[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42358-42360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20145]



[[Page 42358]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[USCG-2007-28532]


Port Dolphin Energy LLC, Port Dolphin Energy Liquefied Natural 
Gas Deepwater Port License Application; Final Environmental Impact 
Statement

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) 
announce the availability of material supplementing the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Port Dolphin Energy 
Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port license application. The 
supplementary material corrects errors in the FEIS.

DATES: To allow sufficient time for public review and comment on this 
supplemental material we are extending the public comment period until 
September 11, 2009. All other scheduled dates remain unchanged. The 
Federal and State Agency and Governor comment periods also end 
September 11, 2009 and the MARAD Record of Decision is due by October 
26, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Martin, U.S. Coast Guard, 
telephone: 202-372-1449, e-mail: [email protected] or Chris 
Hanan, U.S. Maritime Administration, telephone: 202-366-1900, e-mail: 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-493-0402.

(Authority 49 CFR 1.66)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    On July 13, 2009, the Coast Guard and MARAD notice of availability 
for the Port Dolphin Energy Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port 
license application FEIS appeared in the Federal Register (74 FR 
33509). Subsequently, we discovered several typographical errors and 
errors related to the analysis of sand resources in the Executive 
Summary and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the FEIS. The most significant of 
these errors was a mathematical unit conversion error that resulted in 
the volumes of sand reported in the FEIS being nine times the actual 
estimated values.
    The corrections to the FEIS appear in this notice which, along with 
the FEIS itself, is available for viewing at the Federal Docket 
Management System Web site: http://www.regulations.gov under docket 
number USCG-2007-28532. You may also view these materials in person at 
Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, West 
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility telephone number is 202-
366-9329.
    The following corrections to the FEIS apply:

Page ES-7, Table ES-1

    Delete: Table ES-1
    Replace with: the following table:

                  Table ES-1--Comparison of Location and Pipeline Alternatives for Port Dolphin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Proposed site and          Southern site and     Offshore interconnection
        Project component            pipeline  alternative      pipeline  alternative   with gulfstream pipeline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Port Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Port C/O footprint...............  22 acres.................  30 acres (+36%).........  22 acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Pipeline Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total pipeline length............  74.0 km (46 mi)..........  80.4 km (50 mi) (+9%)...  28.8 km (18 mi) (-38%)
Offshore length (from the          67.6 km (42 mi)..........  74 km (46 mi) (+9.5%)...  N/A
 piggable Y to the bulkhead).
Offshore pipeline construction     16,728 acres.............  18,180 acres (+ 9%).....  6,545 acres (-39%)
 footprint (3,000-foot
 construction survey corridor).
Offshore Gulfstream Pipeline       Crosses two times. HDD     N/A.....................  N/A
 crossing.                          1=1,335 feet, HDD
                                    2=2,947 feet.
Permitted Sand Borrow Area IX....  0 cubic yards............  248,581 cubic yards.....  0 cubic yards
ROSS Areas.......................  5,374,463 cubic yards....  7,069,055 cubic yards...  0 cubic yards
Offshore shipping channel          none.....................  None....................  none
 crossings.
Nearshore Terra Ceia crossing....  none.....................  Crosses two times: 4.8    none
                                                               km (3.0 mi), and 1.1 km
                                                               (0.7 mi).
Onshore pipeline length..........  6.4 km (4 mi)............  6.4 km (4 mi)...........  6.4 km (4 mi)
Onshore pipeline C footprint (100- 48.5 acres...............  48.5 acres..............  48.5 acres
 foot ROW).
Onshore O footprint (30-foot ROW)  14.5 acres...............  14.5 acres..............  14.5 acres
Onshore wetland crossings C        10.71 acres..............  10.71 acres.............  10.71 acres
 impacts.
Onshore wetland crossings O        1.19 acres...............  1.19 acres..............  1.19 acres
 impacts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Onshore Facility and Workspace Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onshore landfall location........  Just east of Gulfstream    Just east of Gulfstream   N/A
                                    station at Port Manatee.   station at Port Manatee.

[[Page 42359]]

 
Aboveground facilities...........  Interconnection with GS    Interconnection with GS   Interconnection with GS
                                    and TECO--120 x 1,319      and TECO--120 x 1,319     offshore
                                    feet (3.4 acres).          feet (3.4 acres) Valve
                                   Valve station located on    station located on Port
                                    Port Manatee property--    Manatee property--50 x
                                    50 x 60 feet (0.07         60 feet (0.07 acres).
                                    acres).
Onshore extra work spaces          6 acres..................  6 acres.................  6 acres
 (located at the entrance and
 exit areas for HDD and boring
 activities).
Staging areas, pipeyard, and       34 acres; includes a       34 acres; includes a      34 acres; includes a
 contractor facilities would be     concrete batch plant,      concrete batch plant,     concrete batch plant,
 located on Port Manatee (6         mattress facility and      mattress facility, and    mattress facility, and
 months).                           pipe lay-down areas.       pipe lay-down areas.      pipe lay-down areas
Onshore access roads.............  None (use existing         None (use existing        N/A
                                    roadways).                 roadways).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
C--Construction; O--Operation
Length and acreage have been rounded to nearest whole number for NEPA planning purposes

Page 3-77, Geological Resources

    Delete: The survey information provided by the Town of Longboat Key 
identified approximately 25 additional areas with potential as future 
sand borrow areas. These areas have not been fully investigated, and 
therefore cannot be confirmed to contain beach quality sand resources. 
These areas include a total of approximately 125,000 acres.
    Replace with: The survey information provided by the Town of 
Longboat Key identified approximately 25 additional areas with 
potential as future sand borrow areas. These areas have not been fully 
investigated, and therefore cannot be confirmed to contain beach 
quality sand resources. These areas include a total of approximately 
128,000 acres.

Page 4-157, Geological Resources

    Delete: The Proposed Pipeline Route passes through potential areas 
identified by Longboat Key, including the area identified in Federal 
waters as F-2, in their May 28, 2008, comments for a distance of 3.9 km 
(2.4 mi), and through the ROSS area for a distance of approximately 
25.3 km (15.7 mi). These lengths were used to calculate the volumes in 
Table 4.4-1.
    Replace with: The Proposed Pipeline Route passes through potential 
areas identified by Longboat Key, including the area identified in 
Federal waters as F-2, in their May 29, 2008 and May 28, 2009 comments. 
Based on GIS mapping calculations, the Proposed pipeline would pass 
through potential areas identified by Longboat Key for a distance of 
3.9 km (2.4 mi), and through the ROSS area for a distance of 
approximately 11.5 km (7.2 mi). These lengths were used to calculate 
the volumes in Table 4.4-1.
    Delete: Table 4.4-1
    Replace with: the following table:

                                                   Table 4.4-1--Impacts on Potential Sand Borrow Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Volume of area (cubic yards)    Length of    Volume of impacted
                                                                       ----------------------------------  pipeline    area (cubic yards)     Percentage
                                                               Size of                                     through  ------------------------      of
                                                                area       3.75-foot         9.5-foot      impacted   3.75-foot   9.5-foot    potential
                                                               (acres)   average depth    average depth      area      average     average      volume
                                                                                                            (feet)      depth       depth      impacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrow Area IX..............................................       264        1,597,200        4,046,240          0           0           0         0.00
High-Volume Sand Shoal......................................     4,500       27,225,000       68,970,000          0           0           0         0.00
Longboat Key Potential Areas................................   128,000      774,400,000    1,961,813,333     12,858     714,323   1,809,617         0.09
ROSS Area...................................................   538,000    3,254,900,000    8,245,746,667     38,187   2,121,499   5,374,463         0.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delete: In 2006, Longboat Key used approximately 1,360,000 m\3\ 
(1,790,000 y\3\) of sand resources for their beach renourishment 
project. Assuming Longboat Key's next major beach renourishment project 
requires a similar amount of sand the proposed pipeline route would 
result in a loss of beach quality sand from the Longboat Key-identified 
potential sand resource areas equivalent to 2 to 5.5 beach 
renourishment projects. The loss of sand resulting from the proposed 
pipeline obstruction on ROSS-identified resources would result in the 
loss of 10.6 to 27.0 beach renourishment projects. No loss of beach 
quality sand within Borrow Area IX or the High Volume Sand Shoal is 
anticipated to occur.
    Replace with: In 2006, Longboat Key used approximately 1,360,000 
m\3\ (1,790,000 y\3\) of sand resources for their beach renourishment 
project. Assuming Longboat Key's next major beach renourishment project 
requires a similar amount of sand, the proposed pipeline route would 
result in a loss of sand from the Longboat Key-identified potential 
sand resource areas equivalent to 0.4 to 1 beach renourishment 
projects. The loss of sand resulting from the proposed pipeline 
obstruction on ROSS-identified resources would result in the loss of 
1.2 to 3 beach renourishment projects. No loss of beach-quality sand 
within Borrow Area IX or the High-Volume Sand Shoal is anticipated to 
occur.

Page 4-160, Geological Resources

    Delete: Table 4.4-2
    Replace with: the following table:

[[Page 42360]]



                            Table 4.4-2--Impacts on Potential Sand Borrow Areas along the Southern Site and Route Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Volume of area (cubic yards)    Length of    Volume of impacted
                                                                       ----------------------------------  pipeline    area (cubic yards)     Percentage
                                                               Size of                                     through  ------------------------      of
                                                                area       3.75-foot         9.5-foot      impacted   3.75-foot   9.5-foot    potential
                                                               (acres)   average depth    average depth      area      average     average      volume
                                                                                                            (feet)      depth       depth      impacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrow Area IX..............................................       264        1,597,200        4,046,240      1,766      98,124     248,581         6.14
High-Volume Sand Shoal......................................     4,500       27,225,000       68,970,000     12,302     683,448   1,731,402         2.51
Longboat Key Potential Areas................................   128,000      774,400,000    1,961,813,333     24,046   1,335,889   3,384,251         0.17
ROSS Area...................................................   538,000    3,254,900,000    8,245,746,667     50,227   2,790,416   7,069,055         0.09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4-161, Geological Resources

    Delete: Assuming Longboat Key's next major beach renourishment 
project requires a similar amount of sand the southern pipeline route 
would result in a loss of beach quality sand from Borrow Area IX 
equivalent to 0.5 to 1.2 renourishment projects. The loss of beach 
quality sand resulting from the proposed pipeline obstruction on ROSS-
identified resources would result in sand loss equivalent to 14.0 to 
35.5 beach renourishment projects.
    Replace with: Assuming Longboat Key's next major beach 
renourishment project requires a similar amount of sand, the southern 
pipeline route would result in a loss of beach-quality sand from Borrow 
Area IX equivalent to 0.05 to 0.14 beach renourishment projects. The 
loss of sand resulting from the proposed pipeline obstruction on ROSS-
identified resources would result in sand loss equivalent to 1.6 to 3.9 
beach renourishment projects.

Page 4-170, Marine Areas and Land Use

    Delete: The total construction footprint for this alternative is 
estimated to be 9,323 acres, or 9 percent less than the proposed 
alternative. For impacts on sand resource areas, assuming a 400-m 
(1,312-foot) buffer centered on the pipeline, a total of 103 acres of 
the available area would be restricted for use in beach renourishment.
    Replace with: The total construction footprint for this alternative 
is estimated to be 9,323 acres, or 9 percent more than the proposed 
alternative. For impacts on sand resource areas see Table 4.4-2.

Page 4-215, Socioeconomic Resources and Environmental Justice

    Delete: The sand resource locations and quantities of sand that 
would be inaccessible after construction of the pipeline are minimal 
and alternative resources exist nearby (see Section 4.1.1).
    Replace with: The sand resource locations and quantities of sand 
that would be inaccessible after construction of the pipeline are 
minimal and alternative resources exist nearby (see Figure 2.1-18).

Page 4-243, BMPs, Mitigation and Minimization Measures, and Monitoring

    Delete: The Maritime Administration agrees that mitigation and 
monitoring of egg and fish mortality should be required to demonstrate 
impacts consistent with those analyzed in the EIS. Further details of 
this effort, including the duration of monitoring, would be developed 
in coordination with NOAA and USEPA as part of a detailed monitoring 
and mitigation plan being developed by the Maritime Administration. 
Onsite sampling for ichthyoplankton, lobster, and shrimp densities 
should include three years of data prior to the start of operations. If 
a license is issued, Port Dolphin Energy LLC would be required to 
conduct site-specific, year-round surveying to collect data on existing 
fish and invertebrate ichthyoplankton populations. Data collection 
shall begin as soon as the license is issued, and continue for a 
minimum of 3 years. Furthermore, one year of data collection must be 
completed prior to the start of operations, one of which must be 
completed prior to the start of operations.
    Replace with: The Maritime Administration agrees that mitigation 
and monitoring of egg and fish mortality should be required to 
demonstrate impacts consistent with those analyzed in the EIS. Further 
details of this effort would be developed in coordination with NOAA and 
USEPA as part of a detailed monitoring and mitigation plan being 
developed by the Maritime Administration. If a license is issued, Port 
Dolphin Energy LLC would be required to conduct site-specific, year-
round surveying to collect data on existing fish and invertebrate 
ichthyoplankton populations. Data collection shall begin as soon as the 
license is issued, and continue for a minimum of three years. 
Furthermore, one year of data collection must be completed prior to the 
start of operations.

Page 6-31, Geological Resources

    Delete: The proposed pipeline would pass through two potential sand 
sources identified by the Town of Longboat Key
    for a distance of approximately 2.26 km (1.4 mi). In addition, the 
proposed pipeline would pass through approximately 11.64 km (7.23 mi) 
of ROSS-identified potential sand source area. Based on analysis 
conducted in Sections 3.4.3 and 4.4.1, the proposed pipeline route 
including the 200-foot buffer on each side of the pipeline would 
restrict approximately 383 acres (155 hectares) for use in beach 
nourishment. This area comprises 0.06 percent of the 615,464 acres of 
the Long Boat Key, ROSS, High Volume Sand Shoal, and Borrow Area IX 
mapped potential sand resource areas.
    Replace with: The Proposed Pipeline Route passes through potential 
areas identified by Longboat Key, including the area identified in 
Federal waters as F-2, in their May 29, 2008 and May 28, 2009 comments. 
Based on GIS mapping calculations, the Proposed pipeline would pass 
through potential areas identified by Longboat Key for a distance of 
3.9 km (2.4 mi), and through the ROSS area for a distance of 
approximately 11.5 km (7.2 mi). These lengths were used to calculate 
the volumes in Table 4.4-1.

    Dated: August 18, 2009.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Murray A. Bloom,
Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-20145 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P