[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3577-3583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the 
FutureGen 2.0 Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) announces 
its decision to provide financial assistance to the FutureGen 
Industrial Alliance (the Alliance) for its FutureGen 2.0 Project. DOE 
prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0460) to 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with DOE's 
proposed action of providing approximately $1 billion of financial 
assistance for the project (the majority of which was appropriated 
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)) through 
cooperative agreements with the Alliance. The EIS evaluated the 
potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the 
proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project, which is a public-private partnership 
formed for the purpose of developing the world's first commercial-
scale, oxy-combustion electric generation project integrated with 
carbon capture and geologic storage. The Alliance, cooperating with 
Ameren Energy Resources (Ameren), would upgrade one unit in a power 
plant currently owned by Ameren near Meredosia, Illinois. The repowered 
unit would include oxy-combustion and carbon capture technologies 
designed to capture at least 90 percent of its carbon dioxide 
(CO2) emissions during steady-state operation and reduce 
other emissions to near zero. The captured CO2 would be 
transported through an approximately 30-mile pipeline to wells where it 
would be injected approximately 4,000 feet below ground into a geologic 
saline formation for permanent storage. The project would be designed 
to capture, transport, and inject approximately 1.2 million tons (1.1 
million metric tons) of CO2 annually, and up to a total of 
24 million tons (22 million metric tons) over approximately 20 years. 
The Alliance would also construct and operate visitor, research, and 
training facilities related to carbon capture and storage in the 
vicinity of Jacksonville, Illinois. The DOE-funded demonstration period 
would last for 56 months from the start of operations (approximately 
2017) through 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this record of decision (ROD) are available on 
DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents and on the DOE National Energy 
Technology Laboratory (NETL) Web site at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.html. Copies of these documents may be 
obtained from Mr. Cliff Whyte, M/S: I07, National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 
26507-0880, ATTN: FutureGen 2.0 Project; electronic mail: 
[email protected]; telephone: 304-285-2098; or by toll-free 
telephone at 1-800-432-8330, extension 2098.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD and Floodplain 
Statement of Findings pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), and in 
compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing 
regulations for NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500 
through 1508), DOE's implementing procedures for NEPA (10 CFR Part 
1021), and DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental 
Review (10 CFR part 1022). The decisions announced in this ROD are 
based on DOE's final EIS for the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE/EIS-0460, 
October 2013) and other program considerations.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    DOE considers the advancement of carbon capture and storage 
technology critically important to addressing CO2 emissions 
and global climate change concerns associated with the use of fossil 
fuels. The purpose of DOE's proposed action is to demonstrate the

[[Page 3578]]

commercial feasibility of an advanced coal-based technology (oxy-
combustion) that may serve as a cost-effective approach to implementing 
carbon capture at new and existing power plants. The proposed project 
would also demonstrate commercial-scale integration of transport and 
permanent storage of captured CO2 in a deep geologic 
formation. Implementation of the FutureGen 2.0 Project supports the 
objectives of the FutureGen Initiative to establish the feasibility and 
viability of producing low-carbon electricity from coal with near-zero 
emissions of air pollutants.
    One of DOE's primary strategic goals is to protect our national and 
economic security by promoting a diverse supply of reliable, 
affordable, and environmentally sound energy. The development of carbon 
capture and storage technologies through the FutureGen 2.0 Project 
would support the ongoing and future use of the nation's abundant coal 
reserves in a manner that addresses both aging power plants and 
environmental challenges. Federal financial support reduces the risks 
inherent in these first-of-a-kind projects, which without financial 
assistance would be unlikely to occur.

DOE's Proposed Action

    DOE's proposed action is to provide approximately $1 billion in 
cost-shared ARRA and other funding through cooperative agreements with 
the Alliance for its proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project. The estimated 
total project cost is $1.68 billion.

Project Description and Location

    The FutureGen 2.0 Project would result in the construction and 
operation of a CO2 capture facility using oxy-combustion 
technology to capture at least 90 percent (approximately 1.2 million 
tons [1.1 million metric tons] annually) of CO2 during 
steady-state operation of a repowered electricity generating unit at 
the Meredosia Energy Center. This existing generating unit is located 
on a 263-acre site adjacent to the east side of the Illinois River, 
south of the village of Meredosia in Morgan County, Illinois. The 
captured CO2 would be conditioned, compressed, and 
transported approximately 30 miles via a new pipeline to a new well 
that would inject into the Mt. Simon Formation (approximately 4,000 
feet below ground surface), which is one of the Illinois Basin's major 
deep saline formations. The primary components of the project are:
    (1) Oxy-Combustion Large Scale Test--The Alliance would acquire 
portions of the Meredosia Energy Center from Ameren and repower an 
existing unit with oxy-combustion technology. Principal construction 
features would include a new air separation unit to generate oxygen, 
modifications to the power block (including a new boiler and gas 
quality control system), a new compression and purification unit for 
the flue gas, and additional modifications (reconstruction of the main 
cooling tower, two new cooling towers, process water system upgrades, 
new process water and wastewater treatment systems, and a new 450-foot 
(maximum) concrete exhaust stack). The new oxy-combustion facility 
would operate on a blended coal mixture of 60 percent Illinois No. 6 
bituminous and 40 percent Powder River Basin sub-bituminous. The 
repowered unit would generate 168 MWe of power (gross) and 
CO2 suitable for transport by pipeline.
    (2) CO2 Pipeline--The Alliance would construct a new 
pipeline approximately 30 miles long to transport captured 
CO2 to a new injection well site northeast of Jacksonville, 
Illinois. The pipeline would be constructed of either a 12-inch or 10-
inch diameter pipe. The proposed pipeline route crosses mostly rural 
and sparsely developed agricultural lands in Morgan County. The 
Alliance plans to use existing rights-of-way (ROWs) to the extent 
practicable to minimize environmental impacts and avoid sensitive 
resources. The CO2 pipeline would have an operational ROW 
with a width of 50 feet and a construction ROW of 80 feet (100 feet in 
limited circumstances).
    (3) CO2 Storage--The proposed project would convey 
approximately 1.2 million tons (1.1 million metric tons) of 
CO2 annually to a new injection site on 9.5 acres northwest 
of the intersection of Beilschmidt Road and Martin Road in eastern 
Morgan County. The CO2 would be injected via four 
horizontally drilled injection wells into the Mt. Simon Formation 
approximately 4,000 feet below the surface, and would be confined in 
the geologic saline formation by an overlying impermeable caprock layer 
(the Eau Claire Formation) approximately 480 feet thick. The maximum 
extent of the subsurface CO2 plume after 20 years of 
injection would be approximately 4,000 acres based on modeling results; 
the Alliance has acquired the subsurface rights of 6,800 acres for the 
modeled plume. The Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) permits 
to be issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for 
the four horizontal injection wells require the implementation of a 
monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) program to assess the 
injection and geologic storage of CO2 and to verify that it 
stays within the target formation. The MVA program, including 
monitoring wells and other technologies, would proceed throughout the 
planned injection period (20 years) and continue for another 50 years 
or until such time as the USEPA is satisfied that the plume is stable 
and no further monitoring is required.
    (4) Educational Facilities - The Alliance would construct and 
operate visitor, research, and training facilities (the educational 
facilities) to support public outreach and communication, and to 
provide training and research opportunities associated with near-zero 
emissions power generation and CO2 capture and storage 
technologies. The intended general location for the educational 
facilities is the vicinity of Jacksonville, which is the largest 
community in Morgan County. The Alliance has been working with local 
stakeholders to identify a location that would be advantageous to the 
FutureGen 2.0 Project and to the local community. Siting of the 
facilities would require a maximum of 3.5 acres at a location that has 
access to existing utility infrastructure and roadways.

Alternatives

    Alternatives considered by DOE during the original 2003 FutureGen 
program originated as private-party (e.g., electric power industry) 
applications submitted to the Department. The FutureGen 2.0 Project is 
a continuation of the original FutureGen program. In addition to fully 
analyzing the potential impacts of the FutureGen 2.0 Project and the no 
action alternative, DOE considered alternatives for the proposed action 
in the EIS, including alternative fuel sources, alternative advanced 
electric generating technologies, alternative retrofitting 
technologies, alternative sites for the oxy-combustion large scale 
test, and alternative CO2 pipeline and storage locations. 
These alternatives were dismissed from further analysis primarily 
because they either were already addressed by other programs and 
projects within DOE's diverse portfolio of energy research, 
development, and demonstration efforts; because they did not meet the 
Alliance's environmental, geologic, or siting criteria; or because they 
would not meet the cost and technology-advancement objectives of the 
FutureGen Initiative as effectively as the proposed project.

No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, DOE would not continue to fund the 
FutureGen 2.0 Project into the final design, construction, and 
operational

[[Page 3579]]

phases. Without DOE funding, it is unlikely that the Alliance (or the 
U.S. industry in general) would undertake, in the near-term, the 
commercial-scale integration of CO2 capture and geologic 
storage with a coal-fueled power plant. Therefore, the no action 
alternative represents a ``no-build'' alternative. Without DOE's 
investment in this facility, the development of oxy-combustion plants 
integrated with CO2 capture and geologic storage would be 
delayed or not occur at all. While the no action alternative would not 
satisfy the purpose and need for DOE's proposed action, this 
alternative was analyzed to allow for comparisons to the effects of the 
proposed project, as required under CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). 
The no action alternative reflects the current baseline condition and 
serves as a benchmark against which the effects of the proposed action 
can be evaluated. If the Alliance decided to pursue the project without 
DOE funding, potential impacts would be similar to those evaluated 
under DOE's proposed action.

EIS Process

    DOE initiated the NEPA process by publishing a notice of intent 
(NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (FR) on May 23, 2011. 
DOE stated in that notice that the EIS would analyze the potential 
environmental impacts at each of three CO2 storage sites 
proposed by the Alliance. These sites were located near Jacksonville, 
Illinois; Taylorville, Illinois; and Tuscola, Illinois. DOE conducted a 
scoping process that included three public scoping meetings and 
consultations with interested governmental agencies and other 
stakeholders. DOE held public scoping meetings in Taylorville, Tuscola, 
and Jacksonville during the 30-day public scoping period, which ended 
on June 22, 2011.
    Following the public scoping period and after consideration of the 
comments received, DOE prepared a draft EIS that analyzed the potential 
environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the 
FutureGen 2.0 Project and the no action alternative. During the 
preparation of the document, the Alliance determined that 
CO2 injection and storage at the Jacksonville site, located 
in Morgan County, was the only suitable option as the quality of the 
geologic storage site was acceptable and the prohibitive costs involved 
in transporting the CO2 for substantial additional distances 
to Taylorville and Tuscola made the other sites unreasonable. As a 
result, the Taylorville and Tuscola sites were removed from further 
consideration, and the draft EIS analyzed the potential environmental 
impacts of CO2 injection and storage at the site near 
Jacksonville only. DOE and the USEPA both published notices of 
availability (NOAs) for the draft EIS on May 3, 2013. DOE's NOA (78 FR 
26004) also announced its plans for a public hearing, which was held on 
May 21, 2013, in Jacksonville.
    DOE listened to questions and concerns during an informal session 
before the hearing and received oral comments on the draft EIS at the 
public hearing. During the 45-day public comment period, which ended 
June 17, 2013, DOE received comment letters from the USEPA, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, and Illinois Department of Agriculture. 
Comments also were received from one local elected official, four non-
governmental or public-private organizations, and seven members of the 
public.
    Comments included concerns regarding: (1) The adequacy of technical 
and financial information about the project; (2) potential 
socioeconomic impacts and risks; (3) the suitability of the proposed 
geologic formation for storage of CO2; (4) the effectiveness 
of the project to mitigate potential climate change; (5) potential 
health and safety risks associated with leakage from the CO2 
storage formation or the pipeline; (6) the protection of threatened and 
endangered species, forest habitat, bald eagles, and migratory birds; 
(7) the adequacy of the NEPA analysis, definition of purpose and need, 
and alternatives; (8) connected actions and cumulative impacts related 
to coal use; (9) potential environmental justice impacts on low-income 
populations; and (10) potential impacts on surface waters, wetlands, 
groundwater, prime farmland, and public water utilities. USEPA rated 
the draft EIS as LO--``Lack of Objections.''
    DOE distributed the final EIS in October 2013. The USEPA published 
a NOA in the Federal Register on November 1, 2013 (78 FR 65643). In the 
final EIS, DOE updated project information, refined analyses, and 
responded to all comments on the draft EIS.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received comments on the final EIS from the USEPA and a 
concerned citizen, Ms. Betty Niemann. DOE considered these comments 
during preparation of this ROD.
    USEPA, in a letter dated November 27, 2013, indicated that the 
final EIS adequately clarified issues USEPA had posed on the draft EIS 
except that USEPA had a remaining comment on fine particulate matter. 
USEPA recommended that the ROD require either a more detailed and 
refined analysis that demonstrates that FutureGen 2.0 is not a 
significant contributor to ambient air quality violations or impose 
controls/limitations to assure there would be no violations. In 
response, the Alliance updated the air quality modeling analysis as 
recommended and the results are discussed in this ROD under Air 
Quality. The analysis demonstrates that the FutureGen 2.0 Project would 
not significantly contribute to a modeled exceedance of the 24-hour 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulate matter. In a 
letter dated December 16, 2013, USEPA stated that concerns raised in 
the November 27, 2013 comment letter have been resolved, and that USEPA 
has no additional recommendations.
    Ms. Niemann, in a letter and subsequent electronic mail, expressed 
concern about a range of topics, including among other things: The 
cooperative agreement between DOE and the Alliance; potential impacts 
on land use and aesthetics associated with the visitor center in 
Jacksonville; apparent discrepancies in the acreage required for 
CO2 storage, potential for leaks from the CO2 
storage area, such as from characterization/stratigraphic wells; 
adequacy of analysis of baseline impacts to landowners under the no 
action alternative; whether the anticipated environmental benefits of 
CO2 reduction are significant enough to justify the project 
in view of costs and impacts to landowners; adequacy of site-specific 
information in the EIS; liability issues; and whether the Alliance has 
the expertise to carry out the FutureGen 2.0 Project. DOE has reviewed 
the final EIS in light of these comments and determined the analyses in 
the final EIS are adequate. Many of the issues in these comments were 
also posed in comments from Ms. Niemann on the draft EIS; responses to 
those comments are in Appendix I of the final EIS.

Decision

    DOE has decided to proceed with cost-shared funding for the 
FutureGen 2.0 Project, providing the Alliance with approximately $1 
billion through cooperative agreements. The project, potential 
environmental impacts, and required mitigation measures are described 
below.

Basis of Decision

    DOE based its decision on the importance of achieving the 
objectives of the FutureGen Initiative and a careful review of the 
potential environmental impacts presented in the EIS. Clean coal

[[Page 3580]]

is an essential component of the President's ``All of the Above'' 
energy strategy and the proposed project would help DOE meet its 
congressionally-mandated mission to support advanced clean-coal 
technology projects. Congress appropriated significant funds to enable 
DOE to pursue large-scale demonstrations of clean coal technologies, 
and the FutureGen 2.0 Project is expected to yield significant 
scientific, commercial, and energy-production benefits. Studies by DOE 
have identified oxy-combustion as a potentially cost-effective approach 
to implementing carbon capture at existing coal facilities, including a 
large cross-section of the world's existing pulverized coal power 
plants. Oxy-combustion also has the potential for use in new power 
plants. Oxy-combustion technology is inherently scalable, making it 
possible to demonstrate the technology at a relatively small commercial 
scale, such as the 168 megawatt electricity (MWe), FutureGen 2.0 
Project, and then replicate it at larger-scale (e.g., 500+ MWe) power 
plants. The ability to demonstrate the technology at a smaller but 
commercially relevant scale offers substantial cost-saving benefits. An 
important benefit of FutureGen 2.0 will be the data collected during 
the demonstration period. These data may be used by DOE and others to 
evaluate whether the project's technologies could be effectively and 
economically implemented at a commercial scale.
    DOE plans to verify the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS 
and the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation 
measures.

Mitigation

    DOE's decision incorporates measures to avoid or minimize adverse 
environmental impacts during the design, construction, and operation of 
the project. DOE requires that recipients of financial assistance 
comply with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental 
laws, orders, and regulations. During project planning, the Alliance 
incorporated various mitigation measures and permit requirements into 
its project, and the analyses completed for the EIS assumed that such 
measures would be implemented. These measures are identified in the EIS 
and incorporated into this ROD as conditions for DOE's financial 
assistance under the cooperative agreements between DOE and the 
Alliance. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 
from the project have been adopted.
    Mitigation measures beyond those specified in permit conditions 
will be addressed in a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP). DOE will prepare 
the MAP, consistent with 10 CFR part 1021.331, to establish how the 
mitigation measures will be planned, implemented, and monitored. The 
MAP will be an adaptive management tool; therefore, mitigation 
conditions in it would be removed if equivalent conditions are 
otherwise established by permit, license, or law. Permit, license, or 
regulatory requirements are not mitigation actions subject to DOE 
control and, therefore, would not be included in the MAP. Through 
management of its cooperative agreements with the Alliance, DOE will 
ensure that the Alliance fulfills the monitoring and mitigation 
requirements specified in this ROD and in the MAP, which is under 
development. DOE will make the MAP available for inspection in 
appropriate locations for a reasonable time. Copies of the MAP and any 
annual reports required by the MAP will also be available upon written 
request.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE's proposed action) and the no action 
alternative. The potentially affected environmental resources evaluated 
included: Air quality; climate and greenhouse gases; physiography and 
soils; geology; groundwater; surface water; wetlands and floodplains; 
biological resources; cultural resources; land use; aesthetics; 
materials and waste management; traffic and transportation; noise; 
utilities; community services; human health and safety; socioeconomics; 
and environmental justice. For analytical purposes, DOE evaluated 
potential impacts using current baseline conditions where the energy 
center is no longer in operation, as well as using historical baseline 
conditions prior to the 2011 suspension of operations at the energy 
center. DOE also considered the impacts from construction and operation 
of the FutureGen 2.0 Project in combination with those from other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (i.e., cumulative 
impacts).
    Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and all 
necessary permits would be obtained to minimize potential impacts and 
to comply with regulatory requirements during construction and 
operation. The following sections discuss the key potential impacts of 
the project.

Air Quality

    Construction of the FutureGen 2.0 Project would result in short-
term, minor, localized increased tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions. 
Emissions would be concentrated at the construction sites and would 
steadily decrease with distance. Construction-related emissions would 
be reduced with the implementation of industry standard BMPs, including 
control of vehicle speeds, minimizing or stabilizing exposed areas to 
reduce wind erosion, wetting exposed areas and roads with water or 
appropriate surfactants, reducing or eliminating equipment idling time, 
and using properly maintained equipment. The proposed project would 
occur in an area listed as either in ``attainment'' or ``unclassified'' 
for all criteria pollutants. Clean Air Act conformity requirements are 
not applicable and thus there are no emissions thresholds that pertain 
to the construction phase of this project.
    Air dispersion modeling, using USEPA's model AERMOD, was performed 
to assess the potential air quality impacts of the proposed FutureGen 
2.0 Project during operations and to demonstrate compliance with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The modeling results indicated 
that emissions of criteria pollutants or hazardous air pollutants 
during operations would not exceed relevant air quality or health 
standards when analyzed as an isolated project or when analyzed 
cumulatively with applicable regional sources. In response to a 
recommendation from the USEPA based on its review of the final EIS, the 
Alliance updated the air quality modeling analysis regarding the 
potential impacts of the proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project on the region's 
ability to meet the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5). This 
updated modeling analysis corrects the State of Illinois' emissions 
inventory to account for an over-prediction in PM 2.5 impacts and 
therefore provides a more accurate assessment of the project's 
potential PM 2.5 impacts. The results of this updated analysis 
demonstrate that the FutureGen 2.0 Project would not significantly 
contribute to a modeled exceedance of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. (See 
final EIS at pages 3.1-23). Emissions would be well within the limits 
of the facility's air permit issued by the Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency on December 13, 2013. The project would not 
jeopardize the attainment status of the region for any criteria 
pollutant; nor would the project impact the air quality

[[Page 3581]]

or visibility at any Class I areas. During normal operations of the 
oxy-combustion facility, the gas quality control system would 
incorporate state-of-the-art flue gas scrubbing technology to minimize 
criteria pollutant emissions from the stack. Beneficial impacts could 
result from overall lower emissions, as electricity generated by this 
project may displace electricity generated by traditional coal-fired 
power plants that emit significantly higher levels of pollutants.

Climate and Greenhouse Gases

    Construction-related impacts resulting from tailpipe emissions of 
greenhouse gases would be minimized by the use of appropriate BMPs, 
such as maintaining engines according to manufacturers' specifications, 
minimizing idling of equipment while not in use, and using electricity 
from the grid if available to reduce the use of diesel or gasoline 
generators for operating construction equipment.
    The capture and geological storage of greenhouse gas emissions by 
the project would contribute to beneficial cumulative effects on a 
national and global scale. The proposed project would capture and 
sequester approximately 1.2 million tons per year (1.1 million metric 
tons per year) of CO2 emissions from the generation of 168 
MWe of electric power, which would generate approximately 90 percent 
less greenhouse gas emissions than a similar conventional coal-fired 
power plant, or approximately 70 percent less than a natural-gas fired 
power plant. The reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from 
the project would incrementally reduce the rate of their accumulation 
in the atmosphere and help to incrementally mitigate climate change 
related to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. On a broader 
scale, successful implementation of the project may lead to widespread 
acceptance and deployment of oxy-combustion technology with geologic 
storage of CO2, thus fostering a long-term reduction in the 
rate of CO2 emissions from power plants.
    The Alliance must design and construct the FutureGen 2.0 Project to 
capture a minimum of 90 percent of the CO2 in the treated 
stream when operating under normal conditions, and use best efforts to 
achieve at least a 90 percent capture rate during the demonstration 
period.

Physiography and Soils

    Construction of the proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project would increase 
the potential for soil erosion and compaction, increase the amount of 
impermeable surfaces, and withdraw some prime farmland soils from 
agricultural production. Construction of the FutureGen 2.0 Project 
would temporarily disturb up to 418 acres and permanently alter up to 
233 acres. Much of the land at the energy center that would be impacted 
has been previously disturbed, and all of the agricultural land along 
the pipeline ROW would be restored for agricultural use after 
construction. The permanent loss of prime farmland for the entire 
FutureGen 2.0 Project would be approximately 14 acres located at the 
injection site.
    Impacts to prime farmland soils and agricultural uses resulting 
from the construction and operation of the FutureGen 2.0 Project would 
be minimized through compliance with an Agricultural Impact Mitigation 
Agreement and pollution prevention requirements included in the 
project's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and 
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plans.
    The Alliance signed an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement 
with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (included in Appendix H, 
Agricultural Mitigation, in the final EIS). The Illinois Farm Bureau 
also participated in the development of the agreement by reviewing and 
providing comments that were incorporated. The agreement specifies the 
activities the Alliance would undertake to mitigate any adverse impacts 
to farmland associated with the construction of the CO2 
pipeline.

Geology

    Construction at the Meredosia Energy Center and in the 
CO2 pipeline corridor may require excavation of glacial 
materials. Construction of the injection wells would result in removal 
of geologic media through the drilling process. This process would not 
be unique to the area and would not affect the availability of local 
geologic resources.
    Operation of the oxy-combustion facility and CO2 
pipeline would not affect geologic resources. At the injection wells, 
the potential for CO2 to migrate out of the injection zone 
is considered highly unlikely. Computer modeling conducted by the 
Alliance for their proposed injection well configuration of four 
horizontal wells installed at one injection well site predicted that 
the CO2 plume would expand to encompass an area of 
approximately 4,000 acres within the CO2 storage study area 
over the 20-year injection period. During injection, the Alliance would 
monitor the formation pressure to ensure that injection-induced 
seismicity would not occur. The Alliance would also follow a USEPA-
approved MVA plan and conduct studies and monitoring to minimize this 
potential. As required by the UIC permits, appropriate mitigation 
strategies would be implemented should CO2 migration be 
identified.
    On November 13, 2013, the Alliance received a Nationwide Permit 12 
(NWP-12--Utility Line Activities) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) which authorizes the Alliance to conduct trenching activities 
within two ephemeral streams located within the pipeline ROW.

Wetlands and Floodplains

    In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022 (DOE regulations for Compliance 
with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements), DOE 
assessed the potential impacts of the proposed project and its 
connected actions on wetlands and floodplains in the affected area. The 
Alliance selected sites and a pipeline route that would minimize 
impacts to wetlands and floodplains and has committed to implementing 
methods designed to further reduce impacts.
    No impacts to wetlands would occur at the Meredosia Energy Center 
as a result of the proposed project. If the Alliance undertakes 
activities related to the proposed barge unloading facility, then 
temporary impacts could occur resulting in potential increased 
sedimentation of the Illinois River from disturbance of the river 
bottom.
    The operational ROW for the CO2 pipeline contains no 
National Wetland Inventory-mapped wetlands, but may contain up to 0.5 
acre of freshwater wetlands based on a wetland delineation performed by 
the Alliance in spring 2013. While all perennial streams, intermittent 
streams, and the majority of wetland areas would be avoided using 
trenchless technologies, trenching could occur during pipeline 
construction at certain ephemeral streams that are seasonally dry at 
the time of construction, as well as within a 0.03-acre wetland swale 
identified during a wetland delineation by the Alliance. This 0.03-acre 
area of hydric soils is located in an active agricultural field within 
the proposed pipeline ROW and was originally assumed to be a non-
regulated feature. However, a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 
(PJD) received by the Alliance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) indicated that, based on a significant nexus to the Illinois 
River, the 0.03-acre wetland area is considered to be a regulated 
wetland

[[Page 3582]]

feature of ordinary resource value. Concurrently with the PJD, the 
Alliance received an approved Nationwide Permit--12 ``Utility Line 
Activities'' (NWP-12) that authorizes trenching activities within this 
wetland area as well as two ephemeral streams along the pipeline route. 
The NWP-12 includes numerous permit conditions which must be followed 
by the Alliance, one of which requires that these features be restored 
to their original, pre-construction conditions after construction 
activities are completed. Since the Alliance would comply with all 
permit conditions, no permanent impacts to wetlands would occur.
    Construction within the 100-year floodplain would occur only in 
areas that are currently developed at the Meredosia Energy Center; 
therefore, additional impacts are not expected. If the Alliance 
undertakes activities related to the proposed barge unloading facility, 
temporary placement of facilities within the 100-year floodplain would 
occur during construction, and the area would be returned to pre-
construction conditions after construction activities are completed. 
Construction of the CO2 pipeline unavoidably would cross 
100-year floodplains and may result in small ancillary structures being 
placed in the 100-year floodplain, resulting in minor impacts. 
Construction at the CO2 injection well site would avoid 
floodplains.

Potential Environmental Impacts of the No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, DOE assumed that the FutureGen 2.0 
Project would not be constructed and that the current suspension of 
operations at the Meredosia Energy Center would continue. The impacts 
under the no action alternative (i.e., ``no build'') were evaluated in 
the EIS and compared to the proposed action. Under the no action 
alternative, the Meredosia Energy Center, pipeline corridor, and the 
CO2 storage site would remain in their current condition 
with respect to all of the environmental resources evaluated. There 
would also be no commercial-scale demonstration of the oxy-combustion 
technology to capture and geologically store CO2. The 
development of oxy-combustion repowered plants integrated with 
CO2 capture and geologic storage would be delayed or not 
occur at all, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-
fueled power plants would not be advanced.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    From a local perspective, the no action alternative is the 
environmentally preferable alternative, because it would result in no 
changes to existing environmental conditions. However, from a national 
perspective, DOE's proposed action is the environmentally preferred 
alternative. Successful demonstration of the proposed FutureGen 2.0 
Project could facilitate the deployment of oxy-combustion, carbon 
capture, and geologic storage technologies at power plants and other 
industrial facilities in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that 
would otherwise occur from the continued combustion of fossil fuels, 
especially coal, by large conventional facilities.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    DOE prepared this floodplain statement of findings in accordance 
with DOE's regulations entitled ``Compliance with Floodplain and 
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). DOE 
completed the required floodplain and wetland assessment in 
coordination with development and preparation of the EIS, and 
incorporated the results and discussion in Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 
Appendix D of the final EIS. DOE determined that the placement of some 
project components within floodplains would be unavoidable. However, 
the current design for the project minimizes floodplain impacts to the 
extent practicable. Figures 3.7-2, 3.7-3 and 3.7-4 of the final EIS 
depict the locations of floodplains that cannot be avoided and 
therefore would be impacted by the construction and operation of the 
project.
    DOE determined that all practicable design layouts at the Meredosia 
Energy Center would affect the 100-year floodplain associated with the 
Illinois River and that no wetlands would be affected. Since portions 
of the existing facility lie within the 100-year floodplain and the 
project requires the use and reconstruction of these facilities, DOE 
and the Alliance did not consider alternate sites outside of the 
floodplain. However, the Alliance developed the project design to 
minimize impacts to floodplains to the greatest extent practicable. 
Based on the current design, 15 acres of 100-year floodplain would be 
impacted, including 7.6 acres of permanent impact areas and 7.4 acres 
of temporary impact areas (limited to the construction period). 
Development of approximately 10 acres of impervious surfaces in areas 
that were previously pervious (e.g., grassy areas) could result in 
increased flow velocity and a reduction in infiltration rates in these 
areas. Certain beneficial aspects of floodplains, such as groundwater 
recharge and water quality maintenance, could also be reduced by an 
increase in impervious cover within the floodplain. However, these 
effects would be minor in terms of the size of the newly paved areas 
relative to the remaining unpaved areas. The structures associated with 
the proposed oxy-combustion facility would be constructed at the 
existing energy center within an area that is outside of mapped 
floodplains. As a result, the proposed structures would not affect the 
natural or beneficial values of the floodplain.
    One of the primary factors in the design of the CO2 
pipeline route was the avoidance of streams, wetlands, and floodplains. 
Other factors, such as negotiations with land owners, utilization of 
existing ROWs, and pipeline security and safety concerns were also 
considered. In addition, the Alliance has committed to using trenchless 
technologies to install the pipeline beneath all perennial and 
intermittent streams, as well as most wetland areas, along the pipeline 
route. By employing trenchless methods to avoid these areas, the 
Alliance would also concurrently avoid impacting immediately adjacent 
or co-located floodplains and wetlands in these areas.
    The designated pipeline route for the FutureGen 2.0 Project 
(referred to as the southern route), would cross 13.2 acres of 100-year 
floodplain. The majority of floodplain impacts along the pipeline route 
would be temporary, as the pipeline would be buried and the surface 
restored to its pre-construction conditions, resulting in only 
temporary disturbance. Although the pipeline itself would be buried, 
certain aboveground features associated with the pipeline (e.g., 
mainline block valves) would be necessary and could result in potential 
permanent floodplain impacts. However, the impact from these features 
would be minimal, as they would be limited in number, have small 
footprints, and would be widely scattered along the 30-mile route. 
While the exact placement of these small features has not yet been 
determined, the Alliance has indicated that all surface features would 
be placed outside of floodplains to the extent possible. As a result, 
the construction and operation of the pipeline would have a negligible 
impact on the natural or beneficial values of the floodplains.
    The Alliance sited the injection wells and associated 
infrastructure by selecting areas that did not contain floodplains or 
wetlands. As a result,

[[Page 3583]]

these project features would not affect the natural or beneficial 
values of floodplains or wetlands. The Alliance has not yet determined 
the location of the educational facilities, which could involve new 
construction, rehabilitation of existing structures, or a combination 
of both types of construction. If development requires new 
construction, it would most likely occur on previously disturbed land 
that avoids wetlands and floodplains. Therefore, the construction and 
operation of the educational facilities are not expected to affect the 
natural or beneficial values of floodplains or wetlands.
    The Alliance has committed to performing all project activities in 
accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 
The Alliance would ensure that all construction within floodplains is 
performed in accordance with the requirements of the Illinois 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Morgan County Floodplain 
Ordinance. The USACE issued a NWP-12 to the Alliance for installation 
of the CO2 pipeline. Depending on the types and locations of 
other proposed construction activities, the Alliance may also be 
required to obtain additional permits from IDNR prior to any 
construction activities. In addition to any minimization or mitigation 
measures required by regulation, DOE and the Alliance have incorporated 
measures to minimize potential adverse impacts to floodplains into the 
project design from construction through operation. These measures 
include, but are not limited to, minimum grading requirements, runoff 
controls, design and construction constraints and other measures as 
described in Table 4.2-1 of the final EIS. By incorporating these 
measures into project designs, DOE and the Alliance would avoid and 
minimize anticipated adverse impacts to the natural or beneficial 
values of floodplains and wetlands.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13 of January 2014.
Christopher A. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2014-01152 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P