JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT

lyricalwillingMechanics

Feb 22, 2014 (3 years and 3 months ago)

104 views




JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT

Resource Report 7


Soils

To Verify Compliance with this Minimum FERC Filing Requirement:

See the
Following
Resource Report
Section:

1.

List, by milepost, the
soil associations that would be crossed and describe the
erosion potential, fertility, and drainage characteristics of each association.

Section 7.1

2.

If an above
-
ground facility site is greater than 5 acres: (i) list the soil series
within the property and

the percentage of the property comprised of each series;
(ii) list the percentage of each series which would be permanently disturbed
;

(iii)
describe the characteristics of each soil series; and (iv) indicate which are
classified as prime or unique farmla
nd by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Section 7.1

Section 7.2

Section 7.3

Section 7.4

3.

Identify, by milepost, potential impact from: soil erosion due to water, wind, or
loss of vegetation; and soil compaction and

damage to soil structure resulting
from movement of construction vehicles; wet soils and soils with poor drainage
that are especially prone to structural damage
;

damage to drainage tile systems
due to movement of construction vehicles and trenching activi
ties
;

and
interference with the operation of agricultural equipment due to the probability of
large stones or blasted rock occurring on or near the surface as a result of
construction.

Section 7.5

4.

Identify, by milepost, cropland and residential areas wher
e loss of soil fertility
due to trenching and backfilling could occur.

Section 7.5

5.

Describe proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse
impact to soils or agricultural productivity. Compare proposed mitigation
measures with the
staff’s current “Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and
Maintenance Plan” which is available from the Commission Internet home page
or from the Commission staff, and explain how proposed mitigation measures
provide equivalent or greater protections to t
he environment.

Section 7.5



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
i

RESOURCE REPORT 7

SOILS

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

7.

INTRODUCTION

................................
................................
................................
...

7
-
1

7.1

PROJECT SITE SOILS

................................
................................
..........................
7
-
2

7.2

PRIME FARMLAND SOILS

................................
................................
....................
7
-
6

7.
3

HYDRIC SOILS

................................
................................
................................
......
7
-
6

7.4

SOIL CONTAMINATION

................................
................................
.........................
7
-
6

7.5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ
UENCES AND MITIGATIO
N

................................
....
7
-
7

7.6

REFERENCES

................................
................................
................................
.....

7
-
10






RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


RESOURCE REPORT 7

SOILS

CONTENTS
(Continued)

May 2013

Page
ii

TABLES

Table 7.1
-
1

Summary of

Soil Types

Found on the
Project Site

FIGURES

Figure 7.1
-
1


Soil Map of the
Project Site

APPENDICES

Appendix
A
.7

Correspondence

Appendix
B
.7

JCEP

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Appendix
C
.7

Phase I and II Environmental Site Asse
ssment
-

Temporary Construction
Area

Appendix
D
.7

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
-

JCEP Site Area

Appendix
E
.7

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment


JCEP Site Area

Appendix
F
.7

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment


South Dunes Power Plant Site

(formerly the Mill Site)

Appendix
G.
7

Unanticipated Hazardous Waste Discovery Plan

Appendix H.7

Moffatt & Nichol Dredged Material Management Plan





RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
iii

RESOURCE REPORT 7

SOILS

ACRONYMS

ASTM

American Society
for

Testing and Materials

BOG

Boil
-
off Gas

C&H

Coast and Harbor
Engineering

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

DMEF

Dredged Material Evaluation Framework

ESA

Environmental Site Assessment

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

HRSG

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

JCEP

Jordan Cove Energy Project
. L.P.

LNG

Liquefied Natura
l Gas

m
3

Cubic Meter

m
3
/hr

Cubic Meter
s
P
er Hour

MMTPA

Million Metric Tons Per Annum

MW

Megawatt

NGA

Natural Gas Act

NRCS

Natural Resource Conservation Service

O
DEQ

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODFW

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PAH

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCGP

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline

PRG

P
reliminary
R
emedial
G
oals

RBC

Risk
-
Based Concentrations

SAP

Sampling and Analysis Program

SVOC

Semi
-
volatile Organic Compounds

TPH

Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons

TVS

Total Volatile Solids

U.S.

United States

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

VOC

Volatile Organic Compounds




RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
1

RESOURCE REPORT 7

SOILS


7.

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 th
e 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 (m
3
) 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 wit
h
a net capacity of 160,000 m
3

(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 m
3

per
hour (m
3
/hr) with a peak capacity of 12,000 m
3
/hr, consist
ing 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
an
d 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;



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
2



E
lectrical, nitrogen, fuel gas, lighting, instrument/plant air and service water facility
systems;



A
n
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 F
ERC, 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 refrigerati
on systems in the natural gas liquefaction process
and supplying steam to the conditioning units.

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this
Resource R
eport is to describe
as per 18
Code of Federal Regulations
(
CFR
)

§
380.12 (i)
the existing soil resources
,
erosion potential, drainage characteristics
,
fertility,
and a
ffected

soils
in the
Project
area
,

and
identify
the potential
impacts
on soil
resources resulting from construction and operation of the
Project
.
This
Resource R
eport also
describes p
roposed mit
igation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to soil or
agricultural productivity
.

Report Organization

Resource Report 7 is organized into five key sections and a
separate section listing the sources
used to prepare this
Resource R
eport
. S
ection 7.1 provides a description of the Project site
soils
,

including a discussion of erosion potential and drainage characteristics
;

Section 7.2
addresses prime farmland soils
;

Section 7.3 addresses hydric soils
;

Section 7.4 addresses
potential soil contamination
;

and Section 7.5 includes a discussion of the
potential
environmental consequences of
construction and operation of
the
Project
, as well as the
potential mitigation measures to minimize effects on soils.

Section 7.6 includes a complete list
of
references
used to prepare th
is

Resource R
eport.

7.1

PROJECT SITE SOILS

T
he
Natural Resource Conservation Service (
NRCS
)

Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon,
indicates that
the
Project

areas

(Figure
7.1
-
1
)

are

comprised
primarily of

Waldport
Fine Sand

(
59 D and
59E)
,

Heceta Fine Sand
(28),
Dune Land

(16)
,

Waldport
-
Heceta Fine Sand (61D)
,
and Udorthents (57).
Coquille
silt loam

(12)

is found at the Kentuck wetland mitigation site
.
Descriptions of these soil types
from
Haagen (1989)

are provided
below
and are summarized in
T
able 7.1
-
1.
With the exception of the Coquille
s
ilt
l
oam,
these soils are predominantly sands
.

Soils at

the

Project
site

have
been disturbed by
the operations of the Roseburg Forest Products
Company

(Roseburg)
,
Weyerhaeuser Company
,
the former Kentuck Golf Course,
and

from the
placement of
fill

material.
Th
e

fill
material

is

over

10 f
ee
t deep in some areas

and mantles much
of the
Project

site
.


The historical sand fill materials placed on portions o
f the
Project

site are
predominantly sand with a small percentage of silt.
Soil
type
s

for the
U.S.
H
igh
w
a
y
101
-
Trans
-
Pacific
Parkway
intersection

are

not listed
in NRCS sources
;

h
owever,
the
geotechnical
investigation

completed in this area indicate
s

soil
s

consist

of
manmade fill

composed

of
predominately sand.




RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
3

A comprehensive sediment sampling and analysis program (SAP) protocol was prepared and
submitted on August 17, 2006 for review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE
), who
approved the SAP in October 12, 2006. Sampling of the area to be dredged by the Project was
conducted during the week of October 23, 2006. Material encountered within the proposed area
to be dredged for the Project
consisted of sand. Preliminary r
esults for grain size distribution
analysis completed on 20 samples indicated the average percentage of sand was greater than
99 percent. No rock was encountered in the explorations for the SAP.

A copy of the SAP and
relevant correspondence is provided i
n Appendix A.2 of Resource Report 2
-

Water Use and
Quality.

The soil stratigraphy
identified during

the geotechnical investigations

conducted at the

proposed
location of
the

LNG
tanks
indicated
sand extending from the ground surface to depths of 124 to
13
3 f
ee
t.
At some locations
,

weakly cemented sandstone was encountered below the dune
sand

(GRI, 200
7
a
).


Geotechnical explorations in the Kentuck Slough indicate the site consists
of interbed
d
ed

layers of

sand and silt that extend from beneath an approximately 1
-

to 2
-

f
ee
t
-
thick

surface layer

of fill

to a depth of about 35 f
ee
t followed by silt to depths of about 70 to
100

f
ee
t. High moisture contents measured in the soil suggest the silt and sand
may
ha
ve a
high organic content.

Waldport Fine Sand, 30 to 70
%

slopes (59E)

Waldport Fine Sands comprise approximately
4
3

percent

of the
Project

area
, 46 percent of the
undisturbed areas on the LNG Terminal site, and 6 percent of the temporary construction area
(Table 7.1
-
1)
. This soil type is primarily located along the eastern portion of the

Project

site
(where the dune forest is located)
(
Figure
7.1
-
1
).
This deep, excessively drained soil is located
on stabilized sand dunes
.


The

native vegetation
consists of
mainly conifers, shrubs, grasses,
and forbs.

Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown and brown
,

fine sand.

The
underlying material to a depth of
approximately
60 in
ches

or more is dark yellowish brown
,

fine
sand. Included in
this unit can be small areas of Dune land, Netarts and Heceta soils. The
Netarts series consists of deep, well
-
drained soils on old stabilized sand dunes, formed in eolian
deposits, and susceptible to erosion

(Haagen, 1989)
. Dune land and Heceta soils ar
e described
below.

Permeability of this Waldport soil is very rapid. Available water capacity is about
3
to
4
in
ches.

Effective rooting depth is 60 in
ches

or more. Runoff is very slow, and the hazard of water
erosion is moderate.

The hazard of soil
blowing

is severe

where unvegetated.

Windthrow is a
hazard when the soil is wet and winds are strong

(Haagen, 1989)
.

The land capability classification for this soil is subclass Vlle.


The land capability classification
is a system of grouping soils prima
rily on the basis of their capability to produce common
cultivated crops and pasture plants without deteriorating over a long period of time.
Class VII
soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their
use m
ainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife.

Subclass e is made up of soils for which the
susceptibility to erosion is the dominant problem or hazard affecting their use.

Erosion
susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors that affect

soils

in this subclass
(NRCS, 2012b
).


Erosion rating is severe

indicating erosion is
very
likely and that erosion
-
control measures
, including revegetation of bare areas
may be necessary

(NRCS, 2012a).
Soil
erosion hazards will be mitigated by following
JCEP’s modifications to
FERC’s
Upland Erosion
Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan
(
JCEP

P
lan
)(provided in
Appendix
B
.7
),
runoff
control
,

and erosion control best management practices as discussed further below.



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
4

Waldport
-
Heceta Fine Sands, 0 to 30
%

Slopes (61D)

Waldport
-
Heceta Fine Sands comprise approximately
1
7
.7

percent
of the
Project

area
, 15
percent of the undisturbed areas of the LNG Terminal, 94 percent of the nonjurisdictional
facilities area, and 3 percent of the temporary construction area
s (Table 7.1
-
1)
.
Waldport
-
Heceta Fine Sands
are
composed of
50

percent

Waldport
F
ine
S
and and 30

percent

Heceta
F
ine
S
and

and smaller areas of Netarts and Yaquina soils and Dune land (Haagen, 1989).

The
Waldport soil is
mainly
on stabilized sand dunes, and the Heceta soil is in interdunal swales and
depressional areas. The native vegetation is mainly conifers, shrubs, grasses, and forbs on the
Waldport soil
,

and sedges, rushes, water
-
tolerant grasses, and shrubs on the Heceta s
oil
.

The
Yaquina series consists of deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on low terraces, formed in
mixed alluvium, and susceptible to poor drainage, wetness, a high water table, and overflow.
Netarts and Dune land soils are described above.

The land capa
bility classification for this soil unit is subclass VIle.

Class VII soils have very
severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation.


Subclass e is made up of soils for
which the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant problem or hazard af
fecting their use.
Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors that affect soils in this
subclass (NRCS,
2012b
).


Erosion rating is moderate indicating some erosion is likely and that
erosion
-
control measures may be needed (N
RCS, 2012a).

Soil erosion hazards will be
mitigated by following
the
JCEP

Plan

(
Appendix
B
.7
)
,

runoff control and erosion control best
management practices as discussed further below.

Heceta Fine Sand (28)

Heceta Fine Sands comprise approximately
18.8

per
cent

of the
Project

area
, 39 percent of the
undisturbed areas of the LNG Terminal site, and 16 percent of the temporary construction areas
(Table 7.1
-
1)
. This soil is located primarily along the western portion of the
Project

site (west of
the dune forest) and immediately east of the
liquefaction facilities area

(
Figure 7.1
-
1
).

This
deep, poorly drained soil is found in deflation basins and depressional areas between dunes. It
formed in
eolian

material.
Slopes of
Heceta Fin
e Sands

are defined as 0 to 3

percent
.

The
native vegetation is mainly sedges, rushes, water
-
tolerant grasses, and shrubs. Typically, the
surface layer is very dark grayish

brown
,

fine sand
,

four

in
ches

thick. The substratum to a
depth of 60 in
ches

or m
ore is mottled, grayish brown sand. Included in this unit can be small
areas of Waldport and Netarts soils and Dune land

(Haagen, 1989)
.

Waldport and Netarts soils
are described above, Dune land is described below.

Permeability of this Heceta

soil is rapid. Available water capacity is about
1
to
2
in
ches
.
Effective rooting depth is 60 in
ches

for water
-
tolerant plants, but it is limited by the water table
for non
-
water
-
tolerant plants. Runoff is ponded, and the hazard of water erosion is sli
ght. The
water table fluctuates from 12

in
ches

above the surface to 6 in
ches

below the surface from
October to May

(Haagen, 1989)
.

This land capability classification for Heceta Fine Sand is subclass IVw.

Class IV soils have
very severe limitations that
restrict the choice of plants or require very careful management, or
both. Subclass w
soils
are soils for which excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation
affecting their use.

Poor soil drainage, wetness, a high water table, and overflow are the f
actors
that affect soils in this su
bclass
(NRCS,
2012b
)
.


Erosion rating is slight
,

indicating erosion is
unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions (NRCS, 2012a)
.



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
5

Dune Land

(16)

Dune land soils comprise approximately
8.5

percent

of the
Project

area

and 22 percent of the
temporary construction areas (Table 7.1
-
1 and
Figure
7.1
-
1
).


Dune land consists mainly of hills
and ridges of shifting fine
-

and medium
-
textured sand.

It formed in eolian deposits derived
dominantly from deflation basins adjacent t
o coastal beaches.

Areas of Dune land do not
support vegetation.

Slopes of Dune land are defined as 0 to 30

percent
.


Permeability is very
rapid, runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight.
The hazard of
wind erosion

is
severe.

T
his unit

can
include

small areas of Waldport soils, some of which have a thin
surface
layer, and Heceta soils
(
Haagen
, 1989).

The land capability
for Dune land is
subclass V
I
lle.


Class
VIII

soils and miscellaneous areas
have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production
a
nd limit their use to
recreation, wildlife, or water supply or for esthetic purposes.


Subclass e is made up of soils for
which the susceptibility to e
rosion is the dominant problem or hazard affecting their use.

Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors tha
t affect soils in this
subclass

(NRCS,
2012b
)
.


Erosion potential for the
D
une land is not rated (NRCS, 2012a).

Udor
thents, level (57)

Udorthents, level soils comprise approximately
0.
2 percent of the Project area

and 53 percent of
the temporary construction areas (Table 7.1
-
1)
.

The majority of this soil type occurs on the
construction worker camp site.
This map unit
is on flood plains, marshes, and tidal flats along
major streams, bays, and estuaries.


It consists of areas that have been filled and leveled for
commercial and industrial uses.

Slopes are 0 to 1

percent.

The areas of this unit on flood plains are made up of sandy, silty, or clayey material.

The areas
on marsh and tidal flats are made up of dredging spoil, dune sand, and wood chips.

Drainage,
permeability, and other physical properties vary considerably.


Udorthents, level is not placed in
a capability subclass (Haagen, 1989).

Coquille Silt Loam (12)

Coquille silt loam is found within the proposed wetland mitigation area in Kentuck Slough.
This
deep, very poorly drained soil
is
formed in alluvium
on flood
plains.

Slopes of Coquille silt loam
are defined as 0 to 1

percent
.


The native vegetation is mainly conifers, shrubs, forbs, and
hardwoods.

Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown and dark grayish brown silt
loam.

T
he surface layer is
u
nderlain by
a

dark grayish brown and olive gray
,

silty clay loam

which is then underlain by

very dark gray
,

silty clay loam.


In some areas the surface layer is
sand or is covered with a thin organic layer

(Haagen, 1989)
.

Permeability of this Coquille soil is slow.

Available water capacity is about 4 to 8.5 in
ches
.


Effective rooting depth is 60 in
ches

for water
-
tolerant plants, but it is limited by the water table
for non
-
water
-
tolerant plants.

Runoff is very slow, and t
he hazard of water erosion is slight.

Most areas of this soil are protected from flooding as a result of high tides; however, the soil is
subject to rare periods of flooding from streams and hillside runoff.

The water table fluctuates
between the surface

and a depth of 24 in
ches

from October to June.

This unit is used mainly
for hay and pasture and wildlife habitat

(Haagen, 1989)
.

This map unit is in capability subclass IVw.


Class IV soils have very severe limitations that
restrict the choice of plants

or require very careful management, or both. Subclass w soils are
soils for which excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation affecting their use.

Poor soil
drainage, wetness, a high water table, and overflow are the factors that affect soils in t
his


RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
6

subclass (NRCS, 20
12b
).


Erosion rating is slight
,

indicating erosion is unlikely under ordinary
climatic conditions (NRCS, 2012a).

Fill

Materials

The
surficial fill

materials

present
on portions of the
Project

site
are

predominantly sand with
some small percentage of silt.
The material is

typically

characterized as loose to medium
dense
,

brown sand.
The material is

fine grained
and contains
scattered shell fragments to
a
depth of
10
f
ee
t
and a trace of silt.

The nativ
e vegetation is typically shrubs, grasses, and forbs that are characteristic of disturbed
sites. While not classified by the NRCS, it was assumed that these materials have similar
properties and characteristics to adjacent soil types. Permeability of the

dredged materials is
rapid. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate.

The hazard o
f

wind
erosion is moderate to severe.

7.2

PRIME FARMLAND SOILS

There are no

soils found on the
Project

site
that
are classified as prime
or unique
farmland soils.


The Coquille silt loam

and

Heceta
F
ine
S
and

do not meet the criteria for prime or unique
farmland
,

but
are

considered to be

farmland of statewide importance.


This includes areas of
soils that nearly meet the requirements for pri
me farmland and that economically produce high
yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.


However,
none of these areas are cur
rently being used for cropland and
they
have been previously
modified by
historical indust
rial activities
or placement of dredged material.
The Kentuck Slough
area consists of a former golf course that has not been in operation since 2009
;

c
onsequently,
its

soils have been modified by golf course construction and use.

7.3

HYDRIC SOILS

Hyd
r
ic soils are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
T
he
Heceta Fine Sand
soils are categorized as
predominately hydric
,

meaning that more than
66

percent
to less than
100

percent

of components are

hydric soils as a result of their original development

(
Haagen
,
1989).

T
he

Heceta Fine Sand

soils
,

located
on the
wes
tern edge of the
Project

site (
between
Henderson Marsh and the dune forest
)
and on the northwestern corner of the slip site,
have
been covered

with

dredge
d

material
.
Three small, isolated wetlands occur within the northern
extent of th
is area (SHN, 2006)
.


The Waldport
-
Heceta
F
ine
S
ands are partially hydric
,

meaning
that more tha
n 33

percent

to less than
66

percent
of components are hydric
.

The Coquille s
ilt
l
oam is predominately hydric
. The remaining site soils are non
-
hydric or predominately non
-
hydric.

7.4

SOIL CONTAMINATION

To
identify

contaminated soils
on or in the vicinity

of
the
Project site
,
multiple
Phase I and Phase
II Environmental Site Assessment
s

(ESA
s
)
were
conducted.
Phase I ESAs were conducted in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice
E1527

-
00.

Phase II ESAs were con
ducted to address the findings of the Phase I ESAs

(CH2MHill, 1996; Thiel
Engineering
, 2004; GRI, 2005;

PES
Environmental
, 2006; GRI, 2007
b
;
GSI Water Solutions
, 2012)
.

Copies of the
ESAs are
provided
in Appendices
C
.7,
D
.7
,
E
.7
, and
F.7
.

The November 3, 2005 ESA (Appendix
C
.7) covered portions of the Roseburg property
and the eastern side of the slip. The July 20, 2006 ESA (Appendix
D
.7) covered the South
Dunes Power Plant site (inclusive of the portions of this site to be used for t
he
Project) as well
as the LNG T
erminal site

(primarily the area known as Ingram Yard)
. The January 16, 2007


RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
7

ESA (Appendix
E
.7)
also covered the LNG T
erminal site, slip area, and the access/utility
corridor to Jordan Cove Road.
The April 2006 Phase II ESA a
ddressed the former
Weyerhaeuser mill site (Appendix F.7).
There have been no activities occurring at any of these
locations that would have had an effect on soil contamination since the ESA
s

were conducted,
hence the results and conclusions of the ESA
s

r
emain valid.

Results of
environmental
sampling activities
at the
Project
site
indicated contaminants
were
detected
at low levels
at
several locations.
Analytical results from samples collected from the
Project

site indicate that
polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH)
metals,
volatile organic compounds (
VOC
s)
, semi
-
volatile organic
compound
s

(SVOC), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds are present below
applicable

risk
-
based exposure scenarios as
defined by

the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality

(
O
DEQ
)
.

Low levels of dioxins, furans, and butylin compounds were
detected in soil samples at levels below the preliminary remedial goals (PRG) for individual
compounds (GRI, 2007
b
).
Low levels of

petroleum hydrocarbons and SVOCs were detected in
samples collected from the Kentuck Slough at concentrations below applicable
O
DEQ risk
exposure levels.

Detected
metal concentrations

were found to be
within
typical
background
levels for soils in Oregon
for the
Project site

and the Kentuck Slough areas
(
O
DEQ, 2002
).
Asbestos was detected in shingles that had fallen to the ground from the buildings, but no
asbestos was found in soil samples beneath the shingles.

Risk evaluations indicated that there are n
o unacceptable risks to human and ecological
receptors associated with the levels o
f

contaminants detected.
O
DEQ recognizes that
the
residual
contamination
at the site
is not present at
levels

that pose an unacceptable risk to
human health, safety, welfar
e and the environment (
O
DEQ, 2006).

Based on the findings of
previous environmental investigations,
O
DEQ has recommended a “No Further Action”
determination for the
portion of the nonjurisdictional South Dunes Power Plant (former
Weyerhaeuser l
inerboard
mill
) site that will be used for Project facilities, as well as the area
known as Ingram Yards that was part of the linerboard mill operations and comprises a large
portion of the Project site
.

A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix A.7.

Soil sampl
es from the slip area and sediment samples within Coos Bay adjacent to the slip and
in the access channel
were

collected
and

analyzed according to procedures set forth in the
Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF). Based on the DMEF guidelines for T
iered
Evaluation Approach for Aquatic Disposal, all samples collected and submitted for laboratory
analyses were analyzed for grain size distribution and Total Volatile Solids (TVS). According to
the Tier IIA guidelines, if the results of grain size analy
sis indicate sand content is greater than
80

percent

and TVS is less than
5

percent
, the proposed dredged material qualifies for
unconfined aquatic disposal based on exclusionary status. The results of the sediment sample
analysis indicated that the grain

size ranges from 99.47 to 99.99

percent
, with an average of
99.85

percent
. The TVS ranges from 0.50 to 2.74

percent
, with an average of 0.71
percent
. All
the samples taken and thus, the material to be removed during dredging, meet the criteria for
uncon
fined aquatic disposal
.

If necessary,
JCEP

will conduct any additional testing required by
the regulatory permitting authorities for soils within the slip area.

7.5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ
UENCES

AND MITIGATION

Construction of the
Project

will
disturb

the soils
in the area of construction

activities
(Figure
7.1
-
1
).
Of the
251.9

acres of the
Project

site area, a
pproximately
21.4

acres of
Dune lands

(16)
soils,
47.3

acres of
Heceta Fine Sand (28)

soils
,

108.6

acres of Waldport Fine Sand (

59D and
59E) soils
,
44.5

acres of
Waldport
-
Heceta Fine Sand
(61D)

and 0.7 acres of Udorthents (57)

will
be
affected by
construction

site preparation
,

including

clearing and grading
.

The planned site


RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
8

work does not require any disposal of material off the
P
roject

site.

The balance of the
251.9

acres is water (approximately 29.4 acres).

The erosion potential of soils
at the

site is
severe
in some areas
unless properly stabilized by
the erosion
and sedimentation
best
management
practices to be implemented during
construction.
Temporary ditches, sediment fences and silt traps will be installed as necessary

to minimize soil loss during construction and operation of the facility
. Individual excavations will
be made for equipment f
oundations. Following completion of foundations, the site will be filled,
compacted
,

and brought up to final grade. Final grading and landscap
ing

will consist of gravel
-
surfaced areas, asphalt
-
surfaced areas, concrete
-
paved surfaces, and grass areas.

Ar
eas of
the
Project

site and areas with soils susceptible to
eolian

processes that were disturbed by
construction activities will be grassed using a seed mixture specified by the NRCS

as being
capable of surviving in highly permeable, xeric regimes, binding

loose sand, and withstanding
burial and deflation from
eolian

process. Native species will be used and
,

if any non
-
native
species are required for specific problem areas, species will be selected that will not become
nuisance species to the surrounding a
reas.



Moffatt & Nichol (2006, 2013) addressed erosion issues related to the excavation an
d

dredging
of the material to form the slip, including the placement of the material, now at the South Dunes
Power Plant site. The original
2006
study

has been upda
ted and a copy of the updated study is
provided in Appendix H.7. The study was used to provide information on the soils th
at

will be
encountered during the excavation and dredging of the slip. This study also addressed the
amounts of material that will be required for removal during maintenance dredging and
subsequent disposal at Site F. More refined analysis was conducted by

Coast and Harbor
Engineering (
C&H
)

that modeled sediment transport and deposition in the slip and access
channel and provided an estimate on the amount of material that will have to be sent to Site F
for disposal, concluding that the amount of material pr
edicted by the Moffatt & Nichol
study
would actually be less overall. A complete description of the modeling efforts is provided in RR
2


Water Use and Quality
.

JCEP will adopt
the
provisions of the
FERC

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and
Mainten
ance

Plan
, creating its own Project
-
specific JCEP Plan

(Appendix
B
.7) to ensure that
potential effects on soils due to construction are minimal.
JCEP does not anticipate mixing
topsoil with subsurface soils because the majority of the site does not appear

to consist of
appreciable quantities of topsoil.
To minimize potential for soil loss due to erosion, all temporary
erosion controls will be installed and maintained in accordance with the
JCEP

Plan.


In addition
to temporary erosion controls, long
-
term e
r
osion and sedimentation will be minimized by

using
county and state best management practices such as
removing temporary sediment barriers
and
i
nstalling
permanent erosion control measures as necessary. Permanent erosion control
measures
may include veget
ation, vegetated swales, infiltration or settling basins, stormwater
runoff diversion and control through ditches, check dams, or other velocity dissipaters.

The dune area east of Henderson Marsh will be modified as part of the Project. On
-
site
constructi
on activities will not affect
the
off
-
site area, and the potential for subsequent de
-
stabilizing

of the

off
-
site san
d

dune areas on the North Spit is very low.

Erosion of the

engineered

slopes within the slip is not anticipated under normal conditions due
to hydraulic mechanisms. Tidal action in Coos Bay is of the mixed semi
-
diurnal type with paired
highs and lows of unequal duration and amplitude.

The mean tidal range at the entrance
of
Coos Bay is 6.7 f
ee
t, with the extreme high being 10.5 f
ee
t and the extreme low minus 3 f
ee
t.
The tidal range increases upstream to the City of Coos Bay where the mean range is 6.9 f
ee
t.
The time difference between peak tides at the entrance and Coos
Bay is about 40
-
90 minutes.


RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
9

Shoreline e
rosion associated with wave action has been problematic in the past, especially
during winter months when the strongest winds occur, generating the highest wave conditions
(
ODEQ
, 1999).

The
east
and west
side
s

of the

slip will be
constructed with
O
pen
C
ell
®

technology
sheet pile
structures. The north
side

of the slip will be
protected from LNG ship and tug propeller scour
with
shore armor

extending from the toe
of the slope

to above the water line
.

For the
berm sur
rounding the tanks
and portions of the slip that are not expected to be
subjected to wind, wave, and water level conditions under operating conditions, which includes
the slope area above elevation +25 f
ee
t NAVD88,
appropriate
alternative erosion control a
nd
wave runup protection means will be
incorporated into the design.

Soils along the waterway will not be adversely affected by the wave action from the additional
LNG ship traffic as the LNG ships will transit the bay at slow speeds and will not produce w
akes
that could erode the banks of the waterway. The channel width is relatively

narrow in
comparison to Coos Bay and the wave action will tend to dissipate by the time the waves reach
the shoreline, especially at the slow speeds of the LNG ships in transit along the waterway.

The p
otential impact of
an
increase in wake energy at sens
itive shorelines along the navigation
route by ships calling at the
LNG T
erminal was investigated for pressure field effects and vessel
wakes separately.

The sensitive areas for impact analysis were selected in coordination with
the Project team, ODEQ, an
d the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
.

Regarding
the issue of wave height changes and possible shoreline changes due to the projected
conditions potentially associated with the construction of the
slip and
access channel, the
methodology of
analysis involved numerical modeling and wave generation and transformation
to the
P
roject site and wave
-
induced sediment transport and resulting bottom depth changes.
For this purpose, a combination of SWAN and the 2
-
D sediment transport model MORPHO

wer
e used.
A complete description of the modeling and the results are provided in
DRAFT
Volume 2 of
the C&H
Technical Report (see Resource Report 2


Water Use and Quality,
Appendix H.2
)

SWAN simulates wave generation and propagation to the
P
roject site, an
d
computes significant wave heights, periods, and bottom stresses due to wave motions.
MORPHO computes sediment transport and resulting bottom depth changes (erosion and
deposition) due to bottom stresses.

Two independent methods of analyzing the wave modeling results were applied to determine
possible changes in wave conditions upon construction of the
Project
, spatial and stationary.
The results from both of these methods confirmed that no changes in wave

conditions resulting
in adverse impact
s

on shoreline stability would occur upon construction of the
Project
. The
modeling predicted that localized changes in wave heights may occur over the access channel
and
in

the slip (which does not exist under the E
xisting Conditions). For the adjacent shoreline,
wave heights either did not change or were slightly reduced for all modeling scenarios.

MORPHO simulated bottom depth changes for Existing Conditions and Post
-
Project Conditions
for all modeled storm events
. No changes in existing patterns and rates of bottom depth
changes along the shoreline are predicted upon the construction of the
Project
.

The results of the analysis showed that hydrodynamic effects from pressure field velocities
measured along the sens
itive shorelines from existing deep
-
draft vessels exceed the pressure
field velocities that may be generated by future LNG vessels.

The analysis also showed that
vessel wakes from LNG vessels may slightly increase swash sediment transport parameter
along
the shoreline.

However, this increase would be minor and most likely would not be
detectable by any measures.



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
10

In summary, the analysis showed that possible impacts from future LNG
-
generated pressure
fields and vessel wakes on coastal processes at the sens
itive shorelines would be smaller than
that from the existing deep
-
draft vessels and would be non
-
detectable.

No impacts

to prime farmland soils will occur as no prime farmland soils exist on the
Project site

area
.
C
ropland
loss is not anticipated
because

the current land

use of the
se

areas

is

not
primarily crop production
.
The Kentuck Slough area is periodically inundated with water and
generally not suitable for crop production.

While some contamination was found within
Project site

area
, the
detected c
oncentrations

were
below
applicable
O
DEQ
Risk
-
Based Concentrations (
RBCs
)

for soil

and groundwater
.

The
soil
areas impacted by
historical industrial activities

will be excavated and placed in open cells of the
permitted landfill located on the
nonjurisdic
tional
South Dunes Power Plant site (former
Weyerhaeuser linerboard m
ill site
)

boundary.

The cells will be covered with a minimum
18

in
ches

of clean sand as an interim measure pending final closure of the landfill.


The material
will be placed in accordance
with

the site closure plan as approved by
O
DEQ.


Impacted soil in
the Kentuck Slough area will be excavated and removed to upland areas or permitted disposal
areas as necessary and appropriate
in accordance
with
O
D
EQ
-
approved work plans.

In the
event that unanticipated soil contamination is discovered during construction of the
Project

site
or any disturbance related to the use of the temporary construction facilities area
s
, JCEP will
abide by the conditions of its

Unanticipated Hazardous Waste Discovery Plan (Appendix
G
.7).


Any residually contaminated soil or sediment excavated during future site activities or
development will be properly managed and disposed in accordance wit
h
O
DEQ regulations and
policies.

If an unignited release of LNG were to occur that resulted in contact with the shoreline soils,
these soils could be affected due to the cold properties of the LNG. The cold
impacts
would be
temporary as the LNG would vaporize quickly
and
disperse to the
air and
would not result in
long
-
term effects. If no ignition source were present
,

no effects on soils would be expected
beyond the 0.3 mile zone.

If the
vapor from the
release of LNG cargo was in the presence of an ignition source, the
resulting fire cou
ld
increase soil surface temperatures in the 1.0 and 2.2 mile zones, as well as
damaging or destroying vegetation

from the heat
. The loss of vegetation could result in
increased erosion
. Heat from such a fire would have less of an effect on
soils

within
the
1.0

mile zone and no effect from a pool fi
r
e on wetland vegetation in the 2.2

mile zone.

The maximum flammable range for a vapor cloud could extend to the outer limits of the 2.2 mile
zone and
,

if an ignition source were present, the resulting fire cou
ld burn back to the source of
the spill, directly
affecting

any
soil

in the path. The probability of these scenarios occurring is
low given the marine transit safety and security measures employed and the unlikel
ihood of a

spill of LNG cargo due to collisions, allisions, and potential terrorist attacks.

7.6

REFERENCES

CH2M Hill, 1996, Technical Memorandum: Phase II Ingram Site Investigation, North Bend,
Oregon; prepared for Weyerhaeuser Corporation. October 1, 1996.

Federal Ene
rgy Regulatory Commission
,

2003,
FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation,
and Maintenance Plan
.

GRI Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants
,

2005
,

Jordan Cove Task Order No. 1,
Phase I
and II Environmental Site Assessment
,

Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas

Terminal
, North
Bend, Oregon
,

November 3, 2005
.



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

Page
7
-
11

GRI, 2007a, July 2, 2007 (Revised
April 23
, 201
3
), Task order no. 5, geotechnical investigation,
Jordan Cove LNG facility, Coos County, Oregon.

GRI
, 2007
b
,
Jordan Cove Task Order No. 8,
Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment
,

Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal
,

North Bend, Oregon
, January 16, 2007
.

GSI Water Solutions, Inc., March 29, 2012, Technical memorandum, evaluation of sludge basin
closure options, Weyerhaeuser North Bend facility, Coo
s County, Oregon, 2012;
prepared for Weyerhaeuser Corporation.

Haagen, J.T., 1989
,

Soil Survey Coos County, Oregon
,

U.S Department of Agriculture
,

Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS
).

Moffatt & Nichol International (MNI)
,

2006
,

Oregon International Port Coos Bay, Pacific Gateway
Marine Terminal, Dredged Material Management Plan.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
2012a,
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
Database for [Coos County, OR]. Available online at

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

.
Accessed [11/05/2012]
.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS), 2012b, National Soil Survey Handbook, title
430
-
VI. [Online] Available:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook
. Site accessed
11/05/2012.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Northwest Area Committee.
2004
. Coos
Bay, Oregon, Geographic Response Plan.

Available Online:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/CoosBayGeographicResponsePlan.pdf
.

Oregon DEQ
,
2002
,
Memorandum on default background concentrations
of metals in soils.

Memo from DEQ Toxicology Workgroup to DEQ Cleanup Project Managers
,

October 28,
2002
,

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Oregon DEQ, 2006, No Further Action Determination Former Weyerhaeuser Containerboard
Mill North Bend, Coo
s County, Oregon Tax Lots #25S
-
13W
-
4
-
100, 25S
-
13W
-
3
-
200, and
the Ingram Yard portion of 25S
-
13W
-
0
-
200 ECSI Site ID No.

1083, Letter to Mr. Thomas
H. Scheideman Jr., PE Site Manager, North Bend, OR.

Weyerhaeuser Company.
September 15, 2006.


PES Environme
ntal, Inc., April 2006, Level II environmental assessment, former Weyerhaeuser
containerboard mill, North Bend, Oregon.

SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc. (SHN), 2006, Jordan Cove Energy Project Site
Wetland Delineation.

Thiel Engineering, April
2004, Technical and cost evaluation, elements of environmental closure
for the Weyerhaeuser containerboard packaging facility, North Bend, Coos County,
Oregon; prepared for Weyerhaeuser Corporation.




RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

TABLES



RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

FIGURES


RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
A
.7

Correspondence





RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
B
.7

JCEP

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan






RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
C
.7

Phase I and II
Environmental Site Assessment
-

Temporary Construction
Area






RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
D
.7

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
-

JCEP Site Area






RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
E
.7

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment


JCEP Site Area






RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
F
.7

Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment


South Dunes Power Plant Site
(formerly

the

Mill Site)







RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
G
.7

Unanticipated Hazardous Waste Discovery Plan







RESOURCE REPORT 7


JCEP LNG Terminal Project

Docket No.
C
P1
3
-
___
-
000


May

2013

APPENDIX
H
.7

Mofatt & Nichol Dredged Material Management Plan