INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1

1-1 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On December 7, 2012, Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron LNG) filed an application with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) pursuant to Section 3(a) of 

the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission’s regulations. Cameron LNG 

requests authorization to site, construct, and operate liquefaction and export facilities adjacent to

its existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana.

The Cameron LNG Liquefaction Project (referred to in this Environmental Impact Statement 

[EIS] as the Terminal Expansion) would allow Cameron LNG to liquefy domestic natural gas 

supplies for the export of approximately 12 million metric tons per year (mtpy) of LNG.

On December 14, 2012, Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC (Cameron Interstate) filed an 

application with the FERC pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 153 of the 

Commission’s regulations requesting authorization to site, construct, operate, and maintain a new 

pipeline in Cameron, Calcasieu, and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana. The Cameron Pipeline 

Expansion Project (referred to in this EIS as the Pipeline Expansion) would add bi-directional 

flow (north/south) capability to the existing Cameron Interstate Pipeline, allowing the pipeline to 

(1) transport natural gas from various interstate pipeline interconnections to the Cameron LNG 

Terminal for export, or (2) transport regassified LNG from the terminal to the same pipeline 

interconnections. 

Cameron LNG and Cameron Interstate (collectively Cameron) are wholly owned 

subsidiaries of Sempra Energy. Collectively, Cameron’s actions and facilities are referred to in 

this final EIS as the Cameron Liquefaction Project (Project). As part of the Commission’s 

consideration of these applications, we

1 prepared this final EIS to assess the potential 

environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project in 

accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that is new or modified in this final EIS and 

differs materially from corresponding text in the draft EIS. Changes were made to address 

comments from cooperating agencies and other stakeholders on the draft EIS, incorporate 

modifications to the Project after publication of the draft EIS, update information included in the 

draft EIS, and incorporate information filed by Cameron LNG and Cameron Interstate in 

response to our recommendations in the draft EIS. As a result of the changes, four of the 

recommendations identified in the draft EIS are no longer applicable to the Project and do not 

appear in this final EIS. In addition, six recommendations identified in the draft EIS have been 

substantively modified in the final EIS, and ten new recommendations have been added to the 

final EIS.

The existing Cameron LNG Terminal is approximately 2 miles north of the City of 

Hackberry, Louisiana, on the west side of the Calcasieu Ship Channel. Currently, the Cameron

LNG Terminal receives LNG by marine vessel shipment (LNG carriers) and is authorized to 

export previously imported foreign-sourced LNG. The Terminal Expansion would allow an 

increase in LNG storage capacity by 160,000 cubic meters (m3

), for a total LNG storage capacity 

 

1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects.
Introduction 1-2

of 640,000 m3 at the expanded terminal, and the export of domestic natural gas in the form of 

LNG from the terminal. Cameron LNG is not requesting changes to the annual number of LNG 

carrier transits to the existing berths or changes to the size of carriers that would transport the 

LNG. 

In addition to liquefying natural gas and exporting LNG, the Cameron LNG Terminal 

would continue to have the capability to regasify (vaporize) imported LNG. Although the design 

of the facility would allow concurrent liquefaction, regasification, and transfer of LNG to and 

from ships concurrently, market conditions would make that an unrealistic scenario. In addition, 

Cameron LNG’s commercial agreements preclude simultaneous regasification and liquefaction. 

As a result, at any point in time Cameron LNG would operate the expanded terminal exclusively 

as a liquefaction/export facility or exclusively as an import/regasification facility.

If Cameron LNG receives FERC authorization and all other permits, authorizations, and 

approvals for the proposed Terminal Expansion, it anticipates conducting construction and 

requesting in-service in three phases. Cameron LNG anticipates an initial in-service date to 

liquefy natural gas (first liquefaction train) in 2017, with the second and third liquefaction trains 

to be in service in 2018. Cameron LNG also anticipates that 2019 would be the first year of full 

production (up to 12 mtpy). The Terminal Expansion would include the following key facilities:

• three liquefaction trains, each with a maximum nameplate capacity of 4.985 mtpy 

(13,657 metric tons per day) of LNG for export;

• a 160,000-m3 full containment LNG storage tank;

• refrigerant make-up and condensate product storage tanks;

• a truck loading/unloading area;

• a work dock to transport large pieces of equipment and construction materials to the 

Terminal Expansion site by sea;

• utilities and associated systems; and

• minor modifications to the existing Cameron LNG Terminal facilities.

Currently, the existing terminal only receives natural gas by LNG carriers. The proposed 

Pipeline Expansion would provide bi-directional flow along the Cameron Interstate Pipeline 

system to/from the expanded terminal from five interstate pipeline interconnections described 

below. The Pipeline Expansion would extend northward from the existing interconnection with 

Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) to a new interconnection with Trunkline Gas Pipeline 

(Trunkline) and would include a new compressor station (Holbrook Compressor Station). 

If Cameron Interstate receives a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

(Certificate) from the FERC and all other permits, authorizations, and approvals for the proposed 

Pipeline Expansion, Cameron Interstate anticipates it would begin construction in 2014 and 

initiate service in 2017. The Pipeline Expansion would consist of the following key facilities:

• about 21 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline between its existing interconnection with

FGT and the proposed new interconnection with Trunkline;
1-3 Introduction

• a new 56,820-horsepower compressor station (Holbrook Compressor Station) 

consisting of 12 natural gas-driven compressor units, associated buildings, and a 

backup power generator at milepost (MP) 8.4;

• one new interconnection with Trunkline at the existing LA Storage interconnection

facility; 

• modifications to existing interconnections and metering facilities with 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Texas Eastern Transmission 

Company (TETCO), FGT, Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) systems, and the Cameron 

LNG Terminal; and

• associated pipeline facilities, including metering units, control buildings, pig receivers 

and launchers,

2 and valves.

Under Section 3 of the NGA, the FERC considers as part of its decision to authorize 

natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public interest. Specifically, regarding whether to 

authorize natural gas facilities used for importation or exportation, the FERC shall authorize the 

proposal unless it finds that the proposed facilities will not be consistent with the public interest.

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas 

transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate 

to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on technical competence, 

financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, environmental impact, long-term feasibility, and 

other issues concerning a proposed project.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Cameron’s stated Project purpose is to transport and liquefy domestic natural gas into 

LNG for export, and deliver competitively-priced LNG to foreign markets. Other specific 

Project objectives are as follows:

• enable bi-directional flow of natural gas along the Cameron Interstate Pipeline system 

and allow natural gas to be received from five pipeline interconnections;

• allow natural gas to be received by pipeline at the expanded LNG terminal; treated, 

liquefied, and stored; and loaded from the LNG storage tanks into vessels berthed at 

the terminal’s existing marine facility;

• preserve the import and re-gasification capabilities of the Cameron LNG Terminal;

and

• preserve export capability of foreign-sourced LNG at the Cameron LNG Terminal.

Cameron LNG entered into commercial development agreements with three companies 

for the proposed Terminal Expansion. These parties agreed to share in the development costs of 

the expansion and executed long-term tolling capacity agreements with Cameron LNG. Under 

these agreements, Cameron LNG would not take ownership of the natural gas feedstock or LNG 

 2 A pipeline “pig” is a device to clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility 

where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.
Introduction 1-4

product but would only provide services for natural gas pre-treatment, vaporization, LNG 

storage, and marine services, including loading of LNG carriers prior to export by its customers.

Cameron Interstate conducted a non-binding open season from November 1 through 

November 30, 2012, to determine the level of interest from domestic natural gas shippers to 

supply natural gas for transport by the proposed Pipeline Expansion to the Terminal Expansion. 

As a result, Cameron Interstate received confidential expressions of interest for all of the 

proposed incremental transportation capacity of the Pipeline Expansion.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT

The principal purposes in preparing an EIS are to:

• identify and assess potential impacts on the human environment that would result 

from implementation of the proposed action;

• identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the human environment; 

• facilitate public involvement in identifying significant environmental impacts; and 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts.

This EIS focuses on the facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction (that is, the 

proposed Terminal Expansion and Pipeline Expansion facilities). The topics addressed in this 

EIS include geology; soils; water use and quality; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife; fisheries and 

essential fish habitat (EFH); threatened, endangered, and special status species; land use, 

recreation, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality; noise; reliability 

and safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives. This EIS describes the affected environment as 

it currently exists, discusses the potential environmental consequences of the proposed Project, 

and compares the Project’s potential impact to that of alternatives. This EIS also presents our 

conclusions and recommended mitigation measures.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) provides that the FERC shall act as the lead 

agency for coordinating all applicable authorizations related to jurisdictional natural gas facilities 

and for purposes of complying with NEPA. The FERC, as the “lead federal agency,” is

responsible for preparation of this EIS. This effort was undertaken with the participation and 

assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE); U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard); U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (DOE); and U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DOT) as “cooperating agencies” under 

NEPA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 

environmental impacts involved with a proposal. The roles of the FERC, COE, Coast Guard, 

DOE, and DOT in the Project review process are described below. The EIS provides a basis for 

coordinated federal decision making in a single document, avoiding duplication among federal

agencies in the NEPA environmental review processes. In addition to the lead and cooperating 

agencies, other federal, state, and local agencies may use this EIS in approving or issuing permits 

for all or part of the proposed Project. Federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and 

consultations for the proposed Project are discussed in section 1.5.
1-5 Introduction

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Based on its authority under the NGA, the FERC is the lead agency for preparation of 

this EIS in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], 

Parts 1500-1508 [40 CFR 1500-1508]), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 

380). 

As the lead federal agency for the Cameron Liquefaction Project, the FERC is required to 

comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this EIS. The 

FERC will use this document to consider the environmental impacts that could result if it issues 

an authorization to Cameron LNG under Section 3(a) of the NGA and a Certificate to Cameron 

Interstate under Section 7(c) of the NGA. 

1.2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The COE has jurisdictional authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) (Title 33 of the United States Code [USC], Section 1344 [33 USC 1344]), which governs 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403), which regulates any work or structures that potentially 

affect the navigable capacity of a waterbody. Because the COE would need to evaluate and 

approve several aspects of the Project and must comply with the requirements of NEPA before 

issuing permits under the above statutes, it has elected to participate as a cooperating agency in 

the preparation of this EIS. The COE would adopt the EIS in compliance with 40 CFR 1506.3 if, 

after an independent review of the document, it concludes that the EIS satisfies the COE’s 

comments and suggestions. The Project occurs within the New Orleans District of the COE 

Mississippi Valley Division. Staff from this COE district participated in the NEPA review and 

will evaluate COE authorizations, as applicable. 

The primary decisions to be addressed by the COE include:

• issuance of a Joint Coastal Use Permit (CUP) with the Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources (LDNR), Coastal Management Division for wetland impacts 

associated with construction of the Terminal Expansion;

• issuance of Section 404 Permits for wetland impacts associated with construction of 

the Terminal Expansion and the Pipeline Expansion; and 

• issuance of a Section 10 Permit for construction activities within navigable waters of 

the United States.

This EIS contains information needed by the COE to reach decisions on these issues. 

Through the coordination of this document, the COE will obtain the views of the public and 

natural resource agencies prior to reaching its decisions on the Project.
Introduction 1-6

As an element of its review, the COE must consider whether a proposed project avoids, 

minimizes, and compensates for impacts on existing aquatic resources, including wetlands, to 

strive to achieve a goal of no overall net loss of values and functions. On February 12, 2014, the 

COE issued a Department of the Army (DA) permit for the Terminal Expansion (see Appendix 

K). The COE would issue a Record of Decision to formally document its decisions on the 

proposed action, including section 404(b)(1) analyses and required environmental mitigation 

commitments.

1.2.3 U.S. Coast Guard 

The Coast Guard is the federal agency responsible for determining the suitability of 

waterways for LNG marine traffic. The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority over LNG

facilities that affect the safety and security of port areas and navigable waterways under

Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (50 USC 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1221, et seq.), and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of

2002 (46 USC 701). The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation safety, 

vessel engineering and safety standards, and all matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or 

equipment in or adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before the 

receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG facility security plan reviews, 

approval and compliance verification as provided in 33 CFR 105, and siting as it pertains to the 

management of vessel traffic in and around LNG facilities to a point 12 nautical miles seaward 

from the coastline (i.e., within the territorial seas).

As required by its regulations, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a Letter of 

Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic following a 

Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA). In a letter dated March 16, 2012, the Coast Guard 

stated it would not require revisions to the current WSA3 for the Cameron LNG Terminal nor 

would another LOR be required for the Cameron LNG Terminal because no additional LNG 

carrier traffic or routes are requested for the Terminal Expansion. However, the Coast Guard 

would require Cameron LNG to provide applicable amendments to its Operations Manual, 

Emergency Manual, and Facility Security Plan for the Terminal Expansion. 

1.2.4 U.S. Department of Energy

The DOE must meet its obligation under Section 3 of the NGA to authorize the import 

and export of natural gas, including LNG, unless it finds that the import or export is not 

consistent with the public interest. Cameron LNG filed applications with the DOE (FE Docket 

Nos. 11-145-LNG and 11-162-LNG) on November 10, 2011 and December 21, 2011, seeking

authorization to export up to 12 mtpy of domestically produced LNG (the equivalent of 620 

billion cubic feet per year of natural gas) for a 20-year period, commencing the earlier of either 

the date of first export or 7 years from the date of issuance of the requested authorization. 

Cameron LNG seeks to export LNG from the expanded Cameron LNG Terminal to any country 

(1) with which the United States has, or in the future may have, a free trade agreement requiring 

national treatment for trade in natural gas; (2) with which the United States does not have a free 

trade agreement requiring the national treatment for trade in natural gas and LNG; (3) that has, or 

 3 Accepted by the Coast Guard in a letter on April 19, 2006. 
1-7 Introduction

in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG; and (4) with which trade is not prohibited by 

United States law or policy. 

Section 3(c) of the NGA, as amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(Public Law 102-486), requires that applications to DOE requesting authorization of the import 

and export of natural gas, including LNG, from and to a nation with which there is in effect a 

free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, be deemed consistent 

with the public interest and granted without modification or delay. On January 17, 2012, the 

DOE issued an order granting authorization to Cameron LNG to export LNG by vessel from the 

Cameron LNG Terminal to any country which has or in the future develops the capacity to 

import LNG via ocean-going carrier and with which the United States has, or in the future enters 

into, a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas. On February 

11, 2014, the DOE issued an order granting Cameron LNG authorization to export LNG by 

vessel to countries with which the United States has not entered a free trade agreement. The 

authorization granted is conditioned on the satisfactory completion of this environmental review 

of Cameron LNG’s proposed modifications to the Cameron LNG Terminal under NEPA and on 

issuance by DOE of a finding of no significant impact or a Record of Decision pursuant to 

NEPA. In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of the EIS, the DOE 

may adopt it prior to issuing a Record of Decision on Cameron LNG’s application for authority 

to export LNG.

1.2.5 U.S. Department of Transportation 

The DOT has prescribed the minimum federal safety standards for LNG facilities in 

compliance with 49 USC 60101. Those standards are codified in 49 CFR Part 193 and apply to 

the siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and security of LNG facilities. The 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 59A, “Standard for the Production, 

Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas,” is incorporated into these requirements by 

reference, with regulatory preemption in the event of conflict. In accordance with the 1985 

Memorandum of Understanding on LNG facilities and the 2004 Interagency Agreement on the 

safety and security review of waterfront import/export LNG facilities, the DOT participates as a 

cooperating agency. The DOT does not issue a permit or license, but as a cooperating agency, 

assists FERC staff in evaluating whether or not an applicant’s proposed design would meet the 

DOT requirements. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

1.3.1 Pre-filing Process and Scoping

On April 30, 2012, Cameron filed a request with the FERC to use our pre-filing review 

process. At that time Cameron was in the preliminary design stage of the Project and no formal 

applications had been filed with the FERC. The request to use our pre-filing review process was 

approved on May 9, 2012. Pre-filing Docket Nos. PF12-13-000 and PF12-12-000 were

established for the Terminal Expansion and Pipeline Expansion Projects, respectively, to place 

information filed by Cameron LNG and Cameron Interstate and related documents issued by the 

FERC into the public record. The pre-filing review process provides opportunities for interested 

stakeholders to become involved early in project planning, facilitates interagency cooperation, 
Introduction 1-8

and assists in the identification and resolution of issues prior to a formal application being filed 

with the FERC.

Cameron held Public Open Houses in Sulphur and Hackberry, Louisiana on June 26, 

2012. The FERC staff participated in those meetings to describe the FERC process and provide 

those attending with information on how to file comments with the FERC. In addition, on June

25 and 26, 2012, FERC staff visited the existing wetland mitigation and restoration areas, the 

existing Cameron LNG Terminal, the proposed Terminal Expansion site, and the proposed 

pipeline route. After the open house meetings, we received comments from Mr. Charlie 

Atherton in regard to safety at the existing Cameron LNG Terminal. 

On August 6, 2012, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Planned Cameron Pipeline Expansion Project and Cameron LNG 

Liquefaction Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public 

Scoping Meeting (NOI). This notice was sent to about 300 interested parties including federal, 

state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; Native American 

tribes; local libraries and newspapers in the Project area; and property owners in the vicinity of 

planned Project facilities. Publication of the NOI established a 30-day public comment period 

for the submission of comments, concerns, and issues related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed Project. 

On August 21, 2012, we conducted a public scoping meeting in Sulphur, Louisiana, to 

provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the Project and provide oral comments4

on environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. A total of 10 people presented oral 

comments at the scoping meeting.

5

 All 10 commenters expressed support for Cameron and the 

Project, primarily regarding Cameron’s current reputation and the expected increase in jobs. 

In total, three letters from the federal agencies (DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA], and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]) were received in response to the 

NOI. After the end of the NOI comment period, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Siting 

Clearinghouse provided a letter stating no opposition to the Project; the U.S. National Park 

Service provided a statement of no comment; and the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

acknowledged receipt and the opportunity to review the Project. The Commission also received 

a letter from the Sierra Club and Gulf Restoration Network after the NOI comment period, which 

included comments on wetlands, alternatives, and gas sources. 

On October 3, 2012, we held a joint interagency meeting for the Project and Trunkline’s 

Lake Charles Liquefaction Project and met with representatives of the COE, Coast Guard, 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), LDNR, Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), FWS, and Cameron and Trunkline representatives to 

discuss coordination of agency review, permit requirements and status, and each agency’s 

interest in participating in our environmental review as a cooperating agency. On January 17, 

 4 Transcripts of the comments are part of the public record for the Terminal Expansion (PF12-13-000; Accession 

Number 20121105-4021) and Pipeline Expansion (PF12-12-000; Accession Number 20121016-4006) and are 

available on the FERC website at http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 5 Two written comments read at the scoping meeting were also received. 
1-9 Introduction

2013, we conducted another agency meeting and site visit with the same agencies at the Cameron 

LNG Terminal to discuss impacts on EFH, wetlands, migratory birds, and threatened and 

endangered species.

Issues identified after the open houses and during and after the public comment process 

are summarized in table 1.3-1 along with a listing of the EIS sections that address the comments.

Issues identified that are not considered environmental considerations or are outside the scope of 

the EIS process are summarized in table 1.3-2, and are not addressed further in this EIS. 

TABLE 1.3-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received during the Public Scoping Process for the Cameron 

Liquefaction Project

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing

Comment

General

Purpose and need 1.1

Alternatives

Alternatives analysis criteria 3.0

Range of alternatives considered 3.0

Water Resources

Impacts on water quality from dredging, construction of in-water facilities, and ship transits 4.3

Drainage pattern and floodplain identification 4.3.1

Impacts on surface water quality from discharges and stormwater pollution 4.3.2

Impacts on aquatic environment from contaminated sediments during construction and 

operation 4.3.2

Navigable waterway permitting 4.3.2

Construction procedures across contaminated waterbodies 4.3.2

Wetlands

Impacts on forested wetlands 4.4

Wetland construction and mitigation procedures 4.4

Vegetation

Impacts on critically imperiled vegetation species 4.5.1

Construction and maintenance impacts on vegetation and restoration techniques 4.5.1
Introduction 1-10

TABLE 1.3-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received during the Public Scoping Process for the Cameron 

Liquefaction Project - Continued

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing

Comment

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Migratory bird conservation efforts 4.6.2

Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 4.6.4

Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species

Impacts on federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species and suitable habitat 4.7

Jeopardy to endangered species and destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 4.7

Socioeconomics

Impact on minority and low-income populations 4.9

Impact on communities in the vicinity 4.9

Cultural Resources

NHPA Section 106 consultation and analysis 4.10

Consultation with tribal governments 4.10.3

Impacts on tribal, cultural, or other treaty resources and mitigation efforts 4.10.3

Air Quality and Noise

Emissions from the Terminal Expansion and marine vessels and mitigation measures 4.11.1

Global greenhouse gas emissions 4.11.1

Impacts on local and global air quality and noise from the construction and operation of the 

Terminal Expansion and Pipeline Expansion 4.11.2

Reliability and Safety

Navigation safety Previously 

addressed a

Dock firefighting capability Previously 

addressed a

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 4.13

Global greenhouse gas emissions 4.13.2

a Navigation safety and dock firefighting capability were previously addressed in the 2003 EIS for the existing Cameron LNG 

Terminal (FERC Docket No. CP02-374), the 2006 Environmental Assessment for Cameron LNG Expansion Project (Docket 

No. CP06-422), and the 2010 Environmental Assessment for the Cameron LNG Export Project (Docket No. CP10-496), and 

Cameron LNG is not proposing changes to the existing Cameron LNG Terminal marine systems or an increase in the 

currently authorized number or size of LNG carriers.
1-11 Introduction

TABLE 1.3-2

Issues Identified and Comments Received that are Outside the Scope of the EIS Process

Issue/Specific Comment

Impacts of natural gas exploration and production of gas transported to the proposed Project and associated job 

loss or gain a

Other LNG export proposals pending before DOE and the FERC beyond our alternatives analysis

Delay a decision on the application until comments are received on DOE/FE’s economic study on impacts of LNG 

exports

Consider nationwide and global impacts on domestic gas price increases, changes in domestic power production, 

and effects of gas price increases on the United States economy

Impose monitoring conditions and specific monitoring terms and thresholds for (1) regional and national economic 

dislocations and disruptions caused by natural gas extraction, and (2) national increases in gas and electricity 

prices and resulting shifts to more polluting fuels

Insurance requirements for marine vessel disasters

a The development of natural gas in shale plays by hydraulic fracturing is not the subject of this EIS nor is the issue directly 

related to the proposed Project. Production and gathering activities, and the pipelines and facilities used for these activities, 

are not regulated by FERC, but are overseen by the affected region’s state and local agencies with jurisdiction over the 

management and extraction of the shale gas resource. Determining the well and gathering line locations and their 

environmental impact is not feasible as the market and gas availability at any given time would determine the source of the 

natural gas. Therefore, it is outside of the scope of this EIS.

In March and August 2013, we mailed Project Updates to interested parties, including

federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; Native 

American tribes; local libraries and newspapers in the Project area; and property owners in the 

vicinity of planned Project facilities. These updates provided information on the proposed 

Project, a list of the primary concerns that were raised during scoping, information on the status 

of the environmental review process and the next steps in the process, and information on how to 

stay informed about the progress of the review process. 

1.3.2 Public Review of the Draft EIS

The draft EIS for the proposed Project was issued for public review on January 10, 2014, 

and the notice of availability (NOA) for the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2014 (Volume 79, Number 12, Document No. 2014-00786, pages 3197 to 3198). 

The NOA included notice of a public comment meeting on February 13, 2014, in Sulphur, 

Louisiana. The NOA also provided summary information regarding the draft EIS and requested 

the submission of all comments by March 3, 2014. Copies of the draft EIS were also sent to 

agencies, elected officials, media organizations, Native American tribes, private landowners, and 

other interested parties. An electronic version of the draft EIS is available for download on the 

FERC website under Docket Nos. CP13-25-000 and CP13-27-000. The distribution list for the 

draft EIS is presented in Appendix A.

The public comment meeting was held in Sulphur, Louisiana on February 13, 2014 to

solicit both verbal and written comments on the draft EIS. The meeting was held in the vicinity 
Introduction 1-12

of the proposed Project, at the same location as the scoping meeting held on August 21, 2012. 

At the comment meeting, the FERC received written comments from four individuals and verbal 

comments from 11 people. The verbal comments were recorded and transcribed by a court 

reporter. The transcripts of the public comment meetings and all written comments on the draft 

EIS are part of the public record for the Project.6

In addition to receiving written and verbal comments at the draft EIS comment meetings, 

the FERC received 12 written comments from federal, state and local agencies; interested 

parties; and Cameron. All written comments directly pertaining to the draft EIS, the transcripts 

of verbal comments presented at the draft EIS comment meeting, and responses to comments are 

presented in Appendix L.

1.3.3 Final EIS

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on the 

proposed action may be made until 30 day after the EPA publishes a NOA of the final EIS in the 

Federal Register. However, CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency 

decision is subject to a formal internal appeal process that allows other agencies or the public to 

make their views known. This is the case at the FERC, where any Commission decision on the 

proposed action would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC decision 

may be made and recorded concurrently with the publication of the final EIS.

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of a decision to 

authorize jurisdictional facilities, all facilities that are directly related to a proposed project where 

there is sufficient federal control and responsibility to warrant environmental analysis as part of 

the NEPA environmental review for the proposed Project. Some proposed projects have 

associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. These “nonjurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities, or they may be 

merely associated as minor components of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed 

and operated as a result of authorization of the proposed facilities. 

Four non-jurisdictional actions were identified in association with the proposed Project: 

a 12-mile-long electrical transmission line to the Terminal Expansion site and an onsite 

switchyard; an offsite, 4-mile-long condensate piping system; tanker truck shipping of 

condensate; and a 3.5-mile-long electrical distribution line to the proposed Holbrook Compressor 

Station site. These facilities are addressed below and are also addressed in our cumulative 

impacts analysis in section 4.13 of this EIS.

The Project would produce and store stabilized condensate as a by-product of the 

liquefaction process at the Cameron LNG Terminal. Cameron stated it would transport the 

produced condensate from the Cameron LNG Terminal using either tanker trucks or via a thirdparty pipeline. We have assessed both transportation options as non-jurisdictional facilities in 

this EIS.

 6 Available for viewing on the FERC internet website (http://www.ferc.gov) under Docket Nos. CP13-25-000 

(Accession No. 20130213-4005) and CP13-27-000 (Accession No. 20130213-4006).
1-13 Introduction

1.4.1 Entergy Electric Transmission Line 

To provide electrical power to the Terminal Expansion, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 

LLC (Entergy) would build an approximately 12-mile-long double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) 

electric transmission line in Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes as well as a new switchyard on the 

Terminal Expansion site (figure 1.4-1). Entergy would construct the transmission line for the use 

of the proposed Terminal Expansion. The transmission line would extend southward from a 

tie-in to Entergy’s existing 230-kV Line 428 transmission line in Calcasieu Parish, cross the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, run eastward along a route near the southern shore of the waterway to 

Louisiana State Highway 27 (LA-27), then southward, paralleling LA-27 to the existing 

Cameron LNG Terminal (see figure 1.4-1). Entergy would purchase a 150-foot-wide easement 

for the transmission line. Each of the two 230-kV circuits would be installed on separate poles 

but within the same 150-foot-wide right-of-way. A new Entergy switchyard would replace an 

existing switchyard that is currently in the northwest corner of the Cameron LNG Terminal. To 

obtain its permit under Section 404 of the CWA, Entergy prepared an environmental assessment 

(EA) and alternative route analysis for the COE, including route alternatives, for this proposed 

transmission line and switchyard (Entergy EA 2013).

7

 

The Entergy EA states that the proposed easement is primarily within open pastures and 

herbaceous coastal marsh. However, some forested areas and shrub species may be cleared 

within the immediate area of power poles for temporary workspace during construction 

activities. Entergy must apply for and comply with all applicable federal and state permits, 

including a joint CUP with the LDNR and COE. Compensatory mitigation may be required by

the LDNR and COE for permanent impacts on jurisdictional wetlands. We reviewed the Entergy 

EA and correspondence from the FWS and determined no impacts would occur on threatened or 

endangered species. SHPO correspondence has not yet been received stating if surveys are 

warranted. The COE is the lead federal agency for this non-jurisdictional electrical transmission 

line and would be responsible for ensuring that all federal consultations and authorizations are 

completed. 

1.4.2 Condensate Pipeline

The 4-mile-long, 6-inch-diameter condensate pipeline would extend from the expanded 

terminal to an existing Targa Resource Partners LP (Targa) natural gas liquids (NGL) storage 

facility (figure 1.4-2). It is likely that Targa would construct, own, and operate the pipeline; 

however, because we are not aware of specific plans for construction of the pipeline by Targa, 

the condensate pipeline is referred to as the “third-party condensate pipeline” in this EIS.

The planned route of the third-party condensate pipeline is west and southwest of the 

Terminal Expansion site, where approximately 75 percent of the area is shallow open water and 

25 percent is broken marsh wetland. and extends in a generally west-southwest to north-northeast 

direction. Construction of this pipeline would temporarily impact about 23 acres of marsh 

wetlands, which we would expect to reestablish within one growing season. The marsh areas 

would not be maintained by mowing, and the impacts due to establishment of a permanent right-

 7 Provided as part of the public record for Docket No. CP13-25-000 on the FERC website at http://ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp; Appendix D.1 in Accession No. 20130429-5029(28345798). 
Introduction 1-14

Figure 1.4-1 Non-jurisdictional Entergy 230-kV Electric 

Transmission Line
1-15 Introduction

Figure 1.4-2 Non-jurisdictional Condensate Pipeline
Introduction 1-16

of-way would be negligible. Cameron LNG’s desktop environmental analysis for construction 

and operation of the third-party condensate pipeline determined no impacts would occur on

threatened and endangered species or cultural resources. Furthermore, the third-party company 

must apply for and comply with all COE permits and mitigation requirements for impacts on 

jurisdictional marsh wetlands and open water. 

1.4.3 Truck Loading/Unloading

The truck loading/unloading facility would serve to unload make-up refrigerant trucked

to the Terminal Expansion during operation and would also be used to store and load condensate 

product into tanker trucks for delivery into the market place. Cameron LNG anticipates using 

both the condensate pipeline and the truck loading/unloading facility during operation of the 

Terminal Expansion. Construction and operation of the truck loading/unloading facility at the 

Terminal Expansion is jurisdictional and is analyzed throughout this EIS. However, the loaded 

tanker trucks would be non-jurisdictional once they leave the Cameron LNG Terminal. Tanker 

trucks carrying condensate from the Terminal Expansion would use the same paved public road 

routes from Interstate 10 (I-10) as the trucks delivering make-up refrigerant to the Terminal 

Expansion. The DOT would require tanker trucks to comply with its requirements for the 

transportation of hazardous materials. The distance from the Cameron LNG Terminal to

Interstate 10 is less than 15 miles, and we believe the truck estimated traffic of 5 trucks per day 

would not have any significant impacts on roadway traffic. No other impacts are expected as a 

result of shipping condensate from the Terminal Expansion. 

1.4.4 Beauregard Electric Distribution Line

To provide electrical power to the proposed Holbrook Compressor Station, Beauregard 

Electric would build an approximately 3.5-mile-long electric distribution line from an existing 

230-kV electric transmission line (figure 1.4-3). Beauregard Electric would construct the 

distribution line for the sole use of the Holbrook Compressor Station. The electrical power line 

and power poles (both new and replacement) would start at a tie-in with the existing Beauregard 

Electric transmission line that is southeast of the Holbrook Compressor Station, and would 

extend west along Dunn Ferry Road, then north and northwest along Holbrook Park Road until 

crossing the pipeline right-of-way. From there the distribution line would extend to the 

northeast, adjacent to Cameron Interstate’s right-of-way and into the Holbrook Compressor 

Station (figure 1.4-3). Temporary disturbance during construction is expected to be less than 2 

acres. Beauregard Electric may maintain minor increases in the width of the road easements by 

mowing, although no trees are expected to be removed. Beauregard Electric must apply for and 

comply with all applicable federal and state permits, including COE Section 404 permitting. We 

performed a desktop environmental review of the construction and operation of the new 

distribution line and determined no impacts would occur on threatened or endangered species. 

Available environmental data further characterizing the impacts of the non-jurisdictional 

facilities is provided in our cumulative impacts analysis (section 4.13). 
1-17 Introduction

Figure 1.4-3 Non-jurisdictional Electric Distribution Line
Introduction 1-18

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REVIEWS

As federal agencies, the FERC and COE are required to comply with a number of 

regulatory statutes including, but not limited to NEPA, Section 7 of the ESA, the MSFCMA, the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), CWA, the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 

307 of the CZMA. Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this 

EIS. The major permits, approvals, and consultations for the Cameron Liquefaction Project are 

identified in table 1.5-1.

Section 7 of the ESA states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agency should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined...to be critical...” (16 USC 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The FERC is required to 

determine whether any federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their 

designated critical habitat occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project and conduct consultations 

with the FWS and/or NMFS, if necessary. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by 

Cameron, the FERC determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the Project, the 

FERC is required to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of 

adverse impact, and to recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species, or 

would reduce potential impact to acceptable levels. Section 4.7 provides information on the 

status of this review.

The MSFCMA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-

267), established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species 

regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. The MSFCMA requires federal agencies to 

consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the 

agency that may adversely affect EFH (MSFCMA §305(b)(2)). Although absolute criteria have 

not been established for conducting EFH consultations, NMFS recommends consolidating EFH 

consultations with interagency coordination procedures required by other statues, such as NEPA, 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, or the ESA (50 CFR 600.920[e]), to reduce duplication 

and improve efficiency. As part of this consultation process, the FERC prepared an EFH 

assessment, which is provided in section 4.6.3.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that the FERC take into account the effects of its 

undertakings on properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or 

properties of traditional religious or cultural importance, and to afford the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Cameron, as a 

non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under Section 106 by 

preparing the necessary information, analyses, and recommendations under ACHP regulations in 

36 CFR 800. Section 4.10 of this EIS provides information on the status of this review.
1-19 Introduction

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Cameron Liquefaction Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation

Status

Terminal Expansion Pipeline Expansion

Federal

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Notification of Proposed 

Construction Possibly Affecting 

Navigable Air Space

Ongoing review: 

notification filed 

September 13, 2012;

response received 

October 23, 2012.

Process anticipated to be 

completed in 2014

Not applicable

Federal Energy 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Authorization under Section 

3(a) of the NGA

Ongoing review: 

application filed December 

7, 2012

Not applicable

Certification under Section 7(c) 

of the NGA Not applicable

Ongoing review: 

application filed December 

14, 2012

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Section 7 of ESA Consultation

Statement that no reinitiation of consultation is 

necessary received April 

9, 2014

Not applicable MSFCMA EFH Consultation

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Consultation

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Section 404 Permit (CWA)

Department of the Army 

Permit issued on February 

12, 2014 (DA Permit 

MVN-2002-03266-WII) 

Ongoing review: 

application filed August 

24, 2012

Section 10 Permit (Rivers and 

Harbors Act)

Department of the Army 

Permit issued on February 

12, 2014 (DA Permit 

MVN-2002-03266-WII)

Ongoing review: 

application filed August 

24, 2012

U.S. Coast Guard Amended Letter of 

Recommendation 

Completed March 16, 

2012 Not applicable

U.S. Department of 

Energy

Application for Long-Term, 

Multi-Contract Authorization to 

Export Natural Gas to Free 

Trade Agreement Countries

Authorization granted 

February 11, 2014 

(DOE/FE Order NO. 3391)

Not applicable

Application for Long Term, 

Multi-Contract Authorization to 

Export Natural Gas to Non-Free 

Trade Agreement Countries

Authorization granted 

February 11, 2014 

(DOE/FE Order NO. 3391)

Not applicable

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Spill Prevention, Containment 

and Cleanup Plan (CWA, 33 

U.S.C.§1321(j)) and 40 CFR 

Part 112)

Current Facility SPCC 

Plan would be modified 

and updated in 2017 prior 

to initiation of operation

SPCC Plan would be 

prepared prior to initiation 

of operation of the 

compressor station

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Section 7 of ESA Consultation

Concurrence received 

February 14, 2014

Concurrence received 

March 11, 2013

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Introduction 1-20

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Cameron Liquefaction Project –

Continued

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation

Status

Terminal Expansion Pipeline Expansion

State

Louisiana 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ)-Air 

Quality Division

Modification of Title V and 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit for 

the Cameron LNG Terminal 

Title V Permit (0560-

00184-V5) and PSD 

Permit (PSD-LA-766) 

issued October 1, 2013

Not applicable

New Title V and PSD Permit for 

the Holbrook Compressor 

Station

Not applicable

Title V Permit (0520-

00464-V0) and PSD (PSDLA-769) Permit issued 

December 20, 2013

LDEQ-Water Quality 

Division

Hydrostatic Test Water 

Discharge General Permit 

LAG670000

Anticipate filing application 

and receiving permit in 

second quarter of 2014

Anticipate filing application 

prior to initiation of 

construction

Industrial Discharge Permit

Louisiana Pollution 

Discharge Elimination 

System Permit 

(LA0123455) issued 

December 23, 2013

Anticipate filing application 

prior to initiation of 

operation

Water Quality Certification

(WQC)

Received Water Quality 

Certification (WQC 

020809-08) May 2, 2013

Received Water Quality 

Certification (WQC 

121219-02) on June 8, 

2013

Louisiana 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

Coastal 

Management 

Division

Coastal Use Permit (CUP), 

Joint Permit with COE 

CUP P20121194 with 

approved mitigation plan 

issued August 6, 2013. 

Amended CUP 

P20121194 with approved 

mitigation plan issued 

January 21, 2014

Not applicable

Modification of Existing 

Maintenance Dredge Placement 

Coastal Use Permit

Modified Maintenance 

Dredge Permit 

(P20100398) received 

November 20, 2013

Not applicable

Application for Approval to 

Withdraw Water for Hydrostatic 

Testing

Not applicable

Anticipate filing application 

prior to initiation of 

construction

Louisiana 

Department of 

Transportation

Road and Utility Crossing 

Permit Not applicable

Anticipate filing application 

prior to initiation of 

construction 

Louisiana 

Department of 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultation

Concurrence received 

September 25, 2012

Consultation letter 

received October 24, 2012

Wild and Scenic Rivers Permit Not applicable

Received Hickory Branch 

Permit (SRP #864) August 

30, 2013; received 

Beckwith Creek Permit

(SRP #863) September 

16, 2013
1-21 Introduction

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Cameron Liquefaction Project –

Continued

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation

Status

Terminal Expansion Pipeline Expansion

Louisiana State 

Historic Preservation 

Office 

Section 106 Consultation

Concurrence received 

September 24, 2012 and

December 5, 2012

Mitigation area

concurrence received 

April 24, 2013

Concurrence received on 

September 24, 2012 and 

December 5, 2012

Native American 

Tribes Consultation

Consultation letters sent 

July 20, 2012 and August 

1, 2012 

Follow-up letters sent 

October 31, 2013

Received concurrence 

from the Jena Band of 

Choctaw Indians April 11, 

2013

Consultation letters sent 

July 20, 2012 and August 

1, 2012; follow-up letters 

sent October 31, 2012.

Received concurrence 

from the Jena Band of 

Choctaw Indians April 11, 

2013

Local – Parish

Beauregard Parish 

Police Jury

Building Permit Not applicable Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Letter of No Objection Not applicable Received April 30, 2013

Road Crossing Permit Not applicable Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Calcasieu Parish 

Police Jury

Building Permit Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Letter of No Objection Received Letter of No 

Objection April 11, 2013

Received Letter of No 

Objection April 11, 2013

Road Crossing Permit Not applicable Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Cameron Parish 

Police Jury

Building Permit

Would be obtained 2nd

Quarter 2014 prior to 

initiation of construction

Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Letter of No Objection Received Letter of No 

Objection March 19, 2013

Received Letter of No 

Objection March 19, 2013

Road Crossing Permit Not applicable Would be obtained prior to 

initiation of construction

Cameron must comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. Water quality 

certification (Section 401) has been delegated to the state agencies, with review by the EPA. 

Water used for hydrostatic testing that is point-source discharged into waterbodies would require 

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 402) issued by the 

LDEQ. The COE has responsibility for determining compliance with all regulatory requirements 

associated with Section 404 of the CWA. The EPA also independently reviews Section 404 

applications for wetland dredge-and-fill applications for the COE and has Section 404(c) veto 
Introduction 1-22

power for wetland permits issued by the COE. The Section 404 permitting process regulates the 

discharge of dredged and fill material associated with the construction of pipelines across 

streams and in wetlands. Before an individual Section 404 permit can be issued, the CWA 

requires completion of a Section 404(b)(1) guideline analysis. The FERC, in the NEPA review 

represented by this EIS, has analyzed all technical issues required for the Section 404(b)(1) 

guideline analyses, including analysis of natural resources and cultural resources that would be 

affected by the Project, as well as analyses of alternatives. The results of our analysis of 

alternatives are provided in section 3.0, and a summary of wetland impacts are provided in 

section 4.4 of this EIS. In addition to CWA responsibilities, the COE has jurisdiction over 

Section 10 permits, which would be required for all construction activities in navigable 

waterways under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Waterbody crossing methods and impacts 

are summarized in section 4.3 of this EIS.

Section 404 and Section 10 permits are required for both proposed Terminal Expansion 

and Pipeline Expansion portions of the Project. On February 12, 2014, the COE issued a DA 

permit (Section 404 and Section 10 permits) for the Terminal Expansion (see Appendix K). 

Cameron Interstate’s Section 404 and Section 10 permit applications are under review by the 

COE. 

EPAct 2005 and Section 3 of the NGA require us to consult with the DOD to determine if 

there would be any impacts associated with the Project on military training or activities on any 

military installations. The FERC initiated consultation with a letter to DOD on September 18, 

2012. The DOD responded on October, 24, 2012, concluding the Project would have minimal 

impact on the military operations conducted in this area and would not oppose construction of 

the Project.

The CZMA calls for the “effective management, beneficial use, protection, and 

development” of the nation’s coastal zone and promotes active state involvement in achieving 

those goals. As a means to reach those goals, the CZMA requires participating states to develop 

management programs that demonstrate how those states will meet their obligations and 

responsibilities in managing their coastal areas. In Louisiana, the LDNR administers the Coastal 

Zone Management Program (CZMP) and conducted a consistency determination concurrent with 

Cameron LNG’s filling of an application for a CUP. As noted in table 1.5-1, LDNR issued 

Cameron LNG an amended CUP with an approved mitigation plan on January 21, 2014. The

Pipeline Expansion is not within the CZMP. CZMP is discussed further in section 4.8.6.

The CAA was enacted by Congress to protect the health and welfare of the public from 

the adverse effects of air pollution. The CAA is the basic federal statute governing air pollution. 

Federal and state air quality regulations established as a result of the CAA include, but are not 

limited to, Title V operating permit requirements and Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Review. The EPA is the federal agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of 

air pollutant emissions; however, the federal permitting process has been delegated to LDEQ in 

Louisiana. As noted in table 1.5-1, LDEQ issued a Title V Permit and a PSD Permit to Cameron 

LNG on October 1, 2013 and issued a Title V Permit and PSD Permit to Cameron Interstate on 

December 20, 2013. Air quality impacts that could occur as a result of construction and 

operation of the Project are evaluated in section 4.11.1 of this EIS.
1-23 Introduction

Cameron is responsible for all permits and approvals required to implement the Cameron 

Liquefaction Project, regardless of whether they appear in table 1.5-1. However, any state or 

local permits issued with respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions 

of any authorization the Commission may issue. Although the FERC encourages cooperation

between applicants and state and local authorities, this does not mean that state and local

agencies, through application of state and local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the

construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC.

8

 8 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service 

Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC ¶ 

61,091 (1990) and 59 FERC ¶ 61,094 (1992).