Final Environmental Impact Statement for Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville, LLC's Jacksonville Projec

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Jacksonville Project proposed by Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville, LLC (Eagle LNG).

Eagle LNG requests authorization under Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission’s regulations to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and export facility on the north bank of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The project would include the following facilities:

• three LNG trains, each with a nominal capacity of 0.33 million (metric) tonnes per annum of LNG for export, resulting in a total nominal capacity of 1.0 million (metric) tonnes per annum;
• one LNG storage tank with a net capacity of 45,000 cubic meters;
• marine facilities with a concrete access trestle and loading platform, and two liquid loading arms capable of docking and mooring a range of LNG vessels with an LNG cargo capacity of up to 45,000 cubic meters;
• LNG truck loading facilities with a dual bay capable of loading 260 to 520 LNG trucks per year;
• a boil-off gas compression system;
• on-site refrigerant storage;
• ground flare and cold vent systems; and
• utilities and support facilities (e.g., administration, control, and workshop buildings; roads and parking areas; power and communications; water, air, septic, and stormwater systems).

Natural gas would be delivered to the Jacksonville Project site via a 120-foot-long non-jurisdictional pipeline that would be constructed, owned, and operated by Peoples Gas (a subsidiary of TECO Energy, Inc.).

The EIS has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380).

The conclusions and recommendations presented in the EIS are those of the FERC environmental staff. Input from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as cooperating agencies, was considered during the development of our conclusions and recommendations. However, these agencies could develop their own conclusions and recommendations and would adopt the final EIS per 40 CFR 1506.3 (where applicable) if, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their permitting requirements have been satisfied.

We determined that construction and operation of the project would result in some limited adverse environmental impacts, but impacts would not be significant with the implementation of Eagle LNG’s proposed and our recommended mitigation measures. This determination is based on a review of the information provided by Eagle LNG and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, state, and local agencies as well as Indian tribes and individual members of the public.

Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:

• The LNG terminal site would be in an area currently zoned for industrial use, and is along an existing, maintained ship channel in the St. Johns River.
• Eagle LNG would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction and operation of the project by implementing the Plan and Procedures, and other project-specific plans (e.g., Fugitive Dust Control Plan, Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Soils Plan, Paleontological Unanticipated Discovery Plan, Underwater Noise Mitigation Plan, Migratory Bird Plan).
• The DOT siting requirements for the project, the Letter of Recommendation issued by the Coast Guard for the LNG marine traffic associated with the project, FERC staff’s preliminary engineering review and recommendations for the project, and the regulatory requirements for the project would avoid a significant increase in public safety risks.
• We would complete all appropriate consultation with the FWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service regarding federally listed threatened and endangered species before construction would be allowed to begin.
• Eagle LNG would comply with all applicable air and noise requirements during construction and operation of the project.
• An environmental inspection program would be implemented to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorization.

In addition, we developed project-specific mitigation measures that Eagle LNG should implement to further reduce the environmental impacts of the project, including recommendations specific to engineering, vulnerability, and detailed design of the LNG terminal, and ongoing recommendations relating to inspections, reporting, notification, and non-scheduled events that would apply throughout the life of the LNG terminal facility.

The Commissioners will take into consideration the FERC environmental staff’s recommendations when they make a decision on the project.

‍