CONCLUSIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

SECTION 5 
 5-1 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

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

environmental staff. While our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input 

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. In addition, we conclude that if the Elba III Project were constructed and 

operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Southern LNG and EEC’s proposed 

mitigation, and the additional mitigation recommendations presented in section 5.5, 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 and associated escort vessels traffic 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 CDFs 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 ROWs for approximately 56 percent of its 

length; 

• EEC would implement its project-specific Plan and Procedures to minimize construction 

impacts on soils, wetlands, and waterbodies; 

• the use of the HDD method for crossing the Broad and Savannah Rivers 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 

ships would maintain the risks of a marine LNG spill, either with or without ignition, at 

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; 
 5-2 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

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

likelihood of a spill from LNG vessels extremely remote; and 

• 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 (presented in the individual 

resource discussions in section 4) 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; therefore, we are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached 

as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. These mitigation measures are 

presented in section 5.5. 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. 

5.2 IMPACT SUMMARY 

Geology 

Construction and operation of the proposed facilities would have minimal impact on geologic 

resources in the proposed project area, and the potential for geologic hazards to significantly 

impact the proposed project is low. To minimize potential impacts associated with soft 

sediments beneath the proposed LNG tanks, Southern LNG would drive steel or pre-stressed 

concrete piles deep into the underlying sediment layer to support the tanks and prevent localized 

ground settlement. 

LNG marine traffic would be operating at low speeds and would not create wakes that would 

significantly increase the potential for shoreline erosion along the transit waterway. 

Some areas along the ROW would require the blasting of bedrock to support pipeline placement. 

To mitigate impacts from this common construction technique, a Blasting Specification Plan has 

been developed to limit ground vibration and to survey structures, wells, and utilities within 150 

feet of the ROW before and after blasting activities. 

Soils 

Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, and backfilling, as 

well as the movement of construction equipment along the ROWs may result in adverse impacts 

on soil resources. Impacts on soils can be effectively minimized through the use of the proposed 

erosion control and revegetation measures. Southern and EEC would implement the mitigation 

measures contained in their individual Plans. Implementation of the respective Plans, with 

approved modifications, would effectively control erosion and sedimentation during construction 

and ensure restoration and revegetation of all areas disturbed by Project activities. No significant 

impact on soils would occur along the transit waterway. An unignited or ignited spill along the 
 5-3 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

vessel transit route would not significantly affect hydric structure, compaction potential, or soil 

contamination. 

Construction and operation of the Terminal Expansion site would permanently disturb 

approximately 34.26 acres of previously disturbed soils. None of the land within the Terminal 

Expansion site is currently under active cultivation, and no prime farmland would be 

permanently converted as a result of the Terminal Expansion Project. Southern LNG would 

implement the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan to establish a 

baseline for minimizing the potential for erosion as a result of water or wind action and to aid in 

reestablishing vegetation after construction. In addition, Southern LNG would implement the 

project-wide Spill Plan that provides guidance for erosion control and stormwater management. 

Therefore, we do not expect the Terminal Expansion Project to significantly contribute to the 

cumulative impact on soils. 

Construction of the Elba Express Pipeline would temporarily impact 1,067.8 acres of soils 

considered prime farmland. These areas would be restored to preconstruction conditions; 

therefore, impacts to farmland and agriculture associated with the project are considered 

insignificant. Construction would temporarily impact soils with shallow depth to bedrock or 

coarse fragments, high erosion potential, high compaction potential, and poor revegetation 

potential. Implementation of EEC’s Plan and Procedures would minimize and mitigate for 

adverse effects on soils associated with these limitations. 

Water and Wetland Resources 

No groundwater impacts are expected to occur as a result of the Terminal Expansion or increased 

LNG marine traffic along the transit route. None of the aquifers crossed by the Elba Express 

Pipeline are designated as sole-source aquifers. The proposed pipeline would cross within 150 

feet of 67 private water wells and no public water supply wells. EEC would prohibit refueling 

and storage of hazardous materials within 150 feet of wells. To ensure that potential impacts on 

groundwater resources from spills and leaks of hazardous materials are avoided or minimized to 

the extent possible, EEC and Southern LNG would implement a combined Spill Plan. Further, 

we are recommending that EEC file a report identifying all water supply wells/systems, any 

damage caused by construction and how they were repaired. We believe the construction 

methods proposed by EEC and Southern LNG in coordination with our recommendations would 

reduce the level of impacts to groundwater to a level less than significant. 

Southern LNG’s proposed Terminal Expansion would involve construction within the Savannah 

River. Increased LNG marine and associated escort vessel traffic would minimally increase 

sedimentation from prop wash and shoreline erosion from wave action. The Elba Express 

Pipeline would cross 352 waterbodies (161 perennial stream/river crossings, 150 

intermittent/ephemeral stream crossings, 11 ponds and 30 manmade ditches). Waterbody 

crossings would be in accordance with applicable permits and EEC’s project-specific 

Procedures, which would avoid or minimize impacts to a less than significant level. EEC has 

proposed to cross the Savannah and Broad Rivers by the HDD method. We are recommending 

that EEC file the results of its geotechnical feasibility investigations for these waterbodies to 

minimize the likelihood of impacts from “frac-outs.” 
 5-4 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Southern LNG proposes to use water from the Savannah River for hydrostatic testing of its tanks, 

ballast, and ship hoteling. Wash water would be acquired from its wells. Fish egg and larvae 

that could be entrained by ballast and ship hoteling withdrawal would be similar to those 

currently experienced at the terminal and along the Savannah River from other ocean going 

vessels. We are recommending that Southern LNG work with NOAA Fisheries to reduce 

impacts to egg and larvae in the project area associated with water withdrawal for the LNG 

vessels. We believe implementation of Southern LNG’s proposed construction and operation 

methods in coordination with our recommendation would reduce impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

EEC proposes to use surface waters and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing its pipeline 

facilities. Southern LNG and EEC would minimize the potential effects of hydrostatic testing on 

surface water and wetland resources by adhering to specialized construction techniques and 

measures in their respective Procedures. 

The proposed pipeline would cross about 237 acres of wetlands. About 45 percent of the 

wetlands crossed are forested wetlands. Based on COE wetland quality assessments, about 30 

percent of the wetlands crossed by EEC’s pipeline would be considered high quality. The 

installation of pipeline facilities would result in temporary impacts on the scrub-shrub and 

palustrine emergent wetlands, which are expected to return to preconstruction conditions within 

a few years. Impacts on forested wetlands would be of longer term due to the longer 

regeneration time. In addition, impacts would be permanent where forested wetlands are cleared 

and would be maintained in an herbaceous state over the pipeline centerline for safety reasons to 

facilitate pipeline inspections. However, the COE would require EEC to compensate (within the 

same watershed) for any wetlands that would be impacted as a result of the installation of the 

pipeline and appurtenant facilities. The EPA questioned the mitigation banks EEC proposes to 

use, and we are recommending that EEC reevaluate these locations. 

EEC would limit wetland impacts by reducing the width of the construction ROW, implementing 

its Procedures, and complying with the conditions of applicable authorizations, such as from the 

COE under Section 404. EEC would also minimize impacts on forested wetlands by overlapping 

its temporary construction ROW, including temporary extra workspaces, on adjacent maintained 

and cleared ROW to the extent practicable. EEC would mitigate impacts on wetlands by 

implementing its compensatory wetland mitigation plan. No wetlands are expected to be 

impacted by construction of the Terminal Expansion or increased LNG marine traffic. 

Compensatory mitigation, use of EEC’s Procedures, and complying with applicable 

authorizations would result in “no net loss” of wetlands and reduce impacts on wetlands to a less 

than significant level. 

In the unlikely event that a spill of LNG were to occur along the vessel transit route, impacts on 

wetlands within Zone 1 could be significant; however, the likelihood of an LNG spill is 

extremely remote. 
 5-5 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Southern LNG’s construction of the Terminal Expansion would impact previously disturbed and 

maintained grass cover types. No vegetation impacts are anticipated as a result of increased 

LNG marine vessel transit. Temporary impacts could occur to fisheries within the Terminal 

Expansion project area during construction from sedimentation, and operation from increased 

vessel traffic. To reduce the likelihood of the entrainment of eggs and larvae within the project 

area, we are recommending that Southern LNG not withdraw water for hydrostatic testing its 

LNG storage tanks from April 1 through July 31. The incremental increase in vessel traffic, 

along with our recommendation for Southern LNG to consult with NOAA Fisheries to minimize 

LNG vessel water withdrawals, would limit the impacts to fish eggs and larvae from ballast and 

cooling water withdrawals. The impacts on vegetation and wildlife along the vessel transit route 

from an ignited or unignited spill could be significant; however, the likelihood is extremely 

remote. 

Of the vegetation communities that would be crossed by EEC’s pipeline facilities, upland 

vegetation comprises about 90 percent, while wetland vegetation accounts for about 10 percent. 

The primary upland vegetation cover type that would be crossed by the pipeline facilities (about 

941 acres) is upland forest. The next two most prevalent vegetation cover types are open land 

(about 735 acres) and planted pine (about 562 acres). 

To reduce impacts on vegetation within the temporary and permanent ROW and improve 

revegetation potential, EEC would utilize a portion of previously disturbed, existing pipeline 

corridor. By using existing ROW during construction, long-term impacts on upland forest, 

planted pine, and landscape cover types would be lessened and shifted to impacts on open cover 

types (which would be considered a short-term impact). However, a large portion of the route 

would not be adjacent to an existing corridor, and would have permanent impacts on the 

vegetation community. In forested areas, wildlife could shift from those preferring large 

undisrupted wooded tracts to those preferring edge habitat types. EEC would maintain the ROW 

in accordance with its project-specific Plan and reseed the disturbed area using NRCS- or 

landowner-approved seed mixes to minimize the impacts to these areas. We believe these 

impacts would be less than significant due to the use of existing corridors (to the extent 

practicable), use of EEC’s Plan, and a prevalence of forested communities within the project 

area. 

Special Status Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS and NMFS, 31 federally listed or proposed listed species 

were determined to potentially occur in the general vicinity of the proposed Terminal Expansion, 

waterway for LNG vessel traffic, and Elba Express Pipeline. Southern LNG and EEC conducted 

surveys of their project work areas and pipeline routes to identify the presence of listed species in 

the project areas. On the basis of these field survey reports, analysis of potential effects of the 

proposed actions, and informal consultations with the FWS and NMFS, we conclude that with 

the implementation of Southern LNG’s and EEC’s proposed construction and mitigation plans, 

and our recommendations (such as continued consultation with NMFS regarding pile driving 

noise, conducting additional surveys, and implementation of FWS recommended mitigation), the 
 5-6 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

projects would have no effect on 10 species and are not likely to adversely affect 21 species. 

The draft EIS (which served as a Biological Assessment) was sent to the FWS and NMFS along 

with a letter that initiated consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We have 

not yet received concurrence letters from the FWS and/or NMFS on our determinations. Neither 

Southern LNG nor EEC would be allowed to begin construction until we complete our 

consultations with these agencies. 

Based on consultations with the GDNR and SCDR, 49 state listed threatened or endangered 

species potentially occur in the project areas. Of these 49 species, 20 are also federally listed and 

are addressed in our determinations of effect discussed above. Of the remaining 29 species, no 

impacts would occur to 10 species. With the implementation of EEC’s and Southern LNG’s 

proposed construction and mitigation plans and our recommendations (such as continued 

consultation with state agencies, additional surveys, restrictions of hydrostatic test water 

withdrawals, and construction time of year restrictions) 19 species are not expected to be 

adversely affected. No significant impacts to listed species would be expected as a result of the 

construction or operation of the proposed projects. Impacts on special status species along the 

vessel transit route from an ignited or unignited spill could be significant; however, the 

likelihood of a spill is extremely remote. 

Land Use 

The total land area affected by construction of all proposed facilities (Terminal Expansion and 

Elba Express Pipeline projects) would be 3,299.9 acres. Operation of all proposed facilities 

(Terminal Expansion and Elba Express Pipeline projects) would affect 1,000.7 acres. Elba 

Island, solely owned by Southern LNG and occupied by the import terminal, would not change 

from its current industrial land use or affect any residential or recreational resources. The 

additional facilities proposed as part of the Terminal Expansion would have only minor impacts 

on visual resources. 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would include temporary and permanent 

impacts to upland forest, planted pine, open space, open water, residential properties, 

commercial/industrial lands, agriculture lands, and wetlands. Additionally, the pipeline would 

be located within 50 feet of 18 residences or structures and cross eight planned developments. 

For those residences within 25 feet of the construction ROW, we are recommending that EEC 

provide a site-specific plan that describes the construction technique(s) to be used, how EEC 

would minimize the time that the trench would be open, and provide evidence of landowner 

concurrence if construction work areas were within 10 feet of a residence. Additionally, we are 

recommending that prior to construction, EEC file updated documentation of consultations 

detailing any site-specific construction and mitigation measures or restoration plans requested by 

developers crossed by or adjacent to its proposed route, and identifying what EEC has agreed to 

implement. Restoration measures that are subject to easement negotiations could mitigate visual 

impacts on individual properties.

The pipeline would cross the Di-Lane Plantation and Clark Hill WMAs, and the protected Broad 

River. We are recommending that EEC provide updated documentation of consultations with the 

appropriate local officials or managers of the Di-Lane Plantation and Clark Hill WMAs 
 5-7 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

regarding field surveys, easement acquisitions, and permitting processes, and describe measures 

EEC agrees to implement. The pipeline would also cross the Beaverdam Creek and Coldwater 

Creek tributaries that are part of the Richard B. Russell Project, a dam operated by the COE. 

Because maintenance of the 50-foot-wide permanent ROW would have an unavoidable impact to 

visual resources along the tributaries, the COE plans to require EEC to replant shallow-rooted 

shrubs adjacent to the lake to provide a visual buffer. 

Under normal operations, LNG vessels transiting the waterway would have no significant 

impacts on current land uses, recreation, or visual resources. Because of its physical properties, 

released LNG would quickly disperse in the atmosphere or, if ignited, burn in a pool fire. An 

unignited LNG release and dispersion would be a short-lived event that would have no impact on 

land use, residences or visual resources. Impacts from a marine release of LNG with ignition 

would depend on the location of the incident within the waterway and the scope of the incident. 

The impacts could be significant, with damage to man-made structures and vegetation ranging 

from mild to severe with the greatest impacts occurring within Zone 1 and decreasing outward 

through Zones 2 and 3. However, due to the safety and security measures, the likelihood of an 

LNG spill is extremely remote. 

Socioeconomics 

The temporary influx of workers during construction and operation of both the Terminal 

Expansion and the Elba Express Pipeline would be a nominal addition to the local population 

and have minimal impact on the availability of housing or the services of local government 

agencies. The localities where the Project would be built would benefit economically from the 

employment of local workers, the expenditure of payroll money, the purchase of local materials 

and supplies, and the addition of monies, both one-time and annual tax revenue. Both Elba 

Island Road and Islands Expressway are designed to handle the additional traffic from 

commuting construction workers and material and supply deliveries to the Terminal. Because 

construction would move sequentially along the pipeline route, any transportation impacts would 

be temporary on any given roadway, and the transportation system would be minimally impacted 

by construction. 

When fully operational and assuming full utilization, the Terminal Expansion would result in 

approximately an additional 95 shipments of LNG annually. This would be an average of less 

than two additional vessels per week. Current (2006) cost of delays to non-LNG vessels from 

LNG vessels is estimated to be $75,000-$150,000 annually. The costs of delays to non-LNG 

vessels caused by LNG vessels go up to a maximum of $375,000 in 2011. Costs however, are 

expected to drop after the harbor deepening project is completed and if the Coast Guard 

Regulated Navigation Area Rule for unloaded LNG vessels (i.e., vessels carrying less than 5 

percent of LNG) is discontinued. 

The socioeconomic impacts of an ignited or unignited marine LNG release could be significant, 

depending on where the incident occurred, the scope of the incident, and the time of year the 

incident occurred. Vessel traffic would be halted until the affected LNG vessel could be safely 

removed from the river channel. A substantial unignited LNG release and dispersion would be a 

short-lived event and may result in temporary closure of the port. The associated cost could be 
 5-8 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

up to $50 million and would consist primarily of the cost to transport and repair the LNG vessel. 

A substantial marine LNG release with ignition resulting in a pool fire may cost more than $650 

million and include severe damage to the shore-side facilities; potential total loss of the LNG 

vessel and cargo; fatalities; and closure of the port for up to 14 days. Local emergency 

responders who would respond to such incidents would be financially compensated by Southern 

LNG. Local populations in Zones 1-3 could be affected depending on location of the incident 

relative to the population, the scope of the incident, and whether the LNG released ignited or 

evaporated. This could be a significant impact with injuries ranging from mild to fatal, being 

most severe in Zone 1 and decreasing outward through Zones 2 and 3. However, because of the 

implementation of safety and security measures during marine transit, the likelihood of a marine 

spill from an LNG vessel is extremely remote. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources surveys for the proposed pipeline in Georgia, to date, have identified 154 

archaeological sites, 113 archaeological non-site loci, 29 architectural resources, and 5 

cemeteries. Only six of the archaeological sites are recommended as potentially eligible for the 

NRHP, and avoidance or further evaluation has been recommended. The five cemeteries would 

be avoided. The Georgia SHPO has concurred with the recommendations for the archaeological 

resources and cemeteries. Three of the architectural resources have been recommended as 

eligible for the NRHP, and the SHPO has concurred. In addition, the SHPO has recommended 

that two additional architectural resources be considered eligible for the NRHP. Finally, 

approximately 6.8 miles of pipeline and some ancillary areas remain to be surveyed due to 

denied access. Therefore, we are recommending that EEC defer construction until cultural 

resources studies and consultations have been completed. If any cultural resources determined 

eligible for the NRHP cannot be avoided, any impacts would be mitigated to less than significant 

levels through implementation of a data recovery/treatment plan. 

Cultural resources surveys completed for the originally-proposed route in South Carolina (at the 

Savannah River crossing) identified two cultural resources: one previously recorded site that was 

not relocated, and one new historic archaeological site that was recommended as not eligible for 

the NRHP. The South Carolina SHPO concurred. Survey of EEC’s newly-proposed route at the 

Savannah River identified one archaeological site, recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. 

The SHPO has concurred and we concur also. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historic 

properties, and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for the proposed project in South 

Carolina is complete. 

Southern LNG completed a cultural resources survey for the proposed Terminal Expansion site. 

No cultural resources were identified and the Georgia SHPO and we concur that no historic 

properties would be affected. Therefore, there would be no impacts on historic properties, and 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for the Terminal Expansion portion of the proposed 

project is complete. 

No significant impact on cultural resources is expected along the waterway as a result of LNG 

and support vessel transit, an unignited release of LNG, or an ignited release of LNG. Potential 
 5-9 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

significant impact on historic structures in Zones 1 and 2 may occur from an ignited release of 

LNG. However, the likelihood of a marine LNG spill is extremely remote. 

Air Quality 

Construction of the Terminal Expansion and compressor station would result in temporary air 

emissions, but these emissions are not likely to significantly affect long term air quality in the 

region. During construction, elevated levels of ambient pollutants are likely to occur in the 

immediate vicinity of the terminal and compressor station. However, the yearly constructionrelated emissions estimated for the Terminal Expansion would account for only a minimal 

portion of the county’s yearly emissions inventory. Because pipeline construction moves 

through an area quickly, air emissions associated with EEC’s pipeline would be intermittent and 

short-term. 

The existing terminal is a major source as defined by PSD regulations and the Terminal 

Expansion would constitute a major modification requiring PSD review. Southern LNG 

prepared an air dispersion modeling analysis as part of its PSD Permit that predicted air 

emissions impacts associated with the air pollutants exceeding the PSD thresholds, NOx and CO, 

would not exceed the NAAQS or significantly impact the existing air quality at federally 

protected Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the terminal. Potential impacts on air quality 

due to the operation of the new significant sources would be minimized by adherence to 

applicable federal and state regulations and the installation of Best Available Control 

Technology. 

Southern LNG also conducted a refined air dispersion analysis for all the stationary sources at 

the Elba Island LNG Terminal (existing and proposed), marine vessel emissions originating 

within the moored security zone, and regional sources. The air dispersion modeling analysis was 

used to predict the off-site concentrations in the vicinity of the project for NO2, CO, and SO2

emissions associated with operation of the project for comparison to the NAAQS. The worstcase scenario was modeled which represented the presence of two LNG vessels at the Terminal 

and the presence of two tug assist vessels for each LNG vessel only during berthing and 

unberthing. The modeling results show that the cumulative impacts of NO2, CO, and SO2 for the 

3-hour and annual periods are all below the corresponding NAAQS. The cumulative impacts 

attributable to the Terminal exceed the NAAQS for the SO2 24-hour averaging period. However, 

given the very conservative approach of the modeling analysis, we believe that the Terminal 

Expansion alone would contribute to only a fraction of the impacts shown in the modeling 

analysis. Although the Terminal Expansion would contribute to the degradation of the regional 

air quality, it would not result in significant impacts to the regional air quality. 

Southern LNG also conducted a quantitative assessment of all indirect air emissions associated 

with LNG marine and other project-related vessels along a distance of 24 nautical miles each 

way, including the entire waterway from the territorial sea to the vessel berth. A temporary 

increase in air quality impacts to the populations in Zones 2 and 3 along the waterway, which at 

times (based upon wind speed, direction, number of support vessels, and fuel mixtures) may be 

above ambient air quality levels for short periods. However, the emissions affecting any one 

localized area during vessel transit would be temporary and transient as the LNG vessels and 
 5-10 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

support vessels make the transit and would occur at distances allowing for considerable 

dispersion. The long-term impacts associated with the normal operation of the additional LNG 

vessels along the waterway would not have a significant impact on air quality. In the event of a 

marine LNG spill, any LNG released would vaporize. If the vapor cloud ignited, combustion 

emissions would be released to the atmosphere. The types and amounts of emissions from the 

ignition of an LNG pool from a substantial release would depend on many factors, but the 

emissions to any one localized area would be temporary and would depend on weather, other 

conditions at each specific location along the waterway, and the scope of the incident. 

Air quality impacts due to the operation of the Elba Express Compressor Station are anticipated 

to be minor and EEC would comply with all state and local air permitting requirements. We do 

not believe the operation of the pipeline facilities would have a significant effect on regional air 

quality. 

Noise 

Potential noise impacts would include short-term increases in noise during construction, and 

increases in noise levels associated with operation of the expanded terminal and the new 

compressor station. Construction activity and associated noise levels would vary depending on 

the phase of construction in progress at any one time. Considering the distance from the terminal 

to the NSA, the predicted noise levels during excavation, dredging, pile driving, and construction 

activities would be well below existing ambient noise levels and the FERC’s threshold of an Ldn 

of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Construction of the compressor station would primarily 

be limited to daylight hours and would not exceed FERC’s standard; no mitigation would be 

required. Operation of the Terminal Expansion and Elba Express Compressor Station would 

generate noise on a continuous basis. However, the predicted noise levels attributable to 

operations would not result in significant effects on the nearest NSAs to the terminal or 

compressor station. We have included recommendations for completion of post-construction 

noise surveys and implementation of additional mitigation measures, if required, to ensure that 

actual noise levels resulting from operation of the Terminal Expansion and compressor station 

would not reach significant levels. 

Noise generated by additional LNG marine traffic along the waterway between the terminal and 

the territorial sea would be similar to noise from other large vessels using the waterway. Given 

the volume of existing vessel traffic into the Port of Savannah, it is expected that any underwater 

noise attributable to the additional LNG vessels would not be noticed by aquatic species tolerant 

of existing shipping. Underwater noise in the Zones of Concern would cause a local and 

temporary avoidance behavior in fish but would not result in significant impacts on 

environmental resources. The Project area already is subject to routine noise disturbances 

associated with numerous sources. Normal operation of additional LNG vessels and escort 

vessels visiting the expanded terminal would cause an incremental increase in noise impacts 

primarily along the waterway leading from offshore to the Elba Terminal berths. In the event of 

a marine LNG spill, any LNG released would vaporize and subsequent ignition of the vapor 

cloud may occur. Given the known behavior of an LNG spill when ignited, and because no 

explosion would result, such an ignition event would not be expected to generate sound pressure 
 5-11 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

waves affecting nearby species or other resources in the Zones of Concern, either above or below 

the water’s surface. 

Reliability and Safety 

EEC would comply with the DOT’s pipeline material and construction standards for natural gas 

pipelines. Where collocated with Southern’s existing pipeline, the typical offset between 

pipeline centerlines would range between 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 

prepapration, 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 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 the Terminal 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 the Terminal Expansion. 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. 

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 
 5-12 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

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. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The majority of impacts we have identified for the proposed Elba III Project would be temporary 

and minor. Their addition to impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects 

in the region would not result in an overall significant cumulative impact. 

5.3 SUMMARY OF 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 a 

Certificate/permit/easement pending further study, or issue a Certificate/permit/easement 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). The alternative of issuing an LOR without conditions was 

determined not reasonable in this case and removed from consideration because it did 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. 

No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives 

The No Action and 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. 

Site and Route Alternatives 

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 
 5-13 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

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 ROW) 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 environmental acceptable. Therefore, no alternative sites were 

identified. Further, our review of proposed sites for meter stations, MLVs, and pig 

launching/receiving facilities raised no issues that warranted evaluation of alternative sites. 

5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 

Effects on all environmental resources were evaluated to determine whether any significant 

impacts would remain after application of the mitigation proposed by Southern LNG and EEC. 

We then considered practical, appropriate, and reasonable measures which would further reduce 

potential Project-related impacts. As a result, we developed additional mitigation which we are 

recommending be included as specific conditions to any Order issued by the Commission. Our 

analysis indicates that with the application of Southern LNG’s and EEC’s mitigation and 

implementation of our recommendations below, most impacts from the Elba III Project would be 

less than significant. Although the likelihood of a cargo spill from an LNG vessel during transit 

is extremely remote, such an incident could result in significant impacts on wetlands, vegetation, 

fisheries and wildlife, special status species, land use, people, cultural resources, and air quality. 

5.5 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission authorizes the Elba III Project, we recommend that the following measures be 

included as specific conditions of the Order. We believe these measures would further mitigate 

the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. In the following list of measures, “file” means file with the Secretary of the FERC.
 5-14 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

1. Southern LNG and EEC shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation 

measures described in the applications, supplemental filings (including responses to staff 

data requests), and as identified in this EIS, unless modified by the Commission Order. 

Southern LNG and EEC must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing 

with the Secretary; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that 

modification. 

2. For pipeline facilities, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps 

are necessary to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction 

and operation of the Project. This authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary 

(including stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of 

the environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from Project construction and operation. 

3. For LNG facilities, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take all steps 

necessary to ensure the protection of life, health, property, and the environment during 

construction and operation of the Project. This authority shall include: 

a. stop-work authority and authority to cease operation; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary to 

assure continued compliance with the intent of the conditions of the Commission 

Order. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in this EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, 

Southern LNG and EEC shall file any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a 

scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the 

Commission Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the 

Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated 

on these alignment maps/sheets. 

EEC’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under the NGA section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Commission Order must be consistent with 

these authorized facilities and locations. EEC’s right of eminent domain granted under 

NGA section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to 

accommodate future needs or to acquire a ROW for a pipeline to transport a commodity 

other than natural gas. 
 5-15 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

5. Southern LNG and EEC shall file detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs 

at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility 

relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that 

would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the 

Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For 

each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, 

documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing 

by the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the Southern LNG’s and 

EEC’s project-specific Plans and/or minor field realignments per landowner needs and 

requirements which do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such 

as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility 

location changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could 

affect sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Prior to construction of the respective Project components, Southern LNG and EEC 

shall each file initial Implementation Plans for the Terminal Expansion and the Elba 

Express Pipeline, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP describing how 

Southern LNG and EEC will implement the mitigation measures required by the 

Commission Order. Southern LNG and EEC must each file revisions to its respective 

plan as schedules change. Each plan must identify: 

a. how these requirements will be incorporated into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and 

construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite 

construction and inspection personnel; 

b. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that 

sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

d. the training and instructions Southern LNG and EEC will give to all personnel 

involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the 
 5-16 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Project progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to 

participate in the training session(s); 

e. the company personnel (if known) and the specific portion of Southern LNG’s 

and EEC’s organizations having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Southern LNG and EEC will 

follow if noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling 

diagram), and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. EEC shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure for 

at least 3 years following the completion of construction. The procedure shall provide 

landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their 

environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the Elba Express 

Pipeline and restoration of the ROW. Prior to construction of the pipeline, EEC shall 

mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by 

the pipeline project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, EEC shall: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their 

concerns; the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a 

response; 

(2) instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call EEC’s Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response 

from EEC’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement 

Hotline at (888) 889-8030 or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, EEC shall include in its weekly status reports a copy of a table that 

contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the identity of the caller and the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheet(s) of the 

affected property and the location by milepost; 

(3) the description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be 

resolved, or why it has not been resolved. 

8. Southern LNG shall employ at least one EI, while EEC shall employ a team of EIs per 

construction spread. The EIs shall be: 
 5-17 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Commission Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other 

authorizing documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractors’ implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the respective contracts (see 

condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of 

the Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by 

other federal, state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

9. Prior to any construction, Southern LNG and EEC shall file affirmative statements, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the EI’s authority and have been or will be trained on the 

implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before

becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

10. Southern LNG and EEC shall file updated status reports prepared by the head EI on a 

weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On 

request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with 

permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. the current construction status of the Terminal Expansion facilities (Southern 

LNG) and each pipeline spread (EEC), work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally sensitive areas; 

b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance 

observed by the EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed 

by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements 

imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies); 

c. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to 

compliance with the requirements of the Commission Order, and the measures 

taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

f. copies of any correspondence received by Southern LNG or EEC from other 

federal, state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of 

noncompliance, and the respective response. 

11. EEC must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing

service from each phase of the Elba Express Pipeline portion of the Project. Such 
 5-18 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

authorization will only be granted following a determination that rehabilitation and 

restoration of the ROW and other areas of project-related disturbance are proceeding 

satisfactorily. 

12. Southern LNG must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before 

commencing service from each phase of the Terminal Expansion portion of the 

Project. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination that the 

facilities have been constructed in accordance with FERC approval and applicable 

standards, can be expected to operate safely as designed, and the rehabilitation and 

restoration of areas affected by the project are proceeding satisfactorily. 

13. Within 30 days of placing the facilities in service, both Southern LNG and EEC shall 

file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable 

conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable 

conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the conditions in the Order Southern LNG and EEC has 

complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas 

affected by the Project where compliance measures were not properly 

implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for 

noncompliance. 

14. Prior to the commencement of blasting, EEC shall file a revised Blasting Specification 

Plan that includes: 

a. the locations (by MP) where bedrock blasting would be required; 

b. any applicable state blasting regulations; and 

c. a pre-blast survey assessment of structures, wells, and utilities within 150 feet of 

the construction ROW. 

In the event property owners identify any damage or change to the properties, or if 

excessive peak particle velocities have been recorded during the blasting operations, EEC 

shall complete follow-up surveys of the potentially impacted property. 

15. Prior to construction, EEC shall file the locations by MP of all springs, seeps, and wells 

identified within 150 feet of its construction ROW. 

16. EEC shall file a report within 30 days of placing the pipeline facilities in service, 

identifying all water supply wells/systems damaged by construction and how they were 

repaired. The report shall include a discussion of any complaints concerning the well 

yield or quality and how each problem was resolved. 

17. Southern LNG shall not conduct hydrostatic test water withdrawals for LNG storage tank 

testing in estuarine habitats from April 1 through July 31. 
 5-19 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

18. Southern LNG shall work with LNG vessel owners to identify and implement methods 

that have the potential to reduce water withdrawal volumes while the vessels are berthed. 

Southern LNG shall file an annual report for the first three years of operating the 

Terminal Expansion facilities, detailing the measures that were successfully implemented 

for each vessel.

19. EEC shall file the results of its HDD geotechnical feasibility investigations for crossing 

the Broad River and the Savannah River. If its planned HDD crossing is not feasible, 

then EEC shall develop a site-specific alternative crossing plan and sediment control plan 

for activities within these waterbodies in consultation with all relevant agencies (e.g., 

COE, GDNR, FWS, NPS, and NMFS). EEC’s plan shall be filed for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction at each waterbody location. 

20. EEC shall reevaluate the local wetland mitigation options, in consultation with the COE, 

in order to determine one or more suitable banks that provide in-kind mitigation in the 

same watershed as project impacts. EEC shall file its reevaluation for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction.

21. Southern LNG shall continue to consult with NMFS to minimize noise impacts 

associated with pile driving activities and file the results of this consultation prior to 

construction. 

22. Where protected species or their habitat exists, and surveys were conducted over one year 

prior to the start of construction, EEC shall consult with the FWS to assess the need for 

additional surveys prior to construction. In addition, any areas where access has been 

denied during initial surveys shall also be surveyed for threatened and endangered species 

prior to construction. 

23. Prior to construction, EEC shall file completed surveys for flatwoods salamander 

habitat along the pipeline route (i.e. MP location of suitable habitat), and provide copies 

of any correspondence with the FWS including recommended mitigation measures. 

24. If Canby’s dropwort, pondberry, and/or poolsprite are identified during re-surveys of 

potentially suitable habitat along the Elba Express Pipeline route, EEC shall contact the 

FWS to obtain guidance regarding a course of action to be taken to avoid or minimize 

impacts on these species during construction. Prior to construction, EEC shall file the 

completed survey report that contains the following information: 

a. name(s) and qualifications of the person(s) conducting the survey; 

b. method(s) used to conduct the survey; 

c. date(s) of the survey; 

d. area surveyed (include the MP surveyed); and 

e. proposed mitigation that would substantially minimize or avoid the potential 

impacts. 
 5-20 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Copies of all coordination, including any recommended mitigation measures, shall be 

filed for review and approval by the Director of OEP. 

25. Southern LNG and EEC shall not begin construction of facilities for the respective 

projects until: 

a. all outstanding biological surveys have been completed 

b. the staff completes any necessary consultations with FWS and NMFS; and 

c. Southern LNG and EEC have received written notification from the Director of 

OEP that construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of 

conservation measures) may begin. 

26. EEC shall file, for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP, the results of 

consultation with the GDNR regarding avoidance or minimization of impacts on the 

bluebarred pygmy sunfish prior to construction. 

27. EEC shall not withdraw water for hydrostatic testing from the Broad River or its 

tributaries during the period April 1 to July 31. However, if EEC believes water 

withdrawal must occur during this period, EEC shall develop a hydrostatic test water 

withdrawal plan (containing measures to minimize impacts on the sandbar shiner and 

robust redhorse) for the Broad River in consultation with the GDNR. Either a statement 

indicating EEC’s commitment to abide by the FWS time-of-year restrictions or copies of 

correspondence with the FWS and GDNR approving the hydrostatic test water 

withdrawal plan shall be filed prior to construction. 

28. EEC shall not construct its crossing of the Ogeechee Creek or its tributaries during the 

period June 1 to August 30 unless EEC receives written approval from the Director of 

OEP. Prior to construction, EEC shall file either a statement indicating EEC’s 

commitment to abide by the FWS time-of-year restriction or copies of correspondence 

with the GDNR approving a summer crossing plan that contains measures to minimize 

impacts on the Atlantic pigtoe mussel. Alternatively, EEC shall file documentation that 

the GDNR has determined that the proposed project would not likely affect the Atlantic 

pigtoe mussel. 

29. Prior to construction, EEC shall file survey reports for Broad River burrowing crayfish 

and lean crayfish. If Broad River burrowing crayfish or lean crayfish are found during 

surveys, then EEC shall not begin construction in the Broad River watershed until it 

files the results of GDNR consultation regarding avoidance or minimization of impacts 

on these species for review and written approval by the Direction of OEP. 

30. For each residence closer than 25 feet to the construction work area, EEC shall file a sitespecific plan for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP prior to 

construction. These plans shall include: 

a. a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced pipeline 

 separation, centerline adjustment, use of stovepipe or drag-section techniques, 
 5-21 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

 working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, etc.), and include a 

 dimensioned site plan that shows: 

(1) the location of the residence in relation to the new and existing pipelines; 

(2) the edge of the construction work area; 

(3) the edge of the new permanent ROW; and 

(4) other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies. 

b. a description of how EEC would ensure the trench is not excavated until the pipe 

 is ready for installation and the trench is backfilled immediately after pipe 

 installation; and 

c. evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and fencing 

 would be located within 10 feet of a residence. 

31. Prior to construction, EEC shall file updated documentation of consultations detailing 

any site-specific construction and mitigation measures or restoration plans requested by 

developers crossed by or immediately adjacent to the pipeline route, and identifying what 

measures EEC has agreed to implement. 

32. Prior to construction, EEC shall file updated documentation of consultations with the 

appropriate local officials or managers of the Di-Lane Plantation and Clark Hill WMAs 

regarding field surveys, easement acquisitions, and permitting processes. The 

documentation shall identify any agreed-upon mitigation measures or restoration plans 

developed during the consultations. 

33. EEC shall not begin construction of the Elba Express Pipeline facilities until it files a 

copy of the Coastal Zone consistency determination issued by the GDNR. 

34. EEC shall defer construction of the pipeline, compressor station, meter stations, and 

establishment and use of all staging, storage, and temporary work areas and new or to-beimproved access roads until: 

a. EEC files a cultural resources survey report for the denied access areas, and any 

additional or newly identified areas requiring survey, evaluation report(s), any 

required avoidance or treatment plan(s), and the Georgia State Historic 

Preservation Office’s comments and any COE comments, as appropriate, on the 

reports and any plan(s); and 

b. the Director of OEP reviews all cultural resources survey and evaluation reports 

and plans and notifies EEC in writing that construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein 

clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION--DO 

NOT RELEASE.” 
 5-22 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

35. Southern LNG shall file a noise survey for the Terminal Expansion no later than 60 

days after placing the expansion facilities into service. If the noise attributable to the 

operation of the terminal exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Southern LNG 

shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install additional noise controls to 

meet that level within 1 year of the in-service date. Southern LNG shall confirm 

compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise survey no later than 60 days

after it installs the additional noise controls. 

36. EEC shall file a noise survey for the Elba Express Compressor Station no later than 60 

days after placing the station into service. If the noise attributable to the operation of the 

station under full load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, EEC 

shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install additional noise controls to 

meet that level within 1 year of the in-service date. EEC shall confirm compliance with 

this requirement by filing a second noise survey no later than 60 days after it installs the 

additional noise controls. 

37. Until the commencement of service, Southern LNG shall annually review its WSA 

relating to LNG marine traffic for the project; update the assessment to reflect changing 

conditions which may impact the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic; 

provide the updated assessment to the cognizant COTP/FMSC for review and validations 

and, if appropriate, further action by the COTP/FMSC relating to LNG marine traffic; 

and provide a copy to FERC staff.. 

Recommendations 38-62 apply to the Terminal Expansion and construction details. 

Information pertaining to these specific recommendations shall be filed for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to initial site preparation; prior to 

construction of final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to commencement of service 

as indicated by each specific condition. Specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed 

design information meeting the criteria specified in Order No. 683 (Docket No. RM06-24-

000), including security information, should be submitted as critical energy infrastructure 

information (CEII) pursuant to 18 CFR 388.112. See Critical Energy Infrastructure 

Information, Order No. 683, 71 Fed. Reg. 58,273 (October 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 

31,228 (2006). Information pertaining to items such as: offsite emergency response; 

procedures for public notification and evacuation; and construction and operating 

reporting requirements would be subject to public disclosure. This information should be 

submitted a minimum of 30 days before approval to proceed is required. 

38. Complete plan drawings and a list of the hazard detection equipment shall be filed 

prior to initial site preparation. The list shall include the instrument tag number, type 

and location, alarm locations, and shutdown functions of the proposed hazard detection 

equipment. Plan drawings shall clearly show the location of all detection equipment. 

39. Southern LNG shall provide a technical review of its proposed facility design that: 
 5-23 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

a. identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the distances to any 

possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable refrigerants, flammable liquids 

and flammable gases); and 

b. demonstrates that these areas are adequately covered by hazard detection devices 

and indicate how these devices would isolate or shutdown any combustion 

equipment whose continued operation could add to or sustain an emergency. 

Southern LNG shall file this review prior to initial site preparation.

40. Complete plan drawings and a list of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire 

extinguishing, and other hazard control equipment shall be filed prior to initial site 

preparation. The list shall include the equipment tag number, type, size, equipment 

covered, and automatic and manual remote signals initiating discharge of the units. 

Plan drawings shall clearly show the planned location of all fixed and wheeled 

extinguishers.

41. Facility plans showing the proposed location of, and area covered by, each monitor, 

hydrant, deluge system, hose, and sprinkler, as well as piping and instrumentation 

diagrams, of the fire water system shall be filed prior to initial site preparation. 

42. A copy of the hazard design review and list of recommendations that are to be 

incorporated in the final facility design prior to initial site preparation.

43. Southern LNG shall develop an updated Emergency Response Plan (including 

evacuation) and coordinate procedures with the Coast Guard; state, county, and local 

emergency planning groups; fire departments; state and local law enforcement; and 

appropriate federal agencies. This updated plan shall include at a minimum: 

a. designated contacts with state and local emergency response agencies; 

b. scalable procedures for the prompt notification of appropriate local officials and 

emergency response agencies based on the level and severity of potential 

incidents; 

c. procedures for notifying residents and recreational users within areas of potential 

hazard along the transit route and in the South Channel; 

d. evacuation routes/methods for residents and other public use areas that are within 

any transient hazard areas along the route of the LNG marine transit; 

e. locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

f. an “emergency coordinator” on each LNG vessel to activate sirens and other 

warning devices. 

The Emergency Response Plan shall be filed for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. Southern LNG shall notify FERC 

staff of all planning meetings in advance and shall report progress on the development of 

its Emergency Response Plan at 3-month intervals. 
 5-24 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

44. The Emergency Response Plan shall include a Cost-Sharing Plan identifying the 

mechanisms for funding all project-specific security/emergency management costs that 

would be imposed on state and local agencies. In addition to the funding of direct transitrelated security/emergency management costs, this comprehensive plan shall include 

funding mechanisms for the capital costs associated with any necessary 

security/emergency management equipment and personnel base. The Cost-Sharing Plan 

shall be filed for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to initial site 

preparation.

45. The final design of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire extinguishing hazard control 

equipment shall identify manufacturer and model. 

46. The final design shall include an updated fire protection evaluation carried out in 

accordance with the requirements of NFPA 59A 2001, chapter 9.1.2. 

47. The final design shall include a shutoff valve at the suction and discharge of each high 

pressure LNG pump.

48. The final design of the vaporizers shall include double block isolation on the suction and 

double block isolation and check valve on the discharge of each vaporizer. One of the 

valves on the suction and one valve on the discharge shall be automatically actuated.

49. The final design of the minimum flow recycle line from the secondary pumps to 

downstream of the isolation valve to the LNG storage tanks shall specify pipe with the 

same pressure and temperature rating as the discharge piping for the secondary pumps. 

50. The final design shall include details of the shut down logic, including cause and effect 

matrices for alarms and shutdowns. 

51. The final design shall include emergency shutdown of equipment and systems activated 

by hazard detection devices for flammable gas, fire, and cryogenic spills, when 

applicable. 

52. The final design shall specify that the hazardous area classification of the LNG pump 

area and vaporizer LNG inlet and outlet piping areas are classified as Class 1 Group D, 

Division 1. 

53. The final design shall include details of the air gaps to be installed downstream of all 

seals or isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an 

electrical conduit or wiring system. Each air gap shall vent to a safe location and be 

equipped with a leak detection device that shall continuously monitor for the presence of 

a flammable fluid, shall alarm the hazardous condition, and shall shutdown the 

appropriate systems. 

54. The final design shall include a hazard and operability review of the completed design. 

A copy of the review and a list of the recommendations shall be filed.
 5-25 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

55. The final design of the sendout piping from the vaporizers to the shut-off valve upstream 

of the meter station shall specify the same pressure rating as the vaporizer discharge 

piping. 

56. All valves including drain, vent, main, and car sealed, or locked valves shall be tagged in 

the field during construction and prior to commissioning. 

57. The design details and procedures to record and to prevent the tank fill rate from 

exceeding the maximum fill rate specified by the tank designer shall be filed prior to 

commissioning. 

58. A tabulated list of the proposed hand-held fire extinguishers shall be filed prior to 

commissioning. The information shall include a list with the equipment number, type, 

size, number, and location. Plan drawings shall include the type, size, and number of all 

hand-held fire extinguishers.

59. Operation and Maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as safety procedure 

manuals, shall be filed prior to commissioning. 

60. Prior to commissioning, Southern LNG shall coordinate, as needed, with the Coast 

Guard to define the responsibilities of Southern LNG’s security staff in supplementing 

other security personnel and in protecting the LNG vessels and terminal. 

61. The FERC staff shall be notified of any proposed revisions to the security plan and 

physical security of the facility prior to commencement of service. 

62. Progress on construction of the Expansion Project shall be reported in filed monthly 

reports with the Secretary. Details shall include a summary of activities, projected 

schedule for completion, problems encountered and remedial actions taken. Problems of 

significant magnitude shall be reported to the FERC within 24 hours. 

In addition, recommendation numbers 63 through 66 shall apply throughout the life of the 

facility. 

63. The facility shall be subject to regular FERC staff technical reviews and site inspections 

on at least an annual basis or more frequently as circumstances indicate. Prior to each 

FERC staff technical review and site inspection, Southern LNG shall respond to a 

specific data request including information relating to possible design and operating 

conditions that may have been imposed by other agencies or organizations. Up-to-date 

detailed piping and instrumentation diagrams reflecting facility modifications and 

provision of other pertinent information not included in the semi-annual reports described 

below, including facility events that have taken place since the previously submitted 

semi-annual report, shall be submitted. 
 5-26 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

64. Semi-annual operational reports shall be filed with the Secretary to identify changes in 

facility design and operating conditions, abnormal operating experiences, activities 

(including vessel arrivals, quantity and composition of imported LNG, vaporization 

quantities, boil-off/flash gas, etc.), plant modifications including future plans and 

progress thereof. Abnormalities shall include, but not be limited to: unloading/shipping 

problems, potential hazardous conditions from offsite vessels, storage tank stratification 

or rollover, geysering, storage tank pressure excursions, cold spots on the storage tanks, 

storage tank vibrations and/or vibrations in associated cryogenic piping, storage tank 

settlement, significant equipment or instrumentation malfunctions or failures, nonscheduled maintenance or repair (and reasons therefore), relative movement of storage 

tank inner vessels, vapor or liquid releases, fires involving natural gas and/or from other 

sources, negative pressure (vacuum) within a storage tank and higher than predicted 

boiloff rates. Adverse weather conditions and the effect on the facility also shall be 

reported. Reports shall be submitted within 45 days after each period ending June 30 

and December 31. In addition to the above items, a section entitled "Significant plant 

modifications proposed for the next 12 months (dates)" also shall be included in the semiannual operational reports. Such information would provide the FERC staff with early 

notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at the LNG facility.

65. In the event the temperature of any region of any secondary containment, becomes less 

than the minimum specified operating temperature for the material, the Commission shall 

be notified within 24 hours and procedures for corrective action shall be specified. 

66. Significant non-scheduled events, including safety-related incidents (i.e., LNG or natural 

gas releases, fires, explosions, mechanical failures, unusual over pressurization, and 

major injuries) and security related incidents (i.e., attempts to enter site, suspicious 

activities) shall be reported to FERC staff. In the event an abnormality is of significant 

magnitude to threaten public or employee safety, cause significant property damage, or 

interrupt service, notification shall be made immediately, without unduly interfering with 

any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency procedure. In 

all instances, notification shall be made to Commission staff within 24 hours. This 

notification practice shall be incorporated into the LNG facility's emergency plan. 

Examples of reportable LNG-related incidents include:

a. fire; 

b. explosion; 

c. estimated property damage of $50,000 or more; 

d. death or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; 

e. free flow of LNG that results in pooling; 

f. unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such as an 

earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs the serviceability, structural integrity, 

or reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas or LNG; 

g. any crack or other material defect that impairs the structural integrity or reliability 

of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas or LNG; 

h. any malfunction or operating error that causes the pressure of a pipeline or LNG 

facility that contains or processes gas or LNG to rise above its maximum allowable 
 5-27 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

operating pressure (or working pressure for LNG facilities) plus the build-up 

allowed for operation of pressure limiting or control devices; 

i. a leak in an LNG facility that contains or processes gas or LNG that constitutes an 

emergency; 

j. inner tank leakage, ineffective insulation, or frost heave that impairs the structural 

integrity of an LNG storage tank; 

k. any condition that could lead to a hazard and cause a 20 percent reduction in 

operating pressure or shutdown of operation of a pipeline or an LNG facility; 

l. safety-related incidents to LNG vessels occurring at or en route to and from the 

LNG facility; or 

m. an event that is significant in the judgment of the operator and/or management even 

though it did not meet the above criteria or the guidelines set forth in an LNG 

facility’s incident management plan. 

In the event of an incident, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever 

steps are necessary to ensure operational reliability and to protect human life, health, 

property or the environment, including authority to direct the LNG facility to cease 

operations. Following the initial company notification, Commission staff would 

determine the need for an on-site inspection by Commission staff, and the timing of an 

initial incident report (normally within 10 days) and follow-up reports.