November 15, Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C.

Transcription

1 November 15, 2010 Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C Re: Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Docket No. PF Initial Draft of Resource Reports 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 Dear Ms. Bose: On July 26, 2010, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively Sabine Pass ) submitted a request that the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( Commission ) initiate a National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) pre-filing review of the proposed Liquefaction Project located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. On August 4, 2010, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects granted Sabine Pass request for use of the NEPA prefiling process. In accordance with the Commission s regulations and its NEPA pre-filing review procedures, 18 C.F.R (2010), Sabine Pass hereby submits for electronic filing its pre-filing Initial Drafts of Resource Reports 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Should you have any questions about this filing, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (713) Thank you, /s/ Karri Mahmoud Karri Mahmoud Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. cc: Ms. Maggie Suter Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Michael Donnelly Ecology and Environment Ms. Lisa Tonery Fulbright and Jaworski

2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated at Houston, Texas this 15 th day of November, /s/ Karri Mahmoud Karri Mahmoud Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.

3 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality Docket No. PF November i - November 2010

4 Draft Resource Report 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 WATER USE AND QUALITY INTRODUCTION SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Waterbodies Surface Water Classification Waterbodies with Contaminated Sediments Surface Water Use Sensitive Surface Waters Ballast Water Construction Impacts and Mitigation Discharges to Surface Water Dredging Ballast Water Mitigation Plans WETLANDS Existing Wetlands GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Regional Aquifer Systems Ground Water Quality Sole Source Aquifer Ground Water Use Construction Impacts and Mitigation FLOODPLAINS Base Floodplain Determination Floodplain Assessment REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES TABLE Waterbodies Adjacent to the SPLNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana...3 TABLE Wetlands Affected by the Liquefaction Project...11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Salinity Gradient Documented Along the Sabine-Neches Waterway...5 Figure Impact Areas...12 Figure Chicot Aquifer in Louisiana (EPA, 2001) i - November 2010

5 Draft Resource Report 2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ANSTF BWE BWM BWT CFR DMPA Export EA EEZ EPA FEIS FEMA FERC or Commission ICWW LDEQ LDNR LNG LPDES LSU m 3 NANPCA NFPA NISA NOAA NPDES NWI O&M PCB Phase II EA Plan Ppt Procedures Project Sabine Pass SPLNG Terminal STEP TCEQ Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Ballast Water Exchange Ballast Water Management Ballast Water Transport Code of Federal Regulations dredge material placement area Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Exclusive Economic Zone Environmental Protection Agency Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Intracoastal Waterway Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Louisiana Department of Natural Resources liquefied natural gas Louisiana Pollution Discharge Elimination System Louisiana State University cubic meters Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act National Fire Protection Association National Invasive Species Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Wetland Inventory operations and maintenance polychlorinated biphenyls Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 FERC s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan Parts Per Thousand FERC s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - ii - November 2010

6 Draft Resource Report 2 TSS U.S. USACE USCG USGS Total Suspended Solids United States United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Coast Guard United States Geological Survey - iii - November 2010

7 Draft Resource Report 2 RESOURCE REPORT 2 -- WATER USE AND QUALITY Filing Requirement Identify and describe by milepost perennial waterbodies and municipal water supply or watershed areas, specially designated surface water protection areas and sensitive waterbodies, and wetlands that would be crossed. For each waterbody crossing, identify the approximate width, state water quality classifications, any known potential pollutants present in the water or sediments, and any potable water intake sources within 3 miles downstream. ( (d) (1)) Compare proposed mitigation measures with the staff s current Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, which are available from the Commission Internet home page or the Commission staff, describe what proposed alternative mitigation would provide equivalent or greater protection to the environment, and provide a description of site-specific construction techniques that would be used at each major waterbody crossing. ( (d) (2)) Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody and wetland crossings. Also, identify and describe waterbodies and wetlands where staging areas are likely to be more extensive. ( (d) (3)) Include National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. If NWI maps are not available, provide the appropriate state wetland maps. Identify for each crossing, the milepost, the wetland classification specified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the length of the crossing. Include two copies of the NWI maps (or the substitutes, if NWI maps are not available) clearly showing the proposed route and mileposts directed to the environmental staff. Describe by milepost, wetland crossings as determined by field delineations using the current Federal methodology. ( (d) (4)) Identify aquifers within excavation depth in the project area, including the depth of the aquifer, current and projected use, water quality and average yield, and known or suspected contamination problems. ( (d) (5)) Describe specific locations, the quantity required, and the method and rate of withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water. Describe suspended or dissolved material likely to be present in the water as a result of contact with the pipeline, particularly if an existing pipeline is being retested. Describe chemical or physical treatment of the pipeline or hydrostatic test water. Discuss waste products generated and disposal methods. ( (d) (6)) If underground storage of natural gas is proposed: ( (d) (7)) (i) Identify how water produced from the storage field will be disposed of, and (ii) For salt caverns, identify the source locations, the quantity required, and the method and rate of withdrawal of water for creating salt cavern(s), as well as the means of disposal of brine resulting from cavern leaching. Location in Environmental Report Section 2.2 Not Applicable (will use Procedures) Not Applicable Section 2.3 Section 2.4 Not Applicable Not Applicable - i - November 2010

8 Draft Resource Report 2 RESOURCE REPORT 2 -- WATER USE AND QUALITY Filing Requirement Discuss proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to surface water, wetlands, or groundwater quality to the extent they are not described in response to paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Discuss the potential for blasting to affect water wells, springs, and wetlands, and measures to be taken to detect and remedy such effects. ( (d) (8)) Identify the location of known public and private groundwater supply wells or springs within 150 feet of proposed construction areas. Identify locations of EPA or state-designated sole-source aquifers and wellhead protection areas crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities. ( (d) (9)) Location in Environmental Report Section 2.7 Section ii - November 2010

9 Draft Resource Report WATER USE AND QUALITY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information regarding surface water, groundwater, and water use and quality in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). This report describes water use and quality and provides data to determine the expected impact of the Project and the effectiveness of mitigative, enhancement, or protective measures incorporated by Sabine Pass. To determine and describe the hydrologic resources in the region and the Project area in southwestern Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Sabine Pass reviewed available scientific literature, initiated agency contacts, and consulted with water quality specialists. Water Use and Quality for the Liquefaction Project was evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

10 Draft Resource Report SURFACE WATER RESOURCES The main surface water resource in the region is a relatively small bay-estuary system, Sabine Lake, partly separated from the Gulf and the inner shelf by a modern strandplain-chenier system (Fisher et al. 1973). Tidal exchange between marine and estuarine systems occurs through a long, narrow tidal inlet, Sabine Pass Channel, that has been extensively modified for navigational purposes. The channel is connected to Sabine Lake, but also to the Port Arthur-Sabine-Neches canal system, which parallels the south and west margins of Sabine Lake. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ( ICWW ) enters the Sabine- Port Arthur canal just south of Port Arthur, Texas, and exits via the Sabine River. Two major rivers, Sabine and Neches, discharge into Sabine Lake, but a major part of the flow from the Neches River is diverted along the Sabine-Neches Canal. Bayous discharging into the Sabine-Neches canal and river system include Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Taylor Bayou. All of these bayous have been dredged along their lower reaches. South of Sabine Lake and the Port Arthur Ship Canal, Sabine Pass Channel is the outlet for this bayestuary system to the Gulf. The dredged ship channel, the Sabine Pass Channel, extends from the confluence of the Port Arthur Ship Canal to the end of the jetties in the Gulf. The extensive marshland east of the Project site drains to Lighthouse Bayou, which flows into Sabine Pass Channel south of the site. Sources of fresh water in the bay-estuary system include streams and runoff; municipal, industrial, and agricultural return flow; and direct precipitation. From 1941 through 1976, annual average gauged fresh water inflows were about 11.2 million acre-feet in the Sabine and Neches river basins; gauged yields from the Sabine basin averaged 545 acre-feet, and from the Neches basin 653 acre-feet (Texas Department of Water Resources 1981). These gauged flows represent about 85 percent of the total freshwater inflows to the Sabine-Neches estuary. The bay-estuary is little affected by daily tides, which are uniformly small. More significant in this area are wind-generated tides, which affect most bay and estuary environments and have produced wind-tidal flats, and marshes. Sabine Lake is 4 to 6 ft deep over most of its area. Maximum depths are slightly greater than 6 ft. The deepest areas in the bay-estuary system occur in the dredged ship channels, where maximum dredged depths are 42 ft (Diener 1975). The ICWW is maintained at approximately 12 ft. Shelf bathymetry near the Gulf shoreline is characterized by a relatively steep slope of approximately 6 ft/mi near Sabine Pass Channel. Gentler slopes occur beyond about 1 mile offshore. The diurnal tidal range in the Sabine Pass Channel is 1.6 feet at Sabine Pass, Texas (NOAA 2003). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (1978), astronomical tidal range at the Gulf shoreline is 2.5 feet at Sabine Pass Channel jetty and falls to 0.2 feet at the Sabine Lake shoreline. Tidal current velocities at Sabine Pass Channel according to the U.S. Department of Commerce (1978) are 2.7 feet per second (ft/s) at average maximum flood stage and 2.9 ft/s at average maximum ebb stage November 2010

11 Draft Resource Report Waterbodies The Project is located in the Sabine Lake Louisiana, Texas watershed (USGS cataloging number ) located in the Texas-Gulf Region, Galveston Bay-San Jacinto Subregion, and Galveston Bay- Sabine Lake Accounting Unit. No surface waterbodies are directly affected by the Project. Therefore, no municipal water supply or watershed areas, no specially designated surface water protection areas, and no sensitive waterbodies will be affected. Surface waterbodies adjacent to the Project are summarized in Table Waterbody TABLE Waterbodies Adjacent to the SPLNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana Type Crossing Width (feet) Sabine Pass Channel River Not Applicable On-site inlet to Sabine Pass Channel Drainage ditch Section 10 waterway Section 10 waterway State Water Quality Classification 1 PCR, SCR, FWP, SFP Fishery Type Warmwater Not Applicable None Warmwater Not Applicable None Warmwater 1 PCR = Primary Contact Recreation, SCR = Secondary Contact Recreation, FWP = Fish and Wildlife Propagation, SFP = Shellfish Production (LDEQ, 2002) Surface Water Classification The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ( LDEQ )-designated water uses for Sabine Pass Channel are Primary Contact Recreation, Secondary Contact Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Propagation, and Oyster Production (LDEQ 2002). Its designated uses by the State of Louisiana have not been assessed in recent (2000, 2002) Louisiana Section 305b water quality inventories. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ ) also evaluates Sabine Pass Channel in its Water Quality Inventory, and the Contact Recreation, Aquatic Life, and General Uses are fully supported. Fish Consumption and Oyster Use were not assessed (TCEQ 2002). There is a small inlet from Sabine Pass Channel that is tidally influenced and helps drain the site. There is also a drainage cut at the southern end of the property that drains adjacent lands. According to Fisher, et al. (1973), salinity data reported by Wiersema, et al. (1976) indicates that salinities generally range from less than 10 parts per thousand ( ppt ) in the upper part of the lake to between 10 and 20 ppt in the tidally influenced lower part. Average salinity in the Sabine Lake and Estuary is 11 ppt (EPA 1999). Precipitation ranges from 51.5 to 55.7 inches per year November 2010

12 Draft Resource Report 2 Sabine Pass Channel, and generally the Sabine-Neches Waterway, is subject to both freshwater inflows and tidal influence. Freshwater inflows are primarily from the Neches and Sabine Rivers emptying into Sabine Lake and the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Tides interacting with freshwater discharges into the system from rivers produce salinity gradients in estuarine and wetland areas as well as strong salinity stratification within the ship channel. The physical characteristics of the Sabine-Neches Waterway influences water quality parameters. Since water becomes denser with increased salinity, it is common for lower salinities to occur at the surface and higher salinities along the bottom of the water column. This stratification is often accentuated in estuaries with deep channels that extend into the open ocean. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as a saltwater wedge. The presence of deep channels can often convey this saltwater wedge far into estuaries where the less dense, freshwater flows at the surface. The following discussion provides an overview of salinities along the Sabine-Neches Waterway. In addition to salinity stratification within the water column, a salinity gradient exists from Sabine Lake to the Gulf of Mexico as documented in prior studies. Three studies confirm the Sabine-Neches salinity gradient and profile at four locations from the most inland to the Gulf; Sabine Lake, SPLNG Terminal, Sabine Pass Channel, and the mouth of Sabine Pass Channel at the Gulf of Mexico. Kane (1967) measured salinity at 15 stations from December 20, 1958 to November 3, Two of these stations were in Sabine Pass Channel and one in the nearshore area of the Gulf of Mexico. In total 276 measurements were recorded in ppt, taken from two depths, surface and bottom. Kane s observations revealed a range of ppt with some differences between surface and bottom water salinities in places of deep water in the Sabine Pass Channel and Gulf of Mexico. Meselhe (1998) recorded surface water salinities within the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin. Because Meselhe s results were interpreted from Figure C.6-11 in the report, overall salinity averages presented are approximate numbers. A Water, Sediment and Elutriate Analysis conducted by BIO-WEST in March 2008 within the SPLNG marine berth revealed similar results and little stratification, with an average surface and mid-water (25 feet below the surface) salinity of 15.4 ppt. Figure is an average of the available salinity data for each of the four locations from the three studies. Tolan (2007) compiled Sabine-Neches salinity observations collected between 1982 and 2004 (n = 4,025) with a mean salinity of 6.1 ppt (SD = 5.9) and a maximum salinity of 32.0 ppt. Open ocean salinities range from ppt, approximating the maximum salinity measures within the Sabine-Neches (Tolan 2007) and reflective of the surface and bottom salinity gradient within the Sabine-Neches Waterway November 2010

13 Draft Resource Report 2 * Surface: Kane, 1967; Meselhe, Bottom: Kane, BIO-WEST (2008) Figure Salinity Gradient Documented Along the Sabine-Neches Waterway With regard to the physio-chemical water parameters, the Sabine-Neches Waterway is a perpetually changing dynamic system. While the salinity data presented above only provides a window in time, the general trend indicates that higher salinities in the Gulf of Mexico decrease as the channel extends inland under normal circumstances. The data also suggest stratification in that there are higher salinities deeper in the water column Waterbodies with Contaminated Sediments The Project does not cross any surface waterbodies containing contaminated sediments. A study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) assessed sediment toxicity and chemical contamination in Sabine Pass Channel and Sabine Lake (Long 1999). The results indicate that toxicity of the sediments in the Project area was not significantly different from controls (toxicity was measured using acute amphipod (Ampelisca abdita) survival tests, where a less than 20 percent survival rate indicates toxicity), and the potential for toxicity is greatest in the Sabine-Neches canal north of Port Arthur. Chemical contamination had no clear spatial distribution, and several areas contained elevated levels of arsenic and nickel. In general, arsenic values were the lowest in Sabine Lake, and highest November 2010

14 Draft Resource Report 2 offshore and in the Port Arthur channel and Sabine-Neches canal. The report concluded that sediment quality in the Sabine Lake area was not severely degraded (Long 1999) Surface Water Use The Project will require significant additional water use above the amounts already required for operation of the SPLNG Terminal. The additional water needed for the Project will come from the existing waterline supplied by the Johnson Bayou Water District. An additional redundant water line will be constructed to bring potable water from the City of Port Arthur. A description of this non-jurisdictional facility is described below in Resource Report 1, Section No surface water sources on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site will be used for an additional water source. Prior to being placed into service, the LNG piping will be tested to ensure structural integrity. The cryogenic piping will be pneumatically tested and the non-cryogenic piping will be hydrostatically tested. Potable water supplied by the existing water line will be used as the source for hydrostatic test water. No chemical additives will be used in the water during hydrostatic testing. The water from the hydrostatic test will be discharged in accordance with the hydrostatic test discharge permit issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Sensitive Surface Waters Based on literature reviews and agency coordination no sensitive surface waters have been identified that will be impacted by construction or operation of the Project Ballast Water Ballast water is water that is collected and carried by ships to provide balance, stability and trim during transport. Ballast water is typically pumped into ballast tanks when a ship has delivered a cargo to a port and is departing with less cargo weight. Ballast water can also be collected when a ship is already carrying cargo and needs additional weight called With Ballast or possesses no cargo and only ballast water called In Ballast ( Ballast water can be exchanged at any time, but is typically discharged at port upon loading and/or unloading and then purged or exchanged once the vessel is underway. The SPLNG Terminal is designed and approved to service up to 400 LNG carriers in a single year. The actual number of LNG carriers used to export LNG will vary depending on the capacity of the LNG carriers, the production rate of the liquefaction trains, and if both Stages of the Project are developed. A range of the potential number of LNG carriers to be used in exporting LNG can be developed on the basis of the assumption that each liquefaction train produces 4 million metric tons per annum, such that the Stage I of the Project, 8 million metric tons of LNG would be produced and upon completion of Stage II, 16 million metric tons of LNG would be produced. One cubic meter of LNG is equal to metric tons, therefore the capacity of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG carrier would be 57,500 metric tons and 122,360 metric tons for the 266,000 cubic meter capacity LNG carrier. Assuming that the LNG carriers November 2010

15 Draft Resource Report 2 will only take on 95 percent of the cargo capacity of the carrier (since some percentage is required as heel in the cargo tanks), LNG carriers ranging from 125,000 to 266,000 cubic meters could take on LNG cargos ranging from approximately 54,625 metric tons to approximately 116,242 metric tons. This translates into a range of LNG cargos of approximately or 147 to approximately 68.8 or 69 LNG cargos to export the 8 million metric tons of LNG produced by Stage I of the Project. The number would double for the combined output of Stages I and II of the Project. Assuming that the ballast water is approximately 50 percent of the weight of the LNG cargo to be loaded, the amount of ballast water to be unloaded during LNG cargo loading would range from approximately 27,312.5 to 58,121 metric tons of sea water for each LNG cargo exported from the Project. Assuming that seawater is metric tons per cubic meter, then the range of ballast water to be released during each LNG cargo loading would range from approximately 26, to 56, cubic meters. If one cubic meter equals U.S. gallons, then the amount of ballast to be released during loading of each LNG cargo would range from to million gallons for LNG carriers ranging in size from 125,000 to 266,000 cubic meters Construction Impacts and Mitigation Discharges to Surface Water Stormwater removal from within the LNG liquefaction area will be directed to the north to three 30-inch diameter drain pipes to be installed at the northwestern edge of the LNG liquefaction area. The pipes will be buried and run westerly under Duck Blind Road and over the existing pipelines into the Sabine Pass Channel. Other areas of the site will be graded to divert stormwater into existing drainages that also discharge to the Sabine Pass Channel. Undisturbed areas of the site will retain their natural drainage. Discharge of hydrostatic test water used to test the integrity of oil and gas facilities requires permitting from the LDEQ under the Louisiana Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( LPDES ). No chemicals will be added to the hydrostatic test water before or after testing, and the discharge will be tested for total suspended solids, oil and grease, and ph prior to discharge, in accordance with the LPDES Hydrostatic Test Wastewater Discharge Permit requirements. Energy dissipation devices will be used to control the flow rate in order to minimize erosion and scouring. The hydrostatic test water discharge will be conducted in accordance with all federal and state rules, regulations, and permits Dredging Another potential impact of the Project to surface waters will be the maintenance dredging of the construction dock to provide the necessary 17 feet of draft for the barges delivering heavy equipment, piles, and other materials. During previous maintenance dredging events, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of silt was removed and placed for beneficial use in the wetland areas north of the Project area. It is anticipated that prior to construction, a maintenance dredging event would be required. Dredging will be conducted in accordance with USACE Nationwide Permit 35 Authorization, and Louisiana Department of November 2010

16 Draft Resource Report 2 Natural Resources ( LDNR ) Coastal Use Permit P and beneficial use of dredged material guidelines Ballast Water Ballast water that is likely to be introduced into the SPLNG marine berth and the Sabine-Neches Waterway will be composed mainly of open ocean water retrieved during ballast water exchange ( BWE ) activities during trans-ocean shipping. The physio-chemical composition of this water may be very similar to or different from that which occurs within the SPLNG Terminal marine berth depending on hydrologic conditions. The most noticeable difference observed in water quality would likely be salinity. Since the terminal is in close proximity to the open Gulf of Mexico, these differences may be very subtle under normal tide cycles and rainfall. However, if heavy rainfall occurs within the Sabine- Neches drainage basin, salinity levels may decrease as a result of freshwater runoff. In accordance with BWE standards, the ballast water to be discharged in the SPLNG marine berth will be more representative of salinity levels found at the surface than at the bottom (approximately 20 ppt., see Figure 2.3-1) as the ballast water will be drawn approximately 28 to 35 feet below the water surface from the Gulf of Mexico prior to the carrier entering the Sabine Pass Channel. Another physio-chemical water quality parameter that may be influenced by the introduction of ballast water is the dissolved oxygen level. Dissolved oxygen levels are a critical component for the respiration of aquatic marine organisms. Among many other factors, dissolved oxygen levels in water can be influenced by water temperature, water depth, phytoplankton, wind and current. All of these constituents in some way influence the amount of oxygen in the water. Typical water column profiles indicate a decrease in dissolved oxygen with an increase in depth. Some factors that often influence this stratification include sunlight attenuation for photosynthetic organisms that can produce oxygen, wind, wave, and current that results in mixing. Water that is collected within the ballast tanks of a ship would lack many of these important influences and could suppress dissolved oxygen levels. However, ballast water that is discharged is not expected to be anoxic (i.e. lacking all oxygen), just lower than what levels would likely be at the surface. In addition, ballast water will be discharged near the bottom of the marine berth where dissolved oxygen levels are likely already suppressed. Therefore no significant impacts are likely to occur as a result of discharging ocean water with potentially suppressed dissolved oxygen levels. Water temperatures and ph are not likely to be altered as a result of introducing ballast water. Since ballast water is stored in the ship s hull below the waterline, water temperatures are not expected to deviate much from ambient temperatures of the surrounding sea water. The ph of the ballast water (reflective of open ocean conditions) may be slightly higher as compared to that of freshwater estuaries. However, this slight variation is not expected to have any impacts on exiting marine organisms. An assessment of potential impacts suggests that the primary potential impact to the Sabine-Neches Waterway will be periodic influx of slightly higher salinity seawater associated with ballast discharge November 2010

17 Draft Resource Report 2 than would typically be found in the marine berth and in that portion of the Sabine Pass Channel. However, due to the fact that the ballast water is drawn closer to the surface in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico and is discharged closer to the bottom of the SPLNG Terminal marine berth, the salinity level of the ballast water discharged would be closer to that found at the bottom of the marine berth and would represent a very minor influence on the system as a whole or during a single ballast water discharge event. Due to the volumes of ballast water often collected by ships, there remains the possibility of living aquatic organisms entering ballast tanks. Some of the larger macro organisms that may be collected will often die; however, some of the smaller planktonic organisms can often survive. An environmental concern associated with this procedure is the risk of introducing exotic species in coastal freshwater and marine ecosystems (Drake and Lodge, 2004). Loaded with water from the surrounding ports and coastal waters throughout the world, ships can carry a diverse assemblage of marine organisms in ballast water that may be foreign and exotic to the ship s port of destination. The transfer of water from port-to-port can result in aquatic biological invasions. Invasive species threaten to outcompete and exclude native species and the overall health of an ecosystem, causing algal blooms and hypoxic conditions and affecting all trophic levels resulting in a decline in biodiversity. This concern has long been recognized and is addressed in U.S. Coast Guard Regulation Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 07-04, Change 1 that governs ballast water operations in US ports. Based on current federal and state regulations regarding ballast water discharge, there are no specific operational related permits required to discharge ballast water. Additionally, Sabine Pass has previously secured all necessary permits and approvals to construct and operate the SPLNG Terminal, including export of LNG that also requires discharge of ballast water (see Export EA in Docket Nos. CP and CP ). No modifications or ground/marine related disturbances will occur; therefore no additional permits are required. However, Sabine Pass is currently consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries regarding the Project. To date, none of these agencies has indicated a concern with this activity. As part of its permit application for the approved LNG export activities, Sabine Pass: reviewed and evaluated current and past applicable federal guidelines for ballast water exchange activities which included the following: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 ( NANPCA ) established a broad federal program to prevent introduction of and to control the spread of introduced aquatic nuisance species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all were assigned responsibilities, including membership on an Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF, 2005). National Invasive Species Act of 1996 ( NISA ) reauthorizes and amends the NANPCA Nonindigenous invasive species have become established throughout the waters of the U.S. and November 2010

18 Draft Resource Report 2 are causing economic and ecological degradation to the affected near shore regions. The Secretary of Transportation was charged to develop national guidelines to prevent invasive species via ballast water of commercial vessels; the primary means of which is through midocean ballast water exchange (BWE), unless the exchange threatens the safety or stability of the vessel, its crew, or its passengers (NEMW, 2010a).. National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 ( NAISA ) amended in 2005 and again in The 2003 act established a mandatory National Ballast Water Management Program. The primary requirements established under NAISA are: 1) all ships operating in U.S. waters are required to have on board an Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, 2) the development of standards by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for mid-ocean BWE and ballast water treatment (BWT) for vessels operating outside of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 3) implementing the best management practices and available technology related to BWTs (USDA 2010). National Ballast Water Management Program (BWM) originally established by NANPCA 1990 and further amended by NISA 1996 and NAISA 2003 resulting in the ballast water management program being made mandatory and to include BWE and reporting to the USCG (AAPA 2006). Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) a program authorized under the USCG Ballast Water Management (BWM) Program. STEP is designed to facilitate the development of effective ballast water treatment (BWT) technologies, through experimental systems, thus creating more options for vessel owners seeking alternatives to ballast water exchange. Applications to participate in the STEP program can be found on the USCG website under STEP Application Instructions, at: Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 07-04, Change 1 - a program developed by the United States Coast Guard for the management and enforcement of ballast water discharge into US port and harbors (33 CFR 151, 69 FR 44952, July 28, 2004) Based upon the above literature, rules and regulations, Sabine Pass will rely upon the federal oversight and regulations that govern ballast water discharge into U.S. waters. Additionally, upon entry into the SPLNG Terminal marine berth and as part of the SPLNG Terminal operating procedures, SPLNG Terminal marine staff will ensure and review any applicable documentation that the visiting ship is or has operating(ed) the vessel in accordance with the federal standards and practices prior to discharging any ballast water. Assuming that the ships that visit the SPLNG Terminal adhere to ballast water rules and regulations, no impacts to surface waters are anticipated Mitigation Plans To minimize potential impacts to waterbodies, Sabine Pass will adopt in its entirety the 2003 version of the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures ( Procedures ) during construction (FERC 2003a) of the Liquefaction Project. Additionally, Sabine Pass will follow the guidelines outlined in its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan ( SPCC Plan ) that November 2010

19 Draft Resource Report 2 incorporates requirements from Section IV.A.1 of the Procedures and is currently in place for the SPLNG Terminal. The SPCC Plan will be reviewed and modified to include the Liquefaction Project facilities prior to beginning construction. 2.3 WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Sabine Pass used the current USACE methodology described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) to identify and delineate wetlands on the proposed Project site. Wetlands are classified by the Cowardin et al. (1979) system, which is currently represented on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. NWI maps have been previously provided under Docket CP and are included herein by reference. The USACE has determined that all wetlands on the Project site are jurisdictional. The Project will permanently affect acres of emergent wetlands, located within former dredge material placement areas ( DMPA ) that will be converted for the Liquefaction Trains and associated facilities. This includes wetlands in Area C, Area D, and Area F that were previously set aside as mitigation for wetlands impacted by development of the SPLNG Terminal and Wetland 17. Soils in these wetland DMPAs will be improved before installation of the Project facilities. The wetlands and former DMPAs are shown on Figure and summarized in Table Wetland 1 TABLE Wetlands Affected by the Liquefaction Project NWI Classification Temporary/Construction Impacts (acres) Permanent/Operation Impacts (acres) Prior Mitigation Area C L2USAhs Prior Mitigation Area D L2USAhs Prior Mitigation Area F L2USAhs Wetland 17 L2USAhs Total L2USAhs = Lacustrine littoral unconsolidated shore, temporarily flooded, diked, impounded spoil. 1 These wetlands are in the dredge material placement area habitat type discussed in Resource Report 3, Section November 2010

20 Draft Resource Report 2 Figure Impact Areas November 2010

21 Draft Resource Report 2 Dredging or filling of wetlands for operation of the Project will result in permanent impacts to acres of wetland. These permanent impacts are unavoidable, and will be mitigated under the terms of the USACE Section 404 permit and LDNR Coastal Use Permit. Sabine Pass is coordinating with the USACE regarding the development of the most appropriate mitigation plan for these impacts. 2.4 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Regional Aquifer Systems The Project is located in the coastal lowlands aquifer system in southwestern Louisiana. Groundwater resources are well described in Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, published by the U.S. Geological Survey (Renken, 1998). The coastal lowlands aquifer system consists of discontinuous wedge-shaped sediment beds that overlie the Vicksburg-Jackson confining unit. This system underlies most of the Gulf Coastal Plains, extending from southern Texas to the Florida panhandle (Renken, 1998). The coastal lowlands aquifer system is one of the most extensively utilized aquifer systems in the southern U.S., yielding large amounts of water for agricultural, commercial, industrial, and public/domestic supplies (Renken, 1998). The coastal lowlands aquifer system has been separated into five permeability zones considered as regional aquifers due to their wide extent and great thickness (Renken, 1998). Each permeability zone consists of unconsolidated beds of sand and clay. These deposits typically extend to the surface where recharge occurs through infiltration of rainwater in outcrop areas (Renken, 1998). The sediments dip and thicken as the coastal lowlands aquifer system extends from the coastal plains to the continental shelf in the Gulf, reaching a maximum thickness off of the Louisiana shore of 14,000 feet (Renken, 1998). The mapped hydrologic unit underlying the Project area is the Chicot aquifer, shown in Figure 2.4-1, which extends from eastern Texas to the Atchafalaya River in south-central Louisiana (Louisiana State University [LSU] AgCenter, 2001). The aquifer system consists of Pleistocene interbedded sands, silt, gravel, and clay deposited in fluvial, deltaic, and near-shore marine environments. The landward boundary of the aquifer consists of outcrop areas where the aquifer system feathers out at the point of contact with the underlying Vicksburg-Jackson confining unit (Renken, 1998). The Gulfward boundary is near the coastline where the groundwater becomes increasingly saline and the upper boundary is the land surface (Ryder, 1996). Thickness of the Chicot aquifer ranges from 50 to 1,050 feet (LSU AgCenter, 2001). Historically, flow in the aquifer is from recharge areas north of the Project site, within the portions of Beauregard, Vernon, Rapides, Evangeline, and Allen Parishes that down-dip toward the coast. However, increased pumping, primarily for irrigation and industrial use, has altered the flow within the aquifer such that movement of groundwater within the aquifer is towards the Lake Charles area, where the greatest pumping occurs (Lovelace, 1999) November 2010

22 Draft Resource Report Ground Water Quality Figure Chicot Aquifer in Louisiana (EPA, 2001) Dissolved-solids concentrations of water in the coastal lowlands aquifer system are directly related to groundwater flow (Renken, 1998). In updip areas where the aquifers are recharged, concentrations of dissolved solids are low, but the water becomes increasingly saline as it moves toward the coast as a result of dissolution of aquifer minerals and mixing with seawater. Groundwater movement near the coast is sluggish and not sufficient to flush saltwater from the aquifer. In coastal areas such as Cameron Parish, the Chicot aquifer contains water with dissolved-solids concentrations of more than 1,000 milligrams per liter (Renken, 1998). The primary chemical constituent in the groundwater varies from calcium bicarbonate inland and along the Mississippi River alluvial aquifer, to sodium bicarbonate inland and in the recharge zones, and sodium chloride near the coast within the Chicot aquifer (Renken, 1998). In western Cameron Parish, the Chicot aquifer has historically been subdivided into three water-bearing sand units, the "200-foot," "500-foot," and "700-foot" sands. In general, water quality is better in the "500-foot" and "700-foot" sands and is suitable for domestic use in eastern Cameron Parish; however, in western Cameron Parish, where the Project is located, all three sand layers are affected by saltwater intrusion (Nyman, 1989). In fact, development in western and northwestern Cameron Parish has been limited due in part to the scarcity of available fresh groundwater (Lovelace, 1999). Water quality in the Chicot aquifer is best suited for agricultural uses and appropriately, a majority of its water (68 percent) is used for such purposes; primarily rice irrigation. Other uses include public supply (11 percent), industrial (9 percent), aquaculture (8 percent), power generation (2 percent), and other (2 percent) (LSU AgCenter, November 2010

23 Draft Resource Report ). Irrigation requirements are cyclical (spring and summer); municipal and industrial needs are continuous Sole Source Aquifer The Chicot aquifer in southwestern Louisiana is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Sole or principal source aquifers are designated as aquifers that supply 50 percent or more of the drinking water for an area and for which there are no other reasonably available alternative sources should the aquifer become contaminated. Under this Act, the EPA may review federally-funded projects to prevent possible aquifer contamination Ground Water Use Hydrostatic testing of the new piping associated with the liquefaction facilities will be required. The cryogenic piping will be pneumatically tested and the non-cryogenic piping will be hydrostatically tested. Potable water supplied by the existing water line will be used as the source for hydrostatic test water. No groundwater resources will be impacted by the proposed Project Construction Impacts and Mitigation No groundwater withdrawal areas occur within a half-mile radius of the Project area. The Project is remote from any residential areas and any potable water wells that would be used for private or public water supply. Cameron Parish Water Works, District 10 (Johnson Bayou Water District) supplies potable water to residences in Johnson Bayou and Holly Beach. The wells are located over 10 miles away from the Project site. The closest residence to the Project area is on the Texas side of the Sabine Pass Channel more than a mile from the previously constructed SPLNG Terminal facilities. The Project will not require water withdrawals from the Chicot aquifer for its operation. However, the Project will require significant additional water use above the amounts already required for operation of the SPLNG Terminal. The additional water needed for the Project will come from the existing water line which is supplied by the Johnson Bayou Water District, as well as through a new water line that will be constructed to transport water from the City of Port Arthur. No ground water sources on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site will be used for an additional water source. 2.5 FLOODPLAINS Base Floodplain Determination The Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ), National Flood Insurance Program FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map for unincorporated areas within Cameron Parish designate the Project area as falling with Zone VE, Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. The base flood elevations indicated on the maps for the Project area range from elevation 14 to 15 feet for the 100-year flood November 2010

24 Draft Resource Report Floodplain Assessment The Project site area is a former DMPA that has been filled with material. The same stabilization or soil improvements used for the construction of the SPLNG Terminal site, also constructed on an adjoining DMPA, will be used for the Project. These stabilization or soil improvements will not change the current elevation of the DMPA. Each of the Project facilities will be constructed at an elevation of 18.5, well above the 100-year flood elevations (14-15 feet) as indicated on the FEMA maps. A more complete description of the elevation design basis for each of the facilities for the Project is provided in Resource Report 13. At the design elevation, the Project facilities will be out of the floodplain and will not result in any harm to or within the floodplain. Since the Project facilities can be constructed above the flood zone in an area directly adjacent to the existing SPLNG Terminal, which is the most practical and safest location, no alternatives were considered to be viable options. The Project will also conform to the applicable floodplain protection standards. 2.6 REFERENCES American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) Ballast Water Management. Location: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) Documents: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of Location: Bio-West Ballast Water Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG, L.P., Cameron Parish, Louisiana. August Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, and Edward T. LaRoe Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 103 pp. Diener, R. A Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study-Texas: Area Description. NOAA Technical report NMFS Circ-393. Environmental Laboratory Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 Sole Source Aquifers. Available athttp:// Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003a. Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. Available at: FERC. 2003b. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Fisher, W.L., L.F. Brown, J.H. McGowan, and C.G. Groat Environmental Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone Beaumont-Port Arthur Area. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin. 93 pp November 2010

25 Draft Resource Report 2 Kane, HE Recent Microfaunal Biofacies in Sabine Lake and Environs, Texas and Louisiana. Journal of Paleontology 41(4): Long, E. R Survey of Sediment Quality in Sabine Lake, Texas and Vicinity. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 137. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality State of Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan Water Quality Inventory Section 305(b). Louisiana State University AgCenter Louisiana Water. Louisiana State University, AgCenter. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Accessed at Lovelace, J Distribution of Saltwater in the Chicot Aquifer System of Southwestern Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Water Resource Technical Report No pp. Meselhe E.A. (1998) Hydrodynamic Models of Subprovince 4. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana. Northwest-Mideast Institute (NEMW, 2010) Aquatic Invasive Species Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Station Information for Sabine Pass North, Texas. NOAA/NOS Center for Operational and Oceanographic Products and Services. Accessed at Nyman, D Quality of Water is Freshwater Aquifers in Southwestern Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Water Resource Technical Report No pp. Renken, R Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, in Groundwater Atlas of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey HA 730-F. Accessed at Ryder, P Oklahoma, Texas, in Groundwater Atlas of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey HA 730-E. water.usgs.gov Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Draft 2002 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List. Accessed at Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Water Utility Database. Accessed at Texas Department of Water Resources San Jacinto Estuary: A Study of the Influence of Freshwater Inflows. LP-113. Austin: Texas Department of Water Resources November 2010

26 Draft Resource Report 2 Tolan, J. M El Nino-Southern Oscillation Impacts Translated to the Watershed Scale: Estuarine Salinity Patterns along the Texas Gulf Coast, 1982 to Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 72: U.S. Department of Agriculture H.R National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of Accessed 2010 at November 2010

27 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 3 Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation Docket No. PF November 2010

28 Draft Resource Report 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 3.0 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION INTRODUCTION FISH Fishery Classification Fisheries of Special Concern Estuarine Organisms Essential Fish Habitat Construction and Operation Impacts WILDLIFE Terrestrial Resources Marine Resources Marine Mammals Sea Turtles Threatened and Endangered Species Piping Plover Kemp s Ridley Sea Turtle Loggerhead Sea Turtle Green Sea Turtle Hawksbill Sea Turtle Leatherback Sea Turtle Gulf Sturgeon Smalltooth Sawfish Sperm Whale Construction and Operation Impacts Habitat Effects Vessel Strikes Ballast Water Threatened and Endangered Species MIGRATORY AND NON-MIGRATORY BIRDS VEGETATION Existing Resources Construction and Operation Impacts REFERENCES i - November 2010

29 Draft Resource Report 3 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Managed EFH Species and Relative Abundance for Sabine Lake...3 TABLE Economically Important Marine Fishery Species...4 TABLE Marine Mammals that Potentially Occur in the Gulf of Mexico...6 TABLE Federal and State Listed Sea Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico...7 TABLE Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species that Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Project...8 TABLE Habitats and Industrial Areas Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project ii - November 2010

30 Draft Resource Report 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EA EFH Export EA CFR FEIS FERC or Commission GMFMC LDWF LNG m 3 MBTA MMPA MMS NFWL NMFS NOAA NRC NVIC Phase II EA Plan Procedures Project Sabine Pass SPLNG Terminal TPWD U.S. USACE USFWS USGS Environmental Assessment Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Code of Federal Regulations Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries liquefied natural gas cubic meters Migratory Bird Treaty Act Marine Mammal Protection Act Minerals Management Service National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Research Council Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 FERC s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan FERC s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal Texas Parks and Wildlife Division United States United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey - iii - November 2010

31 Draft Resource Report 3 RESOURCE REPORT 3 -- FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION Filing Requirement Describe commercial and recreational warmwater, coldwater, and saltwater fisheries in the affected area and associated significant habitats such as spawning or rearing areas and estuaries. ( (e) (1)) Describe terrestrial habitats, including wetlands, typical wildlife habitats, and rare, unique, or otherwise significant habitats that might be affected by the proposed action. Describe typical species that have commercial, recreational, or aesthetic value. ( (e) (2)) Describe and provide the affected acreage of vegetation cover types that would be affected, including unique ecosystems or communities such as remnant prairie or old-growth forest, or significant individual plants, such as old-growth specimen trees. ( (e) (3)) Describe the impact of construction and operation on aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats, including the possibility of a major alteration to ecosystems or biodiversity, and any potential impact on state-listed endangered or threatened species. Describe the impact of maintenance, clearing and treatment of the project area on fish, wildlife, and vegetation. Surveys may be required to determine specific areas of significant habitats or communities of species of special concern to state or local agencies. ( (e) (4)) Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species and critical habitat that potentially occur in the vicinity of the project. Discuss the results of the consultation requirements listed in Sec (b) at least through Sec (b)(5)(i) and include any written correspondence that resulted from the consultation. The initial application must include the results of any required surveys unless seasonal considerations make this impractical. If species surveys are impractical, there must be field surveys to determine the presence of suitable habitat unless the entire project area is suitable habitat. ( (e) (5)) Identify all federally listed essential fish habitat (EFH) that potentially occurs in the vicinity of the project. Provide information on all EFH, as identified by the pertinent Federal fishery management plans, that may be adversely affected by the project and the results of abbreviated consultations with NMFS, and any resulting EFH assessments. ( (e) (6)) Describe site-specific mitigation measures to minimize impacts on fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation. ( (e) (7)) Include copies of correspondence not provided pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of this section, containing recommendations from appropriate Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies to avoid or limit impact on wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation, and the applicant s response to the recommendations. ( (e) (8)) Location in Environmental Report Section 3.2 Section 3.4 Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Table Section Section Section Appendix 1B in Resource Report 1 - iv - November 2010

32 Draft Resource Report FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION 3.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information regarding fish, wildlife and vegetation in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). In addition to fishery resources, vegetation, and wildlife that may be affected by the construction and operation of the Project, this report also describes threatened and endangered species that may occur within or near the facilities, potential impacts to these species, and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation for the Liquefaction Project was evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

33 Draft Resource Report FISH Fishery Classification The Project lies on the eastern edge of Sabine Pass Channel approximately 3.7 nautical miles (3.5 statute miles) north of its confluence with the Gulf of Mexico (FEIS). The fishery resources in the vicinity of the Project are classified as warmwater marine or estuarine. No new surface waterbodies will be crossed by the Project Fisheries of Special Concern In 1996, new habitat conservation provisions were added to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( Magnuson-Stevens Act ) that mandated the identification of Essential Fish Habitat ( EFH ) for managed species. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (16 United States Code 1802(10)). Fish species of special concern that occur in the vicinity of the Project include those with EFH designated in the Sabine Lake estuary and those of commercial and recreational value Estuarine Organisms Life histories of many Gulf fish species can be characterized as estuarine-dependent. These species typically spawn in the Gulf of Mexico, allowing their larvae to be carried inshore by currents. Juvenile fish generally remain in these estuarine nurseries for about a year, taking advantage of the greater availability of food and protection that estuarine habitats afford. Upon reaching maturity, estuarine fishes migrate to sea to spawn (returning to the estuary between spawnings), or migrate from the shallow estuaries to spend the rest of their lives in deeper offshore waters (Gunter, 1945). Estuary-dependent species potentially occurring within the SPLNG Terminal area include menhaden, shrimps, crabs, and sciaenids. True-estuarine fishes, which inhabit estuaries throughout their entire life, that are likely to occur within the study area include killifishes (Fundulus spp.) sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), silversides (Menidia beryllina), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), hardhead catfish (Arius felis), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysura), hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), puffer (Sphoeroides parvus), and ladyfish (Elops saurus). Non-estuarine dependent fishes, including coastal pelagic marine fishes and freshwater fishes, are also likely to occur in the vicinity of the Project to feed on the above listed species. The major coastal pelagic families occurring in the region are Carcarhinidae (requiem sharks), Elopidae (ladyfish), Engraulidae (anchovies), Clupeidae (herrings), Scombridae (mackerels and tunas), Carangidae (jacks and scads), Mugilidae (mullets), Pomatomidae (bluefish), and Rachycentridae (cobia). Coastal pelagic species traverse shelf waters of the region throughout the year. Some species form large schools (e.g., Spanish mackerel), while others travel singly or in smaller groups (e.g., cobia). The major freshwater families occurring in the region are Lepisosteidae (gars), Amidae (bowfins), Ictaluridae (catfishes), Angullidae November 2010

34 Draft Resource Report 3 (freshwater eels), Cyrinidae (minnows and carp), and Centrarchidae (sunfishes, basses, crappies) (Gosselink et al., 1979) Essential Fish Habitat EFH consists of waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (GSMFC, 2007). Specific habitats include all estuarine water and substrate (mud, sand, shell and rock); all associated biological communities, such as sub-tidal vegetation (seagrasses and algae) and the adjacent inter-tidal vegetation (marshes and mangroves). EFH represents areas of high economic importance due to the dependence of recreational and commercial fisheries directly and indirectly associated with these areas. Eight aquatic species are listed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ( GMFMC ) as managed fishery species that may occur within the Sabine Lake estuary. Table provides the relative abundance distributions of managed EFH species identified by the GMFMC for Sabine Lake (GSMFC, 2010). Based on relative abundance, only five species are known to be present. Species TABLE Managed EFH Species and Relative Abundance for Sabine Lake Low Salinity (Mar May) Increasing Salinity (June July) High Salinity (Aug Oct) Decreasing Salinity (Nov Feb) Common Name Scientific Name Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus A C A C A C C R Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Gulf stone crab Menippe mercenaria R R R R R R R R Pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus C R C C C C C C Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculates R R R R R C NP R Spiny lobster Panulirus argus NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP White shrimp Penaeus setiferus HA C HA C HA HA HA HA NP Not Present R Rare C Common A Abundant HA Highly Abundant Of the fish species considered by the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NOAA Fisheries ) to potentially occur within the SPLNG Terminal area, EFH habitat for these species consists of tidally influenced waters (estuarine water column) and tidally influenced marsh within the Project vicinity November 2010

35 Draft Resource Report 3 Table provides a list economically important marine fishery species also utilizing EFH areas for nursery and foraging habitat includes (GSMFC, 2010). TABLE Economically Important Marine Fishery Species Common Name Spotted seatrout Southern flounder Atlantic croaker Gelf menhaden Striped mullet Blue crab Scientific Name Cynoscion nebulosus Paralichthys lethostigma Micropogonias undulates Brevoortia patronus Mugil cephalus Callinectes sapidus Construction and Operation Impacts The only anticipated impacts to EFH and fishery resources would be potential alterations in salinity resulting from mid-ocean ballast water discharge. The significance of this alteration would depend on tidal and freshwater inflow conditions that occurred during the discharge. Even if this alteration in salinity occurs during contrasting conditions, impacts would be temporary and localized and would not be outside the optimal or tolerable ranges of the marine species known to occur within the marine berth. In accordance with the literature, rules and regulations as presented in Resource Report 2, Section , Sabine Pass will rely upon the federal oversight and regulations that govern ballast water discharge into U.S. waters. Assuming that the ships that visit the SPLNG Terminal facility adhere to ballast water rules and regulations, no impacts to fishery resources are anticipated as documented in the Export EA. Estuarine aquatic species are adapted to living in a dynamic environment supporting both freshwater and seawater conditions. Estuarine salinities can range from freshwater (0.5 ppt) near the source of freshwater input to full seawater (30 to 40 ppt) (Patillo et al., 1995). These fluctuations in salinity are an integral part of an estuary and organisms have evolved responding to these variations. Salinity has traditionally been a central parameter for estuarine analysis, particularly as an indicator of habitat potential (Patillo et al., 1995). This habitat potential is often determined by the aquatic organism s ability to tolerate salinity change. Certain aquatic organisms are more adapted to salinity fluctuations than others. Patillo et al. (1995) conducted a literature investigation in a quest to better document salinity ranges for aquatic organisms. This investigation included a review of all life stage requirements along with a tolerance range and optimum range for each. These salinity ranges are compared to open gulf seawater. Based on the research, the addition of ballast water would not affect a change in the salinity ranges uncommon or outside the optimal or tolerable ranges of the species listed as having EFH in the SPLNG Terminal area November 2010

36 Draft Resource Report 3 The FERC s FEIS concluded that construction and operation of the Project would not have a significant or long-term impact on the fishery resources of the Sabine Lake estuary and therefore no mitigation was necessary. Consistent with the original finding of the FEIS, and subsequent EAs, no additional impacts will occur to the fishery resources located within the Project area as a result of construction or operation activities. Incidental take of benthic organisms due to entrainment during any maintenance dredging of the construction dock area will not be extensive enough to have a significant impact on the fishery resources of the area. Dredging is not expected to noticeably increase turbidity in the already turbid waters of Sabine Pass Channel. 3.3 WILDLIFE Terrestrial Resources Based on vegetative characteristics, the Project area is within two basic habitat types, emergent wetlands within former dredge material placement areas (DMPA) and industrial. Analysis of habitat types, rather than individual species, provides an ecologically meaningful method of evaluating Project-related impacts to wildlife resources. An overview of the wildlife resources of each Project-area habitat type is provided below. Emergent wetland habitats provide refuge for a variety of terrestrial and marshland vertebrates. Approximately five species of amphibians, 16 species of reptiles, 86 species of birds, and 10 species of mammals occur in similar habitats within the region (Gosselink et al. 1979). Habitats/community types classified as industrial provide minimal wildlife habitat. Due to a lack of diverse vegetative communities and high levels of human activity, industrial areas do not provide substantial forage or cover for wildlife. As such, no impacts to wildlife, including threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are expected to occur as a result of the Project Marine Resources In addition to the fisheries resources discussed in Section 3.2, a wide variety of vertebrate species may utilize open water habitats near the Project site. Those species that have the affinity or potential to occur with the marine environment are addressed in the following sections Marine Mammals A number of marine mammals are commonly observed in the Gulf of Mexico, some species with a greater affinity to coastal, inshore waters, while others are more commonly observed offshore in deeper, pelagic waters. Many species are also commonly observed in shipping channels in Texas and Louisiana, November 2010

37 Draft Resource Report 3 the most common and prolific being the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Marine mammal movements and migrations are often related to both the physical and biological attributes of the ocean, with animals avoiding extreme temperatures and following food sources. The productivity of EFH also attracts higher trophic levels, such as marine mammals. Enacted in October 21, 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) serves to protect all marine mammals, both in coastal waters and on the high seas. Twenty-nine species of marine mammals, including the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), have been observed in the Gulf of Mexico and are listed in Table TABLE Marine Mammals that Potentially Occur in the Gulf of Mexico Common Name Scientific Name Federal Texas Louisiana Depleted Inshore Northern Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis E E X O Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae E E X X Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus E E E X X Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis E E X Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata X Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus E E X O Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus E E E X X Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia simus T O Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps T Killer Whale Orcinus orca T X Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuate T Cuvier's Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris T Gervais' Beaked Whale Mesoplodon europaeus T Blainville's Beaked Whale Sowerby's Beaked Whale Mesoplodon densirostris Mesoplodon bidens Bryde's Whale Balaenoptera edeni X Short-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus T X False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens T O Melon-headed Whale Peponocephala electra Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stenella frontalis T X Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuate X Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba O Clymene Dolphin Stenella clymene November 2010

38 Draft Resource Report 3 TABLE Marine Mammals that Potentially Occur in the Gulf of Mexico Common Name Scientific Name Federal Texas Louisiana Depleted Inshore Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris X Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncates X Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus X Fraser's Dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Rough-toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis T West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E T = Threatened E = Endangered O = Occasional * Source: LDWF, 2005; TPWD, 2007; OPR, 2008; TMMSN, Sea Turtles Five of the world s seven sea turtle species have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico: green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta). All five species are listed as threatened or endangered by the federal and/or state governments. Table lists the status of the five known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (LDWF, 2005; TPWD, 2007; OPR, 2008). TABLE Federal and State Listed Sea Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico Common Name Scientific Name Federal Texas Louisiana Green turtle Chelonia mydas E/T T T Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E E Kemp s Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E E Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E E Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T T T T Threatened E Endangered November 2010

39 Draft Resource Report Threatened and Endangered Species Correspondence with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), USFWS, and NOAA specified nine listed species (see Table 3.3-3) as potentially occurring in the Project area. TABLE Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species that Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 1 State Facilities Where Species May Occur Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T Berthing area Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T T Berthing area Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata -- E Berthing area Kemp s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E Berthing area Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T T Berthing area Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T/E E Berthing area Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E Berthing area Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Berthing area Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E E Berthing area 1 T=Threatened; E= Endangered Sources: USFWS and LDWF In its initial review of the SPLNG Terminal, the LDWF indicated a potential for piping plover (Charadrius melodus) critical habitat to occur in the vicinity of the Project. The USFWS indicated the potential for the Kemp s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), a state and federally listed endangered species, to occur in the vicinity of the Project. In addition to the Kemp s ridley sea turtle, the NOAA identified the potential for the Project to impact four other listed sea turtles, including loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles. NOAA has also identified the potential for the Project to impact the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Each of these species as well as the potential for the Project to impact them is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Based on current consultations with the LDWF (LDWF, 2010) and USFWS (USFWS, 2010), no new threatened and endangered species have been identified. Further, the LDWF and USFWS concur that there will be no effect on these species as a result of construction and operation of the Project (LDWF, 2010; USFWS, 2010). Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix 1B of Resource Report November 2010

40 Draft Resource Report Piping Plover Piping plovers are small shorebirds that breed in the northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, along beaches of the Great Lakes, and along the Atlantic coastline from North Carolina to Newfoundland (Haig and Oring 1987). The piping plover is considered a regular migrant and winter resident along the Gulf coast, arriving in mid - to late July (Oberholser 1974, Haig and Oring 1985). Over-wintering and nesting sites include bare to sparsely vegetated sandy beaches, sandbars, causeways, tidal flats, mud flats, sand flats, dunes, offshore spoil islands and salt encrusted bare areas of sand, gravel, or pebbly mud on interior alkali lakes and ponds (USFWS 1995). No mud flats or critical habitat will be impacted by the Project; therefore no impacts to piping plovers are expected to occur Kemp s Ridley Sea Turtle Adult and juvenile Kemp s ridleys are primarily restricted to the Gulf of Mexico, although juveniles have been recorded from throughout the Atlantic Ocean (Brongersma 1972, Musick 1979). Nesting occurs from April through July and is essentially limited to an 11-mile stretch of coastline near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS 2003). Although it does not nest in Louisiana, the estuarine and offshore waters of Louisiana are considered important foraging areas for this species (NMFS 2003). Adults are primarily shallow-water benthic feeders that specialize on portunid crabs (NMFS 2003). Other food items include shrimp, snails, bivalves, sea urchins, jellyfish, sea stars, fish, and occasionally marine plants (Pritchard and Marquez 1973, Campbell 1995). Juveniles typically feed on Sargassum spp. and associated infauna (USFWS and NMFS 1992). During the non-breeding season, Kemp s ridley sea turtles prefer warm bays, shallow coastal waters, tidal rivers, estuaries, and seagrass beds (LDWF 2003) with substrates of sand and mud (NMFS 2003). According to correspondence with the USFWS, juvenile Kemp s ridleys are generally found in Louisiana s coastal waters from May through October, whereas adults are common during the spring and summer near the mouth of the Mississippi River. In the winter, Kemp s ridleys typically move offshore to deeper, warmer waters, but some of the deepwater channels and estuaries in Louisiana might provide important thermal refuge (LDWF 2003). The probability of the Kemp s ridley sea turtle nesting in the Project area is very low due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat (i.e., sandy beaches). During the non-breeding season, however, there is a moderate probability of this species occurring in the open water habitat type. According to correspondence with the USFWS, Kemp s ridleys are common in Louisiana s coastal waters and they have been reported within both Sabine and Calcasieu Lakes Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle favors warm temperate and sub-tropical regions (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a) and is widely distributed in tropical and subtropical seas (Rebel, 1974; Ross, 1982). This species typically occurs over the continental shelf, and in bays, estuaries, lagoons, creeks, and mouths of rivers, but has been found as far as 500 miles offshore (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). In the continental U.S., November 2010

41 Draft Resource Report 3 loggerheads nest along the Atlantic coast from Florida to as far north as New Jersey (Musick, 1979) and sporadically along the Gulf coast (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Nesting occurs primarily on barrier islands adjacent to continental landmasses in warm-temperate and sub-tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Nest sites are typically located on open sandy beaches above the mean high tide and seaward of well-developed dunes. Adults occupy a variety of habitats, ranging from turbid bays to clear waters of reefs, whereas subadults occur mainly in nearshore and estuarine waters (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Hatchlings move directly to sea after hatching, and often float in masses of sargassum (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Loggerheads diet consists of a wide variety of benthic and pelagic food items, including conches, shellfish, horseshoe crabs, prawns and other crustacea, squid, sponges, jellyfish, basket starts, fish, and hatchling loggerheads (Rebel, 1974; Hughes, 1974; Mortimer, 1982). The probability of the loggerhead sea turtle nesting in the Project area is very low due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat (i.e., sandy beaches). Because loggerheads are known to occur in turbid bays, there is a moderate probability of this species occurring within the Sabine Lake estuary and, more specifically, the Project site Green Sea Turtle Green sea turtles have a circumglobal distribution in tropical and sub-tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS, 1991b). In the U.S., this species occurs in the Atlantic around the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the continental U.S. from Massachusetts to Texas (NMFS and USFWS, 1991b). Green sea turtles utilize shallow estuarine habitats and other areas with an abundance of marine algae and seagrasses, their principal food sources (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999). Terrestrial habitats are limited to nesting sites, which are typically located on high-energy beaches with deep sand and little organic content (NMFS and USFWS, 1991b). Hatchlings often float in masses of sea plants (e.g., Sargassum) in convergence zones, using coral reefs and rocky outcrops near feeding pastures as resting areas (NMFS and FWS, 1991b). Adult green turtles typically inhabit shallow bays and estuaries where seagrasses, their principal food source, grow (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999). There is a moderate probability of this species occurring in the open water habitats of the Project site. However, nesting within the Project site is highly unlikely, as green sea turtles prefer to nest on high-energy beaches with deep sand and little organic content (NMFS and USFWS, 1991b) Hawksbill Sea Turtle The hawksbill sea turtle occurs in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean, regularly occurring in southern Florida and the northern Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2003). Hawksbills generally inhabit coastal reefs, bays, rocky areas, passes, estuaries, and lagoons, where they are found at depths of less than 70 ft (NMFS, 2003). Hatchlings are usually associated with floating masses of sargassum in the open ocean (NFWL, 1980) November 2010

42 Draft Resource Report 3 Coral reefs and other hard substrates (i.e., jetties and rocky outcrops) are the most common foraging habitats of juveniles, subadults, and adults, as their diet consists primarily of sponges (NMFS, 2003). Nesting occurs on undisturbed, deep-sand beaches, from high-energy ocean beaches to tiny pocket beaches several meters wide bounded by crevices of cliff walls; these beaches are typically low-energy, with woody vegetation near the waterline (National Research Council (NRC), 1990). In the continental U.S., nesting sites are restricted to Florida where nesting is sporadic at best (NFWL, 1980). Due to the lack of suitable foraging and nesting habitats, there is a low probability of this species occurring within the Project area Leatherback Sea Turtle The leatherback sea turtle has been found in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans; as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, Great Britain and Norway; as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina; and in other water bodies such as the Mediterranean Sea (NFWL, 1980). Leatherbacks are mainly pelagic, inhabiting the open ocean and seldom entering coastal waters except for nesting purposes (Eckert, 1992). The leatherback typically nests on beaches with a deepwater approach (Pritchard, 1971). Leatherbacks nest primarily in tropical regions; major nesting beaches include Malaysia, Mexico, French Guiana, Surinam, Costa Rica, and Trinidad (Ross, 1982). In the continental U.S., leatherbacks nest only sporadically in some of the Atlantic and Gulf states (Schwartz, 1976); the largest U.S. nesting assemblages are found in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida (NMFS, 2003). Because the Project site lacks suitable nesting habitats, there is a low probability of this species occurring within the Project area Gulf Sturgeon Historically, Gulf sturgeon occurred in most river systems from the Mississippi River east to the Suwanee River in Florida (Wooley and Crateau, 1985) and in marine waters of the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico, south to Florida Bay (USFWS and GSMFC, 1995). At present, however, this species has been significantly reduced throughout its range (Barkuloo, 1988). Gulf sturgeon are anadromous, migrating into rivers from the Gulf of Mexico when river water temperatures increase to about 16 C in the spring to spawn (Foster, 1993; USFWS and GSMFC, 1995). Within riverine environments, this demersal species prefers deepwater pools with swift cross-currents and soft substrates (USFWS and GSMFC, 1995). Within estuarine/marine environments, the Gulf sturgeon is typically associated with muddy to sandy bottoms and seagrass habitats (Mason and Clugston, 1993). The diet of this species consists mainly of benthic invertebrates (USFWS and GSMFC, 1995). According to the USFWS and GSMFC (1995), the range of this species does not extend west of the Mississippi River, thus excluding the Project site. Furthermore no extant occurrence have been recorded from the Sabine River basin (USFWS and GSMFC, 1995). Therefore, there is a very low probability of this species occurring in the vicinity of or being affected by the Project. Furthermore, no critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon has been designated in the vicinity of the Project November 2010

43 Draft Resource Report Smalltooth Sawfish The smalltooth sawfish has a circumtropical distribution and is known to occur in both shallow coastal and estuarine habitats. In the western Atlantic, the smalltooth sawfish has been reported from Brazil through the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, and along the Atlantic coast of the United States (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Vander Elst 1981, Compagno and Cook 1995). Smalltooth sawfish typically occur in nearshore or inshore waters, seldom descending to depths greater than 10 meters. This species is typically associated with muddy to sandy bottoms over inshore bars, or in mangrove edges and seagrass beds of sheltered bays, estuaries, or river mouths. Sawfish generally feed on whatever small schooling fish are locally abundant (i.e., mullets and the smaller members of the herring family) (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). This species also is known to feed on crustacea and other bottom dwelling invertebrates (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Historically, this species was common in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico, especially near river mouths and in large bays (Walls, 1975). Over the past century, however, Gulf populations have been reduced by fishing and habitat degradation, and currently smalltooth sawfish are primarily found in southern Florida in the everglades and Florida keys. Consequently, there is a very low probability of this species occurring in the vicinity of the Project Sperm Whale The International Whale Commission ( IWC ) recognizes four populations of sperm whales worldwide: North Pacific, North Atlantic, Northern Indian Ocean, and southern hemisphere (NMFS 2002, Davis et al. 200a, b). GulfCet II was a program that used extensive aerial surveys and shipboard visual and acoustic surveys to document cetacean populations in the offshore waters of the north-central and western Gulf of Mexico (Davis et al. 200a, b). According to estimates based on these surveys, there is an annual abundance of 530 sperm whales in the GulfCetII study area (Davis et al. 200a, b). In the northwestern Atlantic, sperm whales are distributed in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone over the continental shelf edge, the continental slope, and into the mid-ocean regions. Sperm whales generally occur in waters greater than 590 ft (180 m) deep, preferring continental margins, sea mounts, and areas of upwelling where food is abundant (NMFS 2002, Davis et al. 200a, b). Sperm whales have been sighted throughout the open Gulf, most commonly aggregated along the 3,280-ft (1,000 m) isobath (MMS and USGS 2000). Sperm whales do not occur in the relatively shallow waters in the vicinity of the Project Construction and Operation Impacts Habitat Effects The primary impact of construction and operation of the proposed facilities on wildlife resources will be the temporary alteration and permanent loss of Project-area habitats. Table quantifies Projectrelated impacts on these habitat areas November 2010

44 Draft Resource Report 3 TABLE Habitats and Industrial Areas Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project Habitat Type/Name Habitat Affected (acres) Construction 1 Operation 2 Soil Improvement Area DMPA / Emergent Wetlands Industrial areas Sub-Total Existing Industrial Areas Total Construction area includes the entire construction footprint, including previously disturbed/converted industrial areas and acres for the sixth LNG tank (S-106), approved in Docket CP et al., and within the soil improvement area. Operational area includes only new area being converted to industrial use for the permanent Project facilities. Sabine Pass will implement the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan ( Plan ) and the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction Mitigation Procedures ( Procedures ) to avoid/minimize off-site impacts. Construction of the Project facilities will involve conversion of acres of emergent wetland/dmpa habitat to industrial use, which will be unsuitable for use by wildlife. Other than a permanent loss of habitat, Sabine Pass does not expect wildlife to be impacted by the operation of the Project. Operation of the Project facilities will involve frequent berthing of large ships and large-vessel traffic in Sabine Pass Channel, but such activities are already common in the vicinity of the Project and therefore a significant impact due solely to the Project is not expected. The acreage of wildlife habitat lost due to the Project is not expected to significantly impact the faunal resources of the area and therefore no mitigation is necessary. The Project site is fully encompassed by areas that provide similar and ample habitats for wildlife displaced during and after construction of the Project facilities. Furthermore, these undeveloped lands will prevent the Project from having any cumulative impacts on the region s wildlife. Permanent impacts to wetland habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE will be mitigated for through the creation of similar habitats at a ratio prescribed by the USACE. The FERC concluded in its FEIS and the Phase II and Export EAs there is a low probability of these [listed] species occurring in the vicinity of the Project. The FERC also identified the "most likely effect on marine mammals [and turtles] is for LNG ships to strike a whale or turtle " and stated, "LNG ships would represent an incrementally small increase in boat traffic over current conditions " due to the number of large ships and large-vessel traffic in the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Since such activities November 2010

45 Draft Resource Report 3 already are common in the vicinity of the Project, a significant impact to marine organisms due solely to the Project is not expected Vessel Strikes The probability of marine mammals and sea turtles encountering LNG vessels in the open ocean is inherently low due to their ability to avoid on-coming vessels coupled with their overall rarity. LNG vessels traveling to the SPLNG Terminal site will use established and well-traveled shipping lanes, thus reducing the potential for collisions because the existing vessel traffic likely deters these species from occupying these areas. To further minimize the potential for collisions, Sabine Pass will provide LNG ship captains with the NOAA issued document entitled "Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners, NOAA Fisheries Service (2008)", which outlines collision avoidance measures. Examples of measures to be taken in order to avoid collisions with marine mammals or sea turtles include: Vessel operators and crews should maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and sea turtles to avoid striking sighted protected species. When whales are sighted, maintain a distance of 100 yards or greater between the whale and the vessel. When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, attempt to maintain a distance of 50 yards or greater between the animal and the vessel whenever possible. When small cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway (e.g., bow-riding), attempt to remain parallel to the animal s course. Avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, groups, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel, when safety permits. A single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity; therefore, prudent precautionary measures should always be exercised. The vessel should attempt to route around the animals, maintaining a minimum distance of 100 yards whenever possible. Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly moving vessels. When an animal is sighted in the vessel s path or in close proximity to a moving vessel and when safety permits, reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Do not engage the engines until the animals are clear of the area. With implementation of the measures identified by NOAA Fisheries plan, Sabine Pass does not anticipate any significant impacts associated with LNG vessel traffic November 2010

46 Draft Resource Report Ballast Water Estuarine organisms or marine wildlife that are likely to occur within the Project vicinity were evaluated to determine if changes in salinity from ballast water discharge would result in adverse impacts. Salinity ranges for representative species of fish (the primary food supply for marine wildlife) were obtained and compared to that of open ocean salinities likely to be discharged via ballast water. Results of this investigation suggest that species likely to occur within the SPLNG Terminal marine berth area are highly adapted to salinity changes and that seawater is well within their tolerance range. This applies to those species identified and managed by the GMFMC. Since the fishery species that the marine wildlife depends upon as a food source is not anticipated to be impacted by ballast water discharges, it is concluded that the marine wildlife would also not be impacted by the discharge. Additionally, since marine mammals and sea turtles breathe air and are highly motile, impacts to these species are not likely to occur. These species can simply avoid or move from the area should conditions become temporarily unfavorable. However, any movement as a result of ballast water discharge is highly unlikely. The SPLNG Terminal is designed and approved to service up to 400 LNG carriers in a single year. The actual number of LNG carriers used to export LNG will vary depending on the capacity of the LNG carriers, the production rate of the liquefaction trains, and if both Stages of the Project are developed. A range of the potential number of LNG carriers to be used in exporting LNG can be developed on the basis of the assumption that each liquefaction train produces 4 million metric tons per annum, such that the Stage I of the Project, 8 million metric tons of LNG would be produced and upon completion of Stage II, 16 million metric tons of LNG would be produced. One cubic meter of LNG is equal to metric tons, therefore the capacity of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG carrier would be 57,500 metric tons and 122,360 metric tons for the 266,000 cubic meter capacity LNG carrier. Assuming that the LNG carriers will only take on 95 percent of the cargo capacity of the carrier (since some percentage is required as heel in the cargo tanks), LNG carriers ranging from 125,000 to 266,000 cubic meters could take on LNG cargos ranging from approximately 54,625 metric tons to approximately 116,242 metric tons. This translates into a range of LNG cargos of approximately or 147 to approximately 68.8 or 69 LNG cargos to export the 8 million metric tons of LNG produced by Stage I of the Project. The number would double for the combined output of Stages I and II of the Project. Assuming that the ballast water is approximately 50 percent of the weight of the LNG cargo to be loaded, tha amount of ballast water to be unloaded during LNG cargo loading would range from approximately 27,312.5 to 58,121 metric tons of sea water for each LNG cargo exported from the Project. Assuming that seawater is metric tons per cubic meter, then the range of ballast water to be released during each LNG cargo loading would range from approximately 26, to 56, cubic meters. If one cubic meter equals U.S. gallons, then the amount of ballast to be released during loading of each LNG cargo would range from to million gallons for LNG carriers ranging in size from 125,000 to 266,000 cubic meters. Although ballast discharge will consist of close to or slightly higher salinity levels normally occurring in the SPLNG Terminal marine berth area, four factors will act to minimize any negative effects on marine November 2010

47 Draft Resource Report 3 life. First, examination of critical marine species shows that ballast water salinity will be within the salinity range tolerated by these species. Thus, temporary spikes in salinity are not anticipated to adversely affect fish and other marine organisms. Second, ballast water will be discharged near the bottom of the waterway, where salinity levels are naturally higher and the ballast water can enter the saltwater wedge and move toward the open gulf. Third, as the ships move into and out of the marine berth, the amount of water displaced by the ship (on average 110,000 tons per vessel) will be circulated into, around and out of the berth and will facilitate rapid mixing of any ballast water and flushing of the marine berth on a per ship basis. The net effect is enhanced and rapid dilution of any ballast water upon departure of the LNG vessel. Finally, the amount of freshwater flowing into the SPLNG Terminal marine berth from the Neches and Sabine Rivers, as well as other freshwater sources, greatly exceeds anticipated ballast discharge. Thus, the ballast water will be quickly diluted to ambient salinity. Therefore, any effects on salinity are expected to be temporary and localized, and are not expected to have any negative effects on the marine life in and around the SPLNG Terminal. To minimize and avoid potential impacts to wildlife species that could result from ballast water discharges, Sabine Pass will adhere to any and all ballast water rules and regulations and will ensure that any visiting ships provide documentation to demonstrate their compliance with ballast water regulations and best management practices prior to allowing any ballast water to be discharged into the SPLNG Terminal marine berth Threatened and Endangered Species Construction and operation of the Project is not expected to significantly impact any threatened or endangered species and therefore no mitigation is proposed. The LDWF and USFWS have concurred (LDWF, 2010; USFWS, 2010). Maintenance dredging associated with the construction dock will impact approximately 6 acres of open water habitat. The impacts associated with this activity will be minimal, as the maintenance dredge will only deepen the existing muddy-bottomed habitat. Therefore, no significant loss of habitat due to the construction of the Project is anticipated November 2010

48 Draft Resource Report MIGRATORY AND NON-MIGRATORY BIRDS The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTA ), originally passed in 1918, implements the U.S. commitment to four bilateral treaties, or conventions, for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource, protecting more than 800 species of birds. The MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Take is defined in regulations as to: pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.13). Executive Order (January 2001) directs federal agencies to consider the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, with emphasis on bird species of concern. Migratory birds follow broad routes called flyways between breeding grounds in Canada and the U.S. and wintering grounds in Central and South America. The SPLNG Terminal is at the western edge of the Mississippi flyway and the eastern edge of the Central flyway. The Mississippi flyway extends from Alaska and central Canada to Patagonia, South America, with the eastern boundary along the Mississippi River and the western boundary extending through portions of Nebraska, Louisiana, and Arkansas. The Central flyway extends from Alaska and Canada into Mexico, bounded on the west by the Rocky Mountains, and to the east along the Mississippi flyway. The northern Gulf Coast is an important stopover for the Mississippi flyway, where the Trans-Gulf migrants cross the Gulf of Mexico. Preferred stopover habitat for trans-gulf migrants in the Gulf Coast are woodlands with a developed understory and riparian bottomland (Moore et al. 1990), although other habitat types are used, depending on the species. The existing SPLNG Terminal does not currently provide preferred habitat for migratory or nonmigratory birds, although the DMPA may provide some marginal habitat. Construction and operation of the liquefaction facilities will require conversion of the existing DMPA to industrial use. Sabine Pass has consulted with the USFWS regarding potential Project impacts on migratory birds and any mitigating actions that may be required. No concerns or mitigative measures were identified by the USFWS (see Appendix 1B in Resource Report 1). 3.5 VEGETATION Existing Resources Analysis of vegetation types in the Project area is limited to the emergent wetlands associated within the DMPA. A listing of representative plant species that occur in these emergent wetlands includes, but is not limited to, the following species: Bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), Bog rush (Juncus marginatus), Sea oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), November 2010

49 Draft Resource Report 3 Seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum), Broad-leaf signal grass (Brachiaria platyphylla), Jointed flatsedge (Cyperus articulatus), Rusty flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus), Dewberry (Rubus spp.), Retrorose flatsedge (Cyperus retrorsus), Curly dock (Rumex crispus), Green flatsedge (Cyperus virens), Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Bulrush (Scirpus robustus), Seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), and Soft rush (Juncus effusus) Construction and Operation Impacts Sabine Pass will implement the FERC Plan and the FERC Procedures to avoid/minimize off-site impacts to vegetation. However, construction and operation of the Project facilities will involve the conversion of acres of emergent wetlands within the former DMPA. Sabine Pass will mitigate for these impacts through offsite mitigation, most likely within the Petit Bois mitigation bank in USACE, New Orleans District. The permanent loss of acres of emergent wetland vegetation within the former DMPA is not expected to have a significant impact on the vegetative resources of the Project area due to the abundance of nearby habitat and therefore no additional mitigation is proposed or necessary. Other than permanent removal of vegetation, operation of the Project facilities is not expected to have any impacts on Project area vegetation. 3.6 REFERENCES Auil-Marshalleck, S., P. Campbell, and L. Butler Trends in Texas commercial fishery landings, , Management Data Series No. 206, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Division, Austin Texas. Barkuloo, J.M Report on the conservation status of the Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Panama City, Florida. 33 pp. Bartlett, R.D. and P.P. Bartlett A field guide to Texas reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. 331 pp. Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder Sawfishes, guitarfishes, skates and rays, pp In: Tee- Van, J., C.M Breder, A.E. Parr, W.C. Schroeder and L.P. Schultz (eds). Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part Two. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. I. Brongersma, L.D European Atlantic turtles. Zool. Verhl pp November 2010

50 Draft Resource Report 3 Compagno, L.J.V. and S.F. Cook The exploitation and conservation of freshwater elasmobranchs: status of taxa and prospects for the future. In: (M.I. Oetinger and G.D. Zurzi, edcs.) The biology of freshwater elasmobranchs. The Journal of Aquariculture and Aquatic Science 7: Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Wursig, eds. 2000a. Cetaceans, sea turtles, and sea birds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: distribution, abundance, and habitat associations. Volume I: Executive Summary. Prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS , 27 pp. Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Wursig, eds. 2000b. Cetaceans, sea turtles, and sea birds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: distribution, abundance, and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical Report. Prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS , 346 pp. Eckert, S.A Bound for deepwater. Natural History, March 1992, pp Foster, A.M Movement of Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida. Master s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL. 131 pp. Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons An ecological characterization study of the Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. Volume 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/9. Green, L.M., G. Lewis, and R.P. Campbell Trends in finfish landings of sport-boat anglers in Texas marine waters, May 1974-May 1998, Management Data Series No. 204, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Division, Austin Texas. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) Gulf of Mexico coastal and ocean zones strategic assessment: Data atlas. NOAA, Strategic Assessment Branch of National Ocean Service and Southeast Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service. GMFMC Generic amendment for addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery, Red Drum Fishery, Reef Fish Fishery, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerals), Stone Crab Fishery, Spiny Lobster, and Coral and Coral Reefs. Prepared by the GMFMC, October GMFMC NOAA Fisheries Service Galveston Laboratory Sabine Lake Estuary EFH Abundance Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring Distribution and status of the piping plover throughout the annual cycle. J. Field Ornithol. 56(4): November 2010

51 Draft Resource Report 3 Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring The piping plover. In: 1987 Audubon Wildlife Report. National Audubon Society, Academic Press, New York, pp Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) Kemp s Ridley sea turtle. Available on the internet: Accessed 5 September LDWF, 2010, July 15. Telephone conversation with Chris Davis, LDWF with Karri Mahmoud, Sabine Pass. Mason, W.T. and J.P. Clugston Foods of the Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. Transactions of the North American Fisheries Society 122: Minerals Management Service and U.S. Geological Survey (MMS and USGS) Cetaceans, Sea Turtles and Seabirds in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat Associations. Volume I, USGS/BRD/CR , OCS Study MMS Moore, F. R., P. Kerlinger, T. R. Simons Stopover on a Gulf Coast Barrier Island by Spring Transgulf Migrants. The Wilson Bulletin. 102(3): Musick, J The marine turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural history. Educational Series No. 24. Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 18 pp. Musick, J The marine turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural history. Educational Series No. 24. Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 18 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Final Secretarial Fishery Management Plan Regulatory Impact Review Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. December Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Svc. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Information on sea turtles. Available on the Internet: Accessed 5 September Nightingale, B. and C.A. Simenstad Executive summary- Dredging activities: marine issues. Washington State Transportation Center Technical Report prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission and the U.S. Department of Transportation WA-RD National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory (NFWL) Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-80/01. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (Gulf of Mexico). NMFS Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Fl. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Information on sea turtles. Available on the Internet: Accessed 5 September November 2010

52 Draft Resource Report 3 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 64 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 52 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS) Recovery plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS) Recovery plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Stock Assessment Reports (SAR.F) by SpeciedStock < nmji noaa.go1~/profiles/pr2/siock~assessment~pro~ran~/individualsars. htmb. Accessed April National Research Council (NRC) Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 259 pp. Oberholser, H.C The bird life of Texas. Vol. 2. University of Texas Press, Austin pp. Pritchard, P.C.H The leatherback or leathery turtle Dermochelys coriacea. IUCN Monograph No. 1. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland. 39 pp. Rebel, T. P Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. Miami Press. Coral Gables, Florida. 250 pages. Ross, J.P Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. In: K. Bjorndal (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Pp Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp. Schwartz, F Status of sea turtles, Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae, in North Carolina. Abstr. In Proceedings and abstracts from the 73rd meeting of the North Carolina Academy of Science, Inc., April 2-3, 1976, at the Univ. N. Carolina, Wilmington, N. Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 92(2): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical habitat for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus): Louisiana unit 01. Available on the internet: Accessed on 5 September November 2010

53 Draft Resource Report 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and NMFS) Recovery plan for the Kemp s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 40 pp. Van der Elst, R A Guide to the Common Sea Fishes of Southern Africa. C. Struik, Cape Town, South Africa. Walls, Jerry G Fishes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. T.F.H. Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management of Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, Apalachicola River, Florida. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. pp November 2010

54 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 4 Cultural Resources Docket No. PF November 2010

55 Draft Resource Report 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION AGENCY CONSULTATION NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES PLAN REFERENCES... 3 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Consultations with SHPO Regarding Cultural Resources...2 TABLE Consultations with SHPO Regarding the Unanticipated Discovery Plan i - November 2010

56 Draft Resource Report 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Export EA FEIS FERC or Commission LNG Phase II EA Project Sabine Pass SHPO SPLNG Terminal Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission liquefied natural gas Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal - ii - November 2010

57 Draft Resource Report 4 RESOURCE REPORT 4 -- CULTURAL RESOURCES Filing Requirement Resource Report 4 must contain: ( (f) (1)) (i) Documentation of the applicant's initial cultural resources consultation, including consultations with Native Americans and other interested persons (if appropriate); (ii) Overview and Survey Reports, as appropriate; (iii) Evaluation Report, as appropriate; (iv) Treatment Plan, as appropriate; and (v) Written comments from State Historic Preservation Officer(s) (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), as appropriate, and applicable land-managing agencies on the reports in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)- (iv) of this section. The initial application must include the Documentation of initial cultural resource consultation, the Overview and Survey Reports, if required, and written comments from SHPOs, THPOs and land-managing agencies, if available. The initial cultural resources consultations should establish the need for surveys. If surveys are deemed necessary by the consultation with the SHPO/THPO, the survey report must be filed with the application. ( (f) (2)) (i) If the comments of the SHPOs, THPOs, or land-management agencies are not available at the time the application is filed, they may be filed separately, but they must be filed before a final certificate is issued. (ii) If landowners deny access to private property and certain areas are not surveyed, the unsurveyed area must be identified by mileposts, and supplemental surveys or evaluations shall be conducted after access is granted. In such circumstances, reports, and treatment plans, if necessary, for those inaccessible lands may be filed after a certificate is issued. The Evaluation Report and Treatment Plan, if required, for the entire project must be filed before a final certificate is issued. ( (f) (3)) (i) The Evaluation Report may be combined in a single synthetic report with the Overview and Survey Reports if the SHPOs, THPOs, and landmanagement agencies allow and if it is available at the time the application is filed. (ii) In preparing the Treatment Plan, the applicant must consult with the Commission staff, the SHPO, and any applicable THPO and landmanagement agencies. (iii) Authorization to implement the Treatment Plan will occur only after the final certificate is issued. Applicant must request privileged treatment for all material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership information about cultural resources in accordance with Sec of this chapter. The cover and relevant pages or portions of the report should be clearly labeled in bold lettering: CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE. ( (f) (4)) Location in Environmental Report Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Section i - November 2010

58 Draft Resource Report 4 RESOURCE REPORT 4 -- CULTURAL RESOURCES Filing Requirement Except as specified in a final Commission order, or by the Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation, construction may not begin until all cultural resource reports and plans have been approved. ( (f) (5)) Location in Environmental Report -- - ii - November 2010

59 Draft Resource Report CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information of cultural resources investigations conducted in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). This report summarizes completed consultations for cultural resources determinations and protective measures incorporated by Sabine Pass. Cultural resources for the Liquefaction Project were evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

60 Draft Resource Report AGENCY CONSULTATION The Project will be constructed entirely within the 853-acre SPLNG Terminal site. Sabine Pass conducted cultural resource survey investigations of the SPLNG Terminal site in 2004 and documented these findings in survey reports that were submitted to the FERC and the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology ( SHPO ) in August 2004 (Turner & Latham, 2004). The SHPO determined that there would be no effect on cultural resources from construction at the SPLNG Terminal site (SHPO, 2005a) and reconfirmed its conclusion in 2005 for the Phase II Project facilities, and in 2008 for the Export facilities. Further, on June 17, 2010, Sabine Pass contacted the SHPO to introduce the Liquefaction Project. In a response to that letter, the SHPO determined that no known historic properties will be affected by this undertaking as proposed (SHPO, 2010) (see Appendix 1D in Resource Report 1). Table summarizes these consultations. TABLE Consultations with SHPO Regarding Cultural Resources Submittal Date Submitted Date of Clearance Response Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report August 27, 2004 January 12, 2005 Request for clearance for construction and operation of the Phase II Project facilities Request for clearance for construction and operation of the Export facilities Introduction of proposed construction and operation of the Liquefaction Project facilities June 13, 2005 July 6, 2005 September 29, 2008 November 18, 2008 June 17, 2010 July 2, 2010 Copies of the SHPO clearance letters have been submitted to the Commission in the appropriate dockets and acknowledged in the FEIS, Phase II EA, and Export EA. Because the entire 853-acre SPLNG Terminal site has been cleared for cultural resources and the Project will be located within this site, the Project will not affect any known cultural resources. 4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION Six Native American groups were consulted in 2003 regarding development of the SPLNG Terminal site and again in 2005 as part of the Phase II Expansion. The groups contacted were identified through consultation and recommendations of the SHPO and background research, and included the following: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Jena Band of Choctaw Caddo Nation November 2010

61 Draft Resource Report 4 Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Tunica-Biloxi Tribe None of the Native American groups expressed objections with construction at the SPLNG Terminal site, or with the addition of facilities associated with the Phase II Project, in 2003 and 2004, respectively. 4.4 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES PLAN As part of construction of the SPLNG Terminal facilities, Sabine Pass implemented an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan to address measures that would be taken should cultural resources or human remains be inadvertently discovered during construction. This plan was approved by the SHPO in August 2004 and July 2005 (see Table 4.4-1), and was submitted to and approved by FERC under the applicable dockets. Sabine Pass will implement this approved plan for the Liquefaction Project to ensure there is no impact to cultural resources or human remains should they be found during construction of the Project facilities. TABLE Consultations with SHPO Regarding the Unanticipated Discovery Plan Submittal Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal site Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for construction and operation of the Phase II facilities Date Submitted Date of Clearance Response April 5, 2004 August 16, 2004 June 13, 2005 July 18, REFERENCES Cheniere (on behalf of Sabine Pass) (Cheniere), 2004a. April 5, Letter from Brandy Lim (PBS&J) to Rachel Watson (SHPO) submitting the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the SPLNG Terminal facilities. Cheniere, 2004b. August 27, Letter from Shelley Jameson (PBS&J) to Pam Breaux (SHPO) transmitting Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report for the SPLNG Terminal site. Cheniere, 2005a. June 13, 2005a. Letter from Brandy Gibson (PBS&J) to Rachel Watson (SHPO) submitting the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the Phase II facilities. Cheniere. 2005b. June 13, 2005b. Letter from Brandy Gibson (PBS&J) to Rachel Watson (SHPO) requesting clearance on Phase II facilities November 2010

62 Draft Resource Report 4 Cheniere, September 29, Letter from Joey Mahmoud (Cheniere) to Duke Rivet (SHPO) requesting clearance on Export facilities. Cheniere, June 17, Letter from Karri Mahmoud (Cheniere) to Rachel Watson (SHPO) introducing the Liquefaction Project. Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology (SHPO), August 16, Letter from Pam Breaux (SHPO) to Kristi Turner (PBS&J) providing approval of the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the SPLNG Terminal facilities. SHPO, 2005a. January 12, Letter from Duke Rivet (SHPO) to Shelley Jameson (PBS&J) providing clearance on the Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the SPLNG Terminal site. SHPO, 2005b. July 18, Letter from Pam Breaux (SHPO) to Brandy Gibson (PBS&J) providing approval of the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the Phase II facilities. SHPO, 2005c. July 6, Letter from Pam Breaux (SHPO) to Brandy Gibson (PBS&J) providing clearance on the Phase II facilities. SHPO, November 18, Letter from Scott Hutcheson (SHPO) to Joey Mahmoud (Cheniere) providing clearance on the Export facilities. SHPO, July 2, Phil Boggan, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to K. Mahmoud (Cheniere) providing clearance on the Liquefaction Project facilities. Turner, K. E., and D. L. Latham. August A Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the Sabine Pass Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal and Pipeline Project, Cameron Parish, Louisiana November 2010

63 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 5 Socioeconomics Docket No. PF November 2010

64 Draft Resource Report 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 5.0 SOCIOECONOMICS INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS Population and Demographics Housing Economy and Employment Public Services SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Population, Employment, and Housing Economy and Tax Revenue Public Services Transportation and Traffic Displacement of Residences and Businesses Property Values ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REFERENCES...10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Existing Population and Demographic Conditions in the Project Area...2 TABLE Temporary Housing Units Available in the Project Area...3 TABLE Existing Income and Employment Conditions in the Project Areas...4 TABLE Public Service Data for the Project Area...4 TABLE Summary of Peak Construction and Operational Workforce...5 TABLE Estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts for SH i - November 2010

65 Draft Resource Report 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS Export EA FAA FEIS FERC or Commission LA LDOTD LNG LOS Phase II EA Project RV Sabine Pass SH SPLNG Terminal TX U.S. Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Federal Aviation Administration Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Louisiana Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development liquefied natural gas Level of Service Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Liquefaction Project recreational vehicle Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. State Highway Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal Texas United States - ii - November 2010

66 Draft Resource Report 5 RESOURCE REPORT 5 SOCIOECONOMICS Filing Requirement Location in Environmental Report Describe the socioeconomic impact area. ( (g)(1)) Section 5.2 Evaluate the impact of any substantial immigration of people on governmental facilities and services and plans to reduce the impact on the local infrastructure. ( (g)(2)) Section Describe on-site manpower requirements and payroll during construction and operation, including the number of construction personnel who currently reside within the impact area, would commute daily to the site from outside the impact area, or would relocate temporarily within the impact area. ( (g)(3)) Section Table Determine whether existing housing within the impact area is sufficient to meet the needs of the additional population. ( (g)(4)) Section Describe the number and types of residences and businesses that would be displaced by the project, procedures to be used to acquire these properties, and types and amounts of relocation assistance payments. ( (g)(5)) Section Conduct a fiscal impact analysis evaluating incremental local government expenditures in relation to incremental local government revenues that would result from construction of the project. Incremental expenditures include, but are not limited to, school operating costs, road maintenance and repair, public safety, and public utility costs. ( (g)(6)) Section iii - November 2010

67 Draft Resource Report SOCIOECONOMICS 5.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report describes the existing socioeconomic conditions, including population, employment, and housing, and the effects on tax revenues, public services, property values, traffic and transportation, and environmental justice issues associated with the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). Socioeconomic conditions were evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and gasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project. 5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Project area for the socioeconomic data presented in this resource report primarily focused on Cameron Parish where the Project will be located. However, because of their proximity to the Project, the November 2010

68 Draft Resource Report 5 Project area also includes the municipalities of Port Arthur in Jefferson County, Texas and Sulfur in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana Population and Demographics Sabine Pass is proposing to add liquefaction capability to the existing SPLNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Sabine Pass currently leases approximately 853 acres of private land for the existing SPLNG Terminal site. All proposed Project facilities will be constructed and operated within the existing 853-acre terminal site. Table provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic statistics and illustrates the range of population densities in each of the counties where the Project will be located. The statistics presented in Table represent the latest available data from the last comprehensive census, Census 2000, and American Community Census Surveys from Population density, an indication of the extent of development, consists of 7.6 persons per square mile in Cameron Parish, which is much lower than the state average of persons per square mile and Jefferson County, Texas (278.8 persons per square mile) and Calcasieu Parish (171.4 persons per square mile). TABLE Existing Population and Demographic Conditions in the Project Area Demographic Louisiana Cameron Parish,LA Calcasieu Parish, LA Jefferson County, TX 2009 Population 1 4,492,076 6, , , Population Density (persons per square mile) Population Change Since 2000 (percent) % Persons per household (2000) White Individuals (percent) Black or African American Individuals (percent) 2009 American Indian and Alaska Native Individuals (percent) 2009 Asian Individuals (percent) Individuals of Hispanic or Latino Origin (percent) 1 United States (U.S.) Census Bureau, Census QuickFacts, 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Census QuickFacts, 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Census QuickFacts, unless noted otherwise November 2010

69 Draft Resource Report Housing Table provides rental and other (non-rental) temporary housing options such as hotels, motels, campgrounds, and recreational vehicle (RV) parks. In 2008, the average housing vacancy rate for Louisiana was 14.2 percent (262,122 units). Vacancy rates for housing units in the Cameron Parish totaled 32.7 percent (1,744 units). Because it is not likely that Project construction workers would rent houses, the number of hotels and motels in the project area are also included in Table Cameron Parish has a total of seven hotels/motels and six campgrounds and RV parks. An additional 217 hotels/motels and 55 campgrounds and RV parks are available in Calcasieu Parish, LA and Jefferson County, TX. Housing Characteristics TABLE Temporary Housing Units Available in the Project Area Louisiana Cameron Parish,LA Calcasieu Parish, LA Jefferson County, TX Number of Vacant Housing Units 1, 2 262,122 1,744 9, Number of Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal, 1, Recreational, or Occasional Use (percent) Number of Renter Occupied Housing Units 1, 2 504, ,367 31,747 Number of Hotels/Motels 4 3, Number of Campgrounds and RV Parks U.S. Census Bureau, Census , Vacant Housing Unit: According to the U.S. Census Bureau s website glossary, a housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of enumeration, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. Units temporarily occupied at the time of enumeration entirely by people who have a usual residence elsewhere are also classified as vacant. Housing Unit: According to the U.S. Census Bureau s website glossary, a housing unit may be a house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters or vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use Housing Unit: According to the U.S. Census Bureau s American Community Survey 2008 Subject Definitions, seasonal, recreational, or occasional use housing units include vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekends or other occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal units include those used for summer or winter sports or recreation, such as beach cottages and hunting cabins. Seasonal units also may include quarters for such workers as herders and loggers. Interval ownership units, sometimes called shared ownership or time-sharing condominiums, are included in this category. YellowBook, 2010: Number of Hotels and Motels and Campgrounds and RV Parks as advertised on Actual numbers may vary U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Economy and Employment Table provides information on the economy and employment in the Project area November 2010

70 Draft Resource Report 5 TABLE Existing Income and Employment Conditions in the Project Areas Income Characteristic Louisiana Cameron Parish, LA Calcasieu Parish, LA Jefferson County, TX Per Capita Income (dollars) 1, 2 22,488 15,348 23,777 22, Population Below Poverty Level (percent) 1, Civilian Labor Force 1, 2 2,049,389 4,384 89, ,428 August 2010 Unemployment Rate (percent) 1, Major Industry 1, 2 EH&SS AFF&M EH&SS EH&SS Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and American FactFinder, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (unemployment rate at time of filing), EH&SS = Educational, Health, and Social Services AFF&M = Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Public Services Table provides a summary of local community services in the Project area. Local communities typically have adequate infrastructure and community services such as police, fire, and medical to accommodate the county populations. An adjacent Parish in Louisiana and an adjacent County in Texas are included in this table. The additional public service infrastructure in these areas can be used to supplement those available in Cameron Parish. Parish/County, State Number of Public Schools TABLE Public Service Data for the Project Area Number of Police Departments Cameron, LA 12 1 Calcasieu, LA 64 7 Jefferson, TX 87 7 Number of Fire Departments (by type) 1 (Career) 6 (Volunteer) 6 (career) 10 (volunteer) 8 (Career) 2 (Volunteer) Number of Hospitals* Number of Hospital Beds* Sources: AHD, 2010; LA & TX DOE, 2010; Fire Departments Directory, 2010; LA Hospital Assoc. 2010; LA Interagency Coordination Center 2010; Public School Review 2010; USA Cops *Does not include rehabilitation, long-term, and psychiatric hospitals November 2010

71 Draft Resource Report SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Of the potential socioeconomic effects related to the Project, some are related to Project construction, operation, and maintenance, and some are related to the number of non-local construction workers and their potential direct impact on population, the demand for public services, and for temporary housing during construction. Other potential effects are related to the construction itself, such as traffic interruption along the route, and temporary disturbance of agricultural land, homes, and businesses adjacent to these routes. Beneficial effects include increased property tax revenue, increased job opportunities, revenues associated with local construction employment, and local expenditures by Sabine Pass and non-local construction workers. Table provides a summary of the estimated peak month construction workforce and the component that is expected to be local hires. During Stage 1 of the Project, Sabine Pass will employ a peak construction workforce of approximately 2,500 craft workers and 200 supervisory staff. An estimated 60 percent of the construction workforce will be local hires (or 1,620 workers). Stage 2 of the Project will employ a peak month workforce consisting of 2,200 craft workers and 175 supervisory staff. Stage 1 construction will generate an estimated $400 million in craft labor wages and $125 million in supervisory wages. Stage 2 construction will generate an estimated $360 million in craft labor and $110 million in supervisory wages. Sabine Pass will add between 170 and 250 workers to operate the completed facility, resulting in new permanent jobs in the Project area. TABLE Summary of Peak Construction and Operational Workforce Construction Parameter Stage 1 Stage 2 Peak Construction Workforce (craft workers) 2, ,200 1 Peak Construction Workforce (supervisory staff) Construction Workforce Hired Locally 60 percent 60 percent Estimated Construction Payroll $525 Million $470 Million Duration of Construction months months Operation Additional Operational Workforce 170 to 250 Planned Duration of Operation 1 20 years Represents the total Project peak construction workforce, anticipated to occur in month 37 of Stage 1 construction and month 27 of Stage 2 construction. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction of the Project will be limited to the approximate 5- to 6-year construction period. Since the Project area has accommodated work forces associated with construction of the SPLNG Terminal, as well as the adjacent Golden Pass LNG Terminal, socioeconomic impacts associated with worker in-migration are expected to be minimal. Most socioeconomic impacts November 2010

72 Draft Resource Report 5 are expected to be beneficial as the Project will provide jobs, and a stimulus to the regional economy as a result of local and non-local construction worker spending, and through Project purchases of construction goods and materials. When available, local workers will be employed for construction. Additional construction personnel hired from outside the Project area will typically include pipeline construction specialists, supervisory personnel, and inspectors who will temporarily relocate to the Project area. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the total peak construction workforce will be local hires based, to a certain extent, on the proximity the SPLNG Terminal to a qualified construction work force. There will be relatively minor negative long-term socioeconomic impacts during operation of the Project in that the Project operational workforce is not large enough to increase the cost of public services such as fire, police, schools, and emergency care. In the event public services are affected, any costs to the parish will be more than offset by the economic and fiscal benefits of the Project, including increased tax revenue, increased employment, and increase employment income. However, the additional jobs and increased tax revenues will have a beneficial effect in Cameron Parish and within the Project area Population, Employment, and Housing Sabine Pass estimates that the peak construction workforce required for the Project would consist of a peak work force of approximately 2,700 workers (see Table 5.3-1). Based on previous experience, Sabine Pass estimates that most of the local workers (approximately 60 percent of the workforce) will be existing residents in the Project area, or would reside within daily commuting distance of the Project work sites. These local hires will include surveyors, welders, equipment operators, and general laborers. The non-local construction personnel (approximately 40 percent of the workforce) will be hired from outside the Project area and will include supervisory personnel, construction station specialists, inspectors, and repair workers. These individuals will relocate to the Project vicinity for the duration of their work on the Project. If a larger than anticipated percentage of non-local workers is required to meet peak workforce requirements, sufficient workers are available in the labor pools in the surrounding region. The impact of construction worker in-migration on the local population will be minimal due to the size of the existing population base in the Project area, including populations in Jefferson County, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana (437,375 persons) and the small number of non-local workers (approximately 1,080 workers during peak construction, or 0.2 percent of the total population of the Project area). Should non-local workers bring their families with them, a total of 2,830 persons (or 0.6 percent of the total population in the Project area) could temporarily relocate into the Project area if all inmigrating workers bring their families with them and each family consisted of 2.62 persons (2000 Census of persons per household of 2.62 for Louisiana). Because the Project will be constructed in several phases with varied labor skills in each phase, it is probable that not all workers would relocate at the same time, or for the same duration. Further, it is unlikely that all of the in-migrating workers would bring families with them. Therefore, no short- or long-term negative population impacts are anticipated from construction of the Project November 2010

73 Draft Resource Report 5 The presence of the non-local workers within the Project area during construction will increase the demand for temporary short-term housing. Temporary housing is available for much of the Project area as listed in Table and rental housing, motels/hotels, and RV parks are sufficient to accommodate the estimated 1,080 non-local workforce. It is also likely that RV parks to accommodate construction workers will be set up in Johnson Bayou as evidenced during construction of the SPLNG Terminal. Competition for hotels/motels and campsites may occur during the peak tourist seasons depending on the tourist attraction (e.g., hunting in the fall and recreation in the summer) or if other significant projects are being constructed at the same time in the same area. Due to the relatively small in-migrating work force and the availability of temporary housing in the Project area, no short- or long-term negative impacts to housing resources in the Project area are anticipated Economy and Tax Revenue During construction, some portion of the construction payroll, estimated at $995 million ($525 million during Stage 1 and $470 million during Stage 2), will be spent locally by both local and non-local workers for the purchase of housing, food, gasoline, entertainment, and luxury items. The dollar amount would depend on the number of construction workers employed at any given time and the duration of the non-local worker s stay in the Project area. It is also likely that some portion of construction materials will be purchased locally. These direct payroll and materials expenditures will have a positive impact on local economies and will likely stimulate indirect expenditures within the region as inventories are restocked or new workers are hired to meet construction demands. Sales tax will also be paid on all goods and services purchased with payroll monies or for construction materials. These will result in a beneficial impact on the local economies. Following construction, the Liquefaction Project as part of the larger SPLNG Terminal, will be subject to state and parish property taxes Public Services Construction of the Project components could result in minor, short-term, or no impact on the availability of local community facilities and services such as police, fire, and medical. Other construction-related demands on local agencies could include increased enforcement activities associated with issuing permits for vehicle load and width limits, local police assistance during construction at road crossings to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical services to treat injuries resulting from construction accidents. Necessary community services such as medical facilities and police and fire protection are generally in adequate supply in the Project area and should be able to absorb any increase in demand by the temporary construction workforce with minimal cost to the local governments. Because most non-local construction personnel are not expected to relocate their entire families to the construction area, there should be no impact on local schools. Further, the SPLNG Terminal has 24-hour on-site security, which will minimize reliance on local law enforcement and an on-site firewater pond and pumps with sufficient capacity to respond to fire events. Ultimately, negative impacts to government facilities and services are expected to November 2010

74 Draft Resource Report 5 be negligible. As mentioned above, the primary socioeconomic impacts in the Project area will be an increase in employment and local tax revenue, which is anticipated to more than offset any minor adverse impacts to public services Transportation and Traffic Construction of the Project will result in minor, short term impacts on the transportation network in the Project area as the existing public highways (primarily State Highway [SH] 82) will be used to transport construction equipment and materials, and workers to the SPLNG Terminal site. Heavy construction materials will be brought to the site overland via SH 27 and SH 82, and by barge via the Intercoastal Waterway and the Sabine Pass and Port Arthur ship Channels to the construction dock at the SPLNG Terminal. It is anticipated that most construction materials and workforce access to the site would be from the west, from the Port Arthur, Texas, area via SH 82, crossing the Sabine Pass Channel at the bridge on SH 82, with the remainder from east, from the Sulfur area via SH 27 and SH 82. From the Project site, the primary route to connect to the interstate highway system is by U.S. Route 69/96 in Port Arthur to Interstate 10 in Beaumont, approximately 30 miles from the SPLNG Terminal; and alternately via SH 82 to SH 27 in Holly Beach to Interstate 10 in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Construction work is typically scheduled to take advantage of daylight hours, usually starting at 7:00 a.m. and completing at 6:00 p.m. (6 days a week). Therefore, most workers will commute to and from the SPLNG Terminal during off-peak hours. In addition to the workers, there will be an increase in heavy truck traffic as construction materials and equipment are brought to the site. Sabine Pass estimates an average of 80 to 100 deliveries via truck per day during construction. The construction dock will accommodate barge delivery of heavy construction materials, thus reducing the impact of material deliveries on the area road networks. SH 82 is a two-lane highway that is classified as a major collector roadway by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ( LDOTD ). THE LADOTD estimated annual average traffic counts for SH 82, near the SPLNG Terminal and at Holly Beach at the junction of SH 82 and SH 27 approximately 24 miles east of the SPLNG Terminal, are listed in Table TABLE Estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts for SH 82 Annual Average Daily Traffic Count by Year SH 82 near SPLNG Terminal SH 82 at Holly Beach ,838 2, ,691 1, ,187 1, ,641 1,543 Source: LDOTD, November 2010

75 Draft Resource Report 5 A construction impact analysis that was performed for construction of the SPLNG Terminal in the FEIS and included a Level of Service ( LOS ) and Pavement Surface Analysis, indicated that SH 82 could accommodate 640 trips in and out of the SPLNG Terminal site without a significant delay on SH 82, except potentially during peak worker commuting periods when a minor delay would be expected entering and exiting the site access road. LOS on a two-lane highway is defined by the percentage of time a typical vehicle would be required to follow a slower vehicle and cannot proceed at the desired or free flow speed. There are six defined LOS designations ranging from LOS A (a condition of free flow) to LOS F (forced flow at low speeds, where both speed and volume can drop to 0). Rural highways typically operate at LOS B (stable flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions). The projected peak construction work force of 2,700 workers would affect the LOS of SH 82 during peak worker commuting periods as workers enter/exit the SPLNG Terminal access road. The nearest airport is located 16.4 miles from the LNG Terminal site in Port Arthur, Texas. The nearest heliport is in Sabine Pass, Texas, about 2 miles south of the SPLNG Terminal. No impacts on operation of the Port Arthur airport or the Sabine Pass heliport are anticipated since the Project is not in the approach path for any runways. The Liquefaction Project will include a marine and dry flare, at a height of 115 meters (377 feet). Other than the flares, the next tallest structure is the compressor deck at 165 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) requires notice under 14 Code of Federal Regulations for structures more than 200 feet in height that are located at a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest runway of an airport, excluding heliports. Therefore, the Project is not expected to impact existing airport or heliport operations Displacement of Residences and Businesses Because all construction will take place within the SPLNG Terminal site, the Project will require no displacement of residences or businesses. No residential or other structures are located within 50 feet of construction work areas Property Values Currently available information does not support any firm conclusion with respect to the effects of natural gas or LNG facilities on property values. Because no new land will be acquired for construction or operation of the Project and all construction activities will occur within land currently leased by Sabine Pass, no impact on property values is anticipated. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The purpose of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (1994) is to avoid the disproportionate placement of any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts from federal actions and policies on minority and lowincome communities. The order required that impacts on minority or low-income populations be taken into account when preparing environmental and socioeconomic analysis of projects or programs that are proposed, funded, or licensed by federal agencies November 2010

76 Draft Resource Report 5 Construction and operation of the Project will not generate levels of emissions of either nuisance or human health hazards offsite, and no impacts (in terms of air pollution, water quality, or noise) are expected to affect the health or welfare of the population living in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will not disproportionately affect any population (minority, low-income, or otherwise). The Project will be constructed and operated in a manner consistent with environmental justice considerations, and will have positive socioeconomic effects on minority and economically disadvantaged populations, as well as the general population in the socioeconomic impact area because it will generate new temporary and permanent jobs and economic activity, and provide continuing tax payments during operation. The Project will be constructed on Sabine Pass s existing leased land, and will create no new significant impacts. Construction and operation of the Project would not disproportionately affect any population group and no environmental justice issues are anticipated as a result of construction or operation of the Project. 5.5 REFERENCES 50 States Louisiana and Texas Fire Departments Website Site accessed October 14, 2010 American Hospital Directory (AHD) Site accessed October 14, 2010 Fire Department Directory Site accessed October 14, 2010 Louisiana Hospital Association Site accessed October 14, 2010 Lousiana Interagency Coordination Center Site accessed October 14, 2010 Public School Review Site accessed October 14, 2010 USA Cops Site accessed October 14, 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census s online database ( Site accessed October 14, 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey American FactFinder. Site accessed October 14, 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, Census State and County QuickFacts. Site accessed October 14, 2010 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Site accessed October 14, 2010 Yellow Book Site accessed October 14, November 2010

77 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 6 Geological Resources Docket No. PF November 2010 November 2010

78 Draft Resource Report 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 6.0 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION GEOLOGIC SETTING BLASTING MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Seismic Hazards Coastal Processes Soil Liquefaction Subsidence PALEONTOLOGY LNG FACILITIES IN SEISMIC RISK AREAS AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS Seismic Hazards Coastal Processes Subsidence REFERENCES... 6 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Mineral Resources On or Adjacent to the Project Site...3 TABLE Seismic Hazard within the Project Area i - November 2010

79 Draft Resource Report 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS API CFR Export EA FEIS FEMA FERC or Commission ICBO LDNR LLC LNG MSL NFPA Phase II EA Project Sabine Pass SPLNG Terminal UBC U.S. USACE USGS American Petroleum Institute Code of Federal Regulations Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission International Conference of Building Officials Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Limited Liability Corporation liquefied natural gas mean sea level National Fire Protection Association Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal Uniform Building Code United States United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Geological Survey - ii - November 2010

80 Draft Resource Report 6 RESOURCE REPORT 6--GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Filing Requirement Describe, by milepost, mineral resources that are currently or potentially exploitable. ( (h) (1)) Describe, by milepost, existing and potential geological hazards and areas of nonroutine geotechnical concern, such as high seismicity areas, active faults, and areas susceptible to soil liquefaction; planned, active, and abandoned mines; karst terrain; and areas of potential ground failure, such as subsidence, slumping, and landsliding. Discuss the hazards posed to the facility from each one. ( (h) (2)) Describe how the project would be located or designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the resources or risk to itself, including geotechnical investigations and monitoring that would be conducted before, during, and after construction. Discuss also the potential for blasting to affect structures, and the measures to be taken to remedy such effects. ( (h) (3)) Specify methods to be used to prevent project-induced contamination from surface mines or from mine tailings along the right-of-way and whether the project would hinder mine reclamation or expansion efforts. ( (h) (4)) If the application involves an LNG facility located in zones 2, 3, or 4 of the Uniform Building Code's Seismic Risk Map, or where there is potential for surface faulting or liquefaction, prepare a report on earthquake hazards and engineering in conformance with Data Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities, NBSIR This document may be obtained from the Commission staff. ( (h) (5)) If the application is for underground storage facilities: ( (h) (6)) (i) Describe how the applicant would control and monitor the drilling activity of others within the field and buffer zone; (ii) Describe how the applicant would monitor potential effects of the operation of adjacent storage or production facilities on the proposed facility, and vice versa; (iii) Describe measures taken to locate and determine the condition of old wells within the field and buffer zone and how the applicant would reduce risk from failure of known and undiscovered wells; and (iv) Identify and discuss safety and environmental safeguards required by state and Federal drilling regulations. Location in Environmental Report Section 6.4 Section 6.5 Section 6.8 Section 6.3 Not Applicable Section Not Applicable - iii - November 2010

81 Draft Resource Report GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information regarding geological resources in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). This report describes geological resources and provides data to determine the expected impact of the Project and the effectiveness of mitigative, enhancement, or protective measures incorporated by Sabine Pass. To determine and describe the geological resources in the region and the Project area in southwestern Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Sabine Pass reviewed available scientific literature, initiated agency contacts, and consulted with geology and seismology specialists. Geological Resources for the Liquefaction Project was evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

82 Draft Resource Report GEOLOGIC SETTING Cameron Parish, Louisiana is located in the West Gulf Coastal Plain geomorphic province, consisting of Pleistocene and Holocene fluvial, tidal, and deltaic sediments that dip gently toward the Gulf of Mexico. Sea level changes associated with Pleistocene glacial and interglacial climatic events have significantly influenced the depositional environment, resulting in thick sediment wedges of interbedded sands and clays several thousands of feet thick. The Pleistocene Neches and Sabine Rivers formed a broad distributary delta. During periods of sea level decline, these rivers downcut underlying fluvial and deltaic sediments, creating incised river valleys which extended many miles past the present Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Subsequent sea level rise as glaciation ended filled in these river valleys and created an ancient estuary system, connected to the Gulf of Mexico through the wide, buried Neches-Sabine valley. The modern Sabine Lake formed as deposition of the Chenier Plain system partially cut off the estuary from the Gulf of Mexico (Fisher et al, 1973). Surface sediments in the Project area consist of unconsolidated clay, silt, and sand dredged from Sabine Pass Channel during creation and maintenance of the navigation channel and discharged on site. Sediments underlying the dredged material and at the surface in the area surrounding the site are part of the Holocene Chenier Plain. The Chenier Plain depositional environment developed in response to continued shifting of the course of the Mississippi River, which decreased longshore sediment supply along the southwestern Louisiana Gulf Coast. The Chenier Plain is characterized by low lying marshes, which built out Gulfward during periods of high sediment supply, and ridges or cheniers, which represent relict beach fronts formed by wave action during periods of low sediment supply. The cheniers are composed of sand, silt and shell, and support grass and scrub oak vegetation. Cheniers differ from typical beach ridges in that they develop in a radiating pattern around a tidal pass. The interlying mudflats consist of finer grained clays and typically form brackish or salt marshes. Underlying the Quaternary Chenier Plain are coarser grained alluvial sediments of the Pleistocene Deweyville Formation and tidally influenced deltaic and channel fill interbedded sands, silts, and clays. In the Project area, the Pleistocene is characterized by eustatic sea level changes, resulting in changing near-shore, deltaic, fluvial, and bayestuary depositional environments. These sedimentary deposits are thousands of feet thick and dip gently toward the Gulf of Mexico (Fisher et al, 1973). 6.3 BLASTING Due to the absence of bedrock near the surface, no blasting will be required for the Project. 6.4 MINERAL RESOURCES The Project lies within the West Johnsons Bayou Gas Field. Table lists the mineral resources found on or adjacent to the Project. A review of the United States ( U.S. ) Geological Survey ( USGS ) Mineral Resource Data System indicated that there are no active or potential surface mines located in the Project vicinity (USGS, 1999) November 2010

83 Draft Resource Report 6 TABLE Mineral Resources On or Adjacent to the Project Site Parish/State Operation Distance from Project Area Operator Cameron Parish, LA Gas Well MIO RA SUA; W&T Offshore, et al., No. 001 LDNR ,000 feet Noble Energy 350 Glenborough, Suite 100 Houston, TX Cameron Parish, LA Gas Well MIO RB SUA; C O Noble Heirs No. 001 LDNR feet Noble Energy 350 Glenborough, Suite 100 Houston, TX There is a producing gas, condensate, and oil well located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the proposed liquefaction trains (MIO RA SUA; W&T Offshore, et al., No. 001, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ( LDNR ) Serial Number , American Petroleum Institute [API] Number ). This well is the designated unit well for the Miocene Zone, Reservoir A in the Siph Davis II sand and is perforated from 8,842 8,850 feet. The bottom coordinates of the well lie under Sabine Pass Channel. The current operator of the well is Noble Energy and the landowner, Crain Lands, L.L.C., maintains it. The well will remain in production during construction and operation of the Project. The producing gas and condensate well (MIO RB SUA; C O Noble Heirs No. 001, LDNR Serial Number , API Number ) is on the property adjacent to the SPLNG Terminal site. This well is located approximately 40 feet east of the centerline of the SPLNG Terminal access road, and will not be affected during construction and operation of the Project. Noble Energy also operates this well. 6.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Seismic Hazards Several hundred faults exist in the Gulf Coast region. These are primarily gulf-facing listric normal faults that developed in thick sedimentary sequences over a rifted margin. Although these faults developed as growth faults underlying thick sediment loads and also in relation to salt movement, modern movement along these faults is primarily the result of petroleum production and groundwater pumping (Crone and Wheeler, 2000). Although there are numerous Quaternary surface faults in the Gulf Coast region, earthquakes with epicenters within southwest Louisiana or southeast Texas are rare and of low magnitude (Crone and Wheeler, 2000). Subsurface salt diapirism can result in faulting. The Project lies within the Houston Diapir Province in which Louann Salt is present in the subsurface; however Cameron Meadow is the nearest salt dome, located over 12 miles from the Project site (FEIS) November 2010

84 Draft Resource Report 6 The Louisiana Gulf Coast, including the SPLNG Terminal site area, is located in Seismic Zone 0 of the Uniform Building Code's ( UBC ) Seismic Risk Map (International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997). Probabilities of exceedance for peak ground acceleration for the SPLNG Terminal area are presented in Table (USGS, 2002). Due to the low risk of seismic activity, seismic hazards are not considered relevant to the Project. TABLE Seismic Hazard within the Project Area Probability of Exceedence in 50 years 10 Percent 5 Percent 2 Percent Peak Ground Acceleration Rate (percent gravity) Data compiled from the USGS (2002) Sabine Pass conducted a site-specific seismic hazard analysis of the SPLNG Terminal site as part of the environmental review conducted for the FEIS. The study developed a seismotectonic model including site soil conditions to evaluate the seismic hazards with respect to the National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA ) guidelines for stationary LNG storage containers (ABS Consulting, 2003). This study determined that due to the very low ground motions predicted at the site, earthquake hazards were not considered a controlling factor in facility design. In addition, literature, aerial photography, topographic features, and geophysical logs of boreholes drilled on-site were reviewed to assess the potential for active and inactive surface faulting. Based on the evaluation results of surface and subsurface (to 300 feet deep) features, no evidence of surface faulting was found. The nearest known faults are associated with the Sabine Lake Oil and Gas Field 0.75 mile northwest of the site, and with the Johnsons Bayou Oil and Gas Field approximately 1 mile west of the site (Tolunay-Wong, 2003a) Coastal Processes The Louisiana Gulf Coast is susceptible to hurricanes and tropical weather that may produce storm surge, flooding, and high winds. The entire Project area falls within Zone VE on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA, 1992) and is considered an undeveloped coastal barrier area. This is a 100-year flood hazard zone susceptible to coastal flooding. The Digital Storm Atlas of Texas predicts that a Category 5 hurricane striking the SPLNG Terminal site area could produce a storm surge of up to 22 feet at the Project site (Hazard Analysis Laboratory, 2000). This, however, is a "worst-case" scenario and the facility is designed for a 100-year storm surge level for Port Arthur/southern Sabine Lake of 14 feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968). This is roughly equivalent to the anticipated storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane making landfall at the SPLNG Terminal area (Hazard Analysis Laboratory, 2000). The peak storm surge during hurricanes Rita and Ike at the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal site were 9.35 feet and 14 feet mean sea level ( MSL ), respectively, based on the observed debris line of known structures. As discussed below in Section 6.8.2, all critical November 2010

85 Draft Resource Report 6 components will be elevated to a minimum of 18.5 feet above MSL, thus minimizing impacts due to flooding Soil Liquefaction The Project site has underlying sediment layers that are water-saturated and could be susceptible to liquefaction under sufficiently strong ground motion. However, due to the relatively low levels of seismic activity and possible ground motion estimated for the site, the FEIS concluded that there is little risk of liquefaction of loose sand layers underlying the Project area. Therefore, soil liquefaction is not considered a potential hazard to the Project Subsidence Subsidence due to sediment compaction, oil and gas extraction, and groundwater pumping is a concern in southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Subsidence in the coastal parishes of Louisiana averages 12 millimeters per year (Dokka, et al., 2003). Subsidence is accelerated in areas of high oil and gas production. For example, Port Neches Field in Texas, northwest of the Project site, experienced subsidence rates of 3 centimeters per year (Morton and Purcell, 2001). There is little groundwater pumping or oil and gas production in the vicinity of the Project and subsidence in the vicinity of the Project is low. Solution mining of subsurface salt may also cause subsidence due to collapse of overlying sediments. The nearest salt dome is 12 miles from the Project site, and salt solution mining poses no risk of subsidence at the Project site. There is potential for compaction and differential settling of the soft sediments in the upper 70 to 80 feet of the Project site (Tolunay-Wong, 2003a). There is no karst terrain underlying the Project area, therefore there is no potential for subsidence due to collapse of karst structures. 6.6 PALEONTOLOGY The Project area does not contain any known sensitive paleontological resources; and no detailed field surveys have been required by any federal or state agency. 6.7 LNG FACILITIES IN SEISMIC RISK AREAS The Project will be located in Zone 0 of the Uniform Building Code's Seismic Risk Map (ICBO, 1997). Due to the low seismic risk there is little potential for soil liquefaction. 6.8 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS Seismic Hazards There will be no precautions needed to minimize potential effects from seismic hazards because the risk of seismic activity is very low November 2010

86 Draft Resource Report Coastal Processes Raising the elevation of at-risk components at the SPLNG Terminal facility will minimize the risk of flooding. The bottom of all points of support for Project cryogenic pipe and process equipment will be elevated to 18.5 feet above MSL. The finished floor of critical buildings will be elevated to 19 feet above MSL. All roads within or leading to the facility will be elevated to 18 feet MSL. Unimproved areas will remain at the existing elevation. The facility will be designed to meet 49 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) Part 193, which requires that the facility be designed to withstand sustained winds of 150 mph. All critical structures and facilities for the Project will be designed to withstand 155 mile per hour winds (3 second gust wind speed) in accordance with ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for buildings and Other Structures and NFPA 59A and 49 CFR This is considered an adequate design basis for the facility. The FEIS for the SPLNG Terminal site concluded that flooding and storm events would not adversely affect the SPLNG Terminal site area due to the above-mentioned design elements. Consequently, no significant adverse effects from flooding or storm events are anticipated as a result of the Project Subsidence Subsidence due to fluid extraction is low in the Project area and no mitigation or avoidance is required. There also is little potential for subsidence due to movement along existing growth faults in the subsurface. Compaction of soft, incompetent sediments near the surface could cause differential settling, particularly underlying the liquefaction area. Sabine Pass has conducted a thorough investigation of the soils and underlying sediments for the SPLNG Terminal site and will amend/improve the soils in the areas where the liquefaction trains will be placed. These studies will be used to determine the most appropriate foundation for the liquefaction area. The proposed liquefaction facilities will utilize the same deep driven pile foundations, which are engineered to support the facilities in the event of long-term compaction of underlying soft sediments and eliminate concerns associated with differential settling of soft sediments. The FEIS for the SPLNG Terminal site states that "Because site-specific geotechnical mitigation has been incorporated into the LNG terminal design, we conclude that subsidence would not be a significant hazard " 6.9 REFERENCES ABS Consulting Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Planned LNG Terminal Sites in Corpus Christi, Texas and Sabine Pass, Louisiana. Prepared for Cheniere LNG, Inc., Houston, Texas. Crone, A. J., and R. L. Wheeler Data for Quaternary faults, liquefaction features, and possible tectonic features in the Central and Eastern United States, east of the Rocky Mountain front. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report , U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia November 2010

87 Draft Resource Report 6 Dokka, R. K., K. Shinkle, and J. Heltz Major Subsidence of the Modern Louisiana Coast. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Unincorporated Areas, Panels 500, 525, 775. Fisher, W. L., L. F. Brown, J. H. McGowan, and C. G. Groat Environmental Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone Beaumont-Port Arthur Area. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin. 93 pp. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California. Morton, R. A., and N. A. Purcell Wetland Subsidence, Fault Reactivation, and Hydrocarbon Production in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Roth, David Louisiana Hurricane History: Late 20th Century. National Weather Service. Accessed at Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. 2003a. Geological Hazard Evaluation Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Sabine, Louisiana. Prepared for Cheniere Energy, Inc. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodplain information, Sabine River and Adams Bayou, Orange, Texas, area. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) data in ArcView Shape File Format for Spatial Data Delivery Project, USGS Minerals Information Team. Accessed at on January 9, USGS National Seismic Hazards Map. USGS National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, Earthquake Hazards Program, Golden, Colorado. Accessed at on January 8, November 2010

88 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 7 Soils Docket No. PF November 2010

89 Draft Resource Report 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 7.0 SOILS INTRODUCTION SOILS DESCRIPTION Udifluvents Aquents Creole PRIME FARMLAND SOILS CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION IMPACTS CROPLAND AND RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION REFERENCES... 5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Soil Series at the SPLNG Terminal...2 TABLE Soil Series and Major Soil Limitations for the Project i - November 2010

90 Draft Resource Report 7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS DMPA Export EA FEIS FERC or Commission ana LNG NRCS Phase II EA Plan Project Sabine Pass SPLNG Terminal STATSGO U.S. USDA Dredge Material Placement Area Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission liquefied natural gas National Resource Conservation Service Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 FERC s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal State Soil Geographic United States United States Department of Agriculture - ii - November 2010

91 Draft Resource Report 7 RESOURCE REPORT 7 SOILS Filing Requirement List, by milepost, the soil associations that would be crossed and describe the erosion potential, fertility, and drainage characteristics of each association. ( (i) (1)) If an aboveground facility site is greater than 5 acres: ( (i) (2)) (i) List the soil series within the property and the percentage of the property comprised of each series; (ii) List the percentage of each series which would be permanently disturbed; (iii) Describe the characteristics of each soil series; and (iv) Indicate which are classified as prime or unique farmland by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Identify, by milepost, potential impact from: Soil erosion due to water, wind, or loss of vegetation; soil compaction and damage to soil structure resulting from movement of construction vehicles; wet soils and soils with poor drainage that are especially prone to structural damage; damage to drainage tile systems due to movement of construction vehicles and trenching activities; and interference with the operation of agricultural equipment due to the probability of large stones or blasted rock occurring on or near the surface as a result of construction. ( (i) (3)) Identify, by milepost, cropland and residential areas where loss of soil fertility due to trenching and backfilling could occur. ( (i) (4)) Describe proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impact to soils or agricultural productivity. Compare proposed mitigation measures with the staff's current Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan, which is available from the Commission Internet home page or from the Commission staff, and explain how proposed mitigation measures provide equivalent or greater protections to the environment. ( (i) (5)) Location in Environmental Report Section 7.2 Section 7.2, Section 7.3 Section 7.4 Section 7.5 Section i - November 2010

92 Draft Resource Report SOILS 7.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information regarding soils in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). This report describes geological resources and provides data to determine the expected impact of the Project and the effectiveness of mitigative, enhancement, or protective measures incorporated by Sabine Pass. To determine and describe the soils in Project area in southwestern Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Sabine Pass reviewed available scientific literature, initiated agency contacts, and consulted with geology and seismology specialists. Soils for the Liquefaction Project were evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

93 Draft Resource Report SOILS DESCRIPTION The Project will be situated on highly disturbed soils consisting of dredge spoil material from the dredging and maintenance of the Sabine Pass Channel. Most of the site to be used for the liquefaction trains was used as a dredge material placement area (DMPA) for dredging operations in Sabine Pass Channel that began as early as the 1920s. Soil series descriptions were compiled from information presented in the United States ( U.S. ) Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) Soil Survey of Cameron Parish, LA (Midkiff et al., 1995) and the National Resource Conservation Service ( NRCS ) State Soil Geographic ( STATSGO ) database (NRCS, 1994). Three soil series are identified on the Project site: Aquents, frequently flooded; Udifluvents, 1 to 20 percent slopes; and Creole mucky clay. Aquents, frequently flooded and Udifluvents, 1 to 20 percent slopes, consist of material that was hydraulically dredged during the construction and maintenance of adjacent navigable waterways (Midkiff et al., 1995). All Project-site soils are considered hydric according to the National List of Hydric Soils (NRCS, 1995), field observations of hydric soil indicators (i.e., low chroma colors), and the STATSGO database (NRCS, 1994). Soils underlying the Project area are described in more detail below and summarized in Table TABLE Soil Series at the SPLNG Terminal Soil Series Udifluvents, 1 to 20 percent slopes Aquents, frequently flooded Project Component Liquefaction Area, LNG Storage Tanks Percent of Project Site Property Percent of Soil Permanently Impacted Farmland Potential Not Prime Farmland None 0 0 Not Prime Farmland Creole None 0 0 Not Prime Farmland Source: Midkiff et al. 1995; NRCS 1994 Hydric Characteristics Hydric Hydric Hydric Comments Dredge material, recent and historic (>30 yrs ago) Dredge material, historic (>30 yrs ago Present along SH Udifluvents Udifluvent soils consist of hydraulically dredged sandy, loamy, and clayey material. Drainage varies, but is typically slow in areas with shallow slopes. These soils are classified as hydric by the NRCS (NRCS, 1994). Udifluvents soils are considered unsuitable for crops, pasture, or woodland, and are not considered prime farmland by the NRCS. These soils are best suited for open land and wetland habitat (Midkiff et al., 1995) November 2010

94 Draft Resource Report 7 At the Project site, these soils consist of fine-grained clays with low chroma colors. The soils are typically saturated within the upper 12 inches. These are mineral soils with no organic material development. The liquefaction facilities will be situated on Udifluvent soils Aquents Aquent soils typically are dredged soils consisting of gray silty clay loam, silty clay, and clay. These soils are commonly associated with the Udifluvents, but are typically found at lower elevations. Frequent flooding, poor drainage, and moderate salinity make these soils unsuitable for urban uses, grazing, or cultivation. These soils are classified as hydric soils by the NRCS (NRCS, 1994). Aquent soils are considered unsuitable for crops, pasture, or woodland, and are not considered prime farmland by the NRCS (Midkiff et al., 1995). These soils are best suited for wetland wildlife habitat. At the Project site, these soils consist predominantly of clays, with small pockets of sandy or silty material. Aquent soils occur primarily in low-lying areas at the Project site and are often saturated at the surface. These are also mineral soils with no organic layers developed. Areas of Aquent soils within the SPLNG Terminal boundaries will not be affected by the Project Creole Creole series soils consist of dark gray, very fluid, saline, mucky clay at the surface and very dark gray, slightly fluid, mucky clay underlain by mottled clay, very fluid loamy sand, clay loam, and clay. These soils are frequently inundated during the highest tides and often ponded for long periods of time. Creole soils are unsuitable for cropland, pasture, woodland, or urban uses, and are not considered prime farmland. These soils are considered hydric and support native estuarine wetland vegetation (Midkiff et al, 1995; NRCS, 1995). They are primarily suitable for wetland wildlife habitat and occasionally suitable for rangeland wildlife habitat (Midkiff et al., 1995). The Creole series is present along State Highway 82, and will not be affected by the Project. 7.3 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS None of the soils on the Project site are classified as prime farmland soils. 7.4 CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION IMPACTS Soils that are poorly, somewhat poorly, or very poorly drained combined with clay or silt textures have compaction potential. The soils at the Project site are predominantly clays or silty clays, are poorly drained, and have high shrink-swell potential, and thus are at risk for compaction. Table summarizes limitations of the Project site soils. To avoid unnecessary soil compaction during construction of the Project, Sabine Pass has reduced the area of disturbance to the maximum extent practicable November 2010

95 Draft Resource Report 7 Soil Series TABLE Soil Series and Major Soil Limitations for the Project Severe Erosion Hazard Compaction Potential Rock Poor Revegetation Potential Udifluvents No High None No Aquents No High None No Source: Midkiff, et al. (1995) As outlined below, the same precautionary measurements will be used for construction of the Liquefaction Project facilities as for the SPLNG Terminal facilities. The shear strength of the soils and sediments underlying the Project area will be increased by mixing in lime and/or fly ash with the existing soils to a depth of 3 feet, or as required, below ground level. The stabilization will be accomplished by mixing and injecting the existing dredged soils with agents such as fly ash, lime, Portland cement, cement kiln dust, and other proprietary materials. The soils will be improved to achieve compressive strengths of 20 to 25 pounds per square inch. This will increase the soil volume by approximately 15 to 20 percent. All major equipment and structures comprising the Project will be supported on pile foundations. Sabine Pass plans for the liquefaction facilities to be supported by precast concrete piles driven to refusal into sands, which are at elevations of approximately -57 to -76 feet below natural grade. The piles will be designed to support the loads imposed by the new equipment, structures, and soil downdrag. The settlement of the liquefaction facilities will be on the order of 17 inches as a result of consolidation of the soils below the sand strata. Approximately 25 percent of the predicted settlement will occur during fill placement and the remainder at a decreasing rate over a period of about 30 to 50 years. Differential settlement of the liquefaction facilities as a result of the pile cap and pile stiffness will be minimal. Connecting pipe racks also will be supported on driven piles. The pipe rack design will accommodate the expected differential settlement between the connecting pipe racks and the liquefaction facilities. 7.5 CROPLAND AND RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS No cropland or residential areas will be affected by the Project. Therefore, no impacts to soils used as cropland or in residential areas will result from the Project. 7.6 MITIGATION Project construction will disturb soils, resulting in a temporarily increased potential for erosion due to loss of soil structure. To limit the effects of erosion, Sabine Pass will adopt the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan ( Plan ). Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures, such as silt fencing, will be implemented and maintained at all times during construction of the proposed Project site until revegetation has occurred as required by the FERC Plan. Following restoration and clean up, the disturbed areas will be monitored to maintain erosion control structures and to repair any erosion November 2010

96 Draft Resource Report REFERENCES Midkiff, C., A.J. Roy, and R. Nolde Soil Survey of Cameron Parish. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 135 pp. National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) State Soil Geographic Database for Louisiana (STATSGO). U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service. Accessed at National Resource Conservation Service Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service November 2010

97 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics Docket No. PF November 2010

98 Draft Resource Report 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 8.0 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION LAND USE Land Requirements Existing Land Use Coastal Zone Consistency Residential Areas Planned Residential and Commercial Areas Public or Conservation Land Agency and Landowner Consultation Construction and Operations Impacts and Mitigation RECREATION Existing Resources Construction and Operational Impacts and Mitigation AESTHETICS Existing Visual Resources Construction and Operation Impacts... 5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Land Use Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project (acres) i - November 2010

99 Draft Resource Report 8 DMPA EA Export EA FEIS FERC or Commission LNG Phase II EA Project Sabine Pass SH SPLNG Terminal U.S. USACE USFWS USGS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Dredge Material Placement Area Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission liquefied natural gas Environmental Assessment for Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. State Highway Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal United States United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey - ii - November 2010

100 Draft Resource Report 8 RESOURCE REPORT 8--LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS Filing Requirement Describe the width and acreage requirements of all construction and permanent rights-of-way and the acreage required for each proposed plant and operational site, including injection or withdrawal wells. ( (j) (1)) (i) List, by milepost, locations where the proposed right-of-way would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way of any kind. (ii) Identify, preferably by diagrams, existing rights-of-way that would be used for a portion of the construction or operational right-of-way, the overlap and how much additional width would be required. (iii) Identify the total amount of land to be purchased or leased for each aboveground facility, the amount of land that would be disturbed for construction and operation of the facility, and the use of the remaining land not required for project operation. (iv) Identify the size of typical staging areas and expanded work areas, such as those at railroad, road, and waterbody crossings, and the size and location of all pipe storage yards and access roads. Identify, by milepost, the existing use of lands crossed by the proposed pipeline, or on or adjacent to each proposed plant and operational site. ( (j) (2)) Describe planned development on land crossed or within 0.25 mile of proposed facilities, the time frame (if available) for such development, and proposed coordination to minimize impacts on land use. Planned development means development which is included in a master plan or is on file with the local planning board or the county. ( (j) (3)) Identify, by milepost and length of crossing, the area of direct effect of each proposed facility and operational site on sugar maple stands, orchards and nurseries, landfills, operating mines, hazardous waste sites, state wild and scenic rivers, state or local designated trails, nature preserves, game management areas, remnant prairie, old-growth forest, national or state forests, parks, golf courses, designated natural, recreational or scenic areas, or registered natural landmarks, Native American religious sites and traditional cultural properties to the extent they are known to the public at large, and reservations, lands identified under the Special Area Management Plan of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and lands owned or controlled by Federal or state agencies or private preservation groups. Also identify if any of those areas are located within 0.25 mile of any proposed facility. ( (j) (4)) Identify, by milepost, all residences and buildings within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way and the distance of the residence or building from the right-of-way. Provide survey drawings or alignment sheets to illustrate the location of the facilities in relation to the buildings. ( (j) (5)) Location in Environmental Report Section Section Section Section Section 8.2 Section iii - November 2010

101 Draft Resource Report 8 RESOURCE REPORT 8--LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS Filing Requirement Describe any areas crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline or plant and operational sites which are included in, or are designated for study for inclusion in: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (16 U.S.C. 1271); The National Trails System (16 U.S.C. 1241); or a wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1132). ( (j) (6)) For facilities within a designated coastal zone management area, provide a consistency determination or evidence that the applicant has requested a consistency determination from the state's coastal zone management program. ( (j) (7)) Describe the impact the project will have on present uses of the affected area as identified above, including commercial uses, mineral resources, recreational areas, public health and safety, and the aesthetic value of the land and its features. Describe any temporary or permanent restrictions on land use resulting from the project. ( (j) (8)) Describe mitigation measures intended for all special use areas identified under paragraphs (j)(2) through (6) of this section. ( (j) (9)) Describe proposed typical mitigation measures for each residence that is within 50 feet of the edge of the pipeline construction right-of-way, as well as any proposed residence-specific mitigation. Describe how residential property, including for example, fences, driveways, stone walls, sidewalks, water supply, and septic systems, would be restored. Describe compensation plans for temporary and permanent rights-of-way and the eminent domain process for the affected areas. ( (j) (10)) Describe measures proposed to mitigate the aesthetic impact of the facilities especially for aboveground facilities such as compressor or meter stations. ( (j) (11)) Demonstrate that applications for rights-of-way or other proposed land use have been or soon will be filed with Federal land-management agencies with jurisdiction over land that would be affected by the project. ( (j) (12)) Location in Environmental Report Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Not Applicable no residential areas within 50 feet of the construction area Section Not Applicable - iv - November 2010

102 Draft Resource Report LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS 8.1 INTRODUCTION This draft resource report provides a description and supporting information regarding land use, recreation, and aesthetics in the area of the natural gas liquefaction and export plant ( Liquefaction Project or Project ) proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass ), to be located at the existing Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana ( SPLNG Terminal ). To determine and describe these resources in the region and the Project area in southwestern Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Sabine Pass reviewed available scientific literature and initiated agency contacts. Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics for the Liquefaction Project was evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( FERC or Commission ) review and approval of the SPLNG Terminal in Docket Nos.: CP , CP , CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project, November 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement [ FEIS ]). Review of a 853-acre leased site for construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal and associated facilities, including a marine terminal, two berths capable of unloading 300 LNG ships per year, three LNG storage tanks, and send-away pipeline, to allow for the import, storage, and regasification of LNG; CP (Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Phase II Project, May 2006 Environmental Assessment [ Phase II EA ]). Review of increasing ship traffic from 300 to 400 LNG ships per year, installation of three additional LNG tanks, ambient air vaporization trains, and associated facilities on approximately 72 acres within the SPLNG Terminal leased site; and CP , CP (Sabine Pass LNG Export Project, February 2009 Environmental Assessment [ Export EA ]). Review of the modification of certain existing facilities within the SPLNG Terminal leased site to allow for the export of LNG. All facilities in the above approved dockets have been constructed and are in operation with the exception of the sixth LNG tank approved in Docket CP The Liquefaction Project will involve converting an additional acres of the leased site for operation of four liquefaction trains. Construction will also involve re-disturbance of acres of previously disturbed land within the SPLNG Terminal. The liquefaction trains will be constructed in two stages: Liquefaction Trains 1 and 2 in Stage 1, and Liquefaction Trains 3 and 4 in Stage 2. The sixth LNG tank (S-106) that was authorized under CP will be constructed in Stage 2 of the Liquefaction Project November 2010

103 Draft Resource Report LAND USE Land Requirements Sabine Pass will require permanent and temporary land within its 853-acre leased site to construct and operate the liquefaction and related facilities and will develop additional portions of the SPLNG Terminal site for the permanent facilities comprising the Project. A total of acres of land will be permanently converted to industrial use, including acres of previously undisturbed land within a former dredge material placement area ( DMPA ) and acres of previously disturbed industrial areas. An additiona acres of previously disturbed land will be used for temporary construction work areas, including equipment laydown, office, and parking areas, affecting a total of acres during construction. Soil improvement will be completed in all areas that will be used permanently for the liquefaction facilities including the previously authorized sixth LNG tank (S-106). Existing land use for the temporary construction and permanent operation areas are summarized in Table TABLE Land Use Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project (acres) Facility Industrial DMPA Total Const. 1 Oper. 2 Const. 1 Oper. 2 Const. 1 Oper. 2 Soil Improvement Area Previously disturbed industrial areas Total Construction area includes the entire construction footprint, including previously disturbed/converted industrial areas and acres for the sixth LNG tank (S-106), approved in Docket CP et al., and within the soil improvement area. 2 Operational area includes only new area being converted to industrial use for the permanent Project facilities Existing Land Use Approximately 71 percent of the SPLNG Terminal site where the liquefaction trains will be located is a former DMPA consisting of two dredge spoil containment areas filled to or near capacity with dredged material. Sabine Pass is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District to mitigate for development in these areas through the Section 404 permitting process (see Resource Report 2). In addition to DMPA wetlands, land use classification for other lands affected by construction of the Liquefaction Project includes previously disturbed industrial areas that were used for construction of the SPLNG Terminal Coastal Zone Consistency In Louisiana, the Coastal Zone Management Program is administered by the Coastal Management Division of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ( LDNR ). Sabine Pass will submit a Joint November 2010

104 Draft Resource Report 8 Permit Application for a Coastal Use Permit determination with the LDNR concurrent with the USACE Section 404 permit application. However, according to the Louisiana Administrative Code ( LAC ) Title 43:I.1.7.C 723.B.2.a; Activities occurring wholly on lands 5 feet or more above sea level or within fastlands do not normally have direct and significant impacts on coastal waters. Consequently, a coastal use permit for such uses generally need not be applied for. The Liquefaction Project will be located wholly on property that has been improved for industrial use and the former DMPA. Elevations within these areas range from 9 to 17 feet above mean sea level; and Sabine Pass anticipates that the Project will be exempt from coastal use permitting. The applications will be submitted to the LDNR and USACE by February Residential Areas The Project is located in a rural area of Cameron Parish, Louisiana that currently has minimal municipal services, no potable water except for that developed for the SPLNG Terminal, and is dominated by marshland. The nearest residences are located across the Sabine Pass Channel in Sabine Pass, Texas Planned Residential and Commercial Areas There are no planned residential or commercial areas within 0.25 mile of the Project. The land surrounding the Project site is marshland with little potential for development Public or Conservation Land The Project is located entirely on private land; no public or conservation lands will be crossed by the Project Agency and Landowner Consultation Sabine Pass has identified and consulted with federal, state, and local agencies that could have jurisdiction over land management within the Project area. Copies of all agency correspondence are included in Appendix 1D in Resource Report 1. While there are no directly affected landowners, all landowners adjacent to the SPLNG Terminal site have been notified of the Project, as required in 18 Code of Federal Regulations All the Project facilities will be located entirely within the 853-acre site leased for development of the existing SPLNG Terminal Construction and Operations Impacts and Mitigation Land uses that will be impacted by the Project are industrial land (resulting from construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal Project) and DMPA wetlands. Wetlands within the DMPA (including wetland mitigation areas) that are determined to be jurisdictional wetlands by the USACE will be mitigated under the USACE Section 404/10 and Louisiana Coastal Use Permits November 2010

105 Draft Resource Report RECREATION Existing Resources Recreational resources in the vicinity of the Project include boating and fishing in Sabine Lake and the Gulf of Mexico, and hunting in the marshlands adjacent to Sabine Lake and the Sabine Pass Channel. The Sabine Pass Channel is an active waterway and is used primarily for access to the Gulf of Mexico. Active public boat launch areas are located on both the Texas and Louisiana sides of the Sabine Pass Channel at the State Highway ( SH ) 82 bridge, north of the SPLNG Terminal. Additionally, a boat ramp is located at the Sabine Pass Battleground State Historic Park, directly across the Sabine Pass Channel from the SPLNG Terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas. Designated natural and recreational areas in the vicinity of the Project include the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and the Sabine Pass Battleground State Historic Park. The Sabine Pass Lighthouse, which is on the National Register of Historic Places (# ), is located approximately 3.1 miles south of the Project facilities. The Sabine Pass Battleground State Historic Park is located across the Sabine Pass Channel, approximately 1.4 miles from the Project facilities Construction and Operational Impacts and Mitigation The Project will be constructed on land that was removed from recreational activities, such as hunting, as a result of construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal. Since no additional land outside of the SPLNG Terminal lease site will be acquired for the Project and there are ample recreational resources in the Project area, no new impacts on recreational resources are anticipated. Since the number of LNG vessel transits will not change from the 400 vessels approved for operation of the SPLNG Terminal, the Project will not result in any incremental adverse effect on recreational boating in the Sabine Pass Channel. The FERC FEIS determined that the Sabine Pass Lighthouse would not be adversely affected by construction or operation of the SPLNG Terminal. Project construction and operation will not affect access to the lighthouse and will not directly impact it. Nor will the Project have any direct impact on the Sabine Pass Battleground State Historic Park in Sabine Pass, Texas. Therefore, no adverse impacts on the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and Battleground Historic Park are anticipated. 8.4 AESTHETICS Existing Visual Resources The Project is located in an undeveloped part of Cameron Parish where there are no residences or schools within the viewshed of the Project facilities. The primary Project components that would have a visual impact on surrounding areas are the four liquefaction trains and associated facilities. Potential public viewpoints include public boat ramps on both sides of the SH 82 bridge north of the SPLNG Terminal November 2010

106 Draft Resource Report 8 site, and the community of Sabine Pass and the Sabine Pass Battleground State Historical Park on the west side of Sabine Pass Channel in Sabine Pass, Texas Construction and Operation Impacts Construction and operation of the Project facilities will be visible or partially visible to motorists using SH 82, boaters in the Sabine Pass Channel, and residents or visitors in the community of Sabine Pass, Texas. Although the terrain is generally flat and vegetation relatively low profile, views of the SPLNG Terminal are intermittent to motorists on SH 82, users of the boat ramps, and from the community of Sabine Pass due to the configuration of the roadways, existing vegetation, and other industrial development along the Texas shoreline of the Sabine Pass Channel. Further, visual impact on the surrounding area during construction and operation of the Project will be minimal since the new liquefaction facility structures will be viewed in conjunction with the existing LNG tanks and facilities already in operation at the SPLNG Terminal site. These SPLNG facilities are now part of the visual environment, such that the addition of the facilities associated with the Project would result in a negligible effect on the aesthetics of the area. Because of the size of SPLNG Terminal facilities, including those associated with the Project, and the similar land use in the Project area, no measures are proposed for visual screening November 2010

107 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Liquefaction Project Draft Resource Report 9 Air and Noise Quality Docket No. PF November 2010