Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-13 Planning & Zoning PacketCITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 13, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *Excused Absences *All items listed with an asterisk ( *) are considered to be routine and non - controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a . *September 22, 2010 .......................................................................... ..............................1 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 Minutes) a. Vince Goddard, President, Inlet Fish Producers, Inc., P.O. Box 1209, Kenai, Alaska — Public safety factors related to the siting, design, construction, and operation of public gasstorage facilities ............................................................................ ..............................7 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ 10 -37 — An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Business /Outside Storage Yard, for the properties known as Lots 7 & 8, Luebke Subdivision (601 & 603 Highbush Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Michael Brown, 601 Highbush Lane, Kenai, Alaska. (Postponed from 10/22/10) .......... ............................213 b. PZ10 -40 — An application for a 5 -Foot Side Yard Setback Variance, for the property known as Lot 10, Block 3, Silver Pines Subdivision Part 1(3 09 Ponderosa Street), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Michael and Karen Eberhard, 309 Ponderosa Street, Kenai, Alaska ..................................................... ............................... ............................239 c. PZ10 -41 — An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Natural Gas Storage Facility for the property known as SE1 /4 SE14 Section 4, Township 5 N, Range 11 W SM (1377 Bridge Access Road). Application submitted by Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC, P.O. Box 190989, Anchorage, Alaska 99519 -0989 . .............. ............................251 d. PZ 10 -42 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Natural Gas Storage Facility Well Pad for the property known as Tract F, Boat Ramp Subdivision (1430 Bridge Access Road). Application submitted by Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC, P.O. Box 190989, Anchorage, Alaska 99519 - 0989 ......................... ............................343 Agenda October 13, 2010 Page 2 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. PZ10 -38 - a resolution of the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission recommending Kenai City Council amend Kenai Municipal Code Chapter 3, "Animal Control," by amending the definition of "Kennel" to distinguish between commercial and non- commercial kennels and to establish a notice process for kennel license applications and renewals and to provide for an appeal process of kennel licensing decisions. Discussion /Set Public Hearing . ........................ ............................... ............................363 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Lease Application — Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL) — Portion of Tract A, Kenai Spur Airport Lease Property, Plat No. 78 -111 — Discussion/Recommendation . ......... 371 8. PENDING ITEMS: 9. REPORTS: a . City Council ....................................................... ............................... ............................393 b. Borough Planning .............................................. ............................... ............................397 c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 11. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Clerk's approval of November 24 meeting cancellation ................ ............................407 b. Quarterly Reports ➢ Code Enforcement ....................................... ............................... ............................409 ➢ P &Z Resolutions .......................................... ............................... ............................411 ➢ Building Permits .......................................... ............................... ............................413 c. Council Resolution No. 2010 -57 — Adopting the City of Kenai Capital Improvements Plan Priority List for State and Federal funding requests for Fiscal Year 2012...........417 d. Board of Adjustment Decision — Lynford Disque Revocation of Conditional Use Permit PZ09 -3 0 ............................................................................................ .............................43 7 12. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION: October 27, 2010 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: c2a. CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS September 22, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *Excused Absences ➢ Commissioner Bryson ➢ Commissioner Twait ➢ Commissioner Wells *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non - controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *September 8, 2010 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 Minutes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ10 -39 —Central Heights Subdivision —Adamson Replat —A resubdivision of Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Central Heights Subdivision, Plat K -1546. Plat submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland Street, Soldotna, Alaska. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ10 -37 —An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Business /Outside Storage Yard, for the properties known as Lots 7 & 8, Luebke Subdivision (601 & 603 Highbush Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Michael Brown, 601 Highbush Lane, Kenai, Alaska. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Holiday Meeting Schedule — Discussion. 8. PENDING ITEMS: 9. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 11. INFORMATION ITEMS: 12. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION: October 13, 2010 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: 1 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS VICE CHAIR SCOTT ROMAIN, PRESIDING ITEM 1 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Vice Chair Romain called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. 1 -a. Roll Call Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners present: S. Romain, K. Rogers, G. Brookman, K. Koester Commissioners absent: R. Wells, J. Twait, P. Bryson (all excused) Staff /Council Liaison present: City Planner M. Kebschull, Council Member B. Eldridge, Deputy City Clerk C. Hall A quorum was present. 1 -b. Agenda Approval Romain read the following changes to the agenda: ADD TO: 2 -a. Minutes 5 -a. PZ 10 -37 ADD: 11 -a. Information 11 -b. Information Schmidt comments Dorothy Howell email Photographs of property MAPS information from September 8, 2010 Planning and Zoning Meeting City Manager Memo -- Town Hall Meeting MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to approve the agenda with the addition of the lay downs and removal of the minutes of the September 8, 2010 meeting from the consent agenda. Commissioner Rogers SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1 -c. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Rogers MOVED to approve the consent agenda as amended and Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 2 1 -d. *Excused Absences Phil Bryson Jeff Twait Roy Wells Approved by consent agenda. *All items listed with an asterisk ( *) are considered to be routine and non- controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders, ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- September 8, 2010 MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2010 meeting with the addition of Schmidt comments as provided in the lay down. Commissioner Rogers SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM 3 SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None ITEM 4 CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 4 -a. PZ10 -39 - Central Heights Subdivision - Adamson Replat - A resubdivision of Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Central Heights Subdivision, Plat K -1546. Plat submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland Street, Soldotna, Alaska. MOTION: Commissioner Rogers MOVED to approve PZIO -39 with staff comments and Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. City Planner Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet and recommended approval with no contingencies. Romain opened the floor to public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. VOTE: Romain YES I Wells 1EXCUSED JTwait 1EXCUS ED Bryson EXCUSED I Rogers IYES I Brookman I YES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PAGE 2 3 Koester I YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 -a. PZ10 -37 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Business /Outside Storage Yard, for the properties known as Lots 7 & 8, Luebke Subdivision (601 & 603 Highbush Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Michael Brown, 601 Highbush Lane, Kenai, Alaska. MOTION: Commissioner Koester MOVED to approve PZ10 -39 and Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet, noting the following criteria needed to be satisfied: • The use was consistent with the purpose of the chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district. • The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood would not be significantly impaired. • The proposed use was in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. • Public services and facilities were adequate to serve the proposed use. • The proposed use would not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. • Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above - mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. Kebschull noted the following recommendations: • Fencing and landscaping must be completed within one year of approval and included separation between adjoining properties. • Construction business was limited to the storage of no more than six (6) personally -owned pieces of equipment at one time. • Existing shed was allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures were allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line. • All servicing of equipment would be done off site. Oil pads would be stored onsite in case of an oil leak. • No employees would be allowed to park personal vehicles at the location. • Equipment traffic would be limited to and from the property by owner to no more than three (3) per day. • Applicant would register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. • Any expansion of the business would require an amendment to the CUP. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PAGE 3 12 Romain read the rules of public hearing and opened the meeting to public hearing. Carl Glick, 1601 E. Aliak, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the permit, noting noise and traffic issues. Leaha Snyder, 601 Highbush, Kenai -- Applicant spoke in favor of the permit, noting the property had been hydro - seeded and a fence would be installed. Raymond Peterkin, 469 Roy Way, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the permit, noting he was pro business. Betty Glick, 1601 E. Aliak, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the permit being awarded after the business was already on the property. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to postpone PZ10 -39 to continue the public hearing at the October 13, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Koester SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Romain YES Wells EXCUSED Twait EXCUSED Bryson EXCUSED Rogers YES Brookman YES Koester YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- None ITEM 7 NEW BUSINESS 7 -a, Discussion -- Holiday Meeting Schedule. Kebschull reviewed the memorandum included in the packet. Commission requested Administration request November 24, 2010 meeting be cancelled. ITEM 8 PENDING ITEMS -- None ITEM 9 REPORTS 9 -a. City Council -- Council Member Eldridge reviewed the action agenda of the September 15, 2010 City Council meeting, noting presentations related to the MAPS area were given as had been previously presented to the Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PAGE 4 5 9 -b. Borough Planning -- None 9 -c. Administration -- Kebschull reported there would be two Conditional Use Permits for the Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Facility (CINGSA) to consider at the next meeting; the kennel ordinance would be brought back to the next meeting; and work sessions on beekeeping would be forthcoming. ITEM 10 PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -- None ITEM 11: INFORMATION ITEMS -- None ITEM 12 NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION 12 -a. October 13, 2010 Commissioner Brookman noted he would probably not be available for the October 13, 2010 meeting. ITEM 13 COMMISSION COMMENTS & (,QUESTIONS Commissioners thanked the public for their comments. ITEM 14 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Rogers SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by: Corene Hall, CMC, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PAGE 5 0 a Inlet Fish Producers, Inc. P. 0. Box 114, Kenai, AK 9961.3 (907) 283 -9275 * PAX (907) 283.4097 FAX TRANSMITTAL FO ACCOUNTING OFFICE' KENAI, ALASKA, (907) 283 -9275 PHONE (907) 283 -6013 FAX DATE: TO: FROM: f SUBJECT. 40a rz"M Ca. NUMBER OF PAG (NOT INCLUDING COVER SHLET) i COMMENTS: 11, I.A / b /� // () 3c.k. NWL�LI JA V b S C� w11 0 —Cal or elw ' � i - I V4 U" `aw 'A S r m oZ q a 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPEARANCE REQUEST Planning Department ,� City of Kenai �'��, 210 Fidaigo Avenue a�� Kenai, AK 99611 6 � a10 Phone: (907) 283 -8235 Fax: (907) 283- 3014 /� Email: mkebschullfti.kenai -ak.us 1.74,E NAME: Vincent Goddard (President, Inlet Fish Producers, Inc. (Kenai) Mailing Address: PO Box 1209, Kenai, Alaska 99611 Residence Address: 36605 Chinuina Drive, Kenai, Alaska 99611 Daytime Phone: 907 - 2635311 (res), 907 -394 -5001 (mobile) Brief Description of Topic: Public safety factors related to the siting, design, construction, and operation of public gas storage facilities. These factors include site location risks, seismic Lazard mapping, soils analysis related to earthquake liquefaction, risk assessment for gas migration from the facility into fresh water aquifers, and risk assessment for gas migration into surface residential and business buildings which can cause catastrophic explosion incidents. This presentation Is related to the generally accepted standards for natural gas storage facilities In seismically active portions of the United States, and will not discuss any specific gas storage facility or proposal. Preferred meeting date: Wednesday, October 13 Providing written statement /material for Inclusion in the commission packet Is encouraged. Deadline for submittal is normally Wednesday, Noon, the week prior to the commission meeting (unless a holiday changes the packet preparation day). Will electronic equipment be used for your presentation? YES Will you provide personal equipment? NO Will City equipment be needed? YES Projector YEE Laptop *Setup of electronic equipment MUST BE completed before 5:00 p.m. of the commission meeting day. Contact the City Clerk for appointment (283- 8231). Date: October , 2010 Signature: Received. Date Time �� !� o- vv-oo�er ( j � 1> V- GO A A e' � c-1 r �L CA we..c4,r CJ (a V� il I' Y�) �' De n 0 �1 MiS f OVI 9 ,Geotimes:October2001:Kansas Page 1 of 6 Hiato inson, Kansas: .A Geologic Detective Story by M. Lee Allison Everyone in downtown Hutchinson, a city of 40,000 in central Kansas, heard or felt the natural gas explosion Wednesday morning, Jan. 17. City Manager Joe: Palacioz was meeting with his department heads at City Hall, four blocks away, when they heard the blast and felt the shock wave shake the building. The fire and police chiefs rushed towards the sound of the explosion. Palacioz headed to the city's emergency operations center and would stay there for many days as the crisis unfolded. This sudden release of natural gas burst from the ground under Woody's Appliance store and the adjacent Ddcor Shop, blowing out windows in nearby buildings. Customers and workers staggered out into the street from both stores, remarkably only shaken and dazed. Within minutes, the two businesses were ablaze. [Right: A firefighter walked past the Ice - covered remains of two buildings Jan. 20, after a series of natural gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kan., destroyed them. Since January and during most of this year, geologists from the Kansas State Geological Survey have worked intensely to discover how the gas reached the city, In the process, they lessened public fears, communicated their science to the public, and performed scientific analysis at high speed. AP Photo,] That evening, geyser -like fountains of natural gas and brine began bubbling up 2 to 3 miles east of the downtown fires, The geysers, some reaching 30 feet high, came from abandoned brine wells that had been drilled as long ago as the 1880s for salt production. The next day, natural gas coming up a long - forgotten brine well exploded under a mobile home, killing two people. The city ordered hundreds of residences and businesses evacuated. Many people would not be able to return to their homes and businesses until the end of March. The sudden explosions shocked the residents of this important agriculture and petroleurn center, home of the Kansas State Fair and a solid Midwestern town of treelined streets and clapboard houses. Suspicion quickly focused on a catastrophic leak from an underground gas storage field, miles from downtown. Questions immediately arose as to how large amounts of natural gas could move long distances underground in a matter of hours 01' days. Could we intercept the gas underground before it did more darnage to Hutchinson? In the following months, the state geological survey would work to unravel a geologic mystery, http://vAvw.geotimes.org/octO 1/feature—Icansaflitrn"i 0 10/6/2010 Web Feature Geotimes:October2001:Kansas Page 2 of 6 1 I' he Culp,lril Eight miles northwest of Hutchinson on Wednesday morning, technicians at the Yaggy underground natural gas storage field saw a dramatic drop in pressure in one underground, maninade salt cavern or "jug" that they had been filling with natural gas, Almost immediately, everyone looked at the leaking jug as the source of the gas in Hutchinson, Kansas Geological Survey engineer Saibal Bhattacharya did some back- of-th o- envelope calculations showing that, under geologically plausible conditions, high - pressure gas could travel from Yaggy to Hutchinson in a few days. The local natural gas utility, Kansas Gas Service (KGas), realized that the S -1 jug likely had been leaking at a low level at least since its pod of jugs had been refilled three days earlier, The Yaggy field was originally developed in the early 1980s to hold propane. Wells were drilled to depths of about 650 to 900 feet, into the lower parts of the Permian Hutchinson Salt Member of the Wellington Formation, Each jug was formed by drilling into the salt, pumping down freshwater and removing salty brine. When the field closed in the late 1980s, the wells were cased into the salt and later plugged by partially filling them with concrete. KGas acquired the facility in the early 1990s and converted it to natural gas storage. The advantage of salt cavern storage is the ability to move large amounts of gas in and out quickly compared to gas storage in depleted oil and gas fields. This allows the facility to serve as a rapid - response source of gas when peak demand occurs, as it did during the cold weather of January. The Yaggy field could supply about 150 MMef of gas per day. At the time of the crisis, Yaggy had 62 active gas storage jugs. The field could hold 3.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas at pressures of about 600 pounds per square inch (psi). The S -1 jug held about 60 million cubic feet (MMef) of gas, The, survey steps in Almost from the beginning, the Kansas Geological Survey stepped into a chaotic situation where information was in great demand and short supply. The survey became a key player in understanding the natural gas explosions at Hutchinson by volunteering information and ideas and openly answering the questions of state and city officials, KGas, and the public. Three events contributed greatly to the Survey's influence. One was the success of our seismic reflection program in finding good well locations to vent gas, The second was a day -long technical workshop we convened to lay out a coordinated geologic exploration program. As a result of these first two events, a trust developed between the survey and KGas. The utility sought our requests and recommendations for wells, cores, logs and tests, and then acted on them. The third event was an emotionally charged town hall meeting that was televised throughout the region. The survey presentation and answers to questions was widely acclaimed for bringing the first sense of hope that the crisis would be resolved, The Kansas Geological Survey is not a state organization, but has a history of being a university - based research organization. Same survey scientists questioned whether our level of involvement was appropriate. However, overwhelmingly positive recognition from the local citizens and officials, the governor, the University of Kansas Chancellor and the news media largely silenced this debate. The survey's geophysical crew was preparing to deploy to Arizona for a long - planned cooperative research http:// www. geotimes ,org /octOl /feature_kansas,htm� 1 10/6/2010 Structure on Top of Wellington Format on p flc�l lT... 'I�, �nsun �� - 3iy B+I�faruka<p[a#luno Jas A N n e. �• a •� bit MGbj7lah Can D31Prwa� nnVNli Follm-Arl 20. i The third event was an emotionally charged town hall meeting that was televised throughout the region. The survey presentation and answers to questions was widely acclaimed for bringing the first sense of hope that the crisis would be resolved, The Kansas Geological Survey is not a state organization, but has a history of being a university - based research organization. Same survey scientists questioned whether our level of involvement was appropriate. However, overwhelmingly positive recognition from the local citizens and officials, the governor, the University of Kansas Chancellor and the news media largely silenced this debate. The survey's geophysical crew was preparing to deploy to Arizona for a long - planned cooperative research http:// www. geotimes ,org /octOl /feature_kansas,htm� 1 10/6/2010 , ,Geotit :0ctober2001:Kazisas Page 3 of 6 project with the U.S. Army when our scientists recommended that, if we could postpone our planned Army project, a seismic survey Wright be the way to salvage tite floundering vent well drilling program. 4n Jan. 30, Kansas Gov, Bill Graves mobilized the Kansas Geological Survey and directed us to aid the citizens of Hutchinson during the crisis. The Army graciously agreed to postpone the field project. In Hutchinson, the governor's order was hailed in the local newspaper as if he was sending in the cavalry. The survey committed its geologists, geophysicists and engineers to the crisis with four goals: (1) make Hutchinson safe from leaking gas; (2) find abandoned brine wells for proper plugging; (3) determine if Yaggy field could be reopened and under what conditions; and (4) determine what the impacts are for natural gas storage in salt caverns nationwide, - The mystery unfolds During the first two days of the crisis, our working hypothesis based on conversations with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment ---- the regulatory agency in this case ---T was that high - pressure gas leaked out of well S -1 as a result of casing failure. A down -hole video in S -1 shows a large curved slice in the casing at about 600 feet. Tile gas moved vertically up to a laterally continuous, gypsiferous zone that perhaps served as a seal, then spread in all directions due to the pressure. Some of it moved updip due to density - driven flow along a small northwesterly plunging anticline, It made its way to Hutchinson, where it found abandoned brine wells that had been drilled into the salt. Excavations at the original explosion site, for example, found a well in a basement that had been drilled to provide brine waters for a hotel spa. Most wells were only cased down through the shallow Quaternary "Equus beds" aquifer. The deeper parts of the wells were open -hole and provided paths for the gas to escape to the surface. [Right: The largest of several natural gas geysers spewed dirt, water and gas more than 30 feet in the air northwest of the Big Chief Mobile Home park In Hutchinson, Kan,, where a mobile home exploded Jan. 18, milling two people. From The Hutchinson Nows] KGas began to drill wells to find and vent gas to the surface. The first wells were drilled close to marry of the geysers on the east side of Hutchinson, but no gas was found. In fact, of the first 36 wells drilled in and around Iutchinson, only eight hit gas. Survey geologist Lynn Watncy examined cores and samples from wells drilled in the area, but found only relatively impermeable shale interbedded with thin gypsiferous shales and gypsum beds. Discontinuous fractures, commonly filled with gypsum, occurred throughout the shale layers but no zone stood out as a potential gas conduit, Al so, isolated channel- form, estuarine sandstone deposits had been mapped in adjoining Sedgwick County by KGS associate director Larry Skelton, further adding potential candidates for conducting the gas. But gas was present in only about 20 percent of the wells. Why? Was the gas - bearing zone a channel or something similar, even though no channel deposits had been recognized in the immediate area? Our discussions centered _on the need to acquire shallow, high - resolution seismic reflection data to explore for the possible narrow geologic pathways that appeared to be cat gas selectively under parts of the city. Finding the g s pathways Rick Miller and his geophysical crew ran a four - mile -long seismic reflection line from north to south between the Yaggy field and the city. Altogether, 60 gigabytes of data wore collected and shipped in batches to the survey offices for expeditious processing by Jianghai Xia, Susan Nisscn, working with Xia and Watney, identified two anomalous zones, 150 feet and 200 feet wide respectively. They were defined by weaker signals relative to the adjacent areas; one also had an underlying bright spot, littp://www.geotimes,org/octOl/feature—kansas.htm� 2 10/6/2010 Geotimes:October2O01:Kansas Page 4 of 6 KOas drilled both seismic anomalies and both found gas at the predicted locations and depths. Both wells were among the largest gas producers of all the vent wells eventually drilled, It appeared to the public that we had solved the mystery. KGas drilled a core hole within a few tells of feet of oruc or the vent wells, specifically to capture a sample of the producing zone. It turned out to be not a channel but several thin, tight dolomite layers. These layers were at the equivalent depth of the gas - bearing interval: below the contact between the Permian Wellington and overlying Ninneseah Shale about 200 feet above the top of the Hutchinson Salt. We were back to square one in explaining what the gas pathways were, Watney and colleagues examined gamma ray logs from the vent wells that led to a revised theory that the gas pathway was composed of dolomite layers that pinched out northeast against shales. Gas from Yaggy could have moved eastward (updip) through the cleanef more brittle and possibly fractured dolomites until it ran into the shale permeability barrier that deflected the gas to the southeast and under Hutchinson. The dolomites and surrounding strata have only minor matrix permeability. Thus, the only significant permeability would come from fractures, which were not directly observed in the core. At this time, we cannot say with certainty that we have correctly identified the conduit or know what it is geologically. Hutchinson declared safe- NASA flew two methane - detecting missions after the vent well flow rates had subsided, to search for any gas seeps that might have been overlooked. The leaking natural gas was almost entirely methane. One NASA team led by Hank Revercomb from the University of Wisconsin flew the Iigh- resolution spectral ltnaging Spectrometer instrument at high altitudes over the Yaggy- Hutchinson region in late April. They found no significant amounts of methane above normal background levels in the study area. A second instrument, the Airborne Emissions Spectrometer from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was deployed to Hutchinson for a 10 -day mission in May under the direction of David Rider. Methane was detected in the atmosphere over Hutchinson, but whether it was above the normal background level has not yet been determined. By mid - March, KGas had drilled every potential target that could be identified. Gas flow rates and pressures in the vent wells continued to decline. We believed we had at least a framework understanding of the geologic mystery, even if we did not know all the details. At a town hall meeting in Hutchinson on March 29, the survey said that from a "geological viewpoint, the city is safe." The next day, the city announced that the last of the evacuees could return home. The message heard by citizens and reported by the newspaper: The crisis was over. Finding the urine wells Once the vent welts had been drilled, we turned greater attention to finding brine wells, When these wells were abandoned, some were filled with whatever happened to be handy — rocks, bricks or dirt. Some were just left as they were, open all the way to the salt. As many as 160 wells are out there, many buried purposely or by subsequent development, The city and tlue state want to find all the wells and properly plug and abandon them, at an estimated cost of almost $10 million. Xia took a multi- frequency electromagnetic sensor to Hutchinson to detect the brine wells, Ina small test plot, detailed electromagnetic, maps were made for each of a suite of different frequencies or, in effect, different depths. Anomalies identified on the maps were dug up by city workers with a backhoe to test the survey's predictions. Sul-Vey scientists trained city workers to lay out survey areas and record data, The computer files were sent electronically to the state survey, where they were interpreted and recommendations made for digging. One well was found ill the test area. http : / / www.geotimes.org /oc[O 1 /feature kansas,html 10/6/2010 - ,,Got1mes:0ctober2001:Kansas T he value of geology Page 5 of 6 Many residents of Hutchinson have demanded that Yaggy be closed and never re- opened. A two -year moratorium prevents operation of the Yaggy storage field, pending promulgation of new regulations, Yaggy is one of 30 "hubs" in the national gas distribution system and one of 27 storage fields in salt caverns nationwide, It is a lcey element of gas supply in central Kansas and has national importance given the tight energy situation. KGas has expressed concerns about meeting customer demand if this operation is shut down permanently. People in Hutchinson desperately wants to [glow when all the gas will be vented. To answer this, flow rates and pressures are being monitored at vent wells. This information, along with pressure build -up and draw -down tests, can be used to project the time it will take for the gas pressure to drop to the hydrostatic level. At that point, we will consider the gas to be effectively depleted, even though some residual gas will remain. The Hutchinson gas crisis has been a continuing series of geologic surprises and unexpected complexities. We have a general understanding of what happened and why, but the details and the confirmations are to varying degrees still unknown. This is not merely an academic exercise. Important issues remain about the vulnerability of the city of Hutchinson and the possible reopening of the Yaggy storage field. Lastly we want to ensure that this catastr never occurs again, either here or at any other location where high- pressure gas is stored underground. Today, eight months after the initial explosion, these questions remain, But we have learned some things. Everyone involved in the crisis came to quickly value the geologic data and samples the Kansas Geological Survey had collected and archived for decades. SiinilarIy, our scientific expertise, developed over decades, was instantaneously available. We developed a collaboration with KGas that a regulatory agency likely could not. This cooperation allowed us to propose drilling locations and obtain cores, logs and other data that were critical. Similarly, our practical response provided the regulators with something useful. We became an asset to both sides. Once the survey was involved we aggressively released information publicly as we developed it, mainly through a Web site developed by survey scientist Dave Young. News reporters and the public saw the scientific process in action. We developed hypotheses, tested them, and changed our interpretations based on what we. found. We appeared at every public meeting. We let the public watch our successes and failures as we trade them. We. never ducked questions, but at times we admitted that we didn't have the answers. The combination of relevant geologic investigation and inclusion of the public in our ongoing inquiry led to widespread public appreciation of the value of scientists in general and the Kansas Gxeological Sur r particular. Letter To the Editor November 27, 2001 Dear Editor: In my article, " Hutchinson, Kansas: A Geologic Detective Story," (Geotimes, October, 2001), reference is made to "a chaotic situation." This referred to our understanding of an elusive geologic pathway that natural gas was following un not to the emergency efforts by city, state, and gas utility officials, In fact, the response of the various agencies was quick, effective, and well- coordinated. M. Lee Allison http : / /www.geotinies.org /oct01 /feature_kansas,htm� 4 10/6/2010 Geotunes:Qctober2001:Kansas Page 6 of 6 Allison is the Kansas State Geologist and director of the Kansas Geological Survey In Lawrence, E-mail: lalilson kgs,ukans,edu Vlslt the survey's Hutchinson Response Project at www,kgs.ukans.odu /Hydro /Hutch /indox.htmi Geotlmes Hqm, $ i AOI Hpaig I Information �ervlces I Geosclence education I Public Policy I Progr rOE I Publications I ar ® 2010 American Geological Institute, All rights reserved. Any copying, redlstribullon or retran sin issIon of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of the American Guologlool Institute Is expressly prohibited. For all electronic copyright raquosls, visit: t :N c anc ' aP ibt_In 4 http: / /www,geotimes,org /oct01 /feature_kensus.html 5 10/6/2010 p e A CT) Leyden a a b Depleted fiefds • Salt caverns A Aquifers A PA Moat Belvieu o e Moss Bluff Magnolia 19 s , - ` m AlasiKa i L � F 6t r Ea 3 c�sz, - e E h g: oa aauch ¢f a4 r -n iof at j a ' A ISrk& b Er€ :f k >°1 StLTx eIle; w'1f.' .'SF.,A. rnar VV Z4 g x ugjg se.4 as Alts" lt`e -� � izrnd::.aY.ear`Faa,..sk _ "'hePat-:5ra -idx-k Eru } � • zR.r , .s_•.. { / E f .. � . i iz e� %r�ra i 7451 Cdl.akes FALRB& ki J.. 9 ,di 5,4� gas! CA6% ° .d iX: - vm ( ^ ar cFa.aititr -PM s nE; «,c w °6 rupt rke zmk € e i a .""- �`� t *a ," a �z �+ � �s �..r', � �, Ems, tEr t E 13f and date of Most tx cr:nt act've faults r �'1>< i rh-�"� l �•. ° fix°\ W ,"F, - 'sc € 9 flse a.r w Sate 1 49 E o s ¢ �' -�tve5 tY�' a'Id Lr�dbY• Op 0 6 s r_ r ` ° ,.tE...,...� -.SP?- - .._..`- g l ha- L--1 0 rT°}i Lit € " €1 xad 1 `; Est tarp :� 1 I EM L:i J .w Mi x iCt"x� l3 SN 24o�60 -R.GG+ d WxaraLW Efs Rz%� Urv�rA d-TAPP FQd4at ^.,:^JW OIA;4 M 9S COaI �lrM S fd 2 IR �k . %FeM No g Yfe i µ � IZI d <B... .� ig r , .. .w Mi x iCt"x� l3 SN 24o�60 -R.GG+ d WxaraLW Efs Rz%� Urv�rA d-TAPP FQd4at ^.,:^JW OIA;4 M 9S COaI �lrM S fd 2 IR �k . %FeM No .w Mi x iCt"x� l3 SN 24o�60 -R.GG+ d WxaraLW Efs Rz%� Urv�rA d-TAPP FQd4at ^.,:^JW OIA;4 M 9S COaI �lrM S Deaag S l �i C li 'I- I-j d 01 0.00 - S e A c c 1, 0 6 S L vfm s n t I u L- b I I s i u u e 'D "-,tL i 2 ye4a.3. a t C o". a, I ki sta 1 t N) ZZ Z 10 qo N � f �a L-F Ej 1 w. Sir. MZ }Qlaw cl-.i" :Sa� Z*Zua WQ�c N W 1 M lie- `rob. t� smic Hazard Deaggrtgation 15 1.2405 - - , `, 60.5340N, L R r:: . C�e3� 4�sl :S e . �t E t� - �S.a fi = t .} S F iE ul �'�`E�}`_'a. t L�'`s3� 's& dhi a 4 i. F'aIn ta , iii. RM s 8 @E@ ON LN h' 4 1 M lie- Prop. Seismic Hazard DeagSr-.9-Ition 996 11 15 1 W 60, 3'140 N o - -5 E-� mc an Rvn-u n M E s z- an Q. C v Mod it; R,%Llx�') �7 ,) L al , R L 0' k 20, F- s ma . o i-LI Dak �nnl nz dntzu i s D-I 1 ta R 10. k 117, d 71 t aN 1 0 K ED �V N E - H Hfi N) R cri lmeT� R PSH.Dcaa7regation on. NEHRP BC rock- a z 3z L , Tnnamed 121.420' W, 38- 10 K P.-ak Horiz. Ground Acc--],>=.),2171 g Ann. 'E."weedance, Raie.381i -013, Mcan Retur- Tiinc 24 NI't a n n. 6.2'0, 1,01 Modal tR,m,p-," km, 6,57, 2LO4 (troi Ptak RY _hM Moldad (R..VI,F-* -52.6 km, O.; 2 si�nma ,ftom peak R..Mc buO B-nmna Delt.2R 10. kin. de]taV—=().- Deltaz.=A) Sep 27 16 23 0 ; Omtanco ='R) magmtL W, epsilon (ECII, for a R Ke 1:;r, evm W �Vempg vz x 761 "m;S top ZC M. USES CGH -RS 20 9 UPUATF Sins wit 0 DS% o Mn' s, c Probability of earthquake with M > 6,0 w ithin 50 yeas N 61° : 60' 3�! 6T a0° 59` 3€ ' 1a Y �@ �/ 0.80 0a50 0.40 0.30 0,25 0.20 015 012 ,10 8 0,0 0.04 0,03 0,02 0.01 0.00 20 ?D Sep 27 16, 3' EQ prob,�b from USGS CFR 2W7 - 43 PSHA. 56 km maximum diatanse, Sne of MtLeres€ @riaagde. Ftsult %race$ a.e Mawr: ??Vv's hq�m. cgr6er, .. -15:3 -152' -15 -150` _149. Probability of earthqu2ke with M > TO within 5u" veers &' ES O k m 6i I of 3C 00 1.00 0.90 OM 0.60, 0.50 0.40 0.30 0,25 0.20 C).15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 OM 0,01 0,00 Se P 73 6, 42; ' 1 7 from vSGS CFR 2007 PSh- 5�, km maxanurn ha® Lzorjaj distance. Site ��? sr�rc'at tHangie FaWv travn ars $irow". nv twe. Epiceo ;m M—R—o CO;:iOs. — - lb4' -153 -15Z -151 - - 4, 100 44T Probability , of earthquake with M > 7.2 within 50 years & 50 krn 61' 3 3C 6C° G®` 1.00 0.90 0.80 0,60 0,50 0,40 0.30 0.25 0.20 0,15 G. „2 0.10 0,08 0.06 GL4 -0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 aria seta., pauft trace's am &V;�Wn; - Seem tg”, Sep 27 '�757;4B V 1.54 -153 -152' -1511 -4� g - 1 10" RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATIONS USING GROUND MOTIONS FROM PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES Report to the Oregon Department of Transportation June, 2005 Prepared by Stephen Dickenson Associate Professor Geotechnical Engineering Group Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University 35 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 2 ABSTRACT The assessment of liquefaction hazards for bridge sites requires thorough geotechnicaI site characterization and credible estimates of the ground motions anticipated for the exposure interval of interest. The ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual specifies that the ground motions used for evaluation of liquefaction hazards must be obtained from probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA). This ground motion data is routinely obtained from the U.S. Geologocal Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping program, through its interactive web site and associated publications. The use of ground motion parameters derived from a PSHA for evaluations of liquefaction susceptibility and ground failure potential requires that the ground motion values that are indicated for the site are correlated to a specific earthquake magnitude. The individual seismic sources that contribute to the cumulative seismic hazard must therefore be accounted for individually. The process of hazard de- aggregation has been applied in PSHA to highlight the relative contributions of the various regional seismic sources to the ground motion parameter of interest. The use of de- aggregation procedures in PSHA is beneficial for liquefaction investigations because the contribution of each magnitude - distance pair on the overall seismic hazard can be readily determined. The difficulty in applying de- aggregated seismic hazard results for liquefaction studies is that the practitioner is confronted with numerous magnitude - distance pairs, each of which may yield different liquefaction hazard results. This situation is especially true in regions, such as the entire western portion of Oregon, where the cumulative seismic hazard is due to multiple sources having a wide range of magnitudes and source -to -site distances. The most thorough method of evaluation for liquefaction hazards at bridge sites would be to utilize the results of the PSHA in a probabilistic liquefaction susceptibility and ground failure analysis. Truly probabilistic liquefaction hazards studies such as this have been performed for critical structures; however, this level of analysis is not routinely performed in practice. A consensus for the application of de- aggregated ground motion values from PSHA for more routine bridge projects has not been adopted. This report provides an introduction to the process of hazard de- aggregation, pertinent considerations for the use of de- aggregated ground motion data in liquefaction hazard evaluations, and applications for two design examples. The results of seismic hazard de- aggregation using the interactive USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping web site for four sites in Oregon are presented. Finally, recommendations are provided for directly utilizing the results of the USGS PSHA de- aggregations in the simplified liquefaction susceptibility evaluations routinely performed in practice. 36 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 3 INTRODUCTION The loss of soil stiffness and strength in loose- to medium- dense, saturated sandy soils due to liquefaction has been the leading cause of damage to bridge foundations during earthquakes. Soil liquefaction can result in a variety of failure modes that compromise the integrity of bridge components. Specific examples include; (a) loss of foundation stability due to reduced bearing capacity, (b) deep - seated instability and damage to deep foundations, (c) increased lateral earth pressures on earth retention structures, (c) loss of passive soil resistance against walls, anchors, and laterally loaded piles, (d) reduction of axial capacity of piles, and (e) post - liquefaction settlement of soils. Bridge foundations in soil are particularly vulnerable to liquefaction hazards at waterfront sites where the ground slopes to the body of water, or a free -face condition exists allowing the soil to move in response to static, driving shear stresses. Liquefaction damage to bridge foundations and appurtenant structures such as abutments, connector ramps and viaducts, and approach embankments has been well documented in the technical literature. A comprehensive review of case studies has been prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) by Dickenson and others (2002). These field cases clearly demonstrate the influence of ground motion characteristics, most notably the intensity and duration of the motions, on the seismic performance of bridge foundations, approach abutments, and related components. Soil Resistance to Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is a fatigue mode of failure wherein undrained cyclic Ioading leads to a progressive increase in excess pore pressure in the soil. The increase in pore pressure is accompanied by an equal decrease in the effective confining stress, reducing the shear resistance of the soil. In order to assess the likelihood of liquefaction at a site the cyclic resistance of the soil and the nature of the design -level earthquake ground motions must be established. The factor of safety against the triggering of liquefaction is simply the ratio of the cyclic resistance of the soil to the cyclic loading induced by the earthquake of interest. In engineering practice the cyclic resistance of the soil to the generation of excess pore pressures is routinely estimated using empirical procedures based on soil density and stiffness. The results of in situ testing methods such as the Standard Penetration Test, Cone Penetration Test, and Shear Wave Velocity measurements are used for this purpose. These procedures have been thoroughly presented in several recent publications and they will not be addressed herein. It is recommended that geotechnical and bridge engineers should be familiar with the following important papers on the subject; Youd and others (2001), Robertson and Wride (1997), Seed and others (2003), Andrus and Stokoe (2004), Idriss and Boulanger (2004). Dickenson and his co- workers (2002) have summarized much of this work and presented it with a comprehensive analysis for a site along the Columbia River in Portland. Cyclic Loading of Soil during Earthquakes The cyclic loading of the soil during an earthquake represents the demand on the material, and this is requisite information for any evaluation of liquefaction and potential ground failure. The ground motions used to represent the cyclic loading are applied for 37 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 4 the initial liquefaction hazard assessment and, if necessary, in the design of mitigation strategies involving ground treatment. Fundamentally, the best measure of cyclic demand would account for the intensity, duration, and to a lesser extent the frequency content of the input motions. These three aspects of loading are explicitly accounted for using energy -based concepts, wherein the cyclic energy per unit volume of soil can be calculated from time - histories of particle motion or stress - strain plots. Although energy methods have been successfully applied to laboratory data and field case studies (Sunisakul 2004) these methods have not been widely adopted in engineering practice. Instead, the most commonly employed methods of analysis relate the intensity of shaking to either the horizontal acceleration or cyclic stress in the soil layer of interest, and the duration of the motions through simple, empirical magnitude - dependent scaling factors (Youd et al 2001, Seed et al 2003, Idriss and Boulanger, 2004). The characteristics of the horizontal ground motions within the soil column (i.e. acceleration, stress, strain time histories) are often computed using dynamic soil response models such as SHAKE (Schnabel et al 1972), ProShake 2004, DESRA (Lee and Finn 1978) and SUMDES (Li et aI 2000). The input, or bedrock, ground motions required for these numerical models are selected on the basis of their similarity to target motions established using empirical ground motion relationships that account for factors such as the style of faulting, earthquake magnitude, source -to -site distance, and rock stiffness. Recorded ground motions can be easily obtained from on -line catalogs (web sites for CGS, COSMOS, MCEER, PEER, and USGS ground motion catalogs are provided in the reference list under Strong Motion Databases). The characteristics of the bedrock, or firm soil, motions at a specific site will depend on several geologic and geographic variables. These include the regional tectonic environment, the seismicity of the region, the proximity of the site to active faults, and on the exposure interval of interest in design (e.g. 500, 1,000, or 2,500 year motions). A complete seismic hazard evaluation for ground motions at a site must address both the spatial and temporal occurrence of earthquakes. In Oregon, the primary seismic sources are associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone (interface or "mega- thrust," and intra- plate or intra -slab earthquakes), shallow crustal events, and to a lesser degree seismicity related to volcanic activity. The locations of each of these earthquake sources have been determined, or in some cases estimated, using an array of geologic and geophysical methods of field investigation, in situ imaging, and numerical modeling. The faults have been mapped (Geomatrix 1995, USGS 2004b, c) using the latest input and consensus from the geoscience community. The geoscience community acknowledges that the current understanding of seismicity rates in Oregon is incomplete due to factors such as the short historic record of earthquakes, the relatively long recurrence interval between events, and environmental controls that obliterate the geomorphic expression of most faults. To account for this source of uncertainty most seismic hazard analyses incorporate spatially random, "areal sources" to the collective hazard in the region. Once the locations of all of the regional sources have been established the occurrence of earthquakes as a function of time and magnitude (i.e. the rate ofseismicity) is required. The full characterization of source locations and the rate of occurrence of earthquakes is the basis of the seismic hazard evaluation. These primary factors, along with the location 0 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 5 of the site relative to the faults, are used to estimate the characteristics of the ground motions utilized in analysis. The temporal occurrence of earthquakes along a specific fault defines the rate of seismicity associated with that source. Of primary interest in seismic analysis and design is the aggregate seismicity for all sources that may impact the structure of interest. This requires that the rate of seismicity for all sources is estimated. The recurrence interval of the maximum credible earthquake along a specific fault is often based on its slip rate and the rupture area required for an event of that magnitude (McGuire 2004). The likelihood of ground motions of a certain level is then a function of the rate of seismicity and the length of the time over which the observation is made. The time interval is referred to alternatively as the exposure time, mean return time, or recurrence interval, and it is specified for each project based on the importance of the structure. Following ODOT specifications, new bridges are classified and designed in terms of AASHTO criteria as either "essential" or "other" bridges (Section 1.1.10.1 of the ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual). The exposure times associated with these designations are 500 and 1,000 years, respectively. The intensity and duration of the ground motions at a given site will be different for these two return periods, and the liquefaction hazard will clearly reflect these differences. Establishing Ground Motions for Analysis and Design Estimation of site- specific ground motion parameters for a given exposure time combines the spatial and temporal source information previously addressed, and empirical attenuation relationships. Attenuation relationships provide estimates of ground motion parameters (e.g., PGA, PGV, spectral response ordinates) as functions of the style of faulting, earthquake magnitude, and source -to -site distance. Many of the attenuation relationships commonly used in practice have been presented in a volume of the Seismological Research Letters (1997). Utilization of the attenuation models facilitates direct estimates of the ground motion parameter of interest. For the "simplified liquefaction procedure" routinely applied in practice (Youd et al 2001) the peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) is the primary measure of the strength of shaking. Once the fault locations, seismicity rates, and ground motion attenuation have been established the PGA can be estimated. The process of estimating the PGA for a specified exposure interval involves one or both of the following procedures: (1) a deterministic analysis wherein a single earthquake magnitude is prescribed to a given source and the PGA determined based on the source -to -site distance, or (2) a probabilistic analysis that includes the aggregate contribution of all of the seismic sources, along with uncertainities in the recurrence rates and ground motion levels, in the resulting PGA value. Introductions to both procedures along with applications have been well presented (Cornell 1968, Kramer 1996, McGuire 2004) therefore these concepts are only briefly covered in this document. Deterministic Analysis A common method of estimating strong ground motions involves assigning a Maximum Credible Earthquake to a specific fault, then using an attenuation relationship to determine the PGA at the project site. This method, referred to as the deterministic 39 ODQT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 6 approach, focuses only on the largest reasonably possible earthquake associated with a source. The recurrence interval of this Maximum Credible Earthquake is not specified therefore the temporal aspect of the seismic hazard is not addressed. This method of seismic hazard analysis was common up through the 1970's and many practitioners continue to regard deterministic PGA analyses as independent of exposure interval. In contemporary practice, deterministic analyses are rarely performed without at least an indirect accounting for the exposure time of interest. The deterministic analysis can accommodate seismicity rates associated with individual sources by incorporating the exposure interval of interest (500 or 1,000 years for most ODOT projects) and estimating the magnitude of the event having this return period. Once the magnitude is known an attenuation relationship is used to directly obtain a PGA value. This procedure can be carried out for all of the seismic sources that contribute significant ground motions at the site. Uncertainty in the resulting ground motion estimates is assessed by incorporating the standard deviations in both the seismicity rates and the attenuation relationships. The advantage of this approach for liquefaction hazard evaluation is that both the intensity of ground shaking (PGA) and the duration of the motions, as related to the earthquake magnitude, are known. The primary disadvantages of this approach include; (1) the PGA values do not necessarily reflect the cumulative, or aggregate, hazard in the region, and (2) assessing the influence of uncertainties in factors such as earthquake magnitude or source -to -site distance on the resulting PGA are accounted for by performing additional parametric studies of each variable. This task can be simplified by the use of spreadsheets incorporating the various attenuation relationships. Probabilistic Analysis As an alternative to the deterministic method of estimating PGA, probabilistic procedures can be used that combine the contributions of all sources in a cumulative estimate of the ground motion parameter of interest. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 1. Probability distributions of key variables such as rupture location along a fault, location of random sources, seismicity rates, and ground motion estimates from attenuation relationships can be incorporated into one seismic hazard analysis. Uncertainties associated with other factors such as the likelihood of activity along mapped faults, the direction of fault rupture propagation, and predominant style of faulting can be incorporated into the evaluation (e.g., Ang and Tang 1975, Kramer 1997, Vick 2002, McGuire 2004). .N ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Rupture �Fsult j Location I (A) Seismic source Site earthquake locations in Space lead to a distribution of location: P 11 Is ] d f(W P[1 I 7 1 Location I (B) Size distribution (magnitude m) and rate of occurrence Pis 1=I for sourccJ: Ply),'', m a m max Magnitude m m °7 Plc>clsatt] Oround c m-- b (C) Ground motion Motion estimation: level P[C > elgat 1 1 (log scale) t Location (distance on log scale) 7 (log scale) `. Ground Motion Level c (D) Probability analysis- (log scale) Y [C > c ] = E V. f f P. [C >cji at 1 ] P[s at 1 ] did! 1 Figure 1: The steps in performing a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (from McGuire, 2004). Page 7 A primary advantage of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is that by assigning locations and seismicity rates to all sources the ground motion parameter of interest expected at a specific site can be determined along with its probability distribution, which is useful for illustrating uncertainty in the ground motion variable. Repeating the analysis for multiple locations, specified as grid points, throughout a region allows for the creation of contour maps of the ground motion parameters for specified exposure intervals. These 41 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 8 maps have been referred to as "uniform" or "aggregate" hazard maps as the contributions of all sources have been incorporated into a single ground motion value. An example for peak horizontal accelerations at rock sites in Oregon having a 5 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years (i.e. 975 year average return period) is presented in Figure 2. The map provides the spatial variation in PGA due to all of the seismic sources in the region, This map is similar in form to the ground motion maps used in seismic design provisions and codes for buildings. Once the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) has been completed, similar ground motion maps can be obtained for any specified exposure interval. The disadvantage of these maps with respect to liquefaction hazard evaluations is that the magnitude of the earthquake(s) associated with the PGA value is not indicated on the map therefore the duration of the ground motion and the Magnitude Scaling Factor cannot be determined. 124 °W 122V 120 "W 118'W 11fi'W 40 44'N 42'N miles 6 50 100 i6 N 44'N 42'N Peak Acceleration (%%8) with 6% Probability of Exceedance in 60 Yeara site: NEHR P B -C boundary OF 180 100 80 60 40 3o 25 20 15 - 10 - 9 - 8 7 - 6 _ 5 4 _ 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 U.$.Ge:ofaeivIRirrar wb.m .O.eaa-PrgJ.Z , Nalianol$esrniaHmrd Mappina Prajeal aw.dP ndhI.:3¢I.M41L3f.- Figure 2: Peak ground acceleration on Site Class B rock for a 975 year mean return time (USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Program web site, 1996 data). U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Maps The seismic hazard mapping program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has synthesized spatial and temporal seismicity data from many sources in its comprehensive probabilistic hazard maps for the United States (USGS 2004). The maps provide the latest estimates of ground motion parameters (peak ground acceleration, and spectral accelerations for 0.2 sec, 0.3 sec, and 1.0 sec periods) for specific exposure intervals of '' 124 °W 122 °W 120'W 118'VV i WW ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 9 approximately 500, 1 ,000 , 2,500, and 5,000 years. The ground motion values are estimated for sites at the boundary of NEHRP Site Class B and C (transition from competent rock to more highly fractured and weathered rock). The USGS seismic hazard mapping web site is interactive and it allows users to input site location (zip code or latitude - longitude), and choose from the four mean return times. The variation of peak acceleration with exposure time for six locations in the State of Oregon is provided in Figure 3. Although the time - dependent trends in PGA are similar, the hazard levels around the state quite different. Figure 3: Variation of peak ground acceleration on Site Class B bedrock with exposure interval for six cities in Oregon (USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, 2002 data). The USGS seismic hazard mapping website is a tremendous resource to the engineering community and the ground motion information that is provided is widely used in practice. For example, this ground motion data has become the basis for the NEHRP provisions for seismic design of new buildings (FEMA 2004) and the International Building Code (IBC 2003). The ground motion parameters used in these procedures have a mean return time of 2,500 years. These are referred to as the "Maximum Considered" earthquake motions, not to be confused with "Maximum Credible" earthquake motions, which would be larger in all cases. This is evident in Figure 3 as the PGA values continue to increase for return periods greater than 2,500 years. The basis for much of the USGS probabilistic analysis of Oregon and adjacent regions was originally obtained from the Geomatrix (1995) ground motion investigation prepared 43 0.9 ............-::__:::::::......::-:::::::::::-::-::::::::--:::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::::--::::::::--::-:::::::-::--::::::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::- :::::::-- :::- ::::- ::::::::- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. _............................. _ ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ::::::::::::::..................:: _ ................................ ........................... _............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y:�:::: -_. ............................... Y - = - u o =- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - = €_________r_____'_____- -' - _ _ ___ ?_ -€ Astoria [� .. - - - ? ? € m _ = - - - _ __ _ = -' —a— Coos Ba y N N ro _ _ = - -- - - - - _ — _ = - - II Corva :.:...:.......:..........:.:.... .......:.:..............:...... __ _ - - €' € €iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii: ........... €iiiii ?iiiiiiiiiiiiii i':ii':iii _x— Klamath Falls 0. W ............................._.._...;..............................................................;................... - - ...;...;....................... N - -� - - Medford iii :€ € is €€ E € l ..... ..... € ' x € €s €' s €s €'sx - -- €': €s 's s' ''' ` € s' € ' €s = ..... . Portland Portland o _ _ -s- c� _ a . ......................._............................................................................................................... _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,1 --__- = - - - - -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Mean Return Period (years) Figure 3: Variation of peak ground acceleration on Site Class B bedrock with exposure interval for six cities in Oregon (USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, 2002 data). The USGS seismic hazard mapping website is a tremendous resource to the engineering community and the ground motion information that is provided is widely used in practice. For example, this ground motion data has become the basis for the NEHRP provisions for seismic design of new buildings (FEMA 2004) and the International Building Code (IBC 2003). The ground motion parameters used in these procedures have a mean return time of 2,500 years. These are referred to as the "Maximum Considered" earthquake motions, not to be confused with "Maximum Credible" earthquake motions, which would be larger in all cases. This is evident in Figure 3 as the PGA values continue to increase for return periods greater than 2,500 years. The basis for much of the USGS probabilistic analysis of Oregon and adjacent regions was originally obtained from the Geomatrix (1995) ground motion investigation prepared 43 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 10 for ODOT. This data has been continually updated as more is learned about the characteristics of seismic sources in the Pacific Northwest and the ground motions produced by these sources. An example of the evolving consensus pertaining to seismic source characterization includes the specification of the easternmost portion of the CSZ plate boundary that is thought to be capable of generating significant ground motions. This boundary was moved to the west along much of the Oregon coast in the 2002 analysis thereby reducing the peak accelerations computed onshore (USGS 2004b). The variations in PGA values provided in western Oregon on the 1996 and 2002 maps are due largely to this change. Another important difference between the probabilistic seismic hazard maps produced by Geomatrix and the current USGS maps is the use of different ground motion attenuation models. The current USGS maps employ as many as five different models in the estimation of ground motion parameters associated with shallow crustal earthquakes, and two models for motions generated by subduction zone events. The ground motion values obtained by the models for specific faulting styles are used with equal weighting (i.e. mean value) in the probabilistic model. It is important to know which attenuation models have been adopted by the USGS if attempts are made to match the ground motions provided on the hazard maps. It is therefore highly recommended that ODOT personnel charged with seismic analysis and design use the following references pertaining to the modeling of seismic sources and ground motions in the Pacific Northwest (USGS 2004b, c, f). The ODOT Bridge Engineering Section has mandated the use of the USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Program data as the basis for bedrock ground motions used in geologic and geotechnical hazard evaluations. The PGA and spectral values provided by the USGS can be used directly in force -based seismic design procedures, however for analyses incorporating ground motion time histories or duration- dependent scaling factors the magnitudes of the earthquakes that contribute to the uniform hazard must be known. This information cannot be obtained from the maps directly, it must be determined from the seismic source data and ground motion estimates for each of the sources independently. The relative contribution of the various sources to the PGA value provided on the map is determined in the probabilistic framework by assessing the PGA induced by each source. Source locations are defined by gridding the region around the site by azimuth and distance, and the magnitude distributions of all sources are lumped in groups of nearly equivalent magnitude referred to as bras. By evaluating the relative contribution of each source to the cumulative ground motion value the hazard can be de- aggregated to highlight the magnitudes of the events and the source -to -site distances that dominate the seismic hazard. DEAGGREGATI{ON OF SEISMIC HAZARD The evaluation of liquefaction triggering and ground deformation is more involved than most seismic analysis in that both the intensity and the duration of the ground motions are needed. As previsouly outlined, the intensity of the motions can be estimated using empirical attenuation relationships once the magnitude (M) and source -to -site distance (R) are known. The duration of the motions can be evaluated using a variety of procedures (e.g. bracketed duration, equivalent uniform cycles). The Simplified Procedure utilizes a magnitude- dependent scaling factor that was originally based on an .. OpOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 11 equivalent uniform cycle concept (Youd et al 2001, Idriss and Boulanger, 2004). The Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) used in the procedure relates the relative duration of earthquake motions as a function of magnitude. The MSF is therefore a surrogate for the actual ground motion duration. The advantage of this simple MSF is that it is based only on the magnitude of the earthquake of interest. The PGA and MSF required for the Simplified Procedure are therefore only functions of M and R. The difficulty in obtaining this information from a PSHA is that the PGA maps reflect all of the seismic sources in the region and a single M -R pair cannot be determined from the ground motion maps alone. The process of deaggregating the cumulative seismic hazard into the contributing M -R pairs has become a common part of PSHA. By identifying the most probable sources contributing to the overall hazard the engineer can assess the relative impact of the various seismic sources. This is especially useful in most regions of Oregon where the seismic hazard is multi- modal, meaning that there are multiple scenario earthquakes. Very useful, practice - oriented explanations of the probabilistic deaggregation process have been presented by Bazzurro and Cornell (1999), Harmsen and Frankel (2001), and McGuire (2004). These papers provide very useful background information on the probabilistic operations, assumptions and limitations, and applications to case studies. Only the chief aspects of these papers as they apply to the USGS deaggregations and liquefaction hazard evaluations will be presented in this document. A basic deaggregation analysis highlights the relative contributions of M -R pairs to the overall seismic hazard. A probability distribution (e.g. probability density function or probability mass function) is established for all sources and either the mean or modal values of M and R are determined. The mean deaggregation provides the weighted mean values of M and R for all sources that contribute to the hazard. The modal value(s) yields the M and R pair having the largest contribution in the hazard deaggregation of each grid location. For regions exhibiting more than one significant seismic source the modal values are much more representative, and mean values of M and R are not recommended for use in liquefaction hazard analyses as explained in the following example. The shortcoming of mean M -R values can be illustrated by simplifying the seismic hazard for Portland. In the Portland region the seismic hazard includes; (1) large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes, (2) deep intraslab earthquakes like historic earthquakes in the Puget Sound region (1949, 1965, 2001), (3) local, shallow crustal earthquakes along mapped faults, and (4) local, shallow crustal earthquakes on unknown faults (random areal sources, or gridded seismicity using the terminology applied in the USGS studies). For the 975 mean return time this scenario can be simplified for the sake of illustration to include a M 8.6 CSZ event located 100 km from Portland, and a M 6.2 crustal event occurring along a mapped fault such as the West Hills Fault or a comparable spatially random event at a source to site distance of 14 km. The mean M -R for this simplified scenario is M 7.4 and source -to -site distance of 57 km. The mean M -R is unrealistic in that it does not represent a feasible earthquake scenario. Utilization of the mean M -R values to specify the PGA and MSF would yield ground motion parameters that are inappropriate for both of the scenarios in this simplified example. The significant 45 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 12 contribution of both seismic sources would be indicated in modal M -R values, and the deaggregation would highlight the need for two liquefaction hazard evaluations, one for the CSZ event and one for the local crustal event. A final note provided by this example, it is clearly not appropriate to use the median PGA from the hazard map in a liquefaction evaluation for the M 8.6 and M 6.2 events as the PGA value reflects numerous M -R pairs that contribute to the cumulative hazard in the region. It is often helpful to then assess how the individual PGA values from modal M -R pairs compare to the single, median value shown on the ground motion map. The difference between the values determined using attenuation relationships for each modal M -R and the mapped value is denoted by the parameter epsilon, c. Epsilon is generally defined as the number of standard deviations from the median ground motion as predicted by an attenuation relationship (Bazzurro and Cornell 1999, Harmsen and Frankel 2001, USGS 2004e). Incorporation of the deviation of the ground motion from the mapped median value as predicted by an attenuation relationship given M and R provides a very useful additional measure of the relative contribution of each M -R in the overall hazard assessment. Positive values of c indicate that the PGA for the specific M -R pair is less than the mapped value and a negative value demonstrates that the PGA for this source exceeds the median mapped value. This information is conveniently presented in 3 -D M- R-F, plots, and in geographic deaggregation plots as shown in Figure 4. Deaggregation of M -R -c provides necessary information regarding the relative contributions of various seismic sources and it allows the practitioner to apply attenuation relationships for each of the primary sources identified. This is necessary for liquefaction evaluations given the need for PGA and MSF. In regions of multiple sources the modal values of M -R can be used in conjunction with attenuation relationships to estimate the representative value of PGA from each of the primary sources. Note that it is very unlikely that the PGA values obtained from attenuation relationships for the modal M -R pairs will yield the median PGA value therefore no single event will ever be able to fully describe the seismic threat at the site (Bazzurro and Cornell 1999). In specific regions of the western United States the PGA values provided for the predominant M -R pairs are often within about 20% of the median value (Bazzurro and Cornell 1999, Harmsen and Frankel 2001) however this should be assessed on a case by case basis. This generalization does not apply in much of western Oregon. For example, in the Portland region the ground motions induced by the CSZ events are not within 20% of the median mapped PGA value. In regions where the hazard is dominated by multiple events liquefaction hazard evalutions should be conducted for all predominant M -R combinations The M -R -c deaggregation plots in Figure 4 clearly illustrate the multi -modal nature of the seismic hazard in the Portland region. The primary sources are associated with the local shallow crustal earthquakes and the distant CSZ events. The 3 -D plot (Figure 4a) illustrates the relative contribution of the numerous M -R pairs in bar chart format. The range of c is indicated by color coding individual M -R bars. The warm, earth tones (orange, red, brown) indicate negative values of c, and the cooler colors (yellow, green, blue) identify positive values of E. In this example it is clear that the PGA values in ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 13 Portland due to CSZ earthquakes are less than the median PGA that is shown on the map for the 975 year mean return interval. The earthquakes that contribute ground motions in excess of the median PGA value are the M 6.5 to 7.0 events that occur within 15 km of the site. This same information is shown in a geographical context in Figure 4b. In this figure the sources have been assigned to distance and azimuth zones, and the relative contributions shown in relation to the height of the bars. The coloring scheme in this plot is used to identify the magnitude of the earthquakes. Together these plots demonstrate the modal M -R pairs that contribute the most to the hazard, and the relative contributions of the PGA values to the median. Similar plots are provided in the appendixes for Coos Bay, Klamath Falls, Medford, and Portland for mean return times of 475 and 975 years. 9.0 85 8 9'B .�C�af�1.�FJ ++ .a xx« n w.. �,.w. •. ... �s-... a. Three dimensional M -R -s plot. b. Geographic deaggregation Figure 4: M -R -E plots for ground motions in Portland having a 975 mean return time (USGS 2004). Comparison of Mean PGA from Deaggregation and PGA from Modal M -R Pairs The earthquake source that yields the greatest percent contribution to the ground motion hazard is listed in the deaggregation figures provided at the USGS web site (e.g., Figure 4a and 4b). The modal values of M -R -€ for mean return times of 475 and 975 years are listed in Table 1 for the four highlighted cities in Oregon. In most cases the seismic hazard is dominated by one M -R pair; however, the contributions of additional sources should be assessed. This can be easily checked using the tabular data in the appendixes. As an example, the deaggregation data for the 975 year return interval in Portland is examined. The table in Appendix B provides the relative contributions of all M -R pairs that have been considered in the probabilistic hazard model. The relative contribution can be assessed by locating the M -R pairs with the largest "ALL _EPS" values. The largest value (11.30) corresponds to the M 6.2 event occurring 12.1 km from the site. This M -R pair is illustrated in Figure 4a and highlighted in Table 1 as a primary contributor to the overall seismic hazard. Inspection of the "ALL _EPS" data indicates that there are several primary contributors to the ground motion hazard. If a 5% minimum relative contribution 47 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 14 is used as a criterion to identify the most critical M -R pairs then four scenarios are evident; (1) M 6.2, R 12.1 km, 11.30 %, (2) M 9.0, R 89.5 km, 8.74 %, (3) M 6.64, R 2.9 km, 8.33 %, and (4) M 8.3, R 89.5, 6.56 %. The M 9.0 earthquake is also highlighted in Table 1. While it is clear that many other seismic sources contribute to the hazard at this site it is necessary to identify the primary sources for subsequent liquefaction hazard evaluations. The criteria for establishing the minimum relative contribution to be considered for liquefaction analysis is subjective. It will reflect the importance of the structure and this value will involve engineering judgment. As a guide, the largest PGA values associated with the applicable M -R pairs should be evaluated in terms of the number of standard deviations that the specific PGA values are from the mean PGA for the site. For most bridges the use of the mean plus two standard deviation motions may be overly conservative. The specification of an appropriate hazard level (i.e. standard deviations above the mean, or minimum s bin) will reflect the importance of the structure. Table 1: PSHA Ground Motion and Source Parameters for Four Sites in Oregon SITE LAT. LONG. Listed MODAL M & R MODAL M & R Mean PGA (M, R, s (M *, R *, E* interval) 475 975 475 yrs 975 yrs 475 yrs 975 yrs y rs yrs Portland 45.510 - 122.680 0.191 0.274 6.2, 12.2, 6.2, 12.2, 6.2, 12.2, 9.0, 89.5, -0.17 0.42 0 to la 1 to 2a Medford 42.330 - 122.860 0.110 0.160 9.0, 79.8, 9.0, 79.8, 8.3, 79.8, 9.0, 79.8, -0.60 -0.03 0 to l u 0 to 1 u Coos Bay 43.365 - 124.230 0.325 0.490 8.3, 16.3, 8.3, 16.3, 8.3, 16.3, 8.3, 16.3, -0.71 0.17 0 to 16 0 to 16 Klamath 42.220 - 121.770 0.168 0.239 6.82, 23.7, 7.2, 4.3, 6.82, 23.4, 6.83, 23.5, Falls 1 0.40 -1.59 0 to 1a I 1 to 26 a Modal M -R and s is the mean value of E from the sources in the most likely distance, magnitude bin (i.e. only M and R are considered), b Modal M -R and E is the interval of epsilons corresponding to the most probable distance, magnitude, and epsilon in the deaggregation (i.e. M, R, and E considered) [after USGS 2004e]. The peak ground accelerations in Portland due to each of the four primary earthquake scenarios have been determined using the attenuation relationships that were employed in the creation of the USGS ground motion hazard maps (Abrahamson and Silva 1997, Boore et al. 1997, Campbell and Bozorgonia 2003, Sadigh et al. 1997, and Youngs 1997). The average PGA values for these four cases are approximately 0.22g (M 6.2, R 12.1 km), 0.55g (M 6.64, R 19 km), 0.12g (M 8.3, R 89.5 km), and 0.16g (M 9. 0, R 89.5 km). The mean PGA listed for the Portland site is 0.27g. It is interesting to note that the average of the four individual PGA values is 0.27g. Although the average of the four PGA values should be fairly close to the mean PGA value listed for Portland, the exact agreement is considered to be a rather circumstantial and fortuitous outcome. The selection of a different minimum relative contribution may have yielded a different average value of PGA. Note that as the specified value of the mimimum relative contribution is decreased the agreement between the average PGA and the mean value listed should increase. ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 15 The liquefaction hazard evaluation for this site could be performed in a straightforward manner for all four of these scenarios using spreadsheets. A potentially laborious aspect of the investigation involves the site specific dynamic soil response analyses required to obtain the ground surface PGA and the cyclic stress ratios at the depths of interest, Guidelines for this aspect of the analysis are provided by Dickenson and others (2002). For this example the site response would be evaluated for four scenarios. If three bedrock earthquake records are used to account for the influence of ground motion uncertainty on the computed soil response for each of the four scenarios, as is commonly performed in practice, this would entail 12 analyses. Once the ground surface PGA values, or the CSR values at depth, are known the liquefaction hazard can be readily determined. A straightforward comparison of the relative impact of the four scenarios can be illustrated using the following; simplified ground motion amplification factors (Dickenson et al. 2002), Magnitude Scaling Factors (Youd et al, 2001), and the well known formulation for estimating the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at depth: (CSR)M7.5 = 0. 65 (a,,,,,, /g)(6,, /6',, Equation 1 Where a,,, is the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface, g is the acceleration of gravity, 6, is the total vertical stress at the depth of interest, 6',, is the effective vertical stress at the same depth, rd is the stress reduction factor, and MSF is the magnitude scaling factor. The relative intensity of the cyclic loading associated with the four earthquakes can be compared for equivalent field conditions by normalizing to the CSR for a M 7.5 earthquake. The collection of terms (0.65(6,, /6',)(rd) can be held constant yielding the following expression for a simple index parameter related to the cyclic loading (CSR *): (CSR *)M7.5 = (PGABR)(SAF)(1 /MSF) Equation 2 Where PGA is the peak horizontal acceleration in bedrock and SAF is the soil amplification factor. Multiplying the averaged PGA values obtained using the attenuation relationships for rock sites, the soil amplification factors provided in Dickenson et al (2002), and the MSF values from Youd et al (200 1) as indicated in Equation 2 yields CSR* values of 0. 17, 0.33, 0.23, 0.35, for the magnitude 6.2, 6.64, 8.3, and 9.0 earthquakes respectively. This simple comparison, along with the relative contribution to the ground shaking hazard provided in the table of Appendix B (M 6.64, 8.33 %; M 9.0 8.74 %) demonstrates that the CSZ and local crustal sources are almost equally important in assessing the liquefaction potential. In practice it is recommended that generalized soil amplification factors be replaced by the results of the site specific dynamic response analyses. The results of a simple evaluation such as this may be used to highlight the two most important earthquake scenarios, thereby reducing the number of dynamic soil response analyses from the 12 previously indicated to a more efficient number (6 in this case). ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 16 Alternative Methods of Utilizing De- Aggregation Data The most appropriate method of liquefaction analysis using the results of PSHA would be to continue the probabilistic framework to include uncertainty in liquefaction susceptibility and ground failure (i.e. a coupled probabilistic evaluation). This procedure has been adopted on large bridge projects; however, it is not routinely performed for most projects. The simplification of specifying a minimum relative contribution and identifying the most significant M -R pairs is one possible method for reducing the number of liquefaction evaluations that are performed. Other methods have been suggested. Dobry and others (1999) has recommended that the design magnitude can be selected as that for which 80 percent of the deaggregated ground acceleration hazard is from lesser magnitude earthquakes. In Portland for example, the magnitude corresponding to the 80% level is 8.3 for both the 475 year and 975 year return intervals. This approach should be used with caution in the Pacific Northwest where ground motions due to great earthquakes (M > 8) make up a considerable portion of the overall seismic hazard. Arbitrarily truncating the maximum magnitude at 80% (or any other value) of the deaggregated hazard could lead to unconservative estimates of M for many sites in western and central Oregon. This approach also overlooks seismic sources that are smaller magnitude yet closer to the site, thereby leading to large values of PGA. The integration of probabilistic and deterministic ground motion values (i.e., spectral accelerations) for use in structural design based on current codes has been addressed by Leyendecker and others (2000). The recommendations found in that paper have been suggested by others for use in liquefaction hazard analyses, despite the fact that they were established for structural engineering applications only. Leyendecker and his colleagues provide a thorough justification for the use of a 1.5 multiplication factor on spectral ground motion values obtained in deterministic hazard analysis. The 1.5 factor represents a "seismic margin" that was estimated on the basis of expert judgment for collapse prevention of structures. The multiplier was also found to be approximately one standard deviation above the median ground motion. The recommendations provided by Leyendecker for the scaling of deterministic ground motions are applicable for structural design only; however, and should not be applied for liquefaction hazard analyses. It is recommended that the actual, unscaled ground motion value(s) from the appropriate M -R pairs should be for the liquefaction hazard evaluation. General Notes Regarding the Relative Contributions to Mean PGA The M -R -s plots demonstrate the relative contribution of each source to the ground motion hazard. The relative contribution changes with time for each source as the rate of seismicity is different for each and the likelihood of an earthquake close to the site increases with time. This is particularly evident in regions with a significant component of the hazard derived from random areal sources. Although the magnitude of the earthquake associated with a given fault will increase with exposure interval, the relative contribution could decrease due to greater seismicity rates on other faults, or to the occurrence of earthquakes closer to the site. This should not preclude the former from consideration in liquefaction analyses. For many sites in the Pacific Northwest, as the return period is increased, the relative hazard contribution from closer earthquakes becomes larger. One reason for this is that the larger ground motion associated with the 50 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 17 longer return period is more likely to be generated by earthquakes closer to the site (Harmsen and Frankel 2001). This is relevant for liquefaction hazard analysis because a casual review of the relative contributions may lead some to believe that the hazard due to larger, more distant sources is unimportant. This may be unconservative as the large subduction zone events are de- emphasized despite their long duration ground motions. For most regions located between the Coast Range and the Cascades the relative contribution of the CSZ earthquakes to the median PGA decreases (this is not necessarily the case for mid- to long- period spectral accelerations). In Portland, for example, the relative contributions to the hazard for the 475 year mean return time are; CSZ roughly 31 %, shallow gridded seismicity (random areal sources) 52 %, and local crustal events on mapped faults 16 %. This changes when considering the 2,500 year motions where the relative contribution is; CSZ roughly 10 %, shallow gridded 45 %, and 38% local faults. The variations in relative contribution with mean return time are illustrated in Figure 5 and provided in tabular form in the appendixes for the four cities previously listed. It must be acknowledged that the damaging impact of a large CSZ earthquake does not decrease with exposure time. In fact the opposite is true. In a probabilistic framework the PGA generated by a specific source will continue to increase even after the exposure time exceeds the mean return period for that source. This occurs because there is a higher likelihood that ground motions will exceed the mean PGA estimated from the attenuation relationships (i.e. the mean plus I or 2a PGA). The CSZ event should not be dismissed because the relative contribution falls below a certain value. This situation merely indicates that there are numerous local sources that result in PGA values that exceed the PGA produced by the larger, more distant subduction zone event. When the duration and MSF associated with the subduction zone earthquakes are accounted for the liquefaction hazards may be more significant with the CSZ event than the smaller, more local earthquakes as indicated in the example for Portland. The CSZ event should therefore still be evaluated for liquefaction hazards due to the different MSF's applied to the various M -R scenarios. Deaggregation provides a useful framework for identifying the predominant seismic sources, or more appropriately, the most likely range of M -R combinations, in a region. The results of the deaggregation can be used to identify the M -R scenarios that contribute the most significantly to the PGA, as well as short period and long period components of ground motions. Although ground motion characteristics due to near fault effects and rupture directivity have not been incorporated into the USGS PSHA studies inspection of the M -R plots and tables will help to identify situations where these effects should be included in seismic analysis. This would merely require the application of suitable attenuation relationships for the M -R pair of interest. This should be considered for sources located within 10 to 15 km of the site. Note that this was not done in the USGS PSHA for the M 6.64, R 2.9 km pair in Portland. The ground motions used as the basis for liquefaction analyses should reflect the modal M -R combinations and not just the median PGA indicated on seismic hazard maps. The recommended procedures for utilizing the M -R relationships from the USGS PSHA in liquefaction evaluations are presented in the following section. The proposed methodology is followed by two applications for generic embankment geometries, one for a loose sandy soil that is highly 51 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 18 susceptible to liquefaction and the second for a medium dense sand in which partial pore pressure generation is anticipated. 0 a. 475 year mean return time. b. 975 year mean return time. Mb. SeisndcHaW DW#ega0on Pongu d 122AP W, 45.510 N. ftAIc rkwodAcal..IA4l69H }SM" IS r.JR,id, 01 9L4Ya 611, 0.79 $ ASOkIfR,51F 7AYu, 679, dZl l[n.mpwk R)Ihio1 E }Sid:l( &I RJ 0. 7.4Y�679,9m 1sk -]jD myr�R\fF6icl l ift He1eR 1 ki4 deibStA.p,AeYe�1A 1? ©C,,1TIT- 11 M. Seismic Hawd DeamesafioH PoAd 122.6W)Y,45.510N. RAJJai r dk,d.rAZ9a Ki=RavmIIm4975ywi akmlR3W $3Akm6,61, O.V =F R, dq= I.Ik.Al7,A6511mmprakk,3u6:o1 A1�IiRMF 1= 1.a Yus 66?,Am 4 si9px [ from peak R�SF6iW Bxuiy Deka¢ 10. koLkkaN1S.T,Adai r lA rintt ,.ax•m � a� Iwo x b .b ?- I <y <d5 ®® e ]rye: "' HH�11J.y<m �41 %d RI2 <y <7 amwdrtwsslare ! �' o- O ,}• paa!y <G ®3!yrl i�sae oewrara ,p C. 2,475 year mean return time. d. 4,975 year mean return time. Figure 5: Change in relative contribution of CSZ and local crustal sources to PGA with exposure interval in Portland (from USGS seismic hazard mapping website). 52 ODOT Liquefactiou Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 19 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS AT BRIDGE SITES The procedures that follow are intended to serve as guidelines for the performance of liquefaction hazard evaluations. This is not an internal standard or code. This outline is presented in a step -by -step format for the ease of reference. It should not be construed as a rigid framework as site specific aspects of each project may warrant modifications from this general procedure. This outline supplements the methods and considerations presented in other pertinent references (Youd et al 2001, Dickenson et al 2002, Seed et al 2003, Idriss and Boulanger; 2004). A flow chart is provided in Appendix J that outlines the steps for the liquefaction hazard and ground deformation analysis. Step 1: Identify the seismic sources that contribute to the regional seismic hazard. As the fundamental first step in any seismic hazard evaluation this task may require input from geoscientists, knowledgable personnel from other state or federal agencies (DOGAMI, USACE), or external experts. Although the comprehensive PSHA evaluation prepared for ODOT by Geomatrix (199 5) has served as the most authoritative reference on this subject since it was produced, the document presents the state -of- knowledge as is existed in 1994. This document is still considered a valuable reference on seismic sources, fault characterization, and ground motion attenuation in the Pacific Northwest; however, the recommendations should be updated with more recent literature from the geoscience, seismological, and engineering fields. USGS references associated with the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program provide useful updates (Frankel et al 2002, USGS 2004a, c, f). The goal of this step is to determine the cumulative annual frequency versus magnitude relationships for the region. For each of the potential sources a magnitude can be specified for the given mean return time, or exposure interval. In the case of mapped sources this step will satisfy both the spatial and temporal aspects of the earthquakes, but not the uncertainty in recurrence intervals. For "gridded" sources only the magnitude can be ascertained, the source -to -site distance is not well constrained. Step lb: Determine the Peak Horizontal Bedrock Acceleration Associated with the Return Period of Interest The general magnitude and distance information determined in Step 1 is supplemented with the results of the USGS PSHA. The PGA on Site CIass B rock can be readily determined at the USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Program website (USGS 2004). The return periods of interest are 475 and 975 years, following ODOT specifications. The interactive website provides the hazard determination for any location using the local zip code, latitude and longitude, or interpolation from contour maps. This step will result in a single, median PGA value for the location and return period selected. This value represents the cumulative, or aggregate, hazard due to all of the seismic sources in the region and it should not be used as the basis for the liquefaction hazard evaluation. 53 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 20 Step le: Perform Seismic Hazard Deaggregation In order to identify the seismic sources that contribute the most to the hazard at the site a deaggregation can be performed using the USGS interactive web site http:H egint. cr. usgs. gov /eq- men/html /deaggint2002.htm] The user is prompted for straightforward information and an in -depth knowledge of PSHA principles is not required. Specific information that is required for the on -line deaggregation includes: (a) Site Name, (b) Location of Interest (latitude and longitude), (c) Return Time (percent probability of exeedance in a specified time interval), (d) SA Frequency (this refers to the period of interest for spectral accelerations — in this case the user should select "PGA "), (e) Geographic Deaggregation (select Fine angle -Fine distance for this plotting option), and (f) Seismograms (none are usually required). The results of the deaggregation are provided in terms of mean and modal values. The M- R -s values will be necessary for subsequent applications of attenuation relationships. Mean values of M and R should not be used in liquefaction hazard evaluations. The modal values should be used. The modal values are given in terms of as M -R -&o or as M * -R * -c* values. The subtle differences in these magnitude, distance, and ground motion variability parameters are defined in useful references by Harmsen and Frankel (2001) and the USGS (2004e). The percent contribution to the mean PGA provided by each M -R pair is listed in the USGS deaggregation data (refer to the Appendixes for the four cities highlighted herein) under the heading "ALL — EPS." This data highlights the relative contributions to the seismic hazard made by each M -R pair considered. Selecting the pertinent M -R pairs for liquefaction hazard analyses is now left to the discretion of the engineer. The number of pairs incorporated into the liquefaction analysis will depend on the importance of the structure, the number of sources making a significant contribution, and the resources available to the project. Judgment will be required to determine what constitutes a "significant" contribution to the seismic hazard. It is clear that a balance must be struck between an adequate consideration of individual sources and the practical issue of time necessary to perform the liquefaction analyses for each source. The example provided in this report focused on sources providing at least 5% relative contribution to the overall hazard. This value was arbitrarily selected to provide reasonable balance for the sake of demonstration. The results were useful for demonstrating the PGA values associated with each source, and the variation between the mean PGA for all sources affecting Portland and the average of the PGA determined for the four primary sources. By selecting 5% as the minimum relative contribution it is apparent that several seismic sources have been omitted that would yield PGA values greater than the four values obtained. This situation will be unconservative for a limited number of M -R pairs; however, it is not recommended that liquefaction hazard analyses be performed for ground motions that are approaching mean plus 2a for the site. Employing these large motions will likely lead to compounding conservatism in assessing liquefaction and ground failure hazards, as well as in resulting mitigation strategies. As M -R pairs yielding smaller minimum percentage of relative contributions are considered the number of source scenarios increases thereby increasing 54 QDQT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 21 the ground motion levels used in evaluation. For the four cities highlighted in this report the number of M -R pairs associated with a 5% relative contribution cutoff (975 year return period) are; Coos Bay (4) , Klamath Falls (b), Medford (5), and Portland (4). These are considered to be a reasonable number of cases for most applications. For much of western Oregon the relative significance of CSZ earthquakes decreases with increasing return period in regions where there are moderate, yet infrequent earthquakes on local faults. This reduction in the relative contribution of CSZ ground motions should not be confused with a reduction in the liquefaction potential posed by CSZ earthquakes. The PGA values due to the CSZ events increases with return period. The decrease in relative contribution is due largely to the fact that the cumulative median PGA value is increasing in response to closer shallow crustal sources (mapped faults and gridded sources). Recall that the PGA is a short - period ground motion parameter. At most sites along the I -5 corridor, and similar longitude, the longer period contributions of the CSZ earthquakes will continue to dominate the seismic hazard as evident in the PSHA values for the moderate period (T = 1 second) spectral acceleration. A worthwhile and quick check of the influence of a large CSZ earthquake at the site would involve returning to the frequency - magnitude relationships in Step 1. This plot will clearly indicate the magnitude of interest for CSZ events given the return time. The USGS PSHA is based on a two- magnitude scenario where M 8.3 and M 9.0 events are given equal weighting at all return intervals. The mean return time for the M 9 earthquake is 500 years, longer than the recurrence interval for the M 8.3 event. For the exposure times of interest for ODOT projects (475 and 975 years) the CSZ earthquakes will be significant for all sites in western Oregon. Step 2: Determine the PGA on Rock for Modal M -R Pairs using Attenuation Relationships Once the M -R -E parameters are known attenuation relationships can be used to establish the PGA on rock due to each of the primary sources. The M and R values provided in the deaggregation are used in the empirical attenuation relationships to obtain PGA values. The source -to -site distances used in the USGS deaggregations are explained at their web site (USGS 2004f). In this step it is necessary to know the style of faulting associated with the modal M -R pairs. This is necessary because numerous attenuations relationships have been used in the preparation of the USGS seismic hazard maps, and it is recommended that the same relationships be used for comparison. This information can be ascertained from the tabulations and M -R -E plots that accompany the deaggregation output (refer to appendixes). The CSZ interplate (mega- thrust) earthquakes are specified as M 8.3 or M 9.0, the CSZ intra -plate (deep intra -slab) events can be identified as sources in the M 6.5 to 7.5 range located at source to site distances that are generally greater than 50 km, and the shallow crustal sources (local faults and gridded seismicity) are generally in the ranges of M 5.0 — 7.0 and R 5 — 40 km. The specific attenuation relationships provided by source or style of faulting are; (a) CSZ interface earthquakes (Youngs et al 1997, Sadigh et al 1997), (b) shallow crustal earthquakes in regions of extensional tectonics such as the Basin and Range province (Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, Boore et al 1997, Campbell and Bozorgnia 2003, Sadigh et a] 1997, Spudich et aI 55 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 22 1999), and (c) non - extensional areas (Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, Boore et at 1997, Campbell and Bozorgnia 2003, Sadigh et at 1997). All of the relationships are used with equal weighting for the specific applications therefore for a direct comparison to be made to the median PGA value provided on the USGS maps all of the appropriate attenuation relationships must be used. This exercise serves as a worthwhile comparison; however, it is not considered to be necessary for routine liquefaction hazard assessments. For the purpose of estimating PGA based on the M -R data, attenuation relationships other than the ones used by the USGS can be employed. For example, recent investigations of subduction zone earthquake motions have lead to the development of ground motion relationships for CSZ earthquakes (Gregor et at 2002, Atkinson and Boore 2003). These relationships for estimating peak ground accelerations supplement earlier efforts by Cohee and others (199 1) and Crouse (1991). In light of the absence of strong motion records in Oregon for CSZ earthquakes, and the uncertainty inherent in empirical and numerically -based ground motion estimates, it is recommended that two or three methods be used on each project. The attenuations relationships can be formatted for use with spreadsheets thereby making it very efficient to obtain PGA values for any source. The PGA values obtained on the basis of modal M -R pairs will most likely not match the median PGA value provided on USGS maps or listed in summary tables for the mean return time of interest. The resulting ground motion estimates may be larger or smaller than the median mapped value. This can be assessed in advance by noting the e value for the modal M -R pair. Given the median PGA from the map and the s value from the deaggregation an estimate of the PGA due to the specific M -R pair can be made. This data is provided in tabular form (refer to the appendixes) thereby supplementing the use of attenuation relationships to obtain PGA. The remaining steps in the liquefaction hazard evaluation follow the recommendations provided at length in other recent publications (Youd et al 2001, Dickenson et al 2002, Seed et al 2003, Idriss and Boulanger 2004). For the sake of brevity the specific tasks will be outlined in a very cursory fashion. Practitioners are encouraged to refer to the supplementary references for the details of these portions of the evaluation. Steps 3 and 4: Select Representative Acceleration Time Histories and Perform Dynamic Soil Response Analysis Dynamic soil response analysis is required to determine the cyclic loading at selected depths in the soil profile. One - dimensional site response analyses using simple models such as SHAKE are commonly used in practice for computing time histories of acceleration, shear stress, and shear strain in the layers of interest. The computed cyclic stress ratio (CSR = � /�,', where 'r is the equivalent, average cyclic shear stress induced by the earthquake and a,,' is the vertical effective stress prior to shaking) is used directly in the Simplified Procedures for evaluating the potential for the triggering of liquefaction. It is recommended that 2 or 3 input, rock motions be used for each M -R scenario in order the capture the range of variability in the rock motions, as well as the 56 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 23 variability in the dynamic response of the soil column. The selection criteria for the bedrock motions have been well addressed by Dickenson et at (2002). As previously addressed the incorporation of multiple M -R pairs for evaluation can dramatically increase the number of dynamic response analyses required. In situations such as this (i.e. Portland region) the following procedure can be considered for screening the most important earthquake scenarios for dynamic modeling: 1. Apply the appropriate attenuation relationships for all M -R pairs that are identified as contributing a significant relative contribution to the hazard. 2. Estimate the soil amplification factor from charts or from prior dynamic soil response analyses in similar geologic settings, and at similar seismic load levels. 3. Estimate the ground surface PGA by multiplying the bedrock PGA values by the soil amplification factor(s). 4. Assess the relative cyclic load level using an approach similar that to outlined in the text (CSR *, Equation 2). Both the PGA and the duration of the motions must be accounted for in such a procedure. 5. Select the 2 or 3 most significant earthquake scenarios for subsequent modeling. In many regions of Oregon (e.g., Medford, Klamath Palls) the primary M -R scenarios represent similar sources. In these situations the number of scenarios warranting investigation may be reduced to I or 2. Steps 5 and 6: Determine the Liquefaction Resistance of the Soil and Estimate the Post - Cyclic Loading Strength of the Soil The cyclic resistance of the soil can be estimated using the straightforward, widely - adopted procedures outlined in the consensus document by Youd and others (200 1) and in subsequent publications (Seed et al. 2003, Idriss and Boulanger, 2004). An extensive example problem has been prepared by Dickenson and others (2002) for a site located along the Columbia River adjacent to Portland International Airport, and this reference provides in -depth discussion of the steps involved. The resulting Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR = i,,, /c ', where c,, is the equivalent, average cyclic shear strength of the soil and a v ' is the vertical effective stress prior to shaking) is compared to the intensity of the cyclic loading (CSR) generated by the design level earthquakes. The factor of safety against liquefaction is the ratio of CRRICSR. Once the factor of safety against liquefaction has been determined the excess pore pressure can be estimated and the shear strength evaluated. The methods used for determining the shear strength of sandy soils is presented in Dickenson et al (2002), with updated relationships for the post- liquefaction strength of sandy soil proposed by Olson and Stark (2003). If several scenarios (i.e. M -R pairs) are being considered it may be necessary in subsequent stability analyses for all, or at least a subset, of the cases to be evaluated. As an example, for sites located along the 1 -5 corridor the local, shallow crustal events may yield the lowest factors of safety against liquefaction, although the hazard to the bridge may be greater due to CSZ earthquakes given their longer duration. The duration would have been accounted for by use of the MSP; however, subsequent 57 ODO T Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 24 deformation analyses (e.g., Newmark sliding block, Makdisi and Seed) may indicate that ground deformations due to the larger CSZ events are greater. Step 7: Estimate the Seismic Stability of the Embankment The dynamic and post - cyclic loading shear strengths of the soils, determined as a part of Step 6, are used in standard slope stability analyses to estimate the margin of safety against failure of slopes and embankments. The seismic stability of the slope can be estimated using pre- earthquake strengths with a pseudostatic lateral force coefficient representing the earthquake loading, or by incorporating the post- cyclic Ioading shear strengths and performing a "static" analysis. The former method is not recommended for analysis of sites with potentially liquefiable soils, sensitive fine- grained soils, or brittle materials such as lightly cemented soils. The second method can be used to obtain a post - cyclic loading factor of safety (FS If FS is less than unity then the slope will fail during and after the strong ground shaking. Estimates of the ground deformation associated with this mode of failure can only be determined using 2D and 3D numerical models with slip surface and large- strain capability. In regions where the seismic hazard is dominated by both large CSZ earthquakes and smaller local crustal events it may be necessary to perform multiple stability analyses. Situations that would require only one stability analysis are; (1) the case where none of the soil liquefies during shaking by either scenario, and (2) the case where the same soil layers liquefy in both events. For cases where the factors of safety against liquefaction are different (yet between 1.0 and 1.4), or the extent of liquefaction is different during the scenario events, multiple stability analyses are recommended. Step 8: Estimate the Lateral Deformation of the Embankment In many cases FS is greater than unity. This indicates that the slope is stable for post - earthquake static conditions. It is possible however that FS can drop below unity during the earthquake due to the cyclic loads imposed on the soils during shaking. In this case a critical, or yield, acceleration (a e ,i t ) can be determined to assess the margin of stability that the slope may have during cyclic loading. The critical acceleration is the acceleration that is needed to bring the slope to a state of marginal stability (FS = 1). The slide mass will begin to move when the acceleration of the slope exceeds the critical acceleration. During an earthquake this acceleration only exists for a short duration therefore the slope is temporarily stable, then unstable, and stable once again. The acceleration time history computed using the dynamic soil response model in Step 5 is used to determine if the value of a,rit will be exceeded during the ground shaking. By double integrating the acceleration pulses that exceed aerit the cumulative displacement of the slope can be estimated. This procedure has been applied for a portion of the Columbia River levee in Portland (Dickenson et al 2002). A useful tool for performing this sliding block type of analysis is available through the USGS ( Jibson and Jibson 2003). Deformations should be computed for all scenarios judged to significantly contribute to the liquefaction hazard. In most cases evaluated by the author for sites along the I -5 corridor this has required only 2 scenarios. M ODQT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 25 Step 9: Develop Recommendations for Soil Improvemient if Necessary If the results of the seismic stability analysis indicate FS,, below unity, or computed ground deformations that are greater than tolerable limits, then mitigation strategies are required. In many cases this includes soil improvement to treat weak, liquefiable, or sensitive soils. The vertical and lateral extent of the ground treatment will depend on factors such as geologic conditions, site and construction constraints, size of the structures, and cost. Evaluating the effectiveness of soil improvement for minimizing ground deformations requires an iterative process of slope stability analyses that incorporates the strength of the treated soil. The vertical and lateral extent of the treated soil is enlarged until the ground deformations computed using procedures such as the sliding block, or more sophisticated numerical models, are acceptable. This modeling may involve different modes of improvement (soil densification, cementation, dewatering, etc), site reconfiguration and grading, or structural mitigation measures (piers, piles, retaining walls). In most cases complex soil - foundation- structure interaction is involved and this must be addressed with knowledgable engineering judgment, input from specialty contractors, and local experience. It must be noted that the stability analysis must not focus solely on the original critical failure surface determined for the un- improved soil. It is common in cases involving ground treatment for the location of the critical surface to change as the extent of the ground treatment changes. This should be anticipated and accounted for in the deformation analyses. An example of this procedure is provided in the following section. The application for analysis involves a bridge approach embankment of simple geometry underlain by liquefiable soils. Two scenarios will be analyzed for liquefaction potential, slope stability and lateral displacements. The evaluation will incorporate a spreadsheet analysis of liquefaction and post- cyclic shear strength, and a subsequent slope stability analysis using the well -known program XSTABL. Unique aspects of both scenarios and recommendations for practice will be addressed in the following section. 59 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 26 EXAMPLE PROBLEMS; ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS INCLUDING TRIGGERING AND DEFORMATION POTENTIAL In order to demonstrate the application of procedures for establishing design level ground motions and evaluating liquefaction hazards two example problems involving generalized embankment configurations are presented. The methods of analysis follow the procedures outlined in the preceding text, the report by Dickenson and others (2002), and several state -of -the- practice references cited in this report. Standard -of- practice methods of analysis for the complex behavior of embankments underlain by liquefiable soils are applied. In the first example, the foundation soil is a very loose to loose sand containing variable weight percentages of non - plastic silt (Figure 6). The second example features a foundation of medium dense sand that exhibits a greater resistance to liquefaction. The ground motions used in the evaluation are representative for the Portland metropolitan area for a return period of 975 years. Pertinent aspects of the analysis are outlined as follows. Ground Motions The ground motions used in the analysis were selected based on de- aggregation data obtained from the USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website. All earthquake M -R scenarios that contributed at least 5% to the cumulative seismic ground motion hazard were considered in the evaluation. Inspection of the tabular PSHA de- aggregation data in Appendix B reveals four M -R pairs that exceed 5% contribution (i.e., "ALL _EPS" > 5.00% for PGA). These scenarios include local, shallow crustal earthquakes, as well as distant large CSZ events, as shown in Table 2. Bedrock PGA values were obtained using all of the attenuation relationships that were utilized in the development of the USGS ground motion maps. This was done for the sake of comparison with the mean PGA value listed at the USGS website. This level of effort is not necessary for routine applications in practice; however, this step is simplified by the use of spreadsheets for each of the attenuation relationships. The site consists of sandy soils with a depth to bedrock of 55 feet. The soil amplification factors developed by Dickenson and Seed (in Dickenson et al. 2002) were used in the evaluation. Note that simplified ground motion amplification factors are commonly used during the early stages of analysis to facilitate preliminary assessment and screening. They are not recommended for final analysis and design (Dickenson et al, 2002; Youd et al, 2000). It is recommended that a numerical dynamic soil response program such as SHAKE be used for project specific analyses. Soil - dependent ground motion amplification factors are used herein for the sake of simplicity and demonstration purposes only. AN ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 27 Table 2: Earthquake Scenarios used in the Example Problems PORTLAND SITE: 975 YEAR MEAN RETURN PERIOD Earthquake Scenario M -R Pair PGA on Bedrock (g) PGA at the Ground Surface (g) M 6.2, R 12.1 km 0.195 0.26 M 6.64, R 2.9 km 0.520 0.49 M8.3,R89.5km 0.12 0.18 M 9.0, R 89.5 km 0.16 0.22 Mean of the 4 scenarios 0.249 0.29 Mean from USGS PSHA 0.274 0.33* * Soil response amplification factor of Seed & Dickenson (1994) applied to the USGS PHSA bedrock PGA. CASE NO. 1: FOUNDATION OF VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE SANDY SOIL Modeling and Assumptions The embankment configuration and geotechnical conditions for this problem are illustrated in Figure 6. The Simplified Procedure for liquefaction evaluation has been prepared in a spreadsheet (Appendix I), which makes the application for multiple earthquake scenarios very efficient. The fine sand has been modeled with a fines content that varies with depth as follows; 4% by weight non - plastic silt in the upper 15 ft, 12% at depths of 15 to 25 ft, and 35% at depths between 25 and 40 ft. The Cyclic Stress Ratios (CSR) induced by the ground motions at the depths of interest (i.e. the elevation of each of the SPT data points) were computed using the ground surface PGA value, which was converted to approximate CSR - values at the depths of interest using the standard formulation by Seed and Idriss (in Youd et al, 2000). This is a simplification that is useful for preliminary screening; however, the results of dynamic soil response analyses using programs such as SHAKE are preferable for computing the CSR at specific depths. The existence of sloping ground conditions results in stresses that vary with distance from the centerline of the embankment toward the free -field. At any specified elevation the vertical stress and shear stress will depend on the location of the point relative to the embankment slope. This complicates the liquefaction hazard evaluation for the following reasons; (1) the vertical effective stress at a given elevation is not constant across the entire site, (2) the computation of CSR is dependent on the vertical total and effective stresses, and (3) the residual undrained shear strength of liquefied soil is a function of the vertical effective stress. The latter two items require that the CSR, the corresponding factor of safety against liquefaction (FSli and the residual shear strength vary vertically and laterally. This results in an additional degree of complexity when performing limit equilibrium slope stability analyses, in which soil layers are usually modeled with material properties ((p', c', c and FSli that remain constant in the lateral direction. In order to clearly demonstrate the procedures for evaluating liquefaction hazards and slope stability, simplifying assumptions have been made throughout the two cases presented. The primary simplifications are related to the modeling of soil properties in the lateral 61 OAOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 28 dimension. For example, the CSR values have been computed for the stress conditions that exist under the centerline of the embankment and for the free -field conditions beyond the toe of the slope. Instead of computing the FS1i with depth for both vertical profiles, establishing the corresponding shear strengths, and incorporating the laterally dependent soil strengths into the slope stability analyses, the CSR values have been averaged. This approximation has been adopted herein for the sake of brevity. The impact of the simplification will obviously depend on the configuration of the embankment and the cyclic resistance of the soil. A second approximation involves the estimation of the undrained residual shear strength of the liquefied soils. This strength is a function of the pre - earthquake vertical effective stress therefore the shear resistance of the soil will vary depending on lateral location relative to the centerline of the embankment, slope face, toe, or free - field. The undrained shear strengths were estimated using the vertical effective stresses that exist under the centerline of the embankment. This will yield larger shear strengths than would be computed for the soils underneath the sloping portion of the embankment and in the free -field. It is recommended that the impact of these approximations be evaluated for project specific analyses. M QDQT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 29 Figure 6: Embankment configuration and foundation conditions for the liquefaction hazard example problems (Case 1). Results for Case No. 1 The analyses demonstrated that the fine sand is Iiquefiable throughout its entire thickness for all four of the earthquake scenarios evaluated. This is not surprising given the low penetration resistances of the fine sand. Note that the underlying coarse sand is also indicated to be liquefiable in three of the four earthquake scenarios. The prevalence of liquefiable soils in the foundation of embankment highlights the need for subsequent analyses of embankment stability. Standard limit equilibrium methods of analysis can be used for this purpose. These methods are useful for estimating the margin of stability for slopes and embankments along circular or wedge- shaped failure planes. The overall factor of safety against sliding is evaluated along discrete failure planes. This 63 4 40' — 1. ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 30 procedure is routinely performed in practice to locate "critical surfaces" having the lowest margin of stability, and it is useful for highlighting the portion of the embankment that exhibits the greatest potential for failure. There are; however, several significant limitations in the use of limit equilibrium analyses are cases involving liquefaction, soil - structure interaction (e.g., pile foundations in slopes, bridge abutments and appurtenant structures near slopes), and ground treatment. The procedure is limited in that the pattern of deformations cannot be assessed. This is an important need for performance -based seismic design involving structures. Another limitation involves the modeling of liquefied soil. In routine practice, the undrained residual strength of the liquefied sand is estimated using empirical relationships developed in back - analysis of failed slopes. The residual strength is used in the slope stability analysis as a constant value of shear resistance despite the fact that the strength varies with strain level, and drainage during and after ground shaking. Finally, the limit equilibrium methods are poorly equipped to account for complex modes of failure and deformation that may arise adjacent to structures, embedded foundations or earth retention systems, or treated ground. Numerical models have been developed that can account for many of these shortcomings; however, they are resource intensive and may not be justified for evaluations of more routine bridge embankment configurations. Used properly, the limit equilibrium methods can be applied with a reasonable degree of confidence for applications involving embankments founded on liquefiable soils. Slope stability analyses involving liquefied soil require that the shear resistance of the softened soil be estimated. In light of the complex nature of excess pore pressure generation, large - strain development, and post - liquefaction strength gain accompanying drainage and large strain, most methods used in practice for estimating the residual strength of liquefied soil relay on back - analysis of field case studies involving slope failures. The most widely used methods have been developed by Seed and Harder (1990), Stark and his co- workers (Olsen and Stark, 2002), and Dobry and colleagues (Baziar and Dobry, 1995). The former method correlates the residual undrained strength with SPT N- value, while the method proposed by Stark relates the strength to SPT and CPT data as functions of pre - earthquake vertical effective stress. Dobry's approach is presented in the form of an undrained strength ratio for small or large deformations. It has been observed that potentially large variations in the estimated residual shear strengths can result when using these procedures. No formal consensus has been proposed regarding the use of one method over another, and it is recommended that all three be used to bracket the range of likely values. Seed has recommended (Seed et al, 2003) that the methods proposed by Seed and Harder, and Olson and Stark be used. He recommends that a weighted average can then be obtained using weighting factors of 75% for the former relationship and 25% for the latter. No rationale was given for these relative weighting factors. In the analyses performed for this example problem these two methods were used with equal weighting (i.e. the average of the two values). The shear strength values varied with depth, but were held constant in the lateral direction. This was adopted for the sake of simplification. The residual shear strengths should vary with vertical effective stress, and therefore with position relative to the embankment (e.g. under the centerline, under the slope face, or past the toe of the slope). This refinement should be accounted for in actual analysis and design. M . ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 31 The slope stability computations were performed using the commercially available program XSTABL. The factor of safety against failure was evaluated using Spencer's method and Bishop's method. The residual undrained shear strengths were employed for liquefiable soils, and drained shear strengths were used for the embankment soils. The post - earthquake static factor of safety was computed for several cases; including deep seated failure and slope -face failures. The factor of safety against shallow surface failure (sloughing) is roughly 1.27, which may at first appear to be acceptable; however, this does not account for the stability during seismic loading or the overall stability of the embankment. The factor of safety against deep seated rotational failure through the liquefied soil is substantially less than unity (0.46). The critical surfaces are shown in Figure 7. This indicates that the embankment would not be stable under static conditions if liquefied strengths apply. This is representative of "end of shaking" conditions. The embankment and foundation soils will undergo considerable deformation during all four of the earthquake scenarios. The range of likely deformations will be a function of the duration of shaking and the number of significant loading cycles. Limit equilibrium methods cannot be used to estimate the displacement due to the very low factor of safety. Utilization of simple charts based on 2D numerical non - linear, effective stress modeling for estimating displacement of embankments on liquefied soils (Dickenson et al, 2002, Figures 7.7 and 7.8) indicates that the maximum deformations may range from 4 to 10 feet, well beyond tolerable limits for most bridge approach embankments. For this scenario it would be necessary to implement a ground treatment program to mitigate the liquefaction hazards at the site. Several pertinent points can be made regarding the stability analyses for the four earthquake scenarios used in this evaluation. First, it may appear based on the results of the limit equilibrium analyses that it makes no difference to the stability which earthquake or ground motion parameter has been used, the post - earthquake static factor of safety is 0.46 regardless of earthquake scenario. This is not the case. The characteristics of the individual earthquake motions were incorporated into the analysis by way of the liquefaction susceptibility analysis. It was determined that the soils would liquefy under all four cases. Given that the soil liquefied, the same undrained residual shear strength is applicable for all four earthquake scenarios, therefore the same factor of safety is computed for all cases. The seismically induced embankment deformations will reflect the intensity, duration, and frequency content of the ground motions. This can be accounted for in advanced numerical models employing time history analyses, non - linear soil behavior, and large - strain capability. The geomechanical model FLAC was used to generate the charts for estimating maximum embankment deformation for cases involving liquefaction of foundations soils underneath bridge approach embankments. The PGA and magnitude of each event is required to estimate the resulting slope deformations. This simplified procedure allows deformation estimates to be made for each earthquake scenario. The approximate deformations associated with each of the four earthquakes in Table 2 are listed in order as; M 6.2 event yields approximately 4 to 6 ft. of displacement, M 6.64 — 8 to 10 ft., M 8.3 — 4 to 6 ft., and M 9.0 - 4 to 6 ft. The influence of earthquake size and source -to -site distance is evident in these estimates. It is 65 OAOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 32 interesting to note that the Iarge CSZ events and the local M 6.2 earthquake yield similar displacements estimates. A final note should be added regarding the large deformations indicated in Figures 7.7 and 7.8 of Dickenson and others (2002). The estimates are considered to be conservative for three reasons; (1) the use of earthquake time histories that exhibited greater energy (Arias Intensity) than would be considered average for that magnitude, (2) several of the crustal earthquake time histories represent near -fault motions and contain velocity components that yield larger displacements than would be computed using far -field motions, and (3) the numerical model used to simulate the soil deformations did not have a plasticity -based strain - hardening function to model dilation at large strain and strength gain due to drainage during straining. The resulting displacements are conservative, but not unreasonable in light of an extensive review of failures of embankments underlain by liquefiable soils, From a practical perspective, displacements greater than 1.5 to 2.0 ft are considered academic only as these ground deformations would be damaging to most bridge foundations and ancillary components. CASE1 5 -21 - ** 10:13 150 120 m 90 m 0 X Q 60 r 30 Case 1: Embankment Slope Stablilty 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = .457 Figure 7: Results of Slope Stability Analyses for Case No. 1 (Full Liquefaction of the Foundation Layer) AN 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 X —AXIS (feet) ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 33 CASE NO. 2: FOUNDATION OF MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE SANDY SOIL The analysis of liquefaction susceptibility and slope stability has been performed for a case involving medium dense to dense sandy soil. The SPT N- values in the fine sand have been changed for this analysis. The angle of internal friction and saturated unit weight of the fine sand have also been changed to correspond with the increase in penetration resistance (9' = 36 °, ysat = 125 pcf). The modified penetration resistances are shown in Figure 8. In this case the sandy soils have a greater cyclic resistance and they are not found to be fully liquefiable in all cases. In these design examples the factor of safety against liquefaction varies from less than 0.5 to more than 2.0. The post- cyclic loading shear strengths were estimated following the recommendations outlined by Dickenson and others (2002) as follows: 1. FSii > 1.4 — Use the drained friction values. 2. 1.4 > FS,; > 1.0 — Compute an equivalent friction angle that accounts for the excess pore pressure generation during shaking. 3. FS1i < 1.0 — Use the empirical relationships developed by Seed and Harder (1990), Baziar and Dobry (1995), or Olson and Stark (2000) for estimating the residual undrained shear strength of the liquefied sand. It has been determined that the M 6.2 and M 8.3 scenarios resulted in the generation of very low excess pore pressure in the upper portion of the fine sand, which controls overall embankment stability. Conversely, significant excess pore pressures were computed for the M 6.64 and M 9.0 events. In both of the latter cases the generation of excess pore pressure resulted in a significant reduction in soil strength at depths below 20 ft. from the original ground surface. The spreadsheets used for the liquefaction susceptibility and strength evaluation are provided in Appendix I. The strength parameters computed in this evaluation were used directly in the XSTABL analyses of seismic slope stability. Post - earthquake stability analyses were performed to determine the factor of safety against sliding for each scenario, and these analyses were supplemented with rigid body slope deformation analyses using the Newmark procedure. The strength parameters used in each of the four slope stability analyses and the resulting factors of safety against sliding are provided in Tables 3 through 6. Note that the critical surfaces for the static conditions are all rather shallow circular slide planes that extend from the edge of the slope crest to points that are not that far from the toe of the slope (Figure 9). The vertical stress conditions under this region of the embankment are clearly less than the stresses at equivalent elevations under the centerline of the embankment. This is an important observation for two reasons: (1) the vertical effective stresses are different than those assumed in the liquefaction susceptibility evaluation, and (2) the vertical effective stresses are different than those assumed in estimating residual undrained shear strengths for the soils that liquefied. In practice, the influence of these simplifications on overall stability should be addressed. The incorporation of more refined vertical stress patterns in the analyses would yield lower factors of safety against sliding. 67 QDQT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 34 Figure 8: Embankment configuration and foundation conditions for the liquefaction hazard example problems (CASE 2). .: 4— 40' 0 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 35 Table 3: Analysis Results for the M 6.2 Earthquake Scenario (PGA = 0.26g) Depth (ft) Nr id d (blow /ft) FSii Strength Parameter Slope Stabili FS Maximum Deformation ft Sur s Tequiv de rees (a Newmark Makdisi & Seed Dickenson et al 5 24 2.97 n/a 36 1.61 (0.22) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.5 10 26 2.52 n/a 36 15 22 2.80 n/a 36 20 22 2.71 n/a 36 25 19 1.45 n/a 36 30 17 1.77 n/a 36 35 21 2.78 n/a 36 40 22 2.61 n/a 36 45 20 1.03 n/a 14 50 25 1.31 n/a 30 55 30 1.66 n/a 36 Table 4: Analysis Results for the M 6.64 Earthquake Scenario (PGA = 0.49g) Depth (ft) Nfi (blow /ft) FSr Strength Parameter Slope Stabili FS Maximum Deformation ft Sur s 1 pequiv de rees (ay) Newmark Makdisi & Seed Dickenson et al 5 24 1.32 n/a 30 1.33 (0.09) 1.33 (mean) 0.83 (median) 3.10 (mean + 1 a} 0.9 4.0 10 26 1.12 n/a 24 15 22 1.25 n/a 29 20 22 1.21 n/a 28 25 19 0.65 717 n/a 30 17 0.79 727 n/a 35 21 1.24 n/a 29 40 22 1.16 n/a 26 45 20 0.46 894 n/a 50 25 0.59 997 n/a 55 30 0.74 1100 n/a .• ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 36 Table S Analysis Results for the M 8.3 Earthquake Scenario (PGA = 0.18g) Depth (ft) Nfieid (blow /ft) FSU Strength Parameter Slope Stabili FS Maximum Deformation ft Sur s Yequiv de rees (a Newmark Makdisi & Seed Dickenson et al 5 24 2.23 n/a 36 1.65 (0.20) 0 0 1.0 10 26 1.90 n/a 36 15 22 2.11 n/a 36 20 22 2.04 1 n/a 36 25 19 1.09 n/a 22 30 17 1.33 n/a 30 35 21 2.09 n/a 36 40 22 1.96 n/a 36 45 20 0.78 894 n/a 50 25 0.99 997 n/a 55 30 1.25 n/a 29 Table 6 Analysis Results for the M 9.0 Earthquake Scenario (PGA = 0.22g) Depth (ft) NNW (blow /ft) FS Strength Parameter Slope Stabili FS Maximum Deformation ft Sur s ( Pequiv (degrees) (a Newmark Makdisi & Seed Dickenson et al 5 24 1.35 n/a 31 1.41 (0.11) 0.25 >> 3.0 3.0 10 26 1.15 n/a 26 15 22 1.27 n/a 30 20 22 1.23 1 n/a 29 25 19 0.66 717 n/a 30 17 0.80 727 n/a 35 21 1.27 n/a 30 40 22 1.19 n/a 27 45 20 0,47 894 n/a 50 25 0,60 997 n/a 55 30 0.75 1100 n/a 70 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 37 CASE1a42 521 -.• 10:28 cescauaa s -s1 -.• m:u Case 2: M 6.2 Emb Slope Slabllfly CASE 2: M 8.3 Emk Slope Slabllfly 150 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.606 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANOU FOS 1.655 Case 2: M 6.64Emb Slope Stability CASE 2: M 9,0 Emk Slope Stability 150 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.329 120 120 ............._._..,.._.._....__ 120 120 90 p 90 1 _ m 90 N 80 r �N ¢ 60 y a 60 SE 30 I r 30 Q 60 t r 0 0 0 240 a 30 30 80 40 12a 150 180 210 50 60 s0 120 150 180 210 240 X -AXIS (feet) X -AXIS (feet) a. M 6.2 Scenario 30 69 90 120 150 180 210 b. M 6.61 Scenario CASE21163 5 -21 -.. 11:14 CASE 2: M 8.3 Emk Slope Slabllfly MEMO 5 -21 -•. 1"1 150 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANOU FOS 1.655 CASE 2: M 9,0 Emk Slope Stability 1 150 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .413 120 ............._._..,.._.._....__ 120 90 w1 g sa a 60 SE I r Q 60 t r 30 30 a a 0 30 69 90 120 150 180 210 240 o a0 60 90 22o 150 160 210 240 X -AXIS (feel) X -AXIS (feet) c. M 8.0 Scenario d. M 9.0 Scenario Figure 9: Critical Slip Surfaces for Static Analyses Employing Post - Cyclic Loading Shear Strengths. (CASE 2) 71 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 38 The yield, or critical, acceleration (alternatively listed in the literature as a,,; a k that is required to bring the slope to a state of marginal stability was determined by iterative solution using the XSTABL program. The yield acceleration values associated with each earthquake scenario are 0.228, 0.098, 0.208, and 0.11 g for the earthquake scenarios in order of smallest magnitude to largest. For three of the four cases (M 6.2, M 6.64, and M 9.0) evaluated, the peak ground acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration and therefore some degree of deformation is anticipated. The peak acceleration at the ground surface is considered appropriate for these examples given the height of the embankment, and the geometry of the slide mass. The yield acceleration is not exceeded for the case of the M 8.3 earthquake and permanent deformations would be expected to be negligible using the sliding block procedure. The permanent earthquake induced slope deformations were estimated using three simple methods; (1) the Newmark sliding block procedure (Jibson and Jibson, 2003), (2) the chart solution developed by Makdisi and Seed (1978) for compacted earth dams, and (3) the design chart developed by Dickenson and others (2002) for cases involving liquefaction in the foundation soils. The Newmark model as prepared by Jibson and Jibson (2003) was used to perform the sliding block evaluations. The first two methods are similar in that no permanent deformation would be computed for cases were the yield acceleration is greater than the peak ground acceleration. The chart developed by Dickenson et aI (2002) often indicates nominal permanent deformations for cases in which limit equilibrium analyses indicate that the yield acceleration is not exceeded by the peak ground acceleration. This is due to the method of 21) FDM numerical modeling approach used to develop the chart. Several aspects of the numerical simulation give rise to computed deformations despite global factors of safety greater than unity. These include: 1. The deformation provided by the design chart represents the vector summation of the computed vertical and horizontal components of displacement. 2. The constitutive models employed in the FDM modeling account for settlement due to the volumetric change that follows cyclic loading. Soils that experience FSii less than 1.1 to 1.2 will undergo volumetric strains in excess of 0.5 to 1.0 %. Therefore, cases that involve liquefaction at depth will exhibit vertical deformation even though the overall factor of safety against sliding is greater than 1.0. 3. The computed deformations used in the development of the chart represent the maximum value obtained at any point in the model. This includes deep - seated failures, slope failures involving the toe or slope face, as well as surficial sloughing. The results of the deformation analyses demonstrate the influence that the magnitude and source -to -site distance have on the computed slope movement. This is due primarily to the intensity and duration of the ground motions, although the frequency content of the motions can be important for near -fault effects and for the CSZ motions that exhibit significant long period components. The ground motions used in the Newmark analysis 72 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 39 were selected from the catalog of records obtained in the package of Jibson and Jibson (2003). Candidate time histories were selected to be representative of the motions for each scenario. The following criteria were used to select ground motions for the Newmark analyses; M 6.2 scenario (6.0 < M < 6.4, 6 km < R < 18 km, strike slip and oblique normal fault style, stiff soil and soil rock soil condition, all records scaled to 0.26g), M 6.64 (6.3 < M < 6.9, 1 km < R < 10 km, strike slip and oblique normal faults, stiff soil and soft rock condition, all records scaled to 0.49g), and for the M 9.0 earthquake a collection of motions was used that should likely bracket the problem, Four motions were used, all scaled to 0.22g. The time histories included records from the 1985 Michoacan, Mexico earthquake, 1985 Valparaiso, Chile earthquake, and the 1978 Miyagi -ken Oki, Japan earthquake. Note that the magnitudes of the available records are all less than the M 8.3 to 9.0 scenario earthquakes recommended by the USGS. The computed deformations are considered to be slightly less than what would be anticipated had records from M 8.3 and 9.0 earthquakes been applied. Practical Interpretation of the Results The simple methods of estimating ground deformation are standard of practice screening tools that provide likely ranges of soil displacement. They do not provide estimates to be used in project specific analysis of pile foundations and abutments. None of the analyses account for the existence of deep foundations, embedded walls, anchors, or abutments fixed by bridge decks and superstructure adjacent to the slope. Additionally, the pattern of deformations is not provided therefore the impact on structural components such as deep foundations cannot be directly assessed. The ranges of estimated displacement should be viewed as indicators of relative seismic performance. It is recommended that the deformations be interpreted in light of tolerable limits and performance requirements for common bridge components. In many sectors involving transportation infrastructure earthquake risk is defined in terms of return periods. Two -level earthquake hazard design has been adopted by several state transportation departments. The two level earthquake hazard levels are the Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE), sometimes referred to as the Operating Level Earthquake (OLE), and the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE), or Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE). The FEE is defined as the earthquake (or more appropriately the ground motions) having a mean return period of 500 years. The SEE corresponds to a 2,500 year return period. These ground motion criteria can be modified to incorporate the 1,000 year exposure interval. The limit states and tolerable deformations are defined for each design level hazard. In addition to the earthquake hazards the bridge and appurtenant structures can be defined in terms of importance as lifelines. Portions of the bridge and approaches may be deemed "Critical Access Paths" or "Critical Infrastructure" and designed to a higher level of performance than those outside of the Critical Access Path (Parsons Brinckerhoff 1999). As an example, the design criteria for CAP structures subjected to FEE motions is usually elastic response, no below grade damage to deep foundations, minimal structural damage that can be quickly repaired, and the structure remains fully operational immediately after the earthquake. Non -CAP structures may be designed to a relaxed standard of performance that allows limited, repairable damage. For the SEE the 73 ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 40 structure should remain functional without shoring or major repairs. Collapse is prevented for both CAP and non -CAP structures. The approximate deformation limits for various bridge components can be established in consultation with bridge structural engineers. Possible classifications could include: • Abutment walls supported on spread footings. • Abutment walls supported on piles. • Spread footings for interior piers. • Deep foundations for interior piers. • Embankment adjacent to critical structures, foundations, etc. • Embankments in open area (no adjacent structures). For example, in the case of the Cooper River Bridge in South Carolina the seismic settlement criteria for FEE allowed 1 in of settlement for CAP structures, and 2 in for non -CAP structures. SEE requirements specified no more than 4 in of settlement for CAP structures and less than S in to 20 in for Non -CAP components. Associated embankment deformation criteria are provided in Table 7. These criteria should be amended based on structure type. Table 7: Allowable Embankment Deformations as Functions of Earthquake Hazard Level and Importance along Access Path (from Parson Brinckerhoff, 1999) The hazard analyses performed in this report were based on 1,000 yr motions. If this is considered a SEE hazard evaluation for a CAP structure, then it is evident that the risk of excessive embankment deformations is unacceptably high. The deformations induced by the M 6.64 and M 9.0 earthquakes may lead to more than 3 ft of deformation. A strategy for remedial ground treatment would be necessary for these critical cases. The zone of treated soil can be modeled with the limit equilibrium slope stability analyses by increasing the shear resistance of the soil, and an iterative suite of analyses performed to identify the optimal location and extent of soil to be improved. It must be noted that the slope stability analyses must be performed to search for new critical surfaces, as it is unlikely that the new critical circle, or wedge, will lie at the same location as the pre- treatment surface. The extent and type of treatment (e.g., densification, cementation and soil mixing, grouting) is varied until the computed displacements are less than the tolerable deformations for the hazard event and importance of the structure. 74 Allowable Embankment Deformation (in) FEE /SEE Embankment in Critical Embankment in Non - Access Path Critical Access Path Embankment adjacent to < 2.016.0 :5 2.0/6.0 critical structures, foundations, etc. Embankment in open area I c 12.0139.0 < 24.0/79.0 The hazard analyses performed in this report were based on 1,000 yr motions. If this is considered a SEE hazard evaluation for a CAP structure, then it is evident that the risk of excessive embankment deformations is unacceptably high. The deformations induced by the M 6.64 and M 9.0 earthquakes may lead to more than 3 ft of deformation. A strategy for remedial ground treatment would be necessary for these critical cases. The zone of treated soil can be modeled with the limit equilibrium slope stability analyses by increasing the shear resistance of the soil, and an iterative suite of analyses performed to identify the optimal location and extent of soil to be improved. It must be noted that the slope stability analyses must be performed to search for new critical surfaces, as it is unlikely that the new critical circle, or wedge, will lie at the same location as the pre- treatment surface. The extent and type of treatment (e.g., densification, cementation and soil mixing, grouting) is varied until the computed displacements are less than the tolerable deformations for the hazard event and importance of the structure. 74 References Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (1997), "Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes," Seismological Research .Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 94 -127. Andrus, R. D., Stokoe II, K.H., and Juang, C.H. (2004). "Guide for Shear - Wave -Based Liquefaction Potential Evaluation," Earthquake Spectra, Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, vol, 20, no. 2, pp. 285 -308. Ang, A. H -S and Tang, W.H. (1975), "Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design ", Vol. 1 —Basic Principles, J. Wiley and Sons. Atkinson G.M., and Boore, D.M. (2003). "Empirical Ground - Motion Relations for Subduction Zone Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vat. 93, no. 4, pp. 1703 -1729. Baziar, M.H, and Dobry, R.. (1995). "Residual Strength and Large Deformation Potential of Loose Silty Sand," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 896 -906. Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C.A. (1999). "Disaggreggtion of Seismic Hazard," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of,4merica, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 501 -520. Boore, D,M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. (1997). "Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work," Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 128 -153. Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2003). "Updated near - source ground motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 314 -331. Cohee, B.P., Somerville, P.G., and Abrahamson, N.A. (1991). "Simulated Ground Motions for Hypothesized M, = 8 Subduction Zone Earthquakes in Washington and Oregon," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vol. 8I, no. 1, pp. 28 -56. Cornell, C.A. (1968). "Engineering seismic risk analysis," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vol. 58, pp. 1583 -1606. Crouse, G.B. (1991). "Ground- Motion Attenuation Equations for Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone," Earthquake Spectra, EERI, vat. 7, no. 2, pp. 201 -236. Dickenson, S.E., McCullough, N.J., Barkau, M.G., and Wavra, B.J, (2002). Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Brie Approach Embankments in Oregon Final report to the Oregon Department of Transportation, SPR 361, Report no. FHWA- OR- RD- 03 -04, 210 p. Dobry, R. Ramos, R, and Power, M.S. (1999) Site Factors and Site Categories in Seismic Codes, Technical Report MCEER -99 -0010. EduPro Civil Systems (2002), ProShake and EduShake: User's manual, available at the web site www.proshake.com. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004). "2003 Edition: NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures," Part 1: Provisions (FEMA 425), and Part 2: (FEMA 425), Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., available at http: / /www.fema. eov/ hazards /earthquakes /nehri)/foma -36 8.shtm 75 Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S. (2002). "Documentation for the 2002 [update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps," United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 02 -420, 33 p., (pdf file available at http:l /pubs.usgs.gov /of /2002 /ofr -02- 4201). Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (1995). Seismic Design Mapping State of Oregon Final report to the Oregon Department of Transportation, Personal services contract 11688, Jan. 1995, Project No. 2442. Gregor, N.J., Silva, W.J., Wong, I.G., and Younds, R.R. (2002). "Ground- Motion Attenuation Relationships for Cascadia Subduction Zone Megathrust Earthquakes Based on a Stochastic Finite -Fault Model," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 1923 -1932. Harmsen, S., and Frankel, A. (2001). "Geographic Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard in the United States," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 13 -26, Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. (2004). "Semi- Empirical Procedures for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential during Earthquakes," Proc. of the joint 11' International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 13 "' International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 32 -56. Jibson R.W. and Jibson, M.W. (2003). "Java programs for using Newmark's method and simplified decoupled analysis to model slope performance during earthquakes," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 03 -005, available on CD from the first author. Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake En in�g Prentice Hall Publishers, 653 p. Lee, M.K.W., and Finn, W.D.L. (1991). "DESRA -2C — Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential," University of British Columbia, Faculty of Applied Science. Leyendecker, EN., Hunt, J., Frankel, A.D., and Rukstales, K.S. (2000). "Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps," Earthquake Spectra, EERI, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 21 -40, Li, X.S., Wang, Z.L., and Shen, C.K. (1992). "SUMDES -- A Nonlinear Procedure for Response Analysis of Horizontally- Layered Sites Subjected to Multi - Directional Earthquake Loading ", Department of Civil ingineering, University of California, Davis, 81 p. McGuire, R.K. (2004), Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis FERI Monograph Series MNO -10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 221 p. Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. (2002). "Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 39, pp. 629 -647. Parsons Brinckerhoff (1999). "Final Report: Supplemental Design Criteria for Seismic Design for U.S. 17 Cooper River Bridges, Charleston, South Carolina," submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. (1991). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics Centre for Geotechnical Research, University of Sydney, Australia, (originally published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1974), 410 p. Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. (1997). "Evaluation of cyclic liquefaction potential based on the CPT," Proc. of Seismic Behavior of Ground and Geotechnical Structures, Seco a Pinto (ed.), Balkema, pp. 269 -276. Sadigh, K., Chang, C.Y., Egan, J., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R, (1997). "Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data," Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 180 -189. 76 Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H,B. (1972), SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, U.C. Berkeley, EERC Report No. EERC 72 -12, 88 p. (This user's manual can be obtained through PEER or NISEE at U.C. Berkeley). Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M„ Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E., and Faris, A. (2003), Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework, 26` Annual Spring Seminar of the ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Section, Long Beach, CA, 71 p. Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990). "SPT -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength," Proc, of the Memorial Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2, Bi -Tech Publishers, pp. 351- 376. Seismological Research Letters (1997). Speciallssue on Estimation of Ground Motions, Seismological Society of America, vol. 68, No. 1, 255 p. Spudich, P., Joyner, W.B., Lindh, A.G., Boore, D.M., Margaris, B.M., and Fletcher, J.B. (1999). "SEA99 --- A revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes," Bulletin of the Seismological ,Society ofAmerica, vol. 89, pp. 1156 -1170. Strong Motion Databases (2004). California Geological Survey ( http://www,coiisrv.ca.gov/cgs/smip of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems: COSMOS (http: / /www.cosmos- eq.org), Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research: MCEER ( http: / /niceer.buffalo,edu /links /agrams.asp }, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: PEER (htt :// eet .edu /sincat/), U.S. Geological Survey (http: / /eghazmaps.usgs.gov/). Sunitsakul, J. (2004). "The Cyclic Behavior of Silt Soils," Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, 236 p. U.S. Geological Survey (2004). U.S.G.S. Seismic Hazard Mapping Program website: (http: / /eghazmaps,usgs.gov/). Specific references are found at the following URLs: a. Publications Associated with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Program, ( littp:Heqliazinaps.usgs.gov/htmi/docitiaiii.httill ) b. Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, ( http:L/pubs.tisp,s.gov/0f/2002/ofr-02-420 c. "Quaternary Faults and Fold Database of the United States," ( http: / /gfaults.cr,usgs.gov d. "The 2002 Interactive Deaggregation Web Page," ( htt //egint.ct-.usps.gov leer /litmi/2002_Deaag Readme.html e. "What are epsilon (s) and epsilon0 (Eo)? (http( http: // mint .ei- .asgs.gov /eg /litml /Wliat_is epsilon.html f. "What Distances Are Reported in the Seismic Hazard Deagregations ?" ( http:// egint. cr ,usgs.aov /eg /html /distances deaggs.htm Vick, S.G. (2002). Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability and Engineering Judgment ASCE press, 472p. Youngs, R.R., Chiou, S.J., Silva, W.J., and Humphrey, J.R. (1997). "Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes," Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 58 -73. Youd, T,L., Idriss, I.M. (chairmen) and others (2001). "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils ", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833. 77 Appendix A Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Portland Return Period 475 Years (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 0 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation, Wcontributions. site: Portland long: 122.680 W., lat: 45.510 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2. Site descr:ROCK Return period: 475 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.1913 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motion> =PGA in 50 yrs]= 0.03381 DIST(KM) MAG (MW) ALL EPS EPSILON >2 1<EPS <2 0 <EPS <l - 1 <EPS <0 - 2<EPS < -1 EPS < -2 5.9 5.05 11589 0.090 0.536 0.846 0.117 0.000 0.000 13.5 5.05 1,759 0.407 1.218 0.134 01000 0.000 0.000 23.6 5.05 0.312 0.289 0.022 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.0 5.20 2,756 0.136 0.835 1.480 0.305 0.000 0.000 13.6 5.20 3.406 0.635 2.286 0.485 01000 0.000 0.000 23.7 5.20 0.689 0.577 0.113 01000 01000 0.000 0.000 33.3 5.21 0.067 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 610 5.40 2.244 0.094 0.596 1.198 0.355 0.000 0.000 13.7 5.40 3.232 0.443 1.970 0.819 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.8 5.40 0.779 0.528 0.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.8 5.41 0.117 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.1 5.60 1.792 0.065 0.414 0.890 0.421 0.001 0.000 13.8 5.60 3.023 0.307 1.613 1.100 0.004 0.000 0.000 23.9 5.60 0.870 0.433 0.437 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.1 5.60 0.171 0.170 0,001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.1 5.80 1.400 0.045 0.287 0.648 0.404 0.017 0.000 13.9 5.80 2.762 0.212 1,226 1.269 0.055 0.000 0.000 24.0 5.80 0.949 0.324 0,614 0.011 0.000 0.000 0,000 34.2 5.80 0.226 0.202 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.6 6.01 1.525 0.046 0.289 0.688 0.464 0.037 0.000 13.7 6.00 2.649 0.155 0.945 1.351 0.198 0.000 0.000 23.5 6.00 1.015 0.218 0.705 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.7 6.01 0.312 0.223 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.0 6.01 0.065 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.0 6.21 1.827 0.051 0.327 0.801 0.574 0.074 0.000 12.2 6.20 10.237 0.445 2.817 5.313 1.652 0.011 0.000 23.8 6.20 1.143 0.185 0.743 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.8 6.21 0.298 0.160 0.138 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.6 6.21 0.094 0.088 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8 6.40 2.031 0.051 0.327 0.820 01698 0.134 0.001 14.8 6.42 1.927 0.081 0.514 0.988 0.342 0.002 0.000 23.8 6.40 1.232 0.139 0.717 0.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.0 6.40 0.334 0.127 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 44.1 6.40 0.112 0.092 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.1 6.63 4.414 0.099 0.630 1.582 1.539 0.510 01055 13.7 6.59 1.447 0.049 0.310 0.708 0.364 0.016 0.000 23.7 6.61 1.012 0.090 0.522 0.400 0.001 0.000 0.000 35.9 6.61 0.522 0.161 0.360 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.5 6.59 0.128 0.084 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.4 6.85 2.946 0.065 0.410 1.031 1.026 0.373 0.041 15.0 6.80 0.792 0.026 0.166 0.386 0.205 0.010 0.000 24.1 6.80 0.742 0.050 0.317 0.356 0.019 0.000 0.000 35.7 6.80 0.457 0.092 0.349 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.6 6.80 0.099 0.056 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 128.2 6.81 0.072 0.046 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 162.1 6.81 0.071 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.0 7.03 1.257 0.028 0.175 0.439 0.438 0.161 0.017 16.0 6.95 0.409 0.013 0.081 0.198 0.115 0.003 0.000 25.0 6.95 0.185 0.011 0.073 0.096 0.005 0.000 0.000 35.0 6.97 0.152 0.024 0.112 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.8 6.95 0.062 0.028 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 113.2 7.02 0.058 0.017 0.040 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 136.1 7.00 0.126 0.073 0.053 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 170.0 7.00 0.139 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.3 7.26 0.114 0.002 0.016 0.039 0.039 0.016 0.002 117.5 7.15 0.055 0.015 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 140.0 7.15 0.054 0.026 0.029 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 156.4 7.15 0.072 0.057 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.5 8.30 7.725 0.807 5.058 1.861 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.6 8.30 1.537 0.173 1.084 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.000 101.7 8.30 0.432 0.057 0.361 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.2 8.30 4.247 0.774 3.473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.7 8.30 1.307 0.383 0.924 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 144.9 8.30 0.380 0.137 0.243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 164.2 8.30 1.172 0.707 0.465 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79 191.6 8.30 0.164 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 213.6 8.30 0.174 0.174 Q.Q0Q 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.5 9.00 8.441 0.516 3.207 4.718 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.4 9.00 2.642 0.206 1.283 1.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.4 9.00 1.864 0.205 1.283 0.377 0.000 0.000 0.000 162.9 9.00 0.629 0.102 0.527 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean arc -site R= 43.4 km; M= 6.81; eps0= 0.22. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal arc-site R= 12.2 km; M= 6.20; eps0= -0.17 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 12.2km; M *= 6.20; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 5.313 Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10-W contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epailon0 (mean values) WUS shallow gridded 51.78 14.4 5.85 0.28 Wash -Oreg faults 16.06 8.6 6.48 -1.25 M 9.0 Subduction 13.58 103.4 9.00 0.50 M 8.3 Subduction 17.19 109.2 8.30 1.07 Individual fault hazard details if contrib.>1%: Bolton f 0.98 11.8 6.20 -0.59 Grant Butte f 6.56 11.4 6.20 -0.14 Portland Hills f 2.07 1.3 6.95 -3.10 Portland Hills f 4.73 2.1 6.70 -2.69 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Pacific Northwest region ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AN Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation N Z 4 0 V C] Portland 122.680° W, 45.510 N. Peak H DYIz. Ground Accel.>=O.1913 g Mean Return Time 475 years Mean (R,M,F�) 43.4 km, 6,81, 0.22 Modal (R ,M*I-I' = 12,2 km, 6.20, -0.17 (from peak R,M bin) Modal (R,= 12.2 km, 6.20, 0 to 1 sigma (from peak R,M,s btu) Binning: D l0. km, deltaM=0.2, Deltav---l.0 0 - -- -It- s Prob. SA, PGA � _ Ga °°T goo snmffisn H,M amod ' a.5 •a <" 1 <ep <2 - 0.5[e 2[e <3 2D112updelaUSG9PSHA q�4- mo o, La� Nl Ei l?..07 Oagnx( �R�1Pi�.c »r:'an(W,F.)dz�,egatnn hra aie an rYJ Ya _7CU mh my.% %r �i'3.�F (:(1�ff VC >IIG�kA-IPDATE 6irt.wiG NOfbl.aonirif_ umned Portland Geographic Deagg. Seismic Haiard 9.0 for 0.00 -s Spectral Aceel, 0.1913 g 8.5 PGA Bxeeedance Return Time: 475, years 1 8.0 Max. significant source distance 199. km. 7.5 M Red lines represent Quaternary fault locations 7.0 Grldded- source hazard accum. In 5 Intervals B.5 d�• 46" db• 44' 2W-0A 7�14a7:07 SXn�ardr .•5'aAB0�91d0(,elb�dYq.1��„u�l Emd,Yk.1TBl[Al rool,mn le�M pmp.W�R,Id.nW 6YmartichMal�l erFyWU, lb4 47 46 4& 4d m Appendix 13 Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Portland Return Period 975 Years (5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard W * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. *contributions. site: Portland long; 122,680 W., lat: 45.510 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2. Site descr:ROCK Return period: 975 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.2735 g. #Pr[at least one eg with median motion> =PGA in 50 yrsl= 0.01518 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS <2 0 <EPS <l - 1<EPS<0 -2 <EPS < -1 EPS < -2 5.9 5105 1.758 0.183 0.912 0.663 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.2 5.05 1.234 0.600 0.634 0.000 0.000 0.000 .01000 22.8 5.05 0.092 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.9 5,20 3.174 0.281 1.463 1,430 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.2 5.20 2.493 1.027 1.466 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 23.1 5.20 0.233 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.9 5.40 2.739 0.194 1.058 1.443 0.043 0.000 0.000 13.3 5.40 2.517 0.788 1.661 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.3 5.40 0.309 0.305 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 610 5.60 2.326 0.135 0.775 1,235 0.182 0.000 0.000 13.4 5.60 2.524 0.588 1.679 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.5 5.60 0.396 0.358 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.0 5.80 1.935 01093 0.563 1.008 0.271 0.000 01000 13.6 5.80 2.485 0.428 1.536 0.522 0.000 0.000 01000 23.7 5.80 0.485 0.359 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 6.5 6.01 2.182 0.094 0.589 1.123 0.375 0.000 0.000 13.3 6.00 2.567 0.316 1.369 0.882 0.000 0.000 01000 23.1 6.01 0.583 0.321 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.2 6.01 0.091 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.9 6.21 2,718 0.106 0.674 1.340 0.584 0.014 0.000 12.1 6.20 11.289 0.920 5.098 5.083 0.188 0.000 0.000 23.3 6.19 0.688 0.303 0.385 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.4 6.21 0.103 0.099 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 6.40 3.266 0.106 0.673 1.539 0.898 0.051 0.000 14.4 6.42 2.127 0.167 0.901 0.995 0.064 0.000 0.000 23.4 6.40 0.816 0.270 0.522 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.6 6.40 0.130 0.115 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.9 6.64 8.331 0.204 1.293 3.207 2.824 0.741 0.062 13,4 6.59 1.804 0.102 0.621 0.923 0.158 0.000 0.000 23.4 6.61 0.690 0.184 0.470 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.6 6.61 0.191 0.173 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.8 6.82 3.985 0.095 0.602 1.509 1.415 0.331 0.032 14.6 6.80 0.952 0.053 0.332 0.487 0.080 0.000 0.000 23.6 6.81 0.539 0.103 0.371 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.4 6.80 0.203 0.152 0.051 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 2,3 6.98 4.200 0.095 0.604 1.517 1.472 0.457 0.055 15.8 6.95 0.495 0.026 0.166 0.275 0,028 0.000 0.000 24.6 6.95 0.137 0.024 0.096 0.018 0.000 01000 0.000 34.6 6.97 0.068 0.043 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.7 7.00 0.071 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.3 7.26 0.232 0.005 0.032 0.081 0.081 0.029 0.004 89.5 8.30 6,557 1.650 4.907 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.6 8.30 1.274 0.353 0.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 112.8 8.30 3.300 1.622 1.678 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.4 8.30 0.703 0.681 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 142.2 8.30 0.396 0.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 162.5 8.30 0.542 0.542 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 188.1 8.30 0.086 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8915 9.00 8.738 1.052 6.607 1.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.4 9.00 2.490 0.419 2.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.4 9.00 1.556 0.418 1.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 162.9 9.00 0.463 0.209 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 34.8 km; M= 6.78; eps0= 0.36. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal arc -site R= 12.1 km; M= 6.20; eps0= 0.42 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 89.5km; M *= 9.00; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma * CONTRIB.= 6.607 Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution) Source Category: contr. R(km) M epailon0 (mean values) WUS shallow gridded 49.97 11.4 5.91 0.48 Wash -Greg faults 23.18 6.4 6.55 -1.02 M 9.0 Subduction 13.25 101.5 9100 1.04 M 8.3 Subduction 12.89 104.1 8.30 1.55 M Individual fault hazard details if contrib.al%: Bolton f 1.29 11.6 6.20 -9.01 Grant Butte f 7.13 11.4 6.20 0.47 Helvetia f 0.95 14.1 6.37 0.27 Portland Hills f 4.14 1.3 6.95 -2.33 Portland Hills f 9.21 2.1 6.71 -2.00 a Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Port) and 122.68CuW,45.510N. Peak'Hork. Ground Acccl>=0.2735 g Mean Return Tim 975 years Mean (R,M,%) 34.8 km, 6,78, 0.36 Modal (R,M, = 12.1 km, 6.20, 0.42 (from peak R,M bin) Modal (R,M,v ) =w&9 5 km, 5P.00, I to 2 sigma (froth peak R,Mv b1c) Binning: &IL, deJtaM=0.2,DP-ltaC--l.0 -a, A7• 413 4r.° 09M92Md ALP 23 UjMA(i 47 443 AZ 4.4' M Piab-.:A GA .Friedbn I RU smcdla 1, < 0" 'o -7,<e -1 0,5<e <I -1 < E <-0.5 I- -0.5 E, < 0 2<e 20U2 update LJSGS PSHA 4i NI 23120) OW (MVI v"Wal VII..jb Portland Geogiaphic Deagg. Seismic Hazard 9.0 foy 0.00-s Spectral Accel, 0.2734 g 8.5 1 - 8.0 PGA Bxcee dance Return Time: 975. years i - - 7.5 Max. significant source distance 197. km. Red lines represent Quaternary fault locations 7.0 1-6.5 Gridded-source hazard accurn. in 5 intervals A7• 413 4r.° 09M92Md ALP 23 UjMA(i 47 443 AZ 4.4' M Appendix C Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Medford Return Period 475 Years (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 0 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Aata from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: Medford long: 122.860 W., lar: 42.330 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM=0.2. Site descr:ROCK Return period: 475 yrs. Exceedance PGA 0.11014 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motion > =PGA in 50 yrsl= 0.05382 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS EPSILON >2 10EPSC2 OCEPSCl -10EPSQO �- 2CEPSQ -1 EPS¢ -2 7.5 5.05 0 _ 214 0.007 0.045 0.109 0.052 0.000 0.000 14.5 5.05 0.285 0.021 0.131 0.129 0.003 0.000 0.000 24.0 5.05 0.286 0.081 0.203 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.6 5.05 0.106 0.094 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.20 0.354 0.011 0.069 0,171 0.103 0.000 0.000 14.6 5.20 0.516 0.033 0.206 0.262 0.015 0.000 0.000 24.1 5.20 0.571 0.123 0.423 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.7 5.20 0.232 0.174 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.9 5.20 0.095 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.9 5.20 0.054 0.033 0.020 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.7 5.20 0.050 01019 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 5.20 0.055 0,034 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 109.3 5.21 0.060 0,060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.40 0.270 0.008 0.048 0.120 0.090 0.004 0.000 14.7 5.40 0,443 0.023 0.144 0.249 0.027 01000 0.000 24.2 5.40 0.563 0.085 0.397 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.8 5.40 0,258 0.136 0.122 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 45.1 5.40 0.121 0.117 0.004 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 54.9 5.40 0.070 01050 0.015 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.7 5.40 0.058 0.028 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.7 5.40 0.056 0.020 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 5.40 0.058 0.024 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.4 5.40 0.051 0.034 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.2 5.40 0.080 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.6 5.60 0.202 0.005 0.033 0.083 0.071 0.009 0.000 14.8 5.60 0.372 0.016 0.100 0.209 0.049 0.000 0.000 24.4 5.60 0.546 0.059 0.333 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.9 5.60 0.282 0.095 0.187 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.2 5.60 0.148 0.118 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.8 5.60 0.087 0.069 0.010 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.5 5.60 0.072 0.044 0.025 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.6 5160 0.064 0.027 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 5.60 0.064 0.024 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.3 5.60 0.055 0.026 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 106.6 5.61 0.056 0.041 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.1 5.60 0.074 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 7.6 5.80 0.148 0.004 0.023 0.058 0.053 0.011 0.000 14.9 5.80 0.304 01011 0.069 0.159 0.064 0.001 0.000 24.5 5.80 0.516 0.041 0.254 0.219 0.002 0.000 0.000 35.0 5.80 0.301 0.066 0.226 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.3 5.80 0.175 0.095 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.8 5.80 0.105 0.079 0.018 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.4 5.80 0.088 0.062 0.017 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.6 5.80 0.076 0.040 0.034 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 5.80 0.072 0.028 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.3 5.80 0.062 0.025 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 111.2 5.80 0.098 0.059 0.039 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 134.4 5.80 0.060 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.9 6.01 0.138 0.003 0.020 0.051 0.049 0.014 0.000 15.4 6.01 0.314 0.010 0.063 0.154 0.083 0.004 0.000 24.8 6.00 0.475 0.029 0.186 0.247 0.012 0.000 0.000 35.0 6.00 0.335 0.050 0.246 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.2 6.00 0.198 0.073 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.0 6.01 0.137 0.079 0.050 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.8 6100 0.105 0.073 0.019 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.8 6.00 0.089 0.052 0.027 0.009 0.000 0.000 01000 85.0 6.00 0.077 0.035 0.042 0.001 0.000 01000 0.000 95.0 6.01 0.079 0.031 0.048 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 119.4 6.00 0.116 0.065 0.051 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 5.9 6.19 0.117 0.003 0.016 0.041 0.041 0.015 0.001 15.4 6.20 0.360 0.010 0.064 0.162 0.115 0.009 0.000 25.0 6.20 0.525 0.025 0.161 0.304 0.034 0.000 0.000 35.0 6.20 0.299 0.031 0.187 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.6 6.20 0.268 0.062 0.198 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.1 6.20 0.160 0.069 0.082 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 go 64.8 6.2Q 0.127 0,070 0.043 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.9 6.21 0.105 0.062 0.026 0.017 01000 0.000 0.000 8510 6.20 0.103 0.052 Q.042 0.010 01000 0.000 0.000 95.1 6.20 0.079 0.037 0.041 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 107.8 6.21 0.097 0.029 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.0 6.20 0.103 0.056 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.1 6.40 01081 0.002 0.011 0.028 0.028 0.011 0.001 15.7 6.39 0.309 0.008 0.052 0.130 0.105 0.014 0.000 25.7 6.40 0.438 0.018 0.115 0.244 0.061 0.000 0.000 35.0 6.41 0.329 0.025 0.157 0.147 0.001 0.000 0.000 44.6 6.40 0.256 0.040 0.185 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.9 6.40 0.197 0.059 0.127 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.2 6.40 0.151 0.062 0.074 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.6 6.40 0.125 0.063 0.042 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.9 6.40 0.106 0.055 0.032 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.2 6.40 0.102 0.049 0.044 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000' 107.4 6.42 0.050 0.041 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.5 6.41 0.152 0.053 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 138.1 6.40 0.058 0.026 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 154.9 6.37 0.050 0.044 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 6.59 0.074 0.002 0.010 0.025 0.026 0.010 0.001 15.3 6.61 0.243 0.006 0.038 0.095 0.086 0.019 0.000 24.3 6.60 0.363 0.012 0.075 0.183 0.091 0.002 0.000 35.3 6.60 0.521 0.040 0.246 0.234 0.002 0.000 0.000 44.4 6161 0.465 0.068 0.322 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.2 6.58 0.447 0.152 0.280 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.000 64.9 6.61 0.347 01150 0.176 0.020 0.000 01000 0.000 74.9 6.60 0.192 0.108 0.063 0.022 0.000 01000 01000 84.8 6.61 0.170 0,096 0.048 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.0 6.60 0.124 0.076 0.032 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.7 6.61 0.065 0,012 0.045 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 114.4 6.62 0.136 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.3 6.59 0.168 0.075 0.093 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 165.0 6.59 0.095 0.077 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 185.4 6.66 0.063 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 6.80 0.071 0.002 0.010 0.024 0.024 0.010 0.001 15.4 6.80 0.233 0.005 0.035 0.087 0.084 0.022 0.001 24.9 6.79 0.262 0.008 0.049 0.123 0.078 0.004 0.000 35.2 6.81 0.557 0.032 0.205 0.303 0.017 0.000 0.000 44.5 6.80 0.478 0.054 0.293 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.9 6.79 0.972 0.249 0.700 0.020 0.004 0.000 0.000 63.8 6.83 0.814 0.294 0.497 0.021 0.003 0.000 0.000 74.9 6.79 0.280 0.126 0.127 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.6 6.80 0.193 0.093 0.071 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.7 6.81 0.129 0.065 0.044 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 112.8 6.80 0.171 0.060 0.083 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.4 6.79 0.306 0.306 0.000 0:000 0.000 0.000 0.000 135.5 6.77 0.131 0.055 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 155.9 6.76 0.107 0.099 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.8 6.80 0.079 0.051 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.4 6.95 0.098 0.002 0.014 0.035 0.035 0.011 0.001 23.9 6.95 0.166 0.004 0.028 0.070 0.058 0.007 0.000 36.2 6.99 0.496 0.026 0.166 0.283 0.021 0.000 0.000 44.9 6.99 0.341 0.030 0.181 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.7 7.03 0.837 0.124 0.596 0.111 0.006 0.000 0.000 63.9 7.03 1.059 0.364 0.661 0.026 0.009 0.000 0.000 74.8 6.98 0.220 0.085 0.110 0.023 0.002 .0.000 0.000 84.9 6.98 0.158 0.054 0.068 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.7 6.99 0.125 0.037 0.051 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 106.0 7.01 0.065 0.029 0.023 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 117.8 6.99 0.170 0.033 0.099 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.8 6.96 0.216 0.212 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 133.6 7.04 0.189 0.168 0.021 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 141.5 6.97 0.059 0.025 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 158.4 7.01 0.058 0.020 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 167.0 6.92 0.120 0.120 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 175.4 7,00 0.121 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 181.0 7.06 0.188 0.169 0.019 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.1 7.20 0.366 0.015 0.097 0.209 0.044 0.000 0.000 44.5 7.20 0.331 0.023 0.144 0.163 0.001 0.000 0.000 54.2 7.22 0.400 0.047 0.254 0.095 0.003 0.000 0.000 64.1 7.22 0.516 0.101 0.370 0.041 0.005 01000 0.000 ii 75.2 7.19 0.217 4.076 0.123 0.015 0.004 0.000 0.000 85.1 7.18 4.081 0.026 p.037 0.017 0.001 0.000 0.000 94.2 7.18 0.066 0.021 0.027 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 114.3 7.19 0.074 0,044 0.027 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 127.0 7.19 0.137 0,049 0.070 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.0 7.16 0.119 0,100 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 141.6 7.28 0.225 0.132 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 153.9 7.20 0.065 0.049 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 164.6 7.21 0.113 0.077 0.037 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 188.3 7.27 0.081 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.3 7.41 0,112 0.030 0.078 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 142.1 7.46 0.301 0.187 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 138.6 7.52 0.163 0.044 0.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 140.6 7.65 0.251 0.092 0.159 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79.8 8.30 16.117 0.623 3.823 9.600 2.072 0.000 0.000 83.8 8.30 2,579 0.104 0.637 1,600 0.238 0.000 0.000 94.6 8.30 0.975 0.044 0.273 0.656 0.002 0.000 0.000 116.2 8.30 6.802 0.405 2.512 3.886 0.000 0.000 0.000 136.0 8.30 4.428 0.350 2.184 1.894 0.000 0.000 0.000 140.3 8.30 0.866 0.073 0.455 0.339 0.000 0.000 0.000 15515 8,30 2.235 0.238 1.492 0,504 0.000 0.000 0.000 161.2 8.30 0.493 0.058 0.364 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 183.9 8.30 1.170 0.205 0.965 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 208.3 8.30 0.400 0.109 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 231.8 8.30 0.449 0.198 0.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 259.5 8.30 0.055 0.043 0,012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 260.7 8.30 0.108 0.086 0,021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 284.4 8.30 0.115 0.115 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 313.6 8.30 0.075 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79.8 9.00 17.254 0.533 3.231 8.117 5.374 0.000 0.000 116.9 9.00 5.487 0,211 1.293 3.246 0.737 0.000 0.000 134.5 9.00 4.797 0.210 1.293 3.246 0.047 0.000 0.000 152.5 9.00 2.085 0.105 0.646 1.334 0.000 0.000 01000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 90.2 km; M= 7.86; eps0= 0.26. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R= 79.8 km; M= 9.00; eps0= -0.60 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *w 79.8km; M *= 8.30; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 9.600 Modal source dmetric: distance to rupture surface (Youngs et al.,SRL,1997) Principal sources (faults, Subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution) Source Category: contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values) WUS shallow gridded 13.97 30.0 5.93 0.42 M 9.0 Subduction 29.62 100.7 9.00 -0.38 M 8,3 Subduction 36.90 109.7 8.30 0.21 Individual fault hazard details if contrib. >1 %: Sky Lakes FZ 1.01 53.5 6.80 1.26 2 Cedar Mtn- Mahognany Mtn 1.38 63.6 7.04 1.34 * * * * + + * + + * + + + + + + * + +* Southern Oregon site ***++ + * + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + * + * +* A9 Z 0 U , Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Medford 122.860 W, 42.330 N. Peak Hor)z. Ground Arcel.r0.1101r4 g Me n Return Time 475 years Mean (R,M, %) 90.2 km, 7.86, 0.26 Modal (9,M,%) = 79.8 km, 9.00, -0.60 (from peak R,M bio) Modal (R,M,e ) = 79.8 kin, 8,30, 0 to 1 si guta (from peak R,M,e bin; Binning: DcAtaR 10. kin, deStaM=0.2, Deltas =1.0 m Piob.8A GA i5'< �N 4 4 �v fix. 5 c <medt9n ) H,M arced LN r r •2 <eo< -1 1; 0.5 <5: �� ,�`•� -1 <e < -D.5 1 <e <2�� 0.5 <f <0 2 <f d <1 2W2updat.USGSPHHA 4 • < Ay�75e:5/ ^ubtnw {.t7 =ra:iz:su Jr�M.¢' ra„ c:'. tW .f16aH,rxRx+u�,'r„xx;ccnl!]Cxx d��x�IWm.,xuySi r:sM1)LH:�4tI�o8s1A':tL'2W tl1.9l;Pl d�,.x�xiP rtilMiwes::3,a,.>e� 4 - . �"' r 47 2J765 Una - mMdrm5e a 5 seem moumnnrpm pnp.a r'aaciH. ra<a dmma„an:nnnvWi m- cpq ,eoe • , Appendix D Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Medford Return Period 975 Years (5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 91 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: Medford long: 122.860 W., lat: 42.330 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs, dM =0.2. Site descr:ROCK Return period: 975 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.1601 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motions =PGA in 50 yre1= 0.01509 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL FPS EPSILON>2 1 <EPS<2 0 <EPS<l - 1 <EPS <0 - 2 <EPS < -1 EPS < -2 7.4 5.05 0.280 0.015 0.093 0.160 0.013 01000 0.000 14.1 5.05 0.259 0.044 0.174 0.041 0.000 01000 0.000 23.5 5.05 0.164 0.114 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.20 0.486 0.022 0.142 0.271 0.052 0.000 0.000 14.2 5.20 0.494 0.067 0.312 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.6 5.20 0.348 0.205 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.0 5.20 0.076 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.40 0.395 0.015 0.098 0.213 0.069 0.000 0.000 14.3 5.40 0.458 0.046 0.249 0.162 0.001 0.000 0.000 23.8 5.40 0.374 0.163 0.211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.3 5.40 0.102 0.101 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.60 0.315 0.011 0.068 0.158 0.079 0.000 0.000 14.4 5.60 0.416 0.032 0.188 0.188 0.009 0.000 0.000 23.9 5.60 0.397 0.120 0.267 0.010 01000 0.000 0.000 34.5 5.60 0.130 0.114 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.80 0.245 0.007 0.047 0.113 0.074 0.003 0.000 14.5 5.80 0.369 0.022 0.137 0.191 0.020 0.000 0.000 24.1 5.80 0.412 0.083 0.282 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.6 5.80 0.157 0.107 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.8 5.80 0.060 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 113.2 5.80 0.073 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.9 6.01 0.244 0.006 0.041 0.103 0.081 0.012 0.000 15.0 6.01 0.408 0.020 0.128 0.217 0.042 0.000 0.000 24.4 6.00 0.410 0.060 0.268 0.081 0.000 0.000 01000 34.8 6.01 0.193 0.096 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.9 6.00 0.079 0.073 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.0 6.01 0.051 0.035 0.011 01006 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.1 6.01 0.052 0.026 0.026 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.7 6.00 0.074 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.9 6.20 0.221 0.005 0.033 0.084 0.079 0.019 0.000 15.1 6.20 0.503 0.021 0,132 0.271 0.080 0.000 0.000 24.7 6.20 0.493 0.052 0.290 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.8 6.20 0.190 0.063 0.126 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.3 6.20 0.124 0.091 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.9 6.20 0.066 0.049 0.010 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.8 6.20 0.056 0.028 0.022 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.8 6.21 0.057 0.017 0.039 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.2 6.20 0.059 0.016 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 109.4 6.20 01086 0.055 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 132.0 6.20 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.1 6.40 0.154 0.004 0.023 0.058 0.055 0.014 0.000 15.5 6.39 0.458 0.017 0.106 0.234 0.100 0.002 0.000 25.2 6.40 0.447 0.037 0.219 0.184 0.007 0.000 0.000 34.6 6.41 0.234 0.051 0.167 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.4 6.40 0.132 0.069 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.8 6.40 0.090 0.064 0.017 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.2 6.40 0.068 0.039 0.018 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.4 6.40 0.065 0.026 0.033 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.8 6.40 0.062 0.017 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.4 6.40 0.060 0.017 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 116.7 6.40 0.105 0.061 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 6.7 6.59 0.143 0.003 0.021 0.052 0.051 0.016 0.001 15.1 6.61 0.393 0.012 0.077 0.184 0.112 0.007 0.000 23.9 6.60 0.426 0.024 0.153 0.225 0.025 0.000 0.000 35.2 6.60 0.356 0.081 0.258 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 6.61 0.235 0.117 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.2 6.59 0.187 0.152 0.024 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.1 6.59 0.110 0.073 0.021 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.7 6.60 0.081 0.041 0.028 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 6.61 0.085 0.032 0.048 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.3 6.60 0.057 0.018 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.7 6.61 0.062 0.019 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.6 6.60 0.101 0.057 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 6.80 0.140 0.003 0.020 0.050 0.049 0.017 0.001 15.3 6.80 0.396 0.011 0.071 0.176 0.125 0.013 0.000 24.6 6.79 0.325 0.016 0.100 0.182 0,028 0.000 0.000 34.9 6.81 0.422 0.066 0,294 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 6.80 0.257 0.102 0.155 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 53,8 6.81 0.424 0.292 0.116 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.0 6.81 0.248 0.201 0.026 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.8 6.79 0.100 0.055 0.028 0.018 0.000 0.000 01000 84.3 6.81 0.089 0.036 0.040 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.8 6.80 01066 0.025 0.038 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 111.7 6.80 0.130 .0.040 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 134.9 6.79 0.073 0.037 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.3 6.95 0.176 0.005 0.029 0.073 0.059 0.011 0.000 23.6 6.95 0.230 0.009 0.057 0.127 0.038 0.000 0.000 36.0 6.99 01379 0.053 0.265 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.6 6.99 0,194 0.061 0.131 0.001 0.000 0,000 0.000 53.9 7.02 0,312 0,182 0.110 0.017 0.003 0,000 0.000 63.8 7.03 0.490 0,341 0.114 0.035 0.001 01000 0.000 74.8 6.98 0,115 0,072 0.022 0.021 0.000 01000 0.000 84.7 7.00 0.095 0.033 0.039 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.5 7.00 01089 0,024 0.051 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 117,6 7.00 0.141 0.039 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 131.8 7.00 0,054 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.0 7.20 0,320 0.031 0.185 0.104 0.000 0,000 0.000 44.2 7.21 0,207 0.047 0.156 0.004 0.000 0,000 0.000 53.9 7.21 0.235 0,099 0.125 0.008 0.002 0,000 0.000 64.3 7.22 0.191 0,106 0.066 0.018 0.001 0.000 0.000 74.9 7.19 0,084 0,043 0.023 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 108.6 7.16 0.050 0,013 0.033 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.9 7.16 0.082 0.036 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 140,7 7.42 0.166 0.166 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0,000 142.3 7.63 0.057 0.057 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0,000 79.8 8.30 19.325 1.257 7.816 10,252 0.000 0.000 0.000 83.8 8.30 3.090 0.209 1.303 1.578 0.000 0.000 0,000 94.6 8.30 1.110 0.089 0.558 0.462 0.000 0.000 0,000 109.2 8.30 1.697 0,178 1.117 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.000 117.2 8.30 4.480 0,545 3.424 0.511 0.000 0.000 0.000 135.3 8.30 5.363 0.951 4.412 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 154.8 8.30 1.904 0.507 1.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 178.5 8.30 0.647 0.306 0,342 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 181.1 8.30 0.411 0.206 0.205 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 205.1 8.30 0.154 0.135 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 226.6 8.30 0.305 0.305 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 276.7 8.30 0.056 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79.8 9.00 24.776 1.073 6.608 16.597 0.498 0.000 0.000 116.9 9.00 6.831 0.425 2.643 3.762 0.000 0.000 0.000 134.5 9.00 5.560 0.424 2.643 2.493 0,000 0.000 0.000 152.5 9.00 2.259 0.211 1.322 0.726 0,000 0.000 0,000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 87,7 km; M= 8.12; eps0= 0.53. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R� 79.8 km; M= 9.00; eps0= -0.03 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 79.Bkm; M *= 9.00; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to.l sigma o CONTRIB.= 16.597 Modal source dmetric: distance to rupture surface (Youngs et a1.,SRL,1997) Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having X10% contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values) WUS shallow gridded 11.83 21.1 5.98 0.44 M,9.0 Subduction 39.42 98,1 9.00 0.17 M 8.3 Subduction 38.59 102.5 8.30 0.71 Individual fault hazard details if contrib.>l%: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Southern Oregon site **** * * * * * * * « « * * * * « * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 93 N —,4%. -11Z Q, :z; .1 P rob. 34A, PGA crrwdl.n I RU awdlion -0.5 EO< 0 Z< eo< 3 2M2 updffle U808 P8FiA ), Seismic Hazard Deaggregation [ford 122.860-W,42.330N. Hr3riz.CnuundAcceI.>=0.160J �Rcruw Time 975 years 87.7 km, 8,12, 0.53 (RM,%) m 79.8 km, %00, -0.03 (from peak RM bin) J RMv 79.8 km, 5WO, Oto I sigma (from peak R,Ms bin', ng: DrItaR 10. km, dedia]M=0.2, De)taE-1.0 Medford Geographic Deagg. Seismic Hazard 9.0 for 0.00 -s Spectral Accel, 0.1600,g PGA Excecdance Rerun Tinif. 975. years Max. significant source distance 199. lam. 7:5 M Red lines represent Quaternary fault locations 2-7.0 GrIdded- source hazard accum. In 5 Inteivals A " .7.2• 41 44 43 42 4- 01 Appendix 1, Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Coos Bay Return Period 475 Years (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 95 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions, site: Coos_Bay long: 124.230 W., lat: 43.365 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2 Site descr:ROCK Return period: 475 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.3246 g. #Pr(at least one eq with median motion > =FGA in 50 yrs] = 0.06603 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS <2 O<EPS <l - 1 <EPS <0 -2 <EPS < -1 EPS< -2 10.2 6.30 25.226 1.296 8.229 13.336 2.365 0.000 0.000 27.2 6.62 0.423 0.199 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.1 6.81 0.248 0.102 0.146 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.3 8.30 32.037 1.156 7.071 14,181 8.697 0.933 0.000 26.8 8.30 8.802 0.438 2.703 4,646 1.015 0.000 0.000 34.5 8.30 1.860 0.129 0.806 0.917 0.008 0.000 0.000 44.6 8.30 2.425 0.282 1.744 0.399 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.6 8.30 0.539 0.108 0.431 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 63.8 8.30 0.275 0.072 0.203 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 73.8 8.30 0.200 0.055 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 83.8 8.30 0.172 0.061 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.0 8.30 0.124 0.059 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 107.7 8.30 0.146 0.110 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 131.7 8.30 0.092 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.2 9.00 21.293 0.729 4.449 9.587 5.588 0.940 0.000 27.7 9.00 4.671 0.206 1.271 2.448 0.745 0.000 0.000 44.2 9.00 1.271 0:102 0.636 0.534 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 18.6 km; M= 7.97; eps0= -0.33. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R= 16.3 km; M� 8.30; epsd= -0.71 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 16.3km; M *= 8.30; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma W CONTRIB.= 14.181 Modal source dmetric: distance to rupture surface (Youngs et al.,SRL,1997) Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10o contribution) Source Category: contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values) Wash -Greg faults 25.94 10.7 6.31 0.07 M 9.0 Subduction 27.24 19.5 9.00 -0.63 M 8.3 Subduction 46.74 22.5 8.30 -0.37 Individual fault hazard details if contrib.>lo: South Slough thrust and reverse 25.22 10.2 6.30 0.02 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Southern Oregon site ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** •M RI It ..�� o" U �o 01 Prob. Seismic Hazard Qeaggregation Coos 124.230° W, 43.365 N. Peak Horiz. Ground AcccJ.>=0.3246 g Mean Return Tune 475 years Mean (R,M,E,) 18.6 run, 7.57, -0.33 Modal (R,M, = 16,3 run, 8.30, -0.71 (from peak R,M bin) Modal (R,M,� ) = 16.3 km, 8.30, 0 to 1 signs Mom peak R,M,a bin) Binning: DeJtaR 10. km, deltaM -0, 2,Deltae -l.0 PFab.SA,PGA — .median ] R,M rmrd(ai .�� `3 3a e < -2 gE= 0<e <0.5�e� p 2 <e < -1 S � N g j 0.5 <e r � r � t < -0.5 1 <eo <2 mil/ r •0,5<e 2.<e 20R2 update U8GSPSFIA Sf 4 p ',..;' }2.'� Csasa (A).magedvde(N,.zp, ran {F:.Fj deegp.e fi —iear fb CiFay Y, �'lFO rtn bp�r Ul CGMFSHP W7 UPDATE 6.,wiahOXf%osn4,,mhvd C oos Say Geographic Deagg. Seismic Hazard 9,0 for 0.00 -s Spectral Acoel, 0.3245 g $.5 PQA Fxceedance Return Time: 475. years $.d Max. significant source distance 126. km. 7.5 Red lines represent Quaternary fault locations 7.O Orange lines show four downdlp Jltnits of Cascadla hazard J r - a.a° . 200dA 23 1220:93 Sne Gaaa�a1D420P 47a79](�clb.r alld.�rnu�l EmalY7c 9042000 poa�,mn hegM pmp.nda.fe7. ab aYmartl�:h Mglal eaTgl�.FbO 44.. 43.. 97 Appendix F Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Coos Bay Return Period 975 Years (5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from V.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: Coos _Bay long: 124.230 W., lat: 43.365 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2 Site descr:ROCK Return period: 975 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.4899 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motion > =PGA in 50 yrs]= 0.01837 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS EPSILON >2 1 <EPS<2 0 <EPS <l - 1<EPS <0 - 2<EPS< -1 EPS< -2 10.2 6.30 22.074 2.709 11.768 7.597 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.0 6.61 0.077 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 26.9 6.80 0.058 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.2 8.30 37.167 2.378 14.625 17.780 2.384 0.000 0.000 26.6 8.30 6.678 0.899 4.733 1.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.2 8.30 1.098 0.267 0.831 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.6 8.30 1.172 0.562 0.610 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.7 8.30 0.255 0.139 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.8 8.30 0.142 0.100 0.042 01000 01000 01000 0.000 73.8 8.30 0.103 01099 0.004 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 83.7 8.30 0.081 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.9 8.30 0.052 0.052 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 16.1 9.00 26.299 1.500 9.303 12.663 2.832 0.000 0,000 27.7 9.00 3.878 0.424 2.556 0.899 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 9.00 0.731 0.210 0.521 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon; Mean src -site R= 17.1 km; M= 8.07; eps0= 0.39. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R= 16.2 km; M= 8.30; eps0= 0.17 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 16.2km; M *= 8.30; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 17.780 Modal source dmetric: distance to rupture surface (Youngs et al.,SRL,1997) Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilono (mean values) Wash -Oreg faults 22.22 10.3 6.30 0.74 M 9.0 Subduction 30.91 18.2 9.00 0.18 M 8.3 Subduction 46.82 19.6 8.30 0.37 Individual fault hazard details if contrib. >1 %: South Slough thrust and reverse 22.07 10.2 6.30 0.72 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Southern Oregon site 99 A� U o Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Coos Day 124.2300 W, 43,365 N. Peak ]ioriz. Ground Acced.>=0.4899 g Mean Return Time 975 years Mean (R,M,P,) 17.1 km, 8.07, 0.39 Modal (R ,M,¢} = 16,2 km, 8.30, 0.17 (from peakR,M bin) Modal (R,M,e } = 16.2 km, 8.30, 0 ro 1 sigma (from peak R,M,e bin) Binning: De1taR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, Dekag =1.0 iz zi Prnb.9A, PGA CL`° o smetlfan R,11 >niedla r��� 2 <r < -1 ti N 0,5 <60 <1 - 1<e < -0.5 :vP 1 <e <2 - 0.5 <e <0 2<e <3 2oa2updatetHG9PSHA 143 T.l l'3'A'1 Vvtenre �Nl,,rayArJa( 111. cyvilon�k.�. }laglx�eeWa hrs vixrao,4Y3CK ey ValOU rrrs up ]frm �4C3l.Vif�'vBN�f ^w ViJA� - E 6inse�t�El llritwnl,�3.ari Rrd CODS _Bay Geograpfik Deagg. Seismic Hazard 9,0 for 0.00 -s Spectral Aceel, 0.4898 g 8.+5 PGA Hxceedance Return Time; 975. years Max. slgnlflcant source distance 113. krn. M Red lines represent quaternary fault locations `. 7. 0 Orange lines show four downdip lirn.its ofCascadla hazard R A -1W .ILI 61tE4ivtl�:•S�YSP0.7J093(,�GIbR 01�Q. itti halal fSOGRiY J116EQ7 tw l,mn IegM pfop.la EYRiley. fib tllimorriril YRVmI eryly,�v, ib6 4. , L .. 43" 100 Appendix G Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Klamath Falls Return Period 475 Years (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 101 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from TJ.S•G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: Klamath Falls long: 121.770 W., lat: 42.220 N. TJSGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2, Site descr:ROCK Return period: 475 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.1683 9. #Pr[at least one eq with median motions =PGA in 50 yrs]= 0.04525 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS EPSILON >2 1 <EPS <2 0 <EPS <l - 1<EPS<O - 2<EPS< -1 EPS¢ -2 6.7 5.05 0.855 0.045 0.283 0.469 0.058 0.000 0.000 13.3 5.05 1.056 0.183 0.691 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.0 5.05 0.293 0.218 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 5.20 1.481 0.069 0.438 0.818 0.156 0.000 0.000 13.4 5.20 2.008 0.280 1.239 0.489 01000 0.000 0.000 23.1 5.20 0.626 0.398 0.228 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.5 5.20 0.089 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8 5.40 1.203 0.048 0.303 0.638 0.213 0.000 0.000 13.5 5.40 1.857 0.195 1.003 0.659 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.2 5.40 0.677 0.325 0.352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.8 5.40 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8 5.60 0.956 0.033 0.210 0.475 0,238 0.001 0.000 13.6 5.60 1.688 0.135 0.767 0.763 0.023 0.000 0.000 23.4 5.60 0.725 0.244 0.472 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.0 5.60 0.163 0.150 0.013 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 6.8 5.80 0.743 0.023 0.145 0.347 0.219 0.010 0.000 13.7 5.80 1.498 0.093 0.565 0.758 0.082 0.000 0.000 23.5 5.80 0.759 0.173 0.521 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.1 5.80 0.202 0.151 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.0 5.81 0.052 0.052 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.9 6.02 0.918 0.025 0.162 0.401 0.297 0.032 0.000 14.1 6.00 1.294 0.068 0.429 0.659 0.138 0.000 0.000 23.5 6.00 0.790 0.125 0.514 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.1 6.00 0.240 0.135 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.4 6.00 0.070 0.067 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.5 6.19 0.869 0.023 0.145 0.364 0.283 0.054 0.000 14.8 6.21 1.463 0.066 0.420 0.755 0.221 0.001 0.000 24.1 6.19 0.698 0.086 0.421 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.7 6.20 0.273 0.112 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.0 6.21 0.095 0.078 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.0 6.39 0.770 0.019 0.119 0.300 0.271 0.060 0.001 15.4 6.40 1.199 0.046 0.293 0.625 0,232 0.003 0.000 24.6 6.40 0.720 0.066 0.373 0.278 0,003 0.000 0.000 33.7 6.45 2.361 0.851 1.502 0.009 0.000 0,000 0.000 43.4 6.38 0.168 0.113 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.2 6.62 5.087 0.121 0.769 1.931 1.804 0.444 0.019 14.9 6.60 3.786 0.155 0.982 1.915 0.713 0.022 0.000 24.6 6.59 3.354 0.369 1.946 1.035 0.004 0.000 0.000 34.0 6.64 2.977 0.818 2.147 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.8 6.60 0.488 0.326 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.2 6.60 0.085 0.082 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.8 6.83 3.847 0.090 0.569 1,430 1.369 0.370 0.018 16.2 6.80 4.109 0.166 1.051 2.228 0.630 0.034 0.000 23.7 6.82 9.097 0.643 4.022 4.258 0.174 0.000 0.000 34.0 6.81 1.476 0.276 1.106 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 6.81 0.314 0.165 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54,4 6.80 0.088 0.074 0.014 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.6 7.00 2.303 0.053 0.336 0.843 0.829 0.233 0.011 16.8 7.03 4.177 0.146 0.924 2.233 0.820 0.054 0.000 23.4 7.03 7.347 0.369 2.340 4.108 0.530 0.000 0.000 34.6 7.00 0.659 0.104 0.471 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.3 6.99 0.259 0,107 0.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.0 6.99 0,084 0,059 0.025 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 4.4 7.20 4.745 0.104 0.663 1.665 1.664 0.602 0.047 15.6 7.20 2.383 0.071 0.453 1.129 0.658 0.071 0.000 23.2 7.23 2.950 0.125 0.796 1.611 0.418 0.000 0.000 34.5 7.20 0.713 0.079 0.442 0.192 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.4 7.20 0.265 0.075 01190 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 54.2 7.21 0.093 0.053 0.040 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.5 7.47 0.791 0.017 0.108 0.272 0.272 0.108 0.013 22.3 7.42 0.157 0.005 0.033 01081 0.037 0.001 0.000 2.5 7.66 0.106 0.002 0.014 0.036 0.036 0.014 0.002 170.8 8.30 1.863 0.844 1.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 209.0 8.30 0.303 0.303 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 102 223.7 8.30 0.287 0.287 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.3 9.00 3.994 0.512 3.216 0.266 0.000 0.000 0.000 205.6 9.00 0.924 0.204 0.720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 223.3 9.00 0.712 0.204 01509 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 241.1 9.00 0.268 0.102 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R= distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 32.4 km; M= 6.72; eps0= 0.03. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R= 23.7 km; M= 6.82; eps0= 0.40 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb MODE R *= 23.4km; M *M 6.82; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 4,258 Principal sources (faults, Source Category: WUS shallow gridded California normal /SS faults WUS extensional faults CA -NV SHEAR ZONES 1 -4 Individual fault hazard det Klamath graben f Sky Lakes FZ Ch_Mag Klamath graben f Klamath graben f Sky Lakes FZ Klamath graben f 2 Cedar Mtn - Mahognany Mtn 2 Gillem -Big Crack 2 Cedar Mtn - Mahognany Mtn 2 Gillem -Big Crack subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution) contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values) 24.78 15.9 5.71 0.37 17.55 26.9 6.84 0.60 17.10 13.8 6.95 -0.92 29.32 17.5 6.87 -0.49 ails if contrib.>l%: 1.94 2.5 7.35 -2.67 2.55 19.6 7.06 -0.24 1.38 18.9 7.06 -0.24 6,66 6.3 6.87 -1.76 3.09 23.9 6.80 0.44 1.45 24.6 6.82 0.45 8,21 22.9 7.01 0.15 3.70 3310 6.59 1.29 4.52 25.8 6.78 0.60 1.05 37.6 6.54 1.59 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Southern Oregon site ***** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 103 Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Klamath Falls 121.770° W, 42.224 N. Feak Horiz, Ground Accel.>=O.1683 g Mean Return Tune 475 years Mean (R,M,y 32.4 km, 6.72, 0.03 Modal (R M,%) = 23.7 km, 6.82, 0.40 (from peakR,M bin) Modal (R,MS ) = 23.4 kin, 6.82, 0 to 1 si (froth peak R,M,e bin) Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, DeltaE--l.0 Plab.UA,PGA "im <metllen a,M �matlla .gL ��rr e 2;,..e 0<eo<0.5 s - 2 <e -1 0.5 <e o <1 # -1 <e -0.5 1 <e <2 W 0,5 <e 2<e 3 2aMuptlataUSGSPURA Ai 7s eG:lS ttsv ^r..a- tit.- :.:1� ^ ;Kr �7 acg3r.,���,nr:rn xsr.ar sricn u,�w.:Fw rcn x,y x�rn usrns cxl:sr �sxw; ✓,w uHC:crs e�x.w�n nomM.wrvr;.,nrm:a Klamath Falls Geographic Deagg. Seismic Hazard 9 for 0.00 -s Specrral Accel, 0.1682 g $.5 PGA Exceedance Renun Tune: 475. years Max, significant source distance 173. lun. �� 7 . 5 M Red lines represent Quaternary fault locations 7.0 Grldded- source hazard accum. in 5 intervals 18.5 aa ° aa° 41 she ma,a.:•!z! aka azaoo (relbr a nnp. Na r,rxral marble .lTmEal Qaalrmn n,egM piap.5a ExrblW. R:tl tlbmanQr. h Yia•IVf eriiyyrn. M9 1 -" az dy' 104 Appendix H Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Klamath Fails Return Period 975 Years (5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years) Summary Tables, Plot of Relative Contributions, and Map of Geographic Hazard 105 * ** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. * ** * ** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version * ** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: Klamath long: 121.770 W., lat: 42.220 N. USGS 2002 -03 update files and programs. dM =0.2. Site descr:ROCK Return period: 975 yrs. Exceedance PGA = 0.2391 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motion > =PGA in 50 yrs] = 0.02129 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS EPSILON >2 1 <EPS <2 0<EPS<l - 1<EPS <0 - 2<EPS < -1 EPS< -2 6.7 5.05 0.949 0.092 0.475 0.382 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.0 5.05 0.812 0.298 0.514 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.3 5.05 0.120 0.120 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 6.7 5.20 1.716 0.140 0.764 0.812 01000 0.000 0.000 13.1 5.20 1.611 0.489 1.078 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.5 5.20 0.279 0.271 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 5.40 1.481 0.097 0.565 0.788 0.031 0.000 0.000 13.2 5.40 1.586 0.366 1.047 0.172 01000 0.000 0.000 22.7 5.40 0.337 0.285 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 618 5.60 1.256 0.067 0.411 0.672 0.106 0.000 0.000 13.3 5.60 1.545 0.266 0.968 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.9 5.60 0.399 0.281 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8 5.80 1.041 0.047 0.293 0.543 0.158 0.000 0.000 13.4 5.80 1.477 0.189 0.814 0.474 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.1 5.80 0.458 0.251 0.208 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.5 5.81 0.062 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8 6.02 1.370 0.052 0.330 0.689 0.296 0.003 0.000 13.7 6.00 1.348 0.139 0.669 0.526 0.014 0.000 0.000 23.1 6.00 0.518 0.213 0.303 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.7 6.01 0.089 0.086 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 6.3 6.19 1.371 0.047 0.296 0.636 0.374 0.019 0.000 14.3 6.21 1.614 0.135 0.705 0.700 0.075 0.000 0.000 23.7 6.19 0.477 0.159 0.305 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.3 6.20 0.113 0.099 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 6.9 6.39 1.275 0.038 0.243 0.581 0.379 0.033 01000 15.2 6.40 1.371 0.094 0.560 0.665 0.053 0.000 0.000 24.2 6.40 0.527 0.131 0.348 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.5 6.45 1.005 0.868 0.137 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.1 6.41 0.056 0.056 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 5.1 6.62 8.671 0.246 1.565 3.823 2.680 0.356 0.000 14.9 6.60 4.600 0.373 2.056 1.910 0.262 0.000 0.000 24.3 6.61 2.516 0.732 1.723 0.062 0.000 01000 0.000 33.6 6.65 1.288 1.016 0.273 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 43.3 6.61 0.110 0.110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.0 6.81 5.112 0.145 0.924 2.290 1.612 0.141 0.000 15.6 6.82 4.344 0.289 1.814 11969 0.272 0.000 0.000 23.6 6.83 6.610 1.340 4.667 01603 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.8 6.82 0.609 0.416 0.194 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.8 6.81 0.087 0.086 0.001 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.9 6.98 5.812 0.149 0.949 2.383 1.976 0.352 0.003 15.9 7.02 4.494 0.273 1.728 2.131 0.363 0.000 0.000 22.8 7.05 6.051 0.713 3.728 1.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.3 7.00 0.312 0.182 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.0 7.00 0.081 0.079 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.3 7.20 8.818 0.208 1.319 3.314 3.169 0.781 0.028 15.8 7.21 3.391 0.160 1.014 1.809 0.405 0.004 01000 23.3 7.22 2,366 0.237 1.367 0.760 0.002 0.000 0.000 34.1 7.20 0.381 01155 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 7.20 0.095 0.083 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.6 7.47 1.566 0.035 0.221 0.554 0.554 0.192 0.010 18.7 7.42 0.092 0.005 0.031 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.1 7.40 0.186 0.011 0.069 0.101 0.005 0.000 0.000 2.5 7.66 0.211 0.005 0.029 0.074 0.074 0.028 0.001 170.5 8.30 1.017 1.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 207.9 8.30 0.103 0.103 0.000 01000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.3 9.00 3.193 1.036 2.157 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 205.6 9.00 0.625 0.413 0.212 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 223.3 9.00 0.446 0.413 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 241.1 9.00 0.154 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, Rm distance, e= epsilon: Mean src -site R= 23.1 km; M= 6.73; eps0= 0.16. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src -site R= 4.3 km; M= 7.20; eps0= --1.59 from peak (R,M) bin Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb 106 MODE R *= 23.5km; M *= 6.83; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma 1 6 CONTRIB.= 4.667 Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10 contribution) Source Category: P6 contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values) WUS shallow gridded 23.38 12.6 5.74 0.58 California normal /SS faults 11.71 25.3 6.89 1.18 WUS extensional faults 22.47 9.9 6.99 -0.69 CA -NV SHEAR ZONES 1 -4 34.51 12.9 6.88 -0.22 Individual fault hazard details if contrib.>1 %: klamath graben f 3.81 2.6 7.35 -1.89 Sky Lakes FZ Ch_Mag 2.60 19.6 7.07 0.51 Klamath graben f 1.41 18.9 7.07 0.51 Klamath graben f 11.32 5.0 6.89 -1.22 Sky Lakes FZ 2.28 23.1 6.83 1.08 Klamath graben f 1.06 23.2 6.85 1.05 2 Cedar Mtn - Mahognany Mtn 6.71 22.9 7.03 0.90 2 Gillem -Big Crack 1.62 32.9 6.60 1.96 2 Cedar Mtn - Mahognany Mtn 3.02 24.9 6.79 1.24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Southern Oregon site ***** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * ** 107 01 0 \ V !j PIab.SA,PGA p.$ c 3p �metllen ] R,M e 2 u 0 <F - 2 <c < -1 0.5 <e <1 - 1 GE0< -O5 1GF <2 - 0.5 <e <0 Z <e <3 cl O Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Klamath-Fulls 121.770° W, 42.220 N. Peak Horiz. Ground AcceI >=0.2391 g Mean Return Tithe 975 years Mean (R,M,y 23.1 km, 6.73, 0.16 Modal (R,M,) = 4.3 km, 7.20, - 1.59 (froth peak R,M bin) Modal (R,M ,s ) = 23.5 km, 6.83, 1 to 2 sigma (froth peak R,M,e bin) Sinning: DeltaR 10. Ln, deJt&AI==0.2, Deltatrrl.0 I. F ryer 2002 update tJSGB PSHA v>' 1 �a TJ IA'S9 OiNna (H�.inag-dreteSW- tixiNn ;l Sao }dcannyaun bt.-- Y)CKS, !;I(9 rta 0, 36. 1iY15CAM i MAW, ML OPURrE Yf—Im h0el%—,45.ur.�i d Geographic Seismic Hazard Plot not Available from the USGS Web Site m Appendix Y Spreadsheets for the Evaulation of Liquefaction Susceptibility and Post - Liquefaction Undrained Residual Shear Strength CASE NO.1; M6.2 CASE NO.1; M6.64 CASE NO.1; M8.3 CASE NO. 1; M9.0 CASE NO. 2; M6.2 CASE NO. 2; M6.64 CASE NO.2; M8.3 CASE NO.2; M9.0 References for all of the formulas and tables used are provided. 109 CASE NO. 1 , M6.2 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd at at (2001) All equations and relationships used in [his spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude Magnitude Scaling Factor Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) Embankment height (ft) Moist unit weight of fill (pc!) Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) Depth to the groundwater table (ft) 6.2 1.63 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) 0.26 25 125 100 0 Depth a'v Nm CN Ni CE CB CR CS (ft) p (psi) (bllfl) (bllft) 1.00 4.03 4.00 5100 188.00 3.00 1.71 5.12 1.00 1.05 0.75 4.00 10.00 376.00 2,00 1.60 3.19 1.00 11.05 0.75 4.00 15.00 564.00 5.00 1.50 7.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 12.00 20.00 752.00 5.00 1.411 7.06 1.00 1.05 1.00 12,00 25.00 040.00 7.00 1.34 9.35 1.00 1.05 1.00 35.00 30.00 1128.00 4.00 1.27 5.07 1.00 1.05 1.00 35.00 35.00 1316.00 8.00 1.20 9.64 1.00 1.05 1.00 35.00 40.00 1504.00 10.00 115 11.48 1.00 1.05 1.00 2.00 45.00 1767.00 15.00 1.08 16.17 1.00 1.05 1.00 2.00 50.00 2030.00 20.00 1.02 20.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 2.00 55.00 2293.00 25.00 0.96 24.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 o'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -Value stress co((ectloo factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 8a -8c, Ref. 1) P Parameterfor fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) 110 (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (Nl)60cs (bllft) M a p (bl/fi) 1.00 4.03 4.00 0.00 1.00 4.02 1.00 2.51 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.51 1.00 7.80 4.00 0100 1.00 7.85 1.00 7.41 12.00 1.55 1.03 9.20 1.00 9.81 12,00 1.55 1.03 11.68 1.00 5.32 35.00 5.00 1.20 11.38 1.00 10.12 35.00 5.00 1.20 17.14 1.00 12.06 35.00 5.00 1.20 19.47 1.00 16.97 2.00 0.00 0.99 16.65 1.00 21.32 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.17 1.00 25.20 2.00 0.00 0.99 25.02 110 CASE NO. I, M6.2 2OF2 Depth (N1)60cs CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Or Ka Ka FS' Ru (su)1 -os (su)I•sh Nco r (su)I -aag (ft) (bVft) centerline froe -field average CSRavg ( %) (psf) (psf) (blan9ft) (psi) 5.00 4.02 0.07 0.99 0.18 0.45 0.31 0.34 29.57 0.89 1.00 0.30 1.00 199.54 120,00 4 159.77 10.00 2.51 0.06 0.98 0.19 0.44 0.32 0.28 23.35 0.88 1.00 0.25 1.OD 171.00 10D.00 3 135.50 15.DD 7.85 0.09 0.97 0.21 0,44 0.32 0.46 41.31 0.87 1.00 0.42 1.OD 328.27 200.00 8 264.13 20.DD 9.20 0.11 0.96 0.21 0.43 0,32 0.54 40.11 0.86 1.OD 0.46 1.00 331.86 300.OD 10 315.93 25.00 11.68 0.13 0.94 0.22 0.42 0.32 0.65 46.15 0.85 1.00 0.55 1,00 421.16 500.OD 13 460.58 30.00 11.38 0.13 0.92 0.22 0.41 0.32 0.64 33.97 0.84 1.OD 0.54 1.00 297.26 600,00 14 448.63 35.00 17.14 0.18 0.89 0.22 0.40 0.31 0.95 48.85 0.83 1.OD 0.79 1.00 470.19 800.OD 20 635.10 40.00 19.47 0.21 0.65 0.22 0.38 0.30 1.13 51.15 0.82 1.OD 0.93 0.35 Na nda 23 Wa 45.OD 16.65 0.18 0.60 0.21 0.35 0.28 1.03 60.69 0.81 1.00 0.84 0.65 Na nda 17 Na 50.00 21.17 0.23 0.75 0.20 0.32 0.26 1.42 68.02 0.80 1.00 1.14 nla rVa rVa 21 Na 55.00 25.02 0.29 0.70 0.19 0.30 0.25 1.94 73.94 0.79 1.00 1.53 0.15 rVa rVa 25 rVa CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of clean send for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction coefficient (Eq. 3, Ref. 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio associated byihe strong ground motion In the layer of int erest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Factor of Safety against liquefaction (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Dr Relative Density, Or 7 (217'(N1)60)) Ka Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Correction for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref. 1) FS` Factor of Safely against liquefaction modified to account for effective confining stress and static horizontal shear stress (Eq. 30, Ref. 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -0s Undratned shear strength of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)Ish Undrained shear strength of liquefied sand (Seed and Hander p Dodure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref, 2) N;MT (N1)60 corrected for fines content as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd et al (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1996 NCERRINSF Uidorkshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Joumal of Geotechnicel and Gecenvironmental Engineedng, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817833. 2 Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotedmkal Earthquake Engineering Prentice Hall Publishers, 653p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. D. (2002), Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction nowfailure case histories, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 39, pp. 629 -847. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990). "SP Analysts of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength," Proc. of the Memorial Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2, BI -Tech Publishers, pp, 351 -376. 111 CASE NO. I, M6.64 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd et al (2001) All equations and relationships used In this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 6.64 Magnitude Scaling Factor 1.37 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.49 Embankment height (ft) 25 Moist unit weight of fill (pof) 125 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 100 Depth to the groundwater table (ft) 0 Depth a'v Nm CN N1 CE CB CR CS (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs (H) (psf) (bllft) (bllft) (bllA) ( %} a 1 (bllft) 5.00 188.00 3.00 1.71 5.12 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 4.03 4,00 0,00 1.00 4.02 10.00 376.00 2.00 1.60 3.19 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 2.51 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.51 15.00 564.00 5.00 1.50 7.49 1.00 1.05. 1.00 1.00 7.86 4.00 0.00 1.00 7.85 20.00 752.00 5.00 1.41 7.06 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 7.41 12.00 1.55 1.03 9.20 25.00 940.00 7.00 1.34 9.35 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 9.81 12.00 1.55 1.03 11.68 30.00 1128,00 4,00 1.27 5.07 1.00 1,05 1,00 1.00 5.32 35.00 5.00 1.20 11.38 35.00 1316.00 8.00 1.20 9.64 1.00 1.05 1,00 1.00 10.12 35.00 5.00 1.20 17.14 40.00 1504.00 10.00 1.15 11.48 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 12.06 35.00 5.00 1.20 19.47 45.00 1767.00 15.00 1.08 16.17 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 16.97 2.00 0.00 0.99 16.85 50.00 2030.00 20.00 1.02 20.31 1.00 1,05 1.00 1.00 21.32 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.17 55.00 2293.00 25.00 0.96 24.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 25.20 2.00 0.00 0.99 25.02 c'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eq$. 6a -6c, Ref. 1) 1 Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) 112 CASE NO. 1 , M6.64 2OF2 Depth (N1)60CS CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Dr Ka Ka FS' Ru (su)I -os (su)I -sh Nmrr (su)I-avg (ft) (Wft) oenteriine free -field average CSRm ( %) (psf) (psf) (blamYt) (pat) 5.00 4.02 0.07 0.98 0.35 0.84 0.59 0.15 29.57 0.89 1.00 0.13 1.00 198.54 120.00 4 15977 10.00 2.51 0.06 0.98 0.37 0.83 0.60 0.13 23.35 0.88 1.00 _ 0.11 1.00 171.00 100.00 3 135.50 15.00 7.85 0,09 0.97 0.39 0,82 0.60 0.21 41.31 0.87 1.00 0.19 1.00 328.27 200.00 8 264.13 20.00 9.20 0.11 0.96 0.40 0.81 0.61 0.24 40.11 0.86 1.00 0.21 1.00 331.86 300.00 10 315.03 25.00 11.68 0.13 0.94 0.42 0.80 0,61 0.29 46.15 0.85 1.00 0.25 1.00 421.16 50400 13 460.58 30,00 11.38 0.13 0.92 0.42 0.78 0.60 0.29 33.97 0.84 1.00 0.24 1.00 287.26 600.00 14 448.63 35.00 17.14 0.18 0.89 0.42 0.75 0.59 0.42 46.85 0.83 1.00 0.35 1.00 470.19 800.00 20 635.10 40.00 19.47 0.21 0.85 0.42 0.72 0.57 0.50 51.15 0.82 1.00 0.41 1.00 557.40 800.00 23 678,70 45.00 16.85 0.18 0.80 0.40 0.66 0.53 0.46 60.69 0.81 1.00 0.37 1.00 769.51 600.00 17 784.76 50.00 21.17 0.23 0.75 0.38 0.61 0.50 0.63 68,02 0.80 1.00 0.51 1.00 979.05 800.00 21 889.53 55.00 25.02 0.29 0.70 0.37 0.56 0.46 0.86 73.94 0.78 1.00 0.68 1.00 1166.44 800.00 25 593.22 CRR7.5 Cydic Resistance Ratio of dean sand for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction ooeffidenl (5% 3, Ref. 1) CSR Cydic Stress Ratio associated bythestrong ground motion in the layer of interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Fedor of Safetyagainst liquefaction (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Dr Relative Density, Dr 7 (21 T (N1)80)) ^0.5 Ka Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Correction for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref. 1) FS' Fedor of Safety against liquefaction modified toa000untforeffectiveconfiningstressandst atichorizontalshearstress (Eq.30.Ref.1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -08 Undrafned shear strength of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)I -sh Vndrafned shear strength of liquefied sand (Seed and Herder procedure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Now (N1)60 corrected for fines content as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd et al (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils; Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCERRMSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Journal of Cedechnical and Gecenvironmenlal Engineering, Vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833. 2 Kramer, S.L. ( 1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Fnctineed , Prentloe Hall Publishers, 653 p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. D. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 39, pp. 629-647. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F. Jr. (1890). "SPT- -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Vndrdned Residual Strength," Proc, of the Memorial Symposium for H.Bdton Seed, Vd. 2, Bi -Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. 113 CASE NO. I, M8.3 a 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS 4.00 Modified January 24, 2005 1.00 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd et at (2001) All equations and relationships used In this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet, 1.00 Moment Magnitude 8.3 4.00 Magnitude Scaling Factor 0.77 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) 1.00 Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.18 12.00 Embankment height (fl) 25 1.03 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 12.00 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 100 1.03 Depth to the groundwater table (ft) 0 35.00 Depth o'v Nm CN N1 CE C8 CR CS (N 1)80 Fin (ft) (psf) (bllft) (bllft) (bllft) (% 5.00 188.00 3.00 1.71 5.12 1,00 1.05 0.75 1.00 4,03 10.00 376.00 2.00 1.60 3.19 1.00 1.05 0.75 4.00 2.51 15.00 564.00 5.00 1.50 7.49 1100 1.05 1.00 1.00 7.86 20,00 752.00 5.00 1.41 7.06 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 7.41 25.00 940.00 7.00 1.34 9.35 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 9.81 30,00 1128.00 4.00 1.27 5.07 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 5.32 35.00 1316.00 8.00 1.20 9.64 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 10.12 40.00 1504.00 10.00 1.15 11.48 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 12.06 45.00 1767.00 15.00 1,08 16.17 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1 8.97 50.00 2030.00 20.00 1.02 20.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.32 55.00 2293.00 25.00 0.90 24,00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 25.20 o'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref- 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 6e -Bc, Ref. 1) ¢ Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) s Parameter Parameter (Nf)60cs a p (bitft) 4.00 0.00 1.00 4.02 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.51 4.00 0.00 1.00 7.85 12.00 1.55 1.03 9.20 12.00 1.55 1.03 11.60 35.00 5.00 1.20 11.38 35.00 5.00 1.20 17.14 35.00 5.00 1.20 19.47 2.00 0.00 0.99 16.05 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.17 2.00 0.00 0.99 25.02 114 CASE NO. 1, M8.3 2OF2 Depth (N1)80cs CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Dr Ka Ka FS' Ru (su)I -os (su)l -sh Ncorr (su)1 -avg (ft) (blKt) centedlne free -field average CSRevg ( %) (psf) (pst) (blowlft) (psf) 5.00 4.02 0.07 0.99 0.13 0.31 0.22 0.23 29.57 0,89 1.00 0.21 1.00 199.54 120.00 4 159.77 10.00 2.51 0.06 0.98 0,13 0.30 0.22 0.19 23.35 018 1.00 0.17 1.00 171.00 100,00 3 135.50 15.00 7.85 0.09 0.97 0.14 0.30 0.22 0.33 41.31 0.87 1100 0.29 1.00 328.27 200.00 B 264.13 20.00 9.20 0.11 0.98 0.15 0.30 0.22 0.37 40,11 0.86 1.00 0.32 1.00 331.88 300.00 10 315.93 25.00 11.68 0.13 0.94 0,15 0,29 0.22 0.44 46,15 015 1.00 0,38 1.00 421.16 500,00 13 460.58 30.00 11,38 0.13 0.92 0.16 0.29 0.22 0.44 33.97 0.84 1.00 0.37 1.00 297.26 600.00 14 448.63 35.00 17.14 0.18 0189 0,16 0.26 0.22 0.05 48.85 0183 1.00 0.54 1.00 470.19 800.00 20 035.10 40.00 19.47 0.21 0185 0.15 0.28 0.21 0.77 51.15 0.82 1.00 0.03 1.00 557,40 600.00 23 678.70 45.00 10.85 0.18 0.60 0,15 0.24 0.20 0.71 60.69 0.81 1.00 0.57 1.00 769.51 800.00 17 784.76 50.00 21.17 0.23 0.75 0,14 0.22 0.18 0.97 68.02 0160 1.00 0.78 1.00 979.05 800.00 21 889.53 55.00 25.02 0.29 0.70 0.13 0.21 0.17 1.33 73,94 039 1.00 1.05 1.00 rVa Na 25 rVa CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of clean sand for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq, 4, Ref. 1) rd stress redudion coefficient (Eq. 3, Ref, 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio associated by the strong ground motion in the layer of interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Factor of Safety against liquefaction (Eq, 23, ref. 1) Dr Relative Density, Dr 7 (217'(N1)60)) Ko Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Correction for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref. 1) FS' Factor of Safety against liquefaction modned to account for effective confining stress and stalk horizontal shear stress (Eq. 30, Ref. 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -08 Undrained shearstrenglh of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)I -sh Undrafned shear strength of Iiquafied sand (Seed and Harder procedure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Ncerr (N1)60 corrected for fines content as described by Seed and Harder (Raf 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd at at (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1998 NCEER and 1998 NCERRlNSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenuironmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833. 2 Kramar, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Prentice Hall Publishers, 653 p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. D. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquafectlon flow failure case histories, Canadian Geotechnlcal Journal, vol. 39, pp. 623047. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, U., Jr. (1990). "SPT -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undralned Residual Strength," Proc. of the Memorial Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2, BI -Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. 115 CASE NO. I, M9.0 R OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd at at (2001) All equations and relationships used in this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 9 p (bllft) 4.00 Magnitude Scaling Factor 0.63 4.02 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) 0.00 1.00 Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.22 0.00 1.00 7.85 12.00 Embankment height (ft) 25 9.20 12.00 1.55 1.03 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 5.00 1.20 11.38 35.00 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 100 17.14 35.00 5.00 1.20 Depth to the groundwater table (fq 0 0.00 0.99 16.85 2.00 Depth o'v Nm CN N1 CE CB 21.17 GR CS 0.00 (N1)60 Fin (ft) (psf) (bim) (bllft) (blift) (%, 5.00 186.00 3.00 1.71 5.12 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 4.03 10.00 376.00 2.00 1.60 3.10 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 2.51 15.00 564.00 5,00 1.50 7.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 7.86 20.00 752.00 5.00 1.41 7;06 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 7.41 25.00 940.00 7.00 1.34 9.35 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 9.81 30.00 1128.00 4.00 1.27 5.07 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 5.32 35.00 1316.00 8.00 1.20 9.64 1,00 1.05 1.00 1.00 10.12 40.00 1504,00 10.00 1.15 11.48 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .0 0 1.00 12.06 45.00 17 67.0 0 15.00 1.08 16.17 1.00 1.05 4.00 1.0 0 16.97 50.00 2030.00 20.00 1.02 20.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.32 55.00 2293,00 25.00 0.96 24.00 1.00 1.05 1100 1.00 25.20 o'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N-value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs, 6a -6c, Ref. 1) P Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Rot. 1) s Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs a p (bllft) 4.00 0.00 1.00 4.02 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.51 4.00 0.00 1.00 7.85 12.00 1.55 1.03 9.20 12.00 1.55 1.03 11.68 35.00 5.00 1.20 11.38 35.00 5.00 1.20 17.14 35.00 5.00 1.20 19.47 2.00 0.00 0.99 16.85 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.17 2.00 0.00 _ 0.99 25.02 116 CASE NO. 1, M9.0 2OF2 DgAh (N1)60m CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS D' Ku Kt1 FS` Ru (su)I-0s (su)I -sh N.orr (su)laug (ft) (GVft) centerline free-field anrera�e CSRav9 Cl (psf) (psf) (blo dft) (psf) 5,00 4.02 ON 0.99 0.15 0.38 0.27 0.15 20.57 0.89 1.00 0.14 1.00 199.54 120.00 4 159.77 1400 2.51 0.06 0.98 0.16 0.37 0.27 0.13 23.35 0.88 1.00 0.11 1.00 171.00 100.00 3 135.50 15.00 7.85 0.09 0.97 0.17 0.37 0.27 0.22 41.31 0.87 1.00 0.19 1.00 328.27 200.00 8 284.13 2000 9.20 0.11 0.96 0.18 0.36 0,27 0.24 40.11 0.80 1.00 0.21 1.00 331.85 300.00 10 315.93 25.00 11.68 0.13 0.94 0.19 0.36 0.27 0.30 46.15 0,85 1.00 0.25 1.00 421.16 500.00 13 460.58 30.00 11.38 0,13 0.92 0.19 0.35 0.27 0.29 33.97 0.84 1.00 024 1.00 297.26 600.00 14 448.63 35.00 17.14 0.18 0.89 0.19 0.34 0.26 0.43 46.85 083 1.00 028 1.00 470.19 600.00 20 635.10 40.00 19.47 0.21 R85 0.19 0.32 0.26 0,51 51.15 0.82 1.00 0.42 1.00 557.40 800.00 23 678.70 45.00 16.85 0.18 0.80 0.18 0.30 0.24 0,47 60.69 0.81 1.00 0.38 1.00 769.51 800.00 17 784.76 50.00 21.17 0.23 R75 0.17 0.27 0.22 0,65 68.02 0.80 1.00 0.52 1.00 979.05 800.00 21 889.53 55.00 25.02 0.29 0.70 0.16 0.25 0.21 0.86 73.94 0.79 1.00 0.70 1.00 1186.44 Maw 25 993.22 CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Patio of din sand for Mcnhent Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (E4 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction ooefficient (Eq. 3, Ref. 1) CSR Oydic Stress Ratio associated by the strong ground motion in the layer of interest (Eq. 1, Rd. 1) FS FadcrofSafetyapristlique fadim(Eq.23, ref. 1) Cr RelaM DCa sAy, D' 9 (217"(N1)60))"0.5 Ka Correction for effetve oonfinirg stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Corcedicn for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref. 1) F5 Factor of Safety aganst liquefadion modified to mooutit for effedne omfirirg stress and static haim Ad gear stress (E4 30, Ref, 1) Ru Excess fore Ressure Ratio estimated from Figue 9.39 (Ref 2) (W)I -M Uxi-aned sfiew strerglh of liquefied sand (Ctsm and Stark prucedue; Eq 1% fief. 3) (su)I -sh ILMalned shear strshgt h of liquefied sand (Seed and F lardef prooedue, Re! 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref, 2) Nmrr (N1)60 oorrecled for fines oxila t as described b/ Seed and HardEr (Ref 2 or Rd 4) References 1 Youd el al ( 2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils Surm> q fromtha 19% NCEER and 1998 NCFFRWSF V4brkftps on Evaluation of Liqudaction R�starae of Soils, ASCE Jumd of GededhrJcal and Geoermrorrrentaf C- ngneerirg, vd. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833, 2 Kranpr, SL (1996). 'ca! Earthquake Enjnewrp, Prentice Hal Ptldishas, 653 p 3 Olson, SM, and Stark T. D. (2002). LkWa ion sUmp ratio from liquefactim florvfaturecase histodes, Canadian Gededhrical Jcurrd, %d. 39, pp. 629-847. 4 Seal RR, and harder, LF„ Jr. (1990). "SFT -Based AnEtos of Cyclic fore Press ire e Gerreratlm and Wrained Residua &eingtf1" Proc, of tie Manorial Syrrposiun for H Bolton Seed, Vol, 2, BI -Tech Rbllshers, pp. 351376. 117 CASE NO. 2, M6.2 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented byYoud et at (2001) All equations and relationships used in this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 6.20 Fines Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs Magnitude Scaling Factor 1.63 P (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.26 30.82 4.00 Embankment height (ft) 25 30.76 1.00 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 0.00 1.00 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 125 30.85 4.00 Depth to the groundwater table (ft) 0 30.79 1.00 Depth a'v Nm ON N1 CE CB 1.55 CR CS (ft) (psf) (bllft) (bllft) 1.00 22.56 12.00 5.00 313.00 24.00 1.63 39.14 4.00 1.05 0.75 10.00 626.00 26.00 1.47 38.18 1.00 1.05 0.75 15.00 939.00 22.00 1.34 29.38 1.00 1,05 1.00 20.00 1252.00 22.00 1.22 26.95 1.00 1.05 1.00 25.00 1565.00 19.00 1.13 21.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 30.00 1878.00 17.00 1.05 17.66 1.00 1.05 1.00 35.00 2191.00 21.00 0.96 20.59 1.00 1.05 1.00 40.00 2504.00 22.00 0.92 20.23 1.00 1.05 1.00 45.00 2817.00 20.00 0.87 17.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 50.00 3130.00 25.00 0.82 20.44 1.00 1,05 1,00 55.00 3443.00 30.00 0.77 23.24 1.00 1.05 1.00 o'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 6a -6c, Ref. 1) 13 Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) 118 (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs (bllft) ( a P (bllft) 1.00 30.82 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.76 1.00 30.07 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.01 1.00 30.85 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.79 1.00 28.29 12.00 1.55 1.03 30.74 1.00 22.56 12.00 1.55 1.03 24.83 1.00 18.75 35.00 5.00 1.20 27.50 1.00 21.62 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.95 1.00 21.24 35,00 5.00 1.20 30.49 1.00 18.16 2.00 0.00 0.99 18.05 1.00 21.46 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.31 1.00 24.41 2.00 0.00 0.99 24.23 118 CASE NO. 2, M6.2 2OF2 Depth (141)60cs CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Or Ko Ka FS' Ru (sU)1 -0e (su)I -sh Ncorr (su)I -avg (su)I -os (ft) (bllft) centerline free -field average CSRavg { °r6) (psp (psq (blowlft) (ps1) free -fld 5.00 30.76 0.53 0.99 0,18 0.33 0.28 3.35 61.78 0.09 1.00 2.97 nfa Na n1a 4 nla Na 10.00 30.01 0.47 0.98 0,19 0.33 0.28 2.91 80,78 0,87 1.00 2.52 n1a n1a Na 3 Na Na 15.00 30.79 0.54 0,97 0.20 0.33 0.28 3.30 61.62 0.65 1.00 2.60 n1a n/a nfa 6 Na Ne 20.00 30.74 0.53 0,96 0.21 0.32 0.27 3.25 76.36 0.63 1.00 2.71 n1a nla nla 10 nla No 25.00 24.83 0.29 0.94 0.21 0.32 0.26 1.77 69.97 0.82 1.00 1.45 n1a nla nla 13 nla Na 30.00 27.50 0.35 0.92 0.21 0.31 0.26 2.19 63.79 0.81 1.00 1.77 Na nla nla 14 nla Na 35.00 30.95 0.55 0.69 0.21 0.30 0.26 3.51 66,50 0.79 1.00 2.76 Na nla n1a 20 Na Na 40.00 30.49 0.51 0.85 0.21 0,29 0.25 3.33 67.89 0.78 1.00 2.61 Na n1a Na 23 No No 45.00 18.05 0,19 0.60 0.20 0.27 0.23 1.34 62.81 0.77 1.00 1.03 0.65 nfa Na 17 nla Na 60.00 21.31 0.23 0,75 0.19 0.25 0,22 1.73 66.25 0.76 1.00 1.31 0.20 Na Na 21 nla Na 55.00 24.23 0.26 0.70 0.18 0.23 0.21 2.20 72.77 0.75 1.00 1.66 Na We Na 25 nla Na CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of clean sand for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction coefficianl (Eq. 3, Ref. 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio associated by the strong ground motion in the layer of interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Factor of Safety against 11quefecllon (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Or Relative Density, Or7 (217• (N1)60)) "0.5 Ko Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ko Correction for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref. 1) FS' Factor of Safety against frquefacllon modified to account for effective confining stress and static horizontal shear stress (Eq. 30, Ref. 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -05 Undrained shear strength of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)I -sh Undrained shear strength of liquefied send (Seed and Harder procedure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Ncorr (Ni)60 corrected for fines content as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd at al (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1998 NCEER and 1998 NCERRlNSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Joumal of Geotechnical and Gooenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817.633. 2 Kramer, S.L. (1995). Gootechnical Earthguake EnQingedng Prentice Hall Publishers, 653 p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Slark, T. D. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case hietodee, Canadian Geolechnical Joumal, vol. 39, pp, 629 -647. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, U., Jr. (1990). "SPT -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undralned Residual Strength; Proc. of the Memorial Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2, Bi -Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. 119 CASE NO. 2, M6.64 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd et al (2001) All equations and relationships used in this spreadsheet are referenced et the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 6.64 Magnitude Scaling Factor 1.37 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.49 Embankment height (ft) 25 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 125 Depth to the groundwater table (fO 0 Depth o'v Nm CN N1 CE CC CR CS (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (Nf)60cs (ft) (psf) (bllft) (bllft) (bllft) { %) a li (bllfl) 5.00 313.00 24.00 1.63 39.14 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 30.82 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.76 10.00 626.00 26.00 1.47 38.18 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 30.07 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.01 15.00 939.00 22.00 1.34 29.38 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 30.85 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.79 20.00 1252.00 22.00 1.22 26.95 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 28.29 12.00 1.55 1.03 30.74 25.00 1565.00 19.00 1.13 21.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 22.56 12.00 1.55 1.03 24.83 30.00 1878.00 17.00 1.05 17.86 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 16.75 35.00 5.00 1.20 27.50 35.00 2191.00 21,00 0.98 20.59 1,00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.62 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.95 40.00 2504.00 22.00 0.92 20.23 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.24 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.49 45.00 2817.00 20.00 0.87 17.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 18.18 2.00 0,00 0.99 18.05 50.00 3130.00 25.00 0.82 20.44 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.46 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.31 55.00 3443.00 30.00 0.77 23.24 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 24.41 2.00 0.00 0.99 24.23 a v Vertical affective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CC. CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref, 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 6a -6c, Ref. 1) P Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) 120 CASE NO. 2, M6.64 2OF2 Depth (Ni)BOcs CRR75 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Dr Ka Ko FS` Ru (su)I -as (su)I -sh (ft) (Kit) centerline free -field average CSRavg ( %) (psl) (950 5.00 30,76 0.53 0.99 0.34 0.63 0.49 1.49 81.78 0.89 1.00 1.32 0.19 n/a rVa 10,00 30.01 0.47 0.98 0136 0.62 0.49 1.30 80,78 0.87 1,OD 1.12 0.39 n/a nla 15.00 3039 0.54 0.97 0.38 0.62 0.50 1.47 81.62 0.65 1.00 1.25 0.24 n/a rVa 20.00 30.74 0.53 0.96 0.39 0.61 0.50 1.45 78,36 0.83 1.00 1.21 0.27 rVa rVa 25.00 24.83 0.29 0.94 0.40 0.60 0.50 0.79 69.97 0.82 1.00 0.65 1.00 934.35 500.00 30.00 27.50 0.35 0.92 0.40 0.59 0.49 0.96 63.79 0.81 1.00 0.79 1.OD 853.68 600.00 35.00 30.95 0.55 0.89 0.40 0.57 0.46 1.56 66.50 0.79 1.00 1.24 0.25 Na rVa 40.00 30.49 0.51 0.85 0.39 0.54 0.47 1.46 67.69 0.78 1.00 1.16 0.33 rVa Na 45.00 18.05 0.19 0.80 0.37 0151 0.44 0.60 62.81 0,77 1.00 0.46 1.00 988.40 800.00 50.00 21.31 0.23 0.75 0.36 0.47 0.41 0.77 88.25 0.76 1.00 0.59 1.OD 1194.61 800.00 55.00 24.23 0.28 0.70 0.34 0.44 0.39 0.98 72.77 0.75 1.00 0.74 1.0D 1399.25 800.00 CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of dean sand for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction coefficient (Eq. 3, Ref, 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio associated by the strong ground motion in the layer of Interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Fader of Safety against liquefaction (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Dr Relative Density, Dr 7(217 "0.5 Ka Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ko Conedion for sloping ground (Figures f5, Ref, 1) FS' Factor of Safety against liquefaction modified to account for effective confining stress and static horizontal shear stress (Eq, 30, Ref, 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -05 Undrained shear strength of liquefied sand (Orson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b. Ref. 3) (su)I -sh Undrained shear strength of liquefied sand (Seed and Harder procedure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Noorr (1 correded for fines centent as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd el al (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Sols: Summary from the 1096 NCEER and 1996 NCERRNSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Journal of Geotec nlcal and Geoenvrronmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833. 2 Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotedrniral Earthquake Engineering Prentice Hall Publishers, 653 p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. D. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction fiowfallure case histories, Canadian Geotedmical Journal, vol. 39. pp. 623647. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990). "SPT -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength," Proc. of the Memorial Symposlum for H.Bollon Seed, Vol. 2, Bi -Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. Ncarr (su)I -avg (su)I -as (blowlft) (psf) free -fid 4 n/a n/a 3 n/a n!e 8 Na rVa 10 rVa rVa 13 717.17 311.78 14 726.84 320.45 20 Na nla 23 Na File 17 894.20 468,56 21 997.30 597.78 25 1099.63 733,60 121 CASE NO. 2, M8.3 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idriss is performed using the recommendations presented by Youd et al (2001) All equations and relationships used in this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 8.0 Magnitude Scaling Factor 0.05 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.18 Embankment height (ft) 25 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 Saturated unft weight of native soil (pcf) 125 Depth to the groundwater table (11) 0 Depth o'v Nm CN N1 CE CB CR CS (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs (ft) (psf) (1 (bllft) (wit) W a p (bllft) 5.00 313.00 24.00 1.63 39,14 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 30.82 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.76 10.00 626.00 26.00 1.47 38.18 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 30.07 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.01 15.00 939.00 22.00 1.34 29.38 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 30.85 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.79 20.00 1252.00 22.00 1.22 26.95 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 28.29 12.00 1.55 1.03 30,74 25.00 1565.00 19.00 1.13 21.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 22.56 12.00 1.55 1.03 24.83 30,00 1878.00 17,00 1.05 17.86 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 18.75 35.00 5.00 1.20 27,50 35.00 2191.00 21.00 0,98 20.59 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.62 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.95 40.00 2504.00 22.00 0.92 20.23 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.24 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.49 45.00 2817.00 20.00 0,87 17.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 18.18 2.00 0.00 0.99 18,05 50.00 3130.00 25.00 0.82 20.44 1.00 1.05 1.00 1,00 21.46 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.31 55,00 3443.00 30,00 0.77 23,24 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 24.41 2.00 0.00 0.99 24.23 o'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective atress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 6a -6c, Ref. 1) P Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref, 1) 122 CASE NO. 2, M8.3 2OF2 Depth (N1)50cs GRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Or Ka Ka FS' Ru (su)I -os (su)l -sh Ncorr (su)I -avg (BUY-os (ft) (bVft) centeritne free -field average CSRavg ( %) (psf) (pan (blowfft) (psf) frea -vd 5.00 30.76 0.53 0.99 0.13 0.23 0.18 2.52 81.78 0.09 1.00 2.23 n/a rife rVa 4 n/a We 10.00 30.01 0.47 0.98 0.13 0.23 0.10 2.19 80.78 0.87 1.00 1.90 n/a r1ra Wa 3 n/a n1a 15.00 30.79 0.54 0.97 0,14 0.23 0.1B 2.48 81.62 0.85 1.00 2,11 n/a rife n1a a rVa n1a 20.00 3034 0.53 0.96 0.14 0.22 0.16 2.44 76.36 0.83 1.00 2.04 rVa We We 10 rVa We 25.00 24,83 0.29 0.94 0.15 0.22 0.16 1,33 69.97 0.82 1.00 1.09 0.45 We We 13 rVa We 30.00 27.50 0.35 0.92 0.15 0.22 0.16 1.65 63.79 0.81 1.00 1.33 0.19 we r1ra 14 rVa We 35.00 30.95 0.55 0.89 0.15 0.21 0.16 2.64 68.50 0.79 1.00 2.09 n1a we r1ra 20 rVa We 40.00 30.49 0.51 0.85 0.14 0.20 0.17 2.50 67.69 0.78 1.00 1.96 rVa we r1ra 23 n1a We 45.00 18.65 0.19 0.80 0.14 019 0.16 1.01 62.B1 0.77 1.00 0.7B 1.00 986.40 800.00 17 894.20 468.58 50.00 21.31 0.23 0.75 0.13 0.17 0.15 1.30 68.25 0.76 1.00 0.99 1.00 1194.61 800.00 21 997.30 597.78 55.00 24.23 0.28 0.70 0.12 0.16 0.14 1.66 72.77 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.24 We rife 25 n1a We CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of clean sand for Moment Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction coeffcienl(Eq.3. Ref. 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Rallo associated by the strong ground motion in the layerof interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Factor of Safely against liquefaction (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Or Relative Density, Dr? (217'(N1)60)) Ka Correction for effective confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Correction for sloping ground (Figures 15, Ref, 1) FS' Factor of Safely against liquefaction modified to account for effective confining stress and static horizontal shear stress (Eq. 30, Rat. 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Rot. 2) (su)I -0s Undrained sheer strength of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)I -sh Undralned shear strength of liquefied sand (Seed and Harder procedure, Ref 4, or rarer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Ncorr (N1)60 corrected for fines oonlant as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) References 1 Youd at al (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCERRINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Journal of Geotechnlcal and Geoenvironmentai Engineering, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817 -833. 2 Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geoteclmical Earthaueke Enoineerinn Prentice Hall Publishers, 653 p, 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. D. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction Now failure rase histories, Canadian Geoteclhnical Journal, vol. 39, pp. 829 -847. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990). 'SP T -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength," Proc of the Memedal Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2,131-Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. 123 CASE NO. 2, M9.0 1 OF 2 SPREADSHEET FOR PERFORMING SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATIONS Modified January 24, 2005 The Simplified Procedure of Seed and Idrfss fs performed usfng the recommendatfons presented by Youd at al,(2001) All equations and relationships used in this spreadsheet are referenced at the bottom of the sheet. Moment Magnitude 9,0 Magnitude Scaling Factor 0.63 (Eq. 24, Ref. 1) Peak Acceleration at the Ground Surface (g) 0.22 Embankment height (ft) 25 Moist unit weight of fill (pcf) 125 Saturated unit weight of native soil (pcf) 125 Depth to the groundwater table (ft) 0 Depth o'v Nm CN Ni CE CB CR CS (N1)60 Fines Parameter Parameter (N1)60cs (ft) (psf) (bllft) (bllft) (bllft) M a (3 (bltft) 5.00 313.00 24.00 1.63 39.14 1.00 1.05 0.75 1,00 30,82 4.00 0.00 1,00 30.76 10.00 626.00 26.00 1.47 38.18 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.00 30.07 4.00 0.00 1.00 30.01 15.00 939.00 22.00 1.34 29,38 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 30.85 4.00 0.00 1.00 30,79 20,00 1252.00 22.00 1.22 26.95 1.00 1.05 1.00 1,00 28.29 12.00 1.55 1.03 30.74 25.00 1565.00 19.00 1.13 21.49 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 22.56 12.00 1.55 1.03 24.83 30,00 1876.00 17.00 1.05 17.86 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 18.75 35.00 5.00 1.20 27.50 35.00 2191.00 21.00 0.98 20.59 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.62 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.95 40,00 2504,00 22.00 0.92 20.23 1.00 1.05 1,00 1.00 21.24 35.00 5.00 1.20 30.49 45.00 2817.00 20.00 0.67 17.31 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 16.18 2.00 0.00 0.99 18.05 50.00 3130.00 25.00 0,82 20.44 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 21.46 2.00 0.00 0.99 21.31 55.00 3443.00 30.00 0.77 23.24 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 24.41 2.00 0.00 0.99 24.23 v'v Vertical effective stress Nm SPT N -value measured in the field CN SPT N -value stress correction factor (Eq. 10, Ref. 1) N 1 SPT N -value normalized for vertical effective stress CE, CB, CR, CS SPT N -value corrections (Table 2, Ref. 1) a Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 6a -6c, Ref. 1) P Parameter for fines correction to SPT N -value (Eqs. 7a -7c, Ref. 1) 124 CASE NO. 2, M9.0 2OF2 Depth (N1)60cs CRR7.5 rd CSR CSR CSR FS Dr Ka Ka FS' Ru (su)1 -os (su)I -sh Noorr (su)I.avg (su)I -os (ft) (belt) centedinn free -field average CSRavg ( %) (pso (psf) (blow/ft) (peq free -fid 5.00 30.76 0.53 0.99 0.16 0.2B 0.22 1.53 81.78 0.89 1.00 1.35 0.18 rda rVa 4 nle We 10.00 30.01 0.47 0.98 0.16 0.2B 0.22 1.33 80.78 0.67 1.00 1.15 0.34 rda rde 3 We We 15.00 30.79 0.54 017 0.17 0.28 0.22 1.50 81.82 0.65 1.00 1.27 0.22 rda rde 8 Na We 20.00 30.74 0.53 0.96 0.18 0.27 0.22 1.48 78.36 0.83 1.00 1.23 0.25 rda rds 10 rVa Na 25.00 24.113 0.29 024 0.18 0.27 0.22 0.81 69.97 0.82 1.00 0.66 1.00 934.35 500.00 13 717.17 311.78 30.00 27.50 0.35 0.92 0.18 0.20 0.22 1.00 63.79 0.81 1.00 0.60 1.00 B53.68 600.00 14 726.94 320.45 35.00 30.95 0.55 0.89 0.18 0.25 0.22 1.60 68.50 0.79 1.00 1.27 0.22 rVa No 20 Na rJa 40.00 30.49 0.51 0.85 0.18 0.24 0.21 1.52 67.89 078 1.00 1.19 0.29 rVa No 23 Na Na 45.00 18.05 0:19 0.80 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.61 62.61 0.77 1.00 0.47 1.00 988.40 800.00 17 694.20 468.58 50.00 21.31 0.23 0.75 0.16 0.21 0.19 0.79 08.25 0.76 1.00 0.60 1.00 1194.61 800.00 21 997.30 59738 55.00 24.23 0.28 0.70 0.15 0.20 0.17 100 72.77 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1399.25 800.00 25 1099.63 733.50 CRR7.5 Cyclic Resistance Ratio of clean send for Moment Magnitude 75 earthquakes (Eq. 4, Ref. 1) rd stress reduction coot ident (Eq. 3, Ref, 1) CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio associated by the strong ground mollon in the layer of interest (Eq. 1, Ref. 1) FS Factor of Safely against liquefaction (Eq. 23, ref. 1) Dr Relative Density, Dr 7 (217'(N1 )09))" 0.5 Ka Correction for eHeCdve confining stress (Eq. 31, Ref 1) Ka Correction for sloping ground (Figures 1 B. Ref. 1) FS' Factor of Safety against liquefaction modified to account for effective confining stress and static horizontal shear stress (Eq. 30, Ref. 1) Ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio estimated from Figure 9.39 (Ref. 2) (su)1 -08 Undreined shear strength of liquefied sand (Olson and Stark procedure, Eq. 19b, Ref. 3) (su)l -sh Undreined shear strength of liquefied send (Send and Harder procedure, Ref 4, or refer to Figure 9.57, Ref. 2) Ncorr (N1)60 corrected for fines content as described by Seed and Harder (Ref 2 or Ref 4) Referencss 1 Youd at at (2001). Uqunfaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1996 WEER and 1998 NCERRlNSF Workshops an Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE Journal of Geotechnlcsl and Geoenvironmental Engineering, v01. 127, no, 10, pp. 817 -833. 2 Kramer, S.L. (1998). GeotechnToll Earthquake Engineering Prentice Hell Publishers, 653 p. 3 Olson, S.M., and Stark, T. O. (2002). Liquefaction strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories, Canadian Geolechnicel Journal, vol. 39, pp. 629 -647. 4 Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990).'SPT -Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength; Proc. ofthe Memorial Symposium for H.Bolton Seed, Vol. 2, BI -Tech Publishers, pp. 351 -376. 125 Appendix J FLOW CHART FOR EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARD AND GROUND DEFORMATION AT BRIDGE SITES STEP 1 Identify Seismic Sources in the Dion CSZ inteaplate, deep intraplate, shallad crustal earthquakes refer to IL.SGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project Web Site Obtain M-R pairs from de-aggregation tables for 475 and 975 mean return periods Consider the following sources; CSZ Irderplafm Earthquakes Deep Intraplate Earthquake Crustal, Areal, or "Gridded" Seisrricaty M 8.3 and M 9.0 • Very small contribution to PGA . Obtain KR pairs from USGS de- ns defined by the USGS hazard in most of Oregon aggregation tables for all regional • Confirmon De- Aggregation tables . Define criteria for selecting all KR pairs by dxxi ing for representative M-R that significantly contribute to the overall pairs seismic hazard STEP 2 Select Appropriate Ground Motion Attenuation Relationships for each Source and Style of Faulting Calculate the bedrock PGA values for each KR pair STEP 3 Select Appropriate Acceleration Time Histories for Bedrock Motions • Three, or more, records from different earthquakes are recommended per KR pair • Consider style of faulting, magnitude, and the characteristics of the candidate motions (duration, frequency content, and energy) STEP 4 Perform Dynamic Soil Response Analysis • Develop profiles of cyclic stress ratio (CSR) versus depth for each KR pair (3 or more time histories per KR pair) • Corrpute the average CSR profile Wth depth for each PA-R pair • Con suite of Acceleration Response Spedra (ARS) if needed for structural engineering STEP 5 Compute the Factor of Safety against Liquefaction for each MR Pair • Use the avenged CSR profile for each NRR pair Utilize standard methods for liquefaction susceptibility evaluation based on penetration resistance or shear v4eve velocity 126 STEP 6 Establish the Post - Cyclic Loading Shear Strengths of Embankment and Foundation Soils • This is performed for each M -R pair • Focus on sensitive soils, weak fine - grained soils, loose to medium dense sandy soils (potentially liquefiable soils are addressed as follows) If FSll >_ 1.4 If 1.4 > FSii > 1.0 If FSil 5 1.0 Use drained shear strengths • Estimate the residual excess pore Estimate the residual undrained pressure strength using two or more methods • Compute the equivalent friction annla STEP 7 Perform Slope Stability Analysis • Static analysis using post- cyclic loading shear strengths for each M -R pair • Calculate the FOS against sliding and determine the critical acceleration values for each M -R pair Fnci is frial clin ci irfarpc nn waak cnil IAvAm STEP 8 Perform Deformation Analysis for each M -R pair • Rigid -body, sliding block analysis (Newmark Method) • Simplified chart solutions • Niimarinal mnrlalinn STEP 9 Evaivate Computed Deformations in Terms of Tolerable Limits Permanent Deformations are Unacceptable Permanent Deformations are Computed displacements exceed defined limits repeat analysis incorporating the effects of remedial Acceptable ground treatment • Return to Step a if the soil improvement does not significantly change the anticipated dynamic • Computed displacements are response of the soil column (e.g., isolated soil improvement) less than defined limits a Return to Step 3 if the ground treatment substantially alters the dynamic response of the site (e.g., • (:nntiniip with Onir. ural rlacinn extensive soil improvement in the vertical and lateral direction, extensive treatment including grouting or deep soil mixing) A reduced number of input time histories are acceptable for each M -R pair (bracket the problem using trends from the initial analysis) 127 NISTIR 5714 Ground Improvement Techniques for Liquefaction Remediation Near Existing Lifelines Ronald D. Andrus Riley M. Chung October 1995 Building and Fire Research Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 ���ENT o�Cp 4 CI O * i U.S. Department of Commerce Ronald K. Brown, Secretary Technology Administration Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology National institute of Standards and Technology Arati Prabhakar, Director 128 ABSTRACT This report reviews five low vibration ground improvement techniques suitable for remedial work near existing structures. The five techniques are: compaction grouting, permeation grouting, jet grouting, in situ soil mixing, and drain pile. The factors which can influence the effectiveness of each technique are identified. Cost estimates are given for each technique, except the drain pile technique which-is not yet available in the United States. Nineteen case studies of liquefaction remediation and remedial work near existing lifelines are reviewed, Advantages and constraints of the five techniques are compared. A combination of techniques may provide the most cost - effective ground improvement solution for preventing damage to existing lifelines 'resulting from liquefaction- induced horizontal ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift. KEYWORDS: building technology; compaction grouting; cost estimate; drain pile; earthquake; ground improvement; jet grouting; lifelines; liquefaction remediation; permanent ground deformation; permeation grouting; soil liquefaction; soil mixing. 111 129 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Joseph Welsh, George Burke, and Juan Baez of Hayward Baker Inc. kindly provided technical information on ground improvement. Special thanks are given to the Divisional reader Dat Duthinh, and to the outside reviewer Steven Glaser of the Colorado School of Mines. v 130 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE ... ............................... ............................................. ............................... 2 1.3 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS .................................... ............................... 2 1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT .............. ............................... CHAPTER 2 LOW VIBRATION GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION . ............................................. ............................... 3 2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ............................... 3 2.2 COMPACTION GROUTING ............................ ............................... 2 .2.1 General ............................ ............................... ........... ............................... 4 2.2.2 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 6 2.2.2.1 Pinopolis West Dam, South Carolina ................. ............................... 6 2.2.2.2 Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia ....... ............................... 8 2.2.2.3 Steel Creep Dam, South Carolina ....................... ............................... 8 2.2.2.4 Fontvieille Zone D, Monaco ............................... ............................... 9 2.2.2.5 Kaiser Hospital Addition, San Francisco ............ ............................... 9 2.3 PERMEATION GROUTING ............................... ..................................................... 26 2 .3.1 General ............................................................................ ............................... 26 2.3.2 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 28 2.3.2.1 Riverside Avenue Bridge, Santa Cruz .............. ............................... 28 2.3.2.2 Roosevelt Junior High School, Sari Francisco .... ............................... 28 2.3.2.3 Supermarket at 4041 Geary Street, San Francisco ............................ 29 2 .4 JET GROUTING ........................................................................ ............................... 32 2 .4.1 General ........................................................................... ............................... 32 2.4.2 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 34 2.4.2.1 Transit Station, Taiwan ....................................... ............................... 34 2.5 IN SITU SOIL MIXING ............................................................. ............................... 40 2 .5.1 General ............................................................................. ............................... 40 2.5.2 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 42 2.5.2.1 Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming ............................ ............................... 42 2.5.2.2 Pulp and Paper Mill Spill Tanks, British Columbia .......................... 43 2.5.2.3 Office Building ('Building N "), Japan ............... ............................... 44 2 .6 DRAIN PILE .............................................................................. ............................... 50 2 .6.1 General ............................................................................. ............................... 50 2.6.2 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 52 2.6.2.1 Quay Walls at Kushiro Port, Japan ..................... ............................... 53 2 .7 SUMMARY .......... ................................................I..................... ............................... 53 vii 131 CHAPTER 3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT NEAR EXISTING LIFELINES ...... ............................... 59 3.1 D4TRODUCTION ...................................................................... ............................... 59 3.2 PIPELINES AND CONDUITS .................................................. ............................... 59 3.2.1 General ............................................................................. ............................... 59 3.2.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Pipelines and Conduits ............. 60 3.2.2.1 Containment Wall at Utility Crossings, Michigan ............................ 60 3.2.2.2 Settled Pipes at Waste Water Treatment Plana ... ............................... 61 3.2.3 Liquefaction Remediation ................................................ ............................... 61 3.3 TRANSPORTATION LINES .................................................... ............................... 66 3 .3.1 General ............................................................................. ............................... 66 3.3.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Transportation Lines ................. 66 3.3.2.1 Highway Viaduct, San Diego ............................. ............................... 66 3.3.2.2 Settled Railroad Embankment, Georgia ............. ............................... 67 3.3.2.3 Tunnel Construction Beneath Rail Line, Switzerland ....................... 67 3.3.2.4 Tunnel Construction Beneath Airport Runway, Japan ...................... 68 3 .4 SUMMARY . ............................................................................... ............................... 68 CHAPTER4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................:..... ............................... 73 4.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................ ............................... 73 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY .................... ............................... 73 APPENDIX A REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ............................... 75 Viii 132 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Lifeline systems have been broadly defined (Applied Technology Council, 1991) as "those systems necessary for human life and urban function, without which large urban regions cannot function." They include electric power, gas and liquid fuels, water and sewage, telecommunication and transportation systems. One of the major factors of lifeline damage in earthquakes is horizontal ground displacement caused by liquefaction of loose granular soils, as illustrated in the case studies for many past earthquakes in the United States and Japan (O'Rourke and Hamada, 1992; Hamada and O'Rourke, 1992). Other important factors of lifeline damage caused by liquefaction of granular soils include Iocal subsidence associated with densification of the soil and ejection of the water and soil, and flotation of buried structures that have a unit weight less than the unit weight of the surrounding liquefied soil. For example, horizontal ground displacement damaged many pipelines, bridges, roads, and buildings during the 1906 San Francisco, California, earthquake. Broken water lines made fighting fires after the earthquake impossible, and much of San Francisco burned. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, liquefaction, horizontal ground movement, major pipeline damage, and fires occurred at virtually the same locations in San Francisco. Of the 160 breaks in the Municipal Water Supply System of San Francisco in 1989, 123 were in the Marina where significant liquefaction and ground deformation had occurred (O'Rourke and Pease, 1992). Most recently, soil liquefaction during the January 17, 1995 Hanshin -Awaji (Kobe), Japan, earthquake completely destroyed Kobe port, which is primarily made of three man -made islands. Soil liquefaction caused numerous breaks in Kobe City and its surrounding area's water and gas supply systems, resulting in a number of fires and the total loss of water supply for fighting fires and for domestic use. Many transportation systems were also disrupted as the result of liquefaction (Chung et al., 1995). Many lifeline structures lie in regions of high liquefaction and ground displacement potential. While it may be feasible to relocate some support facilities on sites which are not susceptible, similar precautions are not always possible for the long linear element of lifeline systems such as pipelines, electrical transmission lines, communication lines, highways, and rail lines. For some pipe systems, such as gas lines, it may be economical to replace old pipes with modern welded steel pipes that have less chance to break or leak, even after moderate deformation (O'Rourke and Palmer, 1994). For other pipe systems, such as water and sewage lines, the segmented pipe used can accommodate very little deformation. Ground improvement may be the most economical solution for these types of systems, and for all types of systems in areas where large ground displacement is anticipated. 133 1.2 PURPOSE Although several ground improvement techniques have been developed to varying degrees and used for liquefaction remediation on a number of projects involving existing structures, the approaches that have been developed are scattered in the literature. The purpose of this report is to present the state-of-practice of ground improviement for liquefaction reinediatiou near existing structures. In particular, the long linear element of-lifeline systems supported by ground having high potential for liquefaction and horizontal ground displacement. It is hoped that this document will 1} aid the owners and designers in the planning of ground improvement for liquefaction remediation near existing lifelines, and 2} identify those areas where more study is needed, 1.3 LMTATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS Many of the case studies available in the literature do not cover all aspects of the project, rather they emphasize one or two aspects. For example, a case study may focus on ground improvement methodology, giving little information on seismic evaluation. In some cases, even key information on ground improvement methodology is lacking. Because of the variable nature of soils and techniques, ground improvement is more art than engineering, based on experience, semi - empirical relationships, and site trials. For detailed design, construction and evaluation procedures, it is highly recommended that the reader consult relevant papers and reports, and experts in the fields of ground improvement, seismic evaluation, and lifeline earthquake engineering. 1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT Following this introduction, in Chapter 2, five low vibration ground improvement techniques are identified, and available case studies of liquefaction remediation are reviewed. The application of these five techniques for remedial work near various lifelines is discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides a summary of this report as well as brief remarks about additional needed research. 2 134 CHAPTER 2 LOW VICBRATION GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION - 2.1 INTRODUCTION The risk of liquefaction and ground deformation can be reduced by the following types of ground improvement: densification, solidification, drainage, dewatering, and reinforcement (Ledbetter, 1985; National Research Council, 1985; Kramer and Holtz, 1991; JSSFME, 1995). Soil densification is generally considered highly reliable, and the standard remedial measure against liquefaction. It reduces the void space of the soil, thereby decreasing the potential for volumetric change that would lead to liquefaction. Resistance to shear deformation also increases with increased density. Several sites improved by densification performed well 'during the 1964 Niigata, Japan, 1978 Miyagiken -oki, Japan, 1989 Loma Prieta, California, and 1994 Northridge, California, earthquakes (Watanabe, 1966; Ishihara et al., 1980; Mitchell and Wentz, 1991; Graf, 1992a; Hayden and Baez, 1994). In one early report (Matso, 1995) from Kobe City, Japan, a site which had been treated by densification performed better than the surrounding untreated areas during the 1995 Hanshin -Awaji earthquake. Solidification is also considered a highly reliable remedial measure against liquefaction. It prevents soil particle movement and provides cohesive strength.. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the few sites improved by solidification techniques performed well (Mitchell and Wentz, 1991; Graf, 1992a). While the drainage method has been used for a number of liquefaction remediation projects in Japan, it has found limited use in the United States. Shake table tests (Sasaki and Taniguchi, 1982) indicate that gravel drains can accelerate the dissipation of excess pore water pressures, thereby limiting the loss of shear strength and reducing the uplift pressures acting on buried structures. Following the 1993 Kushiro -Oki, Japan, earthquake, Tai et al. (1994a, 1994b) observed that quay walls having back fill treated by the gravel drain pile and sand compaction pile techniques suffered no damage, while quay walls having untreated backfill were severely damaged due to liquefaction. . Lowering the ground water level by dewatering reduces the degree of saturation, thereby preventing the development of excess pore water pressure which would lead to liquefaction. Dewatering is a difficult and very expensive task, since both upstream and downstream seepage cutoffs are usually required, and pumps must be maintained constantly. 3 135 Soil reinforcement provides resistance to ground deformation. Shake table tests (Yasuda et al., 1992) indicate that continuous underground walls can control horizontal ground movement. Their effectiveness depends on such factors as quantity, orientation, shear resistance, and excitation direction. The most commonly used ground improvement techniques for liquefaction remediation at new construction sites are vibro- compaction, vibro- replacement, dynamic compaction, and sand compaction pile (Hayden and Baez, 1994; JSSFME, 1995). These four techniques improve the ground 'primarily by densification, and are typically less expensive than other techniques, However, they can produce objectionable levels of work vibration. Techniques selected to improve the ground surrounding or adjacent to existing lifelines should be those that would not cause excessive level of disturbance to the lifelines. One densification technique that produces low levels of vibration during installation is compaction grouting, discussed in Section 2.2. Three low vibration techniques that improve primarily by solidification are permeation grouting, jet grouting, and in situ soil mixing. permeation grouting is discussed in Section 2.3. Jet grouting and in situ soil mixing, discussed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, can be highly cost - effective when used for reinforcement, or for cutoff walls to reduce seepage during dewatering. The dewatering alternative is not considered because the construction of cutoff walls and dewatering wells, and pump maintenance seem more expensive than the other alternatives. In Section 2.6, low vibration systems for installing drain piles are discussed. 2.2 COMPACTION GROUTING 2.2.1 General Compaction grouting is the injection of a thick, low mobility grout that remains in a homogenous mass without entering soil pores. As the grout mass expands, the surrounding soil is displaced and densified. A conceptual drawing of compaction grouting is shown in Fig. 2.1. According to Rubright and Welsh (1993), development of the compaction grouting technique began in the United States during the early 1950s. It has been successfully used to correct structural settlement, prevent settlement during soft ground tunneling in urban areas, protect structures against local zones of sinkhole settlement, and densify liquefiable soil, There are many factors which can influence the effectiveness of compaction grouting (Graf, 1992b; Warner et al., 1992; Rubright and Welsh, 1993) including: I. Soil Being Compacted. Cohesive soils are harder to compact than cohesionless soils. The technique is not effective in thick, saturated clayey soils, and may be marginally effective in silt deposits. 4 136 2. Earth Pressures. Overlying ground will heave if overburden pressure is low, and injection pressure and rate are too high. 3. Grout Mix. Recommended grout mixes consist of silty sand, cement, fly ash, and water. Grout slump is usually set at about 25 mm. It has been recommended that the use of bentonite and other clay materials be restricted, since hydraulic fracturing and limited compaction will occur if grout contains sufficient clay irrespective of slump. Cement may not be needed for just soil densification. 4. Grout Injection Pressure and Rate. Excessive injection rates and pressures will result in premature heaving of overlying ground. The maximum pressure also depends on the sensitivity of adjacent structures. S. Grout Injection Volume. Uneven distribution of grout will likely result in uneven improvement. Injection volumes range from as low as 4% of the treated volume to as high as 20% for sinkhole areas. 6. Grout Hole Spacing. Holes spaced too far apart will leave zones of undensified soil. For deep injection (greater than about 3 m), final spacings of 2 to 4 m are frequently used. For shallow injection, final spacings usually range from 1 to 2 m. 7. Injection Sequence. Effective sequencing will utilize confinement created in previous work. Grouting can be performed from the top down (stage down) or from the bottom up (stage up). While stage up grouting is generally more economical, stage down grouting utilizes confinement created in previous work. Near the ground surface where confining pressures are low, stage down grouting may be required to achieve specified compaction levels. It is considered good practice to have at least primary and secondary grout holes, where secondary holes split the distance between primary holes. Injection stages or increments of 0.3 to 0.9 m have been used. In addition, splitting the injection depths will also contribute to greater uniformity. Rational design methods have been presented for compaction grouting to reduce settlement (Gambin, 1991) and to protect overlying construction against local zones of sinkhole settlement (Schmertmann and Henry,. 1992). According to Welsh (1995), the cost to mobilize and demobilize the compaction grouting equipment is between $8,000 and $15,000 per rig. To install 76 -mm diameter grout pipe, the cost starts at about $50 per meter of pipe. This cost would double for low headroom work. The cost of injection labor and grout materials starts at about $20 per cubic meter of improved soil, assuming the volume of grout injected is 10% of the total volume of treated soil. 5 137 Grout Pipe A A F A Compacted Soil ^� A A F • f KI �ti�M1 �: r M1 A A A A ' "M 'Grout •' : +• :��f.'�' ✓ � � : n Fig_ 2.1 - Conceptual Drawing of Soil Densification by Compaction Grouting. 2.2.2 Liquefaction Remediation Several remediation projects where compaction grouting was used to densify liquefiable soils are summarized in Table 2.1. These projects can be separated into the following categories: 1) treatment beneath existing structures, 2) treatment in urban areas where low levels of vibration and noise were required, 3) treatment below thick zones not requiring improvement, and 4) treatment of small areas. Five case studies are reviewed in more detail as follows. 2.2.2.1 Pinopolis West Dam, South Carolina The Pinopolis West Dam is a 21.3 m high and 2,011 m long earthfill dam near Moncks Corner, South Carolina. It was constructed in 1940 on a site underlain by a 1.2- to 2.4 -m thick layer of very loose sand to silty sand. As reported by Salley et al. (1987), corrected blow count measured in the loose sand layer by the Standard Penetration Test (SPY) method ranged from 0 to 7 blows per 0.3 m, with an average value of 4. In -place dry unit weights ranged from 13 to 16 kN[M and void ratios ranged from 0.94 to 0.65. It was determined that this sand layer could liquefy during the design earthquake, and a corrected blow count, Nl, of 11 would be sufficient to avoid liquefaction at the downstream toe of the dam. 6 138 In 1984, a pilot study (Salley et al., 1987) was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of compaction grouting for compacting the loose sand. A typical cross section of the pilot study area at the downstream toe of the dam is shown in Fig. 2.2. The test pad shown in the center of Fig. 2.2 was constructed to provide sufficient confining pressure so that effective compaction could be achieved without causing excessive heave of the overlying materials. Six grain -size distribution curves for samples taken from the loose sand by a split - barrel sampler, 35 mm inside diameter, are presented in Fig. 2.3. Compaction grouting was in "itially performed on 3.7- m grid pattern, with secondary and tertiary grout stages splitting the grid to 1.8 m. A sand - cement grout with a slump of about 76 mm was used. The grout was injected at a rate of 0.06 M3 per minute. Grouting continued at a location until a pre - determined amount of grout was injected or the pressure could not be kept below 2 MPa. At which time the grout pipe was raised 0.3 m and grout injection resumed. After the grouting program was completed, average N1- values measured at the midpoint between grout holes increased to 17. Profiles of before and after average N1- values are shown in Fig. 2.4.. Salley et al. suggest the decrease in NI after tertiary grouting was due to random variations within the small statistical base. Tip resistances measured by the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) method increased from an average value of 2.3 to 7.9 MPa. Profiles of before and after average tip resistances are shown in Fig. 2.5. The improvement in penetration resistances for each grouting stage is summarized in Fig. 2.6. The modulus determined by the Dilatometer Test (DMT) increased from an average value of 10 to 66 MPa. The increase in penetration and modulus values demonstrated that compaction grouting successfully densified the loose sand. The production grouting program (Baez and Henry, 1993) was conducted in 1989. Prior to production grouting, a berm was placed over the planned improvement area at the downstream toe to provide greater confinement and a working surface. The elevation -of the berm was 1.3 m higher than the elevation of the test pad shown in Fig. 2.2. At each injection location, the grout pipe was installed to the bottom of the loose sand. Grout with slump less than 76 mm was pumped into the casing until a pre- determined amount of grout was injected or pressure at casing reached 2 MPa or a certain amount of heave occurred. The maximum volume of injected grout was 1.12 m per meter in primary holes, 0.92 m per meter in secondary holes, and no maximum in tertiary holes. To ensure that the dam was not damaged, the maximum allowable heave was initially set at 19 mm measured at 1.8 m above the loose sand and 6 mm measured at the ground surface. These limits were later revised to 100 mm and 25 mm, respectively. The flow rate was limited to 0.08 m per minute. When one of the above criteria was met, the pipe was raised 0.3 in and grout injection resumed. Primary injections were performed on 3.7 -m grid pattern, with secondary and tertiary injections splitting the grid to 1.8 m. The equivalent scaled grout diameter at each injection location is illustrated in Fig. 2.7. Based on 182 grout locations, an average of 1.02 m per meter was injected at each primary location, 0.49 m per meter was injected at each secondary location, and 0.46 m per meter was injected at each tertiary location. Where NI- values after tertiary grouting were found to be below the required value of 12 to 17 (depending on the fines content), a quaternary injection phase was applied. At the completion of the grouting program, the ratio of injected grout volume to treated volume ranged between 14% and 21 %, with an average value of 18 %. The total area of treatment was 5,626 m Values of NI after treatment ranged from 11 to 38. Profiles of N 1 determined before and after treatment are shown in Fig. 2.8. 7 139 2.2.2.2 Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia The construction of various facilities was planned at the Kings Bay Submarine Base on soils ranging from fine sand to clayey sand with some thin clay and silt seams. The general range of grain -size distribution for the foundation soils is shown in Fig. 2.9. Below the depth of about 4 m, SPT blow counts ranged from 1 to 40, CPT tip resistances varied between p.5 and 24 MPa, and DMT modulus values ranged from 2.4 to 96 MPa. It was believed that the looser zones could settle and liquefy as a result of seismic activity or exploding warheads. The vibro- compaction, vibro - replacement, dynamic compaction and compaction grouting techniques were used to densify loose foundation soils to a depth of 15 m (Hussin and Ali, 1987). Compaction grouting was used to densify the loose sands that were overlain by materials not requiring improvement about 4 m thick (Hussin and Ali, 1987). It was performed with two phases for a final injection spacing of 2.7 m. As described by Hussin and Ali (1987), the procedure for each location began by inserting 100 -mm diameter grout pipe into the ground to the bottom of the soil needing treatment. Grout was then injected into the soil under pressures up to 7 MPa as the pipe was withdrawn. The grout consisted of silty fine sand, cement, additives, and sufficient water for a slump of 51 mm. The total area of treatment by compaction grouting was 20,848 m Profiles of CPT tip resistance, sleeve friction and friction ratio determined before and after compaction grouting are shown in Fig. 2.10. Most soils with low friction ratio (less than about l %) were improved to the target relative density, D r , of 70 %, as shown in Fig. 2.10. The tip resistances of soils with high friction ratio were increased by as much as 100 %. 2.2.2.3 Steel Creek Dam, South Carolina The Steel Creek Dam is a 27 m high and 670 m long earthfill dam located at the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. The dam was completed in 1985. Construction included densification of loose foundation soil to prevent seismic- induced liquefaction below the embankment. As reported by Keller et al. (1987), the dam was designed to withstand a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.1 g caused by a magnitude 6.6 earthquake. The upper 15 m of foundation soil, shown in Fig. 2.11, was composed of clayey sand with 3% to 20% fines (silt and clay)_ A 6 -m thick zone within the layer of clayey sand exhibited SPT blow counts less than 10; CPT tip resistances less than about $ MPa; and shear wave velocities determined by the crosshole method of 120 to 140 m/s. Typical profiles of soil type, penetration, density and fines content are shown in Fig. 2.12. Pilot studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the dynamic compaction, stone column, compaction grouting and vibratory pile driving techniques in compacting the clayey sands. Compaction grouting was generally ineffective in compacting even the sands with 3% to 10% clayey fines. 140 2.2.2.4 Fontvieille Zone I?, Monaco As reported by Gambin (1991), the Fontvieille area in the Principality of Monaco was reclaimed in the 1970s by dumping sand with cobbles, gravel and silt from barges. A typical profile showing ground conditions after reclamation between the depths of 7 and 22 m is presented in Fig. 2.13. The dumped fill (designated as sand and gravel, and silty gravelly sand) extended to a depth of 15.5 m, and was underlain by natural silty sand. Also shown in the figure are grain -size distribution curves for samples taken from the fill and silty sand layers. Since the area is prone to earthquake, it was necessary to densify these layers. The upper 7 m of fill was dynamically compacted. Temporary embankments up to 16 m high were constructed to preload and compact the deeper layers. This treatment was considered to be sufficient for housing structures. In the early 1980s, community facilities consisting of a church, a post office, a fire station, a police station, and a two -story parking garage were proposed. Field testing at the proposed site included standard penetration, seismic crosshole, and Menard pressuremeter. In addition, various drilling parameters, such as penetration rate, thrust, and torque, were recorded. Results from the pressuremeter and a combined drilling parameter, R, were discussed by Gambin (1991). The uncompacted cobblely fill and the natural silty sand exhibited an average pressuremeter modulus, E, of 4 and 5 MPa, respectively. As shown in Profile A of Fig. 2.14, the M6nard E- modulus and R- parameter exhibited similar trends. Compaction grouting was considered the most appropriate ground improvement technique for the site. Without treatment, the settlement in critical zones would be on the order of 84 mm. It was determined that an average E- modulus greater than 8 MPa would decrease the foundation settlement in critical zones to about 16 nun and reduce the potential for liquefaction to an acceptable level. The shaded zone in Profile 13 of Fig. 2.14 expresses the critical zone. In the non critical areas, mostly parking garage, grout was injected through primary and secondary holes located in a square grid pattern with final spacing equal to 3.6 m. The ratio of injected grout to treated volume did not exceed 3.8 %. In the critical areas, office buildings and church, grout was injected through primary, secondary and tertiary holes in a square grid pattern with final spacing equal to 2.5 m. The injected volume in the critical areas did not exceed 4.8 %. The after treatment 13- parameter is shown in Profile C of Fig. 2.14. The average after treatment Menard E- modulus ranged from 8 to 10 MPa. When the building was completed in 1987 the observed settlement was less than 10 mm. 2.2.2.5 Kaiser Hospital Addition, South San Francisco A single -story addition was planned for the Kaiser Hospital in South San Francisco, California, on a site underlain by a potentially liquefiable layer of hydraulically placed sand fill (Mitchell and Wentz, 1991; Graf, 1992a). The hydraulic sand fill was as much as 8 m thick, and overlain by 2.4 m of unconsolidated fill consisting of sand, gravel, clay, and construction 0 141 debris. The ground water table was about 2 m below the ground surface. Average corrected SPT blow counts, N, measured before treatment in the hydraulic sand fill ranged from 15 to 26. The liquefaction potential of the hydraulic fill was considered to be moderate during large earthquake shakings, with the minimum value of peals horizontal ground surface acceleration needed for liquefaction to occur equal to about 0.25 g. Since noise from pile driving would have been too disruptive to hospital operation, compaction grouting was considered the most cost - effective solution. In 1979, a pilot study was . conducted at the site to evaluate the effectiveness of compaction grouting. Grout pipes were installed to the top of the sand fill. A thick (slump less than 51 mm), sand - cement grout was injected until a slight ground heave (about 3 mm) was observed or the injection pressure reached 4 MPa. After the grout harden, the hole was advanced 0.9 to 1.2 m to the next injection point. Grout holes in the test section were spaced 2.4 m on center in a triangular grid pattern. The ratio of injected grout volume to treated soil volume was about 10 %. SPTs and CPTs were performed to evaluate the effectivetiess of the pilot test section. CPT tip resistances were converted to equivalent SPT values. The average equivalent SPT blow counts measured before and after treatment are shown in Fig. 2,15. Average equivalent N- values after treatment ranged from 21 to 33. These results show that compaction grouting effectively compacted the hydraulic fill. At the beginning of the production grouting program, grouting was performed from the top of the liquefiable layer downward, but without allowing the grout to harden between injection depths. Grout injection at each point continued until a drop in injection pressure or a constant injection pressure of 2.8 MPa with less than 0.02 m per minute grout take or a surface heave of 3 mm. However, sufficient compaction could not be achieved using this procedure. After considering various alternatives, the grouting program was completed by grouting from the bottom up in two phases, from 4 to 2 m and from 11 to . 2 m. Injection depths were spaced 0.9 m apart. The final spacing between grout holes was 1.2 m on centers in a triangular grid pattern. The upper 2 rn were excavated and recompacted after the grouting operation. Average equivalent SPT blow count after treatment ranged from 21 to 36, as shown in Fig. 2,16. It was concluded that the. hydraulic sand fill layer was sufficiently densified, with the minimum value of peak horizontal ground surface acceleration needed for liquefaction to occur equal to 0.35 g. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the area experienced a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of about 0.11 g (Mitchell and Wentz, 1991). No damage to the hospital addition was reported. Since the Deak ground surface acceleration was rather low, the site has yet to be truly tested by large earthquake shaking. 10 142 Table 2.1 - Case Studies of Liquefaction Remediation by Compaction Grouting. Site Site Reasons for Construction Performance Characteristics Method Program Selection Pinopobs West Loose sand to silty Critical layer Treatment to downs pream toe. Corrected N- values Pain, Moncks sand 1.2 to 2.4 m beneath existing Built berm to increase - ' ranged from 11 to 38 Comer, SC thick. Corrected dam, confinement of critical layer. after treatment. (Salley et al., N- vaIues ranged Sand - cement grout with 1987; Baez and from 0 to 7 before slump less than 76 mm. Henry, 1993). treatment. Stage up grouting in 0.3 m increments. Final grid spacing after three phases was 1.8 m. The average ratio of injected grout volume to treated volume was 18 %. Icings Bay Silty sand to sand Bypass zone not Sand- cement grout with 51 CPT tip resistances Naval down to 15 m. requiring mm- slump. Stage up increased by as much Submarine Before treatment improvement, and grouting. Final grid spacing as 100 %. Base, GA N- values ranged treat deep critical 2.7 m on centers. (Hussin and from 1 to 40; CPT layer. Ali, 1987). tip resistances varied between 0.5 and 24 MPa; DMT modulus ranged from 2 to 96 MPa. Test program at Loose clayey sand. Compaction - - No data given. Steel Creek Before treatment grouting was Dam, Savannah N- values less than generally River Plant, SC 10; CPT tip ineffective in the (Keller et al., resistances less clayey sand. 1987). than 8 MPa; shear wave velocities of 120 to 140 m/s. New buildings, Loose sand fill Overlying strong Stage up grouting. Primary Average Menard E- Monaco with cobbles, thick layer. Piling and secondary holes in square modulus of 8 to 10 (Gambin, gravel and silt too expensive. pattern. Non critical areas -- MPa after treatment, 1991). between depths of final spacing of 3.6 m and 7 and 18 m. grout volume of 3.8% of Average Mdnard treated soil volume. Critical E- modulus of 4 to areas - -final spacing of 2.5 in 5 MPa before and grout volume of 4.8 %. treatment. Kaiser Hospital Loose to medium Noise from pile Sand - cement grout with 25- Average N- values addition, South dense sand 2.4 to driving would have mm slump. Stage up grouting ranged from 21 and San Francisco, 10.7 m below been too disruptive in 0.9 m increments. Final 36 after treatment. CA (Mitchell ground surface. to hospital grid spacing after two phases No reported damage and Wentz, Average corrected operations. was 1.2 in on centers. after 1989 Loma 1991; Graf, N- values of 15 to Prieta earthquake; 1992a). 26 before grouting. amax = 0.11 g. I 143 Table 2.1 - Case Studies of Liquefaction Remediation Icy Compaction Grouting (cont.). Site Site Reasons for Construction Performance Characteristics Method Program Selection Bridge Sands to 9 m. Prevetit lateral No data given. No data given. abutments, spreading and _ Imperial damage to new County, CA bridge. (Hayden and Baez, 1994). Pier, San Liquefiable sands Treatment beneath No data given. No data given. Francisco, CA and silty sands. existing pier (Hayden and following 19 89 Baez, 1994). Loma Prieta earthquake. Detention Liquefiable soil at Existing building. No data given. No data given. Center, Sari 6 to 9 m depths. Fernando, CA (Hayden and Baez, 1994). Three houses, Silt and sands to No mason given. No data given, No data given. Los Altos, CA 4.6 m. (Hayden and Baez, 1994). Warehouse, Silts and sands to 6 No reason given. No'data given. No data given. Burlingame, m. CA (Hayden and B aez, 1994). Tower, Port Liquefiable soils Existing 61 m high No data given. No data given. Mellon, BC, beneath mat tower. Canada foundation to a (Hayden and depth of 18 m. Baez, 1994). 12 144 -- IF ws_��wwwuw ���� �ww�lelr�r /srw�lw��\ ���M'ti!5■ ���\ ri�l��r ■! ■iNlirlw!! - rL��s4tlr�rrlw� wlwt! /��� ■• ■w�lrl�s /umrwr �`/r_wi •�rsewwwlr r r ■r rw \! r\iir/ r ra \w wr ws rrwewur. \� ►sue u��w� = I//r Um M. �w�r►'rr tr/Frrlwil� wr�ltrrtrlrsI'm rw lalww •rr_���r rlrrrrr..rrw : w�ewrrw/rrrr nrrwr s rwirrlwirrrwrrwr►w�swnrerrMw/r www ■ss�lw ^/ice/ rrrr�rr \� +!rw s!\\reeler iiA! r //r MM! r! wr����/L��� ww�l��u/rw�lrrrws ��� \L wrrl��wwll��r / ■rw �lr�� - ww�lrl�� 26 27 29 31 33 Q 36 37 39 41 A.q 0 5 10 Is 20 25 30 36 Average Slows per ft. from SPT Fig. 2.4 - Average Corrected SPT Blow Count from Pilot Study Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dam (Salley et al., 1987). Before and After SPT Profiles are Plotted with the Improvement Shaded. Q ft = 0.3 rn.) 14 146 27 DENSE SAND 29 • c 3 w 3 s ,. LOOSE ar SAND 37 } "0 t� ,. ...__ p...... 39 * _. MARL LEGEND: Improvement due 41 ® to primary and secondary grouting Improvement due to tertiary grouting 43 0 so 100 150 21 Tip Resistance, tef Fig. 2.5 - Average Cone Penetration Profiles from Pilot Study Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dam (Salley et al., 1987). Before and After Cone Tip Resistance Profiles are Platted with the Improvement Shaded. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 96 kPa.) 15 147 e 12 U a INJECTION SPACING IN FEET 3 9 Fig. 2.6 - Improvement in Penetration Resistance Relative to Grout Injection Spacing from Pilot Study Site Treated by Comp4ction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dana (Salley et a1., 1987). The Relative Position of Scales for Cone Tip Resistance and SPT Blow Count is Based on a Ratio of Tip Resistance to N I Equal to S. (1 f = 0.3 m; 1 ton/ft = 96 kPa.) 16 UM 30 AVALABLE DATA STAGE qe 0 N (4) Baste Pad 1-4 Pad 1-4 1 P6d 1 -- 25 1 2 Pad " 3 Pad 1-3 Pad 1-3 NOTE 1 Pad 4 data rat used after in1Na1 20 m*&vx n wft due to Drool hole "cft dUferont then WW pede. N1 RANGE 15 e0 Q RANGE 10 o o Baseline ()j (� a"*-- STAGES 12 U a INJECTION SPACING IN FEET 3 9 Fig. 2.6 - Improvement in Penetration Resistance Relative to Grout Injection Spacing from Pilot Study Site Treated by Comp4ction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dana (Salley et a1., 1987). The Relative Position of Scales for Cone Tip Resistance and SPT Blow Count is Based on a Ratio of Tip Resistance to N I Equal to S. (1 f = 0.3 m; 1 ton/ft = 96 kPa.) 16 UM sector 13 p Sector 27 e M �zry �J Sector 41 0 Sector 26 Scale: O 5 -!t r.y 1.5 -m 0 20 40 60 Distance (ft) Fig. 2.7 - Equivalent Scaled Compaction Grout Column Diameter For Several Injection Location at Pinopolis West Dam (Baez and Henry, 1993). (1 ft = 0.3 m,) a 7 6 5 4 $ 3 s 0 p 2 1 0 .1 .2 1261 ,••' •� • .1 - 2 71 W . o e .ice • • Ave. Post • Treatment � n• o •b .'j•a o • ;I 1 •p ► • . �� 0 • 40 60 ED •. ••• I. • • •'' Sector 26 -0 " " Sector I7 I • MN1617 o KL1415 • KL1919 n NJ1617 • KL1617 Avg Post Treat Corrected SPY. N Value (bpi? Fig. 2.8 - Profiles of Average Corrected SPT Blow Count from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dam (Baez and Henry, 1993). Before Treatment Profiles are Dashed. (1 ft = 0.3 m.) 17 149 o O 0 p el 0 0 Oi It o o O 1 1 o [ f 0 0 I� I I II 4 0 a o t► ° O H O° i �� I � 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 o O I li 1 p N o p o ° R O O . oi ° 0 0 ° O 11 0 ° o o Oar Sector 26 Scale: O 5 -!t r.y 1.5 -m 0 20 40 60 Distance (ft) Fig. 2.7 - Equivalent Scaled Compaction Grout Column Diameter For Several Injection Location at Pinopolis West Dam (Baez and Henry, 1993). (1 ft = 0.3 m,) a 7 6 5 4 $ 3 s 0 p 2 1 0 .1 .2 1261 ,••' •� • .1 - 2 71 W . o e .ice • • Ave. Post • Treatment � n• o •b .'j•a o • ;I 1 •p ► • . �� 0 • 40 60 ED •. ••• I. • • •'' Sector 26 -0 " " Sector I7 I • MN1617 o KL1415 • KL1919 n NJ1617 • KL1617 Avg Post Treat Corrected SPY. N Value (bpi? Fig. 2.8 - Profiles of Average Corrected SPT Blow Count from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Pinopolis West Dam (Baez and Henry, 1993). Before Treatment Profiles are Dashed. (1 ft = 0.3 m.) 17 149 US Standard Sieve Sizes 3 - 2" 1 3 /,j - . 3 / e" 4 10 ZO 40 60 100 2QO IDO 90 70 60 to w z 50 Z s 3 LO a- 20 10 N■MMIIIIIIE■MIRINtI■ ■ L 100. 10. 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 G14AIN SIZE M MILLIMETERS J=�j SAM I COARSE FINE CQ►N6E NEOIUN mwf - 1 stcY Gins CLAY SIZES Fig. 2.9 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves for Foundation Sands at Kings Bay Naval Base (Hussin and Ali, 1987). 18 150 Compaction - Grouting MTF FRICTION FRICTION RATIO M tin Mnik'21 5000 ITonM'21 56 gfERCENT) B 14 9 4 �1 -6 -16 -21 -26 1 -31 t a i a � W � 21 Fig. 2.10 - Cone Penetration Profiles from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base (Hussin and Ali, 1987). Before and After Cone Tip Resistance Profiles are Plotted on the Left with the Improvement Shaded. (1 ft = 0.3 m.) 19 151 �■ �Ill��ill �! ■ ■��'�Illilll �� ■ ■ ■1111��IIII ■t ■E1111G�111 E� ■��� ■E�1 t�lll ��_ ■��11�111 M Ni MAX i Fig. 2.10 - Cone Penetration Profiles from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base (Hussin and Ali, 1987). Before and After Cone Tip Resistance Profiles are Plotted on the Left with the Improvement Shaded. (1 ft = 0.3 m.) 19 151 200 E �wn� ISO Far�netlah � Valley Area Dense Clayey Sands Poo dfl Cral10arM Farrnetlan eased On Mursnr R4tl8496 Conwtling Engine*n Soil Proliln N<10 Ca lea w Dense • Clayey Sandi t Alluvium Organics a� �s:; t .:.�r .. ; , �,_. Cl ayey same Stiff Clayey Sill -Marl Fi& 2. It - Simplified Soil Profile of Foundation Soils at the Steel Creek Dam, South Carolina (Keller et al., 1987), (1 ft A 0.3 m.) 152 EL fl I10 100 90 N r.+ E30 70 LAYER SPT CPT DENSITY FINES N- Blows /ft g c ,tsf Rf Nd, PO % Passing No, 200 Sieve D 10 20 0 200 0 4 75 80 95 90 95 100 0 3 10 15 20 SP SP-SC Required For Seismic Stobility Fig. 2.12 - Typical Soil, Penetration and Density Profiles of Foundation Soils at the Steel Creek Dam, South Carolina (Keller et al., 1987). (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 ton /ft = 96 kPa; 1 pct' = 0,157 kN /m ) 153 1! II i 3 I I I f �, :. i I I I I I f I 20 200 .OL 50 Yo to i Z t I,5 0.2 Oa QOS Op24at 5u 2�[ ;u� SILTY SAND a 0•4S• emin O• S2 Fig. 2.13 - Typical Soil and Pressuremeter Profiles, and Grain; -Size Distribution Curves at Fontvieille Zone D, Monaco (Gambin, 1991). (1 tsf w 96 kPa.) 22 154 COBBLE FILL ewax . 0.58, c oin 1.0'35 MCNARU E-- MODULUS IT PRIISSURI3 SOIL DESCRIPTION tsf tsf w 100 2 00 10 20 e SAND ANp %Rv: T2 lit GRAVEL 10 is SILTY 12 IIz GRAVELLY ' "L •' ID.! 14 SAND I�y're 20 l't 15 (made ground may' 2e 10 - 33 F; 1 Z. SILTY SAND !e 2 rf 11 1! II i 3 I I I f �, :. i I I I I I f I 20 200 .OL 50 Yo to i Z t I,5 0.2 Oa QOS Op24at 5u 2�[ ;u� SILTY SAND a 0•4S• emin O• S2 Fig. 2.13 - Typical Soil and Pressuremeter Profiles, and Grain; -Size Distribution Curves at Fontvieille Zone D, Monaco (Gambin, 1991). (1 tsf w 96 kPa.) 22 154 COBBLE FILL ewax . 0.58, c oin 1.0'35 Profile A Profile B Profile C C.10 MR 1 ' rsa " � J u � 9TQ 3 1 W !iY 10 J ++ Iii .W 1 Sul i Y : � NI 771 } W �f I !! w c! ID ry "i 12 00 bers 1 Fig. 2.14 - Profile A Shows Proportional Relationship between Menard E- modulus and a Combined Drilling Parameter, called P.. Before and After Values of P are Plotted as Profiles B and C. The Shaded Zone in Profile B Expresses the Critical Zone. (1 bar = Q.1 MPa) 23 155 8 zSO bars 13 Corrected SPT Resistance, blows per 0.3 m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 18 16 P_ 14 e 0 12 W 10 8 -Target- / After Grouting Before Grouting Fig. 2.15 - Profiles of Average Equivalent SPT BIow Count from Pilot Study Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Kaiser Hospital Addition, South San Francisco (after Mitchell and Wentz, 1991). 24 156 18 16 L 14 C C a 12 W 10 Corrected SPT Resistance, blows per 0.3'm 0 10 20 30 40 50 - 60 Fig. 2.16 - Profiles of Average SPT Blow Count from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Kaiser Hospital Addition, South San Francisco (after Mitchell and Wentz, 1991). 157 MWAN er Grouting Before Grouting NAWN Fig. 2.16 - Profiles of Average SPT Blow Count from Site Treated by Compaction Grouting at the Kaiser Hospital Addition, South San Francisco (after Mitchell and Wentz, 1991). 157 2.3 PEWYMATI;ON GROUTING 2.3.1 General Permeation grouting is the injection of low viscosity particulate or chemical fluids into soil pore space with little change to the physical structure of the soil. The major objective of permeation grouting is either to strengthen ground by cementing soil particles together or to reduce water flow by plugging soil pores. A conceptual diagram of permeation grouting is shown in Fig, 2.17. The history of permeation grouting can be traced to the late 1800s (Glossop, 1961). The permeation grouting technique has been successfully used to control ground water flow, stabilize excavations in soft ground, underpin existing foundations, and prevent seismically induced settlement and liquefaction.. There are a number of factors.which influence the effectiveness of permeation grouting (Balzer, 1982, Perez et al., 1982; Littlejohn, 1993; Greenwood, 1994) including: 1. Soil Being Permeated. Clean granular soils are easier to permeate than fine - grained soils. Soil permeability is the single most useful index. Porosity dictates the amount of grout consumed. Other iraportant parameters include grain size, soil fabric and stratigraphy. Grout Pipe n R� Permeated Soil _ Grout Fig. 2.17 - Conceptual Diagram of Soil Solidification by Permeation Grouting. 26 158 2. Earth Pressures. Ground fracture and heave occur when overburden pressure is low, and injection pressure and rate are high. Fractures can extend for great lengths since the grout is water -like, and there is little Ioss of pressure along them. Fractures develop before heave is observed at the ground surface. 3. Ground Water Conditions. Grout could be Ieached out of soil by seepage, or attacked chemically or biologically. Some chemical grouts crack where water level fluctuates. 4. Grout Mix. Particulate grouts, or suspensions, may consist of Portland cement, micro - fine cement, fly ash, clay, and water. Chemical grout types, or solutions, include sodium silicates, acrylamides, lignosulfonates, and resins (Karol, 1982). Sodium silicate grouts are the most widely used chemical grout for soil strengthening. The acrylamides in solution or powder form, and the catalyst used in lignosulfonates are highly toxic. Special handling and mixing procedures may be required to insure the health and safety of workers, and to protect the environment. Grout particle size, viscosity, temperature, setting time, stability, strength, creep, and durability must be considered. In general, ordinary Portland cement grouts will not permeate most sands, micro -fine cement grouts will not permeate medium- to fine - grained sand, and chemical grouts will not permeate sands containing more than about 25% silt and clay. 5. Grout Injection Pressure and Rate. Excessive injection pressures and rates will result in ground fracture and heave. It has been recommended that injection pressures be kept to about 25% of the fracture pressure determined by field trial. 6. Grout Injection Volume. Uneven distribution of grout will likely result in uneven improvement. 7. Grout Hole Spacing. Hales spaced too far apart will leave zones of untreated soil. Typical final hoIe spacings range from 0.5 to 2 m. 8. Injection Sequence. Effective sequencing will utilize confinement created in previous work. Grout initially penetrates the more open .soil leaving soils of lower permeability untreated. For a more uniform treatment, it has been recommended to inject predetermined grout quantities, and split spacings and depths of injection in successive phases. According to Welsh (1992; 1995), the cost to mobilize and demobilize permeation grouting equipment ranges from $15,000 to $25,000 per rig for projects using micro -fine cement grout, and over $25,000 per rig for projects using sodium silicate grout. To install sleeve port grout pipes, the cost is over $50 per meter of pipe. This cost would double for low headroom work. The cost of injection labor and grout materials start at about $130 per cubic meter of improved soil for micro -fine cement grout, and about $200 per cubic meter of improved soil for sodium silicate grout. The cost of labor and materials is based on a 20% grout take, and a total grout volume greater than about 200 m 27 159 2.3.2 Liquefaction Remediation Available case studies where permeation grouting was used to solidify loose soils for reducing seismic - induced settlement and liquefaction potential are summarized in Table 2.2. These case studies involved treatment beneath existing structures and around a tunnel under construction. Three of the cases are reviewed in more detail below. 2.3.2.1 Riverside Avenue Bridge, Santa Cruz From the report by Mitchell and Wentz (1991), the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz, California, is supported by reinforced concrete nose piers. The river was eroding away the soil beneath the south nose pier. Some settlement had occurred, causing damage to the bridge decking above. The river channel beneath the bridge and nose piers is lined by a concrete slab - apron. The upper 5 m of soil beneath the slab -apron consisted of saturated, loose to dense sandy gravel with a maximum size of 25 mm. The gravel was underlain by a 3.4 -rn thick layer of dense gravelly sand with less than 5 fines (silt and clay). Sediments below the sand were composed of alternating Iayers of clay and silt. The water level of the river at high tide was 2.7 m above the bottom of the slab- apron. Permeation grouting was considered the technique best suited for remedial work beneath the nose pier and slab - apron. As review by Mitchell and Wentz (1991), holes were drilled through the concrete nose pier and slab -apron for grout injection beneath and around the pier. Steel sleeve port grout pipes were passed through each drilled hole and vibrated or jetted into the granular soil. Grout consisting of sodium silicate N grade and MC 500 micro -fine cement was injected through the sleeve port pipes and into the surrounding granular soil. The set time was controlled by adding to the grout mix less than 0.1% by volume of phosphoric acid. (No mention was made in the review about the environmental impact of Using phosphoric acid or special handling procedures.) A total of 160 rn of grout was injected into 77 locations within the 15 day limit. In addition, a nearby area was injected to evaluate the effectiveness of the grouting program.. Samples of grouted soil taken from taken from this area exhibited suitable strength. During the 1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake, the site experienced a maximum ground surface acceleration of about 0.45 g (Mitchell and Wentz, 1991). No settlement or detrimental ground movement was observed around the concrete slab -apron after the earthquake. 2.3.2.2 Roosevelt Junior High School, San Francisco . From the report by Graf and Zacher (1979), Roosevelt Junior High School in San Francisco, California, is a three -story structure supported by spread - column and perimeter -wall footings, founded on wind -blown sand containing less than 5% fines. The school was built around 1930. SPT blow counts measured in the upper 4.6 m of soil ranged from 3 to 15. Below 4.6 m, blow counts were more than 20. The water table was well below the near - surface loose sand. It was determined that the loose (low blow count) sand could densify and settle during strong ground shaking., 28 160 Permeation grouting was considered to he less expensive than underpinning existing footings and pouring larger footings. Contract drawings showing the injection pattems for existing spread footings and new wall footings are presented in Fig. 2.18. As described by Graf and Zacher (1979), a 13 -mm grout pipe was first installed to the shallowest injection depth. A predetermined amount of grout was injected through the pipe at a rate of 20 to 30 Itmin. The pipe was then advanced 0.3 m to the next injection depth, and the process repeated. The grout was an organic resin (R.E.G.) with a viscosity of 3 to 4 mPa•sec. Grout holes were generally spaced 0.9 to 1.5 m apart. Some of the work was performed in the small crawl space (less than 1.1 m high) under the floor slab. The unconfined compressive strengths of six specimens collected in test pit excavations ranged from 267 to 879 kPa, with an average value of 618 kPa. No foundation settlement was observed at the school following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Graf, 1992a). Based on reported ground surface accelerations (Darragh and Shakal, 1991), this area of San Francisco experienced a peak horizontal acceleration of about 0.15 g. Since this was a relatively low acceleration, the site has yet to be truly tested by large earthquake shaking. 2.3.2.3 Supermarket at 4041 Geary Street, San Francisco A concrete structure was to be remodeled into a supermarket. The structure, built around 1940, is located in San Francisco, California, near Roosevelt Junior High School. As reported by Graf (1992a), the foundation soils were composed of sand with little fines. The ground water table was well below the near - surface loose sand. It was determined that the loose sand could densify and settle during strong ground shaking. Permeation grouting was used to enlarge the existing footings, and to extend them downward to a denser sand layer. Holes were drilled through the existing footings to allow injection directly below footings. Grout pipe was jetted with the chemical grout to the shallowest injection depth. A predetermined quantity of grout was injected through the 13 -mm (0.5 in.) diameter pipe. The pipe was then advanced downward to the next injection depth, and the process repeated. In areas where strength was not critical, a sodium silicate based grout with an inorganic reactant (T -57) was used. In areas requiring higher strength, a sodium silicate based grout with an organic reactant (ROC) was used. The viscosity of the grout ranged from 2 to 4 mPa•sec. The unconfined compressive strengths of all specimens collected in test pit excavations were above the specified minimum. No foundation settlement was observed at the structure following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Graf, 1992a). Based on reported ground surface accelerations (Darragh and Shakal, 1991), this area of San Francisco experienced a peak horizontal acceleration of about 0.15 g. Similar to the Roosevelt School site, this site has yet to be truly tested by large earthquake shaking. 29 161 Table 2.2 - Case Studies of Rem.ediation for Seisrnic- Induced Settlement and Liquefaction by Permeation Grouting, Site Site Reasons for Construction Performance Characteristics Method Program Selection Riverside Loose to medium Treatment beneath Grout composed of sodium No settlement or Avenue bridge, dense gravelly existing concrete silicate N grade, MC 500 detrimental ground Santa Cruz, CA sand. River level noise pier and slab - micro -fine cement., and less movement reported (Mitchell and at high tide 2.7 m apron; limited than 0.1% by volume of after 1989 Loma Wentz, 1991). above bottom of working space. phosphoric acid to control set Prieta earthquake; concrete slab- time. a max ; 0.45 g. apron. Roosevelt noose to medium Pxisting building Sodium silicate based grout Unconfined Junior High dense silty sand and limited used. Stage down grouting in compressive strength School, San and sand extending working space. 0.3 m intervals. ranged from 269 kPa Francisco, GA to depth of 4.6 m. to 879 kPa. No (Graf and N- values ranged settlement reported 7acher, 1979; from 3 to 15 before after 1989 Lorna Graf, 1992a). treatment. Prieta earthquake; amax about 0.15 g. Concrete Loose clean sand. Bxisting building. Used sodium silicate based Unconfined structure grout with an inorganic compressive strength remodeled into reactant (T-57) for areas above the specified supermarket, requiring low strength, and an minimum. No San Francisco, organic reactant (ROC) for settlement reported CA (Graf, areas requiring higher after 1989 Loma 1992a). strength. Stage down Prieta earthquake; grouting. a max about 0.15 g. Tunnel, San Loose saturated Stabilize soils No data given. No data given. Francisco, CA soils. during tunnel (Hayden and construction and Baez, 1994). future earthquakes. 30 162 tepeitements a gi p, +' a A • d. 4 Design '.� ...,I �••.`� fi t...; . .,. �; - •iii �•:. •; i',y - .i, %fie.• Injection point CNeltdcal pad injection limit VERTICAL SECTION VERTICAL SECTION Fig. 2.18 - Contract Drawings Showing Injection Patterns for Permeation Grouting Beneath Existing Spread Footings (Left) and New Wall Footings (Right) at the Roosevelt Junior High School (Graf and Zacher, 1979). 31 point PLAN Cheellcal gout injection IWit +' __ Design tequiielnents .t' ey "• p.X • S• I Injection point 163 ...I t—il DCCIgn 1� Infection poltr PLAN 2.4 JET GROUTING 2.4.1 General In jet grouting, high pressure fluid jets are used to erode and mix/replace soil with grout. The general installation procedure begins with the drilling of a small hole, usually 90 to 150 mm in diameter,.to the final depth, as illustrated in Fig. 2.19. Groui is jetted into the soil through small nozzles as the drill rod is rotated and withdrawn. A continuous - low, of cuttings from the jet points to the ground surface is required to prevent ground pressures from building up to the jet pressure, leading to ground deformation. The cuttings accumulate at the surface to form large spoil piles. According to Bell (1993), much of the early development of jet grouting took place in Japan and Europe in the 1970s. The technique has been used worldwide to underpin existing foundations, support excavations, control ground water flow, and strengthen liquefiable soils. The formation of columns by jet grouting is an art, based on experience, semi - empirical relationships, and site trials, The main factors which influence the diameter and strength of jet grouted columns (Bell, 1993; Covil and Skinner, 1994; Stroud, 1994) include: 1. Soil Being Jetted. Sand is easier to erode than clay. Thus, the width of the treated zone will be less in clay than in sands if no adjustments are made during the jetting operation. Irregular column geometries are likely in cobblely soils where larger particles tin the range of jetting, and in highly permeable, poorly graded gravel where grout may flow out of the jetted zone. Soil moisture increases the water content of soil - cement mix, resulting in lower strength. 2. Ground Water Conditions. Grout could be leached out of soil by seepage, or- attacked chemically or biologically. 3. Grout Mix. Grout, usually a water - cement mixture, must be matched to ground conditions to sufficiently strengthen and/or reduce permeability. The water -- cement ratio of the in situ mix is a key index of strength, initial set time, and durability. Bentonite is usually added where low permeability is critical. Fly ash is added to control excessive bleeding and to improve durability. 4. Jet System. Single, double and triple jet systems are available. The single jet system only uses grout jets for both soil erosion and mixing. In the double jet system, the erosive effect is enhanced by shrouding the grout jet with compressed air. The triple jet system uses water jets shrouded by compressed air for soil erosion, and grout jets located lower down the drill stein for grout placement and mixing. The triple system permits greater flexibility in the control of the final properties of treated ground since the flow rate of the grout can be regulated independently of the erosive air -water jets. On the other hand, more waste cuttings are generated with the triple system than with the single system. 32 164 5. Jet Pressure and Injection Rate. High jet pressures and injection rates can erode soil to great distances. Pressure and nozzle diameter control the grout injection rate and the erosive energy. Typically, jet pressures range between 40 and 60 MPa, and nozzle diameters are 2 to 4 mm in diameter. 6. Drill Rod Rotation and Withdrawal Rates. The amount of grout injected and the degree of mixing depend on the rotation and withdrawal rates of the drill rod. Approximate relationships showing the variation of column diameter, withdrawal (or lift) rate, and jet system for granular materials and for clays are presented in Figs. 2.20 and 2.2 1, respectively. The effect of jet pressure on column diameter is illustrated in Fig. 2.22. 7. Column Sequencing. A column of grouted soil without sufficient strength may be influenced by the formation of any adjacent columns. Sodium silicate is sometimes added to the grout mix to accelerate the set time. The number and spacing of grout holes are also important factors contributing to the overall performance of jet grouted soil. Grout holes spaced too far apart will leave zones.of ungrouted soil. Zones of poorly grouted soil are possible even with close spacings, as illustrated in Fig. 2.21. Fig. 2.19 - A Procedure for Jet Grouting (1chihashi et al., 1992). 33 165 ,Perforation JAttin Ylthdraral According to Welsh (1992; 1995), the cost to mobilize and demobilize let grouting equipment is over $35,000 per rig. The cost of injection labor and grout materials Starts at $320 per cubic meter of improved ground. This cost does not include handling, removal, and disposal of the Iarge quantities of waste slurry that are produced. Depending on the jet system, the amount of waste slurry produced is 60% to 100% of the volume of treated soil. 2.4.2 Liquefaction Remediation There are just a few cases of liquefaction remediation by jet grouting reported in the literature. The little information available for three cases is summarized in Table 2.3. Two of the three cases involved treatment beneath existing structures. In the third case, the site was located in an urban area where love levels of vibration and noise were required. The details for this case are reviewed below. 2.4.2.1 Transit Station, Taipei, Taiwan A new transit station was planned in the city of Taipei (Tsai et aI., 1993). As described by Tsai et al. (1993), the upper 2 m of soil at the proposed site were composed of fill characterized by a N -value of 8. The fill was underlain by 4 m of andesite debris consisting of sandy gravel and cobbles, and characterized by SPT blow counts, N, ranging from 54 to over 100. The andesite debris was underlain by 2 m of silty clay characterized by a N-value of 2. The silty clay was underlain by 18 m of silty sand with occasional andesite debris characterized by N- values ranging from 3 to over 100. The water table was at a depth of 4 m. It was determined that the upper part of the silty sand layer which exhibited low N- values would Iiquefy during the maximum credible earthquake. From the report of Tsai et al. (1993), jet grouting was used to construct soil- cement columns to a depth of 14 m, spaced 2 m apart over an area of 17 m by 48 m. Cores taken from the center of the initial columns did not contain cement grout. To remedy the problem, grout pressures and drill rod withdrawal rates were adjusted based on the soil type encountered, and sodium silicate was added to the grout mix to accelerate the set time. In the loose sand, grout pressures ranged from 16 to 18 MPa and withdrawal rate was set at 190 mm/min. In the clayey soils and medium dense sands, grout pressures ranged from 18 to 20 MPa. Cores taken from columns constructed by the modified procedures exhibited a minimum 28 days unconfined compressive strength of 1.4 MPa. 34 166 2A � 1.E ;c d i.a 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 BO Uft Speed (cm/min) Fig. 2.20 - Variation in Diameter of Jet Grouted Column with Lift Rate in Sands (Stroud, 1944). 35 167 Syswrn ® sivia 82 DmAge W Tdpie (NB. This plot Is of European and North Arid South Atnedoan data. It 3 excludes Jrparrsse data, 3 1 3 pftler diameters for a r3 3 given Ifft rata) 2 Triple �+ Single 20 40 60 BO Uft Speed (cm/min) Fig. 2.20 - Variation in Diameter of Jet Grouted Column with Lift Rate in Sands (Stroud, 1944). 35 167 2.0 1.5 t= 0 e 1.0 0.5 s Sys4rn al SNIe 4 .- - Tdpie W Double 163 TT4AS (NB. TtN9 Plods of 1 Eumpean and Noah And A South American data) �3 1 • • 3 Triple � San •1 fl 1 w + � Qi Of �.._ 1 �� _�.. «.. .»... 1 0 20 40 60 80 lift Speed (cm/min) Fig. 2.21 - Variation in Diameter of Jet Grouted Column with Lift Rate in Clays (Solid Curves). The Relationships for Sands (Dashed Curves) are Shown for Comparison (Stroud, 1994). C .: s0 C E E 40 u r 4 4 Ix 30 C) 3 a 20 ae LLj LL 10 Uj a 0 Fig. 2.22 - Variation in Diameter of Jet Grouted Column with Lift Rate Showing Effect of Jet Pressure-(Bell, 1993). (1 bar= 0.1 MPa.) 37 169 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3,0 DESIRED COLUMN DIA (M ) G- (m) DH -1 0- 2 -10 -15 DH -2 Con Con Anrowry fiownry a.SO (x) few (%) DH-3 DH-4 DH-5 V aysuD 0 5010D 050100 Can Con Con RMwry Y Y Pak (%) PA60 (%) Aida (%) Legend: GOOD = FAIR ® POOR WM 1 4M Fig. 2.23 -Quality and Percent Recovery of Jet Grouted Soil in Cores Midway between Grout Injection Positions (fibm Stroud, 1994). Coring and Testing were Part of a Soil Improvement Project in Soft Clay for Support of a 12 -m -deep Excavation (Liao et al., 1994). Jet Grouting was Performed using Grout Injection Pressure of 18 to 20 MPa, with Drill Rod Rotation and Lift Rates of 15 r.p.m. and 188 mm/min, Respectively. While Only 40% of the Core Samples were Well Grouted (Average 28 Days Unconfined Compressive Strength of About 3.5 MPa), Movements Measured During Excavation were Acceptably Low. 38 170 Table 2.3 - Case Histories of Liquefaction Remediation by Jet Grouting. Site Site Reasons for Construction Performance Characteristics Method Program Selection Building, Liquefiable fine Existing building Confine liquefiable sand with No data given. Charleston, SC sand, and limited work series of overlapping soil - (Welsh and space. cement columns around Burke, 1991). perimeter of the spread footings. Power plant Decaying timber Existing building. Encapsulate pile foundation No data given. structure, pile foundation in to prevent foundation Sacramento, loose sands and settlement and liquefaction CA (Hayden silty sands. damage by jet grouting to and Baez, depths of 13.7 m. 1994). Transit station, Dense gravelly Site 30 m from Soil- cement - sodium silicate Cores taken from Taipei, Taiwan layer between residential columns 14 m in depth, center of columns (Tsai et al., depths of 2 and 6 buildings. spaced 2 in apart. Grout met the minimum 28 1993). m. Loose to pressures ranged from 16 to days unconfined medium dense silty 18 MPa in loose sands, and compressive strength sand between 8 18 to 20 MPa in clayey soils requirement of 1A and 26 M. and medium dense sands. MPa. Withdrawal rate of 190 mm/min. in loose soil. 39 171 2.5 IN SITU SOIL MIXING 2.5.1 General In situ soil mixing is the mechanical mixing of soil and stabilizer using rotating auger and mixing -bar arrangements. A conceptual drawing of the in situ soil mixing process is shown in Fig. 2.24. As augers penetfate the ground, the stabilizer is pumped through the auger shaft and out the tip. Flat mixing bars attached to the auger shaft mix injected stabilizer and soil. Upon reaching the designed depth, a second mixing occurs as augers are withdrawn. The result is high strength or low permeability columns and panels. Multiple columns and panels are commonly layout in a patter, such as those illustrated in Fig. 2.25. According to Broomhead and Jasperse (1992), much of the development of in situ soil mixing occurred in Japan during the past 20 years. It has been successfully used to control ground water flow, support excavations, stabilize embankments and slopes, increase bearing capacity for new foundations, and prevent liquefaction- induced ground displacement. Mixed Soil C�) C__� ut Auge Blade Injected Grout Fig. 2.24 - Conceptual Drawing of the In Situ Soil Mixing Technique. W 172 The main factors which influence the effectiveness of in situ soil mixing (Stroud, 1994; Taki and Yang, 1991; JSSFME, 1995) include: 1. Soil Being Mixed. Boulders, logs, and hard strata can make mixing impossible. Soil moisture increases water content of the soil - cement mix, resulting in lower strengths. 2. Ground Water Conditions. Stabilizer could be leached out of soil by seepage, or attacked chemically or biologically. 3. Stabilizer. Cement is the primary agent for solidification. The water - cement ratio is an important index for strength, initial set time, and durability. Bentonite is added to increase workability and where low permeability is critical. Additives such as silicate, slag, and gypsum have been used for gaining strength in saline and organic soils. Retarding agents which extend set time have been used to make lap work easier. 4. Mixing Equipment. The maximum possible treatment depth depends on auger size, number of augers, and torque capacity. Large augers (up to 4 m in diameter) require more torque, and are generally Iimited to depths less than about 8 m. For deeper mixing, a single - row of two to four auger shafts about 1 m in diameter is typically used. 5. Grout Injection Volume. Large volumes of stabilizer injected into the soil may cause ground to heave. b. Auger Rotation, Descent and Withdrawal Rates. Slow auger rotation, descent and withdrawal rates increase consistency of soil mix. 7. Mixing Sequence. It is easier to lap adjacent columns before the first column hardens. 8. Soil Improvement Pattern. The features of various improvement patterns or types are summarized in Table 2.4. The improved ground is considered an underground structure having greater rigidity than the surrounding soil. Fujii et al. (1992) and JSSFME (1995) identify the forces imposed during earthquake loading. Babasaki et al. (1991) outline a seismic design procedure for improved foundations. According to Welsh (1995), it is very expensive to mobilize and demobilize a large multi -auger rigs since there are just a few available in the United States. The approximate cost is $100,000 per rig and grout plant. The cost of grout materials and mixing starts at about $100 per cubic meter of improved ground for shallow mixing (say depths less than 8 rn), and $200 per cubic meter for deep mixing (say depths between 8 and 30 m). The waste soil - cement produced during augering is about 30% of the treated volume. 41 173 0 '' 1I x +111 � +j + = �� l�( +]i1 r_r rr rr Block GOOOD �iMMM MMMM MMMMM M`MM'M M�iMM M�M�M �M`M ; M ; � MMMM MMMMM Tangent Circle Tangent Circle Tangent Circle Block Wall lattice MMM MGM M M M Pile I[ ltFsM +K� gaw Tangent Circle Lapping Block Fig. 2.25 - Various Improvement Patterns or Types of In Situ Soil Mixing (JSSFME, 1995 ). 2.5.2 Liquefaction Remediation Five liquefaction remediation projects using in situ soil mixing are summarized in Table 26. These projects involved treatment at either new construction or existing embankment sites. The primary function of the improved ground in all five cases was to control liquefaction- induced ground movement. The details available for three of these cases are reviewed as follows. 2.5.2.1 Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming The initial Jackson Lake Dam in the Grand Teton. National Park, Wyoming, was a uncompacted hydraulic fill structure built in she early 1900s. As described by Ryan and Jasperse (1989), the dam was founded on interbedded layers of loose gravel and sand with occasional silt and clay layers to a depth of 30 m. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation determined that the loose embank=nt and foundation soils were susceptible to liquefaction under strong earthquake shaking. 42 174 Remedial work involved replacement of the dam and treatment of the foundation by the dynamic compaction and in situ soil mixing techniques (Ryan and Jasperse, 1989; Taki and Yang, 1991). Dynamic compaction was used to densify foundation soils to a depth of about 11 m where the center of the new dam would be. In situ soil mixing was used to treat foundation soils to a depth of 33 in where the upstream and downstream toes of the dam would be, as shown in Fig. 2.26. The work was performed during 1987 and 1988, and included the construction of overlapping soil - cement panels arranged to form hexagonal cells as well as an upstream cutoff wall. A plan view of the upstream improvement is illustrated in Fig. 2.27. The purpose of the hexagonal cells was to contain the loose sand and gravel in the event of liquefaction, thereby preventing ground movement and failure of the embankment slopes. A two -shaft soil mixing auger was used to construct the hexagonal cells. The diameter of each shaft was 0.9 m. The final grout mix design had a water- cement ratio of 1.25:1 by weight. The cement content per cubic meter of treated soil was about 337 kg. According to Taki and Yang, the 28 days unconfined compressive strength of core specimens ranged from 1.4 to 8 MPa. 2.5.2.2 Pulp and Paper Mill Spill Tanks, British Columbia The construction of two large spill tanks was planned at a pulp and paper mill near Vancouver, British Columbia. A typical cross section of the site is shown in Fig. 2.28. As described by Broomhead and Jasperse (1992), the site was capped by a layer of desiccated, very stiff sand and silt fill, designated as crust. The crust, about 1.8 m thick, exhibited lower stiffness with depth. The crust was underlain by about 3.7 in of loose sand and silt fill containing 7% to 60% fines (silt and clay). The fill was underlain by about 1.2 m of medium dense beach sand. The beach sand was underlain by dense silt. At the site, the water table was at an average depth of 3 m. It was determined that the loose fill would liquefy under the design event, and cause as much as 0.3 m of lateral movement. To prevent liquefaction-induced ground movement, a continuous ring of tangent soil - cement columns was constructed around the perimeter of each tanks, as shown in Fig. 2.29. Each column was extended 0.9 in into the dense silt. A single shaft auger, 3,6 m in diameter, was used to construct the columns. Broomhead and Jasperse (1992) reported that the basic mix design was 177 kg of cement per cubic meter of treated soil. The injected grout had a water - cement ratio of 1.8:1 by weight. The 28 days unconfined compressive strength of core specimens ranged from about 1 to 2.5 MPa. To dissipate any excess pore water pressures which might be generated during strong ground shaking, the floor slab of each tanks was placed on top of a gravel drain blanket. The drain blanket was connected to cross drains that were spaced at regular intervals and passed beneath the wall footing. 43 175 2.5.2.3 Office Building ( "Building N "), Japan A new office building was planned in Kagoshima City, Japan_ (Babasaki et al., 1991). The upper 5 m of foundation soil were composed of sand with pumice and gravel, and less than about 15 % fines. The gravelly sand layer was underlain by about 15 m of fine sand with 25% to 55% fines. SPT' blow counts measured in the upper 20 m of soil were less than 10. The water table was within a meter of the ground surface. It was determined that liquefaction was possible down to a depth of 12.5 m. As reported by Babasaki et al. (1991), in situ soil mixing was used to improve foundation soil conditions to a depth of 13.5 m, as illustrated in Fig. 2.30. The design was verified through finite element numerical analysis and centrifuge model tests. Base on the results of a pilot study conducted at the site, it was concluded that 300 kg of cement were required per cubic meter in the gravelly sand and 200 kg were required per cubic -meter in the silt sand to achieve the design standard unconfined compressive strength of 2 MPa. The machine used in the pilot study and during construction consisted of 3 augur shafts, each shaft having a diameter of 0.7 m. The rate of auger descent was set at 0.5 Rvmin. The rate of auger withdrawal was set at 0.5 m/min in the gravelly sand, and 1.0 m/min in the silty sand. The rate of auger rotation was set at 25 r.p.m. Grout was injected during auger descent. The specified grout mix for the gravelly sand had a water - cement - bentonite ratio of 0.7:1:0.03 by weight. The grout mix for the silt sand had more water, with a water- cement- bentonite ratio of 1:1:0,05 by weight, 44 176 Table 2.4 - Features of Various Improvement Types of In Situ Soil Mixing (J'SSFME, 1995). Types Stability Economy Installation Features its Work Block Tile improvement Improved volume is All piles overlap, and a Improvement area is resists external forces larger than other long work period is decided using a design as one body, High improvement types. needed. method similar to that stability is provided for gravity overall and also construction. internally, Wall Each improved wall is Smaller improved Precise control is Consideration of well joined together, volume and lower cost needed for adequate unimproved soil resulting in high than block type. lapping of long units between wails is stability when and short units. necessary. resisting as a single Improvement area body. depends on internal stability. Lattice Stability as a whole is Intermediate between Lattice type Three- dimensional the same as with the block type and wall improvement needs analysis of internal block type, type. difficult work stress is required. procedure. Pile Stable when horizontal Economical because of No need for lapping In addition to total force is not large. shorter work period control. stability analysis, and less improvement analysis of the stresses volume. in each pile is occasionally necessary. Tangent Stable when horizontal Economical compared Precise control is Both a total system Circle force is not large. with block type. needed for ensuring stability analysis and Column rows in a positive contact an individual pile body direction of major between the circles. analysis are necessary. external force may be The work period is overlapped to increase longer for the lapped stability (tangent tangent circle than for circle- lapping the tangent circle type. improvement ). 45 177 Table 2.5 - Case Studies of Liquefaction Remediation by In Situ Soil Mixing. Site Site Reasons for Construction 'performance Characteristics Method Program Selection Jackson Lake Loose gravel and Simpler quality Where upstream and Unconfined Dann, WY sand extending to control program downstream slopes of the new compressive strength (Ryan and depths of 30 m. than other methods. dam would be, soil mixed of core specimens Jasperse, 1989; Not affected by panels forming, open ranged from 1.4 to 8 Taki and Yang, artesian pressures. hexagonal cells with 15 m MPa. 1991). sides extending to a depth of 33 m. A two -shaft auger was used. Shaft diameter was 0.9 m. Grout had a water - cement ratio of 1.25 :1 by weight. Mixed soil contained 337 kg of cement per m 3 . Spill tanks at Loose sand -silt fill Provided optimal Tank constructed on ring of Unconfined pulp and paper between depths of "cost-benefit" tangent columns extending compressive strength mill, 1.8 and 5.5 m. The solution. 0.9 in into dense silt. A of core specimens Vancouver, BC fill is underlain by single 3.6- m- diameter shaft ranged from 1 to 3 (Broomhead 1.2 m of medium auger was used. Grout had a MPa. and Jasperse, dense beach sand. water- cement ratio of 1.8:1 by. 1992). weight. Mixed soil contained 177 kg of cement per m Office building Loose sand with Small urban Soil mixed panels forming 5 Design standard ('Building N "), pumice and gravel, construction site in x 5 in open cells extending unconfined Kagoshima, and fine sand with adjacent to a depth of 13.5 m. A 3 - compressive strength Japan extending to 13.5 buildings. shaft auger was used. Shaft of 2 MPa. (Babasaki et m. N- values less diameter was 0.7 m. Descent al., 1991). than 8. and lift rates were 0.5 to 1.0 mhnin. Rotation rate was 25 r.p.m. Grout had a water - cement- -bentonite ratio of 0.7:1:0.03 to 1:1:0.05. Mixed soil contained 300 to 200 kg Of cement per m Arakawa River Loose sand 3 to 6 Existing Soil mixed panels forming 5 No data given. embankment, m thick, underlain embankment, in x 10 in dense cells Japan by soft silt and clay Lattice chosen over extending to dense soil 24 in (JSSFME, 18 to 21 m thick. block to minimize below river level. A two - 1995). cost. shaft auger was used, Shaft diameter was 0.9 in Shinano River Loose sands and Existing Soil mixed panels forming No data given. embankment, silts 12 to 13 in embankment and 5m x 5.7 m open cells Niigata, Japan thick. nearby railway. extending to a depth of 14.4 (Fujii et al., Lattice chosen over m. A two -shaft auger was 1992; Koga et block to minimize used. Shaft diameter was 0.9 al., 1993). cost. M. .; 178 CREST Of NEW *AM i DEEP TREATMENT AREA 1 ToP OF MI. BOUNDARY Fig. 2.26 - Simplified Cross Section of the New Jackson Lake Dam Showing Areas of Deep Treatment by In Situ Soil Mixing (Ryan and Jasperse, 1989). Fig. 2.27 - Plan View of Soil Improvement Pattern in the Deep Treatment Areas at Jackson Lake Dam (Ryan and Jasperse, 1989). 47 179 SPILL TANK 1 V. ■ 2.5 H - ...._._...CRUST �_� -------- --, HHW _SAND a $ILT (LOOSE GIENS� $ /LT Fig. 2.28 - Typical Cross Section of the PuIp and Paper Mill SpiII Tanis Site (Broomhead and Jasperse, 1992). SPILL TANK TANKS .- SOELCRETE COLUMNS I rV497- c y 4 ya•E - � = �� �� o 30 M Fig. 2,29 - Site Plan of Pulp and Paper Mill Spill Tanks Showing Soil Improvement by In Situ Soil Mixing (Broomhead and Jasperse, 1992). 48 :m Om (a) Side View of Ground Improvement and Structure Improved part Unimproved part IM Continuous footing r foundation �!yPla b!•I� �G[!1Y [��I�[!i141�[35'R GF[.I�1 [�i�[r�. t " ii _'•FYI PP1 f�i t�P1yf:UP1:1•U1!1�1�1�.�'1 fd•1i�I'!'1'1� q'1 J11 .__ - -- [ 5.6m _� 5Am i 5.1m (b) Plan View of Ground Improvement. Fig. 2.30 - Improvement of Foundation Soils for Office Building in Japan by In Situ Soil Mixing (Babasaki et al., 1991). 49 181 Bearing stratum 1 -. v a � i" C:i • HJ '� A a A O f%J C7 rJ] 0 302 0 5ocx G LA =1 w -1 -15 d I>4 -20 (a) Side View of Ground Improvement and Structure Improved part Unimproved part IM Continuous footing r foundation �!yPla b!•I� �G[!1Y [��I�[!i141�[35'R GF[.I�1 [�i�[r�. t " ii _'•FYI PP1 f�i t�P1yf:UP1:1•U1!1�1�1�.�'1 fd•1i�I'!'1'1� q'1 J11 .__ - -- [ 5.6m _� 5Am i 5.1m (b) Plan View of Ground Improvement. Fig. 2.30 - Improvement of Foundation Soils for Office Building in Japan by In Situ Soil Mixing (Babasaki et al., 1991). 49 181 Bearing stratum 2.6 LOW VIBRATION DRAW PILE 2.6.1 General Ono et al. (199 1) described a low vibration system for constructing gravel drain piles using a Iarge'casing auger. The construction sequence of this system is illustrated in Fig. 2.31. The casing is screwed downward into the ground, while simultaneously pouring water into the casing to prevent hydrostatic imbalance and sediment flow into the casing. Gravel is discharged into the casing upon reaching the final depth. As the casing is unscrewed, gravel is pushed out the end of the casing and compacted by a rod. One study showed that standard penetration resistances measured at the midpoint between piles after installation were about 5 blow counts higher than before installation; as shown in Figs. 2.32 and 2.33. The most important factors affecting deinsification (Oishi and Tanaka, 1992) are: the shape of the impact surface of compaction rod, the number of compactive strokes, and the stroke length. When drains are installed without the compaction rod, little densification occurs. Systems for installing synthetic drains have also been developed (JSSFME 1995). The low vibration drain pile technique has been used in Japan for liquefaction :remediation near existing structures. Casing (Setting ) Fig. 2.31 - A Low Vibration Procedure for Installing Gravel Drain Piles (Ono et al., 1991). 50 182 Penet Grave{ {Lifting) (Completion) �ration� �f Uing V e a n - w N -value V oa ° e Aft i E � 0. E i 5 , 4 d + L Ef t= + C V e a °i to - N -volve I P AO 3 P ° e Aft i c S � 0. E i 5 , 4 + L Ef + C e LBelore 5 ' action t V e a N -value i0 ° e + i d C S � 0. §1 i Fig. 2.32 - Change in N -value Due to Low Vibration Gravel Drain Pile Installation with Compaction Rod at Three Sites in Niigata, japan (Ono et al., 1991). c N . L a 0 dp b t z N -value before installation Fig. 2.33 - Increase in N -value Due to Low Vibration Gravel Drain Pile Installation with Compaction Rod at Three Sites in Niigata, Japan (Ono et al., 1991). 51 / o O / O /a / o 0 0 0 / o Average o / ♦ o increase o ♦ a in N -val 0 0 0"' o /O o O / o /O /0 . 0 0 0 �l oo O n 183 There are several factors which influence the effectiveness of drain pile systems (Barksdale, 1987; Onque et al., 1987; JSSFM2;, 1995) including: 1. Soil Being Drained. Soil permeability is the single most useful index. Other important parameters include fines content, type of fines, coefficient of volume compressibility, grain size, gradation, and density. The drain pile technique has been applied primarily to ground with coefficient of permeability greater than 10 -3 cm/s and fines content under 30 %. 2. Ground Water Conditions. Careful consideration of seepage conditions is required. For example, construction of drains through an earth dam can increase pore pressures below the dam;, and adversely affect dam safety. 3. Drain Material. Drain permeability is the single most useful index. Gravel drains are constructed of poorly graded, coarse gravel. There is no easy way to install filters around gravel drain piles, and drains may clog when liquefaction occurs. Synthetic drain materials are made of plastic enclosed by filter cloth. 4. Equipment and Installation. Installation procedures may result in drain with more fines, and smearing of interbedded cohesive soil. 5. Drain Diameter, Length, and Spacing. Excess pore water pressures will likely dissipate quicker when drain spacings are small and drain diameters are large. The diameter of gravel drains is typically 0.4 to 0.5 m. Drain spacings of 0.8 to 1.5 m have been used, Seed and Booker (1977) presented a design procedure for gravel drain pile systems assuming an infinitely pervious pipe at the center of each drain, drains having finite permeability, and radial drainage. Design charts for determining design spacings of drains extending to an impermeable layer which take well resistance into account have been proposed by Onque (1988). The authors are not aware of any case in the United States where the low vibration drain pile technique was used for liquefaction rernediation. Thus, no reliable cost information is available for this technique. 2.6.2 Liquefaction Remediation The low vibration drain pile technique has been used in Japan primarily for minimizing the damaging consequences of liquefaction and ground displacement to existing structures. Four case studies are summarized in Table 2.6. All four cases involved treatment behind quay walls where low vibration levels and little earth pressure increases were required. The case study of quay walls at Kushiro Port is reviewed below. 52 im 2.6.2.1 QPay Walls at Kushiro Port, Japan Kushiro Port is located on the eastern shore of a northern island of Japan. As reported by Iai et al. (1994a), the port city was strongly shaken by a magnitude 7.8 earthquake in 1993. The epicenter of the earthquake was located about 15 km of the coast of Kushiro. The port experienced a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.47 g. Many quay walls were damaged when liquefaction occurred in the fill materials behind the wall. The cross section of one of the most seriously damaged walls is presented in Fig. 2.34. The steel sheet pile wall was anchored by battered steel piles. Ground conditions behind the wall are also shown in Fig. 2.34. The upper 10 m of soil were loose sand, characterized by very low N- values. The Ioose sand was underlain by medium dense to dense sand, the original ground. The low water depth in front of the wall was about 7.5 m. As a result of liquefaction and horizontal ground movement, cracks formed in the sheet pile wall about 4 m below the water level. Quay walls with treated backfill survived the earthquake without damage. The cross section of an undamaged wall and soil treatment is shown in Fig. 2.35. The steel pipe pile wall was anchored by a steel sheet pile wall. Soil treatment behind the wall included gravel drain piles and sand compaction piles. Low vibration procedures were used to install gravel drain piles to within 5.5 m of the quay wall. The drain piles were 0.4 m in diameter and spaced 1.5 m on centers. The sand compaction pile technique was used to densify soils within 13 m of the wall. Profiles of SPT blow count before and after compaction are also shown in Fig. 2.35. The upper I 1 m of soil exhibited N -values of about 10 before treatment, and over 20 after treatment. The low water depth in front of the wall was about 12 m. There was no damage to this wall. Additional studies (Iai et al., 1994b) have shown no migration of sand into the gravel drains during the earthquake. This case shows that the combination of gravel drain pile and sand compaction pile techniques was effective in preventing Iiquefaction and ground deformation. 2.7 SUMMARY Five techniques suitable for ground improvement surrounding and adjacent to existing structures are: compaction grouting, permeation grouting, jet grouting, in situ soil mixing, and drain pile. The advantage and constraints of these five techniques are summarized in Table 2.7. Excessive disturbance to the structure is unlikely since the techniques produce low levels of work vibration. Of the five techniques, only jet grouting and in situ soil mixing can treat all liquefiable soil types. Compaction grouting may be marginally effective in treating silts. Chemical grouts cannot permeate soils with more than about 25% fines, silt and clay. It seems that drains would be ineffective in ground with low permeability. There are very few cases in which drains were applied to soil with fines content over 30 % and coefficient of permeability of less than 0.001 cm/s_ Upon reviewing the available cases of liquefaction remediation, one quickly becomes aware that very little is known concerning the performance of ground improved by these techniques during strong earthquake shaking. Efforts should be given to evaluate the seismic performance of these and other cases. 53 185 Table 2.6 - Case Studies of Liquefaction Remediation by the Lorry Vibration Drain Pile Technique. Site Site Reasons for Construction Performance Characteristics Method Program: Selection Quay wall, Loose sand fill to Avoid effects of Five rows of gravel drains No damage to walls Kushiro Port, depth of about 13 vibration and earth installed between wall and with treated backfUl Japan (Iai et m. Average N- pressure increase area improved by the sand during the 1993 al., 1994a and value before on existing steel compaction pile technique. Kushiro -Oki 1994b) treatment of 10. pile wall. Drains were 0.4 m in earthquake; amax W diameter and spaced 1.5 m on 0.47 g. Walls with centers, untreated backfill suffered moderate damage. Quay wall, Liquefiable fill Avoid effects of On the land side of the wall, No data given. Chiba Port, material to depth vibration and earth fill treated by vibro- Japan of about 20 m. pressure increase compaction to within 20 m of (JSSFME, on existing steel wall. Gravel drains installed 1995). sheet pile wall. between wall and compacted area. On the sea side of the wall, fill treated by the sand compaction pile technique. Quay wall, Liquefiable fill Avoid effects of One row of gravel drains No data given. Akita Port, material to depth vibration and earth installed between new wall Japan of about 10 m. pressure increase and area improved by vibro- (JSSFME, on new steel sheet compaction. Drains were 0.5 1995), pile wall. m in diameter. Quay wall, Loose sand fill. Avoid effects of Nearly 4000 gravel drains No data given. Ariake Island, vibration and earth installed in an area of 2770 Tokyo Bay, pressure increase m Drains were 0.5 rn in Japan on timber pile and diameter and 17 m long, and (Yashinsky, steel sheet pile spaced 0.9 m apart. 1994). wall. 54 :. Depth Soil Type I SPT -N Value (m) O 10 20 3040 50 Elevation 2.34m 1 .�..�......�...�.. F5 Sand Fig, 2.34 - Cross Section of a Damaged Steel Sheet Pile Quay Wall at Kushiro Port, Japan, Showing Ground Conditions and Wall Deformations Caused by Liquefeclion- induced Horizontal Ground Movement (lai et al., 1994), 187 20.0 Unit (m) +2.T I %a 0 +2.9 „HAL_ +1.5 -------- -�- -- ----------- - - - ---- ---- -- +2.2 V. ( w. L ±0.0 i vi -- -- ;, Tie rod S541 D65L ■22.8 N 11 j 1% -N-1 Filled Sand I � Rubb le +" Steel pl g '3. Stones �, � a e Sheet Pile Original Ground a *� -10, 3 c -� -- before earthquake y ' -14.3 -1 • -• 4. -' alter earthquake F5 Sand Fig, 2.34 - Cross Section of a Damaged Steel Sheet Pile Quay Wall at Kushiro Port, Japan, Showing Ground Conditions and Wall Deformations Caused by Liquefeclion- induced Horizontal Ground Movement (lai et al., 1994), 187 Depth SpT -N Value fm1 Soll type .-v,.wnr H L t � 1.5 L ;- .Wt ±C'0 Tie- Radctei,98 q. I 2.94m J Coarse Sand LRubbte cn to - d �E vE x� �F 22.7 a Gravel Q(difl 3 Pond Comp gotion Pit ! 70 UnItfmI Coarse Sand 6 mixed with Grovel Fine Sand fQ Fine Sand and S1111 Fine Sand mixed with Shells 18 Shell Sand Coarse Sand mixed with Coarse Sand Pig. 2.35 - Cross Section of an Undamaged Steel Pipe Pile Quay Wall at Kushiro Port, Japan, Showing Ground Conditions and Soil Improvement by Gravel Drain Pile and Sand Compaction Pile (Jai et al., 1994 ), :: Table 2.7 - Advantages and Constraints for Five Ground Improvement Techniques. Advantage or Constraint Compaction Permeation Jet In Situ Soil Drain-Pile Grouting Grouting Grouting Mixing Produces low levels of yes yes yes yes yes work vibration and noise Soil types not treatable saturated soils with irregular boulders, soils with clayey soils fines content geometries logs, and significant of over in cobbly hard strata fines content about 25% soils and can be a and very Iow open gravel problem permeability Treatment beneath existing yes yes yes earth earth structures.possible structures structures Small diameter drilling yes yes yes no no Low headroom work yes yes yes no plastic drain possible pile Selective treatment possible yes yes yes no no Intimate contact with limited yes yes no no structure possible Treatment at very low marginal yes yes yes yes confinement possible Without care, likely significant significant significant significant damaged disturbance ground ground ground ground pipes movement; movement; movement; movement; damaged damaged damaged damaged pipes pipes pipes pipes Quantity of waste produced little little large some little Prevents seismic - induced yes yes depends on depends on no subsidence design design Well- defined specifications yes yes yes yes yes required Engineered/observational yes yes yes yes yes approach required Quality control during yes yes yes yes yes installation required Other evaluations required site pilot site pilot site pilot site pilot site pilot study study; study; study; study; durability; durability i durability seepage; creep; health clogging and safety Can be highly cost - effective yes yes yes yes yes Cost expensive expensive expensive expensive expensive 57 :• CHAPTER 3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT NEAR EXISTING LIFELINES 3.1 INTRODUCTION Ground improvement near existing lifelines requires special considerations (Glaser and Chung, 1995) because of the following: • Work vibrations may damage lifeline, which could have very serious consequences; • Soil needing improvement is obstructed by the lifeline; • Scope of work is of large areal extent, yet may be limited to a narrow right -of -way; • Subsurface conditions will vary greatly along alignment; • Extent of treatment required to protect lifeline is not known; • Exact location and condition of buried utilities might not be known; and • Improvement might adversely affect regional hydrology. 3.2 PIPELINES AND CONDUITS 3.2.1 General Great care must be exercised in the planning and execution of ground improvement near existing pipelines and conduits. The following recommendations by Gould et al. (1992) for excavation work near utilities and buildings directly apply. Before construction the designer and contractor should investigate available utility records and prepare composite drawings showing all information obtained from these records. The utilities should be identified on site to the extent of painting their position on the pavement before construction. Test pits should be dug to verify that critical utilities are in the location indicated. Similar procedures should be followed for affected buildings. All existing records of overhead, below grade and adjacent structures should be investigated to determine the location and nature of foundations and the sensitivity of these structures to ground movement. 59 190 An existing condition survey and an optical survey of all utilities and buildings should be performed prior to construction. The contractor relocating utilities during construction should maintain an accurate record of the relocated position. Background levels of noise and vibration should also be determined before the start of work. The monitoring program should continue for a sufficient period after construction to assure that the utilities and structures have stabilized and that no further movements are occurring. At that time a final condition survey is performed to establish that damages have not occurred to the structures and to protect against damage claims. In addition, shut off valves should be identified. For some utilities, such as gas lines, it is advisable to temporarily shut down the section where ground improvement will be performed. The sensitivity of pipelines to ground vibration and deformation depends on a number of factors (Ford and Bratton, 1991; O'Rourke and Palmer, 1994) including joint type, material type, age, diameter, thickness, internal pressure, and configuration. Pipe failures and leaks are most likely to occur at pipe joints and connections. Joint types most vulnerable include threaded, caulked, and oxy- acetylene welded. Some pipe materials, such as cast iron, are rigid and can break if significant ground displacement occurs. Other pipe materials, such as ductile iron and steel, are more flexible and less susceptible to structural breakage. Pipes of great age are typically highly sensitive. Pipes located below the ground surface, illustrated in Figs. 3.1a and 3.1b, are more likely to develop compressive and tensile forces in response to ground deformation than pipes located above the ground surface or mounted in conduits, illustrated in Figs 3.1c, 3.1d, 3.1e, 3.1f and 3.1g. Site pilot studies are highly recommended to verify that the method selected for ground improvement will not damage the pipeline. 3.2.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Pipelines and Conduits Reported case studies of ground improvement near pipelines and conduits are not common. The two reported cases that the authors are aware of are reviewed below. 3.2.2.1 Containment Wall at Utility Crossings, Michigan As reported by Gazaway and Jasperse (1992), jet grouting was used to construct sections of a vertical containment wall, up to 7.3 m deep, where underground pipes and other utilities crossed the barrier. A typical section is shown in Fig. 3.2. In areas unobstructed by underground utilities, the barrier had been constructed by the slurry trench technique. Jet grouting was used to join the wall since utilities could not be removed or disturbed. Based on the results of a pilot study conducted at the site, the center -to- center spacing of the jet grouted columns was conservatively specified at 0.6 m for most of the work. Grout pressures were set at about 40 MPa. Drill rod rotation and withdrawal rates were set at about 1.3 r.p.m. and 0.4 m/mm, respectively. To ensure closure beneath the larger diameter (up to 1.2 m) pipes, much slower rotation and withdrawal rates were used. Near the smaller and more fragile conduits, •1 191 column spacings were tightened, and rotation and withdrawal rates were increased. Jet pressures of about 35 MPa were used for a few short periods in the immediate vicinity of particularly sensitive conduits. Approximately 530 square meters of containment barrier was installed by jet grouting. The jetting action caused no detectable damage to any of the underground utilities. 3.2.2.2 Settled Pipes at Waste Water Treatment Plant - A concrete effluent channel and three buried concrete pipelines connected to the channel at a waste water treatment plant. had settled as much as 190 mm within two years after their construction (Scherer and Weiner, 1993). Joints in the pipelines had opened as a result of the settlement. The diameters of the three pipes were 1.22, 1.52 and 2.13 m. It was concluded that settlement was caused by consolidation of a thick lens of very soft organic silt and clay beneath the channel. To avoid costly excavation, dewatering, and problems posed by other utilities within the area, the concrete effluent channel was raised and supported with hydraulically driven steel mini piles located on the interior of the channel. The buried pipes were raised and supported with compaction grout piles. As described by Scherer and Weiner (1993), compaction grout piles were installed on each side of the concrete pipe at joint locations or intervals not exceeding 3 m. The grout piles were designed to have a diameter of about 0.6 m and extend from the shale bedrock at elevation -15.2 m to the bottom of the concrete pipe at elevation +23 m, as illustrated in Fig. 3.3. The cutoff criteria for grout injection was set at a maximum pump pressure of 4 MPa, or when unwanted pipe lift or ground heave occurred. Grout injection volumes for the initial piles were only 0.023 m per linear meter within a dense sand layer overlying bedrock. Thus, the tips of subsequent grout piles were located in the dense sand, about elevation +12.2 m. Following the construction of the vertical grout piles, grout was injected beneath the center of the concrete pipe to lift the pipe, as depicted in Fig. 3.3. Finally, the interface between the vertical grout columns and concrete pipe was filled with additional grout to establish positive support. A total of fifty -two vertical and angle grout columns were installed. 3.2.3 Liquefaction Remediation Conceptual diagrams showing various types of ground improvement near a buried pipeline are presented in Fig. 3.4. These diagrams suggest that the pipeline could be protected from subsidence and uplift using permeation or jet grouting. Horizontal ground movement could be prevented by any one of the five low vibration ground improvement techniques depending on the constrains summarized in Table 2.7. Compaction, permeation and jet grouting are capable of improving soil conditions beneath the pipeline. However, compaction grouting, Fig. 3.4c, may not sufficiently compact soils immediately adjacent to the pipeline. The in situ soil mixing and drain pile techniques could be effectively employed a short distance away, as depicted in Figs. 3.4c and 3.4d. The safe application distance depends on the condition of the pipeline, and the level of disturbance generated by the technique. 61 192 The extent of treatment is determined from seismic stability analyses, and depends on a number of factors including soil properties, stratigraphy, ground slope, pipeline- ground failure crossing angle, depth of pipe burial, piping configuration, and anchoring. Permeation grouting, jet grouting, or in situ soil mixing are alternatives for work limited to a narrow right -of -way. Jet grouting and in situ soil mixing may be the most effective techniques for soils with a high silt content. The ground water hydrology would be least affected by compaction grouting and drain pile, since no continuous barrier is formed. However, drain piles may create serious problems if applied in dams and areas of pressure. 62 193 ...,.�� {Q } (c) rl (g} (b) (dl Fig. 3.1 - Piping Configurations (Hall and O'Rourke, 1991). 63 194 Utilities, 50 -610 mm _ __flurry. - -_ - Wall = _ -_ Road AV Wall Fig. 3.2 - Construction of Cutoff WaII at Utility Crossing by Jet Grouting (after Gazaway and Jasperse, 1992). +6 Grout Injection Pipe ace 2 +4 Iw E S +2 c 0 (D M -15 L Compactlo Grout Column 2.13 m I.D. Concrete Pipe Grout to Provide Additional Lift Fig. 3.3 - Underpinning and Leveling Settled Pipe by Compaction Grouting (after Scherer and Weiner, 1993). ., 195 r. Bedrock Buried Pi eline Soil- Cement Wall by In Situ Soil Mixing f J ��/I� '}} -�'•'t''• j: r w : . =St w A w So id' to oil : rLiquefiableJ'f�"' ,•T S. � Tj �T. AAA .5. 1• : i'. w Pemeation R' =:a;,., , f lw,;w �:• :';,:,w or Jet G V4•itin ' S S yT i.T; • : :T A .T. •,•'l: n / J / f / / / J / J /�i 5 �: • 5 S • ww �:,• : j�.; � ^ w ^ •� /!!.'i �5 ^ Si T i STS., 'a :� � � � ,.Tt t Try • ! . • :' www t %i � l Tt•'1 :• � w ,• ^ www ww . (a) (b) Water Table (c) (d) Fig. 3.4 -- Liquefaction Remediation Near Buried Pipeline By Combination of Ground Improvement Techniques. 65 196 Compaction Drafn Pile C 3.3 TRANSPQRTATIQN LINES 3.3.1 General Great care is required in the planning and execution of ground improvement near existing transportation lines, such as roadways and rail lines. Sometimes the flow of traffic can be temporarily stop or divert. However, it may be required that the - work not cause serious damage to the roadway or rail line so that traffic flow can resume. Site pilot studies should be conducted to verify that ground improvement will not cause damage. 3.3.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Transportation Lines Reported case studies of ground improvement near transportation lines are not common. Four cases involving a highway viaduct, two rail Iines, and an airport runway are reviewed in following paragraphs. 3.3.2.1 Highway Viaduct, San Diego From the report by dackura and Abghari (1994), the 1 -805 viaduct crossing the San Diego River, California, is about 36 m high and 1500 m long. It is a cast -in- place, prestressed box girder design constructed in 1972. A simplified cross section showing the viaduct and foundation soils is presented in Fig. 3.5. The soil profile consists of 0 to 6 m of well compacted fill, underlain by 18 m of natural sand and gravel with interbedded layers of silt. Corrected SPT blow counts, (N 1) 60, in the upper 8 in of natural sand and gravel range from 6 to 59. It was determined that liquefaction would occur in the upper 5 m of natural sand and gravel by a peak ground surface acceleration as low as 0.2 g. Estimates of possible horizontal ground displacement ranged from 1.4 to 4.5 m, well above the maximum tolerable value of 0.8 M. An underground buttress composed of stone columns was considered the most economical alternative, and permanent dewatering the next best alternative. The buttress was constructed between Bents 9 and 10 at the toe of the steepest ground slope, as depicted in Fig. 3.5. The width of the buttress, 15 m, was determined from seismic slope stability analyses assuming an internal friction angle of 39 for the stone columns, and a minimum residual strength of 1.44 kPa for the liquefiable soil. Right -of -way restrictions limited the length of the buttress to roughly 85 m. While stone column (vibro - replacement) in not one of tho five low vibration techniques, this case illustrates the application of other techniques when soil needing improvement is not obstructed by the lifeline and when work vibration will not cause damage. One approach to reducing near - surface vibration has been to pre -auger to the problem soil, and then lower the vibratory probe down the augered hole before applying the vibro- replacement technique. According to Baez (1995), the pre -auger approach has permitted ground . improvement by vibro- replacement to within 3 m of many near - surface lifelines. M. 197 3.3.2.2 Settled Railroad Embankment, Georgia A section of rail line in northern Georgia passed through a sinkhole prone area (Brill and Hussin, 1992). The rail line had been repaired a number of times by dumping ballast into the depressions to maintain the grade. However, sinkholes continued to develop at an increased rate. Rail traffic had to be slowed from 100 km per hour to less than 20 km per hour, and a watchman was assigned to patrol a 600 -m -long section of track 24 hours a day. As reported by Brill and Hussin (1992), compaction grouting was used to remediate conditions beneath the rail line. Grout holes were drilled at an angle from the eastern edge of the embankment 1.5 m into bedrock, as depicted in Fig. 3.6. The holes traversed the dip of the limestone bedrock, thereby enhancing the compaction process. Primary grout holes were spaced on 6 m centers, with injection volumes set at 7.5 m per linear meter of casing for the first 0.9 m above rock, and 5 rn per linear meter in the soft/loose soil. These volumes were generally achieved. Secondary grout holes split the primary holes, with injection volumes set at 7.5 rn per linear meter for first 0.3 m above bedrock, 2.5 m per linear meter for next 0.6 m, and 1.2 m per linear meter in soft/loose soil. However, ground heave at the surface was typically observed before these target volumes were reached. When secondary injections seemed insufficient, tertiary grouting was performed between the secondary holes. A total of 1326 m of grout was injected into 88 holes. Since the completion of the grouting program, settlement of the ground beneath the tracks has stopped and trains have been able to resume their regular speeds without a watchman: 3.3.2.3 Tunnel Construction Beneath Rail Line, Switzerland A new underpass was to be constructed beneath a busy rail line that separates the town of Fluelen from Lake Uri (Steiner et al., 1992). The upper 3 m of soil below the railroad embankment consisted of gravel and cobble fill. The fill was underlain by wood and stone rubble, remnants of a former boat landing facility. Below the rabble, fluvial and lacustrine deposits were interfingered ranging from silt to gravel. These natural soils were characterized by SPT blow counts between 1 and 10. The ground water table was located close to the surface and was in direct contact with the lake. Two cut -off walls were needed to make dewatering effective and prevent excessive settlement beneath the tracks. As reported by Steiner et al. (1992), jet grouting was used to construct the two cut -off walls. It was determined from a pilot study that columns with diameters of 1.5 m and 1.2 m could be constructed with the double jet system and single jet system, respectively. The double jet system, i.e. grout jet shrouded with air, was used to constructed columns with dip greater than 20 The single jet system, which uses no air, was used for the flatter columns. Each wall consisted of three rows of columns. The general arrangement columns for one row is shown in Fig. 3.7. The outer row was constructed first, and the central row was constructed last with the axes of columns shifted so that they were positioned between the outer and inner columns. Cores taken from two borings drilled through.the final wall revealed no evidence of joints between columns. Core specimens after 28 days exhibited an unconfined compressive strength M im between 6 and 10 MPa. During the two months of jet grouting work, the tracks underwent 4 mm of settlement, about the same rate observed before the work started. Measured settlement during excavation of the underpass was about 3 mm. 3.3.2.4 Tunnel Construction Beneath Airport Runway, Japan A 70 -m -wide underpass for vehicles was planned beneath a functioning airport runway in Japan (Ichihashi et al., 1992). The runway had been built on top of a concrete slab supported by steel sheet piles, as depicted in Fig. 3.8. However, not all sheet piles extended to the bearing layer and some underpinning was necessary to support the excavation. The excavation would require dewatering, which could also cause settlement. It was determined that settlement and heave to the runway could not exceed 50 nun. As reported by Ichihashi et al. (1992), jet grouting was used to form soil - cement piles that extend to the bearing layer, and cut-off walls to prevent lowering of the water level outside the excavation. Since the soil could be improved by jet grouting through drill holes less than 220 ruin in diameter, minimal damage occurred to the runway. To prevent settlement, a steel guide casing was first installed down to the top of the zone to be grouted, as illustrated in Fig. 3.9. The grout pipe was then lowered down through the guide casing and advanced to the final depth, 2 m into the bearing layer. A tank containing a sand pump was attached to the casing guide at the ground surface to prevent waste slurry from flowing onto the runway. A triple jet system was used. Grout injection pressures varied between 30 and 40 MPa. Air injection pressures varied between 0.6 and 0.7 MPa. The drill rod was withdrawn at a rate between 50 and 100 mm/min. During the excavation of the tunnel, measured settlement and heave of the runway surface was less than 3 nun. 3.4 SUMMARY Upon reviewing the available cases of ground improvement near existing lifelines, one quickly becomes aware that very little has been gathered on the subject. Nevertheless, limited case studies showed that with great care and depending on their nature and condition permeation and jet grouting could improve soil conditions immediately adjacent to lifelines. Compaction grouting could be applied beneath lifelines, but may not sufficiently compact soils immediately adjacent to them. The in situ soil mixing and drain pile techniques could be effectively employed a short distance away from lifelines. Beyond a certain distance, other less expensive ground improvement techniques, such as vibro - compaction and vibro - replacement, could be used. A combination of techniques may provide the most cost - effective ground improvement solution. 199 SOUTH Main Viaduct NORTH 01 Stone 0 Columns v 60 River Cht3nnel Fill, 39 40 .�.. � 30 LU 0 20 m L----j 2 1 � 7nnr3......... Dense Sand, 0 = 39 G) Failure Plane 1 (before modification) Safety Factor' < 0.6 Failure Plane 2 (after modification) Safety Factor' _ 1.6 `For displacement less than 0.3 m. Fig. 3.5 - Cross Section of the I -805 Viaduct Near the San Diego River Showing the Generalized Soil and Underground Stone Column Buttress to Prevent Liquefaction_ Induced Lateral Spreading (after Jackura and Abghari, 1994). ltallrmd F.mbaOmera M V I� 0 l + � r , + t � + f � , r 1 + t t ! t + } ` y l' 4 M 4 \ 1` 1 1 + Fig. 3.6 - Remediation of Settled Rail Line in Sinkhole Area by Compaction Grouting (]Brill and Hussin, 1992). M. 200 1 —�^ e - Filled veld . �' ; `: �i= '��� ' is d�' �� •,r' tioltliaoee boil /• �.. i::�;�:�'�:'_i'.:Li� erg !r6 M V I� 0 l + � r , + t � + f � , r 1 + t t ! t + } ` y l' 4 M 4 \ 1` 1 1 + Fig. 3.6 - Remediation of Settled Rail Line in Sinkhole Area by Compaction Grouting (]Brill and Hussin, 1992). M. 200 LAKE -SIDE ;BETE COLUMNS )UT AIR 4354 TRACK LEVEL ___ , o � r TOWN - SIDE DE" TOP OF SOLCRETE �--- CUT 1 432o Imo! MATE r DWPIfWM WALLS 422.0 DESIM DE OF SOLCRETE a r I CUT- OFF sp[lLRM COLUMNS Fig. 3.7 •- Excavation Support and Seepage Control by Jet Grouting Beneath Existing Rai[ Line (Steiner et al., 1992). As. Ac. As - ; + Interwsdlate Existlnc steel sheet 'AP. t0R -10m -20m 1wrovement to increase bear i payer i t, of ex i at f m P i 1 es( Jet Gram i nl Cot -off wail(Jet Grouting) -30m QAP. ^32.5m 1 -0 - -_ 4@ 14.2m = 56. Om - 1 l Fig. 3.8 - Excavation Support and Seepage Control by Jet Grouting Beneath Existing Airport Runway Uchihashi et al., 1992). ?0 201 Fig. 3.9 - Configuration of Guide Casing and Waste Slurry Recovery System Used During Jet Grouting Beneath an Existing Airport Runway (16hihashi et al., 1992 ). 71 202 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS LoNa 1► u The report reviewed five low vibration techniques that have been used for ground improvement near existing structures. These five techniques are; compaction grouting, permeation grouting, jet grouting, in situ soil mixing, and drain pile. The factors which influence the effectiveness of each technique and thirteen available case studies of liquefaction remediation are reviewed in Chapter 2. Of these five techniques, only jet grouting and in situ soil mixing can treat all liquefiable soil types. Compaction grouting may be marginally effective in treating silts. Chemical grouts cannot permeate soils with more than about 25% fines (silt and clay). It seems that drains would be ineffective in ground with low permeability. Upon reviewing the available cases studies, one quickly becomes aware that very little has been reported on ground improvement near existing pipelines and other lifelines, let alone the actual seismic performance of sites treated by these techniques. Six case studies of ground improvement near various lifelines are reviewed in Chapter 3. With great care and depending on their nature and condition, permeation and jet grouting could improve soil conditions immediately adjacent to lifelines. Compaction grouting could be applied beneath lifelines, but may not sufficiently. compact soils immediately adjacent to them. The in situ soil mixing and drain pile techniques could possibly be effectively employed a short distance away (say 1 to 3 m). Other less expensive ground improvement techniques, such as vibro - replacement through pre- augered holes, could be used within about 1 m of many lifelines. A combination of techniques may provide the most cost- effective ground improvement solution. 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY The following recommendations are provided to identify areas that need further study. 1. Compile additional case studies of ground improvement near pipelines and other lifelines. These case studies should include detailed information about the condition of the lifeline, ground improvement procedures, verification techniques, and cost. 73 203 2. Compile additional case studies documenting the performance of improved ground during strong earthquake shaking. 3. Perform laboratory and field investigations to determine how much ground improvement is needed to protect pipelines and other lifelines. 4. Develop less expensive ground improvement techniques, since all the low vibration techniques reviewed are expensive to conduct. 74 204 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Applied Technology Council, ATC -25 (1991). "Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the Conterminous United States," Earth uq ake Hazard Reduction Mies 58, Federal Emergency. Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 439 p. Babasaki, R., Suzuki, K., Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., and Tokitoh, K. (1991). "Construction and Testing of Deep Foundation Improvement Using the Deep Cement Mixing Method," Deep Foundation Improvements: Design. Construction. and Testing, _A.STM STP 1089 M.I. Esrig and R.C. Bachus, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, NJ, pp. 32- 46. Baez, J.I. (1995). Personal communication. Baez, J.I., and Henry, J.F.. (1993). Reduction of Liquefaction Potential by Compaction Grouting at Pinopolis West Dam, SC." Eroceedings. Geotechnical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation: Geotechnical S12 ;vial Publication No. 35 held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on 25-28 April, L.R. Anderson, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 493 -506. Baker, W.H. (1982). "Planning and Performing Structural Chemical Grouting," Proceedings. Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 10 -12 February, W.H. Baker, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 515 -539. Barksdale, R.D. (1987). Application-of the State _Qf the-Art_of &QDe Columns -- Liquefaction, Local Bearing Failure. and Example Calculations: Technical R ort_REMR -GT -7 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Bell, A.L. (1993). "Jet Grouting," Ground Improvement M.P. Moseley, Ed., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, pp. 149 -174. Brill, G.T., and Hussin, J.D. (1992). "The Use of Compaction Grouting to Remediate a Railroad Embankment in a Karst Environment," Proceedings, Twenty -Third Ohio River Valley Seminar - -In Situ Soil Modification held in Louisville, Kentucky, on 16 October. Broomhead, D., and Jasperse, S.H. (1992). "Shallow Soil Mixing - -A Case History," Proceedings, Grouting. Soil Imlarovrment and Gaosynthetics: Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30 , held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 206 -214. 75 205 Chung et al. (1995). "The 1995 Hanshin -Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems," R.M. Chung, Ed., U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, in preparation. Covil, C.S., and Skinner, A.E. (1994). "Jet Grouting - -A Review of Some of the Operating Parameters that Form the Basis of the Jet Grouting Process," Proceedings, G- routing in the Ground held in London, England, on 25 - 26 November 1992, A.L. Bell, Ed., Thomas Telford, London, pp. 605 -629. Darragh, R.B. and Shakal, A.F. (1991). "The Site Response of Two Rock and Soil Station Pairs to Strong and Weak Ground Motion," Bulletin of the, SeisMological Society of America Vol. 81, No. 5, October, pp. 1885 -1899. Ford, D.B., and Bratton, G.N. (1991). "Preliminary Earthquake Mitigation Planning to Improve Watermain Performance in Vancouver, B.C.," Proceedings, Third U.S. QnfeMnce on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: TCLEE Monoaranh No. 4 held in Los Angeles, California, on 22 -23 August, M.A. Cassaro, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 875 -887. Fujii, Y., Ohtomo, K., Arai, H., and Hasegawa, H. (1992). "The State of the Art in Mitigation of Liquefaction for Lifeline Facilities in Japan," Proceedings. , Fourth Japan -V.S. Worlcshon on Earthquake Resistant Design_of Lifeline F�ciIities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction: Technical Tech Report NCEER -22 -0019 held in Honolulu, Hawaii, on 27 -29 May, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, pp. 889 -909. Gambin, M.P. (1991). "Lateral Static Densification at Monaco -- Design, Construction, and Testing," Dec,12 FQ11ndation Im roveme t: 1?e5ign CQUstr action. and Tesfingy. ASIM S 1089 M.I. Esrig and R.C. Bachus, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 248 -265. Gazaway, H.N., and Jasperse, B.H. (1992). "Jet Grouting in Contaminated Soils," Proceedings. Grouting. Soil T=rovement and Geosynthetics: Geotechnied Special_Pubbcation No. IQ held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., AS CE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 206 - 214. Glaser, S.D., and Chung, R.M. (1995). "Use of Ground Improvement to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential for Lifelines," Proceedings, U.S. - Taiwan Qeotecbaical CollabQration Workshop, held in Taipei, Taiwan, on 9 -11 January. Glossop, R.G. (1961). "The Invention and Development of Injection Processes, Part II:.1850- 1960," Geotechnique Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Vol. XI, No. 4, pp. 255 -279. 76 206 Gould, J.P., Tamaro, G.J., and Powers, J.P. (1992). "Excavation and Support Systems in Urban Settings," Proceedinus,- ia�xcavation and Support for the Urban, xnfrastructurg: Geo e�,c nical Special Publication No_ 33 , held in New York, New York, on 14 -15 September, T.D. O'Rourke and A.G. Hobelman, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 144 -171. Graf, E.D. (1992a). "Earthquake Support Grouting in Sands," Proceedings. -- Grouting, Soil Improv ement, v ement. a Geosynthetics-, _ Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30 held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 879 -888. Graf, E.D. (1992b). "Compaction Grouting, 1992," Proceedings, Grouting. Soil,ImMovement. ,pnd Geosynthetics: GeotechnicaI S,peuial Publication No..30 held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 275 -287. Graf, E.D. (1995). Personal communication. Graf, E.D., and Zacher, E.G. (1979). "Sand to Sandstone: Foundation Strengthening with Chemical Grout," Civil Engineering ASCE, New York, NY, January, pp. 67 -69. Greenwood, D.A. (1994). "Report on Session 1: Permeation Grouting," Proceedings, QEouting in_the UMund held in London, England, on 25 -26 November 1992, A.L. Bell, Ed., Thomas Telford, London, pp. 71-90. Hall, W.J., and O'Rourke, T.D. (1991). "Seismic Behavior and VuInerabiIity of Pipelines," Proceedings, Third U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquakg Engineering: TCLEE Monograph No. 4 , held in Los Angeles, California, on 22 -23 August, M.A. Cassaro, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 761 -773. Hamada, M., and O'Rourke, T.D., Eds. (1992). Case Studies of Lique, faction and Lifeline Performance During Past Earthquakes: Technical ,E-eport NCEER -92 -0001. Vol. 1, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. Hayden, P.F., and Baez, J.I. (1994). "State of Practice for Liquefaction Mitigation in North America," Procerdings, International Workshop on Remedial Treatment of Lic Soils held in Tsukuba Science City, Japan, on 4 -6 July. Hausmann, M.R. (1990). Engineering Brinciples of Ground Modification McGraw -Hill, 632 p. Hussin, J.D., and Ali, Syed (1987). "Soil Improvement at the Trident Submarine Facility," Proceedings. Soil Improvement - -A Ten Year Update: Geg echnical Special Publication .No. .1U, held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on 28 April, J,P. WeIsh, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 215.231. 77 207 Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., and Sakurai, H. (1994a). "Effectiveness of Measures Against Liquefaction Confirmed at a Recent Earthquake ---A Case History Daring the 1993 Kushiro -Oki Earthquake, Proceedings,, 26th_ Joint Meeting of UllitedStates -sago Panel on Wi d 'smic Effects: NIST SP 871, held in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on 17 -20 May, N. Raufaste, Ed., U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 213 -325. Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., Miyata, M., Sakurai, H., Oishi, H., Ogura, H., Ando, Y., Tanaka, Y., and Kato, M. (1994b). "Effects of Remedial Measures Against Liquefaction at 1993 Kushiro -Oki Earthquake," Proceedings, Fifth_ Japan- C.T.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design QL Lifeline_ Facilities and Countermeasures Against 5-0il Lj uefaction, Technical Report NCEER- 94 -0Q26 held in Snowbird, Utah, on 29 September -1 October, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, pp. 135 -152. Ichihashi, Y., Shibazaki, M., Hiroaki, K., Iii, M., and Mori, A. (1992). "Jet Gr outing in Airport Construction," Proceedings, Grouting, Soil Improvemgnt_and_Geosy thetics. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30 , held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 182 -193. Ishihara, K„ Kawase, Y., and Nakajima, M (1980). "Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand Deposits at an Oil Tank Site during the 1978 Miyagiken -Oki Earthquake," Soils and Foundation Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 97 -111. Jackura, K., and Abghari, A. (1994). "Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards at Three California Bridge Sites," Proceedings, Fifth Japan -U.S_3yorkshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities armed Countermeasures Against Soil_Liquefac ion:_ echnical Report NCEER 4 -0026, held in Snowbird, Utah, on 29 September -1 October, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National. Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, pp. 495 -513. JSSMFE (1995). Remedial Meas re A ainst Soil Liu faction- -From Investigation, a Design to Implementation Japanese Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (in Japanese; translation into English in progress). Karol, R.H. (1982). "Chemical Grouts and Their Properties," Proceedings,, Grouting inin Geotechnical_En ing_ eering held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 10 -12 February, W.H. Baker, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 359 -377. Keller, TA., Castro, G., and Rogers, J.H. (1987). "Steel Creek Dam Foundation Densification," Pr a in s Soil Im rovernent - -A Ten Ygar U a eotech ical S ecial Publication No. 12 , held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on 28 April, J.P. Welsh, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 136 -165. 78 M Koga, Y., Matsuo, Q., and Koseki, J. (1993). "Studies at PWRX on Mitigation Works Against Liquefaction of Sandy Ground," PrQgee�lings._25„th_ Join t Meeting of Jhq United Stags-Japan Panel on Wind an f e is Technical Memorandum of W No. 220, held in Tsukuba, Japan, on 17 -20 May, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 381 -388. Kramer, S:L., and Holtz, R.D. (1991). NSF Workshop. _Soil Irnproov vement and Foundation e di tion with BMphUia oil Seismic Hazards, held in Seattle, - Washington, on 19 -21 August, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 106 Ledbetter, R.H. (1985). Irpro_y_ement of Liquefiable Foundat_ion_Conditions Beneath. Existing Structures: Technical Report REMR -GT -2 , Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 51 p. Liao, H.J., Kao, T.C., Chen, M.S., and Wu, Z.C. (1994). "Grouting for Retaining Wall Movement Control of a Deep Excavation in Soft Clay," gee 'ngs. Grouting in the Ground held in London, England, on 25 -26 November 1992, A.L. Bell, Ed., Thomas Telford, London, pp. 403 -416. Littlejohn, G.S. (1993). "Chemical Grouting," Ground Improvement M.P. Moseley, Ed., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, pp. 100 -130. Matso (1995). "Lessons From Kobe," C Fugineeriag, ASCE, New York, NY, April, p. 44. Mitchell, J.K., and Wentz, F.J., Jr. (1991). Performance of Improved Ground During the Lvma Prieta Earthgluak_e :Report No. ULDIEERC- 91112 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, CA, 93 p. National Research Council (1985). Liquefaction -of Soil During Earthquak National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 240 p. Oishi, H., and Tanaka, Y. (1994). "Densification of Surrounding Soils Due to Gravel Drain Construction," Proceedings, Fourth Japan -U.S. Workshop_ on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction: Technical Report NCEER -92 Q, held in Honolulu, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 929 -942. Ono, Y., Ito, K., Nakajima, Y., and Oishi, H. (1991). "Efficient Installation of Gravel Drains," Proceedings. Second International Conference on_ Kecent Advances inGeotechnical Earthguake En ing_eering and Soil Dynamics held in St. Louis, Missouri, on 11 -15 March, S. Parkash, Ed., University of Missouri - Rolla, MO, Vol. 1, pp. 437 -444. Onque, A. (1988). "Diagrams Considering Well Resistance for Designing Spacing Ratio of Gravel Drains," Soils and _Foundations Japanese Society of Soil Mechanies. and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 3, September, pp. 160 - 168. 79 209 Q'Rourke, T.D., and Jones, C.J.F.P. (1990). "Overview of Earth Retention Systems: 1970 - 1990," FroLceedjng& Design and Perf rm n e o Earth Retaining St ctures: e t chnica Special Pub&„ation _o. _25 held in Ithaca, New York, P.C. Lambe and L.A. Hanson, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 22 -51, O'Rourke, T.D., and Hamada, M., Eds. (1992). Case Studies -?f Licluefactic�n an_d_L,ifelire performance During Past Earthquakes Technic - al Re olz rt NC_ -Q002, Vol. 2, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. O'Rourke, T.D., and Pease, J.W. (1992). "Large Ground Deformations and Their Effect on Lifeline Facilities: 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake," Case ,studies of Liquefaction_ and Lifeline PerforMance During Past Earthquakes:. Technical Report NCEER 92 -0002, Vol. 2, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. O'Rourke, T.D., and Palmer, M.C. (1994). Feasibility Study of Replacement Procedures and Earthquake Performance_Related to Gas T .Xansmission Pipelines: Technical Report NCEER 947001 National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. Perez, J.Y., Davidson, R.R., and Lacroiz, Y. (1982). "Lock and Dam No. 26 Chemical Grouting Test Program," Geotechnique Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 217 -233. Rubright, R., and Welsh, J. (1993) . "Compaction Grouting," Ground Imp rjgyg =nt M.P. Moseley, Ed., CRC Press, Inc„ Boca Raton, FL, pp. 131 -148. Ryan, C.R., and Jasperse, B.H. (1989). "Deep Soil Mixing at the Jackson Lake Dam.," Proceedings, Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices held in Evanston, Illinois, on 25 -29 June, F.H. Kulhawy, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 354 -367. Salley, J.R., Foreman, B., Baker, W.H., and Henry, J.F. (1987), "Compaction Grouting Test Program-- Pinopolis West Dam." Proceedings, Soil I,Mprovement - -A Terg Year Update: Qeo=hnical Special Publ)eatiQn No. 12 , held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on 28 April, J.P. Welsh, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 245.269. Sasaki, Y., and Taniguchi., E. (1982). "Shaking Table Tests on Gravel Drains to Prevent Liquefaction of Sand Deposits," Soils and Euu goons Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 1 -14. Scherer, S.D., and Weiner, E. (1993). "Underpinning and Leveling Settled Pipes and Channel," Proceedings, Third International Conference on Ca His ries in Geptechni�al Engineering held in St. Louis, Missouri, on 1 -4 June, S. Prakash, Ed., University of Missouri - Rolla, MO, Vol. II, pp. 1183 -1188. :9 210 Schmertmann, J.H., and Henry, J.F. (1992). "A Design Theory for Compaction Grouting," Proceedings, Grouting, S it - Improvement and s het' s Geotec nical Special Publication No held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 215 -228. Seed, H.B., and Booker, J.R. (1977). "Stabilization of Potentially Liquefiable Sand Deposits Using Gravel Drains," ,JgKMaj pf the Geotechnical Engineering, Division ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 103, No. GT7, July, pp. 757 - 768. Steiner, W., Schneider, E., and Cartus, M. (1992). "Soilerete Cut -Off Wall for Undercrossing a Busy Rail Line," Proceedings. Grouting. Soil Imvrovement and Geosyntllel ;c; „Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -28 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and I. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 384397. Stroud, M.D. (1994). "Report on Sessions 5 and 6: Jet Grouting and Soil Mixing," Proceedings, Grouting in the Grouting held in London, England, on 25 -26 November 1992, A.L. Bell, Ed., Thomas Telford, London, pp. 539 -560. Taki, O., and Yang, D.S. (1991). "Soil- Cement Mixed Wall Technique," Proceedings, Geotechnical En ineering Congress 1991: Geotechnical Special Publication No. 27 held in Boulder, Colorado, on 10 - 12 June, F.G. McLean, D.A. Campbell and D.W. Harris, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 298 -309. Tsai, K.W., Chou, C.K., Chang, J.C., and Wang, W.H. (1993). "Jet Grouting to Reduce Liquefaction Potential," Proceedings. Third Intern ional Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering held in St, Louis, Missouri, on June 1 -4, S. Prakash, Ed., University of Missouri - Rolla, MO, Vol. I, pp. 609 -611. Warner, J., Schmidt, N., Reed, J., Shepardson, D, Lamb, R., and Wong, S. (1992). "Recent Advances in Compaction Grouting Technology," Proceedings. Grouting, Soil Improyemnt, and Geosynthetics: Geotechnical Special Publication_ No_ 30 held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 25 -26 February, R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz and 1. Juran, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 252 -264. Watanabe, T. (1966). "Damage to Oil Refinery Plants and a Building on Compacted Ground by the Niigata Earthquake and Their Restoration," Soils and Foundations Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 86 -99. Welsh, J.P. (1992), "Grouting Techniques for Excavation Support," Proceedings, Excavation and SuMort for the Urban Infrastructure: Geotechnic l�S.pecial Publication No. 33 T.D. O'Rourke and A.G. Hobelman, Eds., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 240 -261. Welsh, J.P. (1995). Personal communication. 81 211 Welsh, J.P., Andersen, R.D., Barksdale, R.D., Satyapriya, C.K., Tumay, M.T. and Wahls, H.E. (1987). "Densification," Proceedings of Im ro ement -- Year U da e: G o ethnic 1 Special Publication No 12 , held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on 28 April, J.P. Welsh, Ed., ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 67 -97. Yashinsky, M. (1994). New 12eveiol2mgnts Related toSoil _Liquefaction in Japan: Internal e o , Caltrans' Office of Earthquake Engineering, Sacramento, CA, 29 p. Yasuda, S., Nagase, H., Kiku, H., and Uchida, Y. (1992). "Appropriate Countermeasures Against Permanent Ground 17isplacemtent Due to Liquefaction," Proceedings., Tenth World Conference on Earthquake En ineering held in Madrid, Spain, on 19 -24 July, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 3, pp. 1471 -1476. EM 212 STAFF REPORT - ADDENDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: September 28, 2010 Sc, Res: PZ10 -37 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Michael Brown 335 -2222 Big Mike's 601 Highbush Lane Kenai, AK 99611 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit — Home Business /Outside Storage Yard for Construction Equipment and Supplies Legal Description: Lots 7 and 8, Luebke Subdivision Street Address: 601 and 603 Highbush Lane KPB Parcel No.: 04519037 and 04919038 Existing Zoning: RS — Suburban Residential Current Land Use: Residential Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Residential ANALYSIS This is an update to the comments prepared for this application on September 9, 2010. The Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Conditional Use Permit on Sep- tember 22, 2010. Four individuals spoke at the public hearing: • Carl Glick, 1601 E. Aliak, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the permit, noting noise and traffic issues. • Leaha Snyder, 601 Highbush, Kenai -- Applicant spoke in favor of the permit, noting the property had been hydro - seeded and a fence would be installed. • Raymond Peterkin, 469 Roy Way, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the permit, noting he was pro business. • Betty Glick, 1601 E. Aliak, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the permit being awarded after the business was already on the property. 213 PZ10 -37 Comments - Addendum Page 2 of 3 In addition to those speaking at the public hearing, an email was received from Dorothy Howell, 506 Highbush Lane, Kenai, who is against the permit being granted. The Com- mission postponed action and continued the public hearing to October 13, 2010. On September 22, 2010, in preparation for the public hearing, a site visit was conducted and photographs of the site were taken. Copies of the photographs were provided to the Commission at the meeting. The photos show a large gravel pad that is below grade. At the time the pictures were taken, there was a semi truck, dump truck, 2 pickup trucks (one truck with signage for "Alaska Hydra -Ax" on the door), a belly dump trailer, and two fuel tanks. The area adjoining the Highbush Lane right -of -way has been seeded with grass. There is no screening and the site is completely visible from Highbush Lane. It is diffi- cult to tell from the photos; however, there is little if any natural screening between the adjoining properties and this site. This application resulted when the City was notified that an individual in this area was clearing land for a large parking area. The owner, Mr. Brown, was unaware that a Condi- tional Use Permit would be required to store his equipment for his business and when contacted began the application for the permit. When originally reviewing this application, the site was under construction. The City has never received a complaint regarding the storage of these commercial vehicles at this site. The City has never had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Brown, who is the legal owner of the property. Mr. Brown has delegated authority to Leaha Snyder to process the permit on his behalf. During the application interview, Ms. Snyder was informed of the con- cerns with the use in a residential neighborhood including maintenance of equipment and screening of the site. A copy of the staff comments were sent to Mr. Brown. The initial review of this application found that with constraints on use and screening of the site, the use could meet the intent of the zone and conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, based on the photographs, there is now a concern that even with the re- quirements recommended that the proposed storage yard is not consistent with the intent of the zone and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of commercial construction vehicles. The Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 2010 and postponed action on the permit. On September 22, 2010, photographs were taken of the site. These photographs provide a descriptive representation of the impact of the storage yard. In addition, the photographs show there are two fuel tanks being stored at the site. The applicant had noted in the application that there would be no maintenance at the site. The activity at this property was brought to the City's attention in late July. At that time, it was discovered that the property owner had a business license but was not registered to collect sales tax. As of September 24, 2010, according to the Kenai Peninsula Borough 214 PZ10 -37 Conunents - Addendum Page 3 of 3 Sales Tax Department, the applicant has not applied to collect sales tax. The applicant does not seem to recognize the significance of the Conditional Use Permit process and that permits, if approved, must be carefully monitored to ensure that the use is operated in conformance with the conditions of the permit and as outlined in the appli- cation. It is unfortunate that the applicant chose to develop a storage yard without re- viewing zoning restrictions. However, for the above - stated reasons, I cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If the Commission determines the permit meets the criteria required under KMC 14.20.150 to grant the permit, recommend the following conditions be placed on the permit; I. The site must be screened from all adjoining properties and the right -of -way with a sight - obscuring fence. Fencing and landscaping must be completed within one-year of approval 2. The construction business is limited to the storage of no more than six (6) pieces of equipment at one time. 3. The existing shed is allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures are allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line. 4. Fuel may not be stored at the site and all servicing of equipment must be done off site. Oil pads will be stored on -site in case of an oil leak 5. No employees are allowed to park personal vehicles at this location. 6. Equipment traffic to and from property by owner is limited to no more than three (3) trips per day. 7. Applicant will register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 8. Any expansion of the business requires an amendment to the CUP. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. PZ10 -37 2. Application 3. Drawings 215 u tlre tity aF CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ10 -37 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: NAME: Michael Brown dba Bia Mike's USE: Horne Business /Outside Storage for Construction Equipment and Supplies LOCATED: 601 and 603_Highbush Lane — Lots 7 and 8, Luebke Subdivision (Street Address /Legal Description) KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PARCEL NO: 04519037 & 04519038 WHEREAS, the Commission finds: 1. That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: Auaust 31, 2010 2. This request is on land zoned: RS — Suburban Residential 3. That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and other documents that they can and will meet the following specific requirements and conditions in addition to existing requirements: a. The site must be screened from all adjoining properties and the right -of -way with a sight- obscuring fence. Fencing and landscaping must be completed within one-year of approval b. The construction business is limited to the storage of no more than six (6) pieces of equipment at one time. c. The existing shed is allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures are allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line, d. Fuel may not be stored at the site and all servicing of equipment must be done off site. Oil pads will be stored on -site in case of an oil leak. e. No employees are allowed to park personal vehicles at this location. f. Equipment traffic to and from property by owner is limited to no more than three (3) trips per day. g. Applicant will register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. h. Any expansion of the business requires an amendment to the CUP. 4. That the Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 on: September 22, 2010 and October 13, 2010. 5. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. 216 PZ10 -37 Resolution - Revised Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED HOME BUSINESS /OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, OCTOBER, 13, 2010. CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: September 22, 2010: Public Hearing/Postponed 217 Pagel of 4 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: September 9, 2010 Res: PZ10 -37 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Michael Brown 335 -2222 Big Mike's 601 Highbush Lane Kenai, AK 99611 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit — Home Business /Outside Storage Yard for Construction Equipment and Supplies Legal Description: Lots 7 and 8, Luebke Subdivision Street Address: 601 and 603 Highbush Lane KPB Parcel No.: 04519037 and 04919038 Existing Zoning: RS — Suburban Residential Current Land Use: Residential Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Residential ANALYSIS This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a home business, including storage of construction equipment and supplies, from the properties lalown as 601 and 603 High - bush Lane. The properties are located in the Suburban Residential zone. Mr. Brown was unaware a conditional use permit was required to operate his business from his home and applied for a permit to bring the properties into compliance. KMC 14.20.150 details the intent and application process for conditional uses. The code also specifies the review criteria that must be satisfied prior to issuing the permit. The criteria are: 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district — The properties are located in the Suburban Residential (RS) zone. The RS Zone is intended to provide for medium density residential development in areas which will be provided with common utility systems. The specific intent in establishing this zone is to separate residential structures to an extent which will allow for adequate light, air, and privacy and prohibit uses which would violate the residen- 218 PZ10 -37 Comments Page 2 of 4 tial character of the environment and generate heavy traffic in predomi- nantly residential areas. The applicant has operated the business from these locations for 2 years without any complaints. During this time the vehicles were parked hapha- zardly in the driveway. When the City received a call of the lot being cleared it was not to complain, but to find out what was being clone. The caller had no problems with the clearing, and the City has received no ad- ditional calls concerning the property. The cleared lot will provided an area to park the vehicles in an organized way and not in the driveway. The equipment is used off-site and should not add additional traffic to the neighborhood. 2. The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be signifi- cantly impaired — The storage of equipment should not significantly impair the value of the adjoining property or neighborhood. Property assess- ments area function of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Once the fencing and landscaping are complete, the aesthetics of the properties will be im- proved as well as add value to the adjoining properties. The equipment will be unseen from the right -of way. 3. The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan — The prop- erties are designated as Neighborhood Residential in the Land Use Plan. Neighborhood Residential is identified as "consists of single-family and multi family residential areas that are urban or suburban in character. Typically, public water and sewer services are in place or planned for in- stallation. The land use district may include both single-family and multi- family dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions and /or design compatibility. Formal public outdoor spaces (parks) are a critical feature in this district. Small home -based businesses may be accommodated with- in certain design guidelines. Neighborhood institutional uses such as churches, schools, and day care facilities may be intermixed if they comply with neighborhood design guidelines " The equipment is used and serviced off-site. Equipment stored on the property is limited to six (6) personally owned vehicles parked on the property at any one time. This activity is in harmony with the Comprehen- sive Plan. 4. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use — The development will be served with on -site water and wastewater systems that are adequate to serve the use(s). 5. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or wel- fare — The applicant will be living at this location and will monitor activi- 219 PZ10 -37 Comments Page 3 of 4 ties to ensure that the operation is managed so there are no health or safe- ty issues, 6. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above - mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant, These may include, but are not limited to measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use and other similar aspects related to the pro- posed use. The following conditions are recommended to ensure the proposed business does not adversely affect the neighboring properties: 1. Fencing and landscaping must be completed within one -year of approval. This includes separation between adjoining properties, 2. Construction business is limited to the storage of no more than six (6) perso- nally owned pieces of equipment at one time. 3, Existing shed is allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures are allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line. 4. All servicing of equipment will be done off -site. Oil pads will be stored on -site in case of an oil leak. S. No employees are allowed to park personal vehicles at this location. 6. Limit traffic to and from property by owner to no more than three (3) per day. 7. Applicant will register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 8. Any expansion of the business requires an amendment to the CUP. BACKGROUND The applicant purchased the properties in 2008, In 2009 and began parking the construc- tion equipment in the driveway of 601 Highbush Lane. The adjoining lot was cleared in the summer of 2010 to provide parking for the construction equipment. A single drive- way is used to access both properties from Highbush Lane. The City has received no complaints concerning the operation of the business until the clearing of the lot. The caller did not call to complain, but was questioning what was going on. The only on -site activities from these properties will be the use of the phone, fax, and the loading and unloading of equipment. The business will have minimal traffic impact to the area as all activity is done off -site and Mr. Brown has no employees. Mr, Brown op- erates the business with six (6) pieces of equipment that are used and serviced off -site. Records show Mr. Brown has a State of Alaska business license but is not currently regis- tered with the Kenai Peninsula Borough for sales tax. The applicant proposes to install a 6 -foot fence along the front of the gravel pad to pro- vide screening of equipment from Highbush Lane. Additional landscaping is also planned to provide separation between adjoining properties. The storage shed located on the property is used to store supplies for the business. No additional structures can be added to the lot without removal of the lot line between the properties. Building Official: No building concerns, 220 PZ10 -37 Comments Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the application and review of Kenai Municipal Code, the requested use meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. Recommend Approval with the following re- quirements; 1. The fencing and landscaping must be completed within one -year of approval. This includes separation between adjoining properties. 2. The construction business is limited to the storage of no more than six (6) pieces of equipment at one time. 3. The existing shed is allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures are allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line. 4. All servicing of equipment will be done off -site. Oil pads will be stored on -site in case of an oil leak. S. No employees are allowed to park personal vehicles at this location. 6. Limit traffic to and from property by owner to no more than three (3) per clay. 7. Applicant will register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 8. Any expansion of the business requires an amendment to the CUP. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. PZ10 -37 2. Application 3. Drawings 221 CITE' OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION O � RERESOLUTION NO. PZ10 -37 eG THAI. ;1'f CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF K.ENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: NAME: Michael Brown dba Bit Mike's USE: Home Business /Outside Storage for Construction E ui ment and Su lies LOCATED: 601 and 603 HiRhbush Lane --- Lots 7 and 8. Luebke Subdivision (Street Address /Legal Description) K.ENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PARCEL NO: 04519037 & 04519038 WHEREAS, the Commission finds: That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: August 31, 2010 2. This request is on land zoned: RS — Suburban Residential 3. That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and other documents that they can and will meet the following specific requirements and conditions in addition to existing requirements: a. Fencing and landscaping must be completed within one-year of approval. This includes separation between adjoiningproperties. b. Construction business is limited to the storage of no more than six (6) pieces of equipment at one time. c. Existing shed is allowed to be used for the storage of supplies for the business. No other structures are allowed onto the property without removal of the lot line. d. All servicing of equipment will be done off -site. Oil pads will be stored on -site in case of an oil leak. e. No employees are allowed to parkpersonal vehicles at this location. f. Limit equipment traffic to and from property by owner to no more than three (3) trips per day. g. Applicant will register far sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. h. Any expansion of the business requires an amendment to the CUP. 4. That the Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 on: September 22, 2010 Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING 222 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED HOME BUSINESS/OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT, PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, SEPTEMBER 22 20100 CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: 223 HLIC e5 dUIU IU: UJNM HV LHSLKJL I t—NA p. Vi tfa3e wirgrl'i -a Pas e Cl � a� w d'11 a Fi tu re 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907- 283 -7535 / Fax: 907 -283 -3014 w �- eo .�` 1RR2 �11G 31 �,q1� APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT nntn! A 12,$5 1.16 OWN= PFI T ITI F7,' TATFVE' nV AW 1 k5 V WK Name: Mailing Address; 1vMailln Address: 00 W11 — aafgl P. 0 Phone Number: phone Nuiuber: Fax N>jmber: Fax N'umbelr: (' t 2:Z, Email: Email. .. - , P,R($PER > '. ]NIP RMA�TION Property Tax ID #: Site Street Address: d Current Leg al Desert lions Conditional Use Requested Fort (Describe the project, and use additional sheets If ne essary) (QOM,(, f CA to be, L(S-6 � ��,es�tes�; �m b►�s>� -ss ret.4bQ, L Zoning: Acres e: 4-,2 DOCUMPMATION Required Attachr"ants: Completed Application Form Site Plan $100 Fee (plus applicable sales tax) Tax Compllance Certificate ellled (if applicable) State Business License if applicable AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE: I hereby cirtify that (I Am) (I have been authorized to act for) owner of the property described above and that I petition for a conditional use permit in conformance with Title 14 of the Kenai Municipal Code. I understand that payment of the application fee Is nunrefuti dable and Is to cover the coats associated with processing this applicatlon, and that It does not assure approval of the conditional use. 1 also understand that assigned hearing dates are tentative and may have to be postponed by Planning Department etalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission Par administrative reasons. unde��tand.tll� a site visit maybe reau Ire d to uroc esstlkis ani cation, City of Kenai Date; Q 112JI t) I s ignalure: /J V Iii1�C.r�� . 1�.�.r"' I Represent4tives rtmsfprovlde written proof of authorization Accep by. Fee: Tentative Hea .Date: Resolution No.: 8/16/2010 Page 1 of 224 RUG eb eU10 10!53AM HP LASERJET FRX p.4 CONDMONAL_ USE STANDARD YGMC 14,20.154 The Planning and Zaning Commix, ion mAy only approve he conditional use if the commission finds Chat all the following six {a} standards Are satisfied. Each standard must have a response in as much detail as it takes to explain how your project Satisfies the standard, The burden of proof rests with you. Reel free to use edditfonal per If needed. 1. The use is consistent svit:h the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and Intent of the xonlna dlstrict: bAu WQ, Ib ablb lu 114vfj 00 Wd6taPcilg aM fCnL,(_4i5 'i"$ll LSW 1 Our' W w UJ rr m.o k - pr �Y aU Ov u L *G W JV J ya, u a5 6MV ot�Uk !, t�vt. I'�.i� ha�� �} W2 L ` ke .p oca.i r`4 VWLy C l uffa- fi No/ wi MY& 4SCC , 614 tP t h i l is P I.Lt.yuu-4 uue, KTLl,[ Zvi: Q..i' P t& Sp as¢. -to ea&bL a►, oYg eL4 i;zo_d vY 4D pct} k a a , 94U*PV4tf' a�� r�bW:V S` C t, ,&Vi tiro" aleOU �Zef ��� s f� Gtt. F�) Ss;nc wa,are, fam,�G/- - OV►W4 the i �� mt k,t, a xyy huaVLt uSe�t q�u:p�vc y i ^XT— r,ta VLA � L^r�...,.,.l ruv,rh} - -VAp to tc-+(h, ran 1J- '1A,n.rL, 2.The value of the ad oinin ro erty and neighborhood will not be sl niiicantf ft aired; dqc,� m .a n� C 'L" t Was, r1Vi�axtt� FtLr {osec a, WAY to izw w1t1 -UV' ai�� th Unur of � L$ rye, cg�tibar('vnc . we, fP,,t,� T txk" "e, 4,� Ukfft .t 'UW our Ar IVGA" &. tars R OYC of a. 16&t XOWn.c•& _" t1� 46 stn b y L4 W AN, f-LLL (16t YJF- aW A +o keen, Wh �d. adds v a,ll,clz au� �d,.7ht, - tke�s GbEa�ut tio e." w- �.rca wet c�yw y , W ;a J Xdi&V hai(&M ace �bu-sa4.5s hal' J is L� r�u d i� tfu' (ou y ►�wy - P ptlt i and bau td'4 tvU'S/J 3.Tbe Dromosed use is ft e''W"'W11SWOPM Wks' wu{� WMt "Ce"tun (Uls(Qh�ca.tMUW -61' uC th& Q t bu3• tag ptralvt t� 6 -ft ruap anyth ' u�.frt s u �s ,I 6 of �,boriac�r� - Wt (UY�i;f; h& -6 ' rftlw mss# ctiw* t)y bho-Ox f s. f it i >Lr , q i►� orbu.aV y ` hl d - & bt t5wssi l' not OUL t . .I% 4.Public services and facflitles are adefluate to serve the proposed use; exit (,t, - l!4 ut aA eqLux1t - fo 6avt -t4 pri pme ust of park W 4y"hVts 4,r d1W, ,bu. Lhe" ; erg ( , ev'r tot, ad UWSMW , anv Otha pug m s wit. " net r u w Wn -( �r -dw uAS 8/16/2014 Page 2 of 4 225 MUg e5 eUlU 10:53AM HP LASERJET FAX p.5 S.Tlie rp osed use will not be harmful. to the public Rzfety, health or welfare; WG WW ftOt bVI war a x . �e gram a 1% GIB f1iQ�7.tl t'� hamfu..�. - it . abL�. ? � 3'j� w V �L no Sa na of 0 hn VS Ns it off - s f; 'T ry . 1n c am �, U .- sara M tdsu W b a at i (Haar 6-Any a all specific conditiona deemed necessary by the commission to fasltilt the above - mentioned condition9 should be met by the applicant, These may include, but are not limited to measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use and other similar asmeets related to the iDroj)osed -use. LAND USE Desc current use of properry covered by this application; � V![. ak - k - P "V M aq Lktpr wnt 1 v v ,�� Lt . y� r S +r ► W SV 1 dyl 0 t 5urrou ing property. (Describe hove land adjacent to the property is being used) Notch; � * 4) 'ti1'P, /U)L') �{' 1 b W � 0 0_b �n M Pr�PW V l GCdI.Jz.d ID V W_ L10+ bV Vu ls South; road East: rack West: b y S 04P _N D W Wour s W7 bet& Of Lot , OYLL . H�.bor ��.5 a s�c� w�, ► s � �e� � � �(n�,�. i� t�. �ird.�;r. PROCEDURES FOR PERMTS REQ URINO PUBL HEARINGS AND NO'T'IFICATIONS The permit you have applied for may require Public Hearin$ and Notification under KMC 1410.280. The Planning and Zoning Commission meets the 2 and 4"' Wednesday of each rnonth. To meet notice requirements, the Planning Department must reoeive your completed application 11 da s rior to the meeting when the Public Hearing is scheduled. 8/16/2010 Page 3 of 4 226 P. b 2G6. 1 EASEMENT VACATED THIS PEAT 132 60* b 249 S.F C) 8,619 0 57'55" E 32.60' 280 S,F 5 " E 132.81 so. oa P to a. o co a! 132. 60' 4 Sq, 279 S.F N 59 57'55"E 132-60 OD 04 9,ZB2 S.F 8,403 S.F f W II F.—M 10 wilily csol't go. c IV -A d C 0 cr— LO V 9 U cli w W 1324. 39') 8ASiS OF BEARING 1324.47" U3" D I j I 14 ai C L fl FTO RD STREET L0 Lo KRD 63 - 214 331.2.2 2G6. 1 EASEMENT VACATED THIS PEAT 132 60* b 249 S.F C) 8,619 0 57'55" E 32.60' 280 S,F 5 " E 132.81 so. oa P to a. o co a! 132. 60' 4 Sq, 279 S.F N 59 57'55"E 132-60 OD 04 9,ZB2 S.F 8,403 S.F f W II F.—M 10 wilily csol't go. c IV -A d C 0 cr— LO V 9 U cli w 12 --- --- -------- olwy 6ri --------- - ---- ---- 228 W PZ10 -37 Conditional Use Permit 229 Outside Storage Yard for Home Business �F TO WHOM IT MIGHT CONCERN: I'M WRITING IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME BUSINESS /OUTSIDE STORAGE YARD SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL BROWN ON LOTS 7 & 8 LUEBKE SUBDIVISION {601 & 603 HIGHBUSH LNJ IN KENAI, EVIDENTLY HE HAS ALREADY DONE THIS WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT. IF HE GETS A PERMIT FOR A HOME BUSINESS, WHAT IS KEEPING OTHERS FROM DOING THE SAME. HE ALREADY HAS A LOT OF BIG HEAVY EQUIPTMENT PARKED THERE, PLUS HE WOULD BE BRINGING MORE HEAVY EQUIPTMENT. WE TRY TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY NICE AND NEAT. THEN SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND DOES THAT. THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY ALREADY LOOKS LIKE STORAGE YARDS WITH MULTIPABLE BOATS AND TRAILERS, CARS, PICKUPS, CAMP TRAILERS. MOTOR HOMES, ETC. WE DEVELOPED THIS PROPERTY IN 1968 AND HATE TO SEE IT GO TO POT NOW. WE ARE KEPT AWAKE MANY TIMES BY THE NOISE FROM HIS EQUIPTMENT & VEHICLES. ITS TEARING OUR ROADS UP, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T BUILT FOR HEAVY VEHICLES. I AM STRONGLY AGAINST THIS PERMIT, AS ARE THE NEIGHBORS. I THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SOUND OFF. DOROTHY HOWELL 506 HIGHBUSH LN. KENAI, AK 283 -4291 (n, L Off t. 230 . ._III f':. .il. 111 1 111. . .... 111 1„ I f •' I .1 N:IN!11 1 • • 11 • !� .... :.: IM ;r All Le gag If Y , it P py " p� PART? �Ij !wil U: 1:... ..;; : .;�, n V IW i �11 PJI['� HI! 1 A " YIMI f lion 1 1iJ ;nicd 4 *0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . Mtn Oki I': : J O lYi! . ... I I. .... .. 1 "'!1 NEWS!! Jig 4111 .1 I • , �, I 4' i MR. ...... ...... Mii ma l'ifliff. n m!;ii,, id 1, J iijK 231 .il. 111 1 111. . .... 111 1„ I f •' I .1 N:IN!11 1 • • 11 • !� .... :.: IM ;r All Le gag If Y , it P py " p� PART? �Ij !wil U: 1:... ..;; : .;�, n V IW i �11 PJI['� HI! 1 A " YIMI f lion 1 1iJ ;nicd 4 *0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . Mtn Oki I': : J O lYi! . ... I I. .... .. 1 "'!1 NEWS!! Jig 4111 .1 I • , �, I 4' i MR. ...... ...... Mii ma l'ifliff. n m!;ii,, id 1, J iijK 5b STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: September 15, 2010 Res: PZ10 -40 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Mike and Karen Eberhard 283 -5365 609 Ponderosa Street Kenai, AK 99611 Requested Action: Variance — Side Yard Setback — 4 -foot Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 3, Silver Pines Subdivision Part 1 Street Address: 609 Ponderosa Street KPB Parcel No: 04334034 Existing Zoning: SR — Suburban Residential Current Land Use: Residential Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Residential ANALYSIS General Information This is an application for a 4 -foot side yard setback. Applicants propose to build an 18 by 22 foot addition above the existing garage of their residence, The additional space would include a bedroom, bath, closet and office. The structure is located on the corner of Ponderosa Street and Silver Pines Road, Comer lots require two 25 -foot front setbacks. The property is located in the RS — Suburban Residential zone. Side setbacks in this zone are based on the number of levels (stories) in a home; 5 -foot — single story, 10 -foot — split levels and 15 -foot — two stories. The as-built provided from 1991, shows the structure is eleven feet (I 1') from the side property line. KMC 14.20.180 details the intent and application process for Variance Permits. The Code also outlines the review criteria that should be used by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if a variance should be granted. The Commission shall establish a finding that all of the following conditions exist as a prerequisite to issuance of a variance permit: 1. Special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land or structures involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This house was built in 1991 without consideration for future additions. This is a corner lot which requires two front setbacks further limiting development. The setback requirements in the Suburban Residential Zone change depending on the levels (stories) in a home. Front setbacks are 239 10 -40 — Comments Page 2 maintained and the footprint of the existing structure will not change. 2. The special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute a pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. The applicants did not build the house and have considered various options for the addition. Do to the layout of the existing structure, and the planned use the applicants believe the addition over the garage is the best approach, 3. The granting of the variance shall not authorize a use that is not a permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. Residential use is a permitted use in the zone. 4. The granting of a variance shall be the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of the land and/or structure. Applicant has stated that in order to build a room large enough for the proposed use that will accommodate their need for additional space they believe the requested variance is minimal. It does appear a reasonable request within the constraints of the development. 5. The granting of a variance shall not be based upon other non - conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district. Variance is not based on other non - conforming land or uses. Building Official. No Building Code Issues. RECOMMENDATIONS The owners of this property would like to build an addition to accommodate their family's needs. The original structure was built in 1991 and constructed to meet the required setbacks without consideration for future development. Front setbacks are maintained and the footprint of the existing structure will not change. Granting the variance should not adversely affect the neighboring properties. The addition will not create an unsafe situation for drivers along Ponderosa Street. Providing a variance to allow the construction appears reasonable. Recommend approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ10 -40 2. Application 3. Drawings 240 CITY OF KENAI =- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ns,yof RESOLUTION NO. PZ10 -40 BEHA LAIASHa VARIANCE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A 4 -FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE AUTHORIZED BY 14.20.180 OF THE KENAI ZONING CODE: NAME: Mike and Karen Eberhard LOCATED: 609 Ponderosa Street - Lot 10 Block 3 Silver Pines Subdivision Part I Street Address /Legal Description) WHEREAS, The Conunission finds that Section 14,20, 180 provides that a variance from the strict provisions of the zoning code may be granted by the Commission if all conditions specified in 14.20.180 are met, and WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Corr mission finds: 1. That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.185 (c) has been submitted and received on: September 14.2010 2. This request is located on land zoned: RS — Suburban Residential 3. That the applicant seeks a variance from the specified requirement of the Zoning code: 4. a. Special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land or structures involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same land use or zoning district. b. The special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. c. The granting of the variance does not authorize a use that is not a permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. d. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of the land and /or structure. e. The granting of the variance is not based upon other non - conforming land uses or structures within the sale land use or zoning district. 5. That a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.153 was conducted by the Commission on: October 13 2010 6. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. 7. Applicant must meet the following special conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN I4,20,280 HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST AND THEREFORE GRANTS THE VARIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION: PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, October 13, 2010. CHAIRPERSON: TTEST: 241 ''Vil la e w ith a Paso C# with a Future" MAMA 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kqq i, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907-2834535 1 Fax: 907 -233 -3014 WWW.ei:kenai.ak 1892 PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION Date So14M t. Name of Applicant MIKE OR KARE1E5 2. Business Name 3. Mailing Address 60 9 PONDEROSA ST. , 1VAI , AK 99611 4. Telephone 2815365 — Email AddresS mahPrharc7acfr.j _ net 5. Legal Description LOT IQ BLOCK 3 SITURR- PININS ONE - -- - - - _ - e _. � KPH Parcel No: a L 4 } J�J _�u 3"1 6. Property Address . 6 0 9 QONT)ER SA -- ST r E11i I - -9 9 611 . - -- - -- - -- 7. City of Kenai Zoning St7RTjRTRAW PRATDRNTTAT,_ 8. Application applying for (mark permit being applied for): ❑ Bed & Breakfast ❑ Conditional Use [] CUP —Transfer ❑ Encroachment ❑ Gravel Extraction ❑ Horne Occupation ❑ Townsite Historic Development M Variance not - submit Srour application unW it contaisas-all requtre�i. ttaformat on. (Check each box that applies and attached the necessary information to process thls application.) ® I am the legal owner of the property. ❑ I am not the legal owner of the property, however, I have attached verification by the owner of the property that I have permission to apply for the permit. I have paid the required fee ($100 plus sales tax). Attach a detailed description of the proposed use. Review the applicable section of the Kenai Municipal Code and include a information required by code for the type of application. Incomplete applications will not he accepted. I certify that the Applicant Date V 1 /18 /20I0 is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 242 Michael and Karen Eberhard 609 Ponderosa Kenai, AK 99611 2835365 To City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission 210 Fidalgo Ave Kenai, Alaska 99611 Subject: Variance for room Addition. To whom it may Concern, 9/14/2010 We are requesting a variance on the setback requirements which have changed since we had we purchased our house in 1992. As you can see on the Plot certificate dated 8/26/91 the Building setback line from adjoining property is 5'. Since that time it has not changed. The regulation for double story is 15 feet, and 5 ft for single story. Our house presently is setback 11 feet. When we bought the house we had planned one day to put a second story on the Garage so we could live and take care of our Aging mother and have room for the other family members. We knew it was the most cost effective way to give us more room. We are now 19 years older and were shocked to find out that setback requirements had changed to allow us a second story. This has been our home and it is our intent to retire here. We hope that we will be grandfathered to allow us to build. We cannot afford a new home and this provides a great hardship to us and our family. We are raising a number of our grandchildren and do not have enough room for people to live comfortably. If you look at the plot plan with our notes we only want to build up not change the separation of 11 feet between the property line as it now is. General Information We propose to build a 18 by 22 foot addition onto the top of the garage of the residence. The addition would be used for 1 additional bedrooms and a small office. The proposed addition would not into extend to the side setback. The structure is located on the corner lot of Ponderosa Street and Pines Rd. Corner lots require one 15-foot side setback from the adjacent lot. We are providing a sketch that show only the 11 feet presently as a setback. No changes will be made to the present setback. We are requesting a 4 foot variance from the Residential Development Requirements Table KMC 14.24.020 This is an application for a 4 foot side setback variance. In other words, to be allowed the present setback of 11 feet. This house is located in the SR—Suburban Residential zone. The as -built provided is from 1991, and shows the structure was not built into the setback, as the setback was 5 ft at that time. If this was not a corner lot, a 5 foot side yard setback would be required. A building permits are on record showing the 5' allowable setback for the structure. 243 KMC 14.20.180 details the intent and application process for Variance Permits. The Code also outlines the review criteria that should be used by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if a variance should be granted. The Commission shall establish a finding that all of the following conditions exist as a prerequisite to issuance of a variance permit: 1. Special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land or structures involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This house was built in 1991 and with consideration for future additions. This is a corner lot which requires two 25,ft setbacks for front and side and 20 feet in the back side one side setback of 1 S feet. 2. The special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute a pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. We, the applicants did not build the house and have considered various options for the addition. However, due to the corner lot restrictions, and practicality and cost, the only reasonable option preplanned, is to build onto the structure on top of the existing garage side. 3. The granting of the variance shall not authorize a use that is not a permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. Residential use is a permitted use in the zone. 4. The granting of a variance shall be the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of the land and/or structure. We state that in order to build a room large enough for the proposed use that will accommodate a bedroom we believe the requested variance is minimal. It does appear a reasonable request within the constraints of the development. 5. The granting of a variance shall not be based upon other non - conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district. Variance is not based on other non - conforming land or uses. Cordially, Mike and Karen Eberhard ,6't'Ln ""P-t4� ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Review criteria letter 3. Drawings 3. Development requirement Table 244 nt 1 fl Rlnr►k q -Qilx /ar hinAC -q ihriixri - qinn Part 1 LV4 I We W V V11 Y VI 1 11 IvV V •Ar ,.F %A m v a KENAI PROPERTIES KING KING KENAI PROPERTIES C� BABCOCK EAST HERMANSON Q� SANER PILATT 51f,VER PINES RD Q BARCUs 0 MISKINIS U 0 WEBER W O O'DONNELL MOON GARNAND O Z MYLES O MEEK DUBY ` " DUBY W PETERSON KLAUDER JOHNSON co co N� N� 245 �u Wtilbiy� No rZ'S� "v+f��a,or' I • I I I N 1 Story I �' Single Family I Home � I s 3 • M I � F y F ,h V) 3 I .V I w EY a 0, z N I 2 Il' IV I0 d i Ng `'Ib.lO rA 30 d f t r. w ?I PLOT PLAN CI 1 hereby certify that T have prepared this site plan for the following described property: LOT 10, SI,K, 3 SILVER )PINES PART ONE and that the proposed improvements, as shown hereon, are from information provided by the owner /builder. EXCLUSION.'NOTE: It is the:responsibility of the owner or buiild'er, prior to construction, to verify proposed building grade relative to finished grade and utility connections, and to determine the existence of any easements, covenants, or restrictions which do not appear on the recorded subdivision plat. 246 IR 14HITFORD SURVEYING PO Box 2392 Soldotna, Alaska 283 -4928 _Date 8/26/91 1 GrRIP 1" W 3Q° Resolution PZ09 «02 Attachment "A" Chapter 14.24 Table 14.24.020 lilEVELOPMUNr REQUYRE11ri:INTS TABLE ZONING DLSMCTS Yjsn CMR iRltt RS i�31: RS2 RillTSH !►� /eCrCCrCit 7 iZ ED LC I MIMIUM :LOT 90 90 60 b0 60 60 So fi6diyiduai secE ans 90 90 90 WI?l TH (feet) Q egg M Nlivlil JM LOT sizz (Peet) Front 25 25 25 25 25 10 2.1 25 25 25 One•Story 15 5 5 5 5 5 (SEE INDIViaLIAL SUCUON5 OF CODE l5 l5 15 DafthtHasernoutr 15 10 10 111 10 5 15 i5 15 1tEQWt4iMENT51 SI+IIFLevel' Two-.Story' i5 l5 15 15 1S 5 l 15 15 i3 Dear 20 20 20 29 2 0 10 kl 20 20 24 Maxirrenra Lot 30°fe 3tl% 30 30'/0 30 °i6 409' 30- 30% 3095 Coverage maximum Heighl 35 35 35 35 35 35 (feet) Footnotes.. (1) ,Provided Utat 'the rninhnura ilunt saHwkis messumd from any. right -of -way or xcaess rascmeat. (2) Sido setbacks are datemttued Independaotly from the front view of the slntmum Plotplaa.W -buUt will distinguish single and two- Flory portions of building to verify setback distauras are nut. (3) Story is that portion of a building included between the uppor surf hca of any floor and the upper sur3beo of the floor next above or tha ogling or roof above. One -story is defmod ast &story having duvet acoom fhnrn grade level without &lower atory. A som ure having a lower-story sitoated below aono -story i.4 considered a one<stnty s tru cture in its entirety. Two -story is dofined as one-story plus more than one-helf (112) the freight of the lowerstoly all situated above grade. Daylight basement/split level U defined as one -story plus less Man oue balf (112) the height o£the lower story all situated abovo grade. Fm- purposes of thesofbatrtotes, Grade is definers as the lowest point of elevation of We finished su ftw of the ground between the building acrd a line fives (5) feet from the building, (4)' Except dmt for each story over two (2) stories, oath side and scar yard shall be increased three (3) feet, but need not exceed. fqurteen (14) feet for mh side yard and ninon (l9) fast for the rear yard. ME 247 aoo ( Q Q V�CC O Z �, - -��. — .••..,�_...,�...,..__ tee. rn v � Ll G3 N ! ! � k '• Irr..gwg vcrti'} L:sat I ll=tva L Ail, ! !r'aa i=ce: thf 'ullntal ;g deg ^.: :.1 Ea r..c,pe a LOT 10, SU, I SmIl. "N trims T"I (la � 1 s!lld. �htit cha pcJp�as� imprry•,�:tnelts, us xh;r�..n 111 l�A_9eU � aca f 7 r ru;n in:4rmntir,E� , +rc ;_:I:s;, by i € aullUCIhU1.L��x, la, _ C� 1:.KCL75T(lfi I:DIL': Ll is x:c res�p�7uslv.7. +.:' at F.na aa::ar c +r 4u�.L792' prdrr :u avnrL_u %ci.c,:., to ti•nrgfv I ��� pxop:;sud bold'ng K:uda Ic is tan -Ol.d i f+19 Gud iv ! _y r,.ou!!- Brio ::a, and .a drrdr, ae :M? 62:LM ^n of sny ccaeml,.,LU, rnc'ru tip xer �,_�y:all� uiie, ::a :11A up, av_' Uri -ht' vecarau.] i � aH:_'Fti:Rf• iJR'. +�YYf•..',; f i'v IS:Ix 23 Saldeutu, 4'.:a2kr ! 4 i err. F`r 0 ✓ 248 f � II O _�J N L - EXISTING HOUSE 4' -0" E%45IPVC E]OSTING 3' -0" 2 -6" iv 0 0 e C-4 EXISTING GARAGE UP 3 Lo I N N 1€ V UM NEW SiAlRCPSE AND WALL — I � 3s3s 379301 GARAGE DOOR f 4' -00" � MU MMY � ��� sm- 2a�are KARW AW AWD: }TARO ALOV M SOURDOUGH SPECIALTY CONTRAMORS SOLi70 M 4, AK wow a W= 'o a 907- 394 -3266 1 T '°a7` �� ' Nrs s r ro °° ml s or t N U1 0 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: September 25, 2010 15c, Res: PZ10 -41 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) P.O. Box 190989 Anchorage, AK 99519 -0989 907 -334 -7980 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit — Natural Gas Storage Facility Legal Description: SE1 /4 SE1 /4 Section 4, Township 5 N, Range I 1 W SM Street Address: 1377 Bridge Access Road KPB Parcel No.: 04901311 Existing Zoning: IH — Heavy Industrial Current Land Use: Vacant Land Use Plan: Conservation/Open Space ANALYSIS General Information: The City of Kenai has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit from Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) to construct a new natural gas storage facility on the property located at 1377 Bridge Access Road. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. This type of development is allowed by conditional use provided that all application safety and fire regulations are met. The application provides a complete description of the proposed facility including construction and operation details. The project includes a well pad injection site which is located on a separate parcel. A separate Conditional Use Permit will be required for that portion of the project. KMC 14.20.150 details the intent and application process for conditional uses. The code 1 Ordinance No. 2509 -2010 — Rezoned this property from Rural Residential to Heavy Industrial. The land classification will be changed so that it is consistent with the rezone. The Land Use Map is updated yearly to reflect zoning changes. The new classification will be Industrial. 251 PZ10 -41 -Comments Page 2 also specifies the review criteria that must be satisfied prior to issuing the permit. The criteria are: 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. This zone was established to allow a broad range of industrial and commercial uses. It is intended to apply to industrial areas which are sufficiently isolated from residential and commercial areas to avoid any nuisance effect. Gas manufacturing /storage is provided for as a conditional use in this zone provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met. The proposed facility appears consistent with the Heavy Industrial zone. 2. The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. The proposed development is consistent with industrial uses in the zone. The facility is planned with a natural vegetative buffer to screen the development from adjoining properties and the right -of -ways. The development is planned to minimize sound with compressors being placed in buildings to reduce noise and using hospital grade mufflers. The Kenai Peninsula Borough assesses properties in the City and assessments are based on development. There is no evidence that this development will impair the value of adjoining property. 3. The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, This property is classified as Conservation /Open Space. Ordinance No. 2509- 2010 —Rezoned this property from Rural Residential to Heavy Industrial. The land classification will be changed so that it is consistent with the rezone. The Land Use Map is updated yearly to reflect zoning changes. The new classification will be Industrial. The Industrial district identifies areas reserved for manufacturing, warehousing, trucking, marine - related industry and storage, and similar industrial activities. City utilities and safe, convenient vehicular access are critical. Buffers between industrial uses and adjacent non - industrial uses are desireable. The proposed facility is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. 252 PZ10 -41 -Comments Page 3 The property is accessed off Beaver Loop Road. As part of the development, emergency access will be developed from Van Antwerp Avenue. The City recently extended water to this area. The City's police and fire departments have sufficient resources to serve the facility. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development. 5. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. This facility is being built to benefit the public. The facility will be built to strict standards and will meet all building and fire codes. The facility will be operated under industry guidelines. All personnel will be trained in general and site specific environmental, spill response, safety, and operating rules and regulations associated with a high pressure natural gas storage facility. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. 6. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above - mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. These may include, but are not limited to measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use and other similar aspects related to the proposed use. CINGSA has planned this development to ensure that the property is secure, screened, and built to meet all required safety standards. No additional conditions are required for the proposed facility. Building Official: No comment. RECOMMENDATIONS Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai. The facility would convert a nearly depleted natural gas production reservoir (the Cannery Loop -- Sterling C Gas Pool) into a natural gas storage reservoir and facility. The reservoir will store surplus natural gas during the summer months and then return that gas to the natural gas delivery system during periods of peak winter demand. The purpose of this development is to assure that deliverable amounts of natural gas will be available for natural gas customers located along the rail belt during periods of high demand. The project includes two properties that will require Conditional Use Permits. This 40- acre parcel will house the compression/gas conditioning facility. The footprint for the development will be approximately 7.5 acres of the 40 -acre parcel. The other property will house the well pad with injection/withdrawal storage wells. This will encompass 253 PZ10 -41 - Comments Page 4 approximately 5.2 acres of a 25.6 acre parcel. A separate Conditional Use Permit will be required for this site. This type of development requires multiple permits from the City, State, and Federal governments. The City does not have the expertise to regulate the oil and gas industry and relies on the State and Federal regulatory agencies to review and address permitting for the development and operation of the facility. Attached is a list of the permits that are required for the development. The City will issue and review the building permits to ensure the facility is built to meet required fire and building codes. The Conditional Use Permit will ensure that the development is consistent with the zone and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and that the development is not a danger to the public. The conditions required to issue the permit under KMC 14.20.150 have been reviewed. It is administration's opinion that the development meets those criteria and recommends approval with the following requirement: 1. All permits required from City, State, and Federal agencies must be approved prior to construction of the facility. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ10 -41 2. Application 3. Drawings 254 "Villa ye with a Past, C# with a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 Fax: 907 -283 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ10 -41 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: NAME: COOK INLET NATURAL GAS STORAGE ALASKA, LLC USE: NATURAL GAS STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED SE1 /4 SETA Section 4, Township 5 N, Range 11 W SM — 1377 Bridge Access Road (Street Address/Legal Description) KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PARCEL NO: 04901311 WHEREAS, the Commission finds: That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: September 14, 2010 2. This request is on land zoned: Heavy Industrial 3. That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and other documents that they can and will meet the following specific requirements and conditions in addition to existing requirements: a. All permits required from City, State, and Federal agencies must be approved prior to construction of the facility. 4. That the Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 on: October 13, 2010. 5. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, OCTOBER 13, 2010. CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: 255 SE1 /4 SE 1/4 T5N, R11W, SEC. 4 S.M. 256 CITY OF KENAI REESE DEMPSTER O� O � X00 �O 4 CITY OF KENAI LEWIS DENNIS KROGSENG R <p ppRO DENNIS 256 `Vil& w ith a Pict Ci with a fif t re 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Tolephone: 907 ,-283- 75351 Fax: 907-263 -3014 t i SEP 1 A 2010 � APPLICATION FOR ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ;x:8 L«> '°< < ».«Y9'>v Y£S.Y » `x:' P9>.°`.': t< M: sld.»: 2F'.: E<".< E. Ed°'^..".>.^..°: SS»':`» Ya�'.' ?t.:,::•u ".E<°��,'4..c•�.,<si�: ' E .Y°.:kddAd9E:S» ° ES: Pd«':° Y<. 3` SG«.»<::>°:'< E33 : °.«<Ell:.E!S".fi.°:°::.'. > °eE h.'. 6:':».>°. M.`:'? : »E >• > °d °emt:tm° Cib 3:E15SE,ME'3b.' H" 1 1�: �d: c:'. v:' �ri6E<..'. Y' ,i >a:.:.`.'d°: ^`.E: « `• �� m "£" J N rtte' Cook'lnlet'NatUral Gas Storage Alaska; LLC fii�itirEe' Nlafttit Adtiiress.,P ': QX190909 , Moillin Address. Artolla?age, 51, Plbtxe �iultbt t7 7$0'ee utiilcr`Y fox Nut btit'; 90 � , X671 Ya Number6 Frtiall' tom,armiristCl istarneturer as,com it i aft. ,.. �< .. a . 3 .. . e.:.... 3.....:.. a..., 5.......,. e. T..., d ................: i:.. m....,. 4d^`.'.°. l'. �....:^,°.%':::' m`:::°. a. �`.' s..`.".^.:;:;::°.;° ie::;:: 3;:°.°.':; e::; d;::;:°.;':;: tF. F...:§ ae'°.;:::.—.:?;;:. �°:: �.^,. �:; �::. :=;;• "e:..:: °.n.',::;Y,.-L—F:;� Sits `tf13 t .dtlj r s�« . 13 7 r idge Acc ®0 Road Grt`Qnte l leseri `tlo 14' 4actlpi� 4, Tta,AtrlshiTi 6 Qrth, Range 11 tiUast, Seward Meridian C rt ittc►tr 1 Ise Aegttestetf for: (llesrr be the pt oJt c #, end use additional slicets if necessary) C(NW. proposes to construct a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai, Alaska. The. project would convert a nearly depleted natural Des production resarvoir into and open - access netural.gap storage reservoir and facility, receivi gas from and deliver it to a c onnec tion w ith th existing Ma Oil Company Kenai NNW Pipeline (Marathon KNPL). The project includes a compresslonlgas co nditi o ning facility on Parcel No. 04901311. This property is approximately 40 acres, and was recantiy rezoned to Heavy Industrial, to. allow for gas manufacture and /or storage use. See attached detailed description. Gtitibt Naa lntlustrial Acreage: . 4.0 . . Com I pleted .A.p iNatiou Perot site Plan $100 a't'e (plus app licable sales tax) KPR Tax Compliance (if applicable 1 hereby certify that (f am) (1ltave' lireti 60 hA tae4 to Oct for) owne petition for a conditional use psi Wt In touMmancle ovith Tit1+t 14 of PAYAlent of the AlplicAtlon fce is n o"refondobje anti is to coffer the eo and that It does tint assure op1>rova4 of tlfe ondI0.6nA1 tim 11 olso ut d tentative and may have to lie, postpont'd by Plandno Peparttnent atat administrative reasons. I rt t t a 11 0'Xiiij I)WO L 1 91 , are authorized to.acc ' s tht. Ah Date; signatur �eM described above and that I U.01 ipid Cade.. I understand that tell with processing this application, 0:41 90ed Wring hates Aire unind and Zonine Commission for of Authorization 8/16/2010 Page 1 of 4 257 E ` `31 f'l t ft`�ud ZoWn Coin �tai :r�1a v et � rove the Cond tlo' 01 use tftlae,;ee�iaaIssie�;fttiids Y tt st nli the 0116 vic sIX (b) stsiidards;are iWlsfied. leach 44ndsrtl "toast hove s fosp,utisc in ss "'1"Uell Mall sg'3t takes tc explicit► how your prej0t satisfies the standsrd� The bur&A of Oruof rests with you. Feet Creo to _use addifle lott e,, per It weeded. 1, 'the uise is Consistent with the purpow et this chapter attd the p -ir os . and iritont of the �aalti ' disttrtct� The propertyhas recently been rezoned to Heavy Industrial, which allows for gas manufacture and storage, provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met, as shown on the Land Use Table.(KMC 14,22.010). Lands to the west are zoned heavy Industrial, and consist of a mini storage facility. Across Bridge Access Road is Carlile 'Trucking. The lands to the north, south and east are forted Rural Residential. The"north and east` properties are owned. by. the City of. Kenai, consisting primarily ofwetlan'ds, and are not expected to be developed. Properties to:tho southeast are.'active gravel lining operations, The property to the south is also undeveloped, The proposed development would be consistent with with commercial and Industrial uses along heaver Loop and ridga'Acoess Road. In addition, a natural vegetative buffer will be left in place around the facility. Compressors will be enclosed In buildings designed to reduce noise, and hospital grade mufflers will be used on compressor engine& , The property is designated Conservation/Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. The Conservation district applies to public lands, The land is not public land, and therefore not subject to the Conservation district guidelines. The parcel lies adjacent to the industrial District to the west and Rural Residential District to the south. The north and east boundaries of the parcel are adjacent to Conservation /Open Space district. 4.Publie services and faciUtles are ode uate to serve tlix rd bead i�se The property has adequate access via Beaver Loop Road. It also has adequate access to city services, city water being recently extended to this area. Police and Fire Departments are adequate to provide service to the site. 8/16/2010 Page 2 of 4 258 : e ire o e r ,ii rc t I� mf l to too .i ibl safe health or welfare, Tate prirtied use 1 intended t berlt`lt lha'publlctelfaro'ey providlrt0 for adequate `gas during. winter pewit m nth . IN A is aware of the, saf y an�J envirc�nmental `haza a With this f�oility. I n aeditlon;tp tea ' p clfi training, Il bperetlr�g per panel will be trained In general and site apee environmental, spill response, afaty; and rating rules regulations essocia #ed with :$ high prassore hatur.al,gas 'storago.fad lityo The prtipq ed f6611lty Will comply with all building and fire'Odds, AO;3CC, AUNR and other applicable re' ul ati ®ns. Far safety reasons, facility r�c�ess will: re to authari ed personp and rbgtalatpry personnel only. The `faoility will be: completely surrounded by a'sec urity fence, and equipped with an.alarm. Any a 411 so cifle couditions,deemed rii cosy r y by the tr mm.I9.9ion to fttfttil the aiaeve- mehdot ed c tiditlOas should be met by the a �tbarnt. 'obese finny include, but are not Iintited to measure's es relative to ate egs, se it enin , sib deve dp ent, bui[I ing design; operafon of the , m ®� =:,m3 � °�_` m��:��'��m -:� 4m ; : ��.� ;e � Via:, °ab � ° �: :,m��- :.m�',�� =�;; °. °,�. =a;;.s,,::-•w = �;��°e?�°�' -°3e �.' • E � ,�: gym, a,�..,.,`,. ° �,'; ' °. �;' m m �E.. �i ;ena� m m `I�escrib� citt7•ct�t t�se c�fliixilsei�fy cove��d by tl�i� appiicafion: The property Is currently undeveloped but is zo ned Heavy Industrial Surrounding property: (Describe how land adjacent to the property is currently being u8c d) North: Undeveloped Conservation /Open Space Undeveloped Rural Residential with gravel mining operations to the southeast East: Undeveloped Conservation /Open Space West: Mixed developed and undeveloped heavy industrial PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS REtQURING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS 'fhc permit you have applied for may require Ptiblic Hearing and Notification under KMC 14.20.280, The Planing and Zoning Commission meets the 2" and 4 Wednesday of each month, To niect notice requirements, the Planning Department must receive your completed application 2-1 days prior to the aneeting when the Public Hearing is scheduled. 8/16/2010 Page 3 of 259 • Applications requiring Public Hearings inust be lrtled no later train noon on the date of the deadline. • Ho e OceUpations And Landscape /Site Plans do not requi a Public bearing. Allow tip to 4 weeks for the permitting process. • Ifr9qu red:. o The Tiro Inspection Report must be received air r to processing the application. o The'Affidavit of Posting must be .reecived 2 w �e� _k�s��r to the hearing date its carder to selieclule a public h&adna. o Resolutions epaancat be issued until expi of the l S -tlay appca.. period. a Re.9olutions cannot be issued �mtil .documentation is received that the certificate of compliance is flier. WHEN YOU HAVE A COMP L,ET C7.APPL I ON, CALL, 2838237 TO SCHEDULE AN AI POIN`T`MElb T WI` 11 THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE Al'I'LICXHON. 8/16/2010 Page 4 of 4 260 N T uunderg Natural Gas Storage Facts October 13,2010 T, Storage in the United States The United States relies on Underground Gas Storage in the lower 48 state-E in order tO Dro a place to store produced gas during the summer and to pro required supply to meet peaking demand needs in the cold �.Nrinter. Cco k flln;'ef N.dum-1 G-,; STORAq7F Types of Natural Gas Storage Facilities cn K - Salt Caverns B - Aqui fe rs C - Depleted Reservoirs C k ��i N" STORAQ� Location of Natural Gas Storage Facilities N Cl od Mict NaIkunF1 Goo; STORAQE Deplet'ed Gas Storage Reservoirs These are naturally occurring geologic formations that contained gas reserves that have been depleted by production. deposits. Their potential as a secure container has been proven o - ver the millennia that the reservoirs held their original gas Gas is contained In a porous and permeable rock formation that is overlai by a dense impermeable rock lager and typically underlay. by Fater barriers. These are the most common tN e of gas storage resen - oir, making up abet. 82% of all underground storage fields in the United States. Depleted gas reservoirs geological characteristics and known operating parameters have been pre - vio usl y defined during the original gas production operations. c9 o, S"tra tegic 'Importance of Storage Gas requirements during h inter demand is much greater than that du ring . the summer. The demand requirements may result In gas prices being higher in. the winter than In the summer In some regions of the country. N .� .q The availability of gas storage ensures a stable winter time supply, reliable dellverablllt3f, and enhances gas delivery system reliability which results In increased reliability to the consumer. C iicl O Gas e Storage Balance — Supply and Demand N W Cook Im jet Na iwa, G STORAGP e N A U1 A `: MARKET DEMAND STORAGE STORAGE INJF-CTIONNS i .... :. Natural Gas Storage Basics How Na tural Gas is Formed: Natural gas is a naturally occurring substance present in rock amidst the earth's crust. The main ingredient in natural gas is methane, a gas (or compound) composed of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. Natural gas comes out of the ground as a gas. The origin of rail and gas is organic material - the remains of plants and animals µ compressed over millions of years in sedimentary rack such as sandstone, limestone and shale. All of the natural gas we use today began millions of years ago as the remains of (slants and animals. Layer afte�r layer of sediment containing decaying organic material was deposited. As the layers of sediment were burir,,d and consolidated, the decaying remains of plants and animals were intogr<ated into the forming sedimentary rock. As it became buried ever deeper by more layers of sediment, the organic material was exposed to high temperatures and pressures and eventually transformed into oil and gas. The amount of pressure and the degree of heat, along with the type of organic material (plant or animal), determined if the material becarne, oil or natural gas. Very high heat or organic material predominantly composed of plants produces natural gas. Petroleum Reservoirs: Petroleum reservoirs are geologic structures or traps that are typically formed over millions of years. Certain elements must combine in order for a reservoir to exist. The key elemont to petroleum reservoir formation is porous rock -- rock with open space between its grains-­.porosity. The porosity may have existed frorn the rock's original sediment, such as an ancient marine environment or river channel; it might also arise as groundwater dissolves pares in the rock or as minerals undergo alteration. Besides porosity, there must be permeability.----the connectedness of pores that allows fluid to move easily through the reservoir rock. Lastly, the con of porous and permeable rock alone do not constitute a reservoir, there must also exist a dense, impermeable layer of rock which overlays the porous interval and serves as a seal, or call rack in carder for a reservoir to exist. 2ril M In order to {produce hydrocarbons to the surface, a well must be drilled through the cap rock and into the reservoir rock. Drilling rigs work in a similar fashion as a hand drill; a drill bit is attached to drill pipe and is rotated by the drilling rig in order to drill a well. Once the drill bit reaches the reservoir, a productive tail or gas well can be completed and the hydrocarbons can be produced to the surface. When the drilling activity does not find commercially viable quantities of hydrocarbons, the well is classified as a "dry hole ". Dry holes are typically plugged and abandoned. 277 Diagram: ,-IN-QrEdimensions and depths as noted are for illustrative your ores on and are not intended to represent actual construction condition (This diagram is not to scale and has been dramatically shortened,) Once a well bore is drilled, there are many other activities that must be completed as part of the well construction process. These activities include but are not necessarily limited to, well logging, running and cementing casing, and perforating before a well is capable of production. Production and Reserves: Production of gas is described in terms of standard cubic feet, which is a measure of quantity of gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.65 pounds per square inch of pressure, "Mmcf' means I million cubic feet of gas. One billion cubic feet is denoted as "Bcf" and one trillion cubic feet is denoted as "Tef". Wells are drilled into reservoirs to extract the hydrocarbons. "Natural lift" production methods that rely on the natural reservoir pressure to produce the hydrocarbons to the 279 Su 04 u 4 io C n rt ' Yo §=2 V C.0 ti MD [70 M71 FM t ro d kt C A i 0 0 1 i� 0 1 (This diagram is not to scale and has been dramatically shortened,) Once a well bore is drilled, there are many other activities that must be completed as part of the well construction process. These activities include but are not necessarily limited to, well logging, running and cementing casing, and perforating before a well is capable of production. Production and Reserves: Production of gas is described in terms of standard cubic feet, which is a measure of quantity of gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.65 pounds per square inch of pressure, "Mmcf' means I million cubic feet of gas. One billion cubic feet is denoted as "Bcf" and one trillion cubic feet is denoted as "Tef". Wells are drilled into reservoirs to extract the hydrocarbons. "Natural lift" production methods that rely on the natural reservoir pressure to produce the hydrocarbons to the 279 surface are usually sufficient for a while after reservoirs are first tapped. In some reservoirs, the natural pressure is sufficient over a long tirne. The natural pressure in many reservoirs, however, eventually dissipates. Then the gas or oil must be pumped out using "artificial lift" created by compressors in the case of gas, and mechanical pumps in the case of oil, bath of which may be powered by gas or electricity. Uri or round Natural Cam torag_eL Natural gas may be stored underground under pressure in three types of facilities: (1) depleted reservoirs in oil and/or gas fields, (2) aquifers, and (3) salt cavern formations. Each storage type has its own physical characteristics (porosity, permeability, retention capability) and e;conornics (site preparation and maintenance coasts, delivorability rates, and cycling capability), which govern its suitability to particular applications. Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity, or the volume of gas inventory it is capable of storing, and the rate at which gas inventory can be withdrawn (its detive:rability rate). Natural gas storage uses a confined geologic formation to temporarily stern and provide efficient and dependably; supplies of natural gas to consumers, businesses and utilities. Depleted reservoir storage utilizes a depleted underground oil or natural gas reservoir that originally contained oil and/or gas. Because these fort previously contained oil or gas for millions of years before they were discovered, produced, and depleted, storage developers and operators know that they can safely and successfully storey gas there today, During storage operations, gas is injected back into the depleted reservoir using largo; compressors to re-fill the reservoir. The withdrawal process for the gas in storage is similar to the process originally used to produce gas from the reservoir. The conversion of a depleted oil or gas reservoir for storage use traditionally involves drilling new wells that enable a more rapid withdrawal of gas than was originally used to deplete the reservoir. Most natural gas storages reservoirs are designed to be filled over the course of the spring and summer months, or about 150 -180 days. Ukewise, they are designed to withdraw the gas out of storage during the coldest periods of winter, or in about 129 -159 days, This compares to a typical producing life for most reservoirs of anywhere from 5- 15 years or longer. The first successful gas storage project utilizing a depleted gas re =servoir was completed in 1915 in Welland County, Ontario. There are over 409 natural gas underground storage facilities in operation in the United States today. Approximately 80 %, of these facilities utilize depleted reservoirs that are close to consumption centers. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are the most commonly used underground storage sites because of their wide availability. 281 Underground natural gas storage can be used to effectively balance a variable market with a nearly constant supply of natural gas provided by the pipeline, systern, Storage fields are th(: warehouses that give a realty supply of natural gas that can serve a market with high peak demands in cold weather. More natural gas is used during the winter because many homes are heated by natural gas. - Therefore, natural gas is injected into storage fields during the summer (April W October), and withdrawn in the winter (November - March). Natural gas in storage also serves as insurance against any. unforeseen accidents, natural disasters, or other occurrences that may affect the production or delivery of natural gas. Mar Me asurements: There .are several volumetric measures used to quantify the fundamental characteristics of an underground storage facility and the gas contained within it. For sorne of these measures, it is important to distinguish between the characteristic of a facility such as its capacity, and the characteristic of the gas within the facility such as the actual inventory level. These measures are as follows: Total storage capacity is the maximum volume of etas that can be stored in an underground storage facility in accordance with its design, which comprises the physical characteristics of the reservoir, installed equipment, and maximum operating pressure for a particular site. Total gas inventory is the volume of gas in the underground facility at a particular time. Base gas is the volume; ref gas intended as permanent inventory in a storage reservoir to maintain adequate pressure and deliverability rates throughout the, withdrawal season. Typically the base gas volume of a particular reservoir is fixed and does not change over the operating life of the facility absent a change in the surface facilities or number of wells. Working gas is the volume of gas in the reservoir above the level of base gas, and represents the volume of gas that can be efficiently cycled and is available to the marketplace. Withdrawal capacity is most often expressed as a measure of the amount of gas that can be delivered (withdrawn) from a storage facility on a daily basis. Also referred to as the deliverability rate, withdrawal rate, or deliverability, withdrawal capacity is usually expressed in terms of millions of cubic feet per day (MMcflday). The withdrawal capacity of a given storage facility is variable, and depends on factors such as the amount of gas in the reservoir at any particular time, the pressure within the reservoir, compression capability available, to the reservoir, the configuration and capabilities of surface facilities associated with the reservoir, and other factors. In general, a facility's withdrawal rate varies directly with the total amount of gas in the reservoir: it is at its highest when the reservoir is most full and declines as working gas is withdrawn. 283 Injection capacity is the complement of withdrawal capacity -it is the annount of gas that can be injected into a storage facility on a drily basis. As with withdrawal capacity, injection opacity is usually expressed in MMcf]day. The injection opacity of a storage facility is also variable, and is dependent on factors comparable to those. that determine withdrawal capacity. By contrast, the injection rate varies inversely with the total amount of gas in storage: it is at it's lowest when the reservoir is most fell and increases as working gas is withdrawn. Injection and withdrawal capacity for any given storage facility are fixed or absolute. The rates of injection and withdrawal change as the volume of gas varies within the facility. atorar Q wners and ( tjCbb Owners /operators of storago facilities are not necessarily the owners of the gas held in storage. Indeed, most working gas field in storage facilities is held under contract with shippers, local distribution companies or end users who own the gas. If a storage facility serves interstate commerce, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); otherwise, it is state - regulated. Sources: American Gas Association http'.L vyww�a.or /Kclaboutnatgr [ a sladditionallNC toga e hL U.S. Energy Information Administration (Oct 2008). P�t�a:llvwww ei�a.clo /pub /oil r slr1g(yral aslanal sis i blicatior s /stor'a ebasicslsto rggebasics.html La data Energy Council -- Gas Facts ­ Production Overview btt ): _Dirt /c asfacts /p rodove r.htm Bryn blarrnan,CFA http..Z w%D .i ly edia.cornlarticle�107 /qil EE. 285 ,., I nlet Ga Al �.a Sa fety g �� �rr d_,.. a :ate _ �. - �. �. .._._.., , v., . .. _ �. S u rfa c e F a c i li Introd p. _ IBC refers to ASCE (American Society of l Engineers for m minimum design loads of buildings and other structures, The buildings and str uctures will .� .. designed to withstand an earthquake that has a probability of occurring only 2 percent of the time in any 50 year E Proiect. will utilize an ! # s to provide gre reserved for important community buildings and hospitals. N) ,')Ite w L mft .;"r - awing a zmmilar :._ S tation MI) (Eaton N W Cook STORAGE Y s S D o e 0 1 s m'l'c t s '-=! s<° s'I'd e tio n s N CO Cn ao The l earthquake i USA the 1964. struck in Southcentral Alaska in It registered a magnitude the ' A 9.2 Richter scale. 0 The buildings, - .. _ e _ . toundations, let vessels and T racks at the Cook In Gas Storage Project E a t_.,., designed .0 withstand earthquake this ., Oft Afilft a I * A-- a jp"k &w4 S a ^ i, i 1 1 1 1 = b Al desig to rIj a A SME C O inc The a contin fir . - -, i � .� d ete ctor s rte. ga ctors. IMM IMMac'1'1'1 Safety 6 The Operator I i e area. detects a fire or abnor'mal event in the gas withdrawal Pressure safety valves are installed on piping systems and vessels to protect against overpressure. Seismic 9 01 o o Engineers Our design Engineers, AECOM from W 0 California r Aiaska Oakland, T R of Structural, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. They have similar gas c g The design unized includes the highest safety factors to protect a f 8 j ac -: #ther potential incidents., w .�, a I n l e t Na _ `e _ A l as k a S � .. .el. ,OFF' - 03, R oo S t o rage W e ll a d We iii 0 CA) D esig n CA) a H Is_ 2 ,_...', Well pad area of approximately 5.9 acres of previously disturbed upland terrain; CA) O Cri Well pad separator to remove any produced water/brin". associated storage withdrawal operations; One 400 barrel produced water tank and installed t a concrete diked area; e A motor control wilding; loading facility CA) O A L z CA) 0 Well Conceptual Plan W ell Constructi �Pchemat §e±:a5ve for Gustgdon purpa e\ U_ U , - Xim mum Mil !w:<y�G e.,��•,=w © .t«.v s!:< k,.onstruction t.,xiteria Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation (AOGCC) Design Alaska Gas Storage Regulations EPA UIC Regulations (more stringent than most states) :'I CINGSA must: CA) demonstrate cri mechanical of demonstrate the proposed operation will not allow movement of fluid into sources of freshwater, Report on the mechanical condition of each penetrates reservoir and ensure that each well is in a condition that will prevent. movement of fluids into freshwater sources,, My for and receive an Aquil W k,onstruction Design CINGSA intends to fully cement casing strings surface, which exceeds AOGCC requirements Run cement bond the injected Y to the approved interval Install surface sub designed close or "'fail safe" e event nt damage the well M__ Construction Design Criteria CNGSA must re-certify mechanical integrity every four between years (EPA allows five re-certification); r once in operation; !�e i s m Y c Eve nt !�Tu dy CINGS co m missioned perf T s eismic eve compromise the i including the n of the facili s ub-surface W N AOGCC . Look compliant ;;z The October I 9th hearing will provide for a full evaluation of CINGSA's design and safety systems to ensure they are fully underground A Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC 3000 Sponard Road PO Sox 190989 Anohdraga AK 99619 -0889 Main: 907-334-7980 fax: 067 -M -701 www,cing.p a. cane CINGSA Compression /Gas Conditioning Facility City of Kenai Conditional Use Permit Application September 10, 2010 Cools Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai, ,Alaska, CINGSA would convert a :nearly dopleted natural gas production reservoir (the Cannery Loop -- Sterling C (gas fool) into a natural gas storage reservoir and,facility. The proposed project would receive gas from and deliver it to a proposed connection with the existing 20-inch Marathon Oil Company Kenai Nikiski Pipeline (KNPL). 'I°lic project would include the fallowing major above- ground cl+ements: • A 7.5 -acre compression/gas conditioning facility with ancillary features; an access road and secondary road for emergency egress; • A 5.2-acre well pad with injection /withdrawal (11W) storage wells, an access road, and ancillary f atures; • A buried 650 -foot long, 16 -inch gathering header pipeline between the well pail and the compression /gas conditioning facility; and i A buried 1,324 -foot long, 20 -inch pipeline connection to the Marathon KNPL. The proposed well pad and compression /gas conditioning facility would be located on separate properties oil opposite sides of Bridge Access Road (see attached figure). This property would support the largest portion of the CINGSA project. The compression /gas conditioning facility, access road, and emergency egress would occupy a total of 8 acres (20 percent) of this 40 -aere parcel. The associated well paid world be located on a 25.6 -acre parcel to the southwest, on the opposite side of fridge Access load. An attached figure provides the layout of the compression /gas conditioning facility on the property. The footprint of the proposed compression /gas conditioning facility will be approximately 400 feet by 550 feet (5,5 acres). A 12-foot wide paved road would be built around the perimeter of the cornpression /gas conditioning facility. A temporary construction lcaydown and snow collection area (approximately 200 feet by 400 feet) will be located north of compression/gas conditioning Facilities. A security fence will be installed at the toe of slope around the facility and the laydown area, encompassing 7.5 acres. A 20 -foot wide paved road would provide access to the facility from Heaver Loop Road. A 20 -foot wide secondary gravel access road will extend 1,185 feet from the 325 ONGSA Compressiop/Gas Conditioning Facility De8cription Page 2 perimeter read to Vaal Antwerp Avenue to provide: emergency dress. CINGSA plans to Use the existing municipal water supply for any potable drilling, hydrostatic testing, operations, or ma.inten"ce water needs. No blasting is required for the proposal project. The compression/gas conditioning facility would include the following elements: • Five buildings, each with parking aprons, to hoarse process equipment and operating personnel: - Compressor Building: 70 feet x 100 feet x 28 feet. - Auxiliary Building — 50 feet x 90 feet x 20 feet - Gas. Meter Building — 20 feet x 80 feet x 14 feet -- Glycol Regeneration Building — 24 feet x 56 feet x 20 feet Office /Shop /Control Building — 40 feet x 120 feet x 14 feet Two, 2,370 horsepower (HP) natural gas engine driving reciprocating, compressors and their associated a coal coolers, piping, valves, lubricant and coolant storage tanks and process controls: « An ethylene glycol storage vessel (approximately 2,970 gallons), fabricated to American So.ciety of Mechanical Engineers (ASMF) Section Vlll Code, which will be used for coolant; • A lubc oil storage vessel (approximately 2,970 gallons) fabricated to ASMF Section Vill Code; • A recycle tube rail storage vessel (approximately 2,970 gallons) fabricated to ASME Section VIII Code; • A 200 - barrel (Bbl) used oil storage tank fabricated to American Petroleum Institute (API) standards; + A triethylene glycol natural gas dehydration systeara and its associated pumps, valves, 2 x 200 I3b1 triethylene glycol storage tanks, regeneration system, and process controls; Two 400 -Bbl produced water (brine) tanks; * Natural gas inetering and separation equipment and their associated piping, valves, and process controls; Miscellaneous equipment enclosures; and Ancillary facilities including an emergency natural gas -fired generator, instrmnent air compressors and dryers, and electric switch gear and motor control centers. 327 C.INGSA Compression/Gas Conditioning Facility Description Page 3 A large perttaanent operating staff will not be require,(] although it is expected that this facility will Rave 2 or 3 operating personnel present 24 -hour8 per day 7 -days a week during strut -up and commissioning. and during initial withdrawal operations. During injection operations, it is anticipated that operating personnel will be present 8-hours per day, for the normal 5-day work week. Prior to installing foundations and facilities, trees, shrubs, and brush will be cleared from the area of the, facilely fciatprint. Woody material will be chipped and removed, 'Topsoil mid overburd en;wiil be stripped from the site and used to construct a landscaped berm on the southern edso (650 ;feet) and eastern. edge (200 feet) of the cotnpression/gas conditioning 'facility,.providing visual and Sound screening for the proposed facility. The burin will be approximately 50 feet wide at the base and a maximum of 12 feet: high, and would occupy approximately One acre of the compression /gas conditioning facility site, in addition to cattier facility elements. Kenai Peninsula Borough records confirm three residential dwellings are located within 2,0.00 feet from the center of the site for the compression /gas conditioning facility and well pad. All are located north - northwest of the facility, greater than 1,600 feet fiom the location of the north side perimeter fence. To minimize the soured levels from the gas storage facility equipment, CINGSA will incorporate the following into the facility design: The engine- comprmor units will be located in an insulated building complete with interior sound adsorption liner panels. • The inlet air and exhaust air for the building will be through enclosed baffled fate units. The inlet air fans will be located on the interior of the building walls. The exhaust fans with silencers will be located on the roof of the compressor building. a The engines will be equipped with special hospital grade mufflers that are designed to provide an overall sound reduction of 48 decibels on the A- weighted scale (dBA), with the unsilenml levels of 128 dBA at 3 feet fi-om the muffler. All aerial coolers that will be located outdoors will be purchased with maximum fan tip speeds of 7,000 feet per minute to reduce sound. Pre- construction aanibient sound levels will. be recorded in 2010 in proximity to the nearest confirmed residence, and at the fence litre and property line of the compression /gags conditioning facility. Sound levels will be recorded again at these locations following construction, at a time when both enginc-compressor units and supporting equipment arc operated at maximum speed and m;aximurn load. Lighting will be provided for security and for operations. Lights will be directional and at heights not to exceed 20 feet above the finished grade. The number of light fixtures will be minimized to provide light only where it is necessary. This includes two or three lights near each equipment item to allow operators to see critical instruments and general lighting along the compression /gas conditioning facility roads. Road lights will be a maximum of 329 CINGSA CompressiojVGas Conditioning Facility Description Page 4 12 feot above finished grade. All light fixtures will be of the type to minimize stray lighting so as not to disturb neighbors. Other than Wginning of-the day and end, -of-ti e clay traffic to and .from the facility, very .little traffic by plait persomiel is anticipated During withdrawal operations there will be once or twice per day traffic between the well site and comprmion/gas conditioning facility site. Mrimq injection operations, this traffic will be on the order of once a week. 331 PAW 1 6VOT 1 1141 l! ' H11111 Nil -flIHNI ! jj I 1, MIT 1WRIN 'HilldHil '"', i ll' YUH 1 1 : cri PRUNE I W tot m FIR TOM MIR WOWS itcE ....... � X ---- ---- . ...... ... GRAM! T FRIMANARAMI A ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J o Cook NO WO Af N Gas Storage aska, LLCC 15-N, R"VV Sewad Nhndan 1 Kenna AiasKa ------ ------ AECORS FNVRCNMEN t1l":- 'P xw — Anav %a bv=-6 Perimittin The following tables list the permits that are required to construct and operate the Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska Project. Federal The following table describes the federal permits required for this project and their current status. Authorization Agency Identifier Status Section 404 Nationwide U.S. Army Corps of POA- 2009 -1180 Application Authorization #39 Engineers Submitted, Consistency Management Approval Pending Bald Eagle Disturbance U.S. Fish & Wildlife Not Yet Assigned Application Permit Service ADL 230925 Submitted, Pad Mining, Land & Water Approval Pending Determination of Hazard Federal Aviation 2010- AAL -40 -OE Complete to Air Navigation Administration ADL 230979 Application State The following table describes the State of Alaska authorizations required for this project and their current status. Authorization Agency Identifier Status Alaska Coastal ADNR — Division of AK 1007 -02OG Complete Management Coastal & Ocean Consistency Management Determination Surface Lease for Well ADNR — Division of ADL 230925 Application Pad Mining, Land & Water Submitted, Approval Pending Pipeline Easement ADNR — Division of ADL 230979 Application Mining, Land & Water Submitted, Approval Pending Gas Storage Lease ADNR — Division of Oil ADL 391626 Application & Gas Submitted, Approval Pending Lease Plan of Operations ADNR — Division of Oil LOCI 10 -003 Application Approval & Gas Submitted, Approval Pending Air Quality Owner ADEC -- Division of Air AQ1242ORL01 Complete Requested Limits Quality General Permit for Oil & ADEC — Division of Air MG1 Not Yet Needed 337 Gas Drilling Rigs Quality Drilling Waste ADEC -- Division of 18 AAC 60.430 Not Yet Needed Temporary Storage Environmental Health, Solid Waste Program Section 401 Certificate of ADEC — Division of POA- 2009 -1180 Application Reasonable Assurance Water Submitted, Approval Pending Stormwater Discharge ADEC — Division of AKR100000 Not Yet Required Construction General Water Permit Excavation Dewatering ADEC — Division of 2009DB0003 Not Yet Required GP Water Contained Water GP ADEC — Division of 2009DB0004 Not Yet Required Water Utility Permit Alaska Department of Not Yet Required Transportation & Public Facilities Driveway /Access Road Alaska Department of Not Assigned Yet Application Permit Transportation & Submitted, Public Facilities Approval Pending Lane Closure Permit Alaska Department of Not Assigned Yet Application Transportation & Submitted, Public Facilities Approval Pending Injection Order Alaska Oil & Gas Application Conservation Submitted, Approval Pending Aquifer Exemption Alaska Oil & Gas Application Conservation Submitted, Approval Pending Annular Disposal Alaska Oil & Gas Not Yet Required Approval Conservation Permits to Drill Alaska Oil & Gas Not Yet Required Conservation 339 Local The following table describes the local authorizations required for this project and their current status. Authorization Agency Identifier Status Rezone of Compressor City of Kenai Kenai Ordinance Complete Parcel No. 2509 -2010 Conditional Use Permit - City of Kenai Application Well Pad Submitted, Approval Pending Conditional Use Permit — City of Kenai Application Compressor Site Submitted, Approval Pending Well Permit City of Kenai Not Required Yet Building Permits City of Kenai Not Required Yet Other An easement will be obtained from a private landowner for the gathering lines between the well pad and the compressor site. 341 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: ,September 25, 2010 Res: PZ10 -42 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) P.O. Box 190989 Anchorage, AK 99519 -0989 907- 334 -7980 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit — Natural Gas Storage Facility Well Pad Legal Description: Tract F, Boat Ramp Subdivision Street Address: 1430 Bridge Access Road KPB Parcel No.: 04945010 Existing Zoning: IH — Heavy Industrial Current Land Use: Vacant Land Use Plan: Industrial ANALYSIS General Information The City of Kenai has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit from Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) to construct a new natural gas storage facility well pad on the property located at 1430 Bridge Access Road. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. This type of development is allowed by conditional use provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met. The application provides a complete description of the proposed facility including construction and operation details. The project includes a compression/gas conditioning facility which is located on a separate parcel. A separate Conditional Use Permit will be required for that portion of the project. KMC 14.20.150 details the intent and application process for conditional uses. The code also specifies the review criteria that must be satisfied prior to issuing the permit. The criteria are: 343 PZ10 -42 - Comments Page 2 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. This zone was established to allow a broad range of industrial and commercial uses. It is intended to apply to industrial areas which are sufficiently isolated from residential and commercial areas to avoid any nuisance effect. Gas manufacturing /storage is provided for as a conditional use in this zone provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met, The proposed facility appears consistent with the Heavy Industrial zone. 2. The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. The proposed development is consistent with industrial uses in the zone. The development will include a 5.2 acre well pad with injection /withdrawal storage wells, an access road, and ancillary features. This parcel is bounded on three sides by roads. Once the construction is complete, there will be minimal activity at the site. There is no evidence that this development will impair the value of adjoining property. 3. The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. This property is classified as Industrial. The Industrial district identifies areas reserved for manufacturing, warehousing, trucking, marine - related industry and storage, and similar industrial activities. City utilities and safe, convenient vehicular accesses are critical. Buffers between industrial uses and adjacent non - industrial uses are desirable. The proposed facility is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, 4. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. The property is accessed off Bridge Access Road. The City recently extended water to this area. The City's police and fire departments have sufficient resources to serve the facility. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development. 5. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. 344 PZ10 -42 - Comments Page 3 This facility is being built to benefit the public. The facility will be built to strict standards and will meet all building and fire codes. The facility will be operated under industry guidelines. All personnel will be trained in general and site specific environmental, spill response, safety, and operating rules and regulations associated with a high pressure natural gas storage facility. Access to the site will be restricted to authorized persons and regulatory personnel only. The facility will be completely surrounded by a security fence and equipped with an alarm. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. 6. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above- mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. These may include, but are not limited to measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use and other similar aspects related to the proposed use. CINGSA has planned this development to ensure that the property is secure, screened, and built to meet all required safety standards. No additional conditions are required for the proposed facility. Building Official: No comment. RECOMMENDATIONS Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai. The facility would convert a nearly depleted natural gas production reservoir (the Cannery Loop — Sterling C Gas Pool) into a natural gas storage reservoir and facility. The reservoir will store surplus natural gas during the summer months and then return that gas to the natural gas delivery system during periods of peak winter demand. The purpose of this development is to assure that deliverable amounts of natural gas will be available for natural gas customers located along the rail belt during periods of high demand. The project includes two properties that will require Conditional Use Permits. This property will house the well pad with injection/withdrawal storage wells. This will encompass approximately 5.2 acres of a 25.6 acre parcel. The other property will house the compression/gas conditioning facility. The footprint for that portion of the development will be approximately 7.5 acres of a 40 -acre parcel. This type of development requires multiple permits from the City, State, and Federal governments. The City does not have the expertise to regulate the oil and gas industry and relies on the State and Federal regulatory agencies to review and address permitting for the development and operation of the facility. (See PZ10 -41.) The City will issue and review the building permits to ensure the facility is built to meet required fire and 345 PZ10 -42 - Comments Page 4 building codes. The Conditional Use Permit will ensure that the development is consistent with the zone and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and that the development is not a danger to the public. The conditions required to issue the permit under KMC 14.20.150 have been reviewed. It is administration's opinion that the development meets those criteria and recommends approval with the following requirement: 1. All permits required from City, State, and Federal agencies must be approved prior to construction of the facility. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ10 -42 2. Application 3. Drawings 346 "Villa ye miM a Past, C# with a Future 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 Fax: 907- 283 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ10 -42 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: NAME: COOK INLET NATURAL GAS STORAGE ALASKA, LLC USE: NATURAL GAS STORAGE FACILITY WELL PAD LOCATED: Tract F, Boat Ramp Subdivision 1430 Bridge Access Road (Street Address/Legal Description) KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PARCEL NO: 04945010 WHEREAS, the Commission finds: 1. That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: September 14, 2010 2. This request is on land zoned: Heavy Industrial T That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and other documents that they can and will meet the following specific requirements and conditions in addition to existing requirements: a. All permits required from City, State, and Federal agencies must be approved prior to construction of the facility. 4. That the Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 on: October 13, 2010. 5. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, OCTOBER 13, 2010. CHAIRPERSON: TTEST: 347 TRACT F, BOAT RAMP SUBDIVISION PORT OF KENAI LLC CARLILE CITY OF KENAI Cp Rp 4`��� DENNIS y 0 CITY OF KENAI ;u 0 CITY OF KENAI m D 0 0 m CITY OF KENAI ;a CITY OF KENAI CITY OF KENAI m "Villa y e w ilk a P ast , Ci wi th a Future ®. 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 �. Telephone: 907 -283 -75351 Fax: 907- 233 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Date: OWNER PETITIONER REPRESENTATIVE pr ANY) Name: State of Alaska, DNR Name: Mailing Address: 550 W. 7th Ave, Suite 650 Mailing Address: Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone Number: 907 269 -8111 Phone Number: Fax Number: Fax Number: Email: jennifer.murrell @alaska.gov Email: PROPERTY INFORMATION Prop Tax ID #: 04945010 Site Street Address: 1430 Bridge Access Road Current Legal Description: S9, T5N, R11 W, SM, Boat Ramp Subdivision, Tract P Conditional Use Requested For: (Deseribe the project, and use additional sheets if necessary) CINGSA proposes to construct a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai, Alaska. The project would convert a nearly depleted natural gas production reservoir into and open- access natural gas storage reservoir and facility, receiving gas from and deliver it to a connection with the existing Marathon Oil Company Kenai Nikiski Pipeline (Marathon KNPL). The project includes an injection /withdrawal well pad facility on Parcel No. 04945010. The well pad 6.90 acres. CINGSA has a lease application before ADNR. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. See attached detailed description. Zoning- Heavy Industrial Acreage: 6.90 DOCiJMENTATION Required Attachments: Completed Application Form Site Plan $100 Fee (plus applicable sales tax) KPE 'pax Compliance (if applicable) State Easiness License (if applicable) 0 AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE: I hereby certify that (I am) (I have been authorized to act for) owner of the property described above and that I petition for a conditional use permit in conformance with Title 14 of the Kenai Municipal Code. I understand that payment of the application fee is nonrefundable and is to cover the costs associated with processing this application, and that it does not assure approval of the conditional use. 1 also understand that assigned hearing dates are tentative and may have to be postponed by Planning Department staff of the Planning and Zoning Commission for administrative reasons. I understand that a site visit may be required to process this application. City of Kenai personnel Are authorized . to access the above - referenced property for the purpose of processing this application ' n Date: 7f Signature: Ao� Representatives must provide wrio n proof of authorization Acce ted by: Fee: Tentative Hearing Date: Resolution No.: 8/16/2010 Page I of 4 349 CONDITIONAL USE STANDARD (KMC 14.20.150) The Planning and Zoning Commission may only approve the conditional use if the commission finds that all the following six (6) standards are satisfied. Each standard must have a response in as much detail as it talces to explain how your project satisfies the standard. The burden of proof rests with you. Feel free to use additional paper if needed. 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the The property is zoned to Heavy Industrial, which allows for gas manufacture and storage, provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met, as shown on the Land Use Table (KMC 14.22.010). 2. The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired; All of the adjacent lands are zoned heavy industrial. Immediately to the north is the boat launch facility overflow parking lot. North of the parking lot is Carlile Trucking. The property to the east, across Bridge Access Road is a mini storage facility. The lands to the west of the well pad are wetlands owned by the City of Kenai and State of Alaska. These are unlikely to be developed. Lands to the northwest are occupied by the boat launch facility. The proposed development would consistent with with commercial and industrial uses along Beaver Loop and Bridge Access Road. In addition, a natural vegetative buffer will be left in place around the facility. The will be no equipment on site that would generate objectionable levels of noise. Generally, there will be little activity on the site, once completed. 3. The proposed use is in harmo ny with the Comprehensive Flan; The property is designated Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. The Industrial district identifies areas reserved for manufacturing, warehousing, trucking, marine - related industry and storage, and similar industrial activities, 1 4.Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use, I The property has adequate access via Bridge Access Road. It also has adequate access to city services, city water being recently extended to this area. Police and Fire Departments are adequate to provide service to the site. 8/16/2010 Page 2 of 4 350 S.The proposed use will not be harmful to the pEa c safe , health or (welfare; The proposed use is intended to benefit the public welfare by providing for adequate gas during winter peak months. CINGSA is aware of the safety and environmental hazards associated with this facility. In addition to task specific training, all operating personnel will be trained in general and site specific environmental, spill response, safety, and operating rules and regulations associated with a high pressure natural gas storage facility. The proposed facility will comply with all building and fire codes, AOGCC, ADNR and other applicable regulations. For safety reasons, facility access will be restricted to authorized persons and regulatory personnel only. The facility will be completely surrounded by a security fence, and equipped with an alarm. 6.Any and all specifee conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above - mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. 'These may include, but are not limited to meas"res relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use and other similar aspects related to the proposed use. LAND USE Describe current use of property covered by this application: The property is currently undeveloped but is zoned Heavy Industrial Surrounding property: (Describe how land adjacent to the property is currently being used) North: Zoned Heavy Industrial and used for boat launch facility overflow parking South: Undeveloped, zoned Heavy Industrial East: Adjacent to Bridge Access Road and zoned Heavy Industrial immediately east of Bridge Access Road West: Undeveloped, Kenai River tidal flats, zoned Heavy Industrial PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS REQURING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS The permit you have applied for may require Public Hearing and Notification under KMC 14.20.280. The Planning and Zoning Commission meets the 2°' and 4"' Wednesday of each month. To meet notice requirements, the Planning Department must receive your completed application 21 days prior to the meeting when the Public Hearing is scheduled. S /16 /2010 Page 3 of 4 351 • Applications requiring Public Hearings must be filed no later than noon on the date of the deadline. • Home Occupations and Landscape /Site Plans do not require a Public Hearing. • Allow up to 4 weeks for the permitting process. • If required: o The Fire Inspection Report must be received prior to processing the application. o The Affidavit of Posting must be received 2 wee ks_.Rrios_ to the hearing date in order to schedule a public hearing. o Resolutions cannot be issued until expiration of the 15 -day appeal period. o Resolutions cannot be issued until documentation is received that the certificate of compliance is met. WHEN YOU HAVE A COMPLETED APPLICATION, CALL 283 -8237 TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION. 8/16/2010 Page 4 of 4 352 f TOR s :f 4.Y A r.'r.f�l.4Ct Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC 3000 Spenard Road PO Box 190989 Anchorage, AK 99519 -0989 Main: 907 -334 -7980 Fax: 907 -334 -7671 wm w, cingsa. corn CINGSA Well pad Description City Of Kenai Conditional Use Permit Application September 10, 2010 Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas storage facility in Kenai, Alaska. CINGSA would convert a nearly depleted natural gas production reservoir (the Cannery Loop — Sterling C Gas Pool) into a natural gas storage reservoir and facility. The proposed project would receive gas from and deliver it to a proposed connection with the existing 20 -inch Marathon Oil Company Kenai Nikiski Pipeline (KNPL). The project would include the following major above- ground elements: o A 7.5 -acre compression/gas conditioning facility with ancillary features; an access road and secondary road for emergency egress; o A 5.2 -acre well pad with injection/withdrawal (1 /W) storage wells, an access road, and ancillary features; m A buried 650 -foot long, 16 -inch gathering header pipeline between the well pad and the compression/gas conditioning facility; and o A buried 1,324 -foot long, 20 -inch pipeline connection to the Marathon KNPL. The proposed well pad and compression/gas conditioning facility would be located on separate properties on opposite sides of Bridge Access Road (see attached figure). The well pad would occupy 20 percent of the 25.6 -acre Tract F Boat Ramp Subdivision. The largest portion of the CINGSA project, the compression/gas conditioning facility would be located on a 40 -acre parcel to the northeast, on the opposite side of Bridge Access Road. Tract F is bounded on three sides by roads; Midge Access Road on the east and Boat Launch Creek to the south and west. The exit road from the City of Kenai Boat Launch passes through Tract E, the parcel immediately to the north. Refer to the attached figures that provide the layout of the well pad on the property. The footprint of the pad will be approximately 424 feet by 549, occupying 5.2 acres. 353 CINGSA Well Paul Description Page 2 The well pad would support the following elements: o Five I/W storage wells, each with a 6 -inch diameter, above - ground flow line connecting the well to an above ground, 16 -inch diameter, 300 -foot long gathering pipe; a 10 -foot wide x 12 -foot long x 12 -foot tall insulated and climate - controlled building enclosing a separation vessel and associated instrumentation and valves; o a 10 -foot wide x 16 -foot long x 12 -foot tall insulated and climate - controlled motor control and telemetry building that will house the electric motor circuit breakers, an air compressor, an air dryer, and telemetry equipment for transmitting operating information to the compressionlgas conditioning facility; and a 400- barrel (16,800- gallon) produced water storage tank and a 300 - gallon ethylene glycol storage tank located in a lined, concrete secondary containment dike; The development will be connected to municipal water and commercial electric utilities. No sanitary waste will be generated; rest rooms, sinks, and similar facilities will be located at the compression/gas conditioning facility. All produced and rinse water will be stored on site for commercial collection and off —site disposal. A 35 -foot wide driveway would provide access to the site from Bridge Access Road. A security fence will be installed at the toe of slope of the well pad and access will be restricted, for public safety and site control, to authorized personnel. The operations on the well pad area will be largely automated; activities on the site will be limited to periodic data collection, inspections, equipment maintenance, and waste water disposal. The location of the proposed pad was identified and well pad configuration developed following consultation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and maximizes use of the previously constructed drill pad on the site. The well pad will be located in the northeast corner of the tract. The well pad will occupy 5.2 acres, of which 4,7 -acres was previously filled and disturbed in the 1970's for a drill pad that was never used. The CINGSA development will lie immediately west of the corridor of the buried KNPL, which bisects Tract F from north to south (the area disturbed by KNPL is approximately 1.5 acres). While CINGSA will lease 6.9 acres from DNR (refer to attached survey drawing and legal description), approximately 1.7 acre would not be developed to maintain a 330 -foot buffer between the development and a bald eagle nest site to the northwest, and to maintain separation from Boat Launch Creels which flows toward the south in the right - of -way of Bridge Access Road. Prior to constructing the well pad, trees, shrubs, and brush will be cleared from the well pad footprint. Woody material will be removed, and unsuitable soil will be used to 354 CINGSA WeII Pad Description Page 3 construct as earthen berms along the east and north edges of the well pad. No blasting is required for development of the site. All site drainage will be directed away from Boat Launch Creek, and the well pad will include a perimeter berm, secondary containment for storage vessels, and a retention basin. The remainder of Tract F (80 percent) is generally undisturbed and will remain undeveloped by CING3A. This includes a large, tidal wetland in the southwest corner of the property and Boat Launch Creek and abutting wetland in the southeast. All outdoor lights will be directional and at heights not to exceed 16 feet above finished grade. Under normal circumstances, only security lights will operate on the site. Security lights will illuminate the driveway at Bridge Access Road, the intercom, security card reader, and well pad signs at the entrance gate, and the intercom and exit instructions inside the fenced area. The equipment installed at the well pad will not generate sound that could disturb neighbors nor the general public. Insulated buildings will contain an air compressor and a low speed pump. Kenai Peninsula Borough records confirm three residential dwellings within 2,000 feet from the center of the site for the compression /gas conditioning facility and well pad. All are located north and greater than 1,500 feet from the well pad. 355 `f I II ' IE - II Eagle Nest © P5� I mI Lu �I :1 1) BASIS OF GEODETIC CONTROL AND NAD83 POSITION (EPOCH 2003) IS STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION & PUBLIC FACILITIES SURVEY CONTROL AKSAS PROJECT NO. 58703 BENCHMARK 601 ALASKA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (ASP) ZONE 4 ARE: N= 2393464.742 F= 1422055.815 NO TH 2) BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL IS ADOT BM 601 LOCATED AT BRIDGE ACCESS RD. BEAVER LOOP RD. INTERSECTION SCALE ELEV.: 42.20 FT. NAVD88. o ,w zoo F F PROJECT CINGSA_WELL_PAD LOCAYpN PARCEL ID NO. 04845010 809 T05N R11W SM KENAI PENINSULA REVISION , o,,,F aEPIa1 „sl MCLANE CONSULTING INC. wanose seuE r.,ar wexRxle ,es,xw GAS STORAGE PnarcerLro. ,woe 6�_ ��I� � verew -uwo<w �P.O.6ox1EC eOq:l%l lux "PP1"s CINGSA LLC J "EEi nv WACE; IBxiliOMi,6 saoaexlxuazssx Irtc rn~,J«.,�zam,1 356 NORTH I` N Ev Exhbit A to- I SEC, 9 t 5 1 Utility Equit on Luc,11 Side Of L.t Line! CON. No. 9 c ­* 5 GOFZI� No. I .7. W.0' Flippline F-4nit 'D COOK INLET EIK45B P6292---, 11"y" i N AT U RA L G- AS STORAGE LL.G GAS WIFIL PAD PARCEL 6.90 Ac. - ATA V 'r F_ CM No. 3 OR N89*54'04"W 62,_'q AV. creek - - - - - - - - - - -- �1 SfaJA 7 AR? 10�A _0 6 7R c k 110. 2 e ) 100 PROJFCT RCVISION; COOK INLE'r NXrURAL GAS STORAGE LIZ - C-3as Well Pad Parcel _1011 MAP 10 DRAWN BY: SAM. MCLANE CONSULTING INC. — & — UAW! I NW Y4 NE Y4 SEC. 9 T5N R1 - IW SM ENGIN&ONG - TEST0 suAvFvwc1 .MApRNG 4u CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA P.O. Box 465 boolfrm. CLIHNIS )pw)w C ClOIC INET NATURAL GAS STORAGE, LLC rM.; (07) 204M 357 prcajcact: Crook Inlet Na'tltreal rnas Storaq ge, LLC Kenai, Alaska Legal Description For C,as Well pact Parcol Legal IDesc ription for a barrel of land located within Tract F Boat Rat 8Ubd1vi5iD1 according to Flat NUMber 2005.122 Kenai Recording District in the NW J i IE %., Section 9, T5N, R 11 W, &W Alaska, in the C of Kenai, more particular described as follows: Beginning at tiae F 1116 G0141er cOMMon to Sections 4 and 9, thence N 89 '63'51) "W 4`I 0.67 ft. to the. NE carnet' of Tract F Boat Ramp Subdivision, a print on the westerly right-of-way line of the fridge Access Ron d, thence southerly along the arc of a Curve 34.2.60 ft. with a Radius of 2764,78 ft. and a Central Angle to the right of 7"05'52" to the NE corner of Tract F-' Boat Ramp Subdivision, the Corner I and the true point (Y beginning of this tract; Thence. continuing southerly 644.03 ft, along said right -of-way line on an arc, of a curve, with a Radius of 2764.78 ft. and a Central Angle to the right of 13 1 20'46" to Conner 2; Thence N 89 °54'04 "W 564.23 rt. to Corner 3; Thence N 00"05'56"E 605.88 ft, to a point on the northerly 1'.)o nciary of Tract F= Boat Ramp Subdivision and Corner 4 ; Thence N 88" 1 8'28" l ' 389.75 ft. along said northerly boundary to Corner 'i and the T.P.O.B.; encompassing 6.90 acres of land. "hre parcel is shown on the attached Exhibit A, a T �2 .� M, scn rT Md AN& L� P repared 1=3y: tb��� M. Scott McLane, LS 4926 358 ...� - - --4 ------ -------- - 1 4 e e9 'R"w ._.._.._.._.._..._ 4A� NO TH SCALE FEEY Pad Preliminary Design (color) 1) BASIS OF GEODETIC CONTROL AND NAD83 POSITION (EPOCH 2003) IS STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION & PUBLIC FACILITIES SURVEY CONTROL AKSAS PROJECT NO. 58703 BENCHMARK 001 ALASKA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (ASP) ZONE 4 ARE: N= 2393404.742 E- 1422055.815 2) BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL IS ADOT BM 601 LOCATED AT BRIDGE ACCESS RD. BEAVER LOOP RD. INTERSECTION ELEV.: 42.20 FT. NAVD88. rxocr CINGSA_ WELL _PAD iOC � 10N PARCEL ID NO.04945010 SG9 705N RI 1W SM KENAI PENINSULA 00.415H BY: EAxI MCLANE CONSULTING INC. w xve Lim �xW,Erwa_+YSrcn GAS STORAGE rro. iwo�9 °p'W�APi° ra eox,ce eooicwa wx MPIKNRB CINGSA LLC �rt[r '� oa 1 wMw9® ruc�wnma�sa �t1C vwnxcaccu 361 SCAN PARNEL L, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT T O F NATURAL RESOURCES 550 W. 7TH AVE., SUITE 9000 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 -3577 DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WA 7"ER PHONE: (907) 269 -8503 SOUTHCENTRAL REGION LAND OFFICE FAX: (907) 269 -8913 September 14, 2010 Marilyn K. Kebschull, AICP Planner City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 -7794 r 4a 7i� RE: CINGSA Project Track F of the Boat Ramp Subdivision, Kenai ADL 230925 = Dear Ms. Kebschull, The Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC (CINGSA) has applied to the State of Alaska for a land lease containing approximately 7 acres within the northeast corner of Track F of the Boat Ramp Subdivision in Kenai. We are currently in the middle of the public proeess for this lease site, but we are anticipating being able to grant them a construction permit this fall in the form of an Early Entry Authorization (EEA). To be more specific, the Preliminary Determination for this lease was issued on 7 -23- 2010 and the Public Notice period for the decision ended on 8 -24 -2010. We received seven comments; one in favor of the project from the City of Kenai, one from the Kenai Peninsula ACMP coordinator for the ACMP review, and five comments from the public voicing concerns. We will be addressing those concerns in the Final Finding and Decision. Once that decision is issued, there will be a 30 day appeal period. Assuming that no appeals are filed, and that the NAWCA requirements on the parcel have been satisfied, this office will issue the EEA. It is my understanding that in order for CINGSA to submit their application with the city for construction at this site, you needed a letter of support from the land owner. Please accept this letter as that support and if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 907- 269 -8111 or via e -mail at 'ennifer_murrelaaskaov/ Sincerely, / .4 AqwtA Jennifer Murrell Natural Resource Specialist lI DNR Division of Mining, Land, & Water "Develop, Conserve and Enhance .Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans" 362 KENA' Il Villa e with a Past, C# with a Future" 44M 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 -283 -75351 FAX: 907 - 283.3014 sill 1 MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration DATE: September 30, 2010 SUBJECT: PZ10 -38 —Amendment to Title 3 —Animal Control (Kennels) Attached is Resolution PZ10 -38 which incorporates Attorney Stearns' recommended changes. Most of the changes are form ativerbiage. The one significant change is the recommended definitions for com me rcia Vprivate kennels. A public hearing has been scheduled on the resolution for the October 27, 2010 meeting. 363 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZIO -38 A RESOLUTION OF THE KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING KENAI CITY COUNCIL AMEND KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE CHAP'T'ER 3, "ANIMAL CONTROL," BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "KENNEL" TO DISTINGUISH BET %TEEN COMMERCIAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL KENNELS AND TO ESTABLISH A NOTICE PROCESS FOR KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND RENEWALS AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS OF KENNEL LICENSING DECISIONS. WHEREAS, the Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 3.05.0 10 provides a definition for kennels but does not provide a definition that delineates commercial kennels from private kennels; and, WHEREAS, the KMC 3.15 requires a person keeping more than three dogs over the age of four months to obtain a kennel license from the City of Kenai; and, WHEREAS, KMC 3.15 does not require the City to notify neighboring property owners of a pending kennel license application or renewal of an existing license; and, WHEREAS, KMC 3.15 does not provide a process for a property owner within 300 feet to appeal the Chief Animal Control Officer's decision to issue or revoke the permit; and, WHEREAS, because of the impact that a dog kennel can have on neighboring property owners, they should be provided notice of dog kennel license applications or renewals and be provided an opportunity to comment on the license; and, WHEREAS, an opportunity should be provided to request a hearing before the Chief Animal Control Officer before a license is issued or renewed; and, WHEREAS, any party aggrieved by the decision on whether or not to issue a dog kennel license should be allowed to appeal to the Kenai City Council under the provisions of KMC 14.20.290. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMEND KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.05.010, "DEFINITIONS," as follows: New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 364 3.05.010 Definitions. As used in Title 3: 1) "Animal" means all domestic or domesticated members of the Kingdom Animalia. 2) "At large" means not under restraint. 3) "Cat" means a domestic or domesticated member of the family Felidae. 4) "Current rabies vaccination" means a vaccination: a. As specified in the "compendium of animal rabies vaccines" prepared by the Rabies Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences and by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. (1978); b. Administered in accordance with state law; and C. Evidenced by a rabies vaccination certificate in a form approved by the State Division of Public Health. 5) "Dangerous Animal' means any animal which due to improper or inadequate supervision or control has done an act harmful in its character to human beings or animals, regardless of whether the act is done in a playful or hostile manner. 6) "Dog" means a domestic or domesticated member of the family Canidae. 7) "Kennel' means [A PREMISES WHERE A PERSON KEEPS FOUR OR MORE DOGS OVER THE AGE OF FOUR MONTHS.] a. Kennel, Commercial means premises where four or more dogs over four months of a e are owned kept, boarded bred and/or offered for sale. b. Kennel Private means premises where four or more dos over four months of age are owned or kept for private en o ent. 8) "Impoundment" means: i. The seizure of animals by the methods set forth in KMC 3.25.010(d). ii. Seizure of a vicious animal. 9) "Officer" means a person charged by law with the duty to enforce provisions of this title. 10) "To own" an animal includes having title, keeping, harboring, and having custody or control of an animal. 11) "Person" includes individual, joint venture, partnership, corporation, or unincorporated association. 12) "Restrain" means: a. physical confinement, as by leash, chain, fence, or building; or b. under competent voice control when an animal is engaged in an activity or form of training requiring that it not be physically confined; or C. under competent voice control when an animal is on the property of its owner. 13) "Sterile" means rendered incapable of reproduction by surgical operation. 14) "Vicious Animal" means an animal that has done an unreasonable act harmful to human beings or animals which act is done in a hostile manner. Any animal which has been twice adjudged a dangerous animal by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether by a plea of no contest or guilty or by trial, shall be considered vicious for purposes of penalties imposed by KMC 3.05.060(d). New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 365 AND, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMEND CHAPTER 3.15 OF THE KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE, "LICENSED FACILITIES," as follows: Chapter 3.15 LICENSED FACILITIES Sections: 3.15.010 Licenses required. 3. 15.020 Licensing procedure. 3.15.030 License revocation. 3.15.040 Hearings — Appeals. 3.15.050 Standards for operating facility. 3.15.010 Licenses required. No person may operate a kennel facility without having a license therefor issued pursuant to this chapter. 3.15.020 Licensing procedure. (a) Application for a license under this chapter shall be to the Chief Animal Control Officer. The application shall include: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) The number and breeds of dogs to be kept in the facility; (3) The type of facility the applicant proposes to operate under the license, and a description of the proposed facility. An application for a license for a kennel facili to be used for commercial purposes shall include a copy of a current Alaska Business License for the operation of the kennel and a Borough Sales Tax application or registration number; (4) The address of the premises where the applicant proposes to operate under the license, and the name and address of the owner of the premises; (5) A diagram of the premises on which the applicant proposes to operate under the license. The diagram shall show the lot lines and the location and dimensions of yards and structures on the premises where the applicant proposes to operate under the license, designate the parts of the premises on which dogs will be kept, and show the location and use of structures of adjacent lots. The diagram need not be based upon a formal survey of the premises. New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 366 (6) The license fee required by KMC 3.05.100; (7) Proof of a current rabies vaccination for each dog kept in the facility that is over the age of three months. (b) The Animal Control Office shall not issue a license under this chapter to any person who has been convicted of neglecting an animal or cruelty to an animal. (c) The Animal Control Office shall not issue a license under this chapter until it has inspected the premises where the applicant proposes to operate the kennel facility, and determines that the kennel facili , meets the standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050 and that the applicant will operate the kennel facility in accordance with standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050. (d) The Animal Control Office shall prepare a written report of its [THE INSPECTION'S] findings; including any reason why the proposed facility does not meet the standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050 and any steps which the applicant may take to make the facility qualify for a license. The Animal Control Office shall give the applicant a copy of the report. (e) A license issued under this chapter shall expire on December 31 [ST] of the year in which it is issued. (f) An application to renew a kennel facility license shall be made [AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER] before the current license expires, and shall be made in the same manner as an application for a new license An applicant for renewal may rely upon materials submitted with a prior application for a kennel facility license provided that the information accurately portrays the current condition of the kennel facility and the applicant certifies that there have been no significant changes„ since the prior application (g) Notification of an initial or renewal application shall be mailed to real property owners on the borough assessor's records within a three hundred (300_) foot periphery of the parcel where the applicant proposes to operate the kennel facility. The notice shall provide a date by which any comments re ardin the he application should be submitted. During the comment period, the applicant or any person receiving notice under this subsection may request a public hearing about whether an application should be granted by the City. Upon timely request for a hearing, the Chief Animal Control Officer or his/her designee shall hold a hearing to determine whether the kennel facility license, should be issued, renewed, conditioned, limited, or denied. Notification of the hearing shall be mailed to real property owners listed on the borough assessors records within a three hundred 3( 00') foot periphery of the parcel that is the subject of the proposed action. The notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) dasprior to the hearing and shall include the date, time, and place of the hearing. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to all notified mo owners all Persons testibLing or submitting comments and the applicant. New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 367 hh)[(G)]The applicant shall be informed in writing that the application or receipt of the license provided for in this chapter does not relieve the applicant of meeting all zoning ordinance requirements or any other applicable City, Borough, or State laws or regulations. u[(H)] The applicant shall agree in writing that the kennel facility may be inspected by the Chief Animal Control Officer or hiss designee at any time during business hours of the permittee. 3.15.030 License revocation. (a) If an inspection of a facility licensed under this chapter reveals: (1) The kennel facility constitutes a health hazard, (2) The kennel facility violates a City or Borough ordinance or regulation; (3) The kennel facility violates a provision of this title, a term, condition, or limitation of a license issued under this chapter or a City regulation promulgated under this title. The inspecting agency may so notify the operator of the facility, stating in writing the steps the operator may take to remedy the violation. (b) The inspecting agency shall allow a kennel facility operator who has been notified of a violation under subsection (a) of this section a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen (15) days to remedy the violation. At the end of that period, the inspecting agency shall re- inspect the kennel facility to determine whether the violation has been cured. (c) If after re- inspection, the inspecting agency determines the violation has not been cured or that new violations have occurred, the Chief Animal Control Officer may commence a proceeding to revoke the license for the facility under KMC 3.15.040. idl Before revoking a license under this chapter, the Chief Animal Control Officer or _his /her designee shall hold a hearing to determine whether the license should be revoked. If the license is revoked, the Animal Control Office shall prepare a written decision as to why the proposed facility does not meet the standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050. An appeal of the decision may be filed as provided under KMC 3.15.040. 3.15.040 Hearings — Appeals. A person aurieved by the granting, revocation, renewing, limiting, conditioning, or denying of a license under this chapter may, within fifteen_ (15) days of the date of the decision appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to the procedures in KMC 14.20,290. [(A) A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE GRANTING, LIMITING, CONDITIONING, OR DENYING OF A LICENSE UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY, WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF, APPLY FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE CHIEF New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] •: ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER OR HIS DESIGNEE. UPON TIMELY APPLICATION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, THE CHIEF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER OR HIS DESIGNEE SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LICENSE SHOULD BE GRANTED, CONDITIONED, LIMITED, OR DENIED. THE PERSON AGGRIEVED MAY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL. (B) BEFORE REVOKING A LICENSE UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE CHIEF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER OR HIS DESIGNEE SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LICENSE SHOULD BE REVOKED. THE PATTY AGGRIEVED MAY APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DECISION WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL.] 3.15.050 Standards for operating facility. In operating a kennel facility, the operator shall: (a) Comply with the provisions of this title, the terms, conditions, and limitations of any license issued hereunder and any City regulations promulgated under this title. (b) Provide shelter adequate to preserve the health of the animals kept in the facility. (c) Maintain the facility in a sanitary condition. (d) Provide for the adequate care and feeding of animals kept in the facility. (e) Design and equip the facility so as to keep all animals on the premises. (fl Keep [ON] only that number of animals in the facility which is safe and healthy for the facility's sake. (g) Maintain the facility in such a manner that it does not constitute a nuisance to owners or occupiers of land in its vicinity. Dated at Kenai, Alaska this day of , 2010. Chair: ATTEST: New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 369 " Vill a y e with a Past, C# with a Futare 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 0421ft Telephone: 907- 283 -75351 FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 1 1992 t .KENAI, MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administrator DATE: September 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Lease Application — Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL) — Portion of Tract A, Kenai Spur Airport Lease Property, Plat No. 78 -111 The City of Kenai has received a lease application from Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL), a subsidiary of Marathon Oil. As outlined in KMC 21.10.060, the application is being referred to the Commission to review and determine if the application is complete, meets the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission reviewed and approved this lease application on May 26, 2010. The code requires completed lease applications submittal to City Council within 30 days of the Commission's approval. Because City Administration was continuing to work on the lease with the applicant, the lease was not forwarded to City Council within the 30 -day required time period. Thus, the second review is required. Attached is the memo prepared for the Commission in May. The original review of the proposal has not changed and it is believed that the proposed lease meets the intent of the zone and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. DOES THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY PROCEED WITH THE LEASE WITH KENAI NIKISKI PIPE LINE LLC (KNPL), A PORTION OF TRACT A, KENAI SPUR AIRPORT LEASE PROPERTY? Attachments 371 ""Villa ye wdh a Past, C# wA a F "64 ,re �o 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907 - 283-7535 1 FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 Q 1992 the �c:ty v f MAP, ALUM frv7 ri s3 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM. Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administrator., '; "' DATE: May 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Lease Application — Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL) -- Portion of Tract A, Kenai Spur Airport Lease Property, Plat No. 78-111 The City of Kenai has received a lease application from Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL), a subsidiary of Marathon Oil. As outlined in KMC 21.10.060, the application is being referred to the Commission to review and determine if the application is complete, meets the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Attached is a memo from the City Manager's assistant explaining that the lease is being submitted by the firm for an existing pipeline valve in a concrete vault and concrete pad for antenna tower with a small building. This is an existing use which in the past was permitted through a Special Use Permit. The lease will require a subdivision of the area from the parcel. The property is zoned Central Mixed Use (CMU). "The CMU Zone is established to provide a centrally located area in the City for general retail shopping, personal and professional services, entertainment establishments, restaurants and related businesses. The district is also intended to accommodate a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The CMU Zone shall be designed to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area. Building and other structures within the district should be compatible with one another and the surrounding area." Essential services are permitted in the zone. This is an existing utility company facility (Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL)) and considered an essential 372 Lease Application — Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line LLC (KNPL) Page 2 A portion of Tract A, Plat fro. 78 -111 service. No additional construction is planned. The lease will accommodate the existing use. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the parcel as City Center /Mixed Use. The Plan does not speak to essential services (utilities). However, it would be assumed that utilities are compatible with the Plan. ©01 -s rF - IE co ':'�I sIO�; F��_: C•) °} N�•) rF�� cl rY �I�ocE� r•) I III M I I Attachments 373 "NAlay w ith a Past, C with aFut 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907- 283 -7535 / FAX: 907- 283 -3014 I I . 1992 M MEMO: TO: Marilyn Kebschull, City Planner FROM: Christine Cunningham, Assistant to City Manager O DATE: September 27, 2010 RE: Lease Proposal — Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line, LLC (KNPL) A Portion of Tract A, Plat No. 78 -111 Attached is the proposed lease for the referenced property, located outside the Airport Reserve. Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line, LLC (KNPL) applied to lease the property which is the site of an existing small concrete pad, an antenna tower and conduit for the concrete pad to an existing valve vault on an adjacent portion of property beneath Main Street Loop in Kenai. A Special Use Permit (SUP) entered into on October 19, 1998 for a term of ten (10) years, granted Marathon Oil Company the right to install the concrete pad, antenna tower and conduit. KNPL is a subsidiary of Marathon Oil and it is operated by Marathon Pipe Line LLC. KNPL wishes to lease an approximately 22,575 square foot portion of the property as shown on "Exhibit A." The term of the proposed Lease is for twenty (20) years, commencing October 20, 2008, the date after which the SUP expired. Pursuant to KMC 21.15.120 Principles and policy of lease rates, the lease rate is determined based on 8% of the fair market value, and the proposed rent for the referenced parcel is $12,240.00 per year based on a value of $153,000.00 as concluded by the appraisal report prepared by Derry & Associates, Inc. effective August 9, 2010. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed KNPL's lease application at its meeting on May 26, 2010 where it found that the lease application conformed to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Based on the appraisal and updated "Exhibit A" the proposed lease is being forwarded to the Commission for consideration as outlined in KMC 21.15.060. cc: Mary Bondurant, Airport Manager Greg Newman, Kenai Nikiski Pipe Line, LLC Attachments 374 LEASE OF AIRPORT LANDS (Outside the Kenai Municipal Airport Reserve) THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 2010, by and between the CITY OF KENAI, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794, a home -rule municipal corporation of Alaska, hereinafter called "City ", and KENAI NIKISKI PIPELINE, LLC (KNPL) whose address is Attention Field Services, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, OH, 45840, hereinafter called "Lessee ". That the City, in consideration of the payments of the rents and performance of all the covenants herein contained by the Lessee, does hereby demise and lease to the Lessee the following described property in the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; to wit: A portion of Tract A, Kenai Spur - Airport Lease Property Plat No. 78 -111, NE1 /4, Section 5, Township 05 North, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian, City of Kenai, Kenai Recording District, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska as shown on Attachment "A ". A. PURPOSE The purpose for which the Lease is issued is: Location of a pipeline valve in a concrete vault and concrete pad for antenna tower and small building. B. TERM The term of this Lease is for twenty (20) years, commencing on the 20"' day of October, 2008 to the 31 day of June, 2028. C. RENTAL PAYMENT Subject to the terms of General Covenant No. 9 of this Lease, rental for the above - described land shall be payable as follows: 1. The annual rental rate shall be 8% of the fair market value (as set forth and defined in General Covenant No.9) of the demised premises. The rental effective October 20, 2008, shall be $12,240.00 per year, plus applicable sales tax, based on a value of $153,000.00, subject to redetermination pursuant to General Covenant No. 9. 2. Annual rent for the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30 shall be payable in advance on or before the first day of July of each year. If the annual rent exceeds $2,400, then the Lessee may opt at the time of the execution hereof or at the beginning of each new Lease year to pay rent in equal monthly installments, payable in advance on or before the first day of July and on or before the first of each month thereafter. 3. Rental for any period that is less than one (1) year shall be prorated based on the rate of the last full year. Lease of Airport Lands — Page 1 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 375 4. In addition to the rents specified above, subject to General Covenant No. 9, Lessee agrees to pay to the appropriate parties all levies, assessments, and charges as hereinafter provided: (a) Taxes pertaining to the leasehold interest of the Lessee. (b) Sales tax now enforced or levied in the future computed upon rent payable in monthly installments whether rent is paid on a monthly or yearly basis. (c) Lessee agrees to pay all taxes and assessments levied in the future by the City of Kenai, as if Lessee was considered the legal owner of record of the leased property. (d) Interest at the rate of eight percent (S %) per annum and ten percent (10 %) penalties of any amount of money owed under this Lease which is not paid on or before the date it becomes due. D. GENERAL COVENANTS 1. USES Except as provided herein, any regular use of lands or facilities without the written consent of the City is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to use of areas designated by the City for specified public uses, such as passenger terminals, automobile parking areas, and streets. 2. USES NOT CONTEMPLATED PROHIBITED The promotion or operation of any part or kind of business or commercial enterprise, other than as specifically set forth herein, upon, in or above airport lands, without the written consent of the City is prohibited. 3. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING Lessee with City's prior written consent, which will not be unreasonably denied, may assign or sublet, in whole or in part, its rights as Lessee hereunder. Any assignee of part or all of the leased premises shall assume the duties and obligations of the Lessee as to such part or all of the leased premises. No such assignment, however, will discharge Lessee from its duties and obligations hereunder. 4. COSTS AND EXPENSES Costs and expenses incident to this lease, including but not limited to recording costs, shall be paid by Lessee. 5. TREATMENT OF DEMISE The Lessee agrees to keep the premises clean and in good order at its own expense, allowing no damage, waste, nor destruction thereof, nor removing any material therefrom, without written permission of the City. At the expiration Lease of Airport Lands -- Page 2 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 376 of the term fixed, or any sooner determination of the Lease, the Lessee will peaceably and quietly quit and surrender the premises to the City. 6. PAYMENT OF RENT Checks, bank drafts, or postal money orders shall be made payable to the City of Kenai and delivered to the City Administration Building, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611. 7. CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND STANDARDS Building construction shall be neat and presentable and compatible with its uses and surroundings. Prior to placing of fill material and /or construction of buildings on a leased area, the Lessee shall submit a plan of proposed development of property to the City, which shall be approved in writing for all permanent improvements. 8. DEFAULT RIGHT OF ENTRY Should default be made in the payment of any portion of the rent or fees when due, or in any of the covenants or conditions contained in the Lease or in any regulations now or hereinafter in force, then in such event the City shall by written notice give Lessee thirty (30) days to cure such default or defaults, after which if the default is not cured, the City may terminate the Lease, reenter and take possession of the premises, and remove all persons therefrom. 9. RENT ESCALATION In the event this Lease is for a term in excess of five (5) years, the amount of rents or fees specified herein shall, at the option of either party, be subject to redetermination for increase or decrease based on the percentage rate (set in C.1 above) of fair market value. No increase or decrease in the amount of rents or fees shall be effective, until after thirty (30) days written notice. Fair Market Value is defined as "the highest price estimated in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale on the open market allowing a reasonable period of time to find a purchaser who buys with knowledge of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used ". This Fair Market Value will be based on the condition of the land on the date of this lease plus the value of improvements, if any, made by the City subsequent to the date of this Lease which would affect the value of the property. At each five (5) year interval, the City will have the fair market value determined by a qualified independent appraiser. 10. LEASE UTILIZATION Leased lands shall be utilized for purposes within the scope of the approved application (made a part of this Lease and attached hereto), the terms of the Lease, the terms of the deed under which the land was granted to the City (and any releases pertinent thereto), in conformity with the ordinances of the City and Borough, with Kenai Airport Regulations, and in substantial conformity with the comprehensive plan. Utilization or development for other than the allowed uses shall constitute a violation of the Lease and subject the Lease to cancellation at any time. Failure to substantially complete the development plan of Lease of Airport Lands — Page 3 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 377 the land, consistent with the proposed use and terms of the Lease, shall constitute grounds for cancellation. 11. CONDITION OF PREMISES The premises demised herein are unimproved and are leased on an "as is, where is" basis. 12. UNDERLYING TITLE The interests transferred, or conveyed by this Lease are subject to any and all of the covenants, terms, or conditions contained in the instruments conveying title or other interests to the City. 13. RIGHT OF INSPECTION City shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter the premises, or any part thereof, for the purposes of inspection. 14. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Lessee covenants to indemnify, defend, save and hold the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents and employees harmless from all actions, suits, liabilities, or damages, or liability of any nature, kind or character, including costs, expenses and attorney's fees resulting from or arising out of any acts of commission or omission by the lessee, his agents, employees, customers, invitees, or arising from or out of the Lessee's occupation, or use of the premises demised, or privileges granted, and to pay all costs connected therewith. Lessee, at the expense of Lessee, shall keep in force, during the term of this agreement, insurance issued by responsible insurance companies authorized to do business in Alaska, in forms, kinds and amounts as determined and directed by the City for the protection of City and/or Lessee. Insurance requirement hereunder shall be subject to the sole determination of the City. Said insurance may include, but need not be limited to insurance coverages commonly known as, or similar in kind to, public liability, products liability, property damage, cargo, aircraft, fire, workmen's compensation, comprehensive, builders risk, and such other insurance coverage as deemed required in the sole determination of the City. All policies or endorsements thereto shall in all cases where possible name City as Additional Named Insured thereunder and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City. All insurance shall be by a company /corporation currently rated "A -" or better by A.M. Best. Upon approval by City of all insurance required, in the forms, kinds and amounts directed to be procured, Lessee shall deliver all policy originals or duplicate originals and endorsements thereto to the City for incorporation within this agreement as attachment thereto. In any event, Lessee is not to commence to exercise any of the rights and privileges granted under this agreement until such time as all insurance directed and required to be furnished by Lessee is in full force and effect. Lease of Airport Lands — Page 4 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 378 Lessee expressly understands and agrees that any insurance protection furnished by Lessee hereunder shall in no way limit its responsibility to indemnify and save harmless Lessor under the provisions of this agreement. No policy of insurance shall be cancelled or amended with respect to the City without thirty (30) days written notice by registered or certified mail to City by the insurance company. Until otherwise directed in writing by the City Manager, Lessee shall provide certificates of insurance within thirty (30) days of the date hereof as follows: Comprehensive General Liability Combined Single Limit (Bodily Injury and Property Damage): $1,000,000 Workmen's Compensation - Statutory Limits Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if Lessee fails or neglects to secure required insurance or if said policy or policies are terminated, altered, or changed in any manner not acceptable to the City, then and in that event this lease may be cancelled and terminated, without penalty, on five (5) days written prior notice to Lessee. The City may approve a self - insurance program in lieu of the insurance requirements in this section, if the City finds in its sole discretion that such self - insurance program adequately protects the City. The typical amount of insurance coverage required is subject to review and adjustment at the discretion of the City at each five (5) year renegotiation of the lease. 15. COLLECTION ON UNPAID MONIES Any or all rents, charges, fees, or other consideration which are due and unpaid at the expiration of voluntary or involuntary termination or cancellation of this Lease, shall be a charge against the Lessee and Lessee's property, real or personal, and the City shall have such lien rights as are allowed by law. 16. EASEMENT GRANTS RESERVED City reserves the right to grant and control easements in, or above the land leased. No such grant or easement will be made that will unreasonably interfere with the Lessee's use of the land, and Lessee shall have free access and use of any and all parking and loading rights, rights of ingress and egress now or hereafter appertaining to the leased premises. 17. LEASE SUBORDINATE TO FINANCING REQUIREMENTS Lessee agrees that City may modify this Lease to meet revised requirements for Federal or State grants, or to conform to the requirements of any revenue bond covenant. However, the Lease of Airport Lands -- Page 5 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 379 modification shall not act to reduce the rights or privileges granted the Lessee by this Lease, nor act to cause the Lessee financial loss. 18. SURRENDER ON TERMINATION Lessee shall, on the last day of the term of this Lease or upon any earlier termination of this Lease, surrender and deliver upon the premises into the possession and use of City without fraud or delay in good order, condition, and repair, except for reasonable wear and tear since the last necessary repair, replacement, restoration or renewal, free and clear of all lettings and occupancies unless expressly permitted by the City in writing, and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than those created by and for loans to City. Upon the end of the term of this Lease or any earlier termination thereof, title to the buildings, improvements and building equipment shall automatically vest in City without requirement of any deed, conveyance, or bill of sale thereon. However, if City should require any such document in confirmation hereof, Lessee shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver the same and shall pay any charge, tax, and fee asserted or imposed by any and all governmental units in connection herewith. Provided, however, that Lessee shall retain title to and remove from the Premises at the Lessor's sole expense, any building, other improvement, or building equipment that the City has determined in writing to the Lessor: 1) has exceeded its useful life; 2) is damaged beyond reasonable repair; 3) is a hindrance to the future use of the Premises; and 4) is of negligible value. 19. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROTECTED (a) There is hereby reserved to the City, its successors and assigns, for the use and benefit of the public, a right of flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the surface and all improvements approved by the City of the premises herein conveyed, together with the right to cause in said airspace such noise as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, now or hereafter used for navigation of or flight in the air, using said airspace for landing at, taking off from, or operating on the Kenai Airport. (When the City approves plans for improvements pursuant to paragraph 7, the City to the extent of those improvements releases the easement here expressed.) (b) The Lessee by accepting this conveyance expressly agrees for itself, its representatives, successors, and assigns, that it will not erect nor permit the erection of any structure or object, nor permit the growth of any trees on the land conveyed hereunder, which would be an airport obstruction within the standards established under the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, Part 77, as amended. In the event the aforesaid covenant is breached, the City reserves the right to enter on the land conveyed hereunder and to remove the offending structure or object, and to cut the offending tree, all of which shall be at the expense of the Lessee or its heirs, successors or assigns. Lease of Airport Lands — Page b of 17 Lessor: Lessee: M 20. RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT AND PEACEABLE POSSESSION City hereby agrees and covenants that the Lessee, upon paying rent and performing other covenants, terms, and conditions of this Lease, shall have the right to quietly and peacefully hold, use, occupy, and enjoy the said leased premises, except that any inconvenience caused by public works projects in or about the leasehold premises shall not be construed as a denial of the right of quiet or peaceable possession. 21. LESSEE TO PAY TAXES Lessee shall pay all lawful taxes and assessments which, during the term hereof may become a lien upon or which may be levied by the State, Borough, City, or any other tax levying body, upon any taxable possessory right which Lessee may have in or to the property by reason of its use or occupancy or the terms of this lease, provided however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent Lessee from contesting any increase in such tax or assessment through procedures outlined in State statutes. 22. SPECIAL SERVICES Lessee agrees to pay the City a reasonable charge for any special services or facilities not provided for herein if requested by Lessee in writing, and if the City agrees to provide such services or facilities. 23. NO PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE CREATED It is expressly understood that the City shall not be construed or held to be a partner or joint venturer of Lessee in the conduct of business on the demised premises; and it is expressly understood and agreed that the relationship between the parties hereto is, and shall at all times remain landlord and tenant. 24. DEFAULT BANKRUPTCY, ETC. If the Lessee shall make any assignment for the benefit of creditors or shall be adjudged a bankrupt, or if a receiver is appointed for the Lessee or Lessee's assets, or any interest under this Lease, and if the appointment of the receiver is not vacated within thirty (30) days, or if a voluntary petition is filed under Section 1$(a) of the Bankruptcy Act by the Lessee, then and in any event, the City may, upon giving the Lessee thirty (30) days' notice, terminate this lease. 25. NONDISCRIMINATION The Lessee, for himself, his heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land, that: (a) No person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities; (b) In the construction of any improvements on, over or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the grounds of race, color, or Lease of Airport Lands — Page 7 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 381 national origin shall be excluded from participation, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination; (c) The Lessee shall use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally - assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended. (d) In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the said property described in this Lease, for a purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the Lessee shall maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all other requirements imposed pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally- assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended. 26. PARTIAL INVALIDITY If any term, provision, condition, or part of this Lease is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining terms, provisions, conditions, or parts shall continue in full force and effect as though such declaration was not made. 27. MODIFICATIONS No lease may be modified orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing, signed by all parties in interest or their successors in interest. Any such modification shall require Council approval. 28. WARRANTY The City does not warrant that the property which is the subject of this Lease is suited for the use authorized herein, and no guarantee is given or implied that it shall be profitable or suitable to employ the property to such use. 29. RIGHT TO ADOPT RULES City reserves the right to adopt, amend, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing the demised premises and the public areas and facilities used in connection therewith. Except in cases of emergency, no rule or regulation hereafter adopted or amended by the City shall become unless Lessee has been given thirty (3 0) days notice of adoption or amendment thereof. 30. NON - LIABILITY City shall not be liable to Lessee for any diminution or deprivation of possession, or of Lessee's right hereunder, on account of the exercise of any such right or authority as provided in this or the preceding section, nor shall Lessee be entitled to terminate the whole or any portion of the leasehold estate herein created, by reason of the Lease of Airport Lands — Page 8 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 382 exercise of such rights or authority, unless the exercise thereof shall so interfere with Lessee's use and occupancy of the leasehold estate as to constitute a termination in whole or in part of this lease by operation of law in accordance with the laws of the State of Alaska and of the United States made applicable to the states. 31. FINANCING (a) For the purpose of interim or permanent financing or refinancing from time to time of the improvements to be placed upon the leased premises, and for no other purpose, Lessee, after giving written notice thereof to the City, may encumber by mortgage, deed of trust, assignment or other appropriate instrument, Lessee's interest in the leased premises and in and to this Lease, provided such encumbrance pertains only to such leasehold interest and does not pertain to or create any interest in City's title to the leased premises. If such mortgage, deed of trust, or assignment shall be held by a bank or other established lending or financial institution (which terms shall include an established insurance company and qualified pension or profit sharing trust) and such institution shall acquire the Lessee's interest in such Lease as a result of a sale under said encumbrance pursuant to a foreclosure or other remedy of the secured party, or through any transfer in lieu of foreclosure, or through settlement of or arising out of any pending or contemplated foreclosure action, such lending institution shall have the privilege of transferring its interest in such Lease to a nominee or a wholly owned subsidiary corporation with the prior consent of the City, provided, however, such transferee shall assume all of the covenants and conditions required to be performed by the Lessee, whereupon such lending institution shall be relieved of any further liability under such Lessee from any default after such transfer. Such lending institution or the nominee or wholly owned subsidiary corporation to which it may have transferred such Lease, or any other lending institution which may at any time acquire such lease shall be relieved of any fiuther liability under such lease from and after a transfer of such lease. (b) A leasehold mortgagee, beneficiary of a deed of trust or security assignee, shall have and be subrogated to any and all rights of the Lessee with respect to the curing of any default hereunder by Lessee. (c) If the holder of any such mortgage, or the beneficiary of any such deed of trust, or the security assignee shall give the City before any default shall have occurred in the Lease, a written notice containing the name and post office address of such holder, the City shall thereafter give to such holder a copy of each notice of default by the Lessee at the same time as any notice of default shall be given by the City to the Lessee, and the City will not thereafter accept any surrender or enter into any modification of this Lease without the prior written consent of the Lease of Airport Lands — Page 9 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 383 holder of any first mortgage, beneficial interest under a first deed of trust, or security assignee, in this Lease. (d) If, by reason of any default of the Lessee, either this lease or any extension thereof shall be terminated at the election of the City prior to the stated expiration therefor, the City will enter into a new Lease with the leasehold mortgagee for the remainder of the term, effective as of the date of such termination, at the rent and additional rent, and on the terms herein contained, subject to the following conditions: (1) Such mortgagee, beneficiary or security assignee, shall make written request to the City for such new Lease within twenty (20) days after the date of such termination and such written request shall be accompanied by a payment to the City of all sums then due to the City under this Lease. (2) Such mortgagee, beneficiary, or security assignee, shall pay to the City, at the time of the execution and delivery of such new lease any and all sums due thereunder in addition to those which would at the time of the execution and delivery thereof be due under this Lease but for such termination, and in addition thereto, any reasonable expenses, including legal and attorneys' fees, to which the City shall have been subjected by reason of such default. (3) Such mortgagee, beneficiary, or security assignee shall, on or before the execution and delivery of such new Lease, perform all the other conditions required to be performed by the Lessee to the extent that the Lessee shall have failed to perform such conditions. (e) If a lending institution or its nominee or wholly owned subsidiary corporation shall hold a mortgage, deed of trust, or similar security interest in and to this Lease and shall thereafter acquire a leasehold estate, derived either from such instruments or from the City, and if such institution, nominee, or corporation shall desire to assign this Lease or any new Lease obtained from the City (other than to a nominee or to a wholly owned subsidiary corporation as permitted by the above provisions) to an assignee who will undertake to perform and observe the conditions in such Lease required to be performed by the Lessee, the City shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to such assignment and assumption, and any such lending institution, nominee, or subsidiary shall be relieved of any further liability under such Lease from and after such assignment. If the proposed assignor shall assert that the City is unreasonably withholding its consent to any such proposed assignment, such dispute shall be resolved by arbitration. Lease of Airport Lands — Page 10 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: :o 32. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE City and Lessee agree that each shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous chemicals and other hazardous materials, and shall properly store, transfer and use all hazardous chemicals and other hazardous materials and not create any environmental hazards on the lands leased herein. Should any hazardous chemicals or hazardous materials of any kind or nature whatsoever, or hazardous wastes to be released by Lessee upon the subject lands during the term of this lease, Lessee shall immediately report such release to the City Manager or other appropriate City official and to any other agency as may be required by law, and Lessee shall, at its own cost, assess, contain and clean up such spilled materials in the most expedient manner allowable by law. City and Lessee agree to hold harmless and indemnify the other from, and to assume all duties, responsibilities and liabilities at the indemnifying party's sole cost and expense (for payment of penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, losses, costs or damages), for responding to any action, notice, claim, order, summons, citation, directive, litigation, investigation or proceeding which is related to (i) failure to comply with any local, state or federal statutes, regulations, or ordinances pertaining to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or any environmental conditions or matters as may now or hereafter be in effect, and (ii) any environmental conditions that arise out of or are in any way related to the condition of the property or activities conducted by the party thereon, unless the environmental conditions that are caused by the other party. The indemnifications of this paragraph specifically include reasonable costs, expenses and fees incurred in connection with any investigation of property conditions or any clean -up, remediation, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. The provisions of this paragraph will survive the expiration or termination of this right to terminate this Lease upon notice to the City of Kenai. Interference is defined as anything that prohibits the uses specified in Section 3 of this lease. As used herein, "hazardous chemical" means a chemical that is a physical hazard or a health hazard. As used herein, "hazard material" means a material or substance, as defined in 49 C.F.R. 171.8, and any other substance determined by the federal government, the state of Alaska or City of Kenai, to pose a significant health and safety hazard. As used herein, "hazardous waste" means a hazardous waste as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 C.F.R. 261, and any other hazardous waste as defined by the federal government, the state of Alaska or City of Kenai. The covenants and obligations described in this article shall survive the termination of this lease. Lease of Airport Lands -- Page 11 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 385 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in order to aid the Lessee in the financing of the improvements to be situated herein, City agrees that in the event the proposed mortgagee, beneficiary, or security assignee under any interim or permanent loan on the security of the leasehold interest of the Lessee and the improvements to be situated thereon so requires, the City will make a reasonable effort to amend this Lease in order to satisfy such requirements upon the express condition and understanding, however, that such variance in language will not materially prejudice the City's right hereunder nor be such as to alter in any way the rental obligations of the Lessee hereunder nor its obligations to comply with all existing laws and regulations of the City relating to the leasing of airport lands, and to all applicable Federal statutes, rules and regulations, and all covenants and conditions of the deed by which the City holds title to the land. 33. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Lessee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of public authorities now or hereafter in any manner affecting the leased premises or the sidewalks, alleys, streets, and ways adjacent thereto or any buildings, structures, fixtures and improvements or the use thereof, whether or not any such laws, ordinances, and regulations which may be hereafter enacted involve a change of policy on the part of the governmental body enacting the same. Lessee agrees to hold City financially harmless: (a) From the consequences of any violation of such laws, ordinances, and /or regulations; and (b) From all claims for damages on account of injuries, death, or property damage resulting from such violation. (c) Lessee further agrees it will not permit any unlawful occupation, business, or trade to be conducted on said premises or any use to be made thereof contrary to any law, ordinance, or regulation as aforesaid with respect thereto, including zoning ordinances, rules and regulations. 34. CARE OF PREMISES Lessee, at its own cost and expense shall keep the leased premises, all improvements which at any time during the term of this Lease may be situated thereon, and any and all appurtenances thereunto belonging, in good condition and repair during the entire term of this Lease. 35. SANITATION The Lessee shall comply with all regulations or ordinances of the City that are promulgated for the promotion of sanitation. The premises of the lease shall be kept in neat, clean, and sanitary condition, and every effort shall be made to prevent the pollution of water. 36. LESSEE'S OBLIGATION TO REMOVE LIENS Lessee will not permit any liens including, but not limited to, mechanics', laborers', or materialmen's liens obtainable or Lease of Airport Lands --- Page 12 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: :. available under the then existing laws, to stand against the leased premises or improvements for any labor or material furnished to Lessee or claimed to have been furnished to Lessee or to the Lessee's agents, contractors, or sublessees, in connection with work of any character performed or claimed to have been performed on said premises or improvements by or at the direction or sufferance of Lessee, provided, however, Lessee shall have the right to provide a bond as contemplated by Alaska law and contest the validity or amount of any such lien or claimed lien. On final determination of such lien or such claim for lien, Lessee will immediately pay any judgement rendered with all proper costs and charges and shall have such lien released or judgement satisfied at Lessee's own expense. 37. CONDEMNATION In the event the leased premises or any part thereof shall be condemned and taken for a public or a quasi - public use, then upon payment of any award or compensation arising from such condemnation, there shall be such division of the proceeds, such abatement in rent payable during the term or any extension of the term hereof, and such other adjustments as the parties may agree upon as being just and equitable under all the circumstances. If. the City and Lessee are unable to agree within thirty (30) days after such an award has been paid into Court, upon what division, annual abatement in rent, and other adjustments are just and equitable, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration. 38. PROTECTION OF SUBTENANTS To protect the position of any subtenant(s) hereafter properly obtaining any interests in the leasehold estate granted Lessee hereunder, City agrees that in the event of the cancellation, termination, expiration, or surrender of this Lease (the ground lease), the City will accept the Subtenant, its successors and assigns, as its lessee for a period equal to the full unelapsed portion of the term of the sublease, including any extensions or renewals thereof, not exceeding the term of this Lease, upon the same covenants and conditions therein contained, to the extent that said covenants and conditions are not inconsistent with any of the terms and conditions of this Lease, provided such subtenant shall make full and complete attornment to the City for the balance of the term of such sublease so as to establish direct privity of estate and contract between the City and the subtenant with the same force and effect as though such sublease was originally made directly between the City and such subtenant; and further provided such subtenant agrees to comply with all the provisions of the ground lease and all the terms of any mortgage, deed of trust, or security assignment to which such leasehold estate is subject, except the payment of rent under the ground lease and the payment of any debt service under any such mortgage, deed of trust, or security assignment. 39. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This Lease shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto, subject to such specific limitations on assignment as are provided for herein. 40. GOVERNING LAW This indenture of Lease shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Alaska. Lease of Airport Lands Page 13 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: 387 41. NOTICES (a) Any notices required by this Lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be duly given only if delivered personally or mailed by certified or registered mail in a prepaid envelope addressed to the parties at the address set forth in the opening paragraph of this lease unless such address has been changed pursuant to sub - paragraph (b) hereafter, and in that case shall to the most recent address so changed. Any notice so mailed shall be deemed delivered on the date it is deposited in a U.S. general or branch post office. The City shall also mail a copy of any notice given to the Lessee, by registered or certified mail, to any leasehold lender (mortgagee, beneficiary of a deed of trust, security assignee) who shall have given the City notice of such mortgage, deed of trust, or security assignment. (b) Any such addresses may be changed by an appropriate notice in writing to all other parties affected provided such change of address is given to the other parties by the means outlined in paragraph (a) above at least fifteen (1 S) days prior to the giving of the particular notice in issue. 42. RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEE OR LIENHOLDER In the event of cancellation or forfeiture of a lease for cause, the holder of a property recorded mortgage, deed of trust, conditional assignment or collateral assignment will have the option to acquire the Lease for the unexpired term thereof, subject to the terms and conditions as in the original lease. 43. ENTRY AND RE- ENTRY In the event that the Lease should be terminated as hereinbefore provided, or by summary proceedings or otherwise, or in the event that the demised lands or any part thereof should be abandoned by the Lessee during said term, the Lessor or its agents, servants, or representatives may, immediately or any time thereafter, reenter, and resume possession of said lands or such part thereof, and remove all persons and property therefrom, either by suinmary proceedings or by a suitable action or proceeding at law without being liable for any damages therefor. No re -entry by the Lessor shall be deemed an acceptance of a surrender of the Lease. 44. RETENTION OF RENTAL In the event that the Lease should be terminated because of any breach by the Lessee as herein provided, the rental payment last made by the Lessee shall be retained by the Lessor as partial or total liquidated damages for said breach. Lease of Airport Lands -- Page 14 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: :: 45. WRITTEN WAIVER The receipt of rent by the Lessor with knowledge of any breach of the Lease by the Lessee, or any default on the part of the Lessee in observance or performance of any of the conditions or covenants of the Lease, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any provisions of the Lease. No failure on the part of the Lessor to enforce any covenant or provision therein contained, nor any waiver of any right thereunder by the Lessor, unless in writing, shall discharge or invalidate such covenants or provisions, or affect the right of the Lessor to enforce the same in the event of any subsequent breach or default. The receipt, by the Lessor, of any rent or any other sum of money after the termination, in any manner, of the term therein demised, or after the giving of the Lessor of any notice thereunder to effect such termination, shall not reinstate, continue, or extend the resultant term therein demised, or destroy, or in any manner impair the efficacy of any such notice of termination as may have been given thereunder by the Lessor to the Lessee prior to the receipt of any such sum of money or other consideration, unless so agreed to in writing and signed by the Lessor. 46. BUILDING AND ZONING CODES Leased lands shall be utilized in accordance with the building and zoning ordinances and rules and regulations of said authority. Failure to do so shall constitute default. 47. FIRE PROTECTION The Lessee will take all reasonable precautions to prevent, and take all necessary action to suppress destructive or uncontrolled fires and comply with all laws, regulations, and rules promulgated and enforced by the City for fire protection within the area wherein the leased premises are located. 48. PERSONAL USE OF MATERIALS All coal, oil, gas and other minerals and all deposits of stone or gravel valuable for extraction or utilization are excepted from the operation of a surface Lease. Specifically, the Lessee of the surface rights shall not sell or remove for use elsewhere any timber, stone, gravel, peat moss, topsoil or any other material valuable for building or commercial purposes; provided, however, that material required for the development of the leasehold may be used if its use is first approved by the City Manager. 49. MUTUAL CANCELLATION Leases in good standing may be cancelled in whole or in part at any time upon mutual written agreement by Lessee and the City Council. 50. UNLAWFUL USE PROHIBITED Lessee shall not allow the leasehold premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 51. APPROVAL OF OTHER AUTHORITIES The issuance by the City of leases does not relieve the Lessee of responsibility of obtaining licenses or permits as may be required by duly authorized Borough, State or Federal agencies. 52. REQUEST TO PURCHASE If the tract of land proposed to be sold is leased land where the lease sets forth a development schedule, the lessee may request the sale of said land at not less than fair market value. The current lessee obtains the right to request a sale Lease of Airport Lands --- Page 15 of 17 Lessor: Lessee: :• only after, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, completed development as detailed in the development schedule that has been incorporated into the lease agreement. The decision whether or not to sell the property rests within the sole discretion of the City. 53. NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION Lessee agrees to notify the City in writing three days prior to commencing any construction project valued in excess of $1,000.00 upon the property. Lessee agrees to assist in the posting of a notice of non - responsibility and maintenance of the notice upon the property during construction. Lessee agrees that in the event of the Lessee's failure to notify the City as provided above, Lessee shall indemnify the City against any materialmen's liens as defined in AS 34.35.050 which arise as a result of construction upon the premises. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands, the day and year stated in the individual acknowledgments below. LESSOR: CITY OF KENAI By: Rick R. Koch City Manager LESSEE: I. (If Lessee is a Corporation) ATTEST: Name Title Lease of Airport Lands -- Page 16 of 17 Lesson: Lessee: 390 STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 2010, Name: _ Title: , of being personally known to me or having produced satisfactory evidence of identification, appeared before me and acknowledged the voluntary and authorized execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public for Alaska My Commission Expires: STATE OF ALASKA ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 2010, Rick R. Koch, City Manager of the City of Kenai, Alaska, being personally known to me or having produced satisfactory evidence of identification, appeared before me and acknowledged the voluntary and authorized execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of said City. Approved as to lease form by City Attorney Approved by Finance Director Lease approved by Council on Carol Freas, City Clerk Lease of Airport Lands — Page 17 of 17 Notary Public for Alaska My Commission Expires: Lessor: Lessee: 391 1 I Trid C N47'29'00 "E 163.52' S 4 O 0 O I I �I I �I I L4 I Tract A � u �a.eY s I 20.2• u4 � I 0 uo 9.2 — 647' — WW 118.88' II 2 .._ —-- - - -- L1 lease parcel TIP W meta! building Q I 1 ° � 82,5 N � I O r i 3-2 '37 ° E atrd"Va I: — -' T_ f of ?� 30' Access Easement e I , F1 �c M � I \ 0 m� 3 m n� S47'29'00 "W 135.61' cn .p N W 0 a M N V O D O Do b 16 AL,q� 1 120 U Tffad LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S38'19'3 20,19' L2 51'52'57 "W 30.11' L3 N50'54'41 "W 30.59' L4 N3954'22 "E 34.03' L5 I S54'05'47 "E 38.92' L6 N3939'23 "E 15.28' L7 550'50'5B"E 8.48' LS S39'S5'23 "W 7,22' L9 51'14'39"E 12.32' L10 S38'29'18 "W 23,60' Kenai Spar Highway 230' ROW Bar Scale NOT A VALID COPY WITHOUT A SEAL EXHIBIT A LEGEND 6 foot chain link fence 0 Rebar (found) 0 steel tower Scale: 1" — 50' F.B. #: 2010 ---2 PG:69,70 KENAI RECORDING DISTRICT Plat: 78 --111 Surveyed: June 28, 2010 Drawn: SH W.O. #210069 %1e:260069 {KpenanAr +., INTEGRITY SURVEYS, I NC 43335 K- -Beach Rd. Ste. 10 Soldotna, AK 996 SURVEYORS PHONE - (907) 262 - 5573 PLANNERS L FAX --- (907) 262 - 5574 I hereby certify that this survey is a representation of the conditions that were found at the time of the field survey which was performed on: _ _Tract A Kenai _Spur— Airport Lease Property and that this document does not constitute a boundary survey and is subject to any inaccur- Z acies that a subsequent boundary survey may The information contained on this drawing shall not be used to establish any fence, structure or other improvements. Exclusion Note: It is the responsibility of the Owner to determine the existence of any easements, covenants, or restrictions which do not appear on the recorded subdivision plot. Ru. ACTION AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL -- REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2010 7 :00 P.M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS httj2:/Jx-vww.ci.kenai.ak.us ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2, Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4, Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons may give their time over to another speakerpresent, however no single speakerpresent may speak for more than 30 minutes combined on their own and on others' behalf.) *All items listed with an asterisk ( *) are considered to be routine and non- controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 10 minutes per speaker) ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 3 minutes per speaker) ITEM D: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons may give their time over to another speakerpresent, however no single speaker present may speak for more than 30 minutes combined on their own and on others' behalf.) 1. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2513 -2010 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $3,300 in the General Fund for Police Forensic Equipment Reimbursements From Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAO). 2. REMOVED FROM AGENDA. Resolution No. 2010 -54 -- Rescinding and Replacing the City of Kenai Retention Schedule. 3. AMENDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, Resolution No. 2010 -55 -- Authorizing City of Kenai Administration to Submit to the State of Alaska an Application for a Federal Grant for a Historical Public Preservation Education Project for a Historic Restoration Project in the Townsite Historic District of Kenai, Alaska. 393 4. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, Resolution No. 2010 -56 -- Awarding a Contract to Alaskan Industries, Inc. for the Project Entitled "Kenai Recreation Center Gym Floor Replacement - 2010" for the Total Amount of $ 122,000.00. 5. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010 -57 -- Adopting the City of Kenai Capital Improvements Plan Priority List for State and Federal Funding Requests for the Fiscal Year 2012. ITEM E: MINUTES 2010. 1. APPROVED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of September 15, ITEM F: UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM G: NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVED. Ratification of Bills 2. AMENDED AND APPROVED. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000 3. INTRODUCED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Ordinance No. 2514 -2010 -- Amending KMC Chapter 4.30.015, Local Amendments to the National Electrical Code 2008, to Allow the Use of Non - Metallic Cable in Type III, IV, and V Construction as Otherwise Permitted in 334.10(3) of the National Electrical Code 2008. 4. INTRODUCED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Ordinance No. 2515 -2010 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $3,600.00 in the General Fund for the Purchase of Land for a Public and /or Charitable Use. 5. APPROVED. Action /Approval -- Vintage Pointe Insurance Settlement Release 6. RESCHEDULED TO NOVEMBER 23, 2010. Discussion /Action -- Reschedule November 17, 2010 Council Meeting 7, NO ACTION REQUIRED. Discussion --Absentee Voting Procedures/ Inconsistencies in City Election ITEM H: COMMISSION/ COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council on Aging 2. Airport Commission 3. Harbor Commission 4. Library Commission 5. Parks & Recreation Commission 394 6. Planning & Zoning Commission T Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees a. Beautification Committee b. Alaska Municipal league Report C. Mini -Grant Steering Committee d, Kenai Convention & Visitors Bureau e. Reports of KPB Assembly, Legislators and Councils ITEM I: REPORT OF THE MAYOR ITEM J: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. City Manager 2. Attorney 3. City Clerk ITEM K: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Citizen Comments (Public comment limited to 5 minutes per speaker) 2. Council Member Comments EXECUTIVE SESSION -- A matter, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the City of Kenai and to give direction to the City Manager in the handling of a specific financial and legal matter (location of graves at the Kenai Cemetery). ITEM L: ITEM M: PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted.) ADJOURNMENT 395 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION BOROUGH GEORGE A. NAVARRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 144 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669 September 27, 2010 - 7:30 P.M. 1 397 Tentative Agenda Philip Bryson Chairman Kenai City A. CALL TO ORDER Term Expires 2013 B. ROLL CALL Paulette Bokenko- Carlucclo PC Member C. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA City of Seldovia All Items marked with an asterisk ( ") are consent agenda items. Consent agenda items are considered Term Expires 2012 routine and non - controversial by the Planning Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a Planning Commissioner so requests in which Alice Joanne Collins case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the PC Member regular agenda. Anchor Point/ Ninilchik Term Expires 2013 if you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing, please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the Chairman of your Cindy Ecklund wish to comment. PC Member City of Seward *1. Time Extension Requests Term Expires 2011 Dr. Rick Foster a. Marley Subdivision PC Member KPB File 2007 -239; Imhoff /Marley, Smith, Nellis Homer City Location: City of Homer Term Expires 2013 Marl Anne Gross b. Epps Homestead Tracts Meyer Addition PC Member KPB File 2007 -189; Segesser /Meyer Southwest Borough Location: North of Robinson Loop Road in Sterling Term Expires 2019 Sandra Key Holsten *2. Planning Commission Resolutions PC Member East Peninsula *3. Plats Granted Administrative Approval Term Expires 2013 James Isham *4. Plats Granted Final Approval (20.04.070) PC Member Sterling *5. Plat Amendment Request Term Expires 2012 Brent Johnson *6. Coastal Management Program PC Member Kasilof /Clam Gulch *7. Commissioner Excused Absences Term Expires 2012 Harry Lockwood a. Harry Lockwood, Ridgeway PC Member Ridgeway *8. Minutes Term Expires 2013 Blair Martin a. September 13, 2010 Plat Committee Minutes Vice Chairman Kalifornsky Beach b. September 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes Term Expires 2012 Linda Murphy D. PUBLIC COMMENT /PRESENTATIONS /COMMISSIONERS Parliamentarian (Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous City of Soldotna arrangements are made.) Term Expires 2011 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 397 Jason Tauriainen PC Member Northwest Borough Term Expires 2011 Max J. Best Planning Director Dave Carey Borough Mayor F. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vacate the 50 -foot radius cul -de -sac right -of -way located at the north end of Jeff Street, adjacent to Tracts A and B, dedicated by Robins Subdivision No. 2, (Plat KN 79 -153) within Section 18, Township 7 North, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska and within the Kenai Peninsula Borough. KPB File 2010 -132. Petitioners: Steve M. and Ed! B. Macik of Kenai, Alaska. Location: On Jeff Street in North Kenai G. ANADROMOUS STREAM HABITAT PROTECTION (KPB 21.18) H. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING 1-4 =61r.11 11111111106I•1 i . [`4 I •] :1 : L' r f i • ] hil 611 SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS The Plat Committee is scheduled to review 10 preliminary plats. K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS L. OTHERINEW BUSINESS 1. New Plat Committee (October, November, December 2010) - 5 Members 12 Alternates M. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS N. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS O. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS P. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Q. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE ACTION R. ADJOURNMENT MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NO ACTION REQUIRED Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - August 25, 2010 FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held Monday, October 11, 2010 in the Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building, 144 North Binkley, Soldotna, Alaska at 7:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION There will be a Planning Commission work session on Monday, October 11, 2010 immediately following the adjournment of the Plat Committee and prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting will be held in the Assembly Chambers of the KPB George A. Navarre Administration Building, 144 N. Binkley, Soldotna, AK ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Advisory Meeting Location Date Time Commission Anchor Point Anchor Point Chamber of Commerce October 5, 2010 7:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Cooper Landing Community Hall October 6, 2010 6:00 p.m. Hope 1 Sunrise SoHope October 7, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Kachemak Bay and Funny River Advisory Planning Commissions are inactive at this time. NOTE: Advisory planning commission meetings are subject to change. Please verify the meeting date, location, and time with the advisory planning commission chairperson. Chairperson contact information is on each advisory planning commission website, which is linked to the Planning Department website. CONTACT INFORMATION KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907- 714 -2200 Phone: toll free within the Borough 1- 800 -478 -4441, extension 2215 Fax: 907 - 714 -2378 e -mail address: plane i_n_gnborough.kenai.ak web site: www. borough .kenai.ak.uslglanningdeot 399 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLAT COMMITTEE BOROUGH GEORGE A. NAVARRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 144 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669 5:30 p.m. September 27, 2010 Tentative Agenda Ei Ei A. CALL TO ORDER MEMBERS: JoAnne Collins B. ROLL CALL Anchor Point! Ninilchik Term Expires 2013 C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA, EXCUSED ABSENCES, AND MINUTES Cindy Ecklund Seward City 1. Agenda Term Expires 2011 2. Member /Alternate E=xcused Absences Mari Anne Gross Southwest Borough Term Expires 2011 3, Minutes Linda Murphy a. September 13, 2010 Plat Committee Minutes Soldotna City Term Expires 2011 D. PUBLIC COMMENT Jason Taurlainen (Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous Northwest Borough arrangements are made.) Term Expires 2011 E. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS ALTERNATES: Paulette Bokenko- 1. Star Tracts 2010 Addition Carluccio KPB File 2010 -139 [Johnson /Daniels] Seldovia City Location: West of Sterling Highway in Kasilof Term Expires 2012 James Isham 2. Old Kasilof Subdivision 2010 Addition Sterling KPB File 2010 -140 [Johnson /Kasilof Properties, Combs, Haakenson] Term Expires 2012 Location: West of K -Beach Road in Kasilof 3. Ramsell Tracts No, 4 KPB File 2010 -141 [Johnson / Ramsell, Herdt] Location: West of Cohoe Loop Rd in Kasilof 4. Wolfe- Barnard Tracts KPB File 2010 -142 [Johnson/Wolfe] Location: Caribou Hills area 5. Glud Sub No. 2 Phase One Revised Preliminary KPB File 2010 -143 [ImhofflTrimble] Location: North of Tall Tree Ave. in Anchor Point Anchor Point APC 6. Tranquility Too KPB File 2010 -146 [Anderson /Stark] Location: On Tok Avenue in Homer K -Bay APC 7. Heistand Subdivision No. 8 Ei Ei KPB File 2010 -148 [McLane /Holly] Location: On Lagoon Court in Soldotna 8. North Fork Acres Armstrong Addition KPB File 2010 -149 [McLane /Armstrong Cook Inlet] Location: On North Fork Road in Anchor Point Anchor Point APC 9. Harbinson Lane ROW Dedication 2010 KPB File 2010 -150 [Seabright /KPB] Location: South of Ohlson Mountain Road K -Bay APC 10. Hillstrand's Homestead KPB File 2010 -151 [Sea bright/Hi llstrand, City of Homer] Location: City of Homer F. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARING G. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION -- NO ACTION REQUIRED H. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING The next regularly scheduled Plat Committee meeting will be held Monday, October 11, 2010 in the Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building, 144 North Binkley, Soldotna, Alaska at 5:30 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907 -714 -2215 Phone: toll free within the Borough 1- 800 - 478 -4441, extension 2215 Fax: 907 - 714 -2378 e -mail address: plan ningCcD borough. kenai.ak.us web site: www.borough.kenai.ak.us /p anningdept 401 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLAT COMMITTEE BOROUGH GEORGE A. NAVARRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 144 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669 5:30 p.m, October 11, 2010 Tentative Agenda t 402 A. CALL TO ORDER MEMBERS: JoAnne Collins B. ROLL CALL Anchor Point 1 Ninilchik Term Expires 2013 C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA, EXCUSED ABSENCES, AND MINUTES Cindy Ecklund Seward City 1. Agenda Term Expires 2011 2. Member /Alternate Excused Absences Mari Anne Gross Southwest Borough Term Expires 2011 3. Minutes James Isham a. September 27, 2010 Plat Committee Minutes Sterling Term Expires 2012 D. PUBLIC COMMENT Blair Martin (items other than those appearing on the agenda, Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous Kalifornsky Beach arrangements are made.) Term Expires 2012 E. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS ALTERNATES: Philip Bryson 1. Camelot By The Sea Subdivision 2010 Replat City of Kenai (Postponed from May 24, 2010 Mtg.) Term Expires 2013 KPB File 2010 -070 [Johnson /Luttrell, Ghicadus, KPB] Jason Tauriainen Location: On Merlin Drive in Seward Northwest Borough Term Expires 2011 2. Misty Subdivision Thomas Addition KPB File 2010 -154 [Segesser/Thomas) Location: On Edgington Road in Soldotna 3. Ross Street Subdivision KPB File 2010 -155 [Segesser /Bangerter] Location: City of Kenai 4. Rappe - Gallant Sub Niesen Addition KPB File 2010 -156 [Integrity /Niesen] Location: On Halbouty Road in Nikiski 5. Memorial Park Sub Revised Preliminary (Postponed from July 19, 2010 Mtg.) KPB File 2010 -061 [McLane /City Soldotna, KPB] Location: City of Soldotna F. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARING G. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION -- NO ACTION REQUIRED t 402 H. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING The next regularly scheduled Plat Committee meeting will be held Monday, October 25, 2010 in the Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building, 144 North Binkley, Soldotna, Alaska at 5:30 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907 - 714 -2215 Phone: toll free within the Borough 1800- 478 -4441, extension 2215 Fax: 907 -714 -2378 e -mail address: plan nin borou h.kenai.ak.us web site: www. borough. kenai.ak.usl lannin de t 403 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION BOROUGH GEORGE A. NAVARRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 144 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669 October 11, 2010 - 7:30 P.M. Philip Bryson Chairman Kenai City Term Expires 2013 Paulette Bokenko- Carluccio PC Member City of Seldovia Term Expires 2012 Alice Joanne Collins PC Member Anchor Point/ Nlnilchik Term Expires 2013 Cindy Ecklund PC Member City of Seward Term Expires 2011 Dr. Rick Foster PC Member Homer City Term Expires 2013 Mari Anne Gross PC Member Southwest Borough Term Expires 2011 Sandra Key Holsten PC Member East Peninsula Term Expires 2013 James Isham PC Member Sterling Term Expires 2012 BrenlJohnson PC Member Kasilof /Clam Gulch Term Expires 2012 Harry Lockwood PC Member Ridgeway Term Expires 2013 Blair Martin Vice Chairman Kalifornsky Beach Term Expires 2012 Linda Murphy Parliamentarian City of Soldotna Term Expires 2019 Tentative Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: There will be a.Plannmg Commission work session on Monday,; Octaher 11,,;201 t} %nmedl`afely fo!lowing the ad�ournm'ent of .the Plat ColnMitte6and .'phors, t6. the Planning Commiss'ion meeting' regarding prior existing uses) in KPB 21 1$ code. Themeeting will :be held In the Assembly C Cambers of :the KPl3 George A Nayarre,Adminlstration, BUild�ng, 144 N„ Birtkley, Soldotnai AK; A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA All Items marked with an asterisk ( *) are consent agenda Items. Consent agenda items are considered routine and non - controversial by the Planning Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda Items unless a Planning Commissioner so requests In which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular agenda. If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing, please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the Chairman of your wish to comment. *1. Time Extension Requests a. North Star Subdivision KPB File 2006 -318; Whitford /Johnson Location: off of Miller Loop Rd in Nikiski *2. Planning Commission Resolutions *3. Plats Granted Administrative Approval *4. Plats Granted Final Approval (20.04.070) *5. Plat Amendment Request *6. Coastal Management Program *7. Commissioner Excused Absences a. Cindy Ecklund b. Sandra Key Holsten *8. Minutes a. September 27, 2010 Plat Committee Minutes b. September 27, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes D. PUBLIC COMMENT /PRESENTATIONS /COMMISSIONERS (Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous 1 404 405 arrangements are made.) E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Jason Tauriainen PC Member F. PUBLIC HEARINGS Northwest Borough Term Expires 2011 1. Ordinance 2010 -36; An ordinance authorizing the negotiated sale at less than fair market value of certain real property containing approximately 157 acres to the Kenai Peninsula Racing Lions 2. Ordinance 2010 -37; An ordinance authorizing the sale of certain parcels of Borough Land in Percy Hope Subdivision and Discovery Park Subdivision by sealed bid procedures Max J. Best Planning Director 3. Public notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to name an unnamed private road to facilitate the Enhanced 911 Street Naming and Dave Carey Addressing Methods within the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Borough Mayor a. Unnamed Private Rd within KN SW114 SW114 and KN NE114 SE114 & N112 SE114 SE114 Per Plat Waiver Resolution 94 -21; T 2N R 12W Sections 01 & 02 Seward Meridian, AK; off of Trapper St within the Cohoe community; ESN 302; REASON FOR NAMING: Used for Access PROPOSED NAME: lyra's landing Rd 4. Resolution 2010 -_; A resolution authorizing the Borough, on behalf of the South Kenai Peninsula Hospital Service Area, to enter into a ten -year lease agreement with Mark Halpin and B. Isabel Halpin for real property located at 4251 Bartlett Street, Homer, and authorizing an amendment to the sublease and operating agreement with South Peninsula Hospital, Inc. to include this property G. ANADROMOUS STREAM HABITAT PROTECTION (KPB 21.18) H. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING I. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Kakhonak Lake Remote Recreational Cabin Sites KPB File 2010 -157 Applicant: State of Alaska DNR Location: On Kakhonak Lake J. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The Plat Committee is scheduled to review 5 preliminary plats. K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS L. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS M. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS N. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS O. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS P. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Q. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE ACTION 2 405 R. ADJOURNMENT MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NO ACTION REQUIRED Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2010 FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held Monday, October 25, 2010 in the Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building, 144 North Binkley, Soldotna, Alaska at 7 :30 p.m. ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Advisory Meeting Location Date Time Commission Anchor Point Anchor Point October 19, 2010 7 :00 p.m. Chamber of Commerce November 2, 2010 Cooper Landing Cooper Landing Community Hall November 3, 2010 6:00 p.m. Hope 1 Sunrise Soc Hope November 4, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Kachemak Bay and Funny River Advisory Planning Commissions are inactive at this time. NOTE: Advisory planning commission meetings are subject to change. Please verify the meeting date, location, and time with the advisory planning commission chairperson. Chairperson contact information is on each advisory planning commission website, which is linked to the Planning Department website. CONTACT INFORMATION KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907- 714 -2200 Phone: toll free within the Borough 1 -800- 478 -4441, extension 2215 Fax: 907- 714 -2378 e -mail address: planning@borough.kenai.ak.us web site: www. borough .kenai.ak.us /clanninadeot M Marilyn n Kebschull 11 0. From: Carol Freas Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:51 PM To: barry_eldridge @yahoo.com; hvsmalley @yahoo.com; cpajoe @altrogco.com; mboyle@alaska.com; kenaimayor10 @msn.com; Robert J. Molloy (Bob) (bob @molloyforcouncil.com); Ryan Marquis Cc: Marilyn Kebschull; Nancy Carver; Rick Koch Subject: Cancellation of Meeting Mayor /Council, At its meeting last evening, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested its November 24, 2010 (Thanksgiving eve) be cancelled. Because of the lengthy notice and time to advertise the cancellation and schedule items appropriately, I have approved the cancellation request pursuant to the Kenai City Council Policy for Commission, Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions. If you have any questions, please contact me. Carol L. Freas, City Clerk City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283 -8231 Fax: (907) 283 -5068 1 407 t "'Village with a Past, G# with a Future fl 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 III 1992 u MEMO: TO: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration FROM: Nancy Carver, Planning Assistant DATE: October 1, 2010 SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Action 20103 rd Quarterly Report Planning & Zoning currently has six (11) active code cases: Building Violations 1 Debris & Junk Violations 1 Junk Vehicle & Debris Violations 3 Junk Vehicle Violations S Other: 1 TOTALS: 11 Code Enforcement Action during the months of July — September 2010: Civil Penalty Initiated 2 • 207 Birch Street • 230 & 240 Richfield Drive Closed Cases 11 Opened Cases 22 Administration continues to work with individual property owners to eliminate violations without taking formal action, M PZ Resolutions Third Quarter 2010 TYPE OF PERMIT Resolution # TYPE MEETING DATE ACTION Administrative Exemption 201035 2.4" Side Yard Encroachment 8/3/2010 Approved Amend KMC 201025 14.20.050 Non - conforming 7/28/2010 Approved 201029 12.10 Nusances 8/11/2()j() Approved 201036 3.05 & 3.15 - Animal Conrol 9/2212010 Postponed Conditional Use Permit 201023 Mobile Food Vendor 7/26/201() Approved Encroachment Permit 201027 Front/Side Yard Setbacks 811 112 01 0 Approved Landscape /Site Plan 201030 O'Reilly Auto Parts 815/2010 Approved 201032 ACS Outlet Store (WalMart) 81412o10 Approved 201034 Tony Stanley 8/2/2010 Approved Preliminary Plat 201031 Inlet Woods SD 2010 Replat 6/11/201() Approved 201033 Ross Street Subdivision 6/11/2010 Approved 201039 Central Heights SD Adamson Replat 9/22/2010 Approved Rezone 201021 General Commercial to Limited Commercial 7/28/2010 Approved 201026 RR - lH 6/11/2010 Approved 201036 IH - C 9/8/2010 Withdrawn Friday, October 01, 2010 Page I oft 411 T YPE O F PERMIT Resolution ## TYPE MEETING DATE ACTION Variance 201028 FronUS1de Yard Setbacks 8/11/2010 Approved Friday, October 01, 2010 Page 2 of 2 412 Permit #: Date .Parcel # Owner Address Legal Description Comments Valuation R/C 84732 7/8/2010 4506005 Marc Bisset 814 Magic Ave. Govt. Lot 28 1000# SFD on $80,000 R prefab shell & Finish B4733 7/8/2010 4515206 Ronald Brown 1008 Colonial Govt. Lot 165 1675# SFD $260,000 R w1780# garage B4734 7/8/2010 4338004 Derrick Stanton (City of 10832 Kenai Spur Hwy. L1, Alyeska SD Part 3 160# temporary $3,000 C Kenai -406) (seasonal) portable building - No building or other permanent structure shall be placed within 10' 4�1 nor allowed to be placed within 10' of the boundard line of any lot held by a Lesee." B4735 7/15/2010 4709111 Woodridge Assn. 903 Cook Ave. Lots 1-4 -1A Remodel & $450,000 C renovate 24 unit apt. complex 84736 7/15/2010 4912048 Pat & Mary Doyle 2243 Beaver Loop Rd. L2, Beaver Loop Acres SD 2363S FD & 896 $175,000 R garage B4737 7/16/2010 4506019 Paul & Michelle Turinsky 804 Magic Ave. Lot 3, Papa Joe's SD 1344# SFD on $130,000 R existing foundation B4738 8/4/2010 4336110 ACS Outl et Store - 10128 Kenai Spur Hwy. L3, Baron Park Replat 2008 92634 bldg. $800,000 C Wa[Mart Friday, October 01, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Permit #: Date Parcel ## Owner Address Legal Description Comments Valuation RIC 84739 8/5/2010 4705237 Void -O'Reilly Auto Parts 10511 Kenai Spur Hwy. L1 A, B2 Sprucewood Glen 7650# Autoparts $0 C SD #10 Store - Setbacks were approved by M. Kebschull, City Planner & R. Koch, City Manager B4740 7/29/2010 4712028 John Boyce 1619 Tanaga Circle L9, B2, Redoubt Terrace Extend Dining $2,000 R SD Room & Add Deck B4741 7/29/2010 4937130 Mike Mendenhall 4700 Sockeye Circle L15, Oberts Pillars SD ##2 256# shed $2,500 R B4742 7/30/2010 4515116 Rosemary Coiley 1104 Kaknu Way Govt Lot 138 Demo Permit $0 R B4743 8/2/2010 4339039 Stanley Motors 10288 Kenai Spur Hwy. Tr. 2C, Baron Park SD Foundation Only $450,000 C Addn_ #9 auto sales & service B4746 8/3/2010 4943003 Irving & Rand! Smith 2675 Watergate Way L11, B1 VIP Estates 675# Bedroom & $30,000 R Portions of Blk 1 & 3 Bath Addition 2.4" Administrative Side Setbackgiven 813110 recommend asbuilt after construction to make sure no further encroachments exist. B4747 8/5/2010 4938022 Richard McCartan 119 Wooded Glen Ct. L11, B2 Deepwood Park 190# Greenhouse $20,000 R SD Amended 64748 8/5/2010 4521061 KPBSD - Swires 315 Swires Rd. Tr. 1 Swires Elementary 960# Portable $15,000 C Elementary classroom Friday, October 01, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ci Permit #: Date Parcel # Owner Address Legal Description Comments Valuation RIC B4749 8/9/2010 4514033 Shanuna Thornton 320 Lantern C1. L3, BI Kiana SD Fire damage repair $90,000 R 84750 8/12/2010 4515217 Shawn O'Donnahue 1108 Colonial Dr. L1, Kishoymac SD Move 2 exsting $300 R storage bldgs. w /electrical #192 B4751 8/16/2010 4331029 Kenai Elks Lodge 205 Barnacle Way L1, B3 Fidgalo Commercial Roof over existing $2,500 C Center patio slab 84752 8/26/2010 4318024 FAA 840 First Ave. US Survey 4969 22' Antenna - $20,000 C Fee's Waived B4753 8/30/2010 4515325 Pat Reilly 202 Candlelight Dr. L4A, Candlelight SD Addn. SFD #1124 $100,000 R #1 B4754 8/31/2010 4926041 Peter Hoogenboom 315 Ames Rd. L1, Tr. A, Dolchok 384# Dry Storage $5,000 R Homestead Shed 84755 9/1/2010 4506019 Paul & Michelle Turinsky 804 Magic Ave. Lot 3, Papa Joe's SD 28 X 28 Carport - $10,000 R 84756 84757 9/2/2010 4514033 Shauna Thornton 320 Lantern CL 9/7/2010 4904007 Sarah Hollier- Pellegran 800 Hollier St. MAY REQUIRE AS -BUILT PRIOR TO CO BEING ISSUED IF IT APPEARS STRUCTURE ENCROACHES INTO 15' SIDE SETBACK L3, B1, Kiana SD 2nd floor bonus $11,500 R room addn. #384 Tr. D -1A, Hollier SD No. 6 #2079 SFD #1211- $250,000 R Garages Friday, October 01, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Permit #. Date Parcel # Owner Address Legal Description Comments Valuation P/C B4757 9/7/2010 4904007 Sarah Hollier- Pellegran 800 Hollier St. Tr. D -1A, Hollier SD No. 6 Recorded #2010- $0 R 007593 -0 B4758 9/4/2010 4918032 Angela O'Brien 5120 Silver Salmon Dr. Highland Pride Mobile relocating trailer in $0 R #40 Home Park park from #24 to #40 requires blocking & skirting B4759 9/13/2010 4702001 Swanson Family Trust- 11888 Kenai Spur Hwy. Govt Lots 19 -21 Add new ADA $2,000 C Inlet Transportation restroom 64760 9/20/2010 4913024 Craig & Julie English 205 Iowa St. A L8, B3 Thompson Park SD Addition of 2 $37,000 R Addn. #1 bedrooms 288# B4761 9/28/2010 4101311 Dave Peterson 1111 Channel Way L1, 64 Inlet Woods SD #1 SFD #1478 $150,000 R 64762 9/29/2010 4322007 Global Tower 225 Trading Bay L7, 82, CIIAP Replace Panels $15,000 C 0) Partners/AT &T Wireless on Existing Monopole Friday, October 01, 2010 .Page 4 of 4 x1c, Suggested by; Administration CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -57 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPRO'V`EMENTS PLAN PRIORITY LIST FOR STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is a guide for capital expenditures; and, WHEREAS, the City of Kenai CIP process has involved consideration of existing plans, programmatic needs and public input; and, WHEREAS, the CIP compliments the legislative priorities, City Budget and Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Kenai City Council held a public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program adoption on October 6, 2010. NO'W', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, adopts the attached City of Kenai capital Improvements Plan Priority List for State and Federal Funding Requests for the Fiscal Year 2012, PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this Sixth day of October, 2010. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST. Carol L. Freas, City Clerk 417 CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PRIORITES FOR STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FY 2012 co PRIORITY PROJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED NOTES/COMMENTS NUMBER FUNDING Kenai River Bluff ErosioMStabi¢ation Approximately one -mile of the bluff along the Kenai River is Additional The bluff erosion project has been the City of Kerry "s exhibiting substantial erosion. Several hundred feet of the $ 2,000,000 from number one Federal and State funding priority for at least original townie have been lost over the last century. The the State of the previous thrree years- Administration is requesting U.S. Corp of Engineers estimate.; the rate of erosion to be 3 Alaska, and funding from the Governor and area Legis!ators. To date, feet per year. Over the next 50 years, in excess of $ 50 $ 17,000,000 from funding of approximately $ 1.5 mllion has been million (in 2006 dollars) of property and improvements will be the Federal appropriated by Alaska's congressional delegation, but the lost, without the construction of stabilization improvements. Government outlook for additional federal funding is not good. The 1 The tote.! cost estimate for the project is $ 20 mli' ion. through the US citizens of Kenai approved a G.D. bond proposition in the Approtamately $1.5 million has been spent to date on Corps of amount of $ 2,000,000 in 2007. Given the State of Alaska's preliminary engineering & studies. Kenai voters approved a $ Engineers present financial condition the opportunity to recieve 2 million bond sale at the October 2007 election_ Recently the funding is as good as it has been in some years. Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly passed a resolution to provide the quarry rock for the project at no cost. The value of the rock is estimated at $ 4.8 million. Total funding in -hand and in -kind is approximately$ 10.2 million. New Water Transmission mains (Phase 1. Replace approximately 3,200 If of asbestos cement (AC) $ 1,557,000.00 A grant application for this project has been submitted lfq water main which is presently the sole connection from the under the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental City's water production facilities and the distribution grid. Any Conservation (ADEC) Municipal matching Grant Program failure of the AC piping would constitute a catastrophic failure (MMG). We have recxeived the scoring and this project of the City of Kenai's municipal wader supply utility. 2 has scored well enough to probably be included in the Construction of 2,500 If of new water main along S% ires Governor's FY 2012 capital budget The City Council 2 Road between the Kenai Spur Higtrway & Lawton Drive. This passed Resolution No. 2012-46 identdying this project as win provide a cross- connec tion between an existing water the number one ADEC MMG priority. transmission main and the new water transmission main being constructed on Lawton Drive. These improvements will increase system reliance, and increase both operating pressures and flaw volumes. Paving & Improvements to City Streets The City of Kenai maintains approximately 20 miles of grave! $ 1,000,000.00 Administration recommends that a pncject of this type be surfaced roadways within irs municipal boundaries. The cost perpetually included in capital project requests to the State 3 of maintenance of gravel roadways is high, dust from gravel of Alaska. roadways is a health issue for the elderly & young. Page 1 of 5 Prepared by_ R. Koch CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PRIORITES FOR STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FY 2012 N O PRIOFM Y PROJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED NOTE=OMMENTS NUMBER FUNDING Construct New City Light/Heavy This project would construct a 20,000 sf maintenance shop $ 3,500,000.00 Shop facilities to support operations and maintenance Equipment Maintenance Shop to replace the existing shop. The exsiting shop is a collection activities are always ddficutt projects to move forward. The of build ngs and cones that Lacks the room to perform present facility was never designed to facilitate the support 4 maintenance on the Citys equipment fleet, and also lacks manitenance activities which are being accomplished. engineered ventilation systems as well as other There may be an opportunity for Federal participation, improvements found in designed facilities. specifically FAA funding in an amount comensumdte with Airport use of the facility - Vehicle Storage Facility for Kenai Senior This project would construct a six -bay vehicle storage facility $ 400,000.00 Center Vehicles at the City maintenance yard. At present the vehicles are stored outside the center. During the winter this results in 5 vehicles running to maintain heat for trips for the senior clients, and also results in increased mechanical difficulties. City Hall HVAC & Energy Conservation The current system does not provide uniform heat in the $ 400,000 -00 This project could also be a candidate for the DOE Improvements winter and does not include air condifixdrtg (coding) in the competitinfe grant program. summer. The present system also does not provide an adequate number of air changes to meet current oode requirements. The copy room which omWns ftte computer servers is consistently at a significantly elevated temperature. 8 Improvements would include the removallreplacement of the exterior building parcels, replacemeriVaddition of insulation in the walls and roof, removal and replacement of the roof mounted air-handling system with a ground -Level HVAC(air handling system, and replacement of the existing roof. Capital Improvements to Support State This project would constn.ict three Fish CieaninglWaste $ 300,000.00 In a recent candidates forum Governor Parnell stater] that Personal Use Fishery Transfer & EnforcemenUData Collection Stations. The three his administration is willing to invest State resources to 7 stations would be located at the North Seach, South Beach, mitigate the imact of the persona[ use fishery on the City of and City Boat launch. Kenai and the Kenai Peninsula. Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: R. Koch CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PRIORITES FOR STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FY 2012 N PRIORITY PROJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED NOTESICOMMENTS NUMBER FUNDING City of Kenai Recreation Center - Energy This project would replace the major components of the $ 500,000.00 Upgrades/Improvements heating ventilation system, replace wall coverings, replacermcrease insulation in exterior walls and ceiling, 8 replace ttie a sft roof, and construct a new entrance. City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment This project would construct improvements to the City of $ 1,800,000.00 This is the first phase of a three phase project to construct Plant Upgrades & Renovations Kenai s W WTP which would increase volume, decrease improvements to the W WTP ans identified in the WWTP operating expenses and increase the quality of the effluent. Master Plan prepared by CH2MHIU in 2003. 8 Bridge Access Road, Pedestrian This project would construct a pedestrian pathway from the $ 2,000,000.40 I am not aware of arty sources of funding that are available Pathway Kenai Spur Highway to Kalifor sky Beach Road along Bridge for this project, and several regulatory agencies (EPA, Access Road_ This area is heavily traveled by pedestrians, USDF &W) have expressed significant opposition to the 10 sight seer's, bicyclists, etc. This proj ect is apprmdmately 2 project. mks long and would complete the 24 mile Unity Trail that connects Kenai and Soldctna, along both the Spur Highway and Kalifornsky Beach Road. Page 3 of 5 Prepared by. R. Koch CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PRIORITES FOR STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FY 2012 PRIORITY PROJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED NOTEMOMMENTS NUMBER I FUNDING OTHER PROJECTS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED IV IV Page 4 off 5 Prepared by. R. Koch Garages (S) for Vintage Pointe This protect would construct a building five garages for rent $ 125,000.00 Demand far garages at Mintage Pointe is questionable. The Congregate Housing to residents of Vintage Pointe. Each garage would be 15'X20', Council on Aging discussed this issue at several meetings heated, with an electrically actuated O/H garage door and a and the Administration met with them and presented the 3'0' personnel door. results of a resident poll. Folbwing Administration's meeting with the Council on Aging the Administration met with the residents of Vintage Pointe and it appeared support for paying $200 a month for a garagewas even less than the previous poll results. Mommsen Subdivision, First Street Re- This project would re- construct First Street from Cafifomia $ 360,000.00 Administration believes thins project would best be funded Construction Avenue to Florida Avenue. This roadway whbrts differential from aState/Federad appropriations) such as pdortty#3, movement of the curb & gutter and asphalt. Further the abom asphalt has and is failing. Central Heights Roadways, Street 1. Replace the easiing street righting system 2 Replace the $ 1,360,000.00 The cost estimate for specific components of this project is Lighting System ebsting asphalt surfaced roadways and install new base included idn the attached informafien. The most praCtical Reco & material as needed 3_ Install curb & gutter and a piped storm project is probably to replace the lighting and asphalt (est Construction of a Storm wafter System water collection system 4. Construct sidewalks cost $ 332,000). A storm water system is challenging as the subdivision was not orfgirkldly designed taking into account surfacelpiped drainage. Curb & gutter is very opens and it's installation would mandate the construction of a storm water drainange system. New Fire Engine This new fire engine would replace an wasting 26 year old fire $ 500,000.00 engine. Our 1982 fire engine is the oldest equipment presently in use at the Fire Department, and was one of the last years in which 'open jump sear fire engines were allowed by code. The old engine has reached the end of its useful fife and should be replaced. Page 4 off 5 Prepared by. R. Koch CITY OF KENAI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (GIP) PRIORITES FOR STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FY 2012 N W PRIORITY PROJECT T ITLE DESCRIPTION REOUIRED NOTEWCOMMENTS NUMBER FUNDING City of Kenai indoor Turf Field Facility This project would construct a 1 OVx2W indoor turf field, $ 5,000,000.00 This project has been discussed by the parks & Recreation possibly as an addition to the e)assfng Kenai Multi- Purpose Commission and it is my understanding they wish to Facility. The faeifdy would be used by area schools, pre- continue discussion on the subject. This project is certainly schools, soccer and other organizations. worthy of discussion but significant work needs to be accomplished to determine its feasibifify_ City of Kenai Campground for Project would construct a tent(vehicle campground located al $ 250,000.00 TentfVehicle the Kenai Sports Complex(?) located at Section 36 Lower Kenai River Drift Boat Pull -Out Project would provide lower river access point for pull -out of Unknown ADNR is accompfrshing a'Needs Assessment Study drift boats only. scheduled to be finished in 2011. Its doubtful any funding would be available for this project in advance of the comps of the study, and that State4ederal funding would be appropriated to a State Agency that would be responsible for the construction and operation of the facTity. Kenai Spur Highway- Upgrade Five This project is proposed to provide safety improvements to $ 3,000,000.00 This project has ranked high on the 2010.2013 STIP and Intersections Seaver Loop, Thompson Park, Strawberry Road, Sher funding isproposed in SFY 2011 for conceptual design, and Salmon, and TBD to include turn lanes and lighting. Traffic ROW acquisition. accidents at these intersections usually involve at least one vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, and are of significant s everity, Kenai Spur Highway - Upgrade to Five Conflicting traffic patterns (through traffic vs $ 30,000,000.00 This project has not ranked high on the 2010 -2013 STIP. Lane configuration Between Soldotna businesstresidenifal traffic) and increased traffic counts have A predocessor project, the improvement of five and Kenai increased the number and severity of accidents between intersections of this roadway has ranked well on the STiP Kenai & Soldotna. Planned commercial developments will and funding for conceptual study & ROW acuisition is significantly increase traffic in the near future proposed to begin in SFY 2011. The full five -lane project will nut be considered for funding until the intersection project is through design, or possibly during construction. New Soccer Fields Irrigation Project would design and install irrigation system for four $ 250,000.00 soccer fields Page 5 of 5 Prepared by. R. Koch s c uliyF,v the city o f �/ KFHAL ALASKA "Villa y e with a Past, C# with a fid"re"' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 2837535 / FAX: 907 -283 -3014 it 1992 Kenai River Bluff Erosion /Stabilization The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) has determined that a project to halt the ongoing erosion is feasible. To date the COE has accomplished design to an 80% level, and over fifty- percent of the required NEPA documentation has been accomplished. This important project can only be undertaken with the assistance of the State and Federal Governments. The congressional delegation has been able to appropriate approximately $ 1.5 million over the preceding four years to forward the project through project scoping, planning, preliminary design and NEPA documentation, and another $2 million is presently Included in a Senate appropriations bill.. The latest project cost estimate accomplished by the U.S. Corp of Engineers for this project is approximately $ 29 million. A commitment to the project was made by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Borough Assembly adopted a resolution (attached) to provide Armor Rock, B - Rock, and Filter Rock for the project at no cost. The value of the Kenai Peninsula Borough commitment is approximately $ 4,800,000. The construction of this project will result in substantial investment and the creation of new and expanded businesses located on the bluffs above the mouth of the Kenai River. 424 "Villa ye with a p ast; Gi with a Future ` 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 � 1992 r theciyaf HENAI� SHA New 'Water Transmission Mains (Phase III) This project will replace approximately 3,200 If of an asbestos cement piped water main, which Is presently the sole connection from our water production facilities. The piping is approximately 40 years old and failures have become more frequent. Any failure of this transmission main is catastrophic to supplying water to the distribution grid. This project will also construct approximately 2,500 If of new distribution grid to create a connection with the transmission mains located in Lawton Drive and the Kenai Spur Highway. 425 ""Vill y w ith a P ast, Ci w ith a Future` 9 �' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907- 283 -75351 Fax: 907 - 2833014 www.cl.kenai.ak.us ��I Paving Improvements to City Streets The City of Kenai owns and maintains over 64 miles of municipal roadways. Over 15 miles of these roadways are constructed only to Improved gravel standards. Over the past three years the City has undertaken projects to improve approximately three miles of gravel roadways to a paved standard affecting over 300 properties. These projects Include pavement, drainage, safety, and signage improvements. Funding for these projects have been accomplished through local improvement districts (LID's), where the City, using Clty /State funding has funded 100% of the up -front costs of the improvements assessments being levied upon properties in the LID for 50% of the project costs, resulting in shared 50/50 projects. The city desires to continue this program of LID Improvements, the benefits include but are not limited to: 1. Improving air quality 2. Improving the quality of storm water run -off 3. Decreasing maintenance costs 4. Improving safety 5. Increasing property values 6. Creation of local employment Based on historical data, and contingent upon the condition of specific existing gravel roadways, $1 million of funding will improve one mile to two miles of roadways to paved standards. 426 " Vilfa p J e with a Past C# w N a F ut ure „ 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 7794 , ch Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 1111 5992 S, E`�EG1�4f HENA� SHA Construct New City Light /Heavy Equipment Maintenance Shop The City of Kenai's Equipment Maintenance Shop provides services to the Public Works, Streets, Parks & Recreation, Fire, Police, and Senior Center Departments. It maintains over 400 pieces of City equipment. The existing shop is over 30 years old, undersized, and not conducive to an efficient maintenance program. The size of the existing shop does not allow for the storage of equipment which is being worked and waiting for parts, resulting in the equipment being towed outside to make room for other maintenance work. Several pieces of equipment are too large for the existing shop, which Is really only several connected large garages. When large equipment requires maintenance the work must be conducted outside. There is not a comprehensive ventilation system, nor is there separation between the welding area and the remainder of the shop. We use an adequate system of individual ventilators, but it is not an effective system. The parts room is a conex which has been connected to the shop. Bathroom /wash facilities are minimal, and the shop does not have a shower, other than in an emergency station. The cost estimate for a new shop is as follows: Sitework Building Construction Fixtures & Equipment Design, Administratior 150'x100' = 15,000 s.f. & Contingency Total $ 100,000 2,250,000 500,000 650.000 $ 3,500,000 427 "'Villa ye with a Past, C# with a Agtare" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 2837535 / Fax: 907 -283 -3014 www.cl.kenai.ak.us Kenai Senior Center Vehicle Storage The City of Kenai owns and operates a Senior Center which provides a wide range of senior services including transportation and meal delivery. At present the Senior Center operates one fifteen- passenger bus, one ADA equipped van, two eight- passenger transportation vans, and two meal transport mini -vans. The amount of time it takes to adequately warm -up the vans during the winter months impacts the time available for senior transportation (especially in the larger vans) and meal delivery. Maintenance and operations costs are also increased by the vehicles being stored outside. This project would provide for the construction of an 8 bay facility to accommodate present and future needs. The cost estimate for the project is as follows: Site Development $ 50,000 Utilities 25,000 Building (25'x100'= 2,500sf @ $100 /sf) 250,000 Engineering & Contingency 75,000 Total $400,000 MW ""Villa ye ttidh a Past C# with a Future" 210 Fldalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 Fax: 907 -283 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us u City Hall Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) & Energy Conservation Improvements The central administration building was constructed In 1980, when the cost of energy was a substantially lower percentage of overall building operation costs than it Is today, The City had an energy audit of its buildings accomplished in 2007 which identified the City hall Building as having significant energy costs. A cost estimate for the replacement of the HVAC System and Energy Conservation Improvements is as follows: Demolition $ 40,000 Installation of new boilers (2 @ $20,000) 40,000 Installation of new control system 50,000 Installation of new ventilation /air conditioning system 70,000 Installation of new insulated ducting system 20,000 Repair /Reinstallation of Roof 40,000 Siding removal, Insulation & siding replacement 90,000 Design & Admin 50.000 Total $400,000 429 "'Vill y w ith a Past; C wN a Frdur'e" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 -283 -7535 / Fax, 907 -283 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us \�I State Personal Use Fishery, Capital Improvements The State of Alaska Personal Use Fishery is both a positive and a negative for the City of Kenai. We welcome our Alaskan neighbors to take part in this fishery, however the activity has grown to such a level that the existing resources which the City provides are not adequate to respond to the crowds. There are a number of issues which need to be addressed, these include enforcement, data collection, and State funding for capital projects to assist the City In providing a parking and camping area for the up to 15,000 individuals which participate in the fishery on a daily basis. Our residential subdivisions near the beach are being over -run with vehicles /campers as they simply do not have alternative places to park. On one day during the last year's season an estimated 15,000 people were participating in the fishery at the mouth of the Kenai River, and 10,000 participants is commonplace. One specific issue is the amount of fish waste that is deposited on tidelands owned by the City. When participants clean fish the fish waste is often thrown into the river /ocean where it ends up being washed up to the tideline. The City attempts to remove the decomposing fish wastes each evening by utilizing a tractor with a rake to transport fish wastes. The City recommends that fish cleaning stations be constructed in three locations, (North Beach, Boat launch and South Beach) and that disposal of fish waste from the personal use fishery into the Kenai River be prohibited by regulation. Estimated costs for the construction of three fish cleaning stations, is as follows: Water Systems $100,000 Site Preparation 30,000 Wastewater Disposal Systems 60,000 Cleaning Facilities & Appurtenances 75,000 Design, Administration & Contingency 35,000 Total $300,000 The fish cleaning stations could also be used as data collection, and enforcement stations for ADF &G and AST Brownshirts. 430 ""Villa ye ylvA a Past C# with a Future' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 28375351 Fax: 907 - 283 -3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us MA City of Kenai Recreation Center Energy Conservation Upgrades The City of Kenai Recreation Center was constructed in 1982 when the cost of energy was a significantly less costly component of overall building operation. This project will replace the existing heating system, replace lighting systems, replace building control systems, and increase insulation in selected areas of the building. Estimated Costs are as follows: Demolition $ 40,000 Roof Insulation & EPDM 80,000 Replace Boilers (2) 50,000 Replace Control, Systems 75,000 Replace Exterior Windows & Doors 25,000 Replace Lighting Fixtures & Controls 40,000 Replace HVAC System 100,000 Design, Administration & Contingency 90,000 Total $500,000 431 "'Villa ye wN a Past C# with a Fug ure 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 _ •,.ate �� .. Telephone: 907 -283 -75351 FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 1992 tke City d KEHAI, ALASKA V City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade & Renovations The City of Kenai's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1982. It was sized to accommodate a population of 11,650 people and an average wastewater flow of 1,3 million gallons per day (mgd). The present population of Kenai is approximately 8,000 and average wastewater flow is 0,90 ingd, or 70% of the plant design capacity. A Wastewater Facility Master Plan was completed in March 2004 by CH2MHill. The cost estimate for recommended improvements totaled $ 5,198,000 (in 2004 dollars) and were identified as being accomplished in four phases. Estimated costs have been increased by 32% to account for construction inflation. These four phases were as follows: Phase Description 1 Activated Sludge System Improvements 2 Suction/Jetter (Vactor) Truck` 3 Pretreatment Process Improvements 4 Aerobic Digester Solids Handling Systems TOTAL Cost Estimaf $ 3,040,000 -0- 1,450,000 1,850.00 $ 6,340,000 *Phase 2 shows a $ -0- cost estimate as this equipment was already purchased by the City of Kenai in 2008. This grant application encompasses improvements identified, in part, in Phase 1 of Capital Improvements Summary in the Master Plan, the installation of a second sludge belt press, and a 1,000 s.f. addition to the WWTP Control Building, Below I will discuss each of the Phases identified in the Capital Improvements Summary, the second sludge belt press and how the City proposes to phase the WWTP Upgrades. 432 City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades — Phase I Sludge Belt Press - $ 485,804 The existing sludge belt press is 25 years old, and while not functionally obsolescent, it requires major maintenance /upgrades in the near future to maintain system reliability and compatibility with control systems. The installation of a second sludge belt press will provide system redundancy and allow for the existing sludge belt press to be taken out of service for an extended period (4-6 months) while major maintenance upgrades can be accomplished, Activated Sludge System Improvements - $ 880,000 1. Upgrade Fine Bubble Aeration - $ 380,000 Upgrade Aerobic Digester Blower System - $ 270,000 The blowers currently provide three to four times the necessary oxygen concentration to the aeration basins and there is no way to efficiently control this with the existing equipment. The installation of one small blower with a variable speed motor, the installation of variable speed motors on the existing blowers, the installation of a new control system, and replacing the coarse bubble diffusers with fine bubble diffusers will result in improved treatment and a significant drop in power consumption. 2. Upgrade Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) System - $ 200,000 Upgrade Return Activated Sludge (RAS) System - $ 30,000 The activated sludge treatment process works best when a steady low flow of sludge is returned to the aeration basin (RAS). The pumps currently in use return too much sludge in too short a time to the aeration basin resulting in system failures, increased maintenance and increased energy consumption. The WAS pumps currently in service are a progressive cavity type that requites frequent service. Replacement with a simple centrifugal pump system would lower maintenance costs and improve treatment efficiency by allowing a steady flow of sludge to the aerobic digestion tank rather than large intermittent flows. The upgrades to the RAS & WAS Systems, and the upgrades to the aeration system will significantly improve the performance of the WWTP in terms of decreasing the costs of aeration, improving the settleability of the sludge, and minimizing /eliminating permit non - compliance incidents. WWTP Control Building Expansion ( +/- 1,000 s,f.) - $ 301,950 The addition of a second sludge belt press will require the re- location of the WWTP laboratory. There is not sufficient space anywhere within the existing building to accommodate laboratory 433 operations. The construction of a 1,000 s,f, addition to the WWTP Control Building will provide the room necessary for a fully functioning laboratory sufficient to support the operations of the WWTP. FUTURE PHASES OF THE CITY OF KENAI WWTP UPGRADES NOT SUBMITTED UNDER THIS ADEC MUNICIPALMATCHING GRANT APPLICATION AT THIS TIME City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment Plant Up grades -- Phase II Filament Control System Improvements - $ 2,100,000 The City of Kenai's WWTP periodically encounters problems with a floating sludge blanket. This is caused by the predominance of filamentous organisms in the activated sludge. The aeration basins will be modified to a plug flow regime and provide an anoxic zone in the first third of each aeration basin. This will improve activated sludge settling by minimizing filamentous organisms in the activated sludge. As a result the City will no longer need to operate both secondary clarifiers. This will reduce energy consumption and provide redundancy in the system. City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades — Phase III Pretreatment Process Lnprovements - $1,455,000 1. New Pump House - $ 435,000 The existing pump house is undersized and is nearing the end of its useful life. The addition of sophisticated control systems and other improvements requires additional space in order to maintain system integrity and reliability. 2, Influent Manhole Modifications - $ 60,000 Grease accumulates in the existing influent manhole. At times this grease layer will be as much as five -feet thick. Presently the vactor truck is used to remove grease fiom the influent manhole and transport to the WWTP. This modification would provide a sytem to pump the grease from the influent manhole to the aerobic digester for treatment. 3. Chit Removal Cyclone - $ 120,000 This would provide for grit removal in the pretreatment process. The system currently includes two rotary screens, a by -pass screen, and screenings conveyor. They are not used because they are quickly overloaded by the material entering the plan during peak flows. This improvement would allow provide for washing, and compacting the collected screenings as is required. 434 4. Bar Screens /Grinder Station - $ 840,000 There are several areas in the wastewater collection system in which pretreatment of wastewater through screening and grinding would be beneficial. Wildwood Prison and future services comprised of fish processing plants. This will require further engineering review prior to a specific scope of work being identified. City of Kenai Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades — Phase IV Aerobic Digester Solids Handling - $ 1,840,000 These improvements include, mechanical improvements for the aerobic digester, an upgraded solids handling system, and re- coating the aerobic digester. Obtaining a sufficiently high concentration of solids is difficult. A higher concentration of solids will mean lower influent flow and longer residence time within the digestion tank. Twelve to eighteen days residence is typically required for adequate digestion of sludge when there is no primary settling in the WWTP process. Presently there is only eight days digester residence time. To increase the solids concentration entering the sludge digestion tank, a gravity belt thickener will be installed. This will increase the capacity of the existing aerobic digestion tank to meet the projected waste loads for at least the next twenty years, and minimize /eliminate permit non- compliance incidents. Re- coating of the 423,000 gallon aerobic digestion tank may move up to a higher priority based on inspections that will be accomplished this year. The purpose of the tank is to hold waste sludge, and through aeration inactivate any harmful microorganisms. The City of Kenai "s WWTP does not have a redundant component for this process. Since the tank's construction in 1982 it has not been re- coated. if this aerobic digester tank were out of service for any extended period, the W VTP process would be severely impacted. 435 'Villa e with a Past, Gi with a Futur `., 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907- 283 -75351 FAX: 907 -283 -3014 III�I 1992 Elie Ee'Ey o f KEN�r� srca Bridge Access Road Pedestrian Pathway The Kenai - Soldotna Unity Trail is designed to mare an approximate 20 mile loop from Kenai to Soldotna on the Kenai Spur Highway, Then through Soldotna along the Sterling Highway to Kalifo rnsky Beach Road, then along Kalifornsky Beach Road to Bridge Access Road, then along Bridge Access Road to its intersection with Kenai Spur Highway, the beginning of the trail. The trail is fully constructed with the exception of the approximately 3 mile long section. along Bridge Access Road. The cost estimate to construct the pedestrian pathway is as follows: Paved Pedestrian Pathway (8' wide) 16,000 IS, $1,600,000 Design, Administration & Contingency 400,000 Total $2,000,000 436 A BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KlENA1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ) L'YNFORD D1SQUE REGARDING ) REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) Case No. BA -10 -02 1. DECISION This appeal concerns the decision of the City of Kenai to revoke the authority to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) to Lynford Disque authorized under Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. PZ 09 -30 Amended (PZ 09 -30). The appeal of Lynford Disque is denied. 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 26, 2009, the City of Kenai received an application for a CUP from Lynford Disque d /b /a Circle "D" Restoration & Racing. R. 2. Disque requested permission to operate a storage yard on his property at 2021 Wyatt Way in Kenai.' R. 33 -34. The storage yard was related to his proposed operation of a vehicle restoration and racing garage business. R. 3, 6, 13. Pursuant to PZ 09 -30, the Commission authorized issuance of the permit provided that Disque first meet 7 of 11 specific conditions by May 31, 2010. R. 33. Condition 10 of PZ 09 -30 states that the "[p]ermit will not be issued until Conditions # 1, 2, 3, 4E, 5, 6 and 7 have been met. Conditions must ' The legal description of the property is T6N R1 1W Sec. 35, Seward Meridian, KN E 1 /2 Wl /2 NW' /* NWl /4. It is also designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough as parcel no. 04103022. R.12. Board of Adjustment Decision Disque Appeal Council .BoAlDisque,decision.092210 Page 1 of 7 437 be met by May 31, 2010." Conditions 1 -7 of PZ 09 -30 include: 1. Variance for six -foot (6') high sight - obscuring fence must be approved. 2. Variance to only screen the property along Wyatt Way must be approved. 2 3. Obtain a current State of Alaska business license. 4. Register for sales tax with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 5. Remove the unsafe mobile home from property. 6. Remove all junk vehicles not pertaining to the "Dodge" Restoration business. These vehicles are identified from the inventory dated September 18, 2006. 7. Miscellaneous debris and junk must be removed from the site. R. 33_ Disque did not meet all of these conditions by May 31, 2010. R. 53. On June 3, 2010, the City informed Disque that he had "failed to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit." R. 53. The City provided Disque with notice of a revocation hearing scheduled for June 23, 2010. R. 53. The Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2010. The City's Planning Department staff recommended that the Commission revolve the CUP. R. 56. Disque 2 At approximately the same time that Disque applied for the CUP, Disque also applied for a variance for a six-foot high fence. R. 4. That variance was approved by the Commission in Resolution 09 -33. R. 35. The variance is not a subject of this appeal. 3 Although the staff recommends revolving the permit, the statement is slightly incorrect. Under PZ 09 -30, the Commission authorized issuance of the permit only after Disque met the seven conditions in PZ 09 -30 listed above. The proper administrative official of the City never issued the CUP to Disque because Disque had not complied Board of Adjustment Decision —Disque Appeal CounciLBWDisque,decision.092210 Page 2 of 7 M attended the hearing. He acknowledged that he had not followed through with the original requirements for issuance of the CUP, indicating that a period of unemployment had prevented him from meeting the conditions for the CUP. R. 81. No other person testified and the hearing was closed. After the hearing, the Commission unanimously decided to revolve the CUP. R. 61, 82. Disque timely appealed the Commission's revocation decision to the City's Board of Adjustment. R. 65. He did not contest any specific finding or conclusion of the Commission. Instead, he requested that the City grant him a one -year extension to comply with the conditions of PZ 09 -30. R. 65, 72. The Board of Adjustment held a public hearing on Disque's appeal on August 23, 2010. Disque did not attend the hearing. No members of the public testified at the hearing. The Board asked questions of City's planning staff and the hearing was closed.. 111. STANDARD ON APPEAL An appeal from the Commission is a de novo appeal. The Kenai Municipal Code states that "[t]he Board of Adjustment may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end the Board shall have all the powers of the body from whom the appeal is taken. ,5 with those conditions. More precisely, this procedure concerns the revocation of the City administrative official's authority to issue a CUP to Disque under PZ 09 -30. 4 Disque received actual notice of the hearing by certified mail on August 4, 2010. R. 75 -76. 5 KMC 14.20.290(f)(2). Board of Adjustment Decision—Disque Appeal Comicil .BoA/Disque.decisioai.092210 Page 3 of 7 439 The Board does not have to defer to the findings or decision of the Commission. IV. ANALYSIS Kenai Municipal Code outlines the process to revoke a conditional use permit at KMC 14.20.150(g): If the Commission determines, based on the yearly review or any other investigation undertaken by the official, that the conduct of the operation(s) is not in compliance with: 1) the terms and conditions of the permit; 2) the provisions of the Kenai Zoning Code; 3) or that the permit holder is not current on any obligations (e.g. sales tax, property tax, utility payments, lease payments) to the city unless the applicant has entered into an approved payment with the city on any obligations owed and the applicant is in compliance with the payment plan, the Commission may revoke the permit. The Commission shall not revoke the permit until the permit holder has been notified and given reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency(s) or to provide information relating to or rebutting the alleged deficiency(s). KMC 14.20.150(g) (in part). The undisputed evidence before the Board is that Disque is not in compliance with the terms and conditions under which the authority to issue the CUP was granted by the Commission. Disque does not contest this. He has, instead, been forthright in acknowledging his failure to meet the first seven conditions of PZ 09 -30 required to be satisfied by May 31, 2010. At the .Tune 23 Commission revocation hearing, Disque apologized for not having followed through with the requirements of PZ 09 -30. R. 81. In his appeal to this Board, he irnpliedly agrees that he has not met the conditions of the permit authorization required to be met by May 31, 2010, by asking for an extension of Board of Adjustment Decision— Disque Appeal Council .BoA /Disque.decision.092210 Page 4 of 7 iii time to comply with those seven conditions. R. 65. Disque has not contended that he complied with all seven conditions for issuance of the permit, nor did he identify any point of error by the Commission. The evidence also demonstrates that the City notified Disque that he had not complied with the conditions set forth in PZ 09-30 and that the City provided Disque with a reasonable opportunity to correct the defects in his performance under PZ 09a -30. The City contacted Disque on April 28, 2010, approximately one month before his deadline for meeting the conditions for issuance of the CUP. The City reminded Disque of the May 31 deadline to meet the first seven conditions of PZ 09 -30. R. 52. On June 3, 2010, the City notified Disque that he had not met requirements for issuance of the CUP and that a revocation hearing would be held on June 23. The effect of this notice was to provide Disque an additional 20 days by which to meet the conditions of PZ 09- 30, R. 53, Still, Disque did not meet the seven conditions tied to the May 31 deadline. I R , t15i u Disque carries the burden of demonstrating that he met the conditions for issuance of a CUP as set out in PZ 09 -30. Disque has not met that burden. Because we find that: (1) the City provided Disque with notice of the May 31, 2010 deadline and gave him a reasonable opportunity to cure his deficiencies in meeting the conditions for issuance of the permit; and 6 Disque was also notified that he had not met the quarterly reporting requirements identified in PZ 09 -30, another breach of the terms and conditions for the CUP. R. 52. Board of Adjustment Decision — Disque Appeal Council,B oA/Disque.decision.0922 10 Page 5 of 7 441 (2) Disque did not satisfy all of conditions 1 -7 as set out in PZ 09 -30 by May 31, or by June 23, 2010 (the date of the Commission hearing); we affirm the decision of the Commission to revoke the authority of the City's administrative official to issue the CUP. The appeal is denied. DATED this 24th day of September, 2010. Pat Porter, Chair Robert J. Molloy, Board Member Joe Moore, Board Member Hal Smalley, Board Member DISSENTING OPINION We respectfully dissent from the majority. Disque testified that a period of unemployment created unanticipated, financial burdens that prevented him from meeting the conditions of PZ 09 -30. R. 81. An unexpected financial setback supports an extension of time in light of evidence that Disque took some steps to meet the conditions of PZ 09-30. Where revocation proceedings began only three days after the May 31 deadline, Disque was not provided with a reasonable, opportunity to correct the deficiencies or to rebut the alleged deficiencies as required by KMC 14.20.150(g). We would grant the appeal and extend the deadline for one year from May 31, 2010. Board of Adjustment Decision — Disque Appeal Cound 1.BoA/Disque.decision.092210 Page 6 of 7 442 Dissenting: Mike Boyle, Board Member Barry Eldridge, Board Member Ryan Marquis, Board Member NOTE: This .decision constitutes a final order under Alaska Appellate Rule 602. An appeal of this decision to the Alaska Superior Court must be filed within thirty days (M) days of the date of this decision. Board of Adjustment Decision --- Disque Appeal Council .BoA /Disque.decision.042210 Page 7 of 7 443 BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KENNAI IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ) 1LYNFOR® DISQUIE REGARDING ) REVOCATION OF ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT � Case No. BA -10-02 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD .JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) I, .Jacqueline Van Hatten, having been first duly sworn on oath, state: 1. that I am the Legal Administrative Assistant for the City of Kenai; 2. that on this date a copy of the decision of the Kenai Board of Adjustment was mailed to: ® Lynford B. and Nannette S. Disque P.O. Box 2201 Kenai, Alaska 99611; and, 3. that a copy was given to the City Clerk for website publication. DATED this � �`� day of September, 2010. J C UELINE VAN HATTEN Legal Administrative Assistant City of Kenai Affidavit of service Council /B oA.DisqueAffidavitJ VH092410 Page 1 of 1 ...