EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impacts 

associated with the construction of facilities proposed by Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron LNG) 

and Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC (Cameron Interstate), which are collectively referred to as 

Cameron. The EIS was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Commission’s implementing regulations 

under Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 380 (18 CFR 380). On December 7, 

2012, Cameron LNG filed an application with the FERC in Docket No. CP13-25-000 pursuant to 

Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission’s regulations. On 

December 14, 2012, Cameron Interstate filed an application with the FERC in Docket No. CP13-

27-000 under Section 7 of the NGA, as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s 

regulations. This project is referred to as the Cameron Liquefaction Project (Project) and 

consists of the Cameron LNG Terminal Expansion (Terminal Expansion) and the Cameron 

Pipeline Expansion (Pipeline Expansion). 

Cameron proposes to construct and operate onshore natural gas liquefaction and 

associated facilities to allow the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and to construct, own, 

operate, and maintain a new interstate natural gas pipeline, compressor station, and ancillary 

facilities in Louisiana.

The purpose of the EIS is to inform the FERC decision-makers, the public, and the 

permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed Project and its alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures that would reduce 

adverse impacts to the extent practicable. We1 prepared our analysis based on information 

provided by Cameron and further developed from data requests, field investigations, scoping,

literature research, and contacts with or comments from federal, state, and local agencies, Native 

American tribes, and individual members of the public.

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing interstate natural gas 

transmission facilities under the NGA, and is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this 

EIS in compliance with the requirements of NEPA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 

U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DOT) are cooperating 

agencies for the development of this EIS consistent with 40 CFR 1501.6(b). A cooperating 

agency has jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to environmental resource 

issues associated with the Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION

According to Cameron, the Project would transport and liquefy domestic natural gas into 

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

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

Cameron designed its Project to meet each of the following purposes:

• 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 that 

would be treated, liquefied, stored, and loaded from 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.

Terminal Expansion

Cameron LNG would construct the Terminal Expansion on a 502-acre site between 

Louisiana State Highway 27 (LA-27) and the Calcasieu Ship Channel, about 2 miles north of the 

community of Hackberry, Louisiana. The proposed site is north of and partially within the 

existing terminal fence line in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana. The Terminal 

Expansion would include the following key facilities:

• three separate systems that liquefy natural gas, each with a maximum capacity of 

4.985 million metric tons per year (mtyp) (13,657 metric tons per day) of LNG for 

export;

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

• refrigerant make-up and condensate product storage tanks;

• a truck loading/unloading area;

• a marine work dock for delivery of equipment and construction materials;

• utilities and associated systems; and

• minor modifications to existing terminal facilities.

Pipeline Expansion 

Cameron Interstate proposes to construct and operate about 21 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline, a compressor station (Holbrook Compressor Station) totaling about 56,820 horsepower, 

and associated facilities in Cameron, Calcasieu, and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana. The 

pipeline would extend from an existing Cameron Interstate Pipeline interconnection at the 

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

(Trunkline). Cameron would construct and operate a new interconnection with Trunkline; 

modify existing interconnections and metering facilities with the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Corporation, Texas Eastern Transmission Company, FGT, and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems; 
ES-3 Executive Summary

and construct and operate associated facilities, including metering facilities, pig receivers and 

launchers,

2 and mainline valves.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On May 6, 2012, the FERC began its pre-filing review of Cameron’s Project and 

established pre-filing Docket Nos. PF12-12-000 and PF12-13-000 to place information related to 

the Project into the public record. As part of the pre-filing process, Cameron sponsored public 

open houses in Sulphur and Hackberry, Louisiana on June 26, 2012. The purpose of the open 

houses was to provide affected landowners, government and agency officials, and the general 

public with information about the Project and to give them an opportunity to ask questions and 

express their concerns. We participated in the open houses and provided information regarding 

the Commission’s environmental review process to interested stakeholders. 

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 

proposed Project facilities. On August 21, 2012, we held a public scoping meeting in Sulphur, 

Louisiana, to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the Project and to provide 

oral comments on environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. 

Additionally, we initiated consultations with federal and state agencies to identify issues 

that should be addressed in the EIS. We conducted an interagency meeting for the Project on 

October 3, 2012 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We also conducted an agency meeting and site visit 

at the Cameron LNG Terminal on January 17, 2013. 

Through the scoping and agency comment process, we received comments on a variety of 

environmental issues. We continued to receive and consider public comments during the entire 

pre-filing period and throughout development of this EIS. Substantive environmental issues 

identified through this public review process are addressed in this EIS. The transcripts of the 

public scoping meeting and all written comments are part of the FERC’s public record for the 

Terminal Expansion and Pipeline Expansion and are available for viewing under their respective 

dockets.

3,4

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. The NOA included notice of a public comment meeting held on February 13, 

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

aboveground facility where pigs are inserted into or retrieved from the pipeline. 3 Transcripts of the public scoping meeting for the Terminal Expansion (Docket No. PF12-13-000, Accession No. 

20121016-4006) and Pipeline Expansion (Docket No. PF12-12-000, Accession No. 20121016-4007) are 

available on the FERC website at http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 4 Comments submitted after the Project applications were filed with the FERC are part of the public record for 

the Terminal Expansion (Docket No. CP13-25-000) and Pipeline Expansion (Docket No. CP13-27-000) and are 

available on the FERC website at http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Executive Summary ES-4

2014, in Sulphur, Louisiana.5 Copies of the draft EIS were sent to agencies, elected officials, 

media organizations, Native American tribes, private landowners, and other interested parties. In 

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA, a 45-

day public comment period was established, ending on March 3, 2014.

In addition to the comments received at the public comment meeting, the FERC also 

received written comments from federal, state and local agencies and interested parties. All 

substantive comments related to environmental issues received on the draft EIS are addressed in 

the final EIS, and specific responses are provided in Appendix L.

The final EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing the 

formal NOA in the Federal Register. The electronic or paper copies of the final EIS were mailed 

to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; local 

libraries and newspapers; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e., 

landowners, miscellaneous individuals, and environmental groups that provided scoping 

comments or commented on the draft EIS).

PROJECT IMPACTS

We evaluated the potential impacts of construction and operation of the Project on 

geology; soils; water use and quality; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife, aquatic resources, and 

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

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

reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. Where necessary, we are recommending

additional mitigation to minimize or avoid these impacts. Section 5.4 of the EIS contains a 

compilation of our recommendations.

Overall, construction of Project facilities would temporarily disturb about 823.6 acres for 

construction, including extra temporary workspaces, a contractor yard, access roads, and 

aboveground facilities. About 590 acres would be retained as permanent easements for operation 

of the facilities. Cameron would allow the remaining land disturbed during construction to 

return to pre-construction conditions and uses.

Construction of the Terminal Expansion would result in permanent impacts on about 502 

acres of open land, industrial/commercial land, forested and non-forested wetlands, and open 

water. All affected acres would be permanently converted to industrial land. The entire 21 miles 

of pipeline right-of-way would be within or abutting existing rights-of-way, and about 15.5 miles 

would be collocated with Cameron Interstate’s existing pipeline right-of-way. Construction of 

the Pipeline Expansion would affect forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands, upland forest 

and planted pine forest, open space, open water, residential land, industrial land, and agricultural 

land, but we conclude that the impacts would not be significant. 

Based on our analysis, scoping, and agency consultations, the major issues are impacts on 

wetlands, EFH, federally listed species, traffic, air quality, noise, safety, and cumulative impacts. 

 5 Transcripts of the public comment meeting are available on the FERC website at http://ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp under Docket Nos. CP13-25-000 (Accession No. 20130213-4005) and CP13-27-000 

(Accession No. 20130213-4006).
ES-5 Executive Summary

Wetlands

Construction and operation of the Terminal Expansion would affect a total of 213.5 acres 

of wetlands. Cameron LNG would permanently fill all wetlands as part of construction of the 

Terminal Expansion, but would offset impacts on COE-jurisdictional wetlands by mitigation 

measures included in the COE permit issued to Cameron LNG on February 12, 2014. The 

mitigation measures include creation of offsite brackish marsh wetland habitat. Construction and 

operation of the Pipeline Expansion would affect about 56.7 acres of wetlands, of which 

Cameron Interstate would permanently impact 16.0 acres, including fill of about 4.1 acres from 

the operation of the Holbrook Compressor Station, FGT Interconnect, and an access road, and 

permanent conversion of 1.3 acres of forested to emergent wetlands. The remaining emergent 

and scrub-shrub wetlands would only be temporarily impacted because the vegetation would 

return to a community that would function similarly to the pre-construction community. The 

clearing of forested wetlands within 10 acres of temporary workspaces would result in a longterm impact because of the slow growth rate of trees. Cameron Interstate would implement the 

mitigation measures in its Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Cameron Interstate Procedures) to control erosion and restore the grade and hydrology after

construction in wetlands. To offset the loss of functional value within palustrine forested and 

palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands, Cameron Interstate would purchase mitigation credits from 

COE-approved wetland mitigation banks. 

Essential Fish Habitat

Based on the results of consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), we determined that the proposed 

marine work dock is within EFH, as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Although construction of the work dock would involve permanent conversion 

of EFH estuarine sub-tidal water bottom habitat to deep water habitat, the deep water habitat 

would recolonize with soft-bottom benthic organisms after completion of dredging and would 

continue to provide a prey base for EFH species. To minimize impacts from dredging on EFH 

and EFH species, Cameron LNG would use a suction dredge that would reduce sedimentation 

and turbidity for initial and maintenance dredging. Cameron LNG would beneficially reuse 

dredged materials at existing disposal sites and in Cameron LNG’s COE-approved marsh 

mitigation area. Additional information requested by NMFS in its comments on the draft EIS is 

provided in section 4.6.3.4 and Appendix K of the EIS. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on Cameron’s species-specific surveys and consultations with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS, eight federally listed species potentially occur in the general 

Project area. We anticipate that construction and operation of the Project would not likely 

adversely affect the green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles; the

West Indian manatee; the piping plover; or the red-cockaded woodpecker. We are 

recommending that Cameron Interstate conduct updated surveys for the red-cockaded 

woodpecker within 1 year prior to construction. To comply with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, we requested that the FWS and NMFS consider the draft EIS as our biological 

assessment, along with survey information submitted by Cameron LNG and Cameron Interstate 

(acting as our non-federal representative for informal consultation), for the Project. In its 
Executive Summary ES-6

comments on the draft EIS, FWS concurred with our determinations and stated that no further 

consultation regarding threatened and endangered species will be necessary unless there are 

significant changes in the scope or location of the Project. Additionally, NMFS concluded 

during informal consultation that re-initiation of Section 7 consultation would not be necessary 

as the impacts were previously considered in Docket No. CP06-422-000. Therefore, Endangered 

Species Act consultation is complete. 

Land Use

Cameron LNG has an option to purchase the only residence within 50 feet of the 

boundary of the Terminal Expansion and intends to execute that option prior to construction. 

One residence is within 50 feet of the proposed Pipeline Expansion construction right-of-way, 

and Cameron Interstate developed a site-specific construction plan to minimize the impacts of 

construction on that residence (included in Appendix D of the EIS). The residence nearest to the 

proposed Holbrook Compressor Station is about 0.6 mile from the site. 

A portion of the Terminal Expansion site is within the designated coastal zone, which is 

managed by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of Coastal 

Management. The LDNR reviewed coastal zone consistency concurrently with Cameron LNG’s 

application and issued an amended coastal use permit with an approved mitigation plan on 

January 21, 2014. LDNR also issued a Modified Maintenance Dredge Permit on November 13, 

2013 that includes dredging for the proposed marine work dock.

With incorporation of our recommendation that Cameron LNG implement a traffic plan 

to reduce traffic impacts, there would not be a significant impact on traffic along LA-27 in the 

vicinity of the Terminal Expansion site. The primary effect of barge traffic on marine 

transportation would occur during the first 5 months of construction of the Terminal Expansion 

and would not be significant. There would not be an impact on marine traffic during operation 

of the Project beyond that previously authorized. 

Cultural Resources

Cameron completed cultural resource surveys for the Project, and no cultural resources 

were identified. The Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the Phase I 

survey reports and concurred that the Project would not affect historic properties, and we agree. 

The review process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete for 

the Project. 

Air Quality and Noise

Most Project-related air emissions would be produced by operation of the expanded LNG 

terminal and the Holbrook Compressor Station, and Cameron would comply with all applicable 

air permit requirements for those facilities. An air quality screening analysis indicated that 

Cameron would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at any 

location, with the exception of nitrogen dioxide for both emitting facilities. An expanded 

analysis determined that operation of these facilities would not contribute significantly to 

exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS. Additionally, air dispersion modeling for both facilities 

indicate the impacts would have a minimal effect on the local environment. As a result, we 
ES-7 Executive Summary

conclude that the Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on either the regional or 

local air quality.

The Terminal Expansion would increase noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive area 

(NSA) during operation by 2.9 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA), resulting in a day-night 

(Ldn) noise level of 53.8 dBA. This would be below the “barely detectable” noise level increase 

of 3 dBA, below the FERC Ldn limit of 55 dBA, and would result in minor impacts on the 

nearest NSA. Cameron Interstate’s Holbrook Compressor Station estimated operational noise 

level would also be below the FERC Ldn limit of 55 dBA, but the increase would be clearly 

noticeable with an increase of 5.8 dBA at the nearest NSA. Cameron Interstate would 

implement mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, including use of acoustically-treated 

enclosures and silencers on air intakes and exhausts. In addition, we are recommending that 

Cameron Interstate conduct noise analyses during operation of the compressor station to ensure 

that the noise levels are at or below the Ldn of 55 dBA. 

Safety

All Project facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed the Coast Guard Safety Standards in 33 CFR 105 and 127 and DOT Minimum Federal 

Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 and 193, and other applicable federal and state regulations. As 

part of our evaluation, we performed a technical review of the preliminary engineering designs 

and conclude that sufficient layers of safeguards would be included in the facility designs to 

mitigate the potential for an incident that could impact the safety of the off-site public. DOT

reviewed the data and methodology Cameron LNG used to determine the design spills based on 

the flow from various leakage sources, including piping, containers, and equipment containing 

hazardous liquids. In a letter to FERC dated November 18, 2013, DOT stated it has no objection 

to Cameron's methodology for determining the candidate design spills to establish the required 

siting for its proposed LNG liquefaction facilities. The Coast Guard reviewed the liquefaction 

facilities and stated that a Letter of Intent or a revision to the Water Suitability Assessment is not 

required for the Terminal Expansion because the modifications lie outside the Marine Transfer 

Area. We conclude that by designing and operating the Project in accordance with the applicable 

standards, the Project would not result in significantly increased public safety risks. 

Cumulative Impacts

We also conclude that the potential impacts of the Project, when combined with the

impacts from the other projects considered, would not result in a significant impact on resources 

within the cumulative impact areas. However, concurrent construction of the proposed Project 

and other projects in the vicinity of the Terminal Expansion site would result in increased 

workers in the area, periods of significant traffic impact on portions of LA-27 south of Sulphur,

Louisiana, and impacts on public services. We believe implementation of the mitigation 

measures we are recommending would adequately reduce traffic impacts, and Cameron’s 

proposed mitigation would lessen impacts on public services.

More detailed discussions of Project impacts, Cameron’s proposed mitigation, and our 

recommendations to avoid or further reduce impacts, are presented in sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this

EIS.
Executive Summary ES-8

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

We assessed alternatives that could achieve the Project objectives. The range of 

alternatives analyzed included the No-Action Alternative, alternative energy sources, system 

alternatives, alternative Terminal Expansion sites, alternative Terminal Expansion configurations 

and designs, alternative Pipeline Expansion aboveground facility sites, and alternative 

compressor station designs. Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the Project to 

determine if these alternatives were environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.

Approximately 74 percent of Cameron Interstate’s proposed pipeline route overlaps 

existing rights-of-way, and the remainder of the route is adjacent and parallel to existing rightsof-way. As a result, many types of environmental impacts have been lessened. We did not 

identify any site-specific environmental concerns that would drive the need to evaluate 

alternative pipeline routes, nor were any alternatives suggested during the public scoping period.

While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts identified in 

this EIS, adoption of this alternative would also preclude meeting the Project objectives. If the 

Project is not approved and built, the need could potentially be met by other LNG export projects 

developed elsewhere in the Gulf Coast region or in other areas of the United States. 

Implementation of other LNG export projects would likely result in impacts similar to or greater 

than those of the proposed Project. 

We evaluated 12 system alternatives for the Terminal Expansion, including 5 operating 

LNG import terminals in the Gulf of Mexico area, and 7 proposed or planned liquefaction and 

export projects along the Gulf Coast. All of the systems were eliminated from further 

consideration for reasons that include the need for substantial construction beyond that currently 

proposed, production volume limitations, in-service dates scheduled significantly beyond 

Cameron’s commitments to its customers, and environmental impacts that were considered 

comparable to or greater than those of the proposed Project. In response to a request by the 

Sierra Club and the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic in their comment letter on the draft EIS, 

we also considered a system alternative that would consist of two or more export facilities 

providing the required amount of LNG to fulfill Cameron LNG’s contractual agreements with 

customers. That alternative was also eliminated from further consideration for the same reasons 

listed above. 

We also evaluated two alternative Terminal Expansion sites in proximity to the existing 

LNG Terminal. Construction of the Terminal Expansion at each of the alternative sites would 

have greater impacts on open water, marshes, aquatic resources, wetlands, and wildlife than 

those of the proposed Terminal Expansion site. Therefore, neither site was determined to be 

environmentally preferable.

For the Terminal Expansion, we considered the use of on-site power generation as a 

design alternative to the proposed use of purchased power. During operation, emissions and 

noise levels of the turbine generators under this alternative would be greater than those of 

purchased power in the vicinity of the Terminal Expansion site. However, based on the available 

data, it is not possible to determine the overall difference in the levels of the key air emissions of 

the two design options.
ES-9 Executive Summary

For the Pipeline Expansion, we evaluated three existing pipeline systems as system 

alternatives. None of the systems were determined to be environmentally preferable, as each 

would require significant expansion of the existing facilities and would likely result in 

environmental impacts similar to or greater than those of the Pipeline Expansion. 

We evaluated four alternative sites for the Holbrook Compressor Station. We did not 

determine that these alternative sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

Finally, we evaluated four design options for the compressor station. The use of 

purchased power would result in increased impacts due to installation of an additional 3.5-milelong electrical distribution line, would not provide the flexibility and quality of service Cameron 

Interstate requires, would increase the cost of operation, and does not appear to offer an 

emissions advantage over the proposed on-site power generation. The use of larger turbine 

engines would decrease the flexibility and reliability of service because the turbines would not 

have variable speed control, and large turbines would require more than 35 percent more fuel, 

resulting in a substantial increase in annual fuel expense. Best available control technology 

analysis indicated selective catalytic reduction and use of an oxidation catalyst were not feasible 

pollution control options due to economic, environmental, and energy impacts. As a result, we 

do not believe there is a significant advantage to any of the design alternatives considered for the 

Holbrook Compressor Station. 

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable 

laws and regulations, Cameron’s proposed mitigation, and our recommendations presented in 

section 5.4 of the EIS, it would result in some adverse environmental impact; however, those 

impacts would not be significant. The principal reasons for our decision include:

• the Terminal Expansion facilities would be an expansion of an existing, operating 

LNG import terminal with existing LNG storage tanks, berthing and 

loading/unloading facilities;

• dredged material would be disposed of beneficially to convert an open water area 

to tidally influenced marsh as part of a mitigation plan approved by the COE and 

LDNR in their respective permits;

• adequate safety features would be incorporated into the design and operation of 

the Terminal Expansion facilities;

• the proposed pipeline route would be within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way;

• Cameron would implement the FERC and the Cameron Interstate Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plans and Procedures to minimize 

construction impacts on soils, wetlands, and waterbodies;

• the use of the horizontal directional drilling method for crossing major 

waterbodies and sensitive waterbodies would avoid disturbances to the beds and 

banks of these waterbodies;

• the Project would have no effect or would be not likely to adversely affect any 

federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species;
Executive Summary ES-10

• the Project would have no effect on cultural resources;

• all appropriate consultations with the FWS, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, NMFS, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service would be completed before construction is allowed to start 

in any given area; and

• the FERC’s environmental and engineering inspection and mitigation monitoring 

program for this Project would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures 

and conditions of any FERC Authorization.

In addition, we developed site-specific mitigation measures that Cameron should 

implement to further reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from 

construction of the Project. We are recommending these mitigation measures, presented in 

section 5.4 of the EIS, be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission

for this Project.