Objections are beginning to surface to a proposed submersible floating natural gas port off Anna Maria Island that one elected official remarked has been running silent and under the radar.

Several federal and state permit applications already are in the pipeline for the Port Dolphin Energy Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port, which would be built 28 miles west of Anna Maria Island in 100 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico.

The "port" would consist of two submersible mooring buoys about three miles apart, where tankers would convert their cargoes of liquid natural gas into vaporized natural gas. The system is designed to allow two vessels to be moored simultaneously with the objective of continuously offloading natural gas, according to project particulars published in the Federal Register.

Once vaporized, the gas would be pumped into a proposed 42-mile-long pipeline that would come ashore at Port Manatee, where it would continue over land for about 4 miles to the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and Tampa Electric Co., which would deliver it exclusively to Florida consumers.

Port Dolphin would not be visible from shore, according to Houston-based Port Dolphin Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Oslo, Norway-based Hoegh LNG.

But its impact could be felt for miles around and for years to come.

The Sun first reported on the proposed port on Aug. 1, 2007, but details of its potential effects on water and air quality, marine life, commercial and recreational fishing, navigation and other concerns were released just weeks ago in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration, the initial permitting authorities for the pipeline portion of the project (see related story).

Project threatens beach renourishment

"This could end the beach renourishment program," said Charlie Hunsicker, director of the Manatee County Conservation Lands Management Department, which oversees the county’s beach renourishment program. "Port Dolphin affects it with irreparable harm. I don’t see how Manatee County can have a viable beach renourishment project into the future."

Hunsicker made the comments about the Port Dolphin plan at a public hearing May 6 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the Manatee Convention Center – ironically, he said, in the Anna Maria room.

He spoke shortly after the engineering firm that coordinates the county’s beach renourishment program discovered that the planned pipeline plows through the sand excavation area used by the county and Longboat Key.

"Manatee County was aware of the project, but reviewers were focused on onshore activities," he said, adding that they had no reason to know that the underwater pipeline would be laid through the fine, white sand used to renourish the beaches until Coastal Planning and Engineering unearthed the plan.

Manatee County’s seven miles of beaches and Longboat Key’s 12 miles are considered critically eroded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Planning marine geologist Beau Suthard told the panel.

He added that their need for sand, along with Pinellas County’s beaches to the north, has resulted in increased competition for dwindling resources.

Since the U.S. Dept. of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service could require up to a 1,000 meter (approximately 3,000 feet) buffer on either side of the pipeline, the county could be prevented from mining there and lose 40 years worth of sand, he said.

Searching for equivalent sand in what would likely be deeper water would require switching from a shallow water cutterhead dredging technology to the more expensive hopper dredging technology, he said.

The cost increase is estimated between $38-53 million over the next 40 years, or around $1 million per year. The estimated total cost increase for Longboat Key is $4 million.

The county’s beach renourishment program is funded through the tourist tax, but that is barely enough to keep up with current needs, much less an increased cost, Hunsicker said.

As a result, finding a new sand source may require taxing Anna Maria Island residents, he said. Longboat Key residents already are taxed because their technology is more expensive since their source is farther away from their location.

Longboat Key town commissioners met on May 5 and sent Longboat Key Public Works Director Juan Florensa to the hearing to express their concern about the impact on sand resources.

"It’s not our intent to kill the project, but to find a route that would avoid impacting taxpayer dollars," he said.

"Our path crosses only one sand borrow area and takes up less than 1 percent of that area," responded German Castro, Project Development Manager for Port Dolphin in Tampa. "The impact is negligible."

Gulfstream objects

The proposed pipeline route is also problematic for the Gulfstream Natural Gas System, which operates an open access interstate transmission pipeline that extends underwater from Mobile Bay, Ala. to Port Manatee, then over land to Palm Beach County.

The company cannot prevent other companies like Port Dolphin from using its pipeline, Gulfstream spokesman Christopher Stockton said, comparing the pipeline to a railroad track used by various railroad lines.

Port Dolphin’s pipeline would be a non-open access"pipeline for its exclusive use.

While economic competition may be a factor, Gulfstream says it objects to both the proposed Port Dolphin pipeline route, which comes within 25 feet of Gulfstream’s onshore pipeline, and Port Dolphin’s proposal to connect with Gulfstream’s onshore pipeline for other reasons.

"They’re proposing to tap our line, but we would like them to tap it in a particular place offshore instead of on land because of safety and environmental issues," Stockton said.

During construction of the Port Dolphin pipeline, an accident 25 feet from the Gulfstream pipeline, which has natural gas flowing through it, could be disastrous, he said.

"As the source of 35 percent of the state’s natural gas pipeline capacity, Gulfstream is critically concerned with the safety to its system which could be compromised by the Port Dolphin proposal," Gulfstream’s lawyers wrote in a letter to the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration on April 21.

"Gulfstream opposes and protests the proposal to allow its narrow right-of-way in the Port Manatee area to be used for the unneeded construction and operation of the proposed Port Dolphin pipeline. And Gulfstream will not agree to the point of interconnection selected by Port Dolphin."

Port Dolphin responded in a May 6 letter to the Maritime Administration that its "proposed onshore route, which crosses and briefly parallels Gulfstream’s main line within Port Manatee property, is consistent with commission policy and precedent. The commission prefers routes in which two or more pipelines are co-located and often share rights-of-way, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement follows this well-settled policy. Gulfstream’s suggested interconnection with Port Dolphin under the Gulf of Mexico is not in the public interest.

“The offshore interconnection would eliminate all possible onshore interconnections, including the planned interconnection with TECO/Peoples Gas, the interconnection with Gulfstream, and a possible interconnection with Florida Gas Transmission Co. in Manatee County," Port Dolphin’s lawyers wrote.

Manatee County’s engineering firm has recommended that Port Dolphin build its pipeline within the existing Gulfstream pipeline corridor to avoid the route taking the pipeline through the county’s beach sand mining area, an option opposed by Gulfstream.

"A second alternative would consist of tapping into the Gulfstream pipeline well offshore, thus eliminating the need to traverse potential State of Florida sand resources with a new pipeline," Coastal Planning wrote, the plan which Gulfstream prefers.

Elected officials mobilizing

Elected officials began to mobilize after the May 6 public hearing, which none attended.

"They have been extremely low key with this, under the radar," said state Sen. Mike Bennett, adding that he would begin investigating alternate routes for the pipeline to keep the cost down for the beach renourishment program. "There’s always another alternative. It’s who’s going to pay the expense."

"The idea doesn’t seem conducive to our county. It’s so close to the tip of the Island," said Manatee County Commissioner Carol Whitmore, who added that she intends to contact the county’s state and federal legislative delegations.

"We definitely have some concerns," agreed Manatee County Commissioner Jane von Hahmann, who notified the county’s environmental department. "There are several issues we are going to raise."

The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration have identified several potential hazards of the proposed Port Dolphin Energy Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port in its newly-released Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Among the concerns are spills, explosions, increased water and air pollution and impacts on marine life, including fish, manatees, dolphins, whales and sea turtles.

Public comments will be accepted on the statement until June 2. A final version of the statement is due in mid-July, followed by a final public hearing later this summer.

Spills

In its two-volume statement, the Coast Guard identifies 11 potential scenarios in which liquid natural gas might accidentally be released into the environment: vessel collision, shipboard mechanical system failure, fire, gas release at processing equipment, severe weather, structural failure of the vessel, grounding, natural phenomena, mooring system failure, dropped objects and aviation accident.

Intentional attacks also were considered.

The worst industry accident listed in the report was in 1944 in Cleveland, where 128 people died after liquid natural gas leaked from a tank and formed a vapor cloud that surrounded streets and the storm sewer system, then ignited.

In 1973, 37 people died in Staten Island when the interior of an empty natural gas storage tank caught fire during repairs.

The most recent incident was in 2002, when a ship carrying liquid natural gas collided with a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarine, the U.S.S. Oklahoma City, causing a leak in the ship’s hull, but no injuries or deaths.

Overall, the report ranked liquid natural gas shipping as relatively safe.

"During the past 45 years, there have been approximately 100,000 liquid natural gas carrier voyages covering more than 235 million miles. There is no report of any accident involving a liquid natural gas carrier underway that has resulted in an unintentional release of liquid natural gas cargo. Over the life of the industry, 16 cargo transfer incidents worldwide have resulted in limited gas spills with some damage, but no cargo fires have occurred."

A spill of the supercooled liquid natural gas could freeze marine life in the water, but since liquid natural gas does not dissolve in water, the time frame would be limited to the period before the gas was boiled off, according to the statement.

Spills also could kill sea grass, which fish, manatees and sea turtles feed on.

Explosions

"The industry is not without incidents, but it has maintained an enviable safety record," according to the statement. "Vapors are flammable only in concentrations of 5 to 15 percent natural gas when mixed with air. Liquid natural gas is neither flammable nor explosive. Natural gas will not explode in an unconfined environment."

Water quality

"A combination of long- and short-term minor adverse impacts on water quality would be expected" due to sediment being stirred up during installation and operation of the port, according to the statement.

"During operations, cooling and ballast water discharges would have several impacts on water quality near the port, including increased water temperature, increased turbidity and decreased dissolved oxygen content. Spills of hazardous substances, such as hydrocarbons (e.g. petroleum, oils and lubricants), might result in short-term, minor adverse impacts on water quality."

Air quality

"Short-term direct minor adverse impacts on air quality would be expected" from equipment during construction.

Emissions from ongoing port operations would have a "long-term direct minor adverse impact on air quality during the life of the project."

The product itself poses risks, too. "Since natural gas is a fossil fuel, combustion of natural gas contributes to the generation of greenhouse gasses."

Marine life

"Minor to moderate short-term adverse impacts and minor long-term adverse impacts on biological resources could occur as a result of the project," including impacts on vegetation, wetlands and marine organisms.

A system that would take Gulf of Mexico water into the ship for cooling and expel hot water would adversely affect plankton, and could cause "direct, adverse, minor impacts on biological resources from the impingement or entrainment of marine organisms," including gag grouper.

In addition, 234 acres of bottom-dwelling benthic communities would experience "minor to moderate short-term and long-term adverse impacts" during construction.

"Benthic communities would be expected to recover quickly by recolonization from surrounding communities of similar organisms," according to the statement, but 66 acres of benthic substrata would be lost permanently.

The endangered smalltooth sawfish also could be affected.

Manatees

"Increases in vessel traffic could increase the potential for collisions with federally listed marine mammals, thereby increasing the occurrence of serious injuries or mortality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently concluded that a ‘take’ of a single manatee would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and vessel collisions have been identified as a major source of mortality for this species."

Dolphins

The dolphins that the port is named for are listed as potentially impacted by collision, noise, entanglement and water turbidity as result of operations.

Dolphins would be able to outswim the seawater intake into the port’s cooling system, according to the statement.according to the statement.

Whales

Blue, sperm, fin, humpback and sei whales "have the potential to be affected by collision and noise anywhere on the high seas where they occur in these species’ habitats," according to the statement. They are all endangered species.

Sea turtles

All five species of sea turtles that swim in Florida waters would be impacted – the threatened loggerhead and green and the endangered hawksbill, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley.

Lighting from the construction of the port could cause short-term, minor, direct, adverse effects on turtles, which are attracted to light, according to the statement, which adds that the port is eight miles farther from shore than humans or turtles can see at night, so lights would not disorient turtles hatching on shore.

Sea turtles, even hatchlings, would be able to outswim the seawater intake into the port’s cooling system, according to the statement, which lists other potential impacts on sea turtles such as collision, noise, entanglement, turbidity and consumption of marine construction debris.

Birds

The Audubon’s crested caracara, piping plover, wood stork and roseate terns are listed as possibly dwelling within several miles of the port.

Pollution

The port, which would be within 93 miles of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge and 152 miles from Everglades National Park, would cause "increases in vessel traffic, noise, marine debris and port lighting."

Geological resources (sand)

"Minor direct adverse impacts from port and offshore pipeline installation would be expected. Impacts would be localized and short-term. Subsea sediments are the primary geological resource that would be affected by the project. Approximately 50 acres onshore would be temporarily impacted by the pipeline right of way."

Commercial fishing

"Minor long-term impacts on commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating could occur within the safety zone that would be established around the port. Commercial fishing would be temporarily excluded from the vicinity of construction activities for approximately 11 months during construction," potentially affecting 2,677 commercial vessels registered in Manatee, Pinellas and Hillsborough counties.

Recreational activities

"Short- and long-term minor adverse impacts on recreational fishing, boating and other water dependent uses would result from construction and operation of the port due to visual impacts and restricted access within the safety zone."

Navigation

Approximately 1,800 trips to and from shore are anticipated during the 11-month construction period. Operational activities are anticipated to generate approximately 938 trips annually.

Aesthetics

"Offshore construction of the port would be visible to recreational boaters, residents and visitors."

View the PDF

The clock is ticking.

Port Dolphin expects more than a dozen permits from nearly as many federal and state agencies to be secured by the end of 2009, spokesman German Castro said, with construction beginning in 2010 and operations starting in 2011.

Besides the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration, other permitting agencies include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is already considering an application for the land-based portion of the pipeline, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which notified Port Dolphin last year that it would not issue a permit for the offshore portion of the project because of its potential adverse effects on the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve. As a result, Port Dolphin proposed the new offshore route through Manatee County’s sand mining area.

Other agencies which must sign off on the project include the Florida Department of Transportation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Mineral Management Service and the Florida Coastal Management Program.

Manatee County has little authority other than to consider a building permit for the land-based portion of the project, Conservation Lands Management Department Director Charlie Hunsicker said.

The Manatee County Commission, which also sits as the Manatee County Port Authority, also may have some leverage, von Hahmann said.

The Coast Guard and Maritime Administration process is wrapping up. June 2 is the deadline for public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is due in mid-July, followed by a final public hearing in mid-August and a decision 90 days later.

Gov. Charlie Crist has veto power over the plan.

"It’s later in the game than it should have been," Hunsicker said about Manatee County’s involvement in the process. "But now is the time to comment and object."

PORT MANATEE – Representatives of Port Manatee and Port Dolphin are negotiating over the placement of a controversial proposed natural gas pipeline, according to Manatee County officials.

"They came to us with their project and we’re trying to meet their requirements as we did with Gulfstream," said Port Manatee Director Dave McDonald, referring to an existing natural gas pipeline running from Port Manatee to Mobile Bay, Ala.

McDonald met with Port Dolphin representatives last week to discuss the county’s concerns about the proposed project, Manatee County Port Authority Chairman Joe McClash announced Thursday at a port authority meeting.

"There is no meeting of the minds yet" between Port Dolphin and Port Manatee on the pipeline location, McClash said.

Port Dolphin Energy LLC proposes to build a floating port 28 miles west of Anna Maria Island in the Gulf of Mexico where tankers would convert liquefied natural gas to vaporized gas and offload it into a 42-mile-long pipeline coming ashore at Port Manatee, where it would connect to the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and Tampa Electric Co.

County officials recently learned that the proposed pipeline path would plow sand borrow for the county’s and Longboat Key’s beach renourishment programs, and will impact both marine and land habitats.

A spokesman for the Houston-based Port Dolphin, a subsidiary of Norwegian company Hoegh LNG, has called the project’s impact on sand resources "negligible."

Searching for equivalent sand elsewhere could cost Manatee County $38 million to $53 million over the next 40 years and Longboat Key $4 million, according to Charlie Hunsicker, director of the Manatee County Conservation Lands Management Department.

As a result, finding a new sand source may require taxing Anna Maria Island residents, he said.

Company could pay

Alternately, Port Dolphin could be charged for any increased cost, suggested state Rep. Bill Galvano, who said his staff is beginning to analyze the project now that the legislative session has ended.

"The concern is not to negatively impact the Island communities environmentally or from a tourism perspective," he said, adding that he may organize a town hall meeting on the project, which caught many officials unaware.

When port authority members, who also sit as the Manatee County Commission, inquired about the project last week, McClash responded that the port director is aware of the county’s concerns and that the county attorney’s office is coordinating strategy during the negotiations.

"I guarantee that those concerns are being addressed," he said. "We would rather have staff work with them outside of a public forum."

In contrast, McClash suggested that Port Dolphin should have done a better job of informing the public about its project.

"The biggest disappointment so far with Dolphin is that Gulfstream did a good job to resolve things before they reached an adversarial position," McClash said, while Port Dolphin "decided to take a path that was a little different than the one we encouraged them to take."

He encouraged Port Dolphin officials to hold public meetings to address concerns about the environment, fishing impacts and other issues.

"We encourage them to get back and work with the public as we encourage all our partners to do," he said.

McDonald pledged to emphasize the need for public involvement in ongoing negotiations.

When the Gulfstream pipeline was in the planning stages in the 1990s, the company invited representatives from environmental groups to public meetings and shared details about its project, said Arlene Flisik, conservation chair of the Manatee County Audubon Society.

As a result, Gulfstream, Port Manatee and Audubon worked as partners to transform a spoil island off Port Manatee into a $7.3 million, 60-acre bird sanctuary.

"I assumed they (Port Dolphin) would be doing the same thing," she said.

Other pipeline problems

Several groups are scrambling to learn about Port Dolphin’s proposal before the June 2 deadline for public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement released in April by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration, which have the initial permitting authority over the project.

Numerous other federal and state agency permits also would be necessary for the project to materialize.

While spills, leaks, fires and warm water discharges are of concern, several organizations cite the location of the pipe as their main concern, including the Maitland-based Save the Manatee Club.

"We want to make sure those pipes aren’t laid over a seagrass bed," which are feeding grounds for manatees and important nurseries for aquatic life, Science and Conservation Director Katie Tripp said.

While Gulf water will be used to cool tanker engines and will be discharged back into the Gulf at warmer temperatures, she said that manatees – which are attracted to warm water outflows in the wintertime – typically stay closer to shore than the proposed port and probably would not be significantly impacted.

However, the cooling system is of concern because the intake of Gulf water will entrap marine life, said Suzanne Cooper, principal planner with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s Agency on Bay Management, whose Natural Resources/Environmental Impact Review Committee heard a presentation by Port Dolphin last week.

The most significant unanswered question is why Port Dolphin needs to build its own pipeline when Gulfstream’s pipeline is available for them to tap into, she said.

"Gulfstream says there is capacity in their line," she said, which is an open access pipeline, while Port Dolphin’s proposal is to build its own proprietary pipeline.

Gulfstream has filed comments with the U.S. Coast Guard objecting to the proposed Port Dolphin pipeline route and Port Dolphin’s proposal to connect with Gulfstream’s onshore pipeline, suggesting instead that Port Dolphin tap Gulfstream’s pipeline offshore for safety and environmental reasons.

The construction of the proposed pipeline could impact hard bottom communities of marine animals, including corals and sponges, Cooper said.

According to the project’s impact statement, 66 acres of benthic habitat would be permanently lost and 234 acres of bottom-dwelling benthic communities would experience "minor to moderate short-term and long-term adverse impacts" during construction.

"We have seen no mitigation plan," Cooper said, adding that the group is compiling its questions and will request that it be involved in the permit review stage of the project.

Effects on fishing

The proposed pipeline could affect commercial and recreational fishing because of its impacts on marine life, said Jeff Rester, habitat coordinator with the joint habitat program of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.

"There are some concerns over the project due to the installation of a pipeline through hard bottom habitat and seagrass," said Rester, who is also preparing to file comments on the project by the June 2 deadline.

"The impact on the hard bottom habitat affects biological resources."

In addition, the tanker engine cooling system intake could cause a significant loss of eggs and larvae in addition to small marine creatures, he said.

"The whole idea of it overwhelms me," said Don Chaney, conservation chair for the Sierra Club’s Sarasota-Manatee chapter and a member of the Healthy Gulf Coalition, who, like many others, is still learning about the project. "It’s incredible to think they could do it."

Public comments invited before June 2

Comments on the proposed Port Dolphin project should be sent to the Federal Docket Management Facility before June 2 by one of the following methods:

• Mail or delivery to the Federal Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590
• Phone: 202-366-9329
• Fax: 202-493-2251
• E-mail from Web-site: www.regulations.gov. Enter USCG–2007–28532 in the "search" field, then click on "send a comment or submission."

Submissions should include name, address and docket number USCG–2007–28532.

Faxed or hand-delivered submissions must be unbound, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches and suitable for copying and electronic scanning.

All submissions will be posted without changes at www.regulations.gov and will include all personal information provided.

ANNA MARIA - Ripple effects from the proposed Port Dolphin pipeline have prompted the county to postpone a meeting on including the city in the planned 2012 beach renourishment.

City officials had invited Manatee County commissioners to a luncheon May 30 with plans to lobby the county to include the city in that renourishment project.

Mayor Fran Barford said Charlie Hunsicker called to postpone the meeting until at least November or December.

In a memo to Barford, Hunsicker advises that the city needs to be aware of the proposed Port Dolphin project.

"I encourage you and your staff to be familiar with the Port Dolphin LLC proposal and consider whether you wish to support Manatee County in raising concerns about the proposal and its adverse effect upon a continuing and economically viable beach renourishment project for Anna Maria Island," Hunsicker said.

The Port Dolphin LLC project is in the formal regulatory process. The private for-profit company is proposing a deep-water transfer port to bring natural gas into the state via an underwater pipeline through the Gulf coming ashore at Port Manatee.

"This pipeline passes very near beach compatible sand sources we have relied upon to maintain the beaches of Anna Maria Island," Hunsicker said.

Hunsicker, the county’s conservation lands manager, said his office is playing catch up.

"Although a project scoping process for this project was coordinated with state and federal regulatory agencies, beginning almost a year ago, we were not aware of the impacts of the proposal to near-shore compatible sand sources until the formal release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in April 2008," Hunsicker said.

While disappointed about the postponement, Barford said she understands the urgency of the county’s efforts.

As it stands now, Anna Maria would be left out of the 2012 renourishment project. Beach renourishment is funded by tax dollars generated by the tourist industry. County officials have said the city doesn’t generate enough tourist tax dollars to be included.

Including Anna Maria in the project would force the county to take out a line of credit – something county commissioners don’t want to do.

If the proposed pipeline were approved, Manatee County would have to use a compatible sand source much farther from shore, which would result in greatly increased costs for renourishment.

Manatee County commissioners plan to protest a natural gas pipeline slated to pass through the underwater area off Anna Maria where the county mines beach renourishment sand.

Houston-based Port Dolphin Energy LLC plans to build the floating Port Dolphin 28 miles offshore, where liquefied natural gas would be converted to gas in tankers and piped ashore to Port Manatee.

The county’s primary objection is the pipeline location, Commissioner Jane von Hahmann said, adding that the commission has decided to file a letter opposing the plan by the June 2 public comment deadline.

Regulators could require a buffer zone of up to 3,000 feet on either side of the submerged portion of the pipeline, which would prevent a dredge from reaching much of the sand.

Charlie Hunsicker, who oversees the county’s beach renourishment program, sounded the alarm earlier this month that the project could jeopardize beach renourishment and, ultimately, tourism on the Island, citing the anticipated cost of finding similar quality sand elsewhere at up to $50 million over the next four decades.

The county’s letter also will address commissioners’ support of an alternative proposed by Gulfstream Natural Gas System, von Hahmann said.

Gulfstream, which operates an open access pipeline extending underwater from Mobile Bay, Ala. to Port Manatee, prefers that Port Dolphin connect to its pipeline offshore rather than building a 42-mile long pipeline to Port Manatee and connecting onshore.

Bringing a second pipeline onshore at Port Manatee in Gulfstream’s 25-foot-wide easement, part of which is in a drainage ditch, poses safety concerns because construction and maintenance work in the ditch could create a spark and cause a gas fire, von Hahmann said.

Another concern is the environmental impact of the pipeline on the sea floor, she said.

While Gulfstream involved the county and the public early in its permitting process, Port Dolphin officials’ first contact with the county was last week, when they requested a meeting, she said.

Commissioners also decided to send letters to the Legislative delegation in Tallahassee and the Congressional delegation in Washington D.C. requesting support.

Upon learning of the project, state Sen. Mike Bennett and state Rep. Bill Galvano told The Sun that they would begin investigating; Bennett said he would look into alternate routes for the pipeline, and Galvano said he would consider organizing a town hall meeting about the project.

A staffer for U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan said he was reviewing the proposal.

U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez, both of whom have opposed natural gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, did not return telephone calls.

More than a dozen federal, state and local regulatory agencies and the governor must approve the project before it materializes.

Public comments invited before June 2

Comments on the proposed Port Dolphin project should be sent to the Federal Docket Management Facility before June 2 by one of the following methods:
• Mail or delivery to the Federal Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590
• Phone: 202-366-9329
• Fax: 202-493-2251
• E-mail from Web site: www.regulations.gov. Enter USCG–2007–28532 in the "search" field, then click on "send a comment or submission."

Submissions should include name, address and docket number USCG–2007–28532.

Faxed or hand-delivered submissions must be unbound, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches and suitable for copying and electronic scanning.

All submissions will be posted without changes at www.regulations.gov and will include all personal information provided.

Port Dolphin’s plan to build a floating natural gas port and pipeline 28 miles off Anna Maria Island poses several environmental problems, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

The port would host tankers that convert liquefied natural gas to vaporized gas and transport it through a 42-mile-long pipeline to a Gulfstream Natural Gas System pipeline onshore at Port Manatee.

In a May 22 letter to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the FWC warns that the proposed pipeline and two seawater cooling and warming systems could interfere with horseshoe crab spawning and harm fish, corals and seagrass.

"We are concerned that measures to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources have not yet been fully explored," wrote the FWC’s Mary Ann Poole in the letter, which will be included with DEP’s formal comments to the U.S. Coast Guard, one of several agencies with regulatory authority over the project.

"The (statement) does not provide mitigation or monitoring plans for impacts to biological resources," the letter charges.

Problems for horseshoe crabs

To mitigate its effect on the environment, Port Dolphin should consider connecting its pipeline to the Gulfstream pipeline offshore, not onshore as proposed, according to the FWC, which requests that Port Dolphin resolve interconnection issues with Gulfstream and report the resolution to the Coast Guard.

The underwater pipeline could impact horseshoe crab spawning because it will not be possible to bury it in the hard bottom along some stretches of the 42-mile route, and it could block crabs from reaching shallow water and sandy beaches to mate, Poole wrote. Horseshoe crab numbers have been declining for several years, according to the FWC, which tracks spawning habits of the species.

In addition, unburied pipeline is typically covered with concrete "mattresses," which can move during storms and destroy animal and plants species that live on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the letter states, adding, "We recommend that the applicant investigate alternate routes around significant hardbottom communities."

Discharge could affect fish larvae

Another potential problem is that Port Dolphin’s seawater intake and discharge systems would change Gulf water temperature around the port, which could affect the fishery, according to Lisa Gregg, the FWC’s project leader reviewing the Port Dolphin proposal.

One system would cool the engines with Gulf water and discharge it as hot water. The other would use Gulf water to warm the liquefied natural gas from its temperature of minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit to regasify it, producing a cold water discharge.

Concerned about a round-the-clock impact of hot and cold water discharge into Gulf waters surrounding Port Dolphin, the FWC requested details on the amount of seawater intake and discharge in the systems. It also asked that Port Dolphin only use tankers using a closed loop system for regasification, and address its reasons for not using tankers with a closed loop system for engine cooling.

While the water intake velocity of the systems is not strong enough to suck in sea turtle hatchlings or fish, it would suck in and destroy fish and crab larvae, Gregg said.

In a memo from the FWC to the Coast Guard, she wrote that the data used in the Coast Guard’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate to assess the impact of the seawater systems on larvae and plankton.

"We don’t know if the area is a larval transport area," she said, because animal samples were not taken at all, and fish samples were not taken from enough different water depths in areas close enough to the proposed port to be relevant. Samples also were not taken during enough months of the year to provide a complete picture of the larvae population in the area, she said.

Other concerns

The FWC letter also lists other concerns, including a potential loss of fishing grounds due to safety zones required around the port and the destruction of corals, seagrasses and bottom-dwelling organisms resulting from digging up the sea floor to bury the pipeline and anchor the port’s dual buoy system.

A preliminary letter from the DEP to the Coast Guard dated May 20 echoes the FWC’s concerns and requests more information on Port Dolphin’s plan to mitigate its impact on the environment.

Public comments on the Coast Guard’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted until June 2.

ANNA MARIA – Responding to concerns about eroding beaches and tourism revenue, Anna Maria commissioners are notifying other elected officials that the city opposes Port Dolphin’s pipeline plans.

Port Dolphin is a proposed floating port 28 miles from the north end of Anna Maria Island where liquefied natural gas would be converted to vapor, then shipped through a 42-mile-long pipeline to Port Manatee.

Commissioners voted Thursday night to submit the city’s objections to the pipeline portion of the project to its Congressional and Legislative delegations prior to June 2, when the U.S. Coast Guard, the first of several regulators on the project, was scheduled to begin finalizing its Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Commissioners cited concerns that the proposed pipeline would plow through Manatee County’s offshore beach renourishment sand source and be surrounded by a safety buffer zone that would force the county to find sand elsewhere at an estimated $53.2 million cost over the next 40 years.

Officials of Port Dolphin have not responded to the county’s request to change its proposed pipeline path, although Coastal Planning and Engineering, Manatee County’s engineering firm, has identified four alternate routes, said Charlie Hunsicker, the county’s Conservation Lands Management Department Director, who requested the commission’s action.

Alternatives

"All options are being looked at," said Harry Costello, a public relations executive representing Houston-based Port Dolphin Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Norwegian company Hoegh LNG. "They understand the community’s concerns about the available sand."

Options include relocating the pipeline farther north, installing the pipeline under the sand bed using directional drilling technology, and trenching, which requires removing the sand, installing the pipeline and replacing the sand on top of it, he said, adding that the last option is costly and unlikely.

Also unlikely, he said, is for Port Dolphin to tap into the Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems pipeline offshore, an option suggested by Coastal.

The Gulfstream pipeline already has natural gas flowing through it much of the time; its limited capacity could keep Port Dolphin from being able to access the pipeline when its tankers are ready to offload, he said, adding that Port Dolphin also may lack the ability to pump its natural gas at the required pressure into Gulfstream’s line.

The pipeline’s estimated $53.2 million cost to the county over the next four beach renourishment projects, spaced 10 years apart, represents the cost of finding equivalent quality fine, white sand - most likely farther offshore - which would require a different, more expensive type of mining technology, according to Hunsicker.

Even if Port Dolphin paid a fee to compensate for the 40-year impact, the county’s tourist tax – the primary fund for beach renourishment – would be inadequate to cover the increased cost after that, he said.

If the county is forced to seek sand elsewhere, the renourishment project area could be reduced, he said, adding that Island residents also could see their property taxes increase to cover the funding shortfall.

"The more likely scenario is that we will stop the beach renourishment program," he said.

Without a wide, white beach, Island tourism could decrease, reducing tourist tax revenues and employment in the hospitality, real estate, recreation, retail, transportation and food industries, he said.

Beyond tourism

The economic impact of not renourishing the beaches goes beyond tourism, Hunsicker said, potentially compromising public utilities, hurricane evacuation routes, sea turtle nesting and private property, especially in the three-block wide portion of Bradenton Beach.

In addition, Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key, the State of Florida and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers already have spent $35 million to find, permit and dredge the existing sand source, money that would be wasted if the pipeline is built on its projected path, Hunsicker said.

It’s also possible that no comparable sand is available, he said, because the sand in the path of the pipeline is a product of Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay currents that may not exist elsewhere.

Florida law requires that beaches be renourished with geologically identical sand.

A trickle of comments has turned into a stream of environmental and economic concerns about the proposed Port Dolphin natural gas port and pipeline.

Increasing awareness of the project prompted public agencies and private citizens to file comments with the U.S. Coast Guard a few days before its June 2 public comment deadline.

The agency is reviewing the proposed floating port, where tankers would convert liquefied natural gas to vapor 28 miles from the north end of Anna Maria Island, then ship it through a 42-mile-long pipeline to Port Manatee.

The Coast Guard’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, which will reflect the comments, is due in July, followed by a final public hearing in August and a decision expected by the end of the year.

Several other state and federal permits also would be required to construct the port.

Manatee County

Manatee County objects to the proposed path of Port Dolphin’s pipeline, saying it would make the county’s offshore supply of beach renourishment sand inaccessible and cost the county $53.2 million over the next 40 years to replace it.

Jeopardizing the renourishment program could lead to the loss of public beaches as a recreational resource and a habitat for sea turtles and other creatures, in addition to a loss of tourists, a reduction in employment and tax revenues, increased flooding and the undermining of hurricane evacuation routes, according to comments prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering, the county’s beach renourishment advisor.

Coastal recommends four alternate routes for the pipeline that it claims would not affect the sand resources, including tapping into the nearby existing Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems pipeline, to which Gulfstream has agreed, and laying the pipeline nine miles west of Egmont Key parallel to the Gulfstream pipeline.

The county asks that alternative routes be presented in a second version of the Coast Guard’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement before the agency issues its final statement.

Longboat Key

The Town of Longboat Key, which also mines the state-owned sand source off Anna Maria Island for its beach renourishment program, filed a 61-page objection to the pipeline with similar concerns.

Prepared by Coastal, the engineering firm that advises Manatee County, the document notes that Longboat Key pays for its beach renourishment differently, with town taxes in addition to the tourist tax tourist tax revenue that Manatee County relies on.

Longboat Key was counting on using another 1.5 million cubic yards of the sand in its next project, which, according to the comments, will be impossible under the pipeline plan, putting its beaches in jeopardy.

The pipeline route also impinges on four, hilly sand sources the town had earmarked for future beach renourishment projects, according to the document.

Finding equivalent sand elsewhere will cost the town an estimated $4.75 million or more, depending on the size of the safety buffer zone around the pipeline.

"The direct impact, while extreme by itself, could lead to significant cumulative impacts to the economy, public safety and the environment of the Town of Longboat Key," the document states, citing increased erosion and flooding, and loss of beaches, tourism, jobs and taxes as consequences.

The town requested a more detailed analysis of alternative pipeline routes in a second version of the Coast Guard’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Anna Maria Island Turtle Watch

Anna Maria Island Turtle Watch objects to the pipeline because it would

endanger the county’s beach renourishment project, which would in turn endanger imperiled sea turtles, according to director Suzi Fox.

Making the beaches wider increases nesting activity because it increases the amount of space available for nests, she said, adding that the opposite is also likely.

The construction of the port and pipeline also could destroy seagrasses, a habitat for sea turtles.

The floating port’s water exchange systems also could affect turtles, she said. The engine cooling system would discharge hot water into the Gulf, and its regasification system, which would use Gulf water to warm the liquefied natural gas into vapor so that it can be piped ashore, would discharge cold water into the Gulf.

"Minor and short term impacts" to sea turtles cited in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are not acceptable, she said.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

DEP comments had not been filed by press time, but its Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems detailed its written objections to the Port Dolphin project in a May 23 memo for inclusion in the agency’s comments.

"Elimination of known suitable sand sources would cause great expense and delay, possibly subjecting local communities to increased storm damage, loss of tourism and loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species including marine turtles and shorebirds," according to the bureau, which is responsible for managing Florida’s beach and dune systems under Florida law.

The memo stated a preference that Port Dolphin’s pipeline follow Gulfstream’s pipeline path to minimize its impact.

It also suggested that the company could dig underneath sensitive habitat areas using hydraulic directional drilling to lay the pipeline, rather than destroying the areas by laying it directly on the sea floor.

The bureau also warned that clearing a path on the sea floor for the pipeline could "facilitate colonization by the invasive, exotic green mussel, which could reduce or negate the value of some mitigation strategies."

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Service

Port Dolphin would impact an area considered to be essential habitat for crab, lobster, shrimp, grouper, snapper, amberjack, mackerel, red drum and cobia, according to the service, which disagrees with the data the Coast Guard used to assess the port’s impact on marine life.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Dept. of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service recommends creating wetlands elsewhere to compensate for the destruction of wetlands during the pipeline construction, which could reduce habitat for wood storks. It also recommends using standard protection measures to reduce construction-related collisions with manatees, implementing a light-management plan to avoid disorienting sea turtles and using standard measures to protect the eastern indigo snake on the land-based portion of the pipeline.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The department’s Division of Aquaculture requested that Port Dolphin’s pipeline be constructed between November and February to minimize interference with oyster spawning.

ManaSota-88

The Nokomis-based environmental group recommends considering alternative pipeline routes and tapping into the existing Gulfstream pipeline.

U.S. Mineral Management Service

The U.S. Dept. of the Interior’s Mineral Management Service questioned the Coast Guard’s assessment that natural gas production is declining. It also suggested including information about using ocean currents as an energy source alternative.

Anna Maria Island residents

Kim and Brian Lockhart of Bradenton Beach and Cincinnati, Ohio, oppose Port Dolphin, citing potential environmental problems, its proposed path through beach renourishment sand reserves and the company’s refusal to respond to Gulfstream’s invitation to tap into its pipeline.

"Port Dolphin is being irresponsible and a poor corporate citizen by placing their needs above the general public and island property owners," they wrote. "We will not accept their arrogant attitude toward us."

Carl and Georgia Van Cleave wrote to oppose the project for several reasons, primarily the extra expense to Manatee County for its beach renourishment sand, which they predict will be paid for by local, state and federal taxpayers, not Port Dolphin.

They also cited environmental concerns including spills in accidents or storms, destruction of hard bottom habitat and seagrass beds, and the tanker engine cooling system’s expected effect on marine life. They also are opposed to the construction of a private pipeline when Port Dolphin could tap into an existing pipeline.

With the support of 14 members of Congress, U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan has written the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to oppose Port Dolphin’s planned natural gas pipeline route off Anna Maria Island.

The agency is reviewing the proposed floating port, where tankers would convert liquefied natural gas to vapor 28 miles off the Island, then send it by pipeline to Port Manatee.

The June 4 letter urges the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration to reject Port Dolphin’s proposed pipeline location, which would cross the underwater sand source used for Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key’s beach renourishment program, making it - and four other potential sand mining areas - off limits.

"Beach related tourism is the mainstay of the region’s economy," Buchanan wrote. "Erosion of the white sand beaches because of inaccessibility of compatible sand deposits would compromise public safety and severely depress the economy, reducing employment and tax revenues."

Expressing support for Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach, Longboat Key and Manatee, Sarasota and Pinellas counties, Buchanan and the Congressional contingent recommended considering safe and viable alternative routes. The move comes especially in light of a $35 million investment already made in the sand source, and an estimated $55 million cost to find sand elsewhere.

The members of Congress who signed Buchanan’s letter are Gus Bilirakis, Ginny Brown-Waite, Kathy Castor, Ander Crenshaw, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, Alcee Hastings, Connie Mack, Jeff Miller, Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Cliff Sterns, Dave Weldon and Bill Young.

Buchanan also wrote Port Dolphin to encourage a dialogue about four alternate pipeline routes suggested by Manatee County’s engineering firm, Coastal Planning and Engineering.

Port Dolphin is "currently working to identify feasible technical solutions to meet Longboat Key and Manatee County concerns," according to a comment filed with the Coast Guard on June 2 by one of the company’s attorneys, J. Michel Marcoux. "To that end, Port Dolphin met with Longboat Key on May 27, 2008 and is working to schedule a meeting with Manatee County officials in the near future. These meetings are intended to facilitate open dialogue among the parties to better understand and address their concerns."

Other elected officials weigh in

State Rep. Bill Galvano sent a letter to Port Dolphin on June 6 in support of Buchanan’s letter.

"Anna Maria Island is known for its pristine beaches which contribute to a vibrant community and tourist-driven economy," Galvano wrote. "That is why we are vigilant against potential projects that will ultimately put the Island in economic and environmental peril."

State Sen. Mike Bennett said he is discussing alternate pipeline routes with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which he calls "very cooperative."

"I don’t object to the pipeline, I object to the route of the pipeline," he said. "We want to shift it away from the sand."

DEP’s comments filed last week on the pipeline include a recommendation that alternate routes be "thoroughly evaluated" to protect beach quality sand reserves.

"Protection of beach sand sources is a high priority, especially in light of increased hurricane activity and potential sea level rise," the report states. It also recommends investigating the feasibility of an offshore interconnection with the existing Gulfstream Natural Gas System pipeline.

U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Pinellas County, who signed Buchanan’s letter, is concerned about the pipeline jeopardizing Manatee County’s sand because it will place the county in competition with Pinellas County for limited sand reserves farther north, a staffer said.

Pinellas County is currently conducting a $1 million search for sand reserves, according to Pinellas County interim county administrator Fred Marquis, who filed objections to the pipeline route with the Coast Guard last week.

U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez did not return telephone calls.

Congressional report filed

U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, who signed Buchanan’s letter, also filed separate comments with the Coast Guard, including a 67-page Congressional report on liquefied natural gas.

"A natural gas spill on water would result in a widening pool of liquefied gas spreading across the water," Castor wrote. "If ignited, the danger and environmental impacts would be catastrophic. Of particular concern is the volatile nature of natural gas, which could evaporate and cause flammable vapor clouds."

According to the report, "If liquefied natural gas spills near an ignition source, evaporating gas will burn above the gas pool. The pool fire would spread as the pool expanded away from its source and continued evaporating. A pool fire is intense, burning far more hotly and rapidly than oil or gasoline fires. It cannot be extinguished - all the liquefied natural gas must be consumed before it goes out… Many experts agree that a large pool fire, especially on water, is the most serious liquefied natural gas hazard."

The report also warns that a flammable vapor cloud can develop if liquefied natural gas spills but does not immediately ignite, and can explode if it drifts into an ignition source, burning its way back to the spill.

"Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is an odorless, non-toxic and non-corrosive liquid, and if spilled, LNG would not result in a slick. Absent an ignition source, LNG evaporates quickly and disperses, leaving no residue. There is no environmental cleanup needed for LNG spills on water," according to the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an industry trade group.

Two local scientists have written to the U.S. Coast Guard with concerns about Port Dolphin after reviewing its lead environmental study.

The study on the potential environmental impact of the proposed liquefied natural gas port and pipeline is "fundamentally flawed," according to Steve LeGore, an independent consultant with LeGore Environmental Associates Inc. in Holmes Beach.

Echoing concerns of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, LeGore filed comments with the Coast Guard about its Draft Environmental Impact Statement last week, saying that the study contains insufficient hard data on marine life to accurately determine the port’s potential impacts.

"Without quantitative data you can’t have a scale of impacts, and without a scale of impacts, how do policy makers make decisions?" LeGore said. "They need to have the right information to make the right decisions."

While LeGore said he is not opposed to a liquefied natural gas port, he called the study "inconsistent" and "repetitious," and wrote that it needs to include more details, including a survey of biological species, citations to scientific literature and a strong monitoring plan.

"We need these ports," he said. "But we need to go through the process properly and the best way we can for the environment."

LeGore also questioned an apparent inconsistency in the study, which states that "Siting a project in an identified sand resource would be difficult, and likely would not be approved by Minerals Management Service." The proposed pipeline route would traverse Manatee County’s beach renourishment sand reserves.

Mote Marine Laboratory

The Port Dolphin site lies within eight miles of several important "karsts," or underwater springs and sinkholes found about 30 miles offshore, where the port would be constructed, according to James Culter, a senior scientist with Mote Marine Laboratory’s Benthic Ecology Program.

The openings to the karsts are often small, making them hard to detect, but they open into cavernous holes teeming with marine life including amberjack, grouper and sea turtles, he wrote, adding that rare whale sharks also have been sighted near the karsts.

The karsts also may contain prehistoric human remains and artifacts like similar land-based sinkholes in Sarasota County, he suggested.

Only about 20 karst sites have been identified off Florida’s west coast, with the majority clustered around Tampa Bay, and other unknown sites are likely in the area, he wrote, suggesting that Port Dolphin use sonar and SCUBA divers to search for karsts in the vicinity of the proposed port site.

Longboat Key has hired a Washington D.C. law firm to research legal inadequacies of the Port Dolphin liquefied natural gas pipeline plan.

Patton Boggs LLP filed a 26-page document with the U.S. Coast Guard last week criticizing the agency’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as "legally inadequate under the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act, the rules of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of Transportation’s regulations on siting and environmental review of facilities for which a license is sought under the Deepwater Port Act."

The DEIS failed to adequately examine alternate methods for transporting natural gas from the proposed floating port to Port Manatee, overlooked the pipeline’s impact on underwater sand resources and demonstrated inadequate consultation with local governments, according to the document.

"The town of Longboat Key does not oppose the Port Dolphin project, but we believe that a license cannot properly be issued for the port unless the project adopts an alternative to the proposed pipeline or to the proposed route for the pipeline," Mayor Hal Lenobel wrote in an accompanying letter.

A floating liquefied natural gas port similar to the Port Dolphin project proposed off Anna Maria Island is in the works on Florida’s East Coast, where Port Calypso is responding to community concerns with its pocketbook.

Port Calypso is a project of Houston-based Suez Energy North America, an affiliate of the Paris-based company that built the Suez Canal 140 years ago.

The proposed Calypso, 10 miles off Port Everglades in the Atlantic Ocean, would dock tankers that convert liquefied natural gas to gas, then pipe it ashore to Port Everglades in its own pipeline.

Port Dolphin Energy, also based in Houston, proposes its port 28 miles off Anna Maria Island in the Gulf of Mexico, and would build its own pipeline to transport the same product to Port Manatee.

Both projects have heard their share of concerns from impacted communities.

But the similarities in their approaches to those concerns end there.

Dolphin’s proposed pipeline path would make Manatee County’s submerged beach renourishment sand area inaccessible, costing the county an estimated $50 million over the next 40 years to find and mine similar quality sand elsewhere, according to county officials.

Calypso’s pipeline path was scheduled to run through a coral reef. The company responded by committing to build a $100 million tunnel underneath the reef, similar to the channel tunnel, or chunnel, connecting the United Kingdom and France, said Dan McGinnis, vice president and project manager for Suez.

While Dolphin critics have suggested the company avoid the Gulf sand bed by using directional drilling to lay the pipeline underneath it, Calypso rejected that system.

"We decided to build a tunnel beneath the surface," McGinnis said, describing it as a concrete-encased dry tunnel three miles long that will hold the pipeline and a monorail system, enabling workers to access it from inside.

"We’re building a subway system," he said. "It hits our economics, but every one of these (projects) is different and we have to respect the tremendous ecosystem."

Fish count

Calypso also hired a private consultant for close to $2 million to do an ichthyoplankton study on fish species living in the project’s Atlantic region, which is heavily fished, according to McGinnis.

Dolphin’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, meanwhile, has been criticized by marine biologists as having inadequate details on marine species that would be impacted in the Gulf.

"We had to run the most extensive 15-month ichthyoplankton survey in the world" to comply with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requirements, McGinnis said. He also said the company would continue to monitor impacts on fish populations at additional expense after construction.

Talking to the community

The companies also have differed in their approaches to their respective communities.

Most officials on Anna Maria Island, Longboat Key, Manatee County commissioners and state and federal legislators learned of the Dolphin project after its first local public hearing May 6 – after the company’s environmental impact statement was finished and fairly far along in the permitting process.

Calypso, on the other hand, began working with community leaders and agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, two and a half years before its Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released a few months ago, McGinnis said.

"We are extremely proud of our outreach program," he said, noting that the company has significant experience. Suez is in the construction phase of a similar project, Port Neptune, off Gloucester, Mass. "These things aren’t easy to site. If outreach isn’t happening, you’re dropping the ball."

While some beachfront residents have objected to Calypso because it would be visible from shore at 10 miles out and would pose safety concerns, the company has held five federally sanctioned public hearings and about a dozen community meetings with fisheries groups and residents to explain the project and address concerns, he said, calling natural gas "very safe" and "very clean."

Whichever company gets a permit first will have the first facility of its kind in Florida waters, he said, but the two companies are in separate permitting processes that do not depend on the outcome of the other, McGinnis said.

"The companies are only technically in competition," he said, since Calypso is primarily an energy company and Dolphin is primarily a shipping company, and since each is negotiating with different power plants as potential customers: FP&L for Calypso and TECO for Dolphin.

"There is plenty of demand for gas in Florida," McGinnis said.

PORT MANATEE – Manatee County commissioners are delighted with Port Dolphin’s unexpected offer to relocate its proposed natural gas pipeline to avoid an underwater beach renourishment sand reserve.

But the commissioners, who also serve as members of the Port Authority for Port Manatee, where the pipeline would come ashore, told the natural gas shipping company that they expect even more.

"We’ve heard the community loud and clear," Port Dolphin spokesman Harry Costello said, apologizing for what he called "miscommunication" over where the pipeline would be built.

"We want to be a good neighbor," he said. "We will do a better job in communicating."

More concerns

While acknowledging Port Dolphin’s concession, Commission Chairman Jane von Hahmann made it clear that the dialogue is just beginning between the low-profile company and the county.

"There are other items besides the sand source," she said, including environmental impacts.

Commissioner Gwen Brown echoed concerns about the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico where the floating regasification port is proposed for 28 miles off Anna Maria Island. She asked Port Dolphin to contact all the environmental groups in Manatee County to show its good faith.

While the commission and the port authority are comprised of the same officials, von Hahmann said the members are concerned about protecting the community, not just attracting business to the port.

Port Authority Chairman Joe McClash agreed.

"It pains me to hear we might want to disregard the environment – that’s not the case," he said.

Sharing pipe

Commissioner Amy Stein, who mailed out brochures last week to line up support against Port Dolphin’s pipeline route, raised a concern about the Houston-based company’s proposal to build its own proprietary pipeline when another natural gas pipeline is available nearby.

Gulfstream Natural Gas System has offered to allow Port Dolphin to tap into its pipeline offshore, but Port Dolphin officials have said technical issues would prevent the two systems from being compatible.

An offshore interconnect with Gulfstream is favored, Stein said, encouraging Port Dolphin to share technical specifications with Gulfstream before meeting again with the commission.

The company has no current plans to connect offshore with Gulfstream, Costello said.

Until Manatee County’s beach renourishment engineering firm, Coastal Planning and Engineering, discovered that Port Dolphin’s plans included installing its pipeline in an offshore sand reserve, government officials and citizens were largely in the dark about the project.

While county staff reviewed the onshore portion of the pipeline in March, they had not yet become aware of the offshore portion, said Manatee County’s Charlie Hunsicker. As director of the county’s Conservation Lands Management Department, it was Hunsicker who brought Coastal’s findings to light in May.

Coastal estimated a $53.2 million cost to the county over the next four beach renourishment projects, spaced 10 years apart, and another $4.75 million for Longboat Key to find and dredge equivalent quality sand.

"A very important precedent has been established to protect important beach compatible sand sources as we look to the future of the very real potential for additional oil and gas exploration," Hunsicker said. "Should those explorations prove fruitful, each of those companies will be looking to offshore undersea pipeline routes to bring their product to southwest Florida, and in that event, the importance that we have placed thus far on the sand resources will be a message loud and clear into the foreseeable future."

Other sand sources

The town of Longboat Key, part of which lies in Manatee County, is also looking to the future when current sand reserves will be depleted, and is exploring the Gulf for other sand sources near Port Dolphin’s pipeline route.

"We are cautiously optimistic that the relocation of the pipeline would also attempt to avoid other areas that we are currently studying offshore for sand," said Juan Florensa, town public works director. "We are willing to share technical information with Port Dolphin on where the other reserves are so they can avoid them."

The recent involvement of elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, who gained the support of 14 members of Congress to oppose the pipeline route, and a law firm that Longboat Key hired to fight the pipeline, likely prompted Port Dolphin’s action, he said.

"I think they underestimated the opposition."