80 FR 28256 - Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)

Page Range		28256-28258
FR Document		2015-11926

The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') announces its decision in FE Docket No. 12-97-LNG to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3638, granting long-term, multi-contract authorization for Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (collectively ``CMI'') to engage in export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (``LNG'') in an amount up to 782 million million Btu (million MMBtu) per year, which is equivalent to approximately 767 billion cubic feet (``Bcf'') of natural gas per year, for a 20-year period commencing the earlier of the date of first export or seven-years from the date of issuance of the authorization requested. CMI is seeking authorization to export LNG from the proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (``Liquefaction Project'') near Corpus Christi, Texas, to any nation with which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement (``FTA'') that requires national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA countries). Order No. 3638 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (``NGA'') and 10 CFR part 590 of the DOE regulations. DOE participated as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') in preparing an environmental impact statement (``EIS'') analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Liquefaction Project and associated pipeline that, if constructed, will support the export authorization sought from DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (``DOE/FE'').

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28256-28258]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11926]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the
Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC
Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement
Countries

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') announces its decision
in FE Docket No. 12-97-LNG to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3638, granting
long-term, multi-contract authorization for Cheniere Marketing, LLC and
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (collectively ``CMI'') to engage in
export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (``LNG'') in an
amount up to 782 million million Btu (million MMBtu) per year, which is
equivalent to approximately 767 billion cubic feet (``Bcf'') of natural
gas per year, for a 20-year period commencing the earlier of the date
of first export or seven-years from the date of issuance of the
authorization requested. CMI is seeking authorization to export LNG
from the proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (``Liquefaction
Project'') near Corpus Christi, Texas, to any nation with which the
United States has not entered into a free trade agreement (``FTA'')
that requires national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA
countries). Order No. 3638 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act (``NGA'') and 10 CFR part 590 of the DOE regulations. DOE
participated as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (``FERC'') in preparing an environmental impact statement
(``EIS'') analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Liquefaction Project and associated pipeline that, if constructed, will
support the export authorization sought from DOE's Office of Fossil
Energy (``DOE/FE'').

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of Decision (``ROD'') are available
on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') Web site at
http://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents. Order No. 3638 is available on
DOE/FE's Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/listing-doefe-authorizations-issued-2015. For additional information about the docket
in these proceedings, contact Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy,
Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about
the project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. John Anderson, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Oil & Gas Global Security & Supply,
Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600; or
Mr. Edward LeDuc, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD and Floodplain
Statement of Findings pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), and in
compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ'')
implementing regulations for NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
parts 1500 through 1508), DOE's implementing procedures for NEPA (10
CFR part 1021), and DOE's ``Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland
Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR part 1022).

Background

Cheniere Marketing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, is affiliated with
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (Cheniere Marketing, LLC's co-
Applicant in this proceeding) and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline,
L.P. (``CCP''), the developers of the Corpus Christi LNG Project
(``Corpus Christi LNG Project'' or ``Project'' collectively refers to
the Liquefaction Project and the Cheniere Pipeline). Cheniere
Marketing, LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Houston,
Texas. Cheniere Energy, Inc. is a developer of LNG terminals and
natural gas pipelines on the Gulf Coast, including the Corpus Christi
LNG Project.
Cheniere Marketing, LLC filed an application (``Application'') with
DOE/FE on August 31, 2012, seeking long-term, multi-contract
authorization to export to non-FTA countries up to 782 million MMBtu
per year of LNG, equivalent to approximately 767 Bcf per year of
natural gas, for a period of 22 years beginning on the earlier of the
date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is
granted by DOE/FE. On October 10, 2012, Cheniere Marketing, LLC
clarified that it is requesting authorization to export LNG both on its
own behalf and as agent for other parties who hold title to the LNG

[[Page 28257]]

at the point of export. On August 15, 2014, Cheniere Marketing, LLC
amended its Application to include Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC as
an additional applicant.
The Application was filed in conjunction with the Liquefaction
Project being developed by Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and
Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. at the site of the previously
authorized import terminal and associated pipeline in San Patricia and
Nueces Counties Texas.\1\ Concurrent with the Application, Corpus
Christi Liquefaction, LLC filed an application with FERC for
authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of the NGA \2\ to site,
construct and operate the Liquefaction Project. In addition, Cheniere
Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. filed an application with the FERC
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, own, and operate the
Cheniere Pipeline (``Pipeline'') to connect the Liquefaction Project to
interstate and intrastate natural gas supplies and markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The CCL Project is being developed at the same general
locations proposed for the previously authorized Corpus Christi LNG
L.P. import terminal and associated pipeline. See Corpus Christi LNG
L.P. and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline Company, Order Granting
Authority Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing
Certificates, 111 FERC ] 61,081 (2005). Since the facilities were
never constructed, the Commission vacated Corpus Christi LNG, L.P.'s
and Corpus Christi Pipeline Company's authorizations to construct
the proposed LNG facility and associated pipeline. Corpus Christi
LNG, L.P., 139 FERC ] 61,195 (2012).
\2\ The authority to regulate the imports and exports of natural
gas, including liquefied natural gas, under section 3 of the NGA (15
U.S.C. 717b) has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FE in
Redelegation Order No. 00-006.02 issued on November 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On August 31, 2012, in Docket No. 12-99-LNG, Cheniere Marketing,
LLC filed with DOE/FE a separate application for long-term multi-
contract authorization to engage in the export of LNG in an amount up
to 782 million MMBtu per year, to any nation with which the United
States has or in the future will have an FTA that requires national
treatment for trade in natural gas; that has developed, or in the
future develops, the capacity to import LNG; and with which trade is
not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. On October 16, 2012, DOE/FE Order
No. 3164 was issued in FE Docket No 12-99-LNG granting long-term export
authorization to FTA countries from the Project.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Cheniere Marketing, LLC, Order Granting Long-Term Multi-
Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel
from the Proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to Free Trade
Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3164, October 16, 2012 (FE
Docket No 12-99-LNG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Description

The Liquefaction Project will be located on a 991-acre site located
along the northern shore of the La Quinta Channel north and east of the
City of Corpus Christi, Texas and will include three ConocoPhillips
Optimized Cascade\SM\ LNG trains, each capable of liquefying
approximately 700 million standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of natural
gas. Natural gas will be liquefied into LNG and stored in three 160,000
cubic meters LNG storage tanks, each equipped with five in-tank well
columns and safety and monitoring systems. The Liquefaction Project
will also include two trains of ambient air vaporizers, each with an
average vaporization capacity of approximately 200 MMcf per day of
natural gas, and marine terminal facilities with two LNG carrier
berths. The Pipeline will include an approximately 23-mile-long, 48-
inch-diameter pipeline and two compressor stations to be located wholly
within San Patricio County, Texas. The Pipeline will function to
transport domestic natural gas to the Liquefaction Project for
liquefaction and export, as well as to transport regasified imported
LNG from the LNG terminal to interconnections with the existing
pipeline systems.

The EIS Process

In accordance with NEPA, FERC issued a draft EIS for the proposed
Corpus Christi LNG Project on June 13, 2014. The notice of availability
(``NOA'') for the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on
June 20, 2014 (79 FR 35344). The NOA included notice of a public
comment meeting on July 15, 2014, in Portland, Texas. The NOA also
provided summary information regarding the draft EIS. Copies of the
draft EIS were also sent to agencies, elected officials, media
organizations, Native American Tribes, private landowners, and other
interested parties.
Issues raised by commenters included concerns regarding: Air
pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation and
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards),
construction dust and noise vibrations, land use changes, impacts of
water discharges on aquatic species (including impacts to an essential
fish habitat (``EFH'')), light pollution, visual impacts, public safety
and lack of an emergency response plan, water use and CMI's source of
water, impacts on property values, expanding the scope of the
cumulative impact analysis and alternatives analysis, recreational
impacts and workforce availability.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See Final EIS at 1-12, Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified and
Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Corpus Christi
LNG Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final EIS was published on October 8, 2014, and recommended
that the FERC approve the Corpus Christi LNG Project. It concluded that
the Project will result in some adverse environmental impacts; however,
those impacts would not be significant if the Project is constructed
and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
Accordingly FERC issued an Order \5\ granting authorization to the
Project on December 30, 2014, subject to the 104 environmental
conditions contained in Appendix A of that Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christi
Pipeline, L.P., Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act, 149 FERC ] 61,283 (December 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of
the FERC's final EIS, DOE adopted the EIS and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency published a notice of that adoption in the Federal
Register on April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22992).

Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of
Natural Gas From the United States (``Addendum'')

On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published the Draft Addendum for public
comment (79 FR 32258). Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared
the Addendum in an effort to be responsive to the public and to provide
the best information available on a subject that had been raised by
commenters. The Addendum is a review of existing literature and was
intended to provide information only on the resource areas potentially
impacted by unconventional gas production.
The 45-day comment period on the Draft Addendum closed on July 21,
2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 comments in 18 separate submissions, and
considered those comments in issuing the Addendum on August 15, 2014.
DOE/FE provided a summary of the comments received and responses to
substantive comments in Appendix B of the Addendum. DOE/FE has
incorporated the Draft Addendum, comments, and final Addendum into the
record in its CMI proceeding.

Alternatives

The EIS conducted an alternatives analysis for the Liquefaction
Project that could achieve the Project objectives. The range of
alternatives analyzed included the No-Action Alternative,

[[Page 28258]]

system alternatives, alternative Liquefaction Project sites,
alternative Pipeline routes, and alternative compressor station sites.
Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the Liquefaction Project to
determine if these alternatives were environmentally preferable.
While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the potential adverse
and beneficial environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of
this alternative would preclude meeting the Project objectives. Other
LNG export/import projects could also be developed elsewhere in the
Gulf Coast region or in other areas of the United States, but would
likely result in similar or potentially greater environmental impacts
than those of the proposed Project. The No-Action Alternative could
also require potential end users to make other arrangements to obtain
natural gas service, or continue the use of alternative fossil fuel
energy sources (such as coal or fuel oil) to compensate for the reduced
availability of natural gas that would otherwise be supplied by the
Corpus Christi LNG Project.
The EIS evaluated 12 system alternatives for the Project, including
6 operating LNG import terminals in the Gulf of Mexico area, and 6
proposed or planned 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 the Project schedule, and potential environmental
impacts that were considered comparable to or greater than those of the
Project.
The EIS also evaluated three alternative Liquefaction Project
sites, two in proximity to the proposed site and one near Brownsville,
Texas. Construction of the terminal at each of the alternative sites
would have comparable or greater environmental impacts when compared to
the proposed terminal site; therefore, none of the three sites
evaluated were determined to be environmentally preferable.
Approximately 86 percent of the Pipeline would be co-located,
overlap, or parallel existing rights-of-way, so many types of
environmental impacts have already been reduced or avoided. While two
route alternatives were evaluated, the EIS did not identify any site-
specific environmental concerns along the proposed route that would
make the alternative pipeline routes preferable.
The EIS evaluated a total of five alternative sites for the
proposed compressor stations but determined that none of these sites
were environmentally preferable to the proposed sites.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the
EIS, as discussed above, the Corpus Christi LNG Project is the
environmentally preferred alternative. While the No-Action Alternative
would avoid the environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption
of this alternative would not meet the Project objectives.

Decision

DOE/FE has decided to issue Order No. 3638 to grant the long-term,
multi-contract authorization for CMI to engage in exports of
domestically produced liquefied natural gas in an amount up to 767 Bcf
per year for a 20-year period, commencing the earlier of the date of
first export or seven-years from the date of issuance of the
authorization requested. The authorization is to export LNG from the
proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to any nation with which
the United States does not now or in the future have an FTA requiring
the national treatment for trade in natural gas, that has, or in the
future develops, the capacity to import LNG and with which trade is not
prohibited by U.S. law or policy.
Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE/FE is issuing Order
No. 3638 in which it finds that the granting of the requested
authorization has not been shown to be inconsistent with the public
interest, and that the Application should be granted subject to
compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in Order No. 3638,
including the environmental conditions adopted in the FERC Order at
Appendix A. Additionally, the authorization is conditioned on CMI's
compliance with any other preventative and mitigative measures imposed
by other Federal or state agencies.

Basis of Decision

DOE/FE's decision is based upon the analysis of potential
environmental impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE/FE's determination
in Order No. 3638 that the opponents of the Application have failed to
overcome the statutory presumption that the proposed export
authorization is not inconsistent with the public interest. Although
not required by NEPA, DOE/FE also considered the Addendum, which
summarizes available information on potential upstream impacts
associated with unconventional natural gas activities, such as
hydraulic fracturing.

Mitigation

As a condition of its decision to issue Order No. 3638 authorizing
CMI to export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE/FE is imposing requirements
that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project.
These conditions include the environmental conditions adopted in the
FERC Order at Appendix A. Mitigation measures beyond those included in
DOE/FE Order No. 3638 that are enforceable by other Federal and state
agencies are additional conditions of Order No. 3638. With these
conditions, DOE/FE has determined that all practicable means to avoid
or minimize environmental harm from the project have been adopted.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance
with DOE's regulations entitled ``Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR part 1022). The
required floodplain and wetland assessment was conducted during
development and preparation of the EIS.\6\ No alternative Liquefaction
Project sites were evaluated outside of a floodplain because, as
discussed in section 4.1.1.5 of the final EIS, the facilities would be
placed above predicted storm surge elevations, and the site is
necessarily tied to marine/port locations. Similarly, no Pipeline route
alternatives outside of floodplains were evaluated because, as
discussed in section 4.1.2.4 of the Final EIS, Cheniere Corpus Christi
Pipeline, L.P. has proposed to implement acceptable mitigation measures
at waterbody crossings and areas subject to flooding to compensate for
negative buoyancy. DOE determined that the placement of some project
components within floodplains would be unavoidable. However, the
current design for the project minimizes floodplain impacts to the
extent practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See Final EIS at Section 3.0. Table 3.1-1 and Section
3.2.3.3 were revised to include information regarding the proximity
of alternative Terminal sites with respect to floodplains.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2015.
Christopher A. Smith,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-11926 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Notices 28257

at the point of export. On August 15, Project Description alternatives analysis, recreational
2014, Cheniere Marketing, LLC impacts and workforce availability.4
amended its Application to include The Liquefaction Project will be The final EIS was published on
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC as an located on a 991-acre site located along October 8, 2014, and recommended that
additional applicant. the northern shore of the La Quinta the FERC approve the Corpus Christi
Channel north and east of the City of LNG Project. It concluded that the
The Application was filed in Corpus Christi, Texas and will include Project will result in some adverse
conjunction with the Liquefaction three ConocoPhillips Optimized environmental impacts; however, those
Project being developed by Corpus CascadeSM LNG trains, each capable of impacts would not be significant if the
Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere liquefying approximately 700 million Project is constructed and operated in
Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. at the site standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of accordance with applicable laws and
of the previously authorized import natural gas. Natural gas will be liquefied regulations.
terminal and associated pipeline in San into LNG and stored in three 160,000 Accordingly FERC issued an Order 5
Patricia and Nueces Counties Texas.1 cubic meters LNG storage tanks, each granting authorization to the Project on
Concurrent with the Application, equipped with five in-tank well December 30, 2014, subject to the 104
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC filed columns and safety and monitoring environmental conditions contained in
an application with FERC for systems. The Liquefaction Project will Appendix A of that Order.
authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of also include two trains of ambient air In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3,
the NGA 2 to site, construct and operate vaporizers, each with an average after an independent review of the
the Liquefaction Project. In addition, FERC’s final EIS, DOE adopted the EIS
vaporization capacity of approximately
Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. and the U.S. Environmental Protection
200 MMcf per day of natural gas, and
filed an application with the FERC Agency published a notice of that
marine terminal facilities with two LNG
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to adoption in the Federal Register on
carrier berths. The Pipeline will include April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22992).
construct, own, and operate the an approximately 23-mile-long, 48-inch-
Cheniere Pipeline (‘‘Pipeline’’) to diameter pipeline and two compressor Addendum to Environmental Review
connect the Liquefaction Project to stations to be located wholly within San Documents Concerning Exports of
interstate and intrastate natural gas Patricio County, Texas. The Pipeline Natural Gas From the United States
supplies and markets. will function to transport domestic (‘‘Addendum’’)
On August 31, 2012, in Docket No. natural gas to the Liquefaction Project On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published
12–99–LNG, Cheniere Marketing, LLC for liquefaction and export, as well as to the Draft Addendum for public
filed with DOE/FE a separate transport regasified imported LNG from comment (79 FR 32258). Although not
application for long-term multi-contract the LNG terminal to interconnections required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared
authorization to engage in the export of with the existing pipeline systems. the Addendum in an effort to be
LNG in an amount up to 782 million responsive to the public and to provide
MMBtu per year, to any nation with The EIS Process the best information available on a
which the United States has or in the In accordance with NEPA, FERC subject that had been raised by
future will have an FTA that requires issued a draft EIS for the proposed commenters. The Addendum is a review
national treatment for trade in natural Corpus Christi LNG Project on June 13, of existing literature and was intended
gas; that has developed, or in the future 2014. The notice of availability (‘‘NOA’’) to provide information only on the
develops, the capacity to import LNG; resource areas potentially impacted by
for the draft EIS was published in the
and with which trade is not prohibited unconventional gas production.
Federal Register on June 20, 2014 (79
by U.S. law or policy. On October 16, The 45-day comment period on the
FR 35344). The NOA included notice of Draft Addendum closed on July 21,
2012, DOE/FE Order No. 3164 was
a public comment meeting on July 15, 2014. DOE/FE received 40,745
issued in FE Docket No 12–99–LNG
2014, in Portland, Texas. The NOA also comments in 18 separate submissions,
granting long-term export authorization
provided summary information and considered those comments in
to FTA countries from the Project.3
regarding the draft EIS. Copies of the issuing the Addendum on August 15,
1 The CCL Project is being developed at the same
draft EIS were also sent to agencies, 2014. DOE/FE provided a summary of
general locations proposed for the previously elected officials, media organizations, the comments received and responses to
authorized Corpus Christi LNG L.P. import terminal Native American Tribes, private substantive comments in Appendix B of
and associated pipeline. See Corpus Christi LNG landowners, and other interested the Addendum. DOE/FE has
L.P. and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline
Company, Order Granting Authority Under Section
parties. incorporated the Draft Addendum,
3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing Certificates, Issues raised by commenters included comments, and final Addendum into
111 FERC ¶ 61,081 (2005). Since the facilities were concerns regarding: Air pollution the record in its CMI proceeding.
never constructed, the Commission vacated Corpus
Christi LNG, L.P.’s and Corpus Christi Pipeline (including greenhouse gas emissions Alternatives
Company’s authorizations to construct the proposed and mitigation and compliance with the
LNG facility and associated pipeline. Corpus Christi National Ambient Air Quality The EIS conducted an alternatives
LNG, L.P., 139 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2012). analysis for the Liquefaction Project that
Standards), construction dust and noise
2 The authority to regulate the imports and
could achieve the Project objectives.
exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural vibrations, land use changes, impacts of
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The range of alternatives analyzed
gas, under section 3 of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 717b) water discharges on aquatic species
has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FE included the No-Action Alternative,
(including impacts to an essential fish
in Redelegation Order No. 00–006.02 issued on
November 17, 2014.
habitat (‘‘EFH’’)), light pollution, visual 4 See Final EIS at 1–12, Table 1.4–1 Issues
3 Cheniere Marketing, LLC, Order Granting Long- impacts, public safety and lack of an Identified and Comments Received During the
Term Multi-Contract Authorization to Export emergency response plan, water use and Scoping Process for the Corpus Christi LNG Project.
Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed CMI’s source of water, impacts on 5 Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere

Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to Free Trade Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P., Order Granting
Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3164,
property values, expanding the scope of Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas
October 16, 2012 (FE Docket No 12–99–LNG). the cumulative impact analysis and Act, 149 FERC ¶ 61,283 (December 30, 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1

28258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Notices

system alternatives, alternative The EIS evaluated a total of five with unconventional natural gas
Liquefaction Project sites, alternative alternative sites for the proposed activities, such as hydraulic fracturing.
Pipeline routes, and alternative compressor stations but determined that
compressor station sites. Alternatives none of these sites were Mitigation
were evaluated and compared to the environmentally preferable to the As a condition of its decision to issue
Liquefaction Project to determine if proposed sites. Order No. 3638 authorizing CMI to
these alternatives were environmentally Environmentally Preferred Alternative export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE/
preferable.
When compared against the other FE is imposing requirements that will
While the No-Action Alternative avoid or minimize the environmental
would avoid the potential adverse and action alternatives assessed in the EIS,
as discussed above, the Corpus Christi impacts of the project. These conditions
beneficial environmental impacts
LNG Project is the environmentally include the environmental conditions
identified in the EIS, adoption of this
alternative would preclude meeting the preferred alternative. While the No- adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix
Project objectives. Other LNG export/ Action Alternative would avoid the A. Mitigation measures beyond those
import projects could also be developed environmental impacts identified in the included in DOE/FE Order No. 3638
elsewhere in the Gulf Coast region or in EIS, adoption of this alternative would that are enforceable by other Federal
other areas of the United States, but not meet the Project objectives. and state agencies are additional
would likely result in similar or Decision conditions of Order No. 3638. With
potentially greater environmental these conditions, DOE/FE has
DOE/FE has decided to issue Order determined that all practicable means to
impacts than those of the proposed No. 3638 to grant the long-term, multi-
Project. The No-Action Alternative avoid or minimize environmental harm
contract authorization for CMI to engage
could also require potential end users to from the project have been adopted.
in exports of domestically produced
make other arrangements to obtain liquefied natural gas in an amount up to Floodplain Statement of Findings
natural gas service, or continue the use 767 Bcf per year for a 20-year period,
of alternative fossil fuel energy sources commencing the earlier of the date of DOE prepared this Floodplain
(such as coal or fuel oil) to compensate first export or seven-years from the date Statement of Findings in accordance
for the reduced availability of natural of issuance of the authorization with DOE’s regulations entitled
gas that would otherwise be supplied by requested. The authorization is to export ‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and
the Corpus Christi LNG Project. LNG from the proposed Corpus Christi Wetland Environmental Review
The EIS evaluated 12 system Liquefaction Project to any nation with Requirements’’ (10 CFR part 1022). The
alternatives for the Project, including 6 which the United States does not now required floodplain and wetland
operating LNG import terminals in the or in the future have an FTA requiring assessment was conducted during
Gulf of Mexico area, and 6 proposed or the national treatment for trade in development and preparation of the
planned export projects along the Gulf natural gas, that has, or in the future EIS.6 No alternative Liquefaction Project
Coast. All of the systems were develops, the capacity to import LNG
eliminated from further consideration sites were evaluated outside of a
and with which trade is not prohibited floodplain because, as discussed in
for reasons that include the need for by U.S. law or policy.
substantial construction beyond that section 4.1.1.5 of the final EIS, the
Concurrently with this Record of facilities would be placed above
currently proposed, production volume Decision, DOE/FE is issuing Order No.
limitations, in-service dates scheduled predicted storm surge elevations, and
3638 in which it finds that the granting
significantly beyond the Project the site is necessarily tied to marine/
of the requested authorization has not
schedule, and potential environmental port locations. Similarly, no Pipeline
been shown to be inconsistent with the
impacts that were considered public interest, and that the Application route alternatives outside of floodplains
comparable to or greater than those of should be granted subject to compliance were evaluated because, as discussed in
the Project. with the terms and conditions set forth section 4.1.2.4 of the Final EIS, Cheniere
The EIS also evaluated three in Order No. 3638, including the Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. has
alternative Liquefaction Project sites, environmental conditions adopted in proposed to implement acceptable
two in proximity to the proposed site the FERC Order at Appendix A. mitigation measures at waterbody
and one near Brownsville, Texas. Additionally, the authorization is crossings and areas subject to flooding
Construction of the terminal at each of conditioned on CMI’s compliance with to compensate for negative buoyancy.
the alternative sites would have any other preventative and mitigative DOE determined that the placement of
comparable or greater environmental measures imposed by other Federal or some project components within
impacts when compared to the state agencies. floodplains would be unavoidable.
proposed terminal site; therefore, none However, the current design for the
of the three sites evaluated were Basis of Decision
project minimizes floodplain impacts to
determined to be environmentally DOE/FE’s decision is based upon the the extent practicable.
preferable. analysis of potential environmental
Approximately 86 percent of the impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE/ Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12,
Pipeline would be co-located, overlap, FE’s determination in Order No. 3638 2015.
or parallel existing rights-of-way, so that the opponents of the Application Christopher A. Smith,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

many types of environmental impacts have failed to overcome the statutory Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
have already been reduced or avoided. presumption that the proposed export [FR Doc. 2015–11926 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am]
While two route alternatives were authorization is not inconsistent with BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
evaluated, the EIS did not identify any the public interest. Although not
site-specific environmental concerns required by NEPA, DOE/FE also 6 See Final EIS at Section 3.0. Table 3.1–1 and
along the proposed route that would considered the Addendum, which Section 3.2.3.3 were revised to include information
make the alternative pipeline routes summarizes available information on regarding the proximity of alternative Terminal
preferable. potential upstream impacts associated sites with respect to floodplains.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1

Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:38:52
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:38:52

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Record of Decision.
Contact		To obtain additional information about the project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. John Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil & Gas Global Security & Supply, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600; or Mr. Edward LeDuc, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4007.
FR Citation		80 FR 28256