Portland District

Home
Home > Media > Public Notices > Permit Application Article

ATTACHMENTS


  NWP-2017-41 FIGURES.PDF
Bookmark and Share Email Print


Jordan Cove Application for Permit and to Alter Federally Authorized Projects

Posted: 5/22/2018

Expiration date: 7/21/2018


PUBLIC NOTICE
Application for Permit and to Alter Federally Authorized Projects

Issue Date: May 22, 2018
Expiration Date: July 21, 2018
US Army Corps of Engineers No: NWP-2017-41
Oregon Department of State Lands No: APP0060697

60-Day Notice
Interested parties are hereby notified the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit and permission for certain work in waters of the United States, as described below and shown on the attached plans. The Corps is soliciting comments on the proposed work.

Applicant: Jordan Cove LNG, LLC.
Attention: Ms. Caroline Burda
5615 Kirby Drive, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77005
Email: caroline.burda@jordancovelng.com
Telephone: (832) 255-3800

Applicant’s Agent: Jordan Cove LNG, LLC. 
Attention: Mr. Derik Vowels
5615 Kirby Drive, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77005
Email: derik.vowels@jordancovelng.com
Telephone: (971) 232-8637

Location: The Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (JCLNG) facility would be located on the North Spit of Coos Bay, near North Bend, Coos County, Oregon. The associated Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP) pipeline would originate near Malin, Klamath County, Oregon, and span Klamath, Jackson, Douglas and Coos Counties, terminating in North Bend, Coos County, Oregon (see attached maps). Related project components and facilities are discussed in detail below. The primary liquefied natural gas (LNG) Terminal project site is located in Section 5 of Township 25 South, Range 13 West at Latitude/Longitude: 43.432238°, -124.267136°. 

Waterway: The project would affect various wetlands and waterways located in Coos, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath counties (see attached maps). The wetland boundaries, location of the ordinary high water mark, mean high water mark, and high tide line as shown on the project drawings have not yet been verified by the Corps. If the Corps determines the boundaries of the wetland/waters are substantially inaccurate a new public notice may be published.

Project Purpose: The applicant’s stated purpose is to construct a 7.8 million ton per annum (mtpa) natural gas liquefaction and deep-water export terminal capable of receiving and loading ocean-going LNG carriers, in order to export natural gas derived from a point near the intersections of the Gas Transmission Northwest Pipeline system and Ruby Pipeline system. 

Project Description

The main facilities associated with JCLNG’s proposed LNG export terminal specific to the Corps’ authorities include:

• a LNG Terminal and liquefaction facility; 
• an access channel from the existing Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel (Channel) to the LNG Terminal marine slip;
• a marine slip, with a berth for one LNG vessel on the east side, an emergency lay berth for one LNG vessel on the west side, and a berth for tug boats on the north side;
• a permanent marine offloading facility for initial delivery of construction equipment, site construction, and future delivery of construction equipment related to facility maintenance;
• a utility corridor, approximately one mile long and 150-feet wide, between the LNG Terminal site and the South Dunes site supporting emergency response equipment;
• a temporary materials barge berth within the access channel footprint;
• the South Dunes site comprising the Southwest Oregon Regional Safety Center (SORSC) facility for personnel, community education and training needs, and a workforce housing facility consisting of temporary housing and amenities for approximately 700 workers during project construction;
• dredging of four submerged areas abutting the Coos Bay Channel;
• placement and management of dredged material at four locations: the Al Pierce Company (APCO) sites, Roseburg Forest Products site, South Dunes site, and the proposed Kentuck mitigation site;
• widening of Trans Pacific Parkway at U.S. Highway 101; 
• a compensatory mitigation site at Kentuck Slough (Kentuck mitigation site) including improvements to an existing dike, transportation corridors and drain field protection; 
• a compensatory mitigation site (Eelgrass mitigation site) located near the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport; 
• placement of navigation aids and meteorological buoys;

LNG Terminal, South Dunes Site, and Utility and Access Road Corridor: The LNG Terminal would comprise all building infrastructure, machinery, utilities, and other project components associated with the receipt, liquefaction, storage, and loading of LNG onto ocean-going LNG carriers for export (Drawing 2). The LNG Terminal and associated facilities would cover a total of approximately 538-acres of land, of which 37 are jurisdictional waters that include approximately 5.2-acres of open water and approximately 169-acres of wetland. However, construction of the LNG Terminal would not result in the permanent loss of open water or wetland. Temporary, construction-related impacts include laydown and staging of construction materials and equipment, mobilization of dredged material, and site grading activities.  

The SORSC, gas metering station, administrative building, and a workforce housing facility would be located on the South Dunes site. Construction of these facilities would result in the permanent loss of 2.82-acres of palustrine wetland. 

The access and utility corridor would connect the LNG Terminal site and the South Dunes site to provide temporary construction and permanent access roads and facilities, a fire department facility, underground utilities, and gas feed to the LNG Terminal. Construction of the access and utility corridor would result in the permanent loss of 0.61-acre of palustrine wetland. 

Marine Slip, Access Channel, Marine Offloading Facility, and Temporary Materials Barge Berth: The applicant would excavate a 38-acre marine slip from what are currently uplands (Drawings 2, 3, 23, 25, 26). The inside dimensions at the toe of the slip would measure approximately 800-feet wide along the north boundary and approximately 1,500-feet and 1,200-feet wide along the western and eastern boundaries, respectively. The proposed access channel connecting the slip to the Coos Bay Channel would measure approximately 2,200-feet wide at its intersection with the Coos Bay Channel and would be approximately 22-acres in size. A permanent marine offloading facility would be constructed to deliver materials for use in initial site construction and for future use in facility maintenance. The offloading facility would be approximately three-acres in size. The marine offloading facility would allow for delivery of project components which are too large or heavy to be delivered by road or rail and would be constructed using the same sheet pile wall system as the LNG loading berth and the emergency lay berth. 

The marine slip and access channel connecting the slip to the Coos Bay Channel would be excavated to and maintained at -45.21 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) depth with a two foot over-dredge allowance and an advanced maintenance allowance of 1.7-foot (total depth: -48.91-feet MLLW). The current Coos Bay Channel is authorized to -37-feet MLLW near the LNG Terminal site.

The slip and access channel combined would measure approximately 60-acres in size. These project components would result in the permanent loss of 14.5-acres of shallow subtidal and intertidal habitat, 0.06-acre of estuarine saltmarsh habitat and approximately 1.9-acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat (eelgrass). Approximately 17-acres of deep subtidal habitat would be created within the marine slip and access channel.

The applicant would dredge and excavate approximately 5.7 million cubic yards (MCY) of material to create the slip basin and access channel. Of this volume, approximately 1.4 MCY would be excavated in the dry and approximately 4.3 MCY would be dredged in the wet. Sediment to be dredged at the slip and access channel site is comprised primarily of sand and silty-sandy, with fine grained material, gravels, and organic/peat lenses interspersed. Material proposed to be excavated in the wet would be removed using a combination of mechanical and hydraulic dredging methods. Dredged material would be either transported in the dry via trucks or would be hydraulically pumped to the LNG Terminal site, Roseburg Forest Products site, or South Dunes site where it would be utilized to raise the elevations of those sites above tsunami inundation levels (Drawing 21). Approximately 300,000 CY of the dredged material would be transported to the proposed Kentuck mitigation site where it would be used to develop the mitigation site (Drawings 12-20). To undertake this activity dredged material would be loaded onto scows for transportation to a site located east of the Coos Bay Channel where it would be hydraulically pumped to the Kentuck mitigation site. 

In addition to the above facilities, the applicant would construct a temporary materials barge berth within the access channel footprint and perpendicular to its interface with the current shoreline prior to dredging the slip and access channel. The temporary berth would separate the slip and access channel to facilitate material deliveries prior to construction of the marine offloading facility (Drawing 3). The applicant would remove the temporary berth when the berm separating the slip from the access channel is excavated. The applicant would excavate the temporary berth slip to a -12-foot MLLW elevation in order to receive and moor the end of an ocean-going barge. An excavator would dredge material working landward from Coos Bay, transferring excavated material north to the trucks for upland disposal. Dredging for the temporary berth would comprise approximately 45,000 CY of material which would be placed in the upland slip area to be re-handled during dredging and excavation of the slip.

Navigational reliability improvements (NRI): Four submerged areas abutting, but not within, the current Coos Bay Channel would be dredged to a -37-foot MLLW elevation to match the current depth of the Coos Bay Channel (Drawings 1, 7-10). Dredging of the NRI’s would include a two foot over-dredge allowance and a two-foot advanced maintenance allowance (total depth: -41-feet MLLW). Channel side slopes would be constructed at a 3:1 horizontal to vertical slope. The applicant has indicated this dredging would allow for transit of LNG vessels of similar overall dimensions to those listed in the July 1, 2008, U.S. Coast Guard Waterway Suitability Report, but under a broader environmental window. The applicant has stated the dredging of these areas would allow for greater navigational efficiency and reliability to enable export of the full 7.8 mpta gas liquefaction capacity of the LNG Terminal. 

Approximately 700,000 CY of material would be initially dredged to facilitate the proposed NRI’s. Dredging would be accomplished with mechanical or hydraulic methods. Dredged material would be distributed between the APCO 1 and 2 disposal sites, or placed entirely in the APCO 2 site, pending feasibility. The areas to be dredged are labeled Dredge Area 1 to 4 and are located adjacent to the Coos Bay Channel between approximate River Mile (RM) 2 to 7. 

The applicant would utilize a 24-inch pipeline to transport dredged material to the disposal sites if hydraulic dredging methods are utilized (Drawing 1). The applicant would lay the temporary pipeline on the bottom or horizontal extent of the Coos Bay Channel to reduce potential conflicts with vessel navigation. The maximum distance from Dredge Area 1-4 to the APCO sites is approximately 8.3-miles. The maximum distance from the Coos Bay Channel to the Kentuck mitigation site is 1.3-miles.  Booster pumps would be required to move the material to the disposal sites. Construction of the NRI’s would affect approximately 35.4 acres of subtidal habitat by lowering the current elevations of the dredging areas to -37-feet MLLW. 

Dredge Area #1 at RM 2: Dredging at this area would deepen an area abutting and located eastward of the current Coos Bay Channel boundary. The dredging prism would measure approximately 150-feet wide and 550-feet long. Sediment to be dredged from Dredge Area 1 is comprised of sand and soft sandstone. Dredge Area 1 would measure approximately 15.1-acres in size and would require initial dredging and disposal of approximately 350,200 CY of material. 

Dredge Area #2 at RM 4.5: Dredging at this area would deepen an area abutting and located westward of the current Coos Bay Channel boundary. The dredging prism would measure approximately 200-feet wide and 2,500-feet long. 
Sediment to be dredged from Dredge Area 2 is comprised of sand and soft siltstone/sandstone. Dredge Area 2 would measure approximately 13.4-acres in size and would require initial dredging and disposal of approximately 184,000 CY of material. 

Dredge Area #3 at RM 6: Dredging at this area would deepen an area abutting and located eastward of the current Coos Bay Channel boundary. The dredging prism would measure approximately 150-feet wide and 1,150-feet long. Sediment to be dredged from Dredge Area 3 is comprised of loose to dense sand and soft to hard sandstone. Dredge Area 3 would measure approximately 2.9 acres in size and would require initial dredging and disposal of approximately 25,200 CY of material. 

Dredge Area #4 at RM 6.8: Dredging at this area would deepen an area abutting and located eastward of the current Coos Bay Channel boundary. The dredging prism would measure approximately 100-feet wide and 625-feet long. Sediment to be dredged from Dredge Area 4 is comprised of loose to medium dense sand. Dredge Area 4 would measure approximately four acres in size and would require initial dredging and disposal of approximately 24,000 CY of material. 

APCO 1 and 2 Dredged Material Management Areas: The applicant would place initial and future dredged material derived from the NRI areas at the APCO 1 and 2 sites near the southern terminus of the U.S. Highway 101 McCullough Bridge (Drawing 6). 

Transpacific Parkway/U.S. Highway 101 Intersection Widening: The applicant would widen the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and the TransPacific Parkway to construct a turning lane to control traffic entering U.S. Highway 101 (Drawing 1, 31). Widening of TransPacific Parkway would result in the permanent loss of approximately 0.51-acres of intertidal habitat through the permanent discharge of fill material north of the current alignment of the roadway below the high tide line of Haynes Inlet.

Navigation Aids and Meteorological buoys
: The applicant would place two new navigation aids to assist vessel transit near the LNG Terminal access channel (Drawing 3). The applicant would also modify three existing navigational buoys to be determined, potentially with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assistance, to allow the upgraded buoys to capture meteorological data in addition to providing navigational aid. 

Kentuck mitigation site: The proposed Kentuck mitigation site (Drawings 1, 12-20) would result in the enhancement of approximately 100-acres of currently degraded, historical tidelands and saltmarsh by reconnecting tidelands to the Coos Bay estuary. The applicant would reconnect historic tidelands onsite through a combination of the construction and/or enhancement of tidal channels, mudflats, saltmarsh, and freshwater wetland communities. In general, the applicant would reconstruct the Kentuck Slough dike on the interior of the mitigation site, install a muted tidegate within the new dike, restore interior site hydrology, place large wood within the site, and construct a bridge within East Bay Road to facilitate tidal influence to the mitigation site. To facilitate development of the mitigation site the applicant would:

• permanently discharge fill material within an area measuring approximately 4.3-acres of Kentuck Slough, palustrine emergent wetlands, and estuarine wetlands to reconstruct the Kentuck Slough dike; 
• would permanently discharge dredged material within 0.07-acres of Kentuck Slough to grade areas abutting East Bay Road; 
• would discharge fill material within 0.14-acres of palustrine emergent wetland to improve transportation access along the southern mitigation site access road;
• would permanently discharge fill material within 0.85-acres of palustrine forested wetland for the purpose of well and drain field protection; and,
• would temporarily discharge fill material within 0.04-acre of Kentuck Slough and 0.47-acre of palustrine emergent wetland to construct a detour road abutting East Bay Road during construction of a new bridge within East Bay Road; 

Eelgrass mitigation site: Construction of the proposed slip and access channel would destroy approximately 1.9-acres of eelgrass. The applicant proposes to mitigate for this impact at a 3:1 ratio by creating 6.03-acres of eelgrass within a 9.34-acre site at a location near the impact site (Drawings 1, 4, 10, 11). At the proposed Eelgrass mitigation site the applicant would reduce the vertical profile of the mitigation site via a hydraulic dredge to achieve desired site elevations to support eelgrass growth within the site. The applicant proposes to obtain transplant eelgrass shoots and plugs from donor sites to establish a minimum of 2.01-acres of medium density (or higher) eelgrass beds and 4.02-acres of low density eelgrass beds within the 9.34-acre site. 

Future maintenance dredging: The slip, access channel and NRI areas would require periodic long-term maintenance dredging. The applicant anticipates future maintenance dredging requirements at the slip and access channel would total approximately 34,600 CY to 37,700 CY annually depending on actual shoaling rates. Future maintenance dredging requirements at the proposed NRI areas are projected to total approximately 27,900 CY to 49,800 CY every three years. The applicant would place material dredged from the access channel, slip and the NRI areas at the APCO 1 and 2 sites using either hydraulic or mechanical methods. The proposed project does not include prospective Department of the Army authorization for future maintenance dredging. 

The main natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by PCGP specific to the Corps’ authorities include:

• a 229-mile-long, underground pipeline, beginning near Malin, Oregon terminating at the LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon (Drawings 32-45). The pipeline would be constructed from 36-inch-diameter welded steel;
• temporary construction and work areas within wetlands and waterways; 

Pipeline construction process: The applicant would construct the pipeline in approximately five segments referred to as ‘spreads’. Pipeline spreads would be constructed simultaneously with each spread consisting of all construction activities necessary to construct the pipeline in the area designated in that spread. The applicant has identified the following preliminary locations for spreads, by mile post (MP): 

• Spread 1 – MP 0.00-51.60
o North Bend, Coos County to Camas Valley, Douglas County
• Spread 2 – MP 51.60-94.67
o Camas Valley, Douglas County to Milo, Douglas County
• Spread 3 – MP 94.67-132.47
o Milo, Douglas County to Butte Falls Highway, Jackson County
• Spread 4 – MP 132.47-169.50
o Butte Falls Highway, Jackson County to Buck Lake, Klamath County
• Spread 5 – MP 169.50-228.81
o Buck Lake, Klamath County to Malin, Klamath County

Pipeline wetland and waterway crossing methods and impacts: The applicant states they have designed wetland and waterway crossings to minimize impacts wetlands and waterways to the greatest extent practicable. Techniques for the crossing of wetland and waterways would include trenching, blasting, fluming, dam and pump, horizontal directional drill (HDD), and other methods. 

Construction of the 229-mile pipeline would impact wetlands and waterways at 485 individual locations. Of the 485 wetlands and waterways affected, 326 are perennial or and/or intermittent waterways, seven are lakes and/or ponds, two are estuarine waters, and 150 are wetlands. In Coos County, construction of the pipeline would affect 44 perennial and/or intermittent waterways, two estuarine waters, and 29 wetlands. In Douglas County, construction of the pipeline would affect 86 perennial and/or intermittent waterways, one pond, and 38 wetlands. In Jackson County, construction of the pipeline would affect 89 perennial and/or intermittent waterways, two lakes and/or ponds, and 22 wetlands. In Klamath County, construction of the pipeline would affect 107 perennial and/or intermittent waterways, four ponds, and 61 wetlands. Construction of the pipeline would affect a total of approximately 30,778-feet (5.83-miles) of wetlands and approximately 3,028-feet of waterways. The applicant would excavate and discharge approximately 48,675 CY of earthen material in wetlands and approximately 9,519 CY of earthen material in waterways to construct the pipeline. 

The applicant proposes to utilize HDD methods for the crossing of the Coos Bay estuary (Drawings 333, 37-39), Coos River (Drawings 37, 40), the Rogue River (Drawing 35, 42), and the Klamath River (Drawing 36, 43). The applicant would utilize dry open-cut crossing methods, including both flume and dam and pump methods, where HDD methods are not planned. 

Dry open-cut pipeline waterway crossing methods involve isolation of the active stream channel by installing a temporary dam upstream of the worksite to route stream flows around the worksite during construction. Wet open-cut pipeline waterway crossing involve trenching and installation of the pipeline through actively flowing streams without a work area isolation mechanism. The applicant would not utilize wet open-cut methods at any pipeline waterway crossing. 

In general, the applicant would reduce the width of the construction corridor at wetland and waterway crossings from 95-feet to 75-feet to reduce impacts to surface waters. The applicant would install a temporary bridge and/or wetland mats prior to construction on most waters to allow equipment and personnel to cross the wetland or waterway. The applicant would remove the temporary bridges when construction and restoration activities are completed. The applicant would restore wetlands, streambeds and stream banks following pipeline construction and at some locations would re-introduce large woody debris to stream systems. 

The construction right-of-way and temporary extra work areas (TEWA) for the pipeline would temporarily affect 112.2-acres of wetlands. Within that acreage, approximately 0.63-acre of riverine wetlands, 106.7-acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, 2.3-acre of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, and 2.6-acres of palustrine forested wetlands would be affected. Additionally, 0.6-acre of palustrine unconsolidated bottom or aquatic bed wetlands (predominantly stock ponds) would be disturbed by the pipeline construction. 

In addition to TEWA’s utilized along the pipeline route, approximately 35 sites have been proposed for use as contractor, pipe, or offload areas. Most of the yards are currently or previously utilized industrial areas abutting or adjacent to existing rail lines. Wetland and waterway impacts would be avoided during construction at all sites except the Milo Yard 2 site. At this site, approximately 1.13-acres of wetland would be temporarily impacted through the placement of wetland mats for construction traffic to allow vehicle and pedestrian use within the wetlands.  

Due to the need for a long-term easement for access and maintenance of the pipeline along its corridor, 0.73-acre of palustrine forested and 0.16-acre of palustrine scrub-shrub wetland would be permanently converted to palustrine emergent wetland (0.91-acre total). No wetlands would be permanently filled as a result of the construction of the pipeline. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for the permanent wetland type conversion from the pipeline construction at the Kentuck mitigation site. A 50-foot permanent right-of-way would be required for long-term operation and maintenance of the pipeline on both federally managed lands and private lands. 

Dredged Material Testing: The proposed dredged material and post-dredge surface areas exposed through dredging activities will be evaluated in accordance with the Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest (SEF). The interagency Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) implements the SEF for the Corps Portland District. The Corps, in coordination with the PSET will determine if sediment testing is required for this project. Project sediments may require physical, chemical, and/or biological testing to support the permit application evaluation. The PSET will evaluate the applicant’s sediment testing results and determine if project sediments are suitable for unconfined, aquatic disposal or exposure. 

Mitigation: The project would temporarily and permanently impact freshwater and estuarine wetlands, tidal mudflats, eelgrass habitat, intertidal and subtidal habitats, ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams, rivers, ditches, groundwater resources and standing, relatively permanent waterways such as lakes and ponds.

The applicant has provided a proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan (Plan) to offset temporary and permanent freshwater and estuarine aquatic resource impacts and losses of waters of the U.S. that may result from the proposed project. The applicant’s Plan, as discussed above, involves two components designed to mitigate aquatic resource impacts for the project collectively. The mitigation plans include enhancement of the former Kentuck golf course and abutting land near North Bend, Oregon (Kentuck mitigation site); and creation of an eelgrass bed at a site located southwest of the current Southwest Oregon Regional Airport runway in North Bend, Oregon (Eelgrass mitigation site). The Corps will determine the type and amount of compensatory mitigation necessary to offset environmental losses from the proposed project. 

Drawings: Forty-five (45) drawings are attached and labeled Corps No. NWP-2017-41. Copies of this public notice, which have been mailed or otherwise physically distributed, feature project drawings in black and white. The electronic version features those drawings in color, which we think more accurately illustrates the proposed project. To access the electronic version of this public notice, go to the Portland District website at http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ and select Regulatory Branch Permit Information. At the Regulatory page select Regulatory Public Notices. Copies of this public notice have been provide to local public libraries and post offices. 

Additional Information: 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and review process: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the lead Federal agency for the project. Information regarding the EIS may be obtained from the applicant’s filings with the FERC by searching the project docket number on FERC’s public docket search: https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/docket_search.asp 

JCLNG docket number: CP17-495
PCGP docket number: CP17-494

Company websites: More information may be obtain from the applicant’s websites:

JCLNG: http://jordancovelng.com/
PCGP: http://pacificconnectorgp.com/ 

Authority: The proposed project will be evaluated under the following:

Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), for work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States.

Section 14, Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408), for alteration or occupation or use of a project built by the United States (Federally Authorized).

Section 404, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

33 U.S.C. 408 – Requests to Alter U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federally Authorized Projects: Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (found at 33 U.S.C. 408 and referred to as Section 408) authorizes the Secretary of the Army to grant permission for the alteration or occupation or use of a Federally Authorized project if the Secretary determines that the activity will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the project. 

Section 408 Requester
Jordan Cove LNG as identified in the Applicant section above. 

Section 408 Proposed Action
Proposed action as discussed above. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District (District) will review JCLNG's construction plans related to the above potential impacts to the Federally authorized project. As a result of their construction activities, the following Federally authorized projects may be impacted as a result of their proposed project:

• The Federal navigation channel in Coos Bay both during construction and permanently;
• The Federal navigation channel in the Coos River both during construction and permanently; 
• The Federal pile dike structure west of the proposed slip both during construction and permanently; 
• A 40-acre multi-use U.S. Army Corps of Engineers real estate easement located partially within the proposed LNG Terminal tank site; 

The Portland District 408 Program has previously reviewed the applicant’s HDD pipeline crossing for the Coos River and determined no 408 review was required. 

Section 408 Evaluation: Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-216 outlines several factors the District uses to decide whether to grant the requested permission for project modification under Section 408. The decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. Review of the requests for modification will be reviewed by the District technical review team using the following factors:

1. Impair the Usefulness of the Project Determination. The review team will determine if the proposed alteration would limit the ability of the federally authorized project to function as authorized, or would compromise or change any authorized project conditions, purposes or outputs. The decision whether to approve a request for modification would be based on a determination of no impairments.

2. Injurious to the Public Interest Determination. The review team will review the proposed alterations to determine the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, on the public interest. The team’s evaluation of the proposed alteration’s probable impacts to the District project and the possible impacts to the public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors relevant in each particular case. The decision whether to approve an alteration will be determined by the consideration of whether benefits are commensurate with risks. If the potential detriments are found to outweigh the potential benefits, then the District may determine the proposed alteration is injurious to the public interest.

3.  Environmental Compliance. A decision on a Section 408 request is a federal action, and therefore subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental compliance requirements. While the District ensures environmental compliance, the requester is providing all information the District identifies as necessary to satisfy all applicable federal laws, executive orders, regulations, policies, and ordinances. JCLNG and PCGP are seeking FERC certificates and the FERC will be responsible for preparing and publishing an EIS for the project. The Portland District is a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS. The Portland District will issue a separate environmental compliance decision with the 408 decision independent of the FERC’s role in the environmental review of the project.  

The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. Comments received will be considered by the Corps’ to determine whether to grant or deny a permission for this proposal. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an EIS pursuant to the NEPA. 

Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines: The described discharge will be evaluated for compliance with guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines are the substantive criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The source of dredged and fill material for project components would vary. The primary source of fill material for the LNG Terminal, South Dunes Site, and associated facilities would be comprised of dredged material relocated from construction of the slip and access channel on the project site. Fill material is needed to raise the elevation of the facilities above predicted tsunami inundation levels. The source of dredged and fill material for the Kentuck mitigation site would be comprised of material dredged from both the slip and access channel areas and from dredged material relocated within the Kentuck mitigation site. The primary source of dredged and/or fill material for the construction of the pipeline would be temporary construction fill prisms associated with active channel diversions, the discharge of dredged material during the relocation of in-channel sediments to construct the pipeline (side-casting), and the discharge of fill material to reconstruct wetlands and waterways to their previous location and condition following construction of the pipeline within the waterway. 

Water Quality Certification: Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires applicants to obtain a water quality certification for proposed discharges into waters of the United States. A permit for the described work will not be issued until certification has been issued or is waived from the certifying state. Attached is the state's notice for a water quality certification. The water quality certification would be applicable to waters of the United States located on federal, state, and private lands.

Coastal Zone Management: Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1456(c), requires non-Federal applicants seeking a federal license or permit to conduct any activity occurring in or affecting the coastal zone to obtain a Consistency Certification which indicates the activity conforms with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s (DLCD) Coastal Zone Management Program. The applicant believes the proposed project would comply with and be conducted in a manner consistent with the Oregon Ocean and Coastal Management Program. 

Section 307(c) of the CZMA also requires Federal agencies conducting activities in the coastal zone to comply to the maximum extent practicable with an approved state coastal zone management program. Agencies with federal actions occurring in the coastal zone would coordinate with the DLCD as necessary to ensure the project complies with the CZMA’s directives.

Endangered Species
: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C 1536) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on all actions that may affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) under the ESA as threatened or endangered or that may adversely modify designated critical habitat. The Corps’ preliminary review indicates the described activity may affect endangered species or designated critical habitat. For this project, the FERC, as the lead Federal agency for ESA consultation, in cooperation and coordination with any federal co-action agencies and the applicant, will consult with the NMFS and/or the USFWS as required under Section 7 of the ESA. The required consultation will be finalized prior to the Corps rendering a permit decision.

Essential Fish Habitat: Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as amended (16 U.S.C 1855), requires Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Corps’ preliminary review indicates the described activity would adversely affect EFH at the project location or in its vicinity. For this project, the FERC, as the lead Federal agency for EFH consultation, in cooperation and coordination with any federal co-action agencies and the applicant, will consult with the NMFS as necessary. The required consultation will be finalized prior to the Corps rendering a permit decision. 

Historic Properties/Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), requires Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to take into account the effects of actions they undertake or permit on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). For this project, the FERC, as the lead Federal agency for determining compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, will consult with the appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer as applicable. The Corps’ preliminary review indicates the project, as described, may impact property or resources registered or eligible for registration in the latest published version of the NRHP. This notice has been provided to the State Historic Preservation Office, interested Native American Indian Tribes, and other interested parties. If you have information pertaining to cultural resources within the permit area/area of potential effect, please provide this information to either Corps’ project manager identified at the end of this notice to assist in a complete evaluation of potential effects.

State and Local Authorizations: The applicant would apply for required state and local governmental authorizations for the project.

Public Hearing: Any person may request in writing within the comment period specified in this notice that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state with particularity the reasons for holding a public hearing.

Section 404/10 Evaluation: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the described activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the described activity, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors, which may be relevant to the described activity will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. Comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an EIS pursuant to the NEPA. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing.

Submitting Comments
: Interested parties are invited to provide comments on the proposed project. Comments may be submitted by conventional mail or email. All comments received will be considered in determining whether authorizing the work would be contrary or injurious to the public interest or impair the usefulness of the federal project. Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the Corps reference number as shown on page 1 and include the commenter’s name and address. In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the Corps reference number. All comments received will become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses. Additional information related to the Corps review may be obtained from either Project Manager listed below. Please identify which authority the comment is specific to (e.g. Section 404, Section 10, or Section 14 (408)). To request a hard copy of the public notice please submit a request to the email inbox or physical address listed below. 

REGULATORY QUESTIONS
For questions regarding the Corps Regulatory authorities and evaluation (Section 404/10) please contact: Mr. Tyler Krug, (541) 756-2097, or Tyler.J.Krug@usace.army.mil

ALTERATIONS TO FEDERAL PROJECT QUESTIONS
For questions regarding the Corps Planning Division authorities and evaluation (Section 408) please contact: Mr. Andrew Young, (503) 808-4317, or Andrew.F.Young@usace.army.mil

All comments, whether by conventional mail or email, must be received no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration. Comments should be submitted to the following mailing address or email address below. 

SUBMITTING COMMENTS
Email: NWP-2017-41@usace.army.mil

Hard copy: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Bend Field Office
2201 North Broadway, Suite C
North Bend, Oregon 97459-2372

PUBLIC NOTICE
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality 401 Certification Application

 Notice Issued: May 22, 2018
 Written Comments Due: July 21, 2018

Corps of Engineers No: NWP-2017-41
Oregon Department of State Lands No: APP0060697
 
WHO IS THE APPLICANT: Jordan Cove LNG, LLC.
Attention: Ms. Caroline Burda
5615 Kirby Drive, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77005
Email: caroline.burda@jordancovelng.com 
Telephone: (832) 255-3800


LOCATION OF CERTIFICATION ACTIVITY: See attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public notice.

WHAT IS PROPOSED: See attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public notice on the application.

NEED FOR CERTIFICATION: Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires applicants for federal permits or licenses to provide the federal agency a water quality certification from Oregon if the proposed activity may result in a discharge to waters of the state.

DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGES: See attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public notice on the proposed project.

WHERE TO FIND DOCUMENTS: Application documents and materials related to water quality as a result of the proposal can be examined and copied at several DEQ offices. Information can also be found on DEQ’s web site: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/Programs/Pages/Jordan-Cove.aspx

While not required, scheduling an appointment will ensure that water quality documents are readily accessible during your visit. To schedule an appointment please call one of the offices listed below.

• Northwest Regional Office - 700 NE Multnomah St, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100
o Phone Number: 503-229-5263; Toll free in Oregon: 800-452-4011
• Eugene Office – 165 E. 7th Ave., Suite 100, Eugene, OR 97401
o Phone Number: 541-686-7838; Toll free in Oregon: 800- 844-8467
• Coos Bay Office - 381 N Second St., Coos Bay, OR 97420
o Phone Number: 541-269-2721, ext. 0
• Medford Office - 221 Stewart Ave., Suite 201, Medford, OR 97501
o Phone Number: 541-776-6010; Toll free in Oregon: 877-823-3216 
• Salem Office - 4026 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302
o Phone Number: 503-378-8240; Toll free in Oregon: 800-349-7677 

Any questions on the water quality certification process may be addressed to DEQ’s Jordan Cove Project Coordinator, Mary Camarata at 541-687-7435 or toll free within Oregon at 800-844-8467. People with hearing impairments may call the Oregon Telecommunications Relay Service at 800-735-2900.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Public Hearing: Oregon Administrative Rule 340-48-0032 (2) states that “The Corps provides public notice of and opportunity to comment on the applications, including the application for certification, provided that the department, in its discretion, may provide additional opportunity for public comment, including public hearing.” 

Written comments:
Written comments on the application related to water quality must be received at DEQ by 5 p.m. on the date specified in the upper right section on page one of this notice. Written comments may be emailed, mailed or faxed as described below: 

Email – JCEP401PublicComment@deq.state.or.us

Mail - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
165 E. 7th Ave, Suite 100
Eugene, Oregon 97401  
Attn: 401 Water Quality Certification Project Manager, Chris Stine

Fax - 541- 686-7551

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: DEQ will review and consider all comments on the application received during the public comment period. Following this review, certification of the proposal may be issued as proposed, issued with conditions, or denied. You will be notified of DEQ's final decision if you submit comments during the comment period. Otherwise, if you wish to receive notification, please call or write DEQ at the above address.

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION: Documents can be provided upon request in an alternate format for individuals with disabilities or in a language other than English for people with limited English skills. To request a document in another format or language, call DEQ in Portland at 503-229-5696, or toll free in Oregon at 800-452-4011, ext. 5696; or email deqinfo@deq.state.or.us.