JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT - Oregon Coast Allianceoregoncoastalliance.org/documents_13/JordanCove/JCEP... · 2013. 12. 1. · IBC International Building Code JCEP Jordan Cove Energy

JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT Resource Report 6 – Geological Resources

To Verify Compliance with this Minimum FERC Filing Requirement: See the Following Resource Report Section:

Describe, by milepost, mineral resources that are currently or potentially exploitable. Section 6.2

1. Describe, by milepost, existing and potential geological hazards and areas of nonroutine geotechnical concern, such as high seismicity areas, active faults, and areas susceptible to soil liquefaction, planned, active and abandoned mines, karst terrain, and areas of potential ground failure, such as subsidence, slumping, and landsliding. Discuss the hazards posed to the facility from each one.

Section 6.3

2. Describe how the project would be located or designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the resources or risk to itself, including geotechnical investigations and monitoring that would be conducted before, during, and after construction. Discuss also the potential for blasting to affect structures, and the measures to be taken to remedy such effects.

Section 6.4

3. Specify methods to prevent project-induced contamination from surface mines or from mine tailings along the right-of-way and whether the project would hinder mine reclamation or expansion efforts.

Not Applicable

4. If the application involves an LNG facility located in zones 2, 3, or 4 of the Uniform Building Code’s Seismic Risk Map, or where there is potential for surface faulting or liquefaction, prepare a report on earthquake hazards and engineering in conformance with "Data Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities." NBSIR 84-2833. This document may be obtained from the Commission staff.

Appendix A.6

Appendix B.6

Appendix C.6

5. If the application is for underground storage facilities, (I) describe how the applicant would control and monitor the drilling activity of others within the field and buffer zone; (ii) describe how the applicant would monitor potential effects of the operation of adjacent storage or production facilities on the proposed facility, and vice versa; (iii) describe measures to be taken to locate and determine the condition of old wells within the field and buffer zone and how the applicant would reduce risk from failure of known and undiscovered wells; and (iv) identify and discuss safety and environmental safeguards required by the state and Federal drilling regulations.

Not Applicable

RESOURCE REPORT 6 JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No. CP13-___-000

May 2013 Page i

RESOURCE REPORT 6 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CONTENTS 6. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 SURFACE AND BEDROCK GEOLOGY .................................................................. 6-2

6.2 MINERAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................ 6-4

6.3.1 Seismicity .................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.2 Soil Liquefaction .......................................................................................... 6-5

6.3.3 Subsidence ................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.4 Tsunamis ..................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3.5 Landslides ................................................................................................... 6-7

6.3.6 Biogenic Gas ............................................................................................... 6-7

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 6-8

6.4.1 Surface and Bedrock Geology .................................................................... 6-8

6.4.2 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................... 6-8

6.4.3 Geological Hazards ..................................................................................... 6-8

6.4.3.1 Seismicity ....................................................................................... 6-8

6.4.3.2 Soil Liquefaction ............................................................................ 6-9

6.4.3.3 Biogenic Gas ................................................................................. 6-9

6.4.3.4 Subsidence .................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.4 Tsunamis ..................................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.5 FERC Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 6-10

6.5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 6-10




CONTENTS (Continued)

May 2013

Page ii

TABLES

Table 6.3-1 Faults within 150 Kilometers of the Project Site

APPENDICES

Appendix A.6 Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Jordan Cove LNG

Appendix B.6 Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study - Proposed Jordan Cove LNG Facility

Appendix C.6 Facility Final Report - Site-Specific Tsunami Modeling at the Jordan Cove LNG Facility, Coos County, Using New Cascadia Sources

Appendix D.6 Preliminary Biogenic Gas Evaluation – South Dunes Power Plant, Former Mill Site Landfills



May 2013 Page iii


ACRONYMS

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BOG Boil-off Gas CCM Concrete Cellular Mattresses CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSZ Cascadia Subduction Zone DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission g Ground Acceleration HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator IBC International Building Code JCEP Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. km Kilometers LNG Liquefied Natural Gas M Meters m3 Cubic Meter m3/hr Cubic Meters per Hour MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake MMTPA Million Metric Tons per Annum Mw Moment Magnitude MW Megawatt NFPA National Fire Protection Association NGA Natural Gas Act OBE Operating Basis Earthquake ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation PCGP Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis SLIDO Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake U.S. United States USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey



May 2013 Page 6-1


6. INTRODUCTION Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (JCEP) is requesting authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to site, construct, and operate a natural gas liquefaction and export facility (LNG Terminal or Project), located on the bay side of the North Spit of Coos Bay, Oregon. The Project will provide a facility capable of liquefying natural gas and storing the liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export. Once the Project facilities are completed and placed in service, natural gas will be delivered to the LNG Terminal via the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP), which will connect the Project with existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The authorization required for the PCGP will be addressed in a separate application filed by PCGP pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).

Natural gas received at the LNG Terminal will be cooled into liquid form and stored in two 160,000 cubic meter (m3) full-containment LNG storage tanks. The proposed Project facilities will have the capability to allow export of six million metric tons per annum (MMTPA). Approximately 90 LNG carriers per year will be required to transport the LNG to locations in the United States (U.S.) and around the world.

The following facilities will be constructed for the Project:

• A pipeline gas conditioning facility consisting of two feed gas cleaning and dehydration trains with a combined natural gas throughput of approximately 1 Bscf/d;

• Four natural gas liquefaction trains, each with the export capacity of 1.5 MMTPA; • A refrigerant storage and resupply system; • An Aerial Cooling System (Fin-Fan); • An LNG storage system consisting of two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with

a net capacity of 160,000 m3 (1,006,000 barrels), and each equipped with three fully submerged LNG in-tank pumps sized for approximately 11,600 gallons per minute (gpm) each;

• An LNG transfer line consisting of one 2,300-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter line that will connect the shore based storage system with the LNG loading system;

• An LNG carrier cargo loading system designed to load LNG at a rate of 10,000 m3 per hour (m3/hr) with a peak capacity of 12,000 m3/hr, consisting of three 16-inch loading arms and one 16-inch vapor return arm;

• A protected LNG carrier loading berth constructed on an Open Cell® technology sheet pile slip wall and capable of accommodating LNG carriers with a range of capacities;

• The improvement of an existing, on-site unimproved road and utility corridor to become the primary roadway and utility interconnection between the LNG Terminal and South Dunes sites, including between the pipeline gas conditioning units on the South Dunes Power Plant site and the liquefaction trains on the LNG Terminal site;

• A boil off gas (BOG) recovery system used to control the pressure in the LNG storage tanks;



May 2013 Page 6-2

• Electrical, nitrogen, fuel gas, lighting, instrument/plant air and service water facility systems;

• An emergency vent system (ground flare); • An LNG spill containment system, a fire water system and various other hazard

detection, control, and prevention systems; and • Utilities, buildings and support facilities.

The following facility, although not jurisdictional to FERC, will also be constructed to support the Project:

• The South Dunes Power Plant, a 420 megawatt (MW) natural gas fired combined-cycle electric power plant inclusive of heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) units for the purpose of powering the refrigeration systems in the natural gas liquefaction process and supplying steam to the conditioning units.

Purpose of Report The purpose of this Resource Report is to describe as per 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 380.12(h): mineral resources; existing and potential geologic hazards; and the potential for surface faulting or liquefaction in the vicinity of the Project. This report also describes the potential impacts to geologic resources resulting from construction and operation of the Project and the potential impact to the Project from geologic hazards. Methods are proposed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the resources or risk to the Project from geologic hazards.

Report Organization Resource Report 6 is organized into five major sections and a separate section listing the sources used to prepare this Resource Report. Section 6.1 describes the surface and bedrock geology of the Project site Section 6.2 addresses mineral resources, Section 6.3 addresses geologic hazards, and Section 6.4 addresses the potential environmental consequences of construction and operation of the Project. Section 6.5 includes a list of references used to prepare this Resource Report.

6.1 SURFACE AND BEDROCK GEOLOGY The Project site is located at the western edge of the coastal headlands of the Central Coast Range, on the North Spit of Coos Bay, which marks the southern edge of the Holocene-age Coos Bay dune sheet (Peterson, et al., 2005). The Kentuck wetland mitigation site (described in Section 6.4.1 below) is located east of Coos Bay near the confluence of Kentuck Slough and Mettman Creek. The Project is located near the eastern edge of the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), an active convergent plate boundary between the subducting Explorer, Juan de Fuca, and Gorda Plates and the overriding North America Plate (Wells, et al., 2000). The tectonic regime has dominated the geologic evolution of the landscape in the Project area. The converging tectonic plates have resulted in the accretion of marine deltaic sediments and volcanic seamounts, referred to as the Siletzia terrane, to the western edge of the North American Plate (Heller and Ryberg, 1983). Sediments derived from the ancestral Klamath Mountains became lithified into the bedrock units at the site (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1975). Bedrock at the Project site includes Eocene marine interbedded siltstones and sandstones of the Coaledo Formation (Baldwin, et al., 1973). The upper member of the Coaledo Formation is composed of gray, coarse to fine-grained sandstone and minor amounts of coal. The upper Coaledo Formation underlies the



May 2013 Page 6-3

dune sheet where the Project is located and alluvial deposits in the Kentuck Slough. Geotechnical studies for the Project facilities on the North Spit indicate that the Project site is typically mantled with relatively clean, fine-grained sand underlain by weathered sandstone. Historical records and aerial photography indicate the flatter, upper portion of the Project site on the North Spit is typically sand fill to depths of about 10 to 20 feet. The sand fill ranges from loose to very dense, and is typically underlain by dense to very dense sand fill with a trace of silt. Weathered sandstone and siltstone of the Coaledo Formation is mapped or was encountered at all Project site areas at depths ranging from about 70 to 125 feet. Outcrops of the Coaledo Formation can be observed north and south of the Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection. The weathered sandstone encountered in the borings is very dense, weakly cemented sand and contains a variable silt content ranging from a trace of silt to silty (GRI, 2007a). Sand fill is also present to a depth of about 15 feet at the location of the Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection. An approximate 5-feet-thick layer of alluvial silt to clayey silt was encountered beneath the sand fill at this location. Similar to the other locations on the North Spit, this area is underlain by sand until reaching the underlying Coaledo Formation. The sand at the intersection locations is typically loose to a depth of about 30 feet and dense to very dense below 30 feet. Although the Coaledo Formation was not encountered in the explorations for the intersection, this formation can be seen in roadside cuts along Hwy 101 north and south of the Project site.

Geotechnical information at the Kentuck wetland mitigation site indicates the lower-lying portions of the site are mantled and underlain by soft alluvial deposits to depths of over 100 feet in some areas. The alluvium consists of interbedded layers of sand, silt, and clay that can contain a relatively high organic content. Dense sands were encountered beneath the soft alluvial deposits at depths of about 100 feet on the western portion of the site. Sandstone and siltstone of the Coaledo Formation underlie the alluvial deposits and form the hillsides north and south of the site. The depth of the Coaledo Formation varies with distance from the hillsides.

An overwater geophysical seismic reflection survey was performed between the facilities on the North Spit and the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport located on the south side of Coos Bay Navigation Channel (GRI, 2007a). The overwater survey indicated the presence of shallow bedrock in Coos Bay near the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, on the south side of the bay. The survey indicates bedrock becomes progressively deeper to the north and east, reaching about elevation -145 feet toward Jordan Cove to the north and at the mouth of Pony Slough to the east. The geotechnical investigations for the Project area conducted by GRI are provided in Appendix A.6.

6.2 MINERAL RESOURCES In 2008, the principal mineral production of Oregon in order of value was crushed stone, construction sand and gravel, Portland cement, diatomite, and crude perlite (USGS, 2008). Crushed stone and construction sand and gravel continued to account for 73 percent of Oregon’s total non-fuel mineral production value of $398 million (USGS, 2008). Mineral resources available in Coos County, Oregon include gold, platinum, chromium, clay, manganese, sand and gravel, silica, stone, and titanium (Baldwin, et al., 1973). There are 11 producing mines within five miles of the Project site. The closest mines are 1.3 miles to the southeast (a sand and gravel pit near the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport), and 1.5 miles to the northeast (Coos-Sand Corp.; silica, sand and gravel) (USGS, 2004). Coal and gas resources may occur at depths within or below sandstone at the site (Baldwin, et al. 1973). This



May 2013 Page 6-4

prospect carries risk commensurate with an exploration plan and could require several years to reach commerciality.

Construction and operation of the Project facilities would not affect any known mineral resources or the recovery of any mineral resources. Development of the site would not preclude future utilization of potential leasable resources in deeper, underlying geologic formations.

6.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.3.1 Seismicity The CSZ is the dominant tectonic feature in western Oregon and various lines of geologic evidence indicate the CSZ has produced megathrust earthquakes (Atwater, et al., 1995; Goldfinger, et al, 2012). Megathrust earthquakes occur when the fault between the tectonic oceanic plate subducting beneath the continental North American plate suddenly slips (Audet, et al., 2010). Offshore, subduction causes a deformation zone along the western edge of the accretionary wedge complex, strike-slip faulting in the North America plate, and a zone of folding extending from the coast westward. Onshore, the major tectonic elements associated with the subduction zone include the accretionary wedge complex of the Oregon Coast Range, deformed forearc basin (Willamette Valley), a volcanic arc complex (the Cascade Range), and a backarc region east of the Cascade Mountains (Lewis, et al., 2003). Local geologic structures reflect east-west compressional deformation resulting from ongoing oblique subduction on the CSZ that has occurred since the late middle Miocene epoch (Wells and Peck, 1961; Goldfinger, et al., 1996), and includes the megathrust itself, north-south-trending folds, north-south-trending reverse and thrust faults, and west-northwest-trending oblique strike-slip faults (Black and Madin, 1995; Goldfinger, et al., 1992). In the vicinity of the Project area, the location and extent of local fold and fault structures have been inferred from stratigraphic, geomorphic, and geophysical evidence, but there is limited paleoseismic evidence of Holocene activity associated with these structures. The Coos Bay area is located in a zone of low historical seismicity, and records of earthquakes felt in the vicinity of the Project site are limited. There is no historical record of earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 3.0 within a 50 kilometer (km) radius of the site in the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) database. Notable earthquakes felt in the vicinity of the Project site include a moment magnitude (Mw) earthquake rated 7 off the coast of Crescent City, California, (200 km away) in 1991, a Mw4.9 off the coast of Waldport, Oregon (105 km away) in 2004, and a Mw6 approximately 280 km off the coast of Coos Bay in 2012.

Eleven faults that are considered seismogenic in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) are located within 150 km of the Project site (Table 6.3-1). The three closest faults are the CSZ (13 km), the South Slough (16 km), and the Coquille Anticline (30 km). There are three faults within 67 km of the Project site and five within 133 km of the Project site. The CSZ, a megathrust fault, has the greatest potential Mw of 8.3-9.2. The maximum Mw of the other faults range from 6.3 to 7.7 (GRI, 2007b). Additional information on these faults can be found in the site-specific seismic hazard study provided in Appendix B.6.

In addition to the faults discussed and identified in the USGS database, Briggs (1994) indicated the possibility of a Holocene-active fault located in Pony Slough, immediately southeast of the site. The potential for a fault was based on vertical displacements measured in stratigraphy of marsh core samples obtained from across Pony Slough. An overwater geophysical seismic



May 2013 Page 6-5

reflection survey was conducted to further explore the possible existence of an active fault at this location. The geophysical survey was located across the mouth of Pony Slough and along the east-west aligned portion of Coos Bay, immediately south of the Project site, to identify depth to bedrock, bedrock structure, and the presence of any unmapped faults. GRI and Ian Madin, chief scientist at the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), reviewed the results of the seismic reflection survey at Pony Slough and agreed that the seismic reflection profile did not indicate the presence of a fault either across Pony Slough or across the bay at the location of the Project site.

6.3.2 Soil Liquefaction Field and laboratory studies have demonstrated that if saturated, loose to medium dense sands and some softer, low plasticity, fine-grained soils, such as sandy silts, are subject to cyclic shear stresses of a sufficient magnitude and duration, an increase in pore water pressure can result. As pore water pressure increases, the effective stress in the soil mass below the groundwater level decreases, which results in a corresponding loss of shear strength in the saturated material. The limiting case being if the pore water pressure ratio approaches 100 percent the material will lose most of its shear strength and deform as a viscous fluid (complete liquefaction) (GRI, 2007a). Additional information on liquefaction can be found in the site-specific geotechnical study provided in Appendix A.6. A supplemental liquefaction calculation report will be completed following the completion of the next exploration program for the Project site.

The majority of the sandy soils encountered below the fill at the Project site are dense enough to resist liquefaction during design-level earthquakes; however, the potential for liquefaction was calculated in several areas. The areas at highest risk for liquefaction are the saturated, loose portions of the fill encountered to depths of about 15 feet at the LNG Terminal site and to depths of about 25 feet at the access road/utility corridor and the gas processing area. A series of ground improvement methods such as vibroflotation, jet grouting, compaction grouting, and deep dynamic compaction are being considered to mitigate the risk of liquefaction.

Similar to the other facilities on the North Spit, the risk of liquefaction at the Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway interchange site is most significant to depths of about 25 feet, and denser materials were encountered below this depth. The proposed improvements at the Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection will be constructed to meet the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) seismic design requirements considering liquefaction.

The explorations completed at the Kentuck wetland mitigation site encountered soft and loose alluvial soils to depths of about 100 feet in some areas. The loose sand and low plasticity silts encountered are susceptible to liquefaction. The higher plasticity silts and clays encountered are not liquefiable.

Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as a result of liquefaction of a saturated surface layer and can develop in gentle slopes and move toward a free face, such as a river channel. Displacement occurs in response to the combination of gravitational forces and inertial forces generated by an earthquake. Where a free face exists, the loose saturated fill soils encountered at depths of about 10 to 25 feet may be susceptible to lateral spreading. Where soils susceptible to lateral spreading are encountered in the vicinity of improvements on the North Spit, ground improvement or other mitigations will be completed to design the improvements.

The existing Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection embankments are susceptible to lateral spreading displacements during a design-level earthquake. Lateral spreading hazards



May 2013 Page 6-6

are also present in the vicinity of the existing levee fills and river channel along the northern portion of the Project site.

6.3.3 Subsidence Modeling of megathrust earthquake ruptures on the CSZ indicates sequences of interseismic uplift and coseismic coastal subsidence. The predictions for coastal subsidence are locally constrained by features such as submerged trees and buried intertidal marshes interpreted to be associated with the 1700 CSZ earthquake. This repeated coastal subsidence pattern has been documented along the length of the CSZ (Atwater, et al., 1995; Clague, 1997; Goldfinger, 2003). Leonard, et al. (2004), presents profiles of coastal deformations from Northern California to Southern Canada based on this geologic information. The subsidence information indicates the largest coastal subsidence of 1.0 to 2.0 meters (m) occurred in Northern Oregon and Southern Washington with subsidence ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 m elsewhere. Leonard estimated an average of 0.61 m of coseismic subsidence occurred in this area during the 1700 earthquake. Leonard also estimates the coseismic subsidence in the Coos Bay areas will range from 0.0 to about 1.5 m during a future Mw8 to Mw9 megathrust earthquake located along this portion of the CSZ.

Subsidence estimates for the area have been updated as part of the recent updated tsunami modeling completed for the Southern Oregon Coast (Witter, et al., 2011) and site-specific modeling completed for the Project (Zhang, 2012). This study indicates the maximum subsidence for the most likely scenario considered for this study (M1, as explained in Section 6.3.4 below) is on the order of 2 m. Larger subsidence is estimated for the less-likely scenarios; these subsidence estimates are discussed further in Section 6.4.3.4 and the updated site-specific tsunami study completed for the Project (Zhang, 2012) provided in Appendix C.6.

6.3.4 Tsunamis The west coast of the United States has historically been subject to minor inundation from tsunamis generated by distant earthquakes in South America, Alaska, and Japan. Kelsey et al. (2005) note that tsunamis generated from these distant subduction zone earthquakes have minor inundation effects because of the long diagonal approach of tsunami waves to the west coast from these sources. Based on this explanation, observations made around the Indian Ocean following the 2004 megathrust Sumatran earthquake, and recent modeling (DOGAMI, 2012) indicate a tsunami generated by a megathrust earthquake on the CSZ will present the greatest tsunami inundation risk at the Project site.

The impacts and hazards of tsunamis to an industrialized area were well illustrated during the 2011 Tohoku, Japan Earthquake. This tsunami was generated by an offshore subduction zone earthquake; subsidence occurred and increased the tsunami impacts significantly in some areas. Because similar earthquake and subsidence are of concern off of the Oregon Coast, the lessons learned from this earthquake regarding subsidence, runup, scour, and foundation performance, etc. provide a useful case history for evaluating hazards at the Project site.

DOGAMI produced tsunami hazard maps for a tsunami generated by a megathrust earthquake on the CSZ, for most of the Oregon coast in 1995 (Priest, 1995a), 2002 (Priest, et al., 2002), and more recently in 2012 (DOGAMI). All studies include runup scenarios that vary wave height and coseismic subsidence. The 1995 and 2012 maps are included in the site-specific seismic hazard study conducted by GRI (Appendix C.6). It should be noted that the 1995 maps are not considered accurate in accordance with the most recent research, but are included since they are still officially referred to in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 455.466 and 455.447, which are referenced in the building code.



May 2013 Page 6-7

The following excerpt from Witter, et al. (2011), describes the earthquake sizes and tsunami scenarios utilized in the 2012 DOGAMI mapping effort.

“Several time intervals were selected to represent four general earthquake size classes named like T-shirt sizes: small (SM, 300 years), medium (M, 525 years), large (L, 800 years) and extra-large (XL, 1,200 years) scenarios. We consider a fifth extra-extra-large (XXL) scenario … for the purpose of simulating a maximum tsunami.”

Witter, et al. (2011), recommend utilizing the most likely tsunami scenario (M1) or the large splay fault scenario (L1), which encompasses 80 to 95 percent of the hazard for land use planning and future revisions to the building code along the Oregon Coast. Part II, Section 3.5.1 of the FERC Draft Seismic Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG Facilities (January 27, 2007) (FERC Guidelines) recommends evaluation of the site tsunami hazard for 100- and 500-year return intervals. The tsunami hazard at the facility will also be evaluated for a subduction zone rupture consistent with the new FERC recommendations, including the 2,475 year return. Currently new modeling is being developed to evaluate impacts to the Project site and the results from these models will be filed when complete in approximately two to three months (on or before August 2013).

A site-specific tsunami hazard study completed by Zhang (2012) evaluated the tsunami inundation elevation for the pre- and post-construction geometries and found minimal differences. This study is currently being revised to include the 2,475 year hazard level tsunami scenario in addition to the previous deterministic studies that were completed. To mitigate the tsunami hazard, JCEP has proposed designing the Project facilities at elevations that exceed the design-level tsunami.

The Kentuck wetland mitigation site is frequently underwater during wet portions of the year, and the 2012 DOGAMI mapping confirms it is located within the estimated tsunami inundation zone. As no permanent Project facilities are planned there, there are no appreciable impacts from tsunami inundation at the Kentuck wetland mitigation site. The existing Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway interchange is also located in the tsunami inundation zone.

6.3.5 Landslides The type and occurrence of landslides in the vicinity of the Project were evaluated using information gathered though review of geologic maps and literature, aerial photography, and Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon (SLIDO) (Burns, et al., 2011). Landslides were identified on the hillslopes above the town of Glasgow, Oregon, and on hillslopes above Kentuck Slough.

6.3.6 Biogenic Gas Biogenic gas produced from decomposition of wood products has been documented at several existing landfills located near the gas conditioning facilities to be located on the South Dunes Power Plant site (formerly a Weyerhaeuser linerboard mill site, which was closed in 2003 and since demolished) (GRI, 2012). Mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of biogenic gas on the Project will be incorporated as detailed design progresses. One of the primary mitigation measures being considered is complete removal of the Cell 3 landfill adjacent to the proposed development. The borings, soil and rock samples, and laboratory testing associated with the extensive geotechnical investigation of the Project site have not identified additional evidence of potential biogenic gas sources or potential hazards with natural soil or rock units. A



May 2013 Page 6-8

preliminary report of biogenic gas at the landfills on the South Dunes Power Plant site is provided in Appendix D.6.

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6.4.1 Surface and Bedrock Geology Impacts to topography will be limited primarily to the construction phase of the Project, when the topographic features at specific locations on the site will be altered. All upland material removed from the LNG Terminal site will be utilized on site for regrading purposes. The slip will be dredged to elevation -45 feet (NAVD88). The recommended dredged material management plan for the slip and access channel involves placement of the majority of the excess excavated material as structural fill on the adjacent site of the nonjurisdictional South Dunes Power Plant. All marine construction will be completed in accordance with permitted in-water work windows.

The Kentuck wetland mitigation site discussed previously is being constructed to mitigate wetland impacts associated with the Project. The Kentuck wetland mitigation site involves the restoration of a former golf course site to a tidally influenced wetland. An open channel under a new bridge will allow the site to be flooded and subject to daily tidal fluctuations. The existing dike on the north side of the site will also be improved as part of the mitigation project. Tide gates will be installed in the existing dike on the north side of the site and the new Y-shaped dike to allow fresh water from Kentuck Slough to mix with salt water during low, outgoing tides.

Two bridge structures and a large retaining wall will be constructed along the proposed access road/utility corridor alignment to minimize the impacts to the wetlands. Retaining walls are also planned at the Hwy 101-Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection to limit the footprint of the proposed widening.

No blasting will be required during any phase of construction of the Project, as the subsurface materials at the Project site consist of sand.

6.4.2 Mineral Resources Construction and development of the Project site will not affect any known or potential mineral resources or the recovery of any mineral resources and would not preclude future utilization of potential leasable resources in deeper, underlying geologic formations.

6.4.3 Geological Hazards The results of the geotechnical investigation (GRI, 2007a) indicate that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the Project facilities, provided that adequate site preparation and foundation design and construction methods are implemented. The Project facilities will be designed to account for the liquefaction, subsidence, and tsunami hazards. No crustal faults have been identified at the Project site.

6.4.3.1 Seismicity Ground motion results were developed in accordance with the FERC Guidelines. The FERC Guidelines specify the 2001 edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 59A Standard as the basis for FERC standards on the seismic design of LNG terminals. The FERC Guidelines also require application of portions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-05 standard, which is the basis for the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code.

The FERC Guidelines categorize LNG facility structures and ancillary components to define which design standard is applicable for each structure. The guidelines provide different seismic



May 2013 Page 6-9

recommendations for the following classes of structures: 1) Category I structures, 2) Category II structures and 3) Category III structures. The FERC Guidelines define waterfront structures as a specific subset of Category II structures with their own definitions. The seismic guidelines for these groups of structures are outlined in the site-specific seismic hazard study conducted by GRI (Appendix B.6).

The recommended peak ground accelerations (g) developed for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE), in accordance with the FERC Guidelines are 0.48g, 0.27g, and 0.48g, respectively.

6.4.3.2 Soil Liquefaction GRI has recommended densifying the upper 15 feet of the fill material to mitigate the risk of strength loss at shallow depths beneath the tanks (2007a), and JCEP has incorporated the recommendations into the design. The loose sands in the upper portion of the gas conditioning facility site will also need to be mitigated. The ground improvement methods considered involve techniques to densify the sands, such as vibroflotation or deep dynamic compaction. The impacts to the site will likely be limited to increasing the density of the sand, and there are no anticipated adverse consequences.

6.4.3.3 Biogenic Gas Biogenic gas produced from decomposition of wood products has been documented at several existing landfills located near the gas conditioning facilities (GRI, 2012). The Cell 3 landfill will be removed and Project facilities will be constructed on this area. The other existing landfills will not be removed and no Project facilities will be constructed on these areas. However, should other areas of biogenic gas be identified during construction of the Project, mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of biogenic gas on the Project will be incorporated into the detailed design.

6.4.3.4 Subsidence Estimates of coastal subsidence at the Project site range from 0 to 12 feet during a potential CSZ earthquake. These estimates reflect deformations over much of coastal Oregon. Subsidence will vary over large areas and distances. While the regional subsidence is not anticipated to generate damaging differential settlements beneath the LNG storage tanks, the larger subsidence estimate and resulting increased water levels would have a significant effect on development in low-lying areas surrounding the site, including the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport across the bay. The impacts to the ongoing operation of the Project due to increased water levels following a CSZ event will be highly dependent on the amount of subsidence that will occur. The decision to mitigate or continue operation of the Project will be made following an evaluation of how much subsidence occurs.

6.4.4 Tsunamis Given the uncertainty associated with tsunami hazards at the Project site, the LNG storage tanks will be located within an area enclosed by a berm with a peak crest elevation or wall higher than the design-level tsunami. The design level tsunami will be consistent with the criteria outlined in Section 6.3.4 for a 2,475 year event and will include a factor of safety of 1.3 to account for modeling uncertainties. Foundations for all critical process equipment and structures located within the berm will be installed above the design-level tsunami inundation.

For the berm slopes subject to the design-level tsunami, erosion control measures and wave runup protection will be used. Slopes will be protected against tsunami runup using cement



May 2013 Page 6-10

treatment, concrete cellular mattresses (CCMs), grout-injected geotextile fabric mattresses (fabriform), or other suitable means as determined during detailed design. The erosion control measures will be designed in accordance with the ODOT Erosion Control Manual, where applicable.

6.4.5 FERC Mitigation Measures In compliance with FERC Staff’s recommended mitigations in the FEIS, JCEP recognizes the applicability of mitigation numbers 14, 15, and 54 to the Project and will agree to implement the peer review process as stated in the mitigation measures. JCEP will retain, prior to construction, a Board of Consultants as specified in the mitigation measure and will provide the Board with the required notifications and materials to allow their review of the final design and to perform construction quality inspections of the civil and structural aspects of the Project in accordance with the specifications contained in the FERC’s Draft Seismic Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG Facilities and other measures agreed to by JCEP. Prior to commissioning the LNG Terminal, JCEP will file the report of the Board of Consultants, which will contain a statement on the Board’s opinion with respect to the construction, safety and adequacy of the LNG Terminal structures. JCEP will comply with the recommended mitigation measures, supplying each set of information as required prior to initial site preparation, prior to commencing final design, prior to construction, or prior to commissioning, respectively.

6.5 REFERENCES Atwater, B.H., Nelson, A.R., Blaque, J.J., Carver, G.A., Yamaguchi, D.K., Bobrowsky, P.I.,

Bourgeois, J., Darienzo, M.E., Grant, W.C., Hemphill-Haley, E., Kelsey, H.H., Jacoby, G.C., Nishenko, S.P., Peterson, C.D., and Reinhart, M.A., 1995, Summary of Coastal geologic evidence for past great earthquakes at the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Earthquake Spectra, v.11, p. 1-18.

Audet, P., Bostock, M.G., Boyarko, D.C., Brudzinski, M.R., Allen, R.M., 2010, Slab morphology in the Cascadia fore arc and its relation to episodic tremor and slip. Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 115.

Baldwin, E.M., Beaulieu, J.D., Ramp, Len, Gray, J.J., Newton, V.C., Jr., and Mason, R.S., 1973, Geology and mineral resources of Coos County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 80, p. 1-40.

Beaulieu, J. D., and Hughes, P. W., 1975, Environmental Geology of Western Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 87. p.148.

Black, G.L., and Madin, I.P., 1995, Geologic map of the Coos Bay quadrangle, Coos County, Oregon: State of Oregon Geological Map Series GMS-97, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Briggs, G.G. 1994. Coastal Crossing of the Elastic Strained zero-isobase, Cascadia Margin, South Central Oregon Coast, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Portland State University.

Burns, W.J., Mickelson, K.A., Saint-Pierre, E.C., 2011, Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon Release 2 (SLIDO-2), scale 1:750,000, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Clague, J.J., 1997, Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 35, no. 4, p. 439-460.



May 2013 Page 6-11

DOGAMI Tsunami Inundation Map, 2012, TIM-Coos-05, Coos Bay - North Bend, Coos County, Oregon, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

GRI, 2007a, July 2, 2007 (Revised April 23, 2013), Task Order No. 5, Geotechnical Investigation, Jordan Cove LNG facility, Coos County, Oregon.

GRI, 2007b, July 2, 2007 (Revised April 23, 2013), Site-specific Seismic Hazard Study, Jordan Cove Task Order No. 4A, Jordan Cove LNG Facility, Coos County, Oregon.

GRI, 2012, Preliminary Biogenic Gas Evaluation, South Dunes Power Plant, Former Mill Site Landfills, Coos County, Oregon, December 17, 2012.

Goldfinger, C., 1994, Active deformation of the Cascadia Forearc--Implications for great earthquake potential in Oregon and Washington: Oregon State University, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 246 p.

Goldfinger, C., 2003, Great earthquakes in Cascadia: a who dunnit success story: presentation at 2003 EERI national conference, Portland, Oregon.

Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R.S., Appelgate, B., MacKay, M.E., and Moore, G.F., 1992, Transverse structural trends along the Oregon convergent margin--Implications for Cascadia earthquake potential and crustal rotations: Geology, v. 20, p. 141.

Goldfinger, C., L. D. Kulm, R. S. Yeats, C. Hummon, G. J. Huftile, A. R. Niem, and L. C. McNeill, 1996, Oblique strike-slip faulting of the Cascadia submarine forearc: The Daisy Bank fault zone off central Oregon, in Subduction Top to Bottom, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 96, edited by E. Bebout et al., pp. 65–74, AGU, Washington, D. C.Goldfinger, C., Nelson, C.H., Morey, A.E., Johnson, J.R., Patton, J., Karabanov, E., Gutierrez-Pastor, J., Eriksson, A.T., Gracia, E., Dunhill, G., Enkin, R.J., Dallimore, A., and Vallier, T., 2012, Turbidite event history—Methods and implications for Holocene paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661–F, 170 p, 64 figures, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661/f.

Heller, P.L., and Ryberg, P.T., 1983, Sedimentary record of subduction to forearc transition in the rotated Eocene basin of western Oregon, Geology, v. 11, p. 380-383, July 1983.

Hunt, C. B. 1974, Natural Regions of the United States and Canada, 725 pp.

Kelsey, H.M., Nelson, A.R., Hemphill-Haley, E., Witter, R.C., 2005, Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone, GSA Bulletin, V. 117 p 1009-1032.

Leonard, L.J., Hyndman, R.D., and Mazzotti, S., Coseismic subsidence in the 1700 great Cascadia earthquake: Coastal estimate versus elastic dislocation models: GSA Bulletin, May-June 2004, v. 116.

Lewis, J.C., Unruh, J.R., and Twiss, R.J., 2003, Seismogenic strain and motion of the Oregon coast block. Geology 2003; 31; p. 183-186.

Madin, I.P., McInelly, G.W., and Kelsey, H.M., 1995, Geologic map of the Charleston quadrangle, Coos County, Oregon: State of Oregon Geological Map Series GMS-94, scale 1:24,000.

National Mining Association, 2006. Value and Rank of Nonfuel Mineral Production in the U.S., 2005. Online: http://www.nma.org/pdf/m_value_rank.pdf. Site accessed May 24, 2006.



May 2013 Page 6-12

Peterson, C., Stock, E., Cloyd, C., Beckstrand, D., Clough, C., Erlandson, J., Hart, R., Murillo, J., Percy, D., Price, D., Reckendorf, F., and Vanderburgh, S., 2005, Dating and morphostratigraphy of coastal dune sheets from the central west coast of North America: Oregon Sea Grant Publications.

Priest, G.R, 1995a, Tsunami Hazard Map of Empire Quadrangle. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open–file Report 0-95-44.

Priest, G.R, 1995b, Explanation of Mapping Methods and Use of the Tsunami Hazard Maps of the Oregon Coast, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open –file Report 0-95-67.

Priest, G.R, 2006, Personal Communication.

Priest, G.R, Allan, J.C. Myers, E.P., Baptista, A.M., 2002, Tsunami Hazard Maps of the Coos Bay Area, Coos County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, IMS-21.

Wells, F. G. and Peck, D. L., 1961, Geologic map of Oregon west of the 121st meridian: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-325, scale 1:500,000.

Wells, RE, Blakely R.J., Simpson, R.W., Weaver, CS, Haugerud, R. and K. Wheeler, 2000, Poster at the Great Cascadia Earthquake Tricentennial Open House, January 26, 2000, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle WA. Updated June 21, 2002. http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/wgmt/pacnw/rescasp1.html. Site accessed November 1, 2012.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. State Minerals Statistics and Information. Online: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state. Site accessed August 26, 2004.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. State Minerals Statistics and Information. Online: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2008/. Site accessed November 2, 2012.

Witter,R.C., Zhang, Y., Wang, K., Priest, G.R., Goldfinger, C., Stimely, L., English, J.T. and Ferro, P.A. (2011) Simulating Tsunami Inundation at Bandon, Coos County, Oregon, Using Hypothetical Cascadia and Alaska Earthquake Scenarios, DOGAMi Special Paper 43.

Zhang, J. Y., 2012, Site-Specific Tsunami Modeling at the Jordan Cove LNG Facility Coos County, Using New Cascadia Sources, November 2012.



May 2013

TABLES



May 2013

APPENDIX A.6 Geotechnical Investigation –

Proposed Jordan Cove LNG Facility



May 2013 Page 2

APPENDIX B.6 Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study – Proposed Jordan Cove LNG Facility



May 2013

APPENDIX C.6 Final Report – Site-Specific Tsunami Modeling at the

Jordan Cove LNG Facility, Coos County, Using New Cascadia Sources



May 2013

APPENDIX D.6 Preliminary Biogenic Gas Evaluation –

South Dunes Power Plant, Former Mill Site Landfills

Documents

JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT - Oregon Coast Allianceoregoncoastalliance.org/documents_13/JordanCove/JCEP... · 2013. 12. 1. · IBC International Building Code JCEP Jordan Cove Energy