site would temporarily affect 

about 183 acres of EFH due to 

construction, and fill an additional 43 

acres of EFH for a new terminal and raw 

water intake structure at Pascagoula. 

Brine pipeline construction may affect 

submerged aquatic vegetation. 

The Richton alternatives would 

potentially affect 1,557 acres (630 

hectares) of wetlands. The majority of 

the wetland areas affected (more than 

1,400 acres [583 hectares]) by the 

Richton alternatives would be located in 

the long pipeline rights-of-way, which 

total over 200 miles and which pass 

through some forested and emergent 

wetlands. The Richton alternatives 

would permanently fill about 59 acres 

(24 hectares) of forested wetlands and 

about 295 acres (119 hectares) of 

forested wetlands would be 

permanently converted to emergent 

wetlands. About 506 acres (205 

hectares) of forested wetlands would be 

disturbed and cleared by construction 

activities within the temporary 

easement of the rights-of-way. The total 

affected acreage includes the three 

expansion sites described above. 

Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The 

Stratton Ridge site and associated 

infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, 

a Federal threatened species that is 

proposed for de-listing. Seventeen acres 

of EFH would be permanently affected 

due to the construction and operation of 

a raw water intake structure. 

The Stratton Ridge alternatives would 

potentially affect 841 acres (349 

hectares) of wetlands. This includes a 

permanent loss through filling of 227 

acres (92 hectares) of relatively rare and 

ecologically important forested 

wetlands. About 70 acres (28 hectares) 

of forested wetlands would be 

permanently converted to emergent 

wetlands. About 9 acres (4 hectares) of 

forested wetlands would be disturbed 

and cleared by construction activities 

within the temporary easement of the 

rights-of-way. The total affected acreage 

includes the three expansion sites 

described above in detail for the 

Bruinsburg alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

The proposed action would have the 

potential to damage or destroy 

archeological sites, Native American 

cultural sites, or historic buildings or 

structures; or to change the 

characteristics of a property that would 

diminish qualities that contribute to its 

historic significance or cultural 

importance. Below are the potential 

impacts for each alternative: 

Bruinsburg Alternatives: SPR 

development at the Bruinsburg site 

could result in potential adverse effects 

on the historic setting of the Civil War 

landing of the Union Army in 

Mississippi and an associated route of 

troop movements in an area that could 

become eligible for the National Register 

of Historic Places as a core study area. 

A portion of the Bruinsburg site is likely 

to contain archeological remains of 

troop presence, and remains of at least 

one of the ships that sank during the 

invasion is likely to lie northwest of the 

facility boundary. There would be 

possible effects to Native American sites 

at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West 

Hackberry. As described in the final EIS, 

these adverse effects could be mitigated 

through measures such as data recovery 

from an archaeological site, preparation 

of education materials for the public, or 

use of vegetation to screen project 

facilities from visitors in the historic 

properties. 

Chacahoula Alternatives: There 

would be likely adverse effects to Native 

American and historic sites along 

Chacahoula pipeline rights-of-way that 

could be mitigated. There would be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

15
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 7969 

possible effects to Native American sites 

at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West 

Hackberry. These adverse effects could 

be mitigated. 

Richton Alternatives: There are likely 

adverse effects to Native American 

archaeological sites within the Richton 

storage site and along Richton pipeline 

rights-of-way that could be mitigated. 

There would be possible effects to 

Native American sites at Bayou 

Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. 

These effects could be mitigated. 

Stratton Ridge Alternatives: There are 

likely adverse effects to Native 

American archaeological sites within 

the Stratton Ridge storage site and along 

Stratton Ridge pipeline rights-of-way 

that could be mitigated. There would be 

possible effects to Native American sites 

at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West 

Hackberry. These effects could be 

mitigated. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

DOE received eight comment letters 

on the final EIS: three letters from 

elected officials, two from Federal 

agencies, two from private companies, 

and one from a property owner. Below 

is a brief summary of each comment 

letter and DOE’s response. 

DOE received two comment letters 

regarding DOE’s selection of Richton 

rather than Bruinsburg as its preferred 

new storage site. These comment letters 

were from U.S. Congressman Bennie G. 

Thompson, Second District, Mississippi, 

and Mr. Allen Burks of the Claiborne 

County Board of Supervisors. 

Congressman Thompson expressed 

some concerns with the selection of 

Richton and his belief that the 

Bruinsburg site is a more favorable site 

since it would have fewer 

environmental impacts and cost less 

than the Richton site. Mr. Burks 

requested the reconsideration of the 

Bruinsburg site because, in his view, it 

offers significant cost, environmental, 

operational, and distribution advantages 

over the Richton site. DOE did not select 

the Bruinsburg site for several reasons, 

as discussed below; however, the 

primary reason was the small size of the 

salt dome. As discussed above, based on 

the Sandia Assessment, DOE concluded 

that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has 

the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of 

oil, which is less than the 160 MMB 

capacity required. The Richton salt 

dome, on the other hand, is very large 

and can easily accommodate the 

planned capacity of 160 MMB. 

Congressman Thompson also 

expressed concerns regarding the risk 

from hurricanes and brine disposal 

impacts associated with the Richton 

site. The SPR’s storage of oil in 

underground storage caverns in salt 

formations is the safest and most secure 

form of storage available. The depth of 

the storage caverns and the self-sealing 

characteristic of the salt formation make 

salt dome storage virtually immune to 

natural disasters, such as hurricanes, 

and would not create a safety hazard for 

the population of Mississippi. In 

addition, Richton’s location over 80 

miles from the Gulf coast provides a 

significant land mass buffer against 

potential damages from the hurricane 

effects to surface buildings and 

structures at the storage sites. 

Congressman Thompson also expressed 

concern about brine disposal in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Based on DOE’s experience 

with the SPR, the disposal of brine in 

the Gulf of Mexico has been proven to 

be reliable and cost effective and has 

had no harmful impacts on the fish 

population. 

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour 

supported the selection of Richton as 

preferred, but added that he believes 

Bruinsburg remains an important site 

for future consideration. Governor 

Barbour submitted for the record an 

independent geological evaluation 

prepared by Mr. Karl Kaufman of 

Valioso Petroleum Company, Inc., that 

questions the completeness and 

accuracy of the geological 

interpretations presented in the Sandia 

Assessment. Mr. Kaufman stated that 

the Sandia Assessment grossly 

understates the true areal extent of the 

Bruinsburg salt dome because well 

control data have been ignored, spatial 

uncertainty has not been resolved and 

additional data have not been 

considered. A second comment letter 

from Charles Morrison Consulting 

Geophysicist, Inc., stated that the 

Sandia Assessment was highly flawed 

and possibly biased in regard to the 

geological and geophysical conclusions 

reached. 

DOE and the geotechnological staff at 

Sandia National Laboratories have 

reviewed the concerns expressed by 

these geological consultants and have 

confirmed their prior geological 

findings, as to the insufficient salt dome 

size. The Sandia Assessment is based on 

a comprehensive evaluation of all data 

readily available from both published 

and oil-industry sources, including both 

existing and new well and seismic data, 

as discussed above. 

Sempra Pipeline and Storage 

Corporation submitted a comment 

informing DOE of its recent purchase of 

the property adjacent to the existing 

West Hackberry site, formerly owned by 

Dominion Natural Gas Storage, Inc., 

which DOE discussed in the final EIS. 

Sempra stated that the property is a 

critical part of its natural gas 

infrastructure portfolio, and is expected 

to be in service in April 2009. Sempra 

also stated its understanding that DOE 

would weigh the cost of land 

acquisition during its decisionmaking. 

DOE has not selected West Hackberry 

for expansion for the reasons stated 

below. 

A comment submitted by the owner of 

land that overlays a salt dome in 

Claiborne County inquired whether 

DOE will select other storage sites, in 

addition to the Richton site. DOE will 

only construct one new storage site in 

its planned expansion of the SPR to 1 

billion barrels. 

The National Park Service’s Natchez 

Trace Parkway stated its support for the 

selection of Richton as the preferred 

alternative because it would have no 

environmental effect on the Parkway. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

field office in Temple, TX, 

acknowledged and approved of the 

characterization of important farmlands 

for the Big Hill and Stratton Ridges sites 

in the final EIS. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Chacahoula, Bruinsburg, Richton, 

and Stratton Ridge alternatives, which 

include the expansion of existing 

storage sites, all have the potential for 

adverse impacts on environmental 

resources. After considering the impacts 

to each resource, DOE has identified the 

Bruinsburg and Stratton Ridge 

alternatives as the environmentally 

preferable alternatives. The Chacahoula 

alternatives would affect hundreds more 

acres of ecologically important forested 

wetlands than any other alternative. The 

wetlands at the proposed Chacahoula 

site are also relatively contiguous and in 

a mostly undisturbed area in Louisiana, 

which adds to the ecological function 

and value of the wetlands. The Richton 

alternatives would affect several 

hundred acres of wetlands through more 

than 200 miles of pipeline and power 

line rights-of-way. Most of the wetland 

impacts associated with the Richton 

alternatives, however, would either be 

temporary or be a permanent 

conversion, meaning that some of the 

function of the wetlands would be 

retained. Nonetheless, total acreage of 

wetlands affected from rights-of-way for 

the Richton alternatives would be 

greater than from the Stratton Ridge or 

Bruinsburg alternatives. USFWS and 

MS NHP identified two Federally listed 

species and a Federal candidate species 

that may be adversely affected by the 

withdrawal of water from the Leaf River. 

The Richton alternatives are also the 

only alternatives that may affect 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

16
7970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

designated critical habitat of a protected 

species. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

DOE included a Floodplains and 

Wetlands Assessment as appendix B in 

the final EIS. The assessment and these 

findings have been prepared in 

accordance with DOE’s regulations 

‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements,’’ 10 CFR Part 1022. DOE 

has concluded that there are no 

practicable alternatives to construction 

within floodplains for the individual 

proposed new SPR sites or expansion 

sites. Site locations, the location of 

onsite facilities, and site access roads 

are dictated by the locations and 

configuration of the salt domes, which 

constitute a unique geologic setting. In 

addition, DOE needs a raw water source 

that is adequate for solution mining of 

storage caverns. Similarly, because the 

salt dome sites are largely located in 

lowland areas surrounded by wide 

expanses of floodplain, there are no 

practicable alternatives to the location 

of the pipelines running to and from 

these sites within floodplains. The raw 

water intake structures and associated 

pipeline rights-of-way also are water 

dependent because of their function and 

therefore cannot be located outside of 

the floodplain associated with the water 

source. Pipelines, power lines, and 

roads cannot avoid crossing waterways 

and the associated floodplains. DOE 

considered alternatives for minimizing 

the potential impacts of pipeline and 

power line rights-of-way in floodplains 

and wetlands. The primary approach 

that DOE employed was to select 

pipeline and power line rights-of-way 

along existing rights-of-way. The Gulf 

Coast consists of a large number of gas 

and oil fields and associated facilities, 

which offer a network of existing 

pipeline and power line rights-of-way. 

This network of utilities enabled DOE to 

minimize the potential impacts to 

floodplains and wetlands. Floodplain 

maps of all the alternatives considered 

in the EIS are available in appendix B 

of the final EIS. 

To comply with Executive Order 

11988, Floodplain Management, and 

DOE’s regulations, DOE will follow the 

U.S. Water Resources Council’s (1978) 

Floodplain Management Guidelines for 

Implementing Executive Order 11988 

and the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s Unified National Program for 

Floodplain Management while planning 

its mitigation strategy for the selected 

SPR alternative. Those actions would 

include the following: the use of 

minimum grading requirements to save 

as much of the site from compaction as 

possible; returning the site and rights-ofway to original contours where feasible; 

preserving free natural drainage when 

designing and constructing roads, fills, 

and large built-up centers; maintaining 

wetland and floodplain vegetation 

buffers to reduce sedimentation and 

discharge of pollutants to nearby water 

bodies, where feasible; constructing 

stormwater management facilities 

(where appropriate) to minimize any 

alteration in natural drainage and flood 

storage capacity; directional drilling of 

larger wetland and stream crossings, 

where feasible; locating buildings above 

the base flood elevation or flood 

proofing; complying with the floodplain 

ordinance/regulations for the 

jurisdiction where the selected 

alternative is located; and performing a 

hydrological demonstration (using the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

Hydrologic Engineering Center, 

Hydrologic Modeling System or an 

approved floodplain model) to confirm 

that proposed fill and structures within 

the floodplain would not increase the 

base flood elevation. 

Any structures located within the 

floodplain would be designed in 

accordance with the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements 

for nonresidential buildings and 

structures located in special flood 

hazard areas. The NFIP regulations 

require vulnerable structures to be 

constructed above the 100-year flood 

elevation or to be watertight. DOE 

would coordinate with and secure 

approval from the floodplain 

coordinator at the appropriate state 

agency or the local government, if it has 

adopted the NFIP, during the design 

stage/site plan process. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to: construct a new 

storage facility at Richton, MS, with a 

total capacity of 160 MMB of crude oil; 

expand the storage capacity of two 

existing SPR sites by a total of 113 MMB 

by developing 8 new 10–MMB caverns 

at Big Hill, TX, developing 2 new 11.5–

MMB caverns at Bayou Choctaw, LA, 

and acquiring an existing privatelyowned 10–MMB cavern that lies within 

the Bayou Choctaw site; and fill the SPR 

to 1 billion barrels, as authorized by 

Congress. 

Basis for Decision 

DOE’s decision is based on careful 

consideration of the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives along with an 

evaluation of SPR distribution 

capabilities, geological technical 

assessments, projected costs, and 

operational impacts associated with 

existing commercial operations. 

The Stratton Ridge alternatives were 

not selected based on the new storage 

site’s location within the Seaway crude 

oil distribution complex and the site’s 

potential impacts to existing 

commercial operations. The SPR 

currently has two large sites, Bryan 

Mound and Big Hill, which can 

adequately serve refiners in the Seaway 

distribution complex. Additional 

storage in this area would not enhance 

the SPR’s distribution capabilities or 

address the SPR’s need for increased oil 

storage in the Capline distribution 

complex, which serves the refiners on 

the lower Mississippi River and the 

Capline Interstate Pipeline system. In 

addition, Dow Chemical Company, 

which occupies the majority of the 

Stratton Ridge salt dome, relies on the 

salt for its petrochemical operations. 

Dow submitted comments on the draft 

EIS stating that the property is critical 

to its future salt needs and continuing 

operations of Dow Chemical in Freeport, 

TX. 

The primary reason for not selecting 

the Bruinsburg alternatives is the small 

size of the salt dome, which only has 

the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of 

oil, as discussed above. Also, due to its 

location, development of the caverns at 

Bruinsburg would require disposing of 

large volumes of brine through 

underground disposal wells. DOE has 

extensive experience with underground 

brine disposal wells for smaller 

volumes. Injection wells can be difficult 

and expensive to operate, the geology 

must be appropriate for wells to be 

drilled, and the receiving aquifer must 

be hydrologically suited for injections. 

Disposing of large volumes of brine 

through underground injection at 

Bruinsburg presents significant 

development risks. 

The Chacahoula alternatives were not 

selected based on significant potential 

environmental impacts to the Louisiana 

wetlands. The entire site is located in an 

ecologically important bald cypress 

forested wetland area. The alternatives 

were estimated to potentially impact a 

total of 2,502 acres of wetlands, 

requiring extensive wetland mitigation. 

The Richton alternatives present 

significant benefits relative to the other 

alternatives by enhancing the SPR’s oil 

distribution capabilities with 

connections to the Capline Pipeline 

System as well as refineries and marine 

facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt 

dome is large and undeveloped, which 

provides DOE with sufficient capacity to 

develop 160 MMB of storage space 

without potential impacts to other 

commercial operations or high 

geotechnical risk. The Richton site is 

also located approximately 80 miles 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

17
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 7971 

from the Gulf coast, providing a 

significant buffer to the potentially 

damaging effects of hurricanes on 

surface structures at the storage site. 

The decision announced by DOE in 

this ROD differs from the Preferred 

Alternative identified in the final EIS, 

which included expanding the storage 

capacity of 3 existing SPR facilities 

(West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, 

LA, and Big Hill, TX) by a total of 115 

MMB, and constructing a new 160–

MMB SPR facility at Richton, MS. The 

ROD replaces the planned expansion of 

West Hackberry (by 15 MMB) with a 

larger expansion of storage capacity at 

Bayou Choctaw (by 33 MMB instead of 

20 MMB). This decision was based on: 

(a) The recent acquisition by a private 

company of the existing caverns at West 

Hackberry; (b) the need for additional 

stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address 

refiner demands; and (c) the need for an 

additional cavern at Bayou Choctaw to 

support the site’s maximum drawdown 

operations. 

In comparing expansion options at 

Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry, 

DOE considered several factors. First, as 

discussed in the final EIS, the three 

commercial caverns that DOE had 

proposed to acquire at West Hackberry 

were purchased by Sempra Pipelines 

and Storage Corporation in August 2006 

as part of its Liberty Gas Storage System 

and in conjunction with the Cameron 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal 

(currently under construction). As 

discussed above, Sempra has submitted 

comments on the final EIS stating that 

the property is a critical part of its 

natural gas infrastructure portfolio and 

the West Hackberry storage facility is 

expected to be in service in April 2009. 

As a result, DOE may not be able to 

acquire the West Hackberry caverns at a 

reasonable cost. 

Second, DOE needs additional crude 

stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address the 

refiners’ demands along the Mississippi 

River. The new 160–MMB facility at 

Richton, MS, will have the capability to 

distribute crude via pipeline to the 

Capline Pipeline System serving refiners 

in the Midwest, but not to refiners along 

the lower Mississippi River. The SPR 

facility at Bayou Choctaw has the 

capability to distribute oil by pipeline to 

a number of refiners along the 

Mississippi River, but is very limited in 

its current crude storage capabilities. As 

these refiners are highly dependent on 

foreign crude supplies, the expected 

demand during a supply interruption 

would far exceed the inventories 

currently available at Bayou Choctaw. 

This situation is expected to worsen in 

the future by the announced doubling of 

crude processing capacity of the 

Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA. 

Third, an additional storage cavern at 

Bayou Choctaw supports the site’s 

maximum drawdown capabilities. Due 

to the location of one of the existing 

caverns at the edge of the salt dome, 

DOE has placed constraints on the 

cavern’s capacity and operations. An 

additional cavern would be of 

significant benefit to achieving and 

maintaining the site’s maximum 

drawdown rate in the event of a 

drawdown of the Reserve. 

For these reasons, DOE has concluded 

that increasing the storage capacity at 

Bayou Choctaw to 33 MMB, in lieu of 

an expansion at West Hackberry, will 

provide greater benefits to the SPR in 

terms of enhanced oil import protection 

capability. This proposed increase in 

the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw 

is also considered superior to the option 

of increasing the capacity of the Big Hill 

site by 96 MMB, which would not 

satisfy the need for additional Capline 

system stocks and would increase the 

Big Hill site storage capacity to more 

than 250 MMB, creating the need for 

additional oil drawdown and 

distribution infrastructure. 

Based on the SA, DOE determined 

that the additional expansion at Bayou 

Choctaw is not a substantial change to 

the proposed action that is relevant to 

environmental concerns, and there are 

no significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts, within the 

meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 

CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a 

supplement to the SPR final EIS is not 

needed. 

In conclusion, the selection of a new 

site at Richton with expansion of the 

existing Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill 

sites offers DOE significant benefits by 

enhancing the SPR’s oil distribution 

capabilities with connections to the 

Capline Pipeline System, refiners along 

the lower Mississippi River, as well as 

refineries and marine facilities in 

Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome 

provides DOE with sufficient capacity to 

develop 160 MMB of storage space 

without potential impacts to other 

commercial operations or high 

geotechnical risk. 

Mitigation 

DOE has developed general mitigation 

measures to address potential impacts. 

Examples of general mitigation include 

programmatic agreements for dealing 

with impacts to cultural resources. 

Under the terms of programmatic 

agreements signed by DOE, the State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) 

in the three states where the Richton 

site and the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill 

expansion sites are located, the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and tribes, as appropriate, 

DOE will identify and resolve adverse 

effects to historic properties in locations 

selected for expansion or new 

development. At those locations, DOE 

will conduct field reconnaissance and 

additional documentary research and 

consultations as appropriate to identify 

cultural resources including historic 

properties; that is, archaeological or 

historical sites, structures, districts, or 

landscapes that are eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

For identified historic properties, DOE 

will assess potential project effects and 

resolve adverse effects in consultation 

with the SHPOs and the tribes that are 

concurring parties or signatories to the 

programmatic agreements. 

The wetlands permitting process 

provides other examples of general 

mitigation measures. DOE will prepare 

the appropriate application for a Section 

404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and the 401 Water Quality 

Certificate from each relevant state 

agency. This permit process requires a 

comprehensive analysis of alternatives 

to avoid impacts to jurisdictional 

wetlands and waters of the United 

States, an analysis of measures taken to 

minimize impacts, and a compensation 

plan to mitigate for unavoidable impacts 

to waters of the United States, including 

wetlands. Avoidance and minimization 

strategies could include measures such 

as refinement or modification of facility 

footprints to avoid wetlands, 

minimization of slopes in fill areas, use 

of geotechnical fabric under wetland 

fills to minimize mudwave potential, 

and restoration of the disturbed 

wetlands outside the permanent 

footprint of the facility. The 

compensation plan will be developed by 

DOE and submitted with the permit 

application. The compensation plan, in 

addition to avoidance and minimization 

strategies during and after construction, 

will include provisions for 

compensation sites (e.g., conservation 

easements or similar mechanisms), 

restoration, and post restoration 

monitoring to evaluate the success of 

the mitigation. Additional detail on 

mitigation measures is included in 

section 3.7.2.1.3 of the final EIS, and on 

potential compensation sites in 

appendix O of the final EIS. 

Mitigation measures specific to the 

selected Richton alternative have not 

been adopted at this time because DOE 

and the regulatory agencies agreed that 

the substantial amount of resources 

needed to develop mitigation measures 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

18
7972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

specific to each alternative during the 

preparation of the EIS would have been 

impracticable and inefficient in light of 

the large number of alternatives located 

across three states and crossing 

numerous agency jurisdictional 

boundaries. 

Instead, DOE will work with USFWS, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and 

other Federal, state, and local natural 

resource agencies to develop specific 

mitigation measures for unavoidable 

impacts to endangered species, EFH, 

wetlands, and other resources, as 

described in the final EIS. The 

mitigation plan for the alternative 

selected in this ROD will be developed 

during the permitting process, after 

wetland delineations and jurisdictional 

determinations and a functional 

assessment of affected wetlands is 

completed. DOE will also complete a 

formal consultation with USFWS and 

NOAA Fisheries and prepare a 

Biological Assessment as mandated 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act for any endangered species 

that may be affected by the selected 

alternative. Through these activities, 

DOE will develop and adopt a detailed 

mitigation plan to take all practicable 

means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm, as required by 40 

CFR 1505.2(c). 

Dated: February 14, 2007. 

Samuel W. Bodman, 

Secretary of Energy. 

[FR Doc. E7–3022 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Bonneville Power Administration 

FY 2007–2009 Fish and Wildlife Project 

Implementation Decision 

AGENCY: Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA), Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of the ROD for BPA’s 2007–

2009 Fish and Wildlife Project 

Implementation Decision. BPA has 

decided to implement certain new and 

ongoing fish and wildlife mitigation 

projects for Fiscal Years 2007 through 

2009 that help meet the agency’s 

responsibilities to protect, mitigate and 

enhance fish and wildlife affected by 

the development and operation of the 

Columbia River basin hydroelectric 

dams from which BPA markets power. 

This decision is consistent with and 

tiered to BPA’s Fish and Wildlife 

Implementation Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0312, April 

2003) and the Fish and Wildlife 

Implementation Plan ROD (October 31, 

2003). 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this ROD may be 

obtained by calling BPA’s toll-free 

document request line, 1–800–622–

4520. This ROD and the Fish and 

Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS and 

ROD are also available on our Web site, 

www.efw.bpa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Shannon Stewart, Bonneville Power 

Administration—KEC–4, P.O. Box 3621, 

Portland, Oregon 97208–3621; toll-free 

telephone number 1–800–282–3713; fax 

number 503–230–5699; or e-mail 

scstewart@bpa.gov. 

Issued in Portland, Oregon, February 9, 

2007. 

Stephen J. Wright, 

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–2998 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8279–8] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities OMB Responses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance 

requests, in compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 

and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Auby (202) 566–1672, or e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov and please refer to 

the appropriate EPA Information 

Collection Request (ICR) Number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance 

Requests 

OMB Approvals 

EPA ICR No. 1088.11; NSPS for 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units (Renewal); in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Db); was approved 

02/01/2007; OMB Number 2060–0072; 

expires 02/28/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1500.06; National 

Estuary Program (Renewal); in 40 CFR 

35.9000—35.9070; was approved 01/29/ 

2007; OMB Number 2040–0138; expires 

01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 2232.01; Community 

Water System Survey 2006; was 

approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 

2040–0273; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 2072.03; NESHAP for 

Lime Manufacturing (Renewal); in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA; was 

approved 01/30/2007; OMB Number 

2060–0544; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1686.06; NESHAP for 

the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry 

(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

X); was approved 01/30/2007; OMB 

Number 2060–0296; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1353.08; Land Disposal 

Restrictions No-Migration Variances 

(Renewal); in 40 CFR 268.6 and 268.40; 

was approved 01/29/2007; OMB 

Number 2050–0062; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 2240.02; NESHAP for 

Area Sources: Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers Production, Primary 

Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper 

Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous 

Metals-Zinc, and Beryllium (Final Rule); 

in 40 CFR, section 11149(d)–(g), 

11150(a)–(b), 11162(g), 11163(c)–(g), 

11164(a)–(b) and Table 1 to subpart 

GGGGG; was approved 01/24/2007; 

OMB Number 2060–0596; expires 01/ 

31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1052.08; NSPS Subpart 

D, Standards of Performance for FossilFuel-Fired Steam Generating Units; in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart D; was 

approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 

2060–0026; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1949.05; Information 

Collection Request for the EPA National 

Environmental Performance Track 

Program; was approved 01/19/2007; 

OMB Number 2010–0032; expires 01/ 

31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1093.08; NSPS for 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines (Renewal); in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart TTT; was approved 

01/19/2007; OMB Number 2060–0162; 

expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1128.08; NSPS for 

Secondary Lead Smelters (Renewal); in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart L; was approved 

01/18/2007; OMB Number 2060–0080; 

expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1084.08; NSPS for 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing; in 40 

CFR part 60 subpart OOO; was 

approved 01/18/2007; OMB Number 

2060–0050; expires 01/31/2010. 

EPA ICR No. 1569.06; Approval of 

State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 

Control Programs (CZARA Section 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

19
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

20
 

 APPENDIX B 

SPR SITES AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 

21
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

22
APPENDIX B 

Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico

BRYAN

MOUND

PORT

ARTHUR

PORT

ARTHUR

SH 20” SH 20”

BIG

HILL

EXXONMOBIL 20” EXXONMOBIL 20”

LAKE

CHARLES

LAKE

CHARLES

SH 22” SH 22”

WEST

HACKBERRY HACKBERRY

BAYOU

CHOCTAW

LOOP LOOP

NEW ORLEANS NEW ORLEANS

BATON

ROUGE

BATON

ROUGE

ST. JAMES ST. JAMES

LOOP

PASCAGOULA PASCAGOULA

RICHTON RICHTON

SEAWAY SEAWAY

SEAWAY 30” SEAWAY 30”

WTG 26”” WTG 26””

SUN 10”, 12” SUN 10”, 12”

LION 10” LION 10”

CAPLINE 40” CAPLINE 40”

SEAWAY

TEXOMA CAPLINE

SPR STORAGE SITES

SPR SALES POINTS

REFINING CENTERS

HOUSTON HOUSTON

TEXAS CITY TEXAS CITY

SPR DISTRIBUTION PLAN

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

SPR3073.PPT

Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico

BRYAN

MOUND

PORT

ARTHUR

PORT

ARTHUR

SH 20” SH 20”

BIG

HILL

EXXONMOBIL 20” EXXONMOBIL 20”

LAKE

CHARLES

LAKE

CHARLES

SH 22” SH 22”

WEST

HACKBERRY HACKBERRY

BAYOU

CHOCTAW

LOOP LOOP

NEW ORLEANS NEW ORLEANS

BATON

ROUGE

BATON

ROUGE

ST. JAMES ST. JAMES

LOOP

PASCAGOULA PASCAGOULA

RICHTON RICHTON

SEAWAY SEAWAY

SEAWAY 30” SEAWAY 30”

WTG 26”” WTG 26””

SUN 10”, 12” SUN 10”, 12”

LION 10” LION 10”

CAPLINE 40” CAPLINE 40”

SEAWAY

TEXOMA CAPLINE

SPR STORAGE SITES

SPR SALES POINTS

REFINING CENTERS

HOUSTON HOUSTON

TEXAS CITY TEXAS CITY

SPR DISTRIBUTION PLAN

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

SPR3073.PPT

CAPLINE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 

SUGARLAND 

TERMINAL

LOCAP 

TERMINAL

CAPLINE 

TERMINAL

REDSTICK

DELIVERY

EXXONMOBIL

TERMINAL

BATON ROUGE

Marine 

(400 MBD)

2 Refineries 

3 Refineries

EMPLCo

North Line

(150+ MBD)

Capline Pipeline

Liberty 

Station

Bayou Choctaw

(600 MBD)

Richton, MS

(1,000 MBD)

MID-CONTINENT MIDWEST

DE 36”

SH 24”

ST JAMES

DE 36”

PASCAGOULA

TERMINAL

Marine 

(400 MBD)

1 Refinery

PASCAGOULA

DE 48”

23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

24
 

APPENDIX C 

PROJECTED EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

25
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

26
APPENDIX C 

PROJECTED EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT SCH

Existing

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2014 

Existing

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2014 

NEPA ENGINEERING DESIGN

OIL STORAGE AVAILABILITY

BAYOU CHOCTAW

A/E ACQ

23 MMB

BIG HILL

RICHTON

80 MMB

27 MMB

10 MMB

ROD

2006