RR6 Comment-Response Matrix

Psulliva

Description

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources Comment/Response Matrix Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response General Update all of Resource Report 6 to include geologic Resource Report 6 has been updated to include resource information along the proposed Lateral. geologic resource information along the proposed Lateral. 6.1.2.1 6-3 Section 6.1.2.1 indicates that Oregon LNG plans on Additional information on the geotechnical exploration conducting a geotechnical field exploration program program has been added to Section 6.1.2.1. along the proposed pipeline alignment to further evaluate subsurface conditions at locations near roadways, rivers, streams, wetlands, or other sensitive areas where additional geotechnical information may be needed or where specialized construction techniques may be used. Provide the following information about the geotechnical field exploration program. a. Describe the type(s) of field exploration that Oregon LNG would conduct. How would the data collected from this exploration assist in evaluating geologic resources? b. Why is the geotechnical field exploration program needed? c. What geologic hazards would Oregon LNG evaluate with the geotechnical field exploration program? d. How would information developed from the collected data be used to develop appropriate methods for construction and operation of the project? ...

Informations

• Publié par: Shueh
• Nombre de lectures: 23
• Langue: English

Extrait

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

General

Update all of Resource Report 6 to include geologic

resource information along the proposed Lateral.

Resource Report 6 has been updated to include

geologic resource information along the proposed

Lateral.

6.1.2.1

6-3

Section 6.1.2.1 indicates that Oregon LNG plans on

conducting a geotechnical field exploration program

along the proposed pipeline alignment to further

evaluate subsurface conditions at locations near

roadways, rivers, streams, wetlands, or other sensitive

areas where additional geotechnical information may

be needed or where specialized construction

techniques may be used.

Provide the following

information about the geotechnical field exploration

program.

a. Describe the type(s) of field exploration that

Oregon LNG would conduct.

How would the

data collected from this exploration assist in

evaluating geologic resources?

b. Why is the geotechnical field exploration

program needed?

c. What geologic hazards would Oregon LNG

evaluate with the geotechnical field exploration

program?

d. How would information developed from the

collected data be used to develop appropriate

methods for construction and operation of the

project?

Additional information on the geotechnical exploration

program has been added to Section 6.1.2.1.

2

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

6.1.2.1

6-3

Table 6.2-1 lists the mineral resources within 0.5 mile

of the proposed Pipeline and Lateral and indicates that

the Pipeline would cross Gales Creek Sand & Gravel

(sand and gravel resource), operated by Baker Rock

Crushing Company (stone basalt resource), near

milepost (MP) 65.2; Parkin Quarry Company (sand and

gravel resource), operated by Karban Rock, Inc near

MP 67.2; and Coffee Island Bar, operated by Dayton

Sand & Gravel Company, near MP 100.7.

Section

6.2.1 indicates that that the Coffee Island Bar gravel pit

is the only facility that is presently operating.

Please

confirm that the other two listed facilities that would be

crossed by the Pipeline are not presently operating

and that their identified operators do not intend

operating them in the future.

The Coffee Island Bar gravel pit is the only facility that

is currently operating. The other two listed facilities

(Gales Creek Sand and Gravel Pit and Parkin Quarry)

are not currently operating. Their identified operators

do not intend to operate them in the future. Section

6.2.1 has been expanded to more clearly state this

information.

In addition, Section 6.2.1 has been

reworded to more clearly identify that the discussion is

for only those mineral resources near the Willamette

River (i.e., between mileposts 99 and 101).

3

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

6.1.2.1

6-3

Describe the potential hazards to pipeline facilities

from crossing mineral resources at MP 65.2, 67.2, and

100.7.

Include responses to the following questions:

a. If Gales Creek Sand and Gravel (MP 65.2) or

Parkin Quarry (MP 67.2) are currently

operational, could mining activities at those

locations affect the pipeline as a result of

blasting or other ground-disturbing activity?

Could past, current, or future activities at those

locations affect the pipeline as a result of

subsistence, slumping and landsliding, or other

ground failure?

b. Could the pipeline be affected by subsistence,

slumping and landsliding, or other ground

failure at Coffee Island Bar quarry/pit (MP

100.7) after the site is restored?

Section 6.2.1 has been expanded to include a

discussion of the crossing of permitted mineral

resource areas by the Pipeline.

a. Crossings of the mineral resource sites near

MP 65 and 67 are not expected to result in

adverse effects. A discussion of past and

present activities, and the risks of future

activities,

has been added.

b. The section of the Pipeline beneath the

existing Coffee Island Bar quarry is expected

to be installed below the bottom of the existing

pit, which will eliminate the potential from the

types of damage listed. Text has been added

to Section 6.2.1 to address this comment.

6.1.2.3

6-6

No geologic information provided for the Project along

the Lateral.

Provide information similar to that

provided for the proposed Pipeline alignment for the

proposed Lateral alignment.

Section 6.1.2.3 has been updated to include geologic

information along the proposed Lateral.

6.2.3

6-10

No information about mineral resources within 0.5 mile

of the proposed Lateral was provided in resource

report 6.

Provide information similar to that provided

for the proposed Pipeline alignment for the proposed

Lateral alignment.

Section 6.2.3 has been updated to include geologic

information along the proposed Lateral.

4

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

6.3.3

6-14

Section 6.3.3 indicates that prevailing winds would

likely direct volcanic ash to the east away from the

project areas.

Provide documentation supporting this

statement.

Section 6.3.3 has been updated to include the

requested documentation.

6.3.4.2

6-15

No information about the impact of soil liquefaction on

the proposed Lateral.

Provide information similar to

that provided for the proposed Pipeline alignment for

the proposed Lateral alignment.

Section 6.3.4.2 has been updated to include

information along the proposed Lateral.

6.3.5.3

6-17

Information about landslide potential was not included

in Section 6.3.5.3.

Provide information similar to that

provided for the proposed Pipeline alignment for the

proposed Lateral alignment.

Section 6.3.5.3 has been updated to include

information along the proposed Lateral

6.3.7

6-18

Table 6.3-2, Geologic Hazards Near Proposed

Terminal, Pipeline, and Lateral, does not include

information on the lateral. Include this information in

the revised report. In addition, the table lists geologic

hazards identified within the project area.

Some

segments of the project are labeled “NHM” or “not

hazards mapped”.

Clarify if this designation indicates

that hazards mapping has not been conducted in this

area or that no hazards have been mapped in this area

because there are none.

Table 6.3-2 has been updated to provide the mapped

geologic hazards along the proposed lateral route.

The text “NHM” was replaced with “NHI” (“no hazards

indicated”) in Table 6.3-2 to clarify that no hazards are

indicated in this area in the published literature

reviewed. The column labeled “References” provides

the sources that were reviewed for each milepost.

6.3.7

6-18

Table 6.3-2, Geologic Hazards Near Proposed

Terminal, Pipeline, and Lateral, identifies “Peat soil” as

a geologic hazard.

Describe how peat soil is a hazard

for project construction and operation.

Explain how

you would mitigate this impact.

The proposed pipeline alignment has been changed in

the area where the Peat soil was previously identified

from geologic mapping. The current proposed

alignment no longer crosses the mapped area of peat.

Text regarding peat has been removed from Section

6.3.7 and Table 6.3-2.

5

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

6.3.8.2

6-22

A list of the locations where the Lateral would cross

100-year floodplains was not included.

Provide

information similar to that provided for the proposed

Pipeline alignment for the proposed Lateral alignment.

Former Section 6.3.8.2 (new Section 6.3.9.2) has been

updated to include information along the proposed

Lateral.

6.5.3.2

6-33

Clarify whether you intended to state that the Astoria

Formation is assigned a high level of paleontological

sensitivity in the second paragraph on the Keasey and

Pittsburg Bluff Formation page.

What is the conclusion

for the Keasey and Pittsburg Bluff Formations?

This is a typographical error. The subject text (second

paragraph of the text on the Keasey and Pittsburg Bluff

Formations in Section 6.5.3.2) is now corrected to read

“On the basis of these records, the Keasey and

Pittsburg Bluff formations, as well as Undifferentiated

Oligocene Marine Sediments, are assigned a high

level of paleontological sensitivity.” The Astoria

Formation is also assigned a high level of

paleontological sensitivity, as stated in the text in

Section 6.5.3.2.

6.6.2.1

6-37

Section 6.6.2.1 indicates that the success of

restoration of extremely steep slopes would be

monitored to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, and

that if needed new restoration plans would be

developed and implemented.

How long would Oregon

LNG monitor restoration?

What would indicate

successful or unsuccessful restoration?

With whom

would Oregon LNG develop the modified restoration

plans?

Note that the FERC staff should be included in

this development.

Monitoring and necessary maintenance activities will

be conducted routinely throughout the operating life of

the Project as part of standard operating procedures.

Unsuccessful restoration would be indicated by erosion

or ineffective revegetation (i.e., vegetation that will not

germinate or grow).

FERC would be engaged to review or participate in

developing modifications to the Upland Erosion

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan in the

unlikely event that modifications are necessary.

6-37

6-39

Resource Report 6 indicates that Oregon LNG would

implement a program for monitoring stream bank

erosion during operation of the Pipeline and Lateral.

Provide a copy of this program.

A discussion of stream bank erosion protection and

monitoring is included in Appendix 2A of Resource

Report 2.

6

Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project

FERC Review – Resource Report 6, Geological Resources

Comment/Response Matrix

Section

Page

Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed

Response

6.6.2.2

6-38

Section 6.6.2.2 states that Oregon LNG would

implement a shoreline erosion control plan at the

proposed Terminal to minimize impacts to soil and

shoreline erosion. Provide a copy of this plan.

The shoreline erosion control plan has been developed

and added to Resource Report 2, Appendix 2A. The

shoreline erosion plan will be referenced in RR6.

6.6.4.2

6-41

Provide a copy of the Paleontological Resources

Monitoring and Mitigation Program (PRMMP).

a. Identify milepost locations where monitoring of

paleontological resources would be

implemented.

b. Identify the federal or state agencies that have

recommended implementing the PRMMP.

Provide copies of correspondence with these

agencies.

To assure specificity of the monitoring and mitigation

measures, the PRMMP will be developed and

submitted at the completion of facility design. It will not

be developed or submitted with this submission of

Resource Report 6.

a) Following the completion of design, it will be

possible to specify in the PRMMP the milepost

intervals where paleontological resources monitoring is

to occur.

b) To date, no federal or state agencies have been

consulted regarding paleontological resources.

Development and implementation of a PRMMP follows

standard guidelines recommended by the Society for

Vertebrate Paleontology. It is anticipated that this

mitigation measure will address the requirements of

the U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, and the

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

App 6A

Refer to the route as the proposed pipeline route rather

than the “preferred pipeline route.”

Text and figures have been updated as requested.