Portland District

Home
Home > Media > Public Notices > Permit Application Article
Bookmark and Share Email Print


NWP-2012-441

Posted: 11/14/2014

Expiration date: 1/12/2015


PUBLIC NOTICE for Permit Application

                        Issue Date: November 14, 2014

                                    Expiration Date: January 12, 2015

                                    US Army Corps of Engineers No: NWP-2012-441

60-Day Notice                                                                                         Oregon Department of State Lands No: 54484-RF, 54908-RF

 

 

Interested parties are hereby notified that an application has been received for a Department of the Army permit for certain work in waters of the United States, as described below and shown on the attached plan.

 

Comments: Comments on the described work should reference the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers number shown above and reach this office no later than the above expiration date of this Public Notice to become part of the record and be considered in the decision. Comments should be mailed to the following address:

 

                        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

                        Tyler J. Krug

                        North Bend Field Office

                        2201 N. Broadway Ste. C

                        North Bend, OR  97459-2372

 

Comments may also be submitted electronically to NWP-2012-441@usace.army.mil.

 

With either hard copy or electronic mail, put: “NWP-2012-441 – Public Comment” in the subject line.

 

Applicant:     Bob Braddock

                        Jordan Cove Energy Project

                        125 Central Ave., Ste. 380

                        Coos Bay, OR 97420

 

Location: The facility would be located on the North Spit of the Coos River, near North Bend, Coos County, Oregon. The associated pipeline would originate in Malin, Klamath County, Oregon, and would span Klamath, Jackson, Douglas and Coos Counties, terminating in North Bend, Coos County, Oregon (see attached maps). Related project locations include Jordan Cove Energy Project’s North Point Workforce Housing Project located west of the southern terminus of the McCullough Bridge, the proposed Kentuck mitigation site and a proposed eelgrass mitigation site located southwest of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport in North Bend, Oregon.

 

Waterway: The project would affect various wetlands and waterways located in Coos, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath counties.

Overview: Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline L.P. have applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal and natural gas pipeline. The Corps, as cooperating agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act is assisting the FERC in the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. The FERC Draft EIS was released on November 7, 2014 with a 90-day public comment period. The FERC docket number for JCEP is CP13-483; the FERC docket number for PCGP is CP13-492. Information on the FERC regulatory process including supplemental JCEP or PCGP project information can be obtained from the following web address:

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp

 

The Corps is soliciting public comment on project-related actions located within or affecting aquatic resources and public interest factors directly related to our regulatory role and responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers & Harbors Act.

Purpose: The project purpose is to export LNG to free trade and non-free trade countries. Natural gas obtained from western Candadian and U.S. Rocky Mountain sources will be provided to the JCEP LNG marine export terminal via the construction and operation of the PCGP.

Project description:

 

The main facilities associated with JCEP’s proposed LNG export terminal specific to the Corps Regulatory authority include:

  • an access channel from the existing Coos Bay navigation channel to the terminal marine slip;
  • a marine slip, with a berth for one LNG vessel on the east side and a berth for tug boats on the north side; 
  • a permanent barge berth for initial construction equipment delivery, site construction, and future construction equipment delivery for maintenance requirements;
  • a utility corridor, approximately 1-mile long and 150-feet wide, between the LNG terminal and the South Dunes Power Plant. A 230-kilovolt transmission line and access road would be constructed within the corridor; 
  • the South Dunes Power Plant, consisting of a 420-megawatt natural gas–fired combined cycle electric generating system and heat recovery steam generator units; 
  • the Southern Oregon Regional Safety Center facility for emergency response capabilities as well as personnel and community education and training needs;
  • Trans Pacific Parkway and Highway 101 intersection road widening improvements;
  • the North Point Workforce Housing Project site consisting of temporary housing and amenities for approximately 2,000 workers during project construction;
  • other project components as listed in the DEIS document accessible online.

 

The main natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by PCGP specific to the Corps Regulatory authority include:

  • a 232-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter welded steel underground pipeline, capable of transporting about 1,060,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from interconnections with existing supply pipelines near Malin, Oregon to the JCEP LNG terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon;
  • the Klamath Compressor Station; four meter stations, including the Klamath-Beaver Meter Station and Klamath-Eagle Meter Station co-located within the Klamath Compressor Station at MP 228.1, the Clark’s Branch Meter Station at MP 71.5, and the JCEP Meter Station at MP 1.5R; 
  • other project components as listed in the DEIS document accessible online.

 

Approximately 64 percent of the land that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline is classified as forest, 17 percent is agricultural land, 10 percent is rangelands, and about 7 percent is urban or built-up lands. Waterbodies, wetlands, other categories comprise about 2 percent. Land ownership along the proposed route is approximately 31 percent federal, 68 percent private, and 1 percent state land.

 

Temporary construction-related impacts: Water necessary for operation of the LNG terminal would be supplied by the Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board. During construction of the terminal JCEP would use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of raw water for various construction-related activities and approximately 482,800,000 million gallons of water annually for site operations. Hydrostatic testing of the LNG holding tanks would require 28.25 million gallons of water. JCEP currently maintains the ocean outfall used by the former Menasha/Weyerhaeuser mill by discharging approximately 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per day through the industrial wastewater line. Of the 28.25 million gallons of hydrostatic test water to be used during the hydrostatic testing process, JCEP would retain 5.3 million gallons in an onsite fire suppression pond. The remaining 22.95 million gallons of water would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean through an existing ocean discharge point connected to the fire suppression pond. During terminal operations, the JCEP LNG terminal would consume approximately 350 gallons of water per minute. Water sources and amounts proposed as part of the construction process and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline in Coos, Douglas, Klamath, and Jackson counties would be provided by the Oregon Department of Water Resources, local irrigation districts, and private reservoirs.

 

Marine slip: The proposed 30.8 acre marine slip would be excavated from what are currently uplands. The inside dimensions at the toe of the slope would measure approximately 800-feet along the north boundary and approximately 1,500-feet and 1,200-feet along the western and eastern boundaries, respectively. The proposed access channel connecting the proposed slip to the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel would measure approximately 2,300-feet wide at the intersection with the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel and would encompass approximately thirty-six acres in size. The access channel and slip would be excavated to and maintained at -45 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 with a two-foot over-dredge allowance. The current Coos Bay Federal Navigation channel is authorized to -37 feet Mean Lower Low Water depth. There is an approximate 0.6-foot difference between the tidal datum MLLW and the geodetic datum NAVD 88 at the JCEP LNG site.

 

About 4.3 million cubic yards of material would need to be removed to create the slip basin. Of this, about 2.3 mcy would be dry excavated and about 2.0 mcy would be hydraulically dredged. An additional 1.3 mcy of material would need to be dredged to create the access channel; 5.6 mcy of material to be dredged and excavated in total. Excavated and dredged material would be disposed of primarily in the site of the proposed South Dunes Power Plant Site and the LNG terminal site.

 

Future maintenance dredging: The access channel and slip would require long-term maintenance dredging of 37,700 cubic yards per year based on forecasted shoaling rates. The volume of material dredged from the slip and access channel for routine maintenance would be approximately 360,000 cy during the first 10 years and approximately 330,000 cy during the second 10 years. Future dredged material is proposed to be disposed of offshore at the Coos Bay Site F Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off of Coos Bay’s North Jetty. Materials to be dredged are predominantly fine to medium sized sands generated by erosive processes in the bay and from the sides of the constructed slip. JCEP’s proposed action possesses no Section 103 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act action, and thus the Corps is not reviewing the action under our authority found in Section 103 of the MPRSA.  

 

Pipeline construction process: PCGP would construct the entire pipeline in five segments referred to as ‘spreads’ initiating in Coos County and working east to Malin, Oregon. Each spread would consist of all construction activities necessary to construct the pipeline in the area designated in that spread. The use of the descriptor ‘MP’ denotes Mile Post assigned to the 2007 PCGP pipeline route while the use of descriptor ‘R’ denotes realignments incorporated into the proposed route. Preliminary locations for spreads identified by PCGP include the following:

  • Spread 1 – MPs 1.5R-49.7
  • Spread 2 – MPs 49.7-94.7
  • Spread 3 – MPs 94.7-132.1
  • Spread 4 – MPs 132.1-188.0
  • Spread 5 – MPs 188.0-228.1

Pipeline wetland and waterbody crossings: PCGP proposes to utilize horizontal directional drilling at waterbodies over 100-feet wide. The proposal is to use the HDD method for the crossing of the Coos River (MP 11.13R), the Rogue River (MP 122.65), and the Klamath River (MP 199.38).

 

Where HDD is not planned, the proponents would utilize wet open-cut, conventional bore, direct pipe, diverted open-cut, and dry open-cut methods. Where active water flows are present onsite pipeline waterbody crossing would primarily be isolated from the active channel through the installation of a dam upstream of the worksite and use of flume or pump system to route streamflows downstream of the project location.

The proposed construction corridor is 95-foot wide except in specific locations where it would be narrowed to 75-feet to reduce impacts to forested and shrub-scrub wetlands or waterbodies. A 250-feet wide corridor would be required where a barge would be used to install the pipeline in Haynes Inlet near Coos Bay and North Bend. A 50-foot permanent right-of-way would be required for long-term operation and maintenance of the pipeline. On federally managed lands, the project proponents would acquire a 30-foot wide permanent easement.

 

Approximately 647 existing roads will be used for construction access and may require widening or improvements resulting in an estimated 7.6 acres of disturbance. It is estimated the construction of permanent access roads will disturb 2.6 acres in total. An additional 1,293 acres of temporary work areas would be cleared to support soil storage, staging and construction of pipeline drag sections, equipment staging, dewatering areas, timber staging and decking. PCGP has identified 673 acres of additional storage area where vegetation removal is not required.

 

Impacts to wetlands and waterways: The proposed action will 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 waterbodies such as lakes and ponds.

Slip and access channel: The slip and access channel combined will be approximately 66 acres in size and would result in the permanent loss of 17.23 acres of sub-tidal and intertidal habitat, 0.18 acres of estuarine saltmarsh habitat and 2.56 acres of eelgrass habitat. Approximately 34.27 acres of deep subtidal habitat would be created within the marine slip and access channel.  

 

The LNG terminal and associated facilities: The terminal and associated facilities would cover a total of approximately 397 acres of land, of which 178 is currently industrial land, 111 acres forest land, 76 acres open land (including wetlands), and 32 acres of open water. Permanent operation of the facilities would affect 251 acres, of which 68 acres are open land, 76 acres industrial, 76 acres forest, and 32 acres open water. Construction-related impacts, including temporary laydown areas, are forecasted to occupy a larger surface area than the surface area required for permanent site operations.

 

Pipeline: Construction of the 232-mile pipeline will directly impact 239 acres of wetlands and waterbodies at 400 individual locations. Of the 400 waterbodies affected, 101 are perennial waterbodies, 164 are intermittent waterbodies, 128 are ditches, six are stock ponds, and one is an estuary; Haynes Inlet in Coos Bay. The pipeline will cross through wetlands for approximately 11.6 miles. The pipeline will cross 233 streams, canals or ditches. Waterbody crossings have been designed to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible to offer temporary rather than permanent impacts over the length of the pipeline route. The pipeline route would temporarily impact 76.28 acres of estuary aquatic resources, 137.69 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, 12.23 acres of riverine wetlands, and 5.21 acres of palustrine forested wetlands. Additionally 1.17 acres of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands and 6.3 acres of palustrine unconsolidated bottom or aquatic bed wetlands would be disturbed when riparian and forested environments are altered to route the pipeline through these wetland environments. The effects to estuarine aquatic resources are associated with the project’s proposed alignment within the Haynes Inlet of Coos Bay as well as tidal channel, river and wetland crossings.

 

PCGP would minimize impacts to wetland and waterway crossings through avoidance where practicable, utilize best management practices where unavoidable including staffing the 232- mile pipeline and associated temporary work areas with environmental inspectors. Construction techniques directly affecting wetland and waterways would include, but are not limited to trenching, blasting, fluming, horizontal directional drilling, and other methods described in Appendix 2B-I of PCGP’s Resource Report 2 on FERCs website located at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp  Additional mitigation measures would be developed to address waterways on federal lands with resources under Corps jurisdiction.

 

Permanent wetland type conversion impacts for the pipeline would affect a total of 1.48 acres of wetlands including 1.36 acres of palustrine forested and 0.12 acre of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands where maintenance of the pipeline’s operational corridor would convert forested or scrub-shrub wetlands to a different wetland type to facilitate corrosion and leak surveys. However, no wetlands would be permanently filled as a result of the PCGP.

 

Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and waterways: The applicant has provided a series of proposed compensatory wetland mitigation plans for temporary and permanent freshwater and estuarine aquatic resource impacts. If a permit is issued, the Corps will determine what is appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. The amount of compensatory mitigation required shall be commensurate with the anticipated impacts of the project.

JCEP proposes to mitigate for freshwater wetland impacts through the creation of 0.79 acres of freshwater wetland and enhancement of 0.13 acres of freshwater wetland at the West Bridge Mitigation Site and through the creation of 1.95 acres of salt marsh estuarine wetland creation at the West Jordan Cove Mitigation Site. JCEP proposes to mitigate for other estuarine aquatic resource impacts through the enhancement of 14.33 acres of freshwater wetland habitat, restoration of 1.88 estuarine wetland habitat and reestablishment of historic tidal flows to approximately 45.1 acres of wetland habitat (converting freshwater wetland to unvegetated tidal mudflat channels) at the former Kentuck Golf Course (Kentuck Mitigation Site), east of North Bend, Oregon. The permanent loss of eelgrass resources would be mitigated through the proposed creation of 7.68 acres of eelgrass at JCEP’s proposed intertidal eelgrass mitigation site located southwest of the current Southwestern Oregon Regional Airport runway. The site is owned by the State of Oregon with management authority held by the Department of State Lands.

 

Approximately 1.48 acres of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would be converted to emergent wetlands due to future maintenance of the pipeline’s corridor. PCGP proposes to utilize the Kentuck Mitigation Site to mitigate for these impacts through the enhancement and conversion of 4.26 acres of emergent freshwater wetland to forested wetland. The proposed mitigation would improve hydrologic function within the wetland by filling a man-made ditch, removing berms, increasing microtopography and throughflow times, and restoring historic channels.

 

Drawings: Twenty-one (21) drawings are attached and labeled NWP-2012-441 enclosure.

 

Additional information may be obtained from Tyler J. Krug, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 541-756-2097 or email Tyler.J.Krug@usace.army.mil.

 

Authority: This permit will be issued or denied 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 404, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

 

Water quality certification: A permit for the described work will not be issued until certification, as required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95‑217), has been received or is waived from the certifying state. Attached is the state's notice advertising the request for certification.

 

Section 404(b)(1) evaluation: The impact of the activity on the public interest will be evaluated in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency guidelines pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

 

Coastal zone management act certification: A permit for the described work will not be issued until the state has concurred with the applicant's certification that the described activity affecting land or water uses in the Coastal Zone complies with the State Coastal Zone Management Program. Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3) requires the applicant to provide a Certification of Consistency statement. If the state fails to concur or object to the certification statement within six months, state concurrence shall be conclusively presumed. Attached to this Public Notice is a notice of application for Certification of Consistency with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program.

 

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.

 

Endangered species: There are thirty-one federally listed species and/or designated critical habitat that occur or may occur within the project boundaries including seven plant species, one invertebrate species, five bird species, seven marine mammal species, one terrestrial mammal species, five amphibian and reptile species, and five species of fish. Designated Essential Fish Habitat for groundfish, salmonids and coastal pelagic species occurs within the project boundaries.  

 

Preliminary determinations indicate that the described activity may affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 844) and for EFH under the Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act will be carried out with FERC acting as the lead action agency. A permit for the proposed activity will not be issued until the consultation process is completed.

 

Cultural Resources: The described project may impact property registered or eligible for registration in the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places. As the lead federal agency for the project, the FERC will address compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act on behalf of all the federal cooperating agencies in the production of the EIS. In accordance with the American Council of Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations for complying with Section 106, the FERC, on behalf of all of the federal cooperating agencies, consulted with the Oregon SHPO, interested Native American Indian tribes and other consulting parties prior to making determinations of NRHP eligibility and Project effects.

 

The Corps permit application review process is independent of FERC’s regulatory role and responsibility in the overall Project. As such, the Corps will independently consult with Native American Indian tribes and will independently review FERC’s Section 106 NHPA compliance documentation. This notice has been provided to the SHPO, interested Native American Indian tribes, and other interested parties. If you have information pertaining to cultural resources within the permit area, please provide this information to the Corps project manager (identified above in this notice) to assist in a complete evaluation of potential effects.

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 this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

 

Additional requirements: State law requires that leases, easements, or permits be obtained for certain works or activity in the described waters. These state requirements must be met where applicable, and a Department of the Army permit must be obtained before any work within the applicable Statutory Authority previously indicated may be accomplished. Other local governmental agencies may also have ordinances or requirements, which must be satisfied before the work is accomplished.

 

Draft EIS availability: Electronic copies of the DEIS can be found at the following FERC web address at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp

 

In addition, the FERC will provide hard copies of the DEIS document to the following public libraries:

 

·         Canyonville Branch Library

·         City of North Bend Library

·         Coos Bay Public Library

·         Coquille Public Library

·         Jackson County Central Library

·         Klamath County Main Library

·         Myrtle Creek Branch Library

·         Roseburg Library (Douglas County Central Library)

Coos permit request public notice regulatory