EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-i Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Elba III Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the staff of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) with the cooperation and 

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

who acted as “cooperating agencies” under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The EIS was prepared to fulfill the requirements of NEPA; the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 1500 -1508 [40 CFR 1500 -1508]); and the FERC’s implementing regulations 

(18 CFR 380). 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. 

The Coast Guard is the federal agency responsible for issuing a Letter of Recommendation 

(LOR) regarding the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The Coast Guard 

exercises regulatory authority over LNG facilities that affect the safety and security of port areas 

and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (Title 50 of the 

United States Code, Section 191 [50 USC 191]); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as 

amended (33 USC 1221, et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 USC 

701). The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation safety, vessel engineering 

and safety standards, and all matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment located in 

or adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before the receiving tanks. The 

Coast Guard also has authority for LNG facility security plan review, approval and compliance 

verification as provided in 33 CFR 105, and siting as it pertains to the management of marine 

traffic in and around the LNG facility. The Coast Guard’s responsibility extends between the 

LNG facility and a point 12 nautical miles seaward from the coastline (to the territorial seas). 

The COE has jurisdictional authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 

1344), which governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, 

and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403), which regulates any work or 

structures that potentially affect the navigable capacity of a waterbody. The COE would need to 

evaluate and approve several aspects of the Elba III Project including issuance of Section 404 

Permits for expansion of the existing LNG import terminal and for wetland impacts associated 

with construction of the Elba Express Pipeline; issuance of an easement where the Elba Express 

Pipeline would cross COE-managed lands; adoption of modifications to existing COE-managed 

Mitigation Lands; and approval for a large fuel-carrying pipeline across federal property. 

In accordance with NEPA, this document’s purpose is to inform the FERC decision-makers, the 

public, and other permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed project and its alternatives, and to recommend practical, 

reasonable, and appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce adverse impacts to the extent 

possible. Most of the environmental impacts would occur during the construction period. We 

considered a range of terminal site and system alternatives; pipeline system and route 

alternatives; and route variations. 
ES-ii Executive Summary

PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed Elba III Project consists of the Elba Terminal Expansion (Terminal Expansion) 

and the Elba Express Pipeline. Taken collectively, these actions and facilities comprise the 

proposed action which is referred to in this EIS as the Elba III Project (Project). The Project 

would provide an incremental source of, and the transportation infrastructure required to deliver, 

firm, long-term, and competitively priced natural gas to the Georgia and South Carolina 

interstate natural gas markets, and other markets in the southeastern and eastern United States 

(U.S.). 

Elba Terminal Expansion 

Southern LNG, Inc. (Southern LNG) plans to construct and operate an expansion of its existing 

LNG import terminal on Elba Island near Savannah, in Chatham County, Georgia. The 

expansion would: (a) more than double the terminal’s LNG storage capacity by adding 405,000 

cubic meters (m3

) of new storage; (b) substantially increase the facility’s existing vaporization 

capacity; (c) upgrade the terminal’s send-out meter station to increase capacity by an additional 

900 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd); and (d) modify the terminal’s marine berthing and 

unloading facilities to accommodate larger vessels and provide for simultaneous unloading of 

two LNG vessels. All of the planned facilities would be located entirely within the existing 190-

acre facility site on Elba Island. 

The Elba Terminal Expansion would be constructed in two phases, A and B. Phase A would be 

completed as early as January 2010 and would include the following facilities: 

a. one new 200,000 m3

 (1.25 million barrels [bbls]) LNG storage tank, one associated boiloff gas condenser, and three boil-off gas compressors; 

b. three submerged combustion vaporizers, each with a peak capacity of 180 MMcfd 

(providing a total peak send-out capacity of 1,755 MMcfd for the full facility at the 

completion of phase A); and 

c. modifications to the unloading docks to accommodate larger LNG vessels and to allow 

simultaneous unloading of two LNG vessels. The modifications to the dual berthing slip 

include: 

• adding four mooring dolphins (two for each berth); 

• dredging approximately 72,000 cubic yards of material from the slope at the back 

of the existing slip (and disposing of dredged material into the existing spoil 

disposal area adjacent to the terminal); and 

• installing a sheet pile bulkhead at the back of the slip. 

These modifications would allow the slip to accommodate larger LNG vessels with an 

approximate overall length of 345 meters (m) (compared to the current 288 m), breadth of 55 m 

(currently 49 m), design laden draft of 12.0 m (currently 11.7 m), and displacement of 177,000 

metric tons (currently 128,000 metric tons). Slip modifications are designed to accommodate 

LNG vessels, capable of transporting up to 266,000 m3 of LNG. Vessels currently in service and 
ES-iii Executive Summary

delivering to the Elba LNG import terminal typically transport between 125,000 and 145,000 m3 

of LNG. 

Phase B would be completed no later than December 2012 and would include the following 

facilities: 

a. one new 200,000 m3 (1.25 million bbls) LNG storage tank; and 

b. three submerged combustion vaporizers (two for service and one spare), each with a peak 

capacity of 180 MMcfd (providing a total peak send-out capacity of 2,115 MMcfd for the 

full facility at the completion of phase B). 

Each of the two phases would include all necessary ancillary equipment including related pumps, 

piping, controls and appurtenances, and associated systems (electrical, mechanical, civil, 

instrumentation, hazard detection, and fire protection) and buildings necessary to accommodate 

the associated tanks and vaporizer units. The expansion would result in a potential increase of 

95 additional LNG deliveries to the terminal per year. 

Elba Express Pipeline 

Elba Express Company, L.L.C. (EEC) plans to construct and operate about 188 miles of new 

natural gas pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Georgia and South Carolina. The pipeline 

would be constructed in two phases, extending between an interconnection with Southern 

Natural Gas Company (Southern) near Port Wentworth, Chatham County, Georgia on the 

southern end and an interconnection with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) 

in Anderson County, South Carolina on the northern end. 

The first phase is proposed to be placed in service no later than July 2011 with a design capacity 

of 945 MMcfd, and would consist of: 

a. a “Southern Segment,” which includes about 104.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from Port Wentworth to the existing Southern Wrens Compressor Station 

(Wrens) in Jefferson County, Georgia (to be collocated with the existing Southern 

pipelines); and 

b. a “Northern Segment,” which includes about 83.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from Wrens to interconnects with Transco in Hart County, Georgia, and 

Anderson County, South Carolina. 

The second phase would involve construction and operation of a new compressor station of 

about 10,000 horsepower near Millen, Jenkins County, Georgia. The compressor station would 

increase the pipeline design capacity by 230 MMcfd to a total of 1,175 MMcfd, and is proposed 

to be placed in service no later than January 2013. 

EEC would also purchase an undivided interest in Southern’s existing twin 30-inch-diameter 

pipelines which extend between the import terminal and the beginning of the Elba Express 

Pipeline at Port Wentworth, thereby connecting the proposed pipeline with the terminal. 
ES-iv Executive Summary

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

On January 24, 2006, Southern LNG, EEC, and Southern (Applicants) filed a request with the 

FERC to use our1

 Pre-Filing (PF) review process. At that time, Southern LNG and EEC were in 

the preliminary design stage of the Project and no formal application had been filed with the 

FERC. The request to use our PF review process was approved on February 1, 2006, and a prefiling docket number (PF06-14-000) was established to place information filed by the Applicants 

and related documents issued by the FERC into the public record. The PF review process 

provides opportunities for interested stakeholders to become involved early in project planning, 

facilitates interagency cooperation, and assists in the identification and resolution of issues prior 

to a formal application being filed with the FERC. 

On February 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 28, 2006, the Applicants sponsored open houses in Sylvania, 

Pooler, Thomson, Washington, Elberton, and Waynesboro, Georgia, respectively. The purpose 

of the open houses was to inform agencies and the general public about the proposed Project and 

to provide them an opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns. We participated in 

these open houses and provided information on the environmental review process. On February 

16, 2006, we met with representatives of the COE and Coast Guard to discuss coordination of 

agency review, permit requirements and status, and each agency’s interest in participating in our 

environmental review as a cooperating agency. In addition, we conducted site visits of the 

existing LNG Terminal and various portions of the proposed pipeline route on February 16, 17, 

22, and 23, 2006. 

On March 24, 2006, the FERC and Coast Guard issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and 

Coast Guard LOR for the Proposed Elba III Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of Public Comment Meetings (NOI). This notice was sent to almost 1,800 

interested parties including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; 

conservation organizations; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers in the Project 

area; residents within a 0.5 mile of Elba Island and the proposed compressor station location; and 

property owners along the proposed pipeline route. 

In April 2006, we conducted public scoping meetings in Pooler (April 10, 2006), Sylvania (April 

11, 2006), Thomson (April 12, 2006), and Washington (April 13, 2006), Georgia, to provide an 

opportunity for the public to learn more about the Project and to provide oral comments on 

environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. We also conducted a site visit, open to the 

public, of the Terminal Expansion site and Elba Express Pipeline route. A total of 44 people 

presented oral comments at the scoping meetings.2

 Comments primarily expressed concerns 

about the impact of the terminal expansion on public safety and other commercial port users, and 

the impact of the pipeline on private property and future property uses. Transcripts of these 

 

1

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

 There were 14 oral comments collected at the Pooler meeting, 7 at the Sylvania meeting, 8 at the Thomson 

meeting, and 15 at the Washington meeting. 
ES-v Executive Summary

comments are part of the public record for the Elba III Project, and are available for inspection at 

the FERC web site in the Elba III Project dockets.3 

During this period, we also conducted additional agency consultations to identify issues that 

should be included in the EIS. On April 11, 2006, we met with representatives of the COE, 

Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) to discuss the roles and 

responsibilities of participation as a cooperating agency, agency coordination, and specific 

resource concerns to be addressed in the EIS. 

Publication of the NOI established a 30-day public comment period for the submission of 

comments, concerns, and issues related to the environmental aspects of the proposed Project. 

Although the comment period closed on April 24, 2006, we continued to receive correspondence 

through late July 2006. Additional comment letters were received in October and November 

2006, following the filing of formal FERC applications by the Applicants on September 29, 2006 

(in Docket Nos. CP06-470-000, -471-000, -472,000, -473,000, and -474,000). In total, 38 letters 

from 34 entities were received in response to the NOI and the FERC’s Notice of Applications, 

issued October 6, 2006.4 

The draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and mailed to 

about 990 federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; 

newspapers and public libraries in the project area; parties to the FERC’s proceeding; potentially 

affected landowners; and other interested parties. Four public meetings were held in the project 

area to receive comments on the draft EIS. These meetings were conducted in Washington, 

Georgia (May 7, 2007), Thomson, Georgia (May 8, 2007), Sylvania, Georgia (May 9, 2007), and 

Pooler, Georgia (May 10, 2007). Oral comments were received from 12 affected landowners (10 

speakers), 2 representatives of landowner groups, and 2 environmental groups (3 speakers). 

Written comments were received from 3 federal agencies, 1 state agency, 2 environmental 

groups, 1 landowner group, 4 affected landowners, 29 interested citizens (2 petitions and one 

individual), and the Applicants. The final EIS was mailed to about 1,100 addresses distributed 

among the same groups as received the draft EIS. 

AREAS OF CONCERN 

Issues raised during the scoping period included Project purpose and need; alternatives to the 

pipeline route and the terminal site; facility operation, maintenance, and safety; and 

environmental impacts of the terminal expansion and Elba Express Pipeline. In addition, several 

 

3

 Public meeting transcripts and a summary of the issues discussed during the agency scoping meetings are available 

for viewing on the FERC internet website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” 

from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket No.” (CP06-470-000), and follow the 

instructions. (For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.) Because scoping was 

conducted during the PF review (before the Applicants filed formal applications with the FERC on September 29, 

2006), PF06-14 must be used in the “Docket No.” field to view the public scoping transcripts. 

4

 Written correspondences included letters, Return Mailers (attached to our NOI), and electronic mail. The 

Commission also received one Congressional correspondence (included in the total). 
ES-vi Executive Summary

public comments related specifically to the Coast Guard’s LOR process for the proposed LNG 

terminal expansion and increase in LNG vessel size and traffic. These comments requested: 

• identification of operational and maintenance dredging and dredged material disposal 

program and associated impacts on water quality and aquatic wildlife; 

• assessment of the potential impacts on shoreline erosion that would be generated by LNG 

vessel wakes; 

• justification for preferred treatment of LNG vessel transit in the Savannah River; 

• socioeconomic impact assessment and mitigation measures to reduce impacts on other 

Port of Savannah vessel traffic and operators; 

• assessment of air quality impacts and mitigation measures associated with LNG terminal 

operations and vessels; 

• assessment of historic occurrences of serious accidents, damages, and the effects of 

unanticipated occurrences at existing LNG facilities in the United States; and 

• identification of safety and security measures to mitigate risks associated with LNG 

vessels and terminal operations, and assessment of associated impacts on other Port of 

Savannah operators. 

These concerns and others have been addressed in this EIS. 

PROJECT IMPACTS 

Table ES-1 summarizes the number/extent of resources for the Elba III Project. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

This EIS addresses alternatives to the proposed actions before the FERC, the Coast Guard, and 

the COE. In general, the reasonable alternatives before the FERC and the COE are similar. 

These agencies can either deny the project/permits, postpone the issuance of authorizations 

pending further study, or issue authorizations for the Project as proposed or modified by location 

or condition. 

For the Coast Guard, the reasonable alternatives include issuing a negative LOR (essentially the 

No Action alternative), postponing issuance of an LOR, or issuing an LOR with conditions (the 

Coast Guard’s preferred alternative). A negative LOR would find the waterway unsuitable for 

additional LNG vessel traffic and larger LNG vessels. The Coast Guard’s preferred alternative 

would be to issue an LOR finding the waterway suitable for additional LNG vessel traffic and 

larger LNG vessels only under the following proposed conditions: 

• appropriate resources must be available to implement the required security measures 

outlined in the Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) or the most current Coast Guard 

policy on Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security; and 
ES-vii Executive Summary

TABLE ES-1

Summary of Environmental Resources for the Elba III Project 

Resource Area/Impact Units 

Total acres of land temporarily disturbed for the Terminal Expansion 213 

Total Elba Express Pipeline length (miles) 188 

Total acres of land temporarily disturbed for the Elba Express Pipeline and Appurtenances 3,083 

GEOLOGY 

Potential active faults in the Project area 0 

Soil liquefaction potential in the Project area Low 

Paleontological resources 0 

SOILS 

Miles of prime farmland crossed by the Elba Express Pipeline 72 

Miles of soil with significant inherent limitations 1 for restoration along the Elba Express Pipeline 80 

WATER SUPPLY 

Number of major near-surface aquifer systems underlying the Project area 5 

Number of designated sole source aquifers underlying the Project area 0 

Currently identified private water supply wells within 150 feet of the Elba Express Pipeline 67 

Number of public water supply wells or wellhead projection areas within 150 feet of the project area 0 

Number of surface water intakes within 3 miles downstream of waterbody crossings along the Elba 

Express Pipeline 1 

WATER QUALITY 

Number of perennial stream crossings along the Elba Express Pipeline 161 

Number of intermittent stream crossings 2 along the Elba Express Pipeline 180 

Number of major river crossings 3 along the Elba Express Pipeline 5 

Cubic yards of sediments to be dredged for the Terminal Expansion 72,000 

WETLANDS 

Acres of wetland/riparian habitat disturbed during construction 4 along the Elba Express Pipeline 237 

Acres of forested wetland impacts during construction/operation 106/48 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Acres of upland forest affected by construction of the Elba Express Pipeline 941 

Acres of planted pine plantation affected by construction of the Elba Express Pipeline 562 

Acres of open land affected by construction of the Elba Express Pipeline 735 

Number of Managed and Sensitive Wildlife Areas along the Elba Express Pipeline 2 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

Number of warmwater fisheries crossed by the Elba Express Pipeline 352 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Number of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species potentially affected due to 

Project construction 31 

Number of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species potentially with suitable 

habitat present along the waterway for LNG marine traffic 12 

Number of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species potentially affected due to 

right-of-way (ROW) construction along the Elba Express Pipeline 9 

LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Acres of land affected by operation of the Terminal Expansion 34 

Acres of land affected by operation of the Elba Express Pipeline 961 

Acres of land affected by operation of aboveground facilities associated with the Elba Express Pipeline 34 

Number of access roads required for the Elba Express Pipeline 96 

Miles of COE Project and Mitigation Lands crossed by the Elba Express Pipeline 5.6 
ES-viii Executive Summary

TABLE ES-1

Summary of Environmental Resources for the Elba III Project 

Resource Area/Impact Units 

Number of structures located within 50 feet of construction ROW along the Elba Express Pipeline 18 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Peak workforce size for the Terminal Expansion 208 

Peak workforce size for the Elba Express Pipeline 500 

Number of permanent new jobs created for the Terminal Expansion 20 

Number of permanent new jobs created for the Elba Express Pipeline 3 

Number of additional LNG shipments annually 95 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Number of cultural resources identified for the Terminal Expansion 0 

Number of cultural resources identified for the Elba Express Pipeline 302 

AIR AND NOISE QUALITY

Number of new submerged combustion vaporizers at terminal 6 

Number of new compressor stations 1 

PUBLIC SAFETY

Miles of Elba Express Pipeline in a Class 1 area 171 

Miles of Elba Express Pipeline in a Class 2 area 5 

Miles of Elba Express Pipeline in a Class 3 area 12 

 

1 Inherent limitations include soils defined as shallow bedrock, compaction prone, highly erosive, 

 and poor revegetation. 

2 Includes ephemeral streams, canals, and irrigation ditches. 

3 Defined as river crossings greater than 100 feet. 

4 Construction impacts are based on a 75-foot-wide ROW centered over the pipeline. Some 

 wetlands are not crossed by the centerline but are located within the construction ROW. 

• throughout the period of construction and until such time when the LNG facility goes into 

operation, the applicant must conduct an annual review of the WSA to identify changes 

that have occurred to the project scope and/or port community since submission of the 

initial WSA. The applicant must provide a written statement to the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) annually coinciding with the date of the Waterway Suitability Report (WSR) 

attesting as to whether or not any changes have occurred. If this annual review identifies 

changes to the project and/or port that may invalidate portions of the WSA, the applicant 

must describe the changes in detail and describe any actions necessary to update the 

WSA. If updating the WSA is required, the applicant must include a timeline for actions 

to take place. Prior to the start of operations, the applicant must conduct a final review of 

the WSA and submit documentation to the COTP attesting that the most recent WSA on 

file with the COTP is current and up to date. Documentation of the final review must be 

submitted to the COTP between 30 and 60 days prior to the start of operations. 

The alternative of issuing an LOR without conditions was determined not reasonable in this case 

and eliminated from consideration because it would not meet the Coast Guard’s purpose and 

need for issuance of an LOR – ensuring adequate safety and security of LNG vessel transit. 

Also, no reasonable alternatives for shipping routes or other variations were identified because 

the terminal is an existing import facility. 
ES-ix Executive Summary

The No Action or Postponed Action Alternatives (as well as the negative and postponed LOR), 

would deny or defer the proposed project. While these alternatives would avoid the 

environmental impacts identified in this EIS, they would also deny the power plant customers 

and other markets in Georgia and South Carolina access to additional supplies of natural gas 

made available by importation of LNG. This in turn could lead to higher natural gas prices, the 

use of alternative sources of energy, or alternative proposals to develop natural gas import and 

transmission infrastructure. While conservation and the development of other sources of energy 

are anticipated to play a part in meeting the future energy needs of the country, they are not 

expected to significantly reduce the long-term requirement for additional natural gas supplies. 

Therefore, we conclude that the No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives are not preferable 

to the proposed action. 

Other reasonable alternatives we considered include different locations for both the Terminal 

Expansion and the Elba Express Pipeline. For the Terminal Expansion, we examined using 

existing LNG import terminals in the region (rather than expanding the existing facility) and 

alternative terminal sites (locating the LNG storage tanks at a different location, a new import 

terminal within the Port of Savannah, and an entirely new site somewhere in the southeastern 

U.S.). We also studied alternatives that involved receiving the LNG off-shore and off-shore 

receipt, storage, and regasification. 

Development of an entirely new LNG import terminal in the southeastern U.S. would require 

substantial disturbance of both on-shore and marine resources and a significant length of new, 

large-diameter pipeline to connect with the customers proposed to be served. We concluded that 

use of another existing terminal or construction of an alternative site, and the associated pipeline 

facilities that would be required, would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

We considered a number of alternatives to the proposed Elba Express Pipeline, including the use 

of existing systems (Southern and South Carolina Pipeline Company), alternative routes for both 

the Southern Segment (to be constructed along Southern’s existing right-of-way) and the 

Northern (greenfield) Segment, and route variations that would avoid crossing COE-managed 

lands. None of the alternatives examined would reduce environmental impact or provide a 

significant environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

At the request of the COE, we considered three route variations that would avoid crossing areas 

of COE-managed lands. All of the variations examined would increase the mileage of pipeline 

without providing a significant environmental advantage. 

Regarding aboveground facilities, we reviewed EEC’s proposed location for the Elba Express 

Compressor Station and found it environmentally acceptable. Further, our review of proposed 

sites for meter stations, mainline valves, and pig launching/receiving facilities raised no issues 

that warranted evaluation of alternative sites. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

EEC would comply with the U.S. Department of Transportation pipeline material and 

construction standards for natural gas pipelines. Where collocated with Southern’s existing 
ES-x Executive Summary

pipeline, the typical offset between pipeline centerlines would range from 20 to 25 feet, which 

greatly reduces the risk of pipeline damage from any repair activities on the adjacent pipelines. 

After construction, EEC must implement a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public 

safety during operation of the proposed pipeline. 

We evaluated the safety of both the proposed facilities and the related LNG vessel transit from 

the territorial sea through the Savannah River navigation channel. As part of our evaluation, we 

performed a cryogenic design and technical review of the proposed terminal design and safety 

systems. Several areas of concern were noted with respect to the proposed facility, and we 

identified specific recommendations to be addressed by Southern LNG: prior to initial site 

construction, prior to construction after final design, prior to commissioning, or prior to 

commencement of service. 

The Coast Guard has longstanding experience in controlling the movements of dangerous cargo 

vessels and LNG vessels in the Port of Savannah and other ports. Our marine safety analysis 

considers how vessel security requirements for LNG vessels calling on the terminal might affect 

other vessel and boat traffic in the Savannah River navigation channel. 

The Coast Guard, with input from the Savannah Area Maritime Security Committee and other 

port stakeholders, has completed a review of Southern LNG’s Waterway Suitability Assessment 

(WSA) in accordance with the guidance in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular – 

Guidance on Assessing the Suitability of a Waterway for Liquefied Natural Gas Marine Traffic

(NVIC 05-05). The WSA review focused on the navigation safety and maritime security risks 

posed by LNG vessel traffic, and the measures needed to responsibly manage these security 

risks. As a result of this review, the Coast Guard has preliminarily assessed that the Savannah 

River, based on existing measures and additional conditions, is suitable for the larger LNG 

vessels and the increase in LNG marine traffic associated with this expansion. The Coast Guard 

also stated that, based on certain conditions for suitability, the Port of Savannah’s experience 

with LNG import and the cooperative relationship between government agencies and port 

stakeholders, there would be sufficient capability within the port community to responsibly 

manage the safety and security risks introduced by this expansion project. This assessment is 

preliminary because the required NEPA analysis has not yet been completed. Upon completion 

of its NEPA compliance obligations, the Coast Guard will issue an LOR to address the suitability 

of the waterways for the proposed increase in LNG marine traffic and the use of larger LNG 

vessels. 

Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stipulated that in any Order authorizing an LNG 

terminal, the Commission shall require the LNG terminal operator to develop an Emergency 

Response Plan in consultation with the Coast Guard and state and local agencies. The FERC 

must approve the Emergency Response Plan prior to any final approval to begin construction. A 

Cost-Sharing Plan must also be developed that contains a description of any direct cost 

reimbursements the applicant agrees to provide to any state and local agencies with 

responsibility for security and safety at the LNG terminal and near vessels that serve the facility. 

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this EIS are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. While our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input 
ES-xi Executive Summary

from the COE and Coast Guard as cooperating agencies, each of these agencies may present its 

own conclusions and recommendations when it has completed its review of the Project. 

Review of the information provided by Southern LNG and EEC and further developed from data 

requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; alternatives analysis; comments from 

federal, state, and local agencies; and input from individual members of the public indicates that 

the proposed Elba III Project is unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental impact on 

particular resources within the Zones of Concern because it is unlikely that a substantial cargo 

release would occur during construction and operation. In addition, we conclude that if the Elba 

III Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, 

Southern LNG and EEC’s proposed mitigation, and the additional mitigation recommendations 

presented below, it would be an environmentally acceptable action. Although many factors were 

considered in this determination, the principal reasons are: 

• the proposed LNG terminal facilities would be an expansion of an existing, fullyoperating LNG import terminal with an established deep-water slip and established 

exclusion zones; 

• the proposed additional LNG vessel traffic and associated escort vessels would utilize an 

existing shipping corridor currently used by LNG vessels, as well as other deep-draft 

vessels; 

• dredge spoil would be disposed of at one of two existing upland confined disposal 

facilities owned and operated by Southern LNG on the northwest end of Elba Island; 

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

Expansion facilities and LNG vessels; 

• the proposed pipeline would parallel existing rights-of-way for approximately 56 percent 

of its length; 

• EEC would implement its project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and 

Maintenance Plan and its project-specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures to minimize construction impacts on soils, wetlands, and 

waterbodies; 

• the use of the horizontal directional drilling method for crossing the Broad River and 

Savannah River would avoid disturbances to the beds and banks of these waterbodies; 

• the Project would have no effect or would not be likely to adversely affect any federallyor state-listed threatened or endangered species; 

• the Coast Guard’s preliminary finding that the waterway is suitable for increased LNG 

marine traffic (with conditions), the security provisions and operational controls that 

would be imposed by the local pilots, and the Coast Guard to direct movement of LNG 

vessels would maintain the risks of a marine LNG spill, either with or without ignition, to 

acceptable levels; 

• the environmental and engineering inspection and mitigation monitoring program for this 

Project would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures and conditions of any 

FERC authorization; 

• the navigational controls and marine traffic safety and security measures make the 

likelihood of a spill from LNG vessels extremely remote; and 
ES-xii Executive Summary

• all appropriate consultations with the FWS, SHPOs, and ACHP, if required, and any 

appropriate compliance actions resulting from these consultations, would be completed 

before construction would be allowed to start in any given area. 

In addition, we have developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the environmental 

impact that would otherwise result from construction of the various Project components. The 

additional studies or field investigations which we recommend typically result in site-specific 

mitigation and further reduction of impact. We believe that the recommended mitigation 

measures would reduce potential environmental impacts from Southern LNG’s and EEC’s 

proposed actions to environmentally acceptable levels.