Southeast
Regional
Office
9721
Executive
Center
Drive
N.
St.
Petersburg,
Florida
33702
February
20,
2004
Philip
E.
Brinkmann
Project
Management
&
Controls
Regulatory
Advisor
ExxonMobil
Development
Company
P.
O.
Box
4876
Houston,
TX
77210­
4876
Dear
Mr.
Brinkmann:

The
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NOAA
Fisheries)
appreciates
the
opportunity
for
staff
of
the
Habitat
Conservation
and
the
Protected
Resources
Divisions
to
meet
with
representatives
from
the
ExxonMobil
Development
Company
(
ExxonMobil)
to
discuss
project
proposals
as
a
part
of
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(
NEPA)
pre­
filing
process.
To
date,
ExxonMobil
has
presented
proposals
to
build
Liquefied
Natural
Gas
(
LNG)
receiving
terminals
at
three
locations
along
the
Gulf
of
Mexico:
Mobile
Bay,
Alabama;
Sabine
Pass,
Texas
and
Corpus
Christi,
Texas.
The
regasification
facilities
to
be
located
in
Texas
are
proposing
to
use
approximately
100
million
gallons
of
seawater
per
day
as
a
heating
medium
in
an
open
rack
vaporizing
system.
The
intake
for
the
seawater
will
be
located
at
the
head
of
the
berth
area
for
the
LNG
tanker
ships.
An
aquatic
filter
barrier
system
engineered
by
Gunderboom
would
be
placed
as
a
curtain
in
front
of
the
intake
in
an
attempt
to
exclude
eggs
and
larval
fish
from
entrainment
in
the
regasification
system.

All
of
these
proposed
project
sites
include
or
are
adjacent
to
areas
identified
as
essential
fish
habitat
(
EFH)
for
postlarval,
juvenile,
and
adult
red
drum
(
Sciaenops
ocellatus),
juvenile
Spanish
mackerel
(
Scomberomorus
maculatus),
and
juvenile
and
subadult
white
(
Litopenaeus
setiferus)
and
brown
shrimp
(
Farfantepenaeus
aztecus).
The
estuarine
water
column,
unvegetated
benthic
habitats,
and
intertidal
wetlands
are
categories
of
EFH
that
could
be
impacted
by
the
proposed
project.
The
designations
by
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
Fishery
Management
Council
in
its
EFH
amendment,
as
approved
by
NOAA
Fisheries,
were
specified
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
(
Magnuson­
Stevens
Act)
(
P.
L.
104­
297)
and
implementing
regulations.
As
the
proposed
facilities
would
have
an
impact
on
EFH
and
associated
managed
species,
the
federal
permitting
agencies,
such
as
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
(
FERC),
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
and
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
will
be
required
to
consult
with
NOAA
Fisheries
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Act
and
implementing
regulations
prior
to
any
final
federal
action
on
the
proposed
LNG
projects.
In
addition
to
EFH
designated
for
white
and
brown
shrimp,
red
drum,
and
Spanish
mackerel,
the
project
areas
provide
nursery
and
foraging
habitat
that
supports
various
forage
species
and
economically
important
marine
fishery
species,
such
as
spotted
seatrout
(
Cynoscion
nebulosus),
flounder
(
Paralichthys
spp.),
Atlantic
croaker
(
Micropogonias
undulatus),
black
drum
(
Pogonias
cromis),
gulf
menhaden
(
Brevoortia
patronus),
striped
mullet
(
Mugil
cephalus),
and
blue
crab
(
Callinectes
sapidus).
These
estuarine­
dependent
organisms
serve
as
prey
for
other
fisheries
managed
under
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Act
by
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
Fishery
Management
Council
(
e.
g.,
dolphin,
snappers,
and
groupers)
and
highly
migratory
species
managed
by
NOAA
Fisheries
(
e.
g.,
billfishes
and
sharks).

Because
of
the
potential
for
adverse
impacts
to
EFH
and
managed
fish
species,
NOAA
Fisheries
is
very
concerned
that
ExxonMobil
proposes
to
construct
one
of
these
facilities
in
an
estuarine
tidal
pass
and
the
other
two
facilities
in
shallow
estuarine
bays.
Many
species
spawn
offshore
of
or
near
estuarine
tidal
passes,
and
larvae
of
estuarine­
dependent
species
are
seasonally
concentrated
in
the
passes.
Approximately
95
percent
of
all
Gulf
coast
fishery
landings
are
of
estuarinedependent
species
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1999).
Natural
mortality
of
fish
eggs
and
larvae
is
already
high,
and
stock
success
can
depend
on
survival
and
transport
of
relatively
few
recruits
to
their
estuarine
nursery
habitats
(
Houde
1987,
1989).
NOAA
Fisheries
views
mortality
caused
by
the
proposed
LNG
facilities
as
a
significant
additional
mortality
factor
to
the
natural
conditions
that
affect
the
sustainability
of
these
fisheries.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
proposed
LNG
facilities
kill
the
few
recruits
destined
for
survival,
they
may
have
a
dramatic
negative
effect
on
economically
important
fish
stocks.
To
date,
ExxonMobil
has
not
provided
information
on
the
impact
of
the
proposed
once­
through
seawater
system
on
mortality
in
fish
stocks
to
NOAA
Fisheries
for
our
assessment.
Information
typically
required
to
complete
a
traditional
stock
assessment
approach
to
determine
impacts
from
impingement
and
entrainment
includes:

a)
Numbers
of
eggs,
larvae,
and
juveniles
that
are
expected
to
be
entrained
or
impinged
(
and
killed)
by
species.

b)
Daily
natural
mortality
estimates
by
life
stage
during
the
first
year
of
life
by
species,
including
hatching
success.
This
allows
an
estimation
of
survival
from
viable
egg
to
age
of
entrainment.

c)
Age­
structured
population
model
estimates
of
recruits
to
age­
1
and
population
fecundity
(
need
maturity
schedule
and
fecundity
relationship).
This
allows
stock­
level
estimates
of
egg
production
(
viable
eggs)
and
overall
survival
from
viable
egg
to
recruitment
at
age­
1.

Although
NOAA
Fisheries
is
very
concerned
about
all
facilities
that
propose
to
use
once­
through
seawater
systems
in
an
estuary,
the
proposed
Sabine
Pass,
Texas,
facility
merits
particular
scrutiny.
Crustacean
and
fish
larvae
and
eggs
are
often
concentrated
in
estuarine
passes,
and
densities
can
be
extremely
high
during
some
periods
of
the
year.
The
temporal
and
spatial
distributions
of
these
organisms,
however,
are
extremely
patchy.
The
concentration
of
early
life
stages
and
the
patchy
density
patterns
indicate
an
enormous
potential
for
extensive
entrainment
and
impingement
mortality
in
and
near
estuarine
passes.
For
example,
in
one
study
very
near
the
proposed
Sabine
Pass
facility,
Hartman
et
al.
(
1987)
identified
71
fish
and
11
crustacean
taxa
from
zooplankton
samples
taken
in
Keith
Lake
Pass
using
0.505­
mm
mesh
nets.
In
their
study,
overall
mean
densities
were
reported
for
gulf
menhaden
(
1.0
m3
),
blue
crab
(
0.34
m3),
white
shrimp
(
0.2
m3),
and
brown
shrimp
(
0.08
m3);
but
seasonal
and
interannual
variation
in
the
densities
for
most
species
was
high.
Using
seasonal
densities
and
flow
data,
they
estimated
that
Keith
Lake
Pass
served
as
an
immigration
route
for
approximately
40
million
brown
shrimp,
116
million
white
shrimp,
314
million
blue
crab,
900
million
gulf
menhaden
and
27
million
Atlantic
croaker
annually.
We
also
are
concerned
about
the
possibility
of
a
LNG
facility
being
located
near
a
spawning
aggregation
(
e.
g.,
red
drum),
because
under
these
conditions
a
large
portion
of
an
entire
cohort
may
be
killed.

In
addition
to
direct
fish
and
crustacean
impacts,
all
zooplankton
passing
through
the
LNG
facilities
are
likely
to
be
killed.
Zooplankton
are
microscopic
drifting
animals
that
are
important
components
of
the
marine
and
estuarine
food
webs,
consuming
phytoplankton
and
smaller
zooplankton
and
providing
food
for
higher
level
predators,
such
as
larvae
of
fish
and
crustaceans.
A
rough
estimate
from
Minello
(
1980)
indicates
that
average
annual
mesozooplankton
densities
(
mostly
copepods)
are
around
2000
per
m3
(
0.200
mm
mesh)
in
coastal
waters
off
Texas
and
Louisiana.

NOAA
Fisheries
also
questions
whether
the
design
of
the
Gunderboom
Marine
Life
Exclusion
System
will
adequately
address
the
potential
problem
of
impingement
and
entrainment
of
larval
fish
and
eggs.
From
internet
searches,
it
appears
that
this
technology
has
been
used
mainly
in
riverine
systems
and
is
unproven
in
eutrophic
and
often
turbid
estuarine
systems,
such
as
those
found
on
the
Gulf
coast.
Studies
conducted
by
P.
A.
Henderson
et
al.
(
2001)
found
that
the
Gunderboom
systems
became
bio­
fouled
very
quickly
and
resulted
in
organisms
becoming
impinged
on
the
curtain.
The
air­
jets
were
found
to
injure
impinged
organisms
and
actually
increased
the
amount
of
colonization
by
other
organisms
within
the
curtain's
mesh.
Seaby
et
al.
(
2002)
concluded
that
fouling
was
likely
to
cause
a
failure
of
the
system
and
result
in
entrainment
of
organisms.
Fouling
may
be
even
greater
in
the
Gulf
estuarine
systems
currently
proposed
for
ExxonMobil's
three
LNG
facilities.
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
(
2003),
an
independent
environmental
organization
which
has
tested
the
Gunderboom
product,
recognized
that
existing
facilities
utilizing
open
systems
could
be
upgraded
to
use
the
new
filter
screen
technology
but
that
new
facilities
should
reduce
aquatic
mortality
by
using
dry
or
closed
systems.
After
reviewing
information
on
Gunderboom
systems,
NOAA
Fisheries
also
is
concerned
that
even
if
a
small
mesh
size
were
used
and
filtration
efficiency
could
be
maintained
(
i.
e.,
no
clogging),
planktonic
eggs
and
larvae
would
be
impinged
on
the
mesh
surface
and
likely
suffer
mortality
due
to
predation,
starvation,
or
physical
damage.
Aggregating
predators
are
likely
to
feed
upon
impinged
organisms,
and
air
burst
cleaning
may
damage
any
survivors.
Therefore,
before
this
system
would
be
considered
an
acceptable
impact
reduction
technology
by
NOAA
Fisheries,
ExxonMobil
should
conduct
a
scientifically
based
demonstration
project
in
the
Sabine
Lake,
Corpus
Christi
Bay
and
Mobile
Bay
estuaries
to
test
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
Gunderboom
system.
In
order
to
ensure
the
scientific
integrity
of
the
results,
the
scientific
design
of
any
such
demonstration
should
be
approved
by
the
NOAA
Fisheries
Southeast
Science
Center
prior
to
implementation.
We
also
are
concerned
that
the
proposed
facilities
would
add
significantly
to
the
cumulative
loss
of
living
marine
resources
from
existing
once­
through
seawater
cooling
systems.
For
example,
Palafox
and
Wolford
(
1993)
conducted
a
study
to
gauge
the
relative
importance
of
impingement
from
five
power
plants
in
Galveston
Bay,
Texas,
on
commercially
and
recreationally
important
species.
They
reported
that
from
1978­
1979,
the
time
period
with
the
most
extensive
data
set,
the
weight
of
impinged
shrimp
and
crabs
on
power
plant
intake
screens
was
nearly
11
and
17
percent
respectively
of
the
commercial
bay
landings.
Impingement
of
red
drum,
sand
seatrout
(
Cynoscion
arenarius)
and
spotted
seatrout
also
accounted
for
almost
three
percent
of
the
recreational
landings.
EPA
(
2002)
also
conducted
several
case
study
analyses
of
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intakes
for
power
plants
on
fisheries
as
part
of
their
proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
rulemaking
process.
In
their
study
of
Tampa
Bay,
Florida,
the
only
Gulf
coast
estuary
studied,
EPA
found
that
the
economic
impacts
from
entrainment
and
impingement
ranged
between
$
20.39
million
to
$
21.75
million
dollars
annually
in
year
2000
dollars.
To
adequately
address
such
issues,
ExxonMobil
should
provide
NOAA
Fisheries
with
a
detailed
cumulative
impacts
assessment
of
the
proposed
projects
which
takes
into
account
the
proposed
projects'
impacts
in
conjunction
with
past,
present
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
projects,
as
required
by
the
NEPA.

NOAA
Fisheries
believes
that
the
potential
loss
of
fishery
productivity
in
Gulf
coast
estuarine
systems
from
the
proposed
LNG
facilities
is
not
acceptable
when
alternative
technologies
are
available.
Therefore,
ExxonMobil
also
should
provide
NOAA
Fisheries
with
a
detailed
alternatives
analysis
of
regasification
systems,
as
required
by
NEPA.
Alternative
systems
which
we
believe
avoid
and
minimize
impacts
to
EFH
and
associated
managed
species
are
proposed
for
use
at
other
LNG
facilities,.
We
note
that
closed
loop
systems
utilizing
a
water/
glycol
solution
and
natural
gas
boilers
to
vaporize
LNG
are
proposed
for
use
at
both
the
Sabine
Pass
and
Corpus
Christi
Bay
facilities.
This
closed
loop
system
is
proposed
for
use
during
the
late
fall
to
late
winter
months
when
seawater
temperatures
are
not
suitable
for
efficient
regasification.
Since
the
system
would
already
be
in
place,
one
alternative
would
be
to
run
the
closed
loop
system
year
round
and
not
construct
the
once­
through
seawater
system.
We
believe
this
technology
should
be
considered
a
Best
Available
Technology.

We
also
note
that
the
EPA
is
considering
revising
the
Clean
Water
Act
Section
316(
b)
regulations
concerning
entrainment
and
impingement
impacts
from
once­
through
water
systems.
Although
EPA
has
not
made
a
decision
whether
LNG
facilities
will
be
covered
under
the
proposed
Phase
III
regulations,
NOAA
Fisheries
believes
that
the
federal
agencies
responsible
for
project
approval
should
hold
new
LNG
facilities
to
the
same
standards
as
new
power
plants,
since
the
impacts
on
fisheries
from
the
once­
through
seawater
systems
with
similar
intake
volumes
would
be
the
same.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
subject
facilities
will
employ
a
closed­
loop
system
on
a
seasonal
basis.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
Tract
I
standards
set
in
section
125.84
(
b)(
1)
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
I
Regulations
for
new
electric
generation
facilities
that
withdraw
more
than
10
mgd
should
be
the
required
standard
for
these
LNG
facilities.
The
cited
standard
requires
that:

"
You
must
reduce
your
intake
flow,
at
a
minimum,
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system."
Please
bear
in
mind
that
if
these
proposed
actions
may
affect
species
listed
as
threatened
or
endangered,
or
destroy
or
adversely
modify
their
designated
critical
habitat,
pursuant
to
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA),
such
actions
would
be
subject
to
consultation
with
NOAA
Fisheries'
Protected
Resources
Division
(
PRD)
pursuant
to
section
7
of
the
ESA,
prior
to
authorizing
the
proposed
action.
As
you
know,
ESA
consultation
is
a
separate
and
distinct
process,
guided
by
unique
consultative
requirements.
Accordingly,
the
federal
action
agency
may
receive
separate
correspondence
from
PRD
on
NOAA
Fisheries
letterhead
regarding
ESA
concerns
and/
or
finalizing
ESA
consultation.

In
closing,
we
would
like
to
thank
you
and
other
representatives
from
ExxonMobil
for
early
coordination
with
NOAA
Fisheries
concerning
your
proposed
construction
of
three
LNG
facilities.
While
we
strongly
urge
you
to
consider
the
use
of
a
closed
loop
heating
system
on
a
year­
round
basis,
we
are
including
a
list
of
information
needs
to
allow
us
to
fully
assess
the
impacts
of
the
projects
as
currently
proposed.

If
we
may
be
of
further
assistance,
please
contact
Kay
Davy
of
my
Southeast
Regional
staff
at
(
727)
570­
5317
or
Rusty
Swafford
in
our
Galveston,
Texas,
Facility
at
(
409)
766­
3699.

Sincerely,

Miles
M.
Croom
Assistant
Regional
Administrator
Habitat
Conservation
Division
Enclosure
cc:
PRD
SER
4
­
Davy
SER
42
SER
43
SER
44
SEFSC­
Minello
References
Cited
Hartman,
R.
D.,
C.
F.
Bryan,
and
J.
W.
Korth
1987.
Community
structure
and
dynamics
of
fishes
in
a
Southeast
Texas
estuary.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Albuquerque.
116
p.

Houde,
E.
D.
1987.
Fish
early
life
dynamics
and
recruitment
variability.
p.
17­
29
In
Hoyt,
R.
D.(
ed.).
Proceedings
of
the10th
Annul
Larval
Fish
Conference
held
in
Miami,
FL
May
18­
23,
1986.
American
Fisheries
Society
Symposium
2.
American
Fisheries
Society,
Bethesda,
MD.

Houde,
E.
1989.
Subtleties
and
episodes
in
the
early
life
of
fishes.
J.
Fish.
Biol.
35
Supplement
A:
29­
38.

P.
A.
Henderson,
R.
M.
Seaby,
C.
Cailes,
and
J.
R.
Somes,
2001.
Gunderboom
Fouling
Studies
in
Bowline
Pond,
July
2001.
Pisces
Conservation
Ltd.
IRC
House,
Pennington,
Lymington,
England.

Minello,
T.
J.
1980.
The
neritic
zooplankton
of
the
northwestern
Gulf
of
Mexico.
Texas
A&
M
University,
College
Station,
240
p.

Palafox,
S.
D.,
and
E.
D.
Wolford.
1993.
Non­
fishing/
human
induced
mortality
in
fisheries.
Galveston
bay
National
Estuary
Program.
Pub.
GBNEP­
29.
Webster,
TX
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
2003.
Comprehensive
survey
and
investigation
of
dry
cooling
systems
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment.
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
(
http://
riverkeeper.
org/
campaign.
php/
fishkills/
we_
are_
doing/
622),

Seaby,
R.
M.,
P.
A.
Henderson,
C.
Cailes,
and
J.
R.
Somes
2002.
Gunderboom
fouling
studies.
(
http://
riverkeeper.
org/
document.
php/
138/
Appendix_
C__
Pis.
pdf).
Pisces
Conservation
Ltd
(
www.
irchouse.
demon.
co.
uk),
England.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1999.
Ecological
considerations
of
estuaries
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.
EPA
620­
R­
98­
004.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
National
Health
and
Environmental
Effects
Research
Laboratory,
Gulf
Ecology
Division,
Gulf
Breeze,
FL.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
2002.
Case
study
analysis
for
the
proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
rule.
EPA­
821­
R­
02­
002.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water.
