42358 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 

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: 

raymond.w.martin@uscg.mil or Chris 

Hanan, U.S. Maritime Administration, 

telephone: 202–366–1900, e-mail: 

Christopher.Hanan@dot.gov. 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

Project component Proposed site and pipeline 

alternative 

Southern site and pipeline 

alternative 

Offshore interconnection 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 piggable 

Y to the bulkhead).

67.6 km (42 mi) ............................ 74 km (46 mi) (+9.5%) ................. N/A 

Offshore pipeline construction footprint (3,000-foot construction survey corridor).16,728 acres ................................ 18,180 acres (+ 9%) .................... 6,545 acres (¥39%) 

Offshore Gulfstream Pipeline crossing.Crosses two times. HDD 1=1,335 

feet, HDD 2=2,947 feet.

N/A ............................................... N/A 

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 crossings.none ............................................. None ............................................. none 

Nearshore Terra Ceia crossing ....... none ............................................. Crosses two times: 4.8 km (3.0 

mi), and 1.1 km (0.7 mi).

none 

Onshore pipeline length .................. 6.4 km (4 mi) ................................ 6.4 km (4 mi) ................................ 6.4 km (4 mi) 

Onshore pipeline C footprint (100- 

foot ROW).

48.5 acres .................................... 48.5 acres .................................... 48.5 acres 

Onshore O footprint (30-foot ROW) 14.5 acres .................................... 14.5 acres .................................... 14.5 acres 

Onshore wetland crossings C impacts.10.71 acres .................................. 10.71 acres .................................. 10.71 acres 

Onshore wetland crossings O impacts.1.19 acres .................................... 1.19 acres .................................... 1.19 acres 

Onshore Facility and Workspace Components 

Onshore landfall location ................ Just east of Gulfstream station at 

Port Manatee.

Just east of Gulfstream station at 

Port Manatee.

N/A 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 42359 

TABLE ES–1—COMPARISON OF LOCATION AND PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES FOR PORT DOLPHIN—Continued 

Project component Proposed site and pipeline 

alternative 

Southern site and pipeline 

alternative 

Offshore interconnection with 

gulfstream pipeline 

Aboveground facilities ..................... Interconnection with GS and 

TECO—120 × 1,319 feet (3.4 

acres).

Valve station located on Port 

Manatee property—50 × 60 

feet (0.07 acres).

Interconnection with GS and 

TECO—120 × 1,319 feet (3.4 

acres) Valve station located on 

Port Manatee property—50 × 

60 feet (0.07 acres).

Interconnection with GS offshore 

Onshore extra work spaces (located at the entrance and exit 

areas for HDD and boring activities).

6 acres ......................................... 6 acres ......................................... 6 acres 

Staging areas, pipeyard, and contractor facilities would be located 

on Port Manatee (6 months).

34 acres; includes a concrete 

batch plant, mattress facility 

and pipe lay-down areas.

34 acres; includes a concrete 

batch plant, mattress facility, 

and pipe lay-down areas.

34 acres; includes a concrete 

batch plant, mattress facility, 

and pipe lay-down areas 

Onshore access roads .................... None (use existing roadways) ..... None (use existing roadways) ..... N/A 

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

Size of 

area 

(acres) 

Volume of area (cubic yards) Length of 

pipeline 

through 

impacted 

area 

(feet) 

Volume of impacted 

area (cubic yards) Percentage 

of 

potential 

volume 

impacted 

3.75-foot 

average depth 

9.5-foot 

average depth 

3.75-foot 

average 

depth 

9.5-foot 

average 

depth 

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 m3 (1,790,000 

y3) 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 Keyidentified 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 m3

(1,790,000 y3) 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: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
42360 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 

TABLE 4.4–2—IMPACTS ON POTENTIAL SAND BORROW AREAS ALONG THE SOUTHERN SITE AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

Size of 

area 

(acres) 

Volume of area (cubic yards) Length of 

pipeline 

through 

impacted 

area 

(feet) 

Volume of impacted 

area (cubic yards) Percentage 

of potential 

volume impacted 3.75-foot 

average depth 

9.5-foot 

average depth 

3.75-foot 

average 

depth 

9.5-foot 

average 

depth 

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 ROSSidentified 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 ROSSidentified 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 sitespecific, 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, yearround 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES