4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-1 on, and Visual Resources

4.7 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

4.7.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

4.7.1.1 Land/Waterway Use 

The waterway for LNG marine traffic would be mainly within the existing Coos Bay navigation 

channel, up to about CM 7.5. This channel is included in the Coos Bay Estuary Management 

Plan (CBEMP) and is zoned Deep-Draft Navigation Channel (37-foot authorized draft). The 

navigation channel is bounded by the North Spit on the west and the mainland to the south and 

east (figure 2.1-2). On the southern and eastern shore of Coos Bay along the waterway are 

several communities, including Charleston, Barview, Empire, and the cities of Coos Bay and 

North Bend (these communities are further discussed in sections 4.7.1.2 and 4.8). 

The North Spit is a point of land between the Pacific Ocean and Coos Bay, comprised of narrow 

sandy beaches along the ocean, and a combination of sand dunes, wetlands, and upland forested 

areas. The North Spit is unoccupied, containing no residences, and includes a mixture of 

industrial, recreational and open space land uses. Portions of the North Spit are owned by the 

Port, the State of Oregon, COE, BLM, and private industries. Coos County’s zoning 

designations for the North Spit include Conservation Shorelands, Natural Shorelands, Waterdependent Development Shorelands, and Development Shorelands. 

The Port has promoted industrial development on the bay side of the North Spit, including 

properties owned by Roseburg, Southport, and D.B. Western. The Oregon Parks and Recreation 

Department (OPRD) manages the beaches along the Pacific Ocean below the high tide level. 

The OPRD guidelines for the land it controls along the North Spit are outlined in its Ocean Shore 

Management Plan (OPRD 2005). The ODSL controls lands below the means low tide, including 

submerged lands. 

The COE administers 245 acres on the North Spit, and maintain the North Jetty at the mouth of 

Coos Bay. The COE allows public access to its lands, but the North Jetty is not designed for 

public use. The Coos Bay District of the BLM administers about 1,864 acres on the North Spit 

that it acquired from the U.S. Army in 1984. The BLM manages its lands according to its Final 

North Spit Plan (BLM 2005). 

South of the entrance to the Coos Bay navigation channel are Coos Head, Gregory Point, and 

Cape Arago. A portion of Coos Head is overlapped by Zone of Concern 1, while Gregory Point 

and the northern part of Cape Arago are within Zone 3. 

At Coos Head, at the mouth of Coos Bay, was a U.S. Navy facility that was commissioned in 

1958, and decommissioned in 1987. During the 1990s Coos Head was utilized by the Oregon 

Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force Reserves. The air station was closed in 1996, and the 43-

acre site turned over to the U.S. General Services Administration. Since then, there have been 

several bidders for the property, including the Coos Tribes (Naval Facility Station History 2008). 

Between 1915 and 1968 the Coast Guard Station was located at Coos Head. In 1968 it relocated 

to the Charleston Marina. 

A lighthouse was first established on Chief’s Island at Gregory Point in 1866 and a bridge from 

the mainline to the island was completed in 1898. The present structure on the island was 

constructed in 1934, and was decommissioned in 2006. There is a debate over the future 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-2 on, and Visual Resources 

disposition of this land. The BLM is considering a plan to transfer land at Gregory Point to the 

Coos Tribe for the proposed Bal’diyaka Interpretive Center. 

Outside of the Coast Guard parcel at Cape Arago, part of Gregory Point is owned by the state of 

Oregon, and part is administered by the BLM. In 1975 the Coos Tribes obtained an easement for 

an Indian burial ground on the mainland opposite the Cape Arago lighthouse. Gregory Point is 

part of the Cape Arago headland research reserve complex. While the OPRD owns the beach 

and most uplands in this area, the ODSL owns the submerged and intertidal lands. The OPRD 

has a series of state parks along the shoreline south from the mouth of Coos Bay. The FWS 

manages some of the offshore rocks and reefs along the Cape Arago headlands as part of the 

Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge (see discussion on parks below). 

Use of the waterway by LNG carriers heading to the Jordan Cove terminal should have no 

significant adverse impacts on existing land use, and would require no zoning changes. The use 

of the navigation channel by LNG carriers would be consistent with its current use by other 

commercial ships. Potential impacts related to LNG marine traffic in the waterway on 

residences, businesses, and recreational facilities are discussed below. 

4.7.1.2 Existing Residences, Commercial Buildings, and Planned Development 

No residential structures currently exist within Zone 1 of the Zones of Concern along the 

waterway for LNG marine traffic. There are approximately 2,588 residential structures 

overlapped by Zone 2, and 2,869 residential structures within Zone 3, including single family 

houses, apartments, and mobile homes. There are no hotels or motels within Zone 1. However, 

there are 5 hotel/motels are located within Zone 2, and 4 hotels/motels would be overlapped by 

Zone 3. There are 4 commercial business within Zone 1, 158 commercial structures within Zone 

2, and 338 commercial enterprises within Zone 3. Structures within the Zones of Concern are 

illustrated on figure 4.7-1. 

Several planned future developments have also been identified within the Zones of Concern. 

The cities of Coos Bay and North Bend have several residential developments that are under 

various stages of planning, approval, and construction. The closest of these developments to the 

waterway for LNG marine traffic is a multi-unit condominium located in the City of Coos Bay 

on the shoreline of Coos Bay off Fenwick Street near Maxwell Road. This condominium is 

currently in the planning phase. A second shoreline development is the Bay Point Estates, a 175-

unit development comprising mostly multiple family, attached units. This development is 

proposed on a piece of land locally known as Sitka Dock, which juts out into the waterway 

between Empire and Barview. Both of these developments are in the planning phases, and have 

not yet been approved by their respective jurisdictions. Additionally, a cluster of single-family 

residences have been approved and are under construction in an area near the northwest 

boundary of the City of North Bend and the northeast boundary of the City of Coos Bay. A 

condominium complex is also planned in the northeast area of the City of Coos Bay, and a new 

museum is planned just south of the condominium complex. A mixed-use development known 

as Hollering Point is also planned at the west end of Newmark Avenue in the city of Coos Bay. 

The only way LNG marine traffic in the waterway could affect existing residences, commercial 

structures, and planned developments would be in the unlikely case where an LNG carrier has a 

spill, with an associate pool fire. The effects of an LNG spill would depend on location, extent, 

and duration. Damage to structures could be severe within Zone of Concern 1, with the level of 

impacts 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-3 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-1. Structures within the Zones of Concern of the LNG Ship Transit Route 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-4 on, and Visual Resources 

decreasing outward through Zone 3. However, with the precautions recommended by the Coast 

Guard, the likelihood of an incident resulting in a spill and fire are extremely remote, and 

therefore, there should be no significant impacts on residences and commercial buildings 

overlapped by the Zones of Concern. 

4.7.1.3 Recreation, Public Interest, and Special Use Areas 

Boating and Fishing 

According to a 2005 study by the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) recreational boaters in 

Coos Bay took a total of 30,996 boat trips the previous year. Nearly 90 percent of the boat usedays involved fishing (including angling, crabbing, and clamming), 9 percent was for pleasure 

cruising, and the remainder was for sailing and water skiing. Forty percent of the boating 

activities in Coos Bay originated from the Charleston Marina, and 20 percent at the Empire 

ramp. The BLM counted 420 boats being launched from its North Spit ramp during fiscal year 

(FY) 2004. Most of the recreational boating activities in Coos Bay occur during the summer. 

The BLM North Spit boat ramp and the Empire boat ramp are located within Zone 1. The 

Charleston Marina and fishing pier are overlapped by Zone 2. The Pony Point boat ramp is 

within Zone 3. 

The most popular fish species caught by recreational anglers out of Coos Bay include coho and 

Chinook salmon. Other recreational catch species include various species of perch, rockfish, 

flatfish, and sturgeon. Recreational clamming and crabbing also occur in Coos Bay. Section 

4.5.2, Aquatic Resources, discusses the fish species of Coos Bay in more detail. 

Much of the recreational angling for salmon in Coos Bay occurs in late summer and fall. It 

usually begins in late summer at jetty areas and moves up the bay as fish move upstream. Bank 

angler access on the North Spit is limited. Boat angling occurs throughout the bay, but angling is 

limited in some areas at times by exposure to winds. For example, the Roseburg dock area gets 

less boat angling use due to exposure to wind and tidal action. Much of the boat angling for 

Chinook and coho salmon in the fall is concentrated around the railroad bridge and downstream. 

Marshfield Channel can be an area of concentrated angling for fall salmon. 

Perch fishing begins in Coos Bay in late February to early March, depending on freshwater 

runoff into the bay, and can continue through July. Rocks around bridge abutments are targeted 

by anglers on the outgoing tide. 

Recreational fishing for sturgeon in Coos Bay generally occurs above the railroad bridge. White 

sturgeon can be taken year round, but the best angling is during December through March, and 

when there is a heavy freshwater plume in the bay. 

Recreational clamming and crabbing occurs year-round and brings tourism based revenue to the 

region. Crabbing occurs in the main channel areas from the Southern Oregon Regional Airport 

to the mouth of the bay around slack tides. Clamming occurs year-round in the mud flats of 

Coos Bay, but is subject to closure as necessary by the ODA Food Safety Division for reasons of 

public health (Oregon Department of Agriculture Food Safety Division 2008). 

Use of the crabbing, clamming, and angling areas in Coos Bay should not be any more affected 

by the passage of LNG carriers than they are currently affected by the passage of deep draft 

ships. Crabbing and clamming currently occurs outside the navigation channel and would not be 

affected by an LNG carrier in transit in the waterway to or from the terminal. However, if 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-5 on, and Visual Resources

crabbing, clamming, angling, or scuba diving activities were to occur elsewhere in the waterway, 

those activities would be required to cease and temporarily move out of the way of an LNG 

carrier while it passes by. The Coast Guard and OSMB would presumably continue to remind 

boaters of their obligation not to impede the deep draft ships, regardless of the cargo. Passive 

fishing equipment, such as crab pots, would be permitted to remain within the security zone 

while an LNG vessel is present, though the attending crabbing vessels would be required to 

vacate (Berg 2008). 

Pilots guiding commercial ships in the Coos Bay navigation channel currently encounter 

approximately six recreational boats during the transit into and out of the Port. These numbers 

are typically lower in winter and on weekdays than during the summer and on weekends. 

Recreational boaters using the bay at the same time as an LNG carrier is in transit in the 

waterway may encounter delays due the moving security zone requirements around LNG carriers 

on their way to the terminal. Jordan Cove estimated that it may take LNG carriers up to 90 

minutes to transit the waterway from the buoy to the terminal as speeds between 4 and 10 knots. 

The maximum waiting period for an LNG carrier to pass a given point would be 30 minutes. 

The sum of the periods in which the LNG carriers would have a potential impact on recreational 

and other boating activity is about 1.3 percent of all daylight hours (ECONorthwest 2006c). 

Recreational boaters, fishermen, crabbers, and clammers could be affected in the unlikely event 

of an incident resulting in an LNG spill from a carrier in transit in the waterway, and an 

associated pool fire if there was ignition of released LNG vapors. Impacts for such an event 

would be greatest within Zone of Concern 1 and lessen through Zone 3. The potential of such an 

incident to affect recreational users of Coos Bay would depend on its location, duration, and 

extent. However, with the security measures recommended in the Coast Guard’s WSR, the 

possibility of such an incident is remote, and affects on recreational water uses would be less 

than significant. For example, the safety and security zone imposed by the Coast Guard would 

keep recreational boaters away from the LNG carriers in transit in the waterway to the terminal, 

and escort vessels would be able to assist small craft. 

Parks and Other Recreational Use Areas 

The southern Oregon coast sees less recreational beach use than the central and north coast 

beaches. There is a 6-mile stretch of public beach along the ocean side of the North Spit. This 

beach contains no built or developed recreational facilities. The area is open for street legal 

vehicles driving on the beach, with the exception of a segment of the beach between the FAA 

tower and the southern boundary of BLM land, which is closed to public access during the 

Western snowy plover nesting season. The BLM estimated that an average of 200 vehicles per 

month drive out to the North Jetty, and that about 6,150 people each year travel on the sand road 

out to the North Jetty in OHVs. Between October 1, 2003 and September 31, 2004, the BLM 

counted 27,100 visits to the North Spit, over 9,774 visitor days (BLM 2005). The OPRD 

counted an average of 98 people using the beach between Tenmile Creek and Coos Bay on a 

weekend day, and an average of 38 visitors on a weekday, with a density of four people per mile 

on weekends and three people per mile on weekdays. The top five recreational activities along 

southern Oregon beaches include walking (43 percent), relaxing in a stationary location (24 

percent), walking dogs (10 percent), driving OHVs (8 percent), and beachcombing (3 percent) 

(OPRD 2002). 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-6 on, and Visual Resources 

In addition to the general recreational use of the beach on the North Spit, 24 recreational sites or 

special interest areas are located within the three Zones of Concern along the waterway for LNG 

marine traffic (figure 4.7-2). Those areas are summarized below. 

In May 1995, through its Coos Bay District RMP, the BLM designated the North Spit as a 

Special Recreational Management Area (SRMA). The BLM’s goal is to manage the 1,726 acres 

of the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA to sustain outdoor recreation in a manner compatible with 

protection of wildlife and cultural resources. Towards that goal, the BLM built and maintains its 

North Spit boat ramp, and is in the planning stages for development of a hiking and equestrian 

trail system up to 14-miles-long. The Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA also includes 725 acres 

designated as the North Spit ACEC, at the southern end of the North Spit, north of the North 

Jetty, between the Pacific Ocean and Half Moon Bay on the bay side. The purpose of this 

designation was to protect outstanding biological and cultural resources, and scenic values. 

The North Spit boat ramp was developed by the BLM in 1992, with funding from the OSMB, 

ODFW, Coos County, and Northwest Steelheaders. The facilities include a paved parking lot, 

restrooms, and interpretive wayside exhibits. In FY 2004, the BLM counted 7,250 people using 

the boat ramp restrooms, and 13,100 vehicles at the parking lot (BLM 2005). 

A portion of the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA including the BLM boat ramp, and the North Spit 

ACEC are overlapped by Zone of Concern 1 along the waterway to be used by LNG marine 

traffic. Other portions of the North Spit SRMA are overlapped by Zone 2. Figure 4.7-2 

illustrates recreational areas overlapped by the Zones of Concern. 

Overlapped by Zone of Concern 3 are portions of the Cape Arago headlands research reserve, 

Yoakam Point State Natural Site, Sunset Beach State Park, and part of the Oregon Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge. The state of Oregon designated the headlands from Gregory Point to 

South Cove as an intertidal marine protected area for public awareness value. The goal of the 

designation is to maintain the ecological integrity of the area for long term research projects. 

This can be accomplished by limiting access, requiring permits for scientific research, 

prohibiting commercial and recreational harvesting of shellfish, including red sea urchins, and 

prohibiting the harvest of seaweed and kelp. Seabirds nest on Lighthouse Island, and harbor 

seals and other pinnipeds use rocks in the Cape Arago area for haulout sites. 

Sunset Bay State Park includes a beach, picnic tables, hiking trails, 27 full recreational vehicle 

(RV) hookups, 66 tent spaces, and eight yurts. A public golf course is next to the park. An 

OPRD study indicated that Sunset Bay State Park receives 800,000 visitors a year (Hillmann 

2006). 

The Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge is administered by the FWS, and covers 1,850 

rocks, reefs, islands, and two headlands, spanning a total of 320 miles along the Oregon coast. 

The Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge provides sanctuary for seabirds and marine 

mammals. At Gregory Point, the refuge includes Gregory Point Rocks, Qochyax Island, and 

Simpson Reef. Simpson Reef is the only place in Oregon where extensive beds of giant kelp 

(Marcocysitis intergrifolia) are found. Shell Island in North Cove, south of Gregory Point, has 

the only breeding population of elephant seals in Oregon. There is no public access to the 

coastal rocks and islands making up the refuge, or the Crook Point Unit, as these areas have been 

designated as National Wilderness, with the exception of Tillamook Rock. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-7 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-2. Recreational Areas Within the Zones of Concern Along the Waterway for LNG Marine 

Traffic
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-8 on, and Visual Resources 

There are two Coos County parks overlapped by Zone of Concern 2 south of the waterway. The 

Charleston County Park is located in Charleston. Facilities include the Charleston Information 

Center, restrooms, parking area, and concrete fishing dock. Activities at this park include 

angling, crabbing, picnicking, and sightseeing. Further along the Cape Arago Highway, about 2 

miles southwest of Charleston, is Bastendorff Beach County Park. This 89-acre park is located 

on a hill overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The park is open year-round and includes 56 RV 

hookups and 35 tent spaces, with restrooms and showers. Other facilities include a fish cleaning 

station, two picnic shelters, playground, and basketball court. 

There are a number of city parks overlapped by the Zones of Concern on the east side of the 

waterway. Within Zone 2 is Ed Lund and Taylor-Wasson Parks in Empire, and Airport Heights 

Park in North Bend. Within Zone 3 is Empire Lakes at John Topits Park in the City of Coos 

Bay, State Street Park, Boynton Park, and Simpson Park. 

LNG marine traffic within the waterway to the Jordan Cove terminal should not have adverse 

impacts on parks and recreational areas overlapped by the Zones of Concern. Some park users 

would have views of the waterway, and could see the LNG carriers in transit. However, the 

carriers would quickly move out of the viewshed (as discussed below under section 4.7.1.4). 

There is also the remote possibility that an incident involving an LNG carrier could result in an 

LNG spill and associated pool fire if vapors are ignited that may affect parks and recreational 

areas overlapped by the Zones of Concern. In that situation, impacts would be greatest on parks 

within Zone 1, and least for parks within Zone 3. However, because of the safety and security 

measures recommended by the Coast Guard, it is highly unlikely that a spill would occur, and 

impacts on parks should not be significant. 

Other Public Interest Areas 

There are no occupied government structures, such as offices, within Zone of Concern 1. The 14 

government structures noted in table 4.7.1.3-1 may include public restroom facilities, recreationrelated facilities, or other physical improvements funded by a government entity. Within Zone 2 

are the Coos Bay Fire Department, and the Coos Bay District office of the BLM. The Southwest 

Oregon Regional Airport is also overlapped by Zone 2. Within Zone 3 are the Coos County 

Courthouse, North Bend Fire Department, and the North Bend Police Department. 

Normal LNG marine traffic in the waterway would not have any adverse effects on public 

facilities overlapped by the Zones of the Concern. Impacts might occur if there is an accidental 

or intentional breech of an LNG carrier, causing a spill or a fire if the vapors were to be ignited. 

Effects would be greatest within Zone of Concern 1, and lessen through Zones 2 and 3. 

However, with the safety and security measures recommended by the Coast Guard, an LNG spill 

and pool fire 

TABLE 4.7.1.3-1 

Structures within Zones of Concern Along the Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

Structure Type Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 

Residence 0 2,588 2,869 

Commercial 4 158 338 

Government 14 91 116 

Church 0 8 17 

School 0 12 18 

Recreation 3 14 15 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-9 on, and Visual Resources

would be highly unlikely, therefore there would be no significant impacts on schools, or 

government offices, or public facilities. 

4.7.1.4 Visual Resources 

Traveling between 4 and 10 knots, an LNG carrier would cross through the viewshed of points 

along the shoreline of the waterway in a few minutes. While the LNG carriers are indeed large 

vessels, when compared to other vessels using Coos Bay, they are relatively close in size to those 

cargo ships that frequent the bay for the purpose of loading and hauling wood products, which 

average around 190 meters in length. Because ships of this scale are already a regular 

occurrence in the waterway, the presence of LNG carriers would not be a new impact on the 

visual resources of the waterway. 

4.7.2 Jordan Cove LNG Terminal 

4.7.2.1 Land Use 

The proposed Jordan Cove LNG import terminal would be located on the bay side of the North 

Spit, about 7.5 miles up the Coos Bay navigation channel, within the jurisdiction of Coos 

County, approximately 1,000 feet north of the city limit of North Bend. The LNG terminal tract 

would be within the private property identified on Coos County Assessor’s map as tax lots 

100/200/300, within Sections 4, 5, and 8, Township 25 South, Range 15 West. The Port 

Commercial Sand Stockpile Area is in Section 18, T25S,R15W, while its associated dredge 

slurry pipeline would follow the Trans-Pacific Parkway through Sections 5, 8, and 7. The 

Weyerhaeuser Linerboard Dredge Material Storage Area is partly located in Section 3, T25S, 

R15W. 

The terminal would be located within a parcel that would be leased and purchased from the Port 

and Roseburg. The slip would be owned by the Port, and leased to Jordan Cove. The Port has 

recently acquired a tract of 1,100 acres from Weyerhaeuser. Jordan Cove would purchase 149 

acres of this land, which is currently vacant, from the Port. Historically, the LNG terminal tract 

was once part of the Henderson Ranch, which operated in this area between about 1889 to 1958. 

In 1961 it was acquired as part of the Menasha Wood Ware Corporation mill property, and was 

sold to Weyerhaeuser in 1981. In the early 1970s the COE used the site to deposit materials it 

was dredging during maintenance of the Coos Bay navigation channel. The Weyerhaeuser 

Linerboard dredge disposal site was the location of the Menasha sulfite pulp and paper mill. 

After it was acquired by Weyerhaeuser, it was converted into a recycle paper mill in 1995, and 

closed in 2003. The buildings have been removed from this site, but foundations remain. 

The proposed LNG terminal is open, vacant, and industrial land (see figure 4.7-3). The western 

portion of the tract to be obtained from the Port is relatively flat, where formerly dredge 

materials were deposited and are now covered by brush and grasses. The eastern portion 

includes a forested dune. Jordan Cove would also purchase about 10 acres of industrial land 

from Roseburg. In addition, Jordan Cove would temporarily use about 32.8 acres of industrial 

land within the existing Roseburg property for construction staging activities. The Roseburg 

property to the east of the dune is mostly flat, and is graded and graveled in places. Jordan Cove 

would acquire an operational easement over 14.4 acres of Port land to cover the full extent of the 

LNG terminal thermal radiation and vapor exclusion zones, and an easement of 6.4 acres from 

Roseburg for the access road to the terminal. About 82.2 acres within the tract Jordan Cove 

acquired from the Port would not be affected by terminal construction or operation of the 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-10 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-3. Existing Land Use of the LNG Terminal Site Area 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-11 on, and Visual Resources

facilities, and would be preserved as open vacant lands, dunes, or protected wetlands. A 

complete list of acres and land use covered by the Jordan Cove LNG terminal facilities is in table 

4.7.2.1-1. 

TABLE 4.7.2.1-1 

Land Use at the Proposed Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal

Land Area 

(acres) 

Acres Affected 

During Construction 

Acres Affected 

During Operation Current Land Use 

LNG TERMINAL FACILITES 

Batch Plant and Roof Assembly Area (1) 13.9 4.0 13.9 a/ Vacant/Open 

Access/Administration (2) 18.1 6.2 6.2 Vacant/Open 

Marine Access/Pipeway (3) 15.7 14.7 12.4 Vacant/Open 

Process Area (4) 20.3 20.3 17.6 Vacant/Open 

LNG Tank Area (5) 19.3 19.3 9.4 Vacant/Open 

Firewater Pond (6) 3.7 3.7 1.8 Industrial/Open 

Wetland Area (E1) 28.4 0.0 0.0 Vacant/Open 

Sand Dune Area (E2) 20.2 0.0 0.0 Vacant/Open 

LNG Unloading Berth Dune (E4) 13.2 2.0 0.0 Vacant/Open 

Sand Dune Area (E5) 6.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant/Open 

Total LNG Terminal Property 158.8 70.2 61.3 

EASEMENT AREA 

Wetland Area (E3) 14.4 0.0 0.0 Vacant/Open 

Access Road (R1) 6.4 6.4 6.4 Industrial 

Total Easement Area 20.8 6.4 6.4 

CONSTRUCTION AREAS 

Construction Staging Area 31.7 31.7 0.0 Industrial/Open 

Temporary Off-Site Parking Areas 

Roseburg Facility Parking Area b/ 11.0 11.0 0.0 Industrial/Open 

McCullough Bridge Parking Area (2) c/ 117.0 8.0 0.0 Industrial/Open 

Total Construction Areas 159.7 50.7 0.0 

PORT FACILITIES 

Slip 47 47 47 Vacant/Open 

Access Channel 25 25 25 Vacant and Open 

Water 

Total Port Facilities 72 72 72 

DREDGED MATERIAL FACILITIES 

Weyerhaeuser Site 

Haul Road and Dredge Slurry Pipeline 

Corridor to Linerboard Stockpile Areas d/

6.3 6.3 0.0 Industrial 

Weyerhaeuser Linerboard Excavated and 

Dredged Material Stockpile Area 

110 66 66 Industrial 

Port Site 

Dredge Slurry Pipeline to Port Sand 

Stockpile Area e/ 3 3 0 Industrial or Open 

Water 

Port Commercial Sand Stockpile Area f/ 68 68 0 g/ Vacant/Open 

Total Dredged Materials Facilities 187.3 143.3 66 

NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

NGL Storage and Rail Load Out Facility 0.5 0.5 0.5 Industrial 

Total Nonjurisdictional Facilities 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Grand Total: 599.1 343.1 206.2 

a/ After the Batch Plant is removed, up to 500,000 cy of dredged material from the port facilities would be placed in this site. It 

would be contoured to match surround sand dunes and vegetated with native grasses to discourage use of the site by snowy 

plovers. 

b/ Parking area located on gravel/cemented area on the adjacent Roseburg Forest Products Site. 

c/ Applicant has not confirmed site for this parking area. The largest of two possible sites chosen for analysis in the draft EIS. 

d/ Access Road (R1) acreage excluded to avoid double-counting affected area. Pipeline to be laid on two access roads shoulder. 

Only 0.97 acres off of access roads. 

e/ Approximate 10 foot right-of-way; pipe would be laid on the ground and stabilized with sandbags to prevent pipe movement; 

post-construction area would be revegetated as necessary. 

f/ Dredged material to be sold from site over seven years. 

g/ After dredged material is removed, Port would determine future use of site. Applicant is prepared to rehabilitate/revegetate site 

to pre-construction conditions. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-12 on, and Visual Resources 

Construction of the LNG terminal would affect a total of about 343 acres, while operational 

facilities would cover 206 acres, including excavated and dredged material disposal areas. It is 

estimated that after the terminal is constructed, structures would cover a total of about 3.5 acres, 

while about 10.7 acres would be paved roadways. 

The LNG terminal, slip and access channel are located within the aquatic and shoreline segments 

of the CBEMP. The access channel and inter-tidal portion of the slip fall within zoning district 6 

– Development Aquatic (6-DA). The purpose of the 6-DA zone is to provide areas for 

navigation and other water-dependent uses. The upland portions of the LNG terminal are located 

within the Coastal Shorelands Boundary and are designated 6-WD (Segment 6 – Water 

Dependent). This segment is planned and zoned for water dependent and water related 

commercial and industrial development, including port and docking facilities. Fill for 

development is allowed, provided that necessary permits from the COE and ODSL are obtained. 

Jordan Cove applied for an Administrative Conditional Use (ACU) permit from Coos County in 

March 2007. The County deemed the land use application complete on April 3, 2007. In 

December 2007, the Coos County Board of Commissioner’s issued an order that approved the 

ACU for the LNG upland terminal facilities. A second ACU approval was granted for the Port 

slip by the Coos County Commissioners in January 2008. Both of these approvals were appealed 

by Project opponents to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and were heard by 

LUBA during the spring and summer of 2008. In the case of the upland terminal facilities 

LUBA found in favor of the County Commissioners on all but three conditions. These three 

conditions were remanded back to Coos County to correct errors. The opponents appealed one 

of the LUBA-approved conditions to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On October 22, 2008 the 

Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the LUBA decision on this particular condition. The opponents 

have since appealed the Court of Appeals decision up to the Oregon Supreme Court. No action 

can be taken by Coos County to issue corrections to the three remanded conditions until the 

Oregon Supreme Court has issued its ruling. The second appeal to LUBA covering the Port’s 

slip, was upheld by LUBA and was not appealed further. The ACU process for the Port’s slip is 

now complete. 

A third ACU ruling was required for the use of Port-owned land to stockpile sand that would be 

removed during the construction of the slip. The Coos County ACU approval for this was issued 

in the summer of 2008 and was not appealed; therefore, this ACU approval is completed for this 

element of the Project. 

Coastal Zone Management 

The Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be located within the Oregon coastal zone (figure 4.7-4). 

The coastal zone is formally defined as extending from the Washington border on the north to 

the California border on the south; seaward to the extent of state jurisdiction as recognized by 

federal law (i.e., the territorial sea, extending 3 nautical miles offshore); and inland to the crest of 

the Oregon Coast Range. Management of the coastal zone is addressed in the OCMP that 

combines the state laws for managing Oregon’s coastal lands and waters into a single, 

coordinated package approved by the federal government under the CZMA. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-13 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-4. Costal Zone Management Area 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-14 on, and Visual Resources 

Staff at the ODLCD, Ocean and Coastal Services Division participates in reviews for projects 

proposed in Oregon’s coastal zone. Procedures for ODLCD coastal zone reviews are specified 

in federal regulations (15 CFR 930) and state regulations (OAR 660-035). As the state’s 

designated coastal management agency, the ODLCD is responsible for reviewing projects for 

consistency with the OCMP and issuing coastal management decisions. ODLCD's reviews 

involve consultation with local governments, state agencies, federal agencies, and other 

interested parties in determining Project consistency with the OCMP. Jordan Cove filed its 

request for a consistency determination with the ODLCD in September 2007, but was found by 

ODLCD to be incomplete in October 2007. 

4.7.2.2 Existing Residences, Commercial Buildings and Planned Developments 

The nearest residential structure to the proposed LNG terminal is 1.06 miles to the southeast. 

The closest commercial buildings are part of the Roseburg industrial facility adjacent to the 

Jordan Cove LNG terminal. All structures, including businesses, residences, schools, churches, 

and government buildings within 2 miles of the LNG terminal site are summarized in table 

4.7.2.2-1 below and shown on figure 4.7-5. 

TABLE 4.7.2.2-1 

Structures Within Two Miles of the Proposed Jordan Cove LNG Terminal

Structure Type Number of Structures 

Businesses 49 

Residences 1,438 

Schools 2 

Churches 6 

Government Buildings 70 

Total Structures within 2 miles 1,565 

There are currently no planned residential or commercial developments identified within 1.0 

mile of the proposed LNG terminal. The cities of Coos Bay and North Bend have several 

residential developments that are under various stages of planning, approval, and construction. 

The closest of these developments to the LNG terminal is a multi-unit condominium located in 

the City of Coos Bay on the shoreline of Coos Bay off Fenwick Street near Maxwell Road, 

approximately 1.1 miles to the south of the site. This condominium is currently in the planning 

phase. Additionally, a cluster of single-family residences have been approved and are under 

construction in an area near the northwest boundary of the City of North Bend and the northeast 

boundary of the City of Coos Bay, more than 1 mile south of the proposed LNG terminal. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-15 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-5. Structures Within Two Miles of the JCEP Site 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-16 on, and Visual Resources 

4.7.2.3 Recreation, Public Interest, and Special Use Areas 

Parks and Other Recreational Use Areas 

The proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal would not have any facilities sited on, and would not 

directly affect any: 

• designated federal or state wild or scenic rivers; 

• federal, state or local designated trails; 

• nature preserves; 

• game management areas; 

• remnant prairie, old-growth forest, or state forests; 

• parks or golf courses; or 

• federal wilderness areas. 

The Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be located on private land, and no recreational activities 

would be allowed within the facility boundaries. However, there are areas where recreational 

activities do occur in close proximity to the LNG terminal. This includes recreational activities 

on OPRD and ODSL lands along the Pacific Ocean coastal side of the North Spit, and activities 

within the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA (managed by the Coos Bay District of the BLM), the 

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area (managed by the Siuslaw National Forest), and the 

Coos Bay estuary. These recreation areas are shown on figure 4.7-2. 

Recreational use of the beach along the Pacific coast on the ocean side of the North Spit, less 

than 1.5 miles west of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal, and the Coos Bay Shorelands 

SRMA are discussed in section 4.7.1.3. About 0.5 mile west of the proposed LNG terminal, on 

the north side of the Trans-Pacific Parkway, is the North Spit Overlook and nature trail. These 

facilities are maintained by Weyerhaeuser, to provide the public an opportunity to observe 

wildlife and birds in the vicinity of its former wastewater lagoon on the North Spit. 

The proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be within 0.5 mile of the Oregon Coastal Trail 

where it follows Horsfall Beach Road and joins the Trans-Pacific Parkway. The Oregon Coastal 

Trail is a 360-mile hiking trail from the Columbia River to the California border. The trail was 

created by the Oregon Recreation Trails Advisory Council and is managed by the OPRD as part 

of the state park system. The trail crosses beaches, follows roads, passes through forests, and 

hugs coastal headlands. North of Coos Bay the trail leaves the coastal beach and follows 

Horsfall Beach Access Road southward where it eventually connects with Highway 101, passes 

through the cities of North Bend and Coos Bay, and reaches the Pacific again near Cape Arago 

(OPRD 2001). 

The Siuslaw National Forest administers the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area (NRA). It 

extends 40 miles along the Oregon Coast between Florence and Coos Bay. The Oregon Dunes 

NRA contains the largest expanse of coastal sand dunes in North America, as well as a coastal 

forest and over 30 lakes and ponds. Recreational opportunities at the NRA include OHV use, 

hiking, camping, horseback riding, angling, canoeing, sailing, water-skiing, and swimming. 

Thousands of OHV owners take advantage of the three main off-highway riding areas within the 

Oregon Dunes NRA. The day use and overnight camping facilities are used by over 400,000 

visitors a year. The southern boundary of the Oregon Dunes NRA is about 1.8 miles north of the 

Jordan Cove LNG terminal site. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-17 on, and Visual Resources

The access channel to the LNG terminal would be within Coos Bay, which forms the major part 

of the broader Coos Bay estuary. The Coos Bay estuary covers 54 square miles of open channels 

and periodically flooded tidal flats. Submerged waters and tidelands in the bay are the property 

of the state of Oregon, managed by the ODSL. The COE is responsible for the maintenance of 

the Coos Bay navigation channel. Please see section 4.3 for a thorough discussion on water 

resources. 

The Coos Bay estuary is utilized for recreational boating, angling, clamming and crabbing, as 

well as commercial fishing, oyster farming, and commercial shipping. Commercial shipping and 

fishing are discussed in section 4.8. Recreational boating and fishing in Coos Bay were 

discussed in section 4.7.1.3. 

Coos Bay is the largest commercial producer of shellfish in the state of Oregon. Oysters are 

commercially raised in the mudflats of South Slough and Haynes Inlet and the upper bay east of 

McCullough Bridge. Clamming occurs at Haynes Inlet. Recreational crabbing occurs 

throughout the lower and mid-bay. Aquatic resources are more fully discussed in section 4.5. 

Hunting activities are managed by the ODFW. Big game, waterfowl, and furbearing animals are 

hunted in the public areas of the North Spit and within the Siuslaw National Forest during the 

legal seasons. 

Construction and operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal would have no direct adverse 

effects on nearby parks or disbursed recreational activities, such as hunting or OHV use, on the 

North Spit. There may be some conflicts between recreational drivers on the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway and construction traffic to the LNG terminal. Jordan Cove filed a Transportation 

Impact Analysis, and this issue is addressed in section 4.9. There could also be indirect affects 

on nearby recreationalists resulting from LNG terminal construction noise. 

Recreational boating in the bay would be redirected away from the access channel and slip for 

the proposed LNG terminal during the construction period that includes dredging within Coos 

Bay. Notices would be provided to boaters by the Coast Guard and the OSMB to avoid this area 

during the dredging activities. Signs would be posted at the shoreline and at the boat ramps and 

marinas, and on buoys in the bay, in advance of this final task to notify boaters of the planned 

construction activity and the duration of the activity. If the signage and notices are not sufficient 

to prevent recreational boating from avoiding the construction areas, some form of physical 

barrier, like a continuous string of highly visible soft material floats may be extended across the 

mouth of the slip or around the construction area. Construction safety inspectors would also be 

responsible to warn any recreational boaters who insist on endangering themselves by coming 

into the construction area. Boaters could avoid the construction area merely by moving to the 

east side of the bay. During operation of the terminal, recreational boaters would have to avoid 

the slip when a carrier is at berth, and stay out of the safety and security zone established by the 

Coast Guard. 

There may be short term impacts from construction noise on people recreating in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal. This includes recreational users of the North Spit coastal 

beach, the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA, and Oregon Dunes NRA. Modeling of noise levels 

from general construction activities and from pile driving activities were conducted and are 

discussed in section 4.11. Based on the results of the modeling, hikers, bird watchers, and other 

pedestrian recreations near the North Spit Overlook within approximately one mile of 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-18 on, and Visual Resources 

construction activities and may experience increases in the ambient sound environment. 

Predicted levels beyond one mile are 55 dBA for both general construction and pile driving. Pile 

driving related noise is predicted to be approximately 48 dBA at distances of 1.5 miles from the 

slip area. Recreational users on sand roads in the SRMA may also experience temporary 

background noise from the construction. OHVs that are allowed in these areas would also 

contribute to the ambient noise levels. Typical noise from OHVs is about 93 decibels, which 

exceeds and would overshadow the predicted LNG terminal construction noise levels. 

Distance, topography and vegetation would help to minimize construction noise in the portions 

of the Oregon Dunes NRA where OHVs are not allowed (between the Trans-Pacific Parkway 

and Horsfall Beach Access Road). Construction of the LNG terminal would last for 

approximately 36 months. During construction, Jordan Cove intends to comply with the City of 

North Bend’s noise ordinance that prohibits the “making of unnecessary noise,” although the 

ordinance has no specific numerical limits (North Bend City Code, Section 9.04.030). Daytime 

construction noise between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. is exempt. Coos County does not have a 

noise ordinance. In addition, Jordan Cove would limit construction activities primarily to 

daylight hours. The anticipate shift time that pile driving would be conducted is 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

The duration of this activity is expected to be approximately 32 weeks and would likely start in 

the late summer or fall of the year, pending the timing of the regulatory approval process. 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be unaffected by construction activities. With 

construction restricted to daytime hours, and given the temporal nature of construction, adjacent 

recreational users would not be adversely affected. Details on potential air and noise related 

effects are presented in section 4.11. 

Other Public and Special Land Uses 

The proposed LNG terminal would be approximately 0.9 mile from the Southwest Oregon 

Regional Airport. Potential impacts of the proposed LNG terminal on the airport are addressed 

in sections 4.8 and 4.9. 

4.7.2.4 Visual Resources 

Procedures for describing the existing visual condition of the landscape and visual impact 

assessment used for the LNG terminal are consistent with methodologies developed by the BLM 

(1981), USFS (1973, 1995), the Federal Highway Administration (1981), and the COE (Smardon 

et al. 1988). The following section describes the techniques for assessing potential terminal 

visibility. 

Visual Assessment Points 

A visual impact assessment was conducted to determine the potential impacts on the visual 

resources associated with the LNG terminal. Representative viewing points (hereafter referred to 

as key observation points or KOPs) were identified within the terminal viewshed, or the area 

from which the terminal would be potentially visible. Objects typically become apparent to the 

viewer when they are seen in the foreground, at a distance of one-half mile or less, but may 

affect viewers when they are present in the middleground (up to 4 miles from the viewer) 

depending on the extend of landscape modification. In the case of the proposed LNG terminal, 

the viewshed for the terminal extends to a distance of approximately 2 miles from the LNG 

terminal site and was defined using aerial and ground photography, local planning documents, 

computer modeling, and field reconnaissance. Site visits to document existing visual conditions 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-19 on, and Visual Resources

in the terminal area and to identify potentially affected sensitive viewing locations were 

conducted in April 2006 at the proposed LNG terminal site. These KOPs were selected to 

characterize the visibility of the proposed facility and its impact on potential viewers and the 

landscape in which it would be constructed and operated. From much of the terminal viewshed, 

it is anticipated that views of the LNG terminal would be partially or fully screened by existing 

trees, landforms, or intervening development. 

The types of viewing points included in the assessment consisted of locations with 

concentrations of viewers such as major roadways or housing developments, visually sensitive 

land uses such as parks and recreation areas, culturally sensitive locations such as historic sites, 

and places designated as having scenic importance such as highways and overlooks. Figure 4.7-

6 indicates the locations of the KOPs and the individual KOPs are described in detail below. 

Analyzing potential visual impacts from a series of viewing points allows the experience of 

actual viewers to be taken into account. Potential impacts from these locations can then be 

evaluated by superimposing the proposed LNG terminal structures and other developmental 

impacts (e.g., vegetation removal) as viewed from these locations. 

LNG Terminal – Existing Visual Conditions 

The proposed LNG terminal would be located on an approximately 159-acre undeveloped site on 

the bay side of the North Spit of Coos Bay, in Coos County, Oregon. The LNG terminal site is 

bordered on the south by Coos Bay and on the west by Henderson Marsh. On the east side of the 

LNG terminal is the Roseburg industrial facility , which includes a dock for mooring ships, 

infrastructure for loading ships that includes a 190-foot high loading tower, large wood chip piles 

with associated heavy equipment used for transport of the piles, two large buildings, several 

small outbuildings, and two large water tanks. The LNG terminal site is bordered on the north 

by the Trans-Pacific Parkway and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, less than 1.5 miles to 

the west of the LNG terminal is the Pacific coast beach. Between the Parkway and the beach, is 

the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA, characterized by both exposed sand and forest-covered sand 

dunes. 

Other commercial/industrial facilities are located between 1 and 2 miles southwest of the 

proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal along the bay side of the North Spit, including buildings at 

Southport and D.B. Western. On the eastern side of Coos Bay are urbanized areas (e.g., 

commercial and residential) within the cities of North Bend and Coos Bay. At the northwestern 

end of the City of North Bend is the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport along the shoreline of 

Coos Bay, about 0.9 mile east from the LNG terminal. The presence of this highly visible 

development and infrastructure, in combination with the relative openness of the site, results in a 

landscape setting that has a mix of both natural and man-made elements. 

Topography on the west side of the proposed LNG terminal parcel is generally flat, where fill 

material have been covered by brush and grasses. The east side of the LNG terminal tract 

includes forested sand dune ridges reaching elevations that exceed 100 feet above MSL. The 

Weyerhaeuser Linerboard sites are on a flat, former industrial area. The Port Commercial Sand 

Storage site is within a parcel of sparsely vegetated low rolling sand dunes, between two 

industrial enterprises (Southport and D.B. Western). 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-20 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-6. Recreational Site Map 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-21 on, and Visual Resources

Visual Simulations 

To document the proposed visual changes, computer-based visual simulations were prepared to 

show the LNG terminal from the ten KOPs. The visual simulations are presented as existing 

views (e.g. before) and visual simulation (e.g. after) images from these KOPs. The visual impact 

assessment was based on evaluation of the changes to the existing visual resources that would 

result from construction and operation the proposed facilities based on the results of the 

simulation. 

The computer-generated visual simulations are the result of an objective analytical and computer 

modeling process and are accurate within the constraints of the available site and LNG terminal 

data. Existing GIS and engineering data, and digital aerial photographs provided the basis for 

developing three-dimensional digital models of the LNG storage tanks and of the pipeline rightof-way in a pre-determined real world coordinate system. 

Once the KOPs were established, site photographs were taken. For each of the KOPs, viewer 

location was obtained by acquiring global positioning system coordinates. Other information 

such as the compass bearing of the photograph orientation, time of day, ground elevation, and 

weather conditions were noted for later use in the computer models and renderings. Digital 

visual simulations of proposed facilities were then produced based on computer renderings of the 

three-dimensional models combined with the associated GPS field data. 

Visual Impact Assessment 

An adverse impact on visual resources was considered significant and would require mitigation 

if construction or operation of the LNG terminal facilities would: 

• cause inconsistency with adopted Visual Resource Management (VRM) Plans of the 

BLM; 

• conflict with existing plans, policies, or regulations, and/or ordinances regarding 

aesthetics and visual resources established by a jurisdiction (state, county, or local 

governments) directly affected by the LNG terminal. In those areas where no VRM 

Plans exist, significant impacts are determined by examining the study area for sensitive 

viewsheds, areas of high user volumes, and areas of unique visual resources. Sensitive 

resources are then examined on a case-by-case basis to determine level of impact. 

Significant impacts are those that dominate the viewshed from sensitive locations and 

change the character of the landscape both in terms of physical characteristics and land 

uses; 

• displace or destroy a sensitive receptor location (business or permanent residence) from 

its established location; 

• visually and/or physically divide an established community; 

• result in reductions in the quality of the recreation experience for more than one visitor 

use season (such as from increased noise and dust, reduced visual quality from landscape 

modifications and night illumination, reduced visibility to valued landscape features, 

and/or reduced water quality); 

• result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista; 

• substantially damage scenic resources (including, but not limited to, trees, rock 

outcroppings, and/or historic buildings) visible from a state or federal scenic area, 

National Recreation Area, Scenic Byway, or Scenic Highway; 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-22 on, and Visual Resources 

• substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings; or 

• create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or 

nighttime views in the area. 

Shortterm Visual Impacts During Construction

Construction of the LNG terminal would be noticeable to recreational users on Coos Bay, in 

portions of the Oregon Dunes NRA, in portions of the North Spit Overlook, and in the Coos Bay 

Shorelands SRMA including the boat launch. Some residences in both the cities of North Bend 

and Coos Bay would also have views across the bay to the terminal. Construction activities 

would also be noticeable to motorists using the Trans-Pacific Parkway and the Pacific Coast 

Scenic Byway (Highway 101). Visual effects from construction activities would include dust as 

well as the presence of construction equipment on the LNG terminal site. These effects would 

be temporary and limited to the construction period. 

Longterm Visual Impacts

Based on the visual simulations the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be visible to the 

public and would alter the existing visual character and quality of the site and, in some instances, 

the surrounding area. In addition to installation of the LNG tanks, another permanent impact 

includes the removal of portions of a forested dune located on the eastern portion of the terminal 

site. This hill is a prominent topographic feature and its removal was incorporated in the 

computer-aided drawings for the visual simulation. 

The proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal would have a moderate to high visual impact on the 

surrounding residential communities due to vegetation removal, landform modifications, and 

introduction of the LNG facilities in a previously undeveloped area. Many of the residences in 

the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend are sited on hillsides or along the shoreline with views of 

Coos Bay and the North Spit. These residences would have views of the Jordan Cove LNG 

terminal from middle ground view distances of over one mile. Moderate visual impacts are 

anticipated for residences that would have views of the Jordan Cove and slip site as seen when 

looking out over or between other residences and vegetation. This scenario generally applies to 

residences on hillsides. Residences located along the shoreline of Coos Bay off Maxwell Road, 

Seagate Avenue, and to a lesser extent, Fenwick Street would have greater visual impacts than 

the hillside residents. This is due to the existing scenic quality along the shoreline and the 

generally unobstructed views of the Jordan Cove terminal. The visual impact for these 

residences is considered high even when coupled with the fact that the shoreline residences 

currently have views of the industrial and commercial activities to the east of the Jordan Cove 

and the slip sites. 

The Jordan Cove LNG terminal facilities would be visible to recreational users on Coos Bay, in 

portions of the Oregon Dunes NRA, from the North Spit Overlook, and in portions of the Coos 

Bay Shorelands SRMA including the BLM boat launch. Visual impacts on recreational users in 

these areas with views of the Jordan Cove terminal would be moderate. LNG facilities would 

also be noticeable to motorists using the Trans-Pacific Parkway and the Pacific Coast Scenic 

Byway (Highway 101). Visual impacts to travelers on these roadways would be low. The visual 

impact assessment from each of the KOPs is addressed below. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-23 on, and Visual Resources

KOP-T1 Weyerhaeuser North Spit Overlook—Located approximately 0.6 mile north of the 

two proposed LNG storage tanks, this point represents views of recreationists using the North 

Spit Overlook and nature trail. There would be an unobstructed view of the LNG terminal from 

this location. Additionally, once the forested sand dune is removed, as shown in figure 4.7-7, 

facilities at the adjacent Roseburg wood chip facility would become visible from this vantage 

point. 

KOP-T2 Trans-Pacific Parkway—Located approximately 0.3 mile north of the two proposed 

LNG storage tanks, this point represents views from the Trans-Pacific Parkway. As shown in 

figure 4.7-8, there would be an unobstructed view of the LNG terminal site from location. 

Additionally, facilities at the adjacent Roseburg wood chip facility would become visible after 

the forested sand dune is removed. 

KOP-T3 Horsfall Beach Campground, Parking, and Staging Area—Located approximately 

1.6 mile northwest of the two proposed LNG storage tanks, this point represents views seen by 

recreationists using the Oregon Dunes NRA. The simulation indicates that the domes of the 

LNG storage tanks would be visible above the existing tree line (figure 4.7-9). Intervening 

topography and vegetation obstructs views to other LNG terminal facilities from this vantage 

point. 

KOP-T4 Highway 101 North of the Intersection with the Trans-Pacific Parkway—Located 

approximately 2.3 miles east of the two LNG storage tanks this point represents views seen by 

motorists on the Trans-Pacific Parkway. From the point the 190-foot high loading tower at the 

Roseburg facility can barely be seen above the tree line at the far left side of the photographs. As 

shown in figure 4.7-10, the LNG storage tanks, located behind and to the right of the Roseburg 

structure, would be obstructed by intervening landforms and vegetation. 

KOP-T5 Highway 101 on the North Side of the McCullough Bridge—Located approximately 

2.3 mile east of the two LNG storage tanks, this point is representative of the views seen by 

motorists on Highway 101 and residents in the City of North Bend. The simulation shows the 

forested sand dune that would be removed. The LNG storage tanks are located behind another 

forested hill and therefore would not be visible from this location (figure 4.7-11). Additionally, 

buildings and other aboveground facilities/materials located on the Roseburg site would obscure 

views of most of the LNG terminal facilities. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-24 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-7. KOP-T1. Weyerhaeuser North Spit Overlook. Existing and Simulated Views of the 

LNG Terminal from the Weyerhaeuser North Spit Overlook 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-25 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-8. KOP-T2. Trans-Pacific Parkway. Existing and Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal 

from the Trans-Pacific Parkway 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-26 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-9. KOP-T3. Beach Campground, Parking, and Staging Area. Existing and Simulated 

Views of the LNG Terminal from the Horsfall Beach Campground 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-27 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-10. KOP-T4. Highway 101 North of the Intersection with the Trans-Pacific Parkway.

Existing and Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal from Highway 101 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-28 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-11. KOP-T5. Highway 101 on the North Side of the McCullough Bridge. Existing and 

Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal from Highway 101 on the North Side of 

McCullough Bridge 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-29 on, and Visual Resources

KOP-T6 Highway 101 on the South Side of the McCullough Bridge—Located approximately 

2.3 mile east of the two proposed LNG storage tanks, this point is also representative views seen 

by motorists along Highway 101 and people in the City of North Bend. The LNG storage tanks 

would be visible from this location (figure 4.7-12). 

KOP-T7 Airport Lane in North Bend—Located approximately 1.3 mile south of the two LNG 

storage tanks, this point represents views seen by North Bend residents. The LNG storage tanks 

and carriers docking at the slip would be visible from this location (figure 4.7-13).

KOP-T8 Boat Launch near Michigan Avenue in Empire—Located approximately 6.5 miles 

south of the two proposed LNG storage tanks, this point represents views seen by residents in the 

Empire neighborhood. The simulation indicates that the LNG storage tanks would be visible 

from this location, as would carriers docking at the slip (figure 4.7-14).

KOP-T9 Pier Near Industrial Facilities Near the South End of the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway—Located approximately 2.3 miles south of the proposed LNG storage tanks, this point 

represents views from the industrial area. The LNG storage tanks and carriers docking at the slip 

would visible from this location (figure 4.7-15). 

KOP-T10 BLM North Spit Boat Launch Area—Located approximately 2.3 miles west of the 

two proposed LNG storage tanks, this point represents the view seen by recreationists using the 

Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA. The simulation indicates that the LNG storage tanks and carriers 

docking at the slip would be visible from this location (figure 4.7-16). 

Proposed Mitigation 

Jordan Cove has proposed several measures that may mitigate visual impacts. The LNG storage 

tanks would be left the light grey-white color of the unpainted concrete, which, given the sand 

dunes in the area, would blend in with the background. Various tank profiles and locations were 

evaluated in order to minimize visual effects with the conclusion that the proposed size, profile, 

and location would be the optimum considering other environmental factors, safety, and 

reliability. The final design would include provisions to contour and stabilize landforms not 

affected by construction to provide some level of screening. The use of native plants for 

restoration and stabilization of the landforms would also be incorporated into the final design to 

the extent practical. 

Only lighting required for operation and maintenance, site safety and security, and to meet FAA 

requirements would be used on the LNG storage tanks and whenever possible, the light would be 

localized to minimize offsite effects. The lighting levels would be based on API standards. 

Lighting around equipment and facilities where routine maintenance activities could occur on a 

24-hour basis would range from 1 to 20 foot-candles, with 20 foot-candle lighting levels within 

the compressor enclosures. General process area lighting would be kept to a minimum, on the 

order of 2 foot-candles. LNG terminal access road lighting would be 0.4 foot-candles. Perimeter 

security would be on the order of 1.3 foot-candles, using evenly spaced 400-watt floodlights. As 

a frame of reference, 20 foot-candles is close to the indoor lighting in a typical home, 2 footcandles is typical of that found in a store parking lot, and 0.4 foot-candles is typical of residential 

street lighting. The FWS has not identified any concerns regarding the impacts of facility 

lighting on bird migration. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-30 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-12. KOP-T6. Highway 101 on the South Side of the McCullough Bridge. Existing and 

Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal from Highway 101 on the South Side of 

McCullough Bridge 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-31 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-13. KOP-T7. Airport Lane in North Bend. Existing and Simulated Views of the LNG 

Terminal from Airport Lane 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-32 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-14. KOP-T8. Boat Launch near Michigan Avenue in Empire. Existing and Simulated 

Views of the LNG Terminal from the Boat Launch near Michigan Avenue in Empire, 

Oregon 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-33 on, and Visual Resources

Figure 4.7-15. KOP-T9. Pier Near Industrial Facilities Near the South End of the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway. Existing and Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal from the Pier near the 

Southern End of the Trans-Pacific Highway 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-34 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-16. KOP-T10. Pier Near Industrial Facilities Near the South End of the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway. Existing and Simulated Views of the LNG Terminal from the BLM North Spit 

Boat Launch Area 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-35 on, and Visual Resources

4.7.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 

4.7.3.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning 

Approximately 62 percent of the land that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline is 

classified as forest (see section 4.4.1.3 for more details about forested lands); about 14 percent is 

agricultural land; about 10 percent is rangelands; about 9 percent is industrial or commercial; and 

about 0.2 percent is classified as residential. A summary of existing land uses crossed by the 

pipeline facilities is presented in table 4.7.3.1-1. 

The pipeline would cross a combined total of about 144.0 miles of forest, include deciduous 

forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest (containing both deciduous and evergreen trees), clearcut 

forest, and regenerating forest. About 32.4 miles of agricultural lands would be crossed, 

including cropland and pasture. The pipeline would cross about 22.4 miles of range, including 

herbaceous (grassy) rangelands, shrub and brush rangelands, and mixed (both grassy and brush) 

rangelands. Urban and built-up lands include residential areas, commercial areas, industrial 

areas, and transportation, communication and utility corridors (including roads, railroads, 

telephone lines, powerlines, and pipelines). The pipeline would cross about 13.9 miles combined 

of residential/commercial/industrial lands. Water includes oceans, bays and estuaries, lakes and 

reservoirs, rivers and streams, and ditches and canals. Wetlands include forested and nonforested wetlands. The pipeline would cross about 15.0 miles of water and wetlands combined. 

Less than 2 miles of barren lands would be crossed, including sandy areas other than beaches, 

exposed bedrock, strip mines, quarries, and gravel pits, transitional areas, and mixed barren 

lands. 

Installation of the pipeline would require the clearing of trees within the construction right-ofway. Excluding areas along the pipeline route that have already been clear cut, about 2,653 acres 

of upland forest would need to be cleared during pipeline construction activities. In addition, 

about 9.4 acres of forested wetlands would need to be cleared. Restoration and revegetation of 

forest was previously discussed in section 4.4. During operation of the pipeline, a 30-foot wide 

corridor centered on the pipeline would be kept in an herbaceous state, resulting in a permanent 

loss of about 525 acres of forest. Outside of that 30-foot-wide corridor, forest would be restored 

within the remainder of the construction right-of-way, including TEWAs. Pacific Connector 

would mitigate impacts on forest by following its ECRP. However, even with restoration, this 

would be a longterm impact, as it takes many years for trees to mature. About 6 acres of forest 

would be permanently removed within the boundaries of the proposed Butte Falls Compressor 

Station. 

About 587 acres of agricultural land would be affected by pipeline construction. After the 

pipeline is installed, these lands can be restored and returned to their original condition and use. 

Shallow-rooted crops or pasture grasses may be grown within the permanent easement, including 

on top of the pipeline. The planting of deep-rooted crops such as orchards and vineyards would 

not be permitted over the pipeline. Orchards comprise less than 0.5 mile of the pipeline route. 

Pacific Connector would compensate landowners for crop losses or orchards taken out as a result 

of pipeline construction. The only other permanent impact on agricultural lands would be the 

construction of aboveground facilities. As discussed under soils (Section 4.2.3.3) about 7 acres 

of cropland would be taken out of production by construction of the Tuley Lake/Russell 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-36

TABLE 4.7.3.1-1 

Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pacific Connector Project

Agriculture/ 

Rangeland c/ Residential 

Industrial/ 

Commercial d/ Forested Open e/ W

Facility Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. 

Pacific Connector Pipeline a/ 676.04 355.70 2.45 1.15 136.87 79.37 1,584.89 409.94 82.89 44.44 86.53 Jordan Cove Meter Station, MLV #1 and Communications Tower 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.70 0.70 1.31 1.31 0.00 

MLV #2 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #5 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #6 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clarks Branch Meter Station, MLV #7 and Communications Tower 

0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 

MLV #8 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shady Cove Meter Station and Communications Tower 

2.38 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.10 

Butte Falls Compressor Station, MLV #10 & Launcher/Receiver and Communications Tower 

1.30 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.60 5.60 0.35 0.35 0.09 

MLV #11 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #13 and Launcher/ Receiver Site 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 

MLV #14 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLV #15 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tule Lake, Russell Canyon Meter Stations, MLV #16, Receiver and Communications Tower 

6.60 6.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Subtotal Pacific Connector Aboveground Facilities 

11.60 11.60 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.26 7.68 7.68 1.76 1.76 0.19 

Access Roads 3.14 0.71 0.00 0.00 17.80 1.42 2.9 0.70 0.83 0.66 0.00 Additional Temporary Workspace 

426.53 0.00 5.38 0.00 273.42 0.00 544.0 0.00 811.44 0.00 34.04 

Extra Space, OTHER b/ 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.69 0.00 19.6 0.00 3.21 0.00 0.14 Total Acres g/ 1,120.21 368.01 7.88 1.20 459.04 81.05 2,159.07 418.32 900.13 46.86 120.90 a/ Includes 95-foot-wide standard construction right-of-way for the pipeline, and an operational right-of-way of 53, 60, or 75 feet depending on land ownership. b/ Includes hydrostatic discharge and rock source/disposal sites. c/ Includes tree plantations d/ Includes transportation and utility lands. e/ Includes wetland, beaches and barren land. f/ Includes open water, streams and ditches. g/ Totals do not include acreage for contractor and pipe storage yards required during construction.
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-37 on, and Visual Resources 

Canyon/Buck Butte meter stations. Pacific Connector would purchase this property and 

converty it to industrial use. Elsewhere, except for the crossing of orchards, impacts on 

agricultural lands would be temporary and short term, during construction, as Pacific Connector 

would use its ECRP to restore those lands. 

To lessen and mitigate impacts on agricultural lands, Pacific Connector would segregate topsoil 

and repair any damaged irrigation systems or drain titles. The segregation of topsoil is discussed 

in section 4.2. The largest proportion of agricultural lands crossed by the pipeline, a total of 

about 30 miles of privately irrigated cropland, would be in Klamath County. Pacific Connector 

would reduce or mitigate impacts by using a winter construction schedule between MPs 188 and 

230, when many of the irrigation canals are dry or unused, and water tables are low. Payments 

for crop losses and damages would be negotiated between Pacific Connector and individual 

private landowners. 

The primary impact on pasture and rangelands used for grazing livestock would be temporary 

removal of fences during construction of the pipeline. To mitigate those impacts, Pacific 

Connector would erect temporary fences and gates. Fences cut would be braced and secured to 

prevent slack wires. After construction, fences, gates, and cattle guards would be restored to 

their original state as soon as practical. Prior to construction, Pacific Connector would notify 

landowners, providing them with an opportunity to remove livestock from the construction rightof-way. About 4.1 acres pasture land would be taken out of production by construction of the 

Clarks Branch and Shady Cove meter stations (see Section 4.2.3.3). Pacific Connector would 

purchase this land and convert it to industrial use. 

We discuss impacts and mitigation for the crossing of residential and commercial lands below in 

section 4.7.3.2. The crossing of roads by the pipeline is discussed in section 4.9. When crossing 

other underground utilities, Pacific Connector would follow standard pipeline construction 

procedures, such as calling the One-Call underground utility number prior to construction in a 

specific area, and contacting the utility companies to coordinate the crossing. The crossing of 

waterbodies and wetlands is discussed in section 4.3. 

During scoping we received a number of comments from landowners that would be affected by 

the Pacific Connector pipeline. Concerns expressed included potential impact on private 

landowner rights, use of eminent domain to acquire rights-of-way, allowed future land uses, 

property values, construction disturbance, potential damage to wells and septic systems, potential 

loss of trees and fencing and as a result of those, privacy. Several commenters and affected 

landowners also suggested possible route variations that would avoid or minimize impacts on 

specific properties. Pipeline route variations are discussed in section 3.4.2. Douglas County 

raised concerns about pipeline impacts on private landowners, and requested that the power of 

eminent domain only be used as a last resort, and that Pacific Connector should negotiate with 

property owners to address their concerns. Landowner issues are more fully discussed below. 

The pipeline would cross 45.7 miles within Coos County, between MPs 0.0 and 45.7; 64.3 miles 

in Douglas County between MPs 45.7 and 110.0; 56.7 miles within Jackson County between 

MPs 109.7 and 166.4, and 64.5 miles within Klamath County between MPs 166.4 and 230.9. In 

Coos County the pipeline would cross lands zoned predominantly Farm (F) and Exclusive Farm 

Use (EFU) as well as some Rural Residential (RR-5). In Douglas County the pipeline would 

cross lands zoned predominantly Timberland Resource (TR) and Exclusive Farm Use (FG), and 

to a lesser extent Farm Forest (FF), Agriculture and Woodlot (AW), and Rural Residential (5R). 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-38

In Jackson County the pipeline would cross lands zoned predominantly Forest Resource (FR), a 

substantial length of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), as well as some Open Space Reserve (OSR) 

and also possibly a small amount of land zoned Rural Residential (RR-5). In Klamath County 

the pipeline would cross primarily lands zoned for Forest (F) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), but 

also some Residential (R2) and Heavy Industrial (IH). 

Pacific Connector has not requested that any of the land crossed by the pipeline be rezoned by 

any of the affected counties. Pacific Connector stated that it intends to respect county land use 

and zoning restrictions. Pacific Connector has filed with the Commission memos or letters from 

Jackson and Klamath Counties stated that because the proposed pipeline is regulated by the 

FERC, the pipeline would be considered exempt from their respective county land use 

regulations. Douglas County should review a land use application by Pacific Connector because 

a portion of the pipeline within Douglas County would be within the designated Coastal Zone. 

Coos County would review the proposed project because the entire length of the pipeline within 

Coos County would be within the Coastal Zone. Pacific Connector has not yet filed 

documentation with the FERC that it has submitted land use applications with Coos County or 

Douglas County in order to obtain LUCS. Typically, the ODEQ and ODLCD require LUCs be 

completed prior to review of permanent application under the CWA, CAA, and CZMA. County 

building permits would be required for aboveground facilities. 

We received a comment during scoping asking how Oregon Measure 37 (codified as ORS 

197.352) would affect land access agreements or rights-of-way acquired by Pacific Connector. 

The law enacted in 2004 by Measure 37 allows property owners whose property value is reduced 

by environmental or other land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local 

government. In 2007, Measure 49 was passed that overturns and modifies many of the 

provisions of Measure 37. Because Measure 37 was intended to apply to cases where local land 

use regulations affect property value we do not think it is applicable to this Project. Pacific 

Connector would compensate landowners for losses or damages based on negotiated easement 

agreements. 

Land Ownership 

A variety of public and private lands would be crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline, as is 

summarized in table 4.7.3.2-1. Land ownership along the proposed pipeline route is 

approximately 30.5 percent federal and 66.2 percent private. State lands constitute 3.2 percent of 

all lands crossed by the proposed pipeline and county-owned lands would constitute less than 

0.01 percent. The pipeline would cross property owned in fee by the Cow Creek Band of 

Umpqua Tribe of Indians from MP 70.63 to 71.22. 

TABLE 4.7.3.2-1 

Land Ownership Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline (in miles) a/

County Federal Land State Land County Local Land Private Land Tribal Land Total 

Coos 10.77 3.48 0.00 35.48 0.00 49.73 

Douglas 22.17 0.00 0.00 42.90 0.00 65.07 

Jackson 29.89 0.58 0.00 25.37 0.00 55.84 

Klamath 9.59 0.55 0.00 53.44 0.00 63.58 

Total 72.42 4.61 0.00 157.19 0.00 234.22 

a/ In the GIS database, 0.07 mile in Klamath County were identified as “unknown” and have been added to the State Land 

column. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-39 on, and Visual Resources 

Coastal Zone Management 

Coos County and a portion of Douglas County, up to the crest of the Coastal Range, are within 

Oregon’s coastal zone. Therefore, Pacific Connector would need to obtain a finding from the 

ODLCD that the portion of its pipeline within the coastal zone is consistent with the CZMA. 

Pacific Connector submitted an application with the ODLCD on September 4, 2007. However, 

in a letter dated October 4, 2007, the ODLCD found the application incomplete, because it 

lacked the following: 

• a copy of its application to the FERC; 

• a matching application to the ODLCD from Jordan Cove and the Port covering all 

pipeline components; 

• information required by the FWS and NMFS for compliance with the ESA; 

• findings that provide a clear description of the applicable and enforceable policies of the 

OCMP, together with information about the affected environment and potential 

environmental impacts associated with pipeline construction and operational activities. 

These findings need to explain how the pipeline would be consistent with NOAAapproved enforceable policies; 

• supporting information demonstrating compliance with state and local effects based on 

enforceable policies; 

• copies of complete applications for state and local permits required by OCMP agencies; 

• an explanation of how Pacific Connector would obtain permission to cross state-owned 

lands, and how those state lands would be managed in compliance with the OCMP; and 

• an evaluation of transportation impacts of the pipeline consistent with the transportation 

planning requirements of the OCMP. 

We recommend that: 

• Prior to construction of any Project facilities, Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

should each file with the Secretary documentation of concurrence from the ODLCD 

that the proposed LNG terminal and associated sendout pipeline would be 

consistent with the CZMA. 

4.7.3.2 Existing Residences, Commercial Buildings, and Planned Developments 

Existing Residences and Commercial Buildings 

Pacific Connector indicated that there were 15 residences observed during civil surveys within 

100 feet of the edge of the proposed construction right-of-way, including TEWAs. Pacific 

Connector did not identify any commercial buildings within 100 feet of the construction right-ofway for its pipeline and ancillary facilities. 

A number of landowners have commented on the Pacific Connector Project. Some, including 

Fred Messerele, Barbara Miller, Marc and Dea McConnell, and the Oregon Women’s Land 

Trust, have requested that the pipeline be moved off their property. In section 3.4.2 we reviewed 

route alternatives to lessen impacts on specific tracts where landowners raised concerns. 

For residences or other privately held land (farm or ranchland and undeveloped parcels), an 

easement would be used to convey a right-of-way to Pacific Connector. In this case, the 

easement would give the pipeline company the right to operate and maintain the pipeline and the 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-40

permanent pipeline right-of-way, and in return compensates the landowner for the use of the 

land. The easement negotiations between Pacific Connector and the landowner would also 

include compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of nonrenewable or other 

resources, and damage done to property during construction. Typical easement agreements 

include monetary compensation for loss of timber in woodlots or other forested areas; loss of 

fruit-producing trees; and damage to or removal of fencing or other specialized landscaping, 

driveways, drain tiles, or water wells or septic systems. Monetary compensation for areas where 

improvements have been made by the landowner may be negotiated in the easement agreement. 

Easement agreements also typically specify activities or uses of the right-of-way that are not 

allowed following construction. In areas where access by ORV is a concern, landowners could 

also negotiate for Pacific Connector to install and maintain barriers across the right-of-way. 

Additional issues addressed during these negotiations could include fencing specifications, in 

case of fence removal and replacement by Pacific Connector. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the pipeline has been certificated by 

the FERC, Pacific Connector may use the right of eminent domain granted to it under section 

7(h) of the NGA and the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civic Procedure (Rule 

71A) to obtain the right-of-way and TEWAs. Pacific Connector would still be required to 

compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and damages incurred during construction. 

However, the level of compensation would be determined by a court according to state or federal 

law. 

We received comments during the scoping process regarding potential property devaluation 

caused by construction and operation of proposed pipeline. Appraisal methods used to value 

land are based on objective characteristics of the property and any improvements. The impact 

that a pipeline or compressor station may have on the value of a tract of land depends on many 

factors, including the size of the tract, the values and land use of adjacent properties, the 

presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. Subjective 

valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This is not to say that a pipeline or 

compressor station would not affect resale values. A potential purchaser of property may make a 

decision to purchase based on his or her planned use, such as agricultural, future subdivision, or 

second home on the property in question. If the presence of a pipeline renders the planned use 

infeasible, it is possible that a potential purchaser would decide not to purchase the property. 

However, each potential purchaser has different criteria and differing capabilities to purchase 

land. 

The effect that a pipeline easement may have on property values is a damage-related issue and 

should be negotiated between the parties during the easement acquisition process, or would be 

determined during condemnation proceedings. Details of the easement negotiation process are 

beyond the scope of this EIS, as these are future actions between the applicant and landowners 

that do not involve the FERC. 

Pacific Connector has proposed the following measures to reduce impact on residential 

properties: 

• Construction would proceed quickly through residential areas, thus minimizing exposure 

to nuisance effects, such as noise and dust, and limiting the hours of operations that high 

decibel noise levels can be conducted. Landowners would be notified prior to 

construction and access and traffic flows would be maintained during construction 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-41 on, and Visual Resources 

activities, particularly for emergency vehicles. Pacific Connector has developed and 

would implement Landowner Complaint Resolution Procedures. 

• Dust minimization techniques such as watering would be used on-site and all litter and 

debris would be removed daily from the construction site. Pacific Connector does not 

currently plan to work on Sundays; however, certain activities may require a 24-hour 

work schedule. Pacific Connector would attempt to schedule activities during normal 

working hours. 

• After project construction, landowners affected by the Project would have use of the 

right-of-way, provided it does not interfere with the easement rights granted to Pacific 

Connector for construction and operation of the pipeline system. Such activities and uses 

would be spelled out explicitly during easement negotiations. 

• Mature trees, vegetation screens and landscaping would be preserved to the extent 

possible. Landowners would be compensated for the removal of any trees. 

• Immediately after backfilling the trench, all lawn areas and landscaping within the 

construction work area would be restored. 

• Pacific Connector would compensate landowners for damage to homes should the home 

be damaged by pipeline construction. 

• Depending on the specific circumstances, Pacific Connector may choose to temporarily 

relocate residents during construction activities. Arrangements would be determined 

through negotiations between the landowner and Pacific Connector’s Land 

Representative prior to construction. 

• Within 50 feet of residences, the edge of the construction work area would be fenced for 

a distance of 100 feet on either side to ensure that construction equipment and materials, 

including the spoil pile, remain within the construction work area. Fencing would be 

maintained, at a minimum, throughout the open trench phases of pipeline installation. 

Pacific Connector would also limit the period of time the trench remains open prior to 

backfilling. 

• For the residences within 50 feet of the proposed right-of-way, Pacific Connector has 

developed site-specific drawings depicting the temporary and permanent rights-of-way 

and has noted special construction techniques and mitigation measures. 

However, Pacific Connector failed to mention how it would avoid affecting domestic wells, 

water systems, or septic systems associated with residences in close proximity to the pipeline or 

ancillary facilities. In addition, Pacific Connector did not provide site-specific plans for the 5 

residences identified within 25 feet of TEWAs. Because the entire pipeline route has not yet 

been surveyed, there is the potential that other houses that could be affected by the pipeline 

would be identified after the FERC issues a Certificate and Pacific Connector gains access to 

property previously denied through eminent domain proceedings in accordance with section 7h 

of the NGA. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to pipeline construction, Pacific Connector should file with the Secretary, for 

the review and written approval of the Director of OEP: 

a. the results of a civil survey of the entire pipeline route that identifies all 

residences and commercial structures within 50 feet of the construction right-ofway; 

b. a plan outlining measures that would be implemented to mitigate pipeline 

construction impacts on domestic water supply systems and septic systems; and 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-42

c. for any residence closer than 25 feet to the construction work area, a site-specific 

plan that includes: 

(1). a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced 

pipeline separation, centerline adjustment, use of stove-pipe or dragsection techniques, working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, 

bore, etc.), and a dimensioned site plan that shows: 

 i. the location of the residence in relation to the pipeline; 

ii. the edge of the construction work area; 

iii. the edge of the new permanent right-of-way; and 

 iv. other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies. 

(2) a description of how Pacific Connector would ensure the trench is not 

excavated until the pipe is ready for installation and the trench is 

backfilled immediately after pipe installation; and 

(3) evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and 

fencing would be located within 10 feet of a residence. 

Planned Developments 

According to Pacific Connector, planning agency officials at each of the individual counties 

indicated that no other large-scale projects were being developed, permitted or constructed in the 

vicinity of the proposed pipeline. Pacific Connector’s land representatives are also not aware of 

any planned developments based on their discussions with individual landowners. No planned 

projects have been identified by other local, state, or federal agencies other than small scale 

timber sales (see section 4.13). None of the chambers of commerce and economic development 

councils in the four counties are aware of any large-scale development proposals in the vicinity 

of the pipeline. 

4.7.3.3 Recreation and Special Interest Areas on Non-federal Lands 

With the exception of the Coos Bay estuary itself, no recreation or special interest areas on nonfederal lands would be crossed or directly affected by the Pacific Connector pipeline. From 

about MPs 1.7 to 4.1 the Pacific Connector pipeline would be within the Coos Bay estuary. The 

estuary was previously discussed in sections 4.3 and 4.7.2.2. Recreational activities in the 

estuary include boating, canoeing, kayaking, angling, crabbing, and clamming. 

The Coos Regional Trails Partnership, a consortium of land management agencies and economic 

development groups developed a brochure that maps Coos Bay’s water trails for various user 

groups (Coos Regional Trails Partnership 2008). Portions of two water trails are in proximity to 

the proposed pipeline alignment. The North Slough Trail begins at the west end of the North 

Spit Causeway, about 0.3 mile north of where the proposed pipeline would enter Haynes Inlet, 

and follows the North Slough northward. The proposed pipeline would not cross this water trail. 

The Haynes Inlet Trail begins at the boat ramp along North Bay Drive, about 0.4 mile south of 

where the pipeline would leave Haynes Inlet, and heads northeastward for about 2.5 miles until it 

reaches the end of the inlet. The pipeline would cross the Haynes Inlet Trail at about MP 3.9. 

During active pipeline construction, users of the Haynes Inlet Trail, or other boaters using the 

main channel of the inlet near the North Bay Drive boat ramp, could be blocked from passage up 

the channel due to pipeline lay barges. This would be temporary; however, we believe this 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-43 on, and Visual Resources 

potential impact warrants specific measures to minimize impacts on boaters. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Pacific Connector should develop a plan to minimize impacts on recreational and 

other boaters using Haynes Inlet during pipeline construction. The plan should 

include specific measures to minimize impacts on users of the boat ramp along 

North Bay Drive, and users of the Haynes Inlet Water Trail crossed by the proposed 

pipeline at MP 3.9. Pacific Connector should file the plan with the Secretary, for the 

review and approval of the Director of OEP, prior to pipeline construction. 

There are a number of parks and recreational areas near the pipeline route, as discussed below. 

However, the pipeline does not directly cross any park lands, and construction and operation of 

the pipeline should not adversely impact park users. Conde B. McCullough State Recreation 

Area, located just to the north of the community of Glasgow, and about 0.1 mile from the 

pipeline’s water route is a day-use park featuring a recreational viewpoint of the McCullough 

Memorial Bridge. There are three Coos County parks accessed by the Coos Bay Wagon Road in 

proximity to the proposed pipeline route. Middle Creek Park, an unimproved day-use park, lies 

approximately 0.5 mile west of the pipeline alignment at about MP 27.5. Cherry Creek Park, 

with about eight primitive campsites and fishing on Cherry Creek, is located less than a mile 

northwest of the pipeline alignment at MP 28.5. Frona County Park, offering a primitive group 

campground and fishing area along the East Fork of the Coquille River, is approximately 0.5 

mile northwest of the proposed pipeline alignment at MP 30.0 (CBN 2006; CCPR 2006). 

The Ben Irving Reservoir, in Douglas County, is a large man-made waterbody used for fishing, 

boating, and other water-related recreation. The day-use park has a picnic site and boat launch. 

It is located about 1.5 miles south of the proposed pipeline alignment near the town of Tenmile 

and State Highway 42 (near MP 55.80). The reservoir could be a source of water for pipeline 

hydrostatic testing. Impacts of hydrostatic testing on waterbodies are addressed in section 4.3. 

Also, in Douglas County, near Milo, the Carl C. Hill Wayside provides a picnic area and fishing 

along the South Umpqua River. This day-use area is approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the 

proposed pipeline alignment at MP 94.73, where the proposed route crosses the South Umpqua 

River using open-cut construction methods. 

The Klamath Wildlife Area, managed by the ODFW, provides habitat for wintering and nesting 

waterfowl, upland game birds and a variety of other wildlife. Bald eagles, white pelicans, and 

ospreys are among the bird species present during certain times of the year. The area, along the 

Klamath River south of West Klamath, also serves as a recreation spot for fishing, hunting and 

boating (ODFW 2004). The pipeline would not cross this area, but would pass about 0.3 mile 

north of the Klamath Wildlife Area near MPs 185 to 192. See also section 4.5 of this EIS. 

Pacific Power’s Keno Recreation Area consists of a developed campground, boat launch, and 

picnic area along the Keno Reservoir of the Klamath River. Fishing and water sports are 

common activities at this recreation site near the town of Keno. The pipeline alignment passes 

less than 0.5 mile north of the reservoir at MP 192.53 utilizing an existing powerline corridor. 

Recreation and access to the Keno Recreation Area would not be impacted by construction and 

operation activities. Additionally, the reservoir could be a source of water for pipeline 

hydrostatic testing. The water impoundment is not expected to significantly draw down the 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-44

reservoir or impact boating or other day-use activities. Impacts of hydrostatic testing on 

waterbodies are further addressed in section 4.3. 

4.7.3.4 Visual Resources 

Short-Term Visual Impacts during Construction 

Construction impacts to visual resources would result from the presence of equipment, materials, 

and work force along the pipeline right-of-way, at TEWAs and staging areas, and along access 

roads. Construction impacts on visual resources would also result from the temporary alteration 

of landforms and vegetation along the right-of-way. Vehicles, heavy equipment, helicopters, 

pipeline components, and workers would be visible during site clearing, grading, trenching, 

pipeline transport, welding, laying in, backfilling, and site/right-of-way cleanup and restoration. 

Construction equipment and activities would be seen by various viewers in close proximity to the 

sites and pipeline corridor including adjacent and nearby residents, recreationists on trails and 

roads, general motorists on public roadways, and in some cases, pedestrians. View durations 

would vary from brief to extended periods. Construction activities would be most visible for 

those elements of the proposed pipeline through residential neighborhoods and adjacent to major 

travel corridors, including highways and the PCT. However, these effects would be temporary 

and would be limited to the construction period. 

Long-Term Visual Impacts 

Pipeline

The landscape setting along the proposed pipeline route is varied, ranging from flat valley floors 

and agricultural fields, to rolling hillsides covered with oak and madrone woodlands, to steep 

mountainsides and sharp ridgelines covered with mixed conifer timberlands. On flat terrain in 

agricultural settings, following construction, the right-of-way would be restored and 

ranchers/farmers would be allowed to grow shallow-rooted crops over the pipeline. Construction 

work areas would normally be difficult to distinguish from surrounding areas. Therefore, no long 

term visual impacts would result from installation of the pipeline in agricultural areas. 

In the mountainous terrain, many of the existing landscapes that would be traversed by the pipeline 

have already been impacted by timber harvests, including large clearcuts. Existing scenic integrity 

in these areas is low, and the introduction of the pipeline should not create long term visual 

contrasts in these settings. 

The greatest long term visual effects would occur where the new right-of-way would create new 

clearings through forestlands. The type of right-of-way clearing proposed by Pacific Connector, 

with straight, geometric, parallel edges, draws attention and does not blend in with natural 

occurring form, line, color or texture in the landscape. However, many forested areas are away 

from roads, and therefore are not immediately visible to viewers. 

The clearing of the right-of-way would create a sharp edged linear feature across a contiguously 

forested landscape. The excavation would expose sub-grade soils that would contrast with the color 

of the forest canopy. It is expected that the amount of boulders and root wads would be excessive in 

this landscape, making it difficult to dispose of in a manner that would not affect scenery. Boulders 

scattered on top of the ground do not appear natural and root wads with cut stumps are very 

distracting if found in more than occasional amounts 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-45 on, and Visual Resources 

Depending on the methods of clearing, the effects could be similar to road brushing, which uses a 

thrashing technique that leaves a rough brushed appearance immediately after clearing. The 30-foot 

corridor, kept cleared of trees with the permanent pipeline easement, would appear as a linear feature 

that is incongruent with natural terrain or even typical corridors such as roads that gradually climb 

the side hill rather than rising directly up the face of a slope. 

In its Aesthetics Management Plan, Pacific Connector states the following mitigation measures for 

visual resources: 

3.2 Construction Techniques 

During construction in designated visually sensitive areas on federally-managed lands, 

Pacific Connector and its contractors would strategically place construction debris (slash, 

boulders, stumps) and would shape and blend the right-of-way to conform to the 

characteristic landscape, to the extent practicable. In areas where the right-of-way creates 

openings adjacent to trails and roads, providing potential unauthorized access to off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use, natural barriers would be used to prevent passage. In areas where natural 

barriers might prove ineffective, Pacific Connector would construct fences and/or gates, 

using agency-approved materials and color schemes to better blend in with the characteristic 

landscape (see also the Recreation Management Plan for details on trail barriers and access 

issues). 

3.3 Revegetation 

Revegetation of the PCGP Project would be initiated following construction (see the Erosion 

Control and Revegetation Plan). The revegetation efforts are expected to provide short-term 

mitigation for visual contrast in color, line, and texture within 2 to 5 years. On NFS and 

BLM forest lands (including forested areas classified as visually sensitive), Pacific Connector 

would only maintain a cleared 30-foot corridor allowing the remainder of the permanent 

easement to be reforested (see Drawing 3430.34-X-0017 in ECRP). Pacific Connector 

and/or its contractors would only use agency-approved tree and plant species, in compliance 

with management plan objectives and in consultation with agency specialists. 

3.4 Specific Mitigation for Key Observation Points and Sensitive Viewsheds 

Specific mitigation measures are given for the following Key Observation Points: Oregon 

Dunes National Recreation Area; Highway 42 at MP 51.72 (Quiet Mountain Road 

Intersection); Big Elk Road and MP 161.41; Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail; and Lake of 

the Woods Community (intersection of Dead Indian Memorial Highway and Clover Creek 

Road). 

Aboveground Facilities 

The aboveground facilities proposed by Pacific Connector would be permanent features on the 

landscape. Example aboveground facilities are shown for reference in figures 2.1-15 and 2.1-16. A 

typical meter station would occupy an area of a few acres within a fenced and graveled yard. MLVs 

would occupy a 50 foot by 50 foot area within the permanent pipeline easement. 

Pacific Connector proposes to construct five new gas control communication towers, which would 

be installed at the four meter station sites and the Butte Falls Compressor Station. These towers 

would be some of the most visually conspicuous elements at the aboveground facilities. The tower 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-46

at the Jordan Cove Meter Station would be about 140 feet high, while the towers at the Clarks 

Branch, Shady Cove, and Tule Lake Meter Station sites would each be approximately 26 feet high. 

The Clarks Branch, Shady Cove, and Tule Lake Meter Station communication towers should blend 

in with the surrounding meter station facilities and be relatively unobtrusive. The Jordan Cove 

Meter Station communication tower would be located in an industrial setting, between the 

proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal and the existing Roseburg facilities. The proposed LNG 

terminal would consist of a LNG carrier berth, two 180-foot-tall LNG storage tanks, and 

processing equipment, while the Roseburg facility includes wood chip piles, a 190-foot tall loading 

tower, and shipping dock. Therefore, the Jordan Cove Meter Station communication tower would 

not be a dominate element within this industrial landscape, and should not detract from the visual 

setting. The visual impacts of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal are discussed above in section 

4.7.2.4. 

The 160-foot-high communication tower at the Butte Falls Compressor Station would be placed on 

a knoll within the facility footprint, which is surrounded by a grove of trees. The tower would be 

seen from various locations along the Butte Falls Highway as well as from nearby residences. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS from a landowner directly to the west of the proposed 

Butte Falls Compressor Station concerned about visibility of the station facilities from his 

property. Although no simulations have been prepared to estimate the post-construction view, it 

is likely that compressor station would be visible from some locations on this property. 

Minimal visual impacts are expected from the operation of the Butte Falls Compressor Station. This 

facility has been located on private lands approximately 1,000 feet north of the Butte Falls Highway 

to minimize intrusion to local residences. Existing tree cover is also expected to effectively screen 

the facility from the casual viewer. Potential impacts associated with night lighting at the compressor 

station would be minimized by reducing the number of continuous outside lights necessary to operate 

the facility and by using shrouds to direct light to the specific work areas within the station. 

Visual Impact Assessment 

• As described above for the LNG terminal, a visual impact assessment was conducted to 

determine the potential impacts on the visual resources associated with the pipeline 

facilities. The viewshed for the pipeline, within which representative KOPs were 

identified, extends to within 5 miles of the pipeline (per ODE direction OAR 345-021-

0010(r)) and was defined using aerial and ground photography, local planning 

documents, computer modeling, and field reconnaissance. Site visits were conducted 

between August and September 2007 to document existing visual conditions along the 

pipeline route and to identify potentially affected sensitive viewing locations along the 

proposed pipeline route. From much of the pipeline route viewshed, it is anticipated that 

views of the pipeline facilities would be partially or fully screened by existing trees, 

landforms, or intervening development. Figures 4.7-17 to 4.7-19 show the pipeline route 

as it moves through the various BLM and USFS visual resource management 

classifications and objective classes as well as the KOPs. Photographs of existing visual 

conditions, plus computerized visual simulations, were prepared for each KOP. The 

visual simulations presented in figures 4.7-20 through 4.7-32 show the anticipated visible 

impacts of 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-47 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-17. USFS VQOs and BLM-VRM Classes for the Project Area and Locations of KOPs for the 

Western Segment of the Pipeline (MP 0-80) 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-48

Figure 4.7-18. USFS VQOs and BLM-VRM Classes for the Project Area and Locations of KOPs for the 

Central Segment of the Pipeline (MP 80-160) 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-49 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-19. USFS VQOs and BLM-VRM Classes for the Project Area and Locations of KOPs for the 

Eastern Segment of the Pipeline (MP 160-231) 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-50

the Project, immediately following construction. Simulations are provided showing three time 

periods: 

• Year 0: The pipeline is in place and backfilled. Soils have been re-contoured, water bars 

constructed, and cull logs, root wads, and boulders have been scattered across the rightof-way. Seedlings of native trees (Douglas fir and ponderosa pine) have been planted 

among the woody debris and boulders, except for a 30-foot-wide corridor directly above 

the pipeline. 

• Year 5: Young tree saplings (Douglas fir and ponderosa pine) are starting to show 

among the woody debris, boulders, and water bars. Grasses are growing across the entire 

right-of-way. There are no trees growing in a 30-foot-wide corridor directly above the 

pipeline. 

Year 25: Young trees (Douglas fir and ponderosa pine) are growing throughout the right-ofway, except for the 30-foot-wide corridor directly above the pipeline, and some of the woody 

debris (cull logs and root wads) is beginning to deteriorate. The boulders and water bars remain, 

and maintenance has occurred to keep only low-growing shrubs and grasses in the 30-foot-wide 

corridor centered directly over the pipeline. 

Some visual mitigation measures are not shown in the simulations. These include requests for 

revegetation with large-sized trees (tree-spade efforts), forest edge scalloping, and/or feathering 

treatments to decrease stand density contrasts at the right-of-way edges. Therefore, these 

simulations represent a worst-case scenario at each KOP. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS regarding the visual impact on Hoover Hill in the Olalla 

Valley. The commenter is concerned about the pipeline crossing over this mountain, which is 

claimed to be a landmark and one of the few low-elevation BLM parcels that has been neither 

roaded nor clearcut. We agree that the pipeline right-of-way as it crosses in the vicinity of 

Hoover Hill would be visible from Highway 42 and I-5, as well as local roads such as Hoover 

Hill Road, Olalla Road, and McNabb Road. According to BLM VRM Classes shown on figure 

4.7-17, federal lands at Hoover Hill are classified as VRM Class IV (Major Modification of 

Character). The pipeline would be compatible with BLM VRM Class IV standards. Non-federal 

lands at Hoover Hill do not have any visual resource management standards, goals, or objectives. 

Because it would be compatible with BLM’s VRM classification, we did not run a visual 

simulation for the pipeline route near Hoover Hill. 

KOP-P2 Trail Post Office (Near MP 123.0) 

This point is located at the Trail Post office. Simulations show the view looking southeast where 

the pipeline would cross under the Rogue River and go uphill across private land. Ascending the 

hill, the pipeline leaves private land about half-way up the hill and enters BLM-administered 

land as it climbs to the ridgetop. At this point, the pipeline intersects BLM lands that were 

classified as VRM Class II (Retain Character) and Class III (Partially Retain Character) under 

the previous Medford District RMP issued under the NWFP, and as discussed in the draft EIS. 

Now these same lands are managed as VRM Class IV (Major Modification of Character) under 

the Medford District December 2008 RMP. The pipeline then follows the ridgetop on BLMadministered land in the middleground and background of the photo (figures 4.7-20 and 4.7-21). 

Existing vegetation at the pipeline right-of-way consists of a dense evergreen forest of Douglas 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-51 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-20. KOP-P2. Trail Post Office (Near MP 123). Existing Conditions (top) and Simulated 

Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way as viewed from the Trail Post office, Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-52

Figure 4.7-21. KOP-P2. Trail Post Office (Near MP 123). Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-ofWay as viewed from the Trail Post office, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-53 on, and Visual Resources 

fir and ponderosa pine. There are patches of scrub-oak and manzanita at the right-of-way, and a 

bare patch of soil left (north) of the right-of-way. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS that KOP-P2 is essentially the view from the Crater 

Lake Highway (Highway 62). The commenter states that the simulated view of the near 

ridgeline is dramatic and significant effort should be made to reduce the adverse visual impact of 

the near ridgeline as seen from the heavily traveled Highway 62. The commenter states that the 

draft EIS did not clearly explain why the BLM formerly classified these areas as VRM Class II 

and III for visual resources, and did not identify communities near KOP-P2 that may be visually 

impacted. We agree that the pipeline right-of-way would be visible from Highway 62. By 

selecting the Trail Post Office, a community gathering place, as the location for KOP-P2, we 

intended that both the view from Highway 62 and the view from the community of Trail would 

be simulated and analyzed for potential visual impacts. Regarding the process used to develop 

VRM Classes, the BLM designated VRM Classes (I, II, III, or IV) during its 1995 land use 

planning efforts based on a multitude of factors, including inherent scenic attractiveness, public 

concern for scenery, value of commodities, management/protection of other resources, etc. 

Under the new RMP (December 2008), the VRM class for this area is Class IV (Major 

Modification of Character). 

KOP-P3 Highway 140 near Little Butte Creek (MP 145.6) 

This KOP is located at the point where the pipeline would cross under Highway 140 near Little 

Butte Creek on private lands. Midway up the hill in the background, the pipeline crosses into 

BLM-administered lands classified in the 1995 RMP as VRM Class III (Partially Retain 

Character) (figures 4.7-22 and 4.7-23). Under the Medford District December 2008 RMP, the 

VRM classification for this area is now Class IV (Major Modification of Character). 

KOP-P4 Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37) (MP 161.4) 

This location represents a view from the Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37), looking north on the 

Dead Indian Plateau in a dense stand of mixed conifer forest. The pipeline would cross the road 

at this location in a west-east alignment, as the road travels south-north, and the clearing would 

be noticeable to travelers on this forest road. Simulations of the pipeline crossing of Big Elk 

Road show the long-term visual effects of the permanently cleared 30-foot wide right-of-way 

and the creation of an UCSAs on the west side, but visible from the road (figures 4.7-24 and 4.7-

25). USFS landscape architect Gary Bartlett suggested using two existing roads for pipeline 

construction access, plus operation and maintenance, in lieu of creating access from Forest Road 

37 at the pipeline right-of-way. These roads are FS-3700-130 (westbound) from the north and 

FS-3705 or FS3700-120 (east-side) from the south. This would eliminate construction activity 

and site-hardening at the pipeline right-of-way intersection of the road and could possibly reduce 

illegal OHV usage of the right-of-way. 

KOP-P5 Clover Creek Road (long view) (MP 172.2) 

Simulations from this point represent a long distance view of the pipeline right-of-way from 

along Clover Creek Road. This shows the extent of visual impacts of the pipeline in the 

immediate foreground, foreground and middleground of Clover Creek Road (figures 4.7-26 and 

4.7-27). The pipeline would be contiguous to Clover Creek Road from approximately MP 169.5 

to 187.7, a distance of 18.2 miles. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-54

Figure 4.7-22. KOP-P3. Highway 140 near Little Butte Creek (MP 145.6). Existing Conditions (top) 

and Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way at the Highway 140 Crossing, Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-55 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-23. KOP-P3. Highway 140 near Little Butte Creek (MP 145.6). Simulated Views of the 

Pipeline Right-of-Way at the Highway 140 Crossing, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-56

Figure 4.7-24. KOP-P4. Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37, MP 161.4). Existing Conditions (top) and 

Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way at the Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37) 

Crossing, Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-57 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-25. KOP-P4. Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37, MP 161.4). Simulated Views of the Pipeline 

Right-of-Way at the Big Elk Road (Forest Road 37) Crossing, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-58

Figure 4.7-26. KOP-P5. Clover Creek Road (MP 172.2). Existing Conditions (top) and Simulated 

Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way from along Clover Creek Road, Long View, Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-59 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-27. KOP-P5. Clover Creek Road (MP 172.2). Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-ofWay from along Clover Creek Road, Long View, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-60

KOP-P6 Clover Creek Road (Near Spencer Creek) (MP 176.8) 

This location represents a view from Clover Creek Road on BLM-administered lands, looking 

uphill. Within a quarter mile of Spencer Creek the viewshed was classified as BLM VRM Class 

II (Retain Character) in the previous RMP for the Klamath Falls Resource Area, issued under the 

NWFP. This situation was analyzed in the draft EIS; however, in December 2008 the RMP was 

modified and now this landscape is managed for VRM Class IV (Major Modification of 

Character). 

We received comments from the USFS and BLM suggesting that the pipeline right-of-way be 

moved closer to Clover Creek Road for wildlife habitat reasons. This move would eliminate the 

strip of trees between the road and pipeline right-of-way that could cause possible wind-throw 

damage to such a narrow strip of trees. This would make the pipeline right-of-way immediately 

adjacent to the road, as shown in figures 4.7-26 and 4.7-27 for KOP-P5 and figures 4.7-28 and 

4.7-29 for KOP-P6. This has become the preferred route, as filed by Pacific Connector in 

December 2008. We have also evaluated the original routes as a route variation (see section 

3.1.4.2). 

KOP-P7 Clover Creek Road (MP 170.1) 

As a result of the revised pipeline alignment along Clover Creek Road, the USFS and BLM 

requested additional analysis of visual impacts in this area. KOP-P7 was added as part of this 

additional analysis, and is intended to show the ground surface in relationship to the road and the 

visual experience of travelers along Clover Creek Road. KOP-P7 is located at MP 170.1, 

looking due east and downhill from the travelers’ perspective on Clover Creek Road. There is an 

existing partial-cut timber harvest area on the left (north side of the road). Simulations from 

KOP-P7 represent an additional long-distance view of the pipeline right-of-way from along 

Clover Creek Road. In response to agency comments, three time frames were simulated: Year 0 

at end of construction; Year 5 after revegetation; and Year 25 after reforestation. Year 0 

simulation shows woody debris (cull logs, slash, and root wads) left on the right-of-way as 

proposed by Pacific Connector to discourage OHV use, which creates unacceptable visual 

contrasts. Year 0 shows tree seedlings that are freshly planted. Year 5 shows planted pine 

seedlings and natural shrub revegetation. Year 25 shows pine reforestation on the right-of-way, 

and in this view, the permanently cleared and maintained area directly over the pipeline would be 

partially to completely screened from view of the road. This shows the extent of visual impacts 

of the pipeline, over time, in the immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground of Clover 

Creek Road (figures 4.7-30 and 4.7-31). This series of three simulations show the typical visual 

effects that would occur in timbered landscapes along Clover Creek Road from approximately 

MP 169.5 to 187.7, a distance of 18.2 miles. 

General Mitigation for Sensitive Viewsheds 

All of the views from the KOPs above are considered to be sensitive viewsheds, and would be 

considered for possible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s visual impacts. Additional 

mitigation may be necessary and would be applied on a case-by-case basis using guidance 

developed in the Aesthetics Management Plan. Following are general mitigation measures that 

Pacific Connector designed and described to fit as many visual impacts as possible in their 

Aesthetics Management Plan. Several locations along the pipeline would require more detailed 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-61 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-28. KOP-P6. Clover Creek Road (MP 176.8). Existing Conditions (top) and Simulated 

Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way from along Clover Creek Road near Spencer Creek, 

Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-62

Figure 4.7-29. KOP-P6. Clover Creek Road (MP 176.8). Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-ofWay from along Clover Creek Road near Spencer Creek, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-63 on, and Visual Resources 

Figure 4.7-30. KOP-P7. Clover Creek Road (MP 170.1). Existing Conditions (top) and Simulated 

Views of the Pipeline Right-of-Way Adjacent to Clover Creek Road, Long View. Year 0 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-64

Figure 4.7-31. KOP-P7. Clover Creek Road (MP 170.1). Simulated Views of the Pipeline Right-ofWay Adjacent to Clover Creek Road, Long View, Year 5 (top) and Year 25 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-65 on, and Visual Resources 

and site-specific mitigation techniques, and these techniques and measures would be addressed 

in Pacific Connector’s POD. 

To minimize potential visual effects at sensitive viewsheds, the construction right-of-way would 

be reduced to 75 feet wide, and any required TEWAs would be set back from these road 

crossings to minimize clearing and associated impacts. These measures would maximize the 

retention of pre-existing vegetation cover, which would ease the landscape contrast during and 

after construction. During restoration, a naturally spaced row of trees/shrubs would also be 

planted across the right-of-way to provide a visual screen at road crossings. 

To the extent feasible, Pacific Connector would use revegetation efforts to shape and blend the 

pipeline easement, enhance the setting, and mimic the natural features of the landscape. These 

revegetation measures would consist of revegetating all disturbed areas and replanting trees in 

TEWAs and any other areas of the temporary construction right-of-way that were forested prior 

to construction. The 30-foot-wide corridor would be maintained for the life of the pipeline, 

including the removal of trees greater than 15 feet in height and any vegetation greater than 6 

feet in height. This would allow trees to naturally reestablish along the edges of the permanent 

easement at a staggered, more natural-looking interval, helping to soften the edge of the 

construction right-of-way and permanent easement over time. 

Pacific Connector would provide OHV control measures at right-of-way road and trail crossings, 

as well as other appropriate locations, to minimize potential visual impacts associated with OHV 

use of the right-of-way. Pacific Connector would coordinate the OHV control measures and 

locations with the federal land-managing agencies to ensure these measures would be effective 

and would be compatible with the visual management objectives. 

The contractor and pipe storage yards would be located in existing industrial facilities, on pasture 

lands, and in vacant lots in towns near the proposed pipeline alignment. Their use during 

construction of the pipeline would not create any adverse long-term visual impacts. 

While many mitigation measures may be undertaken on the BLM and USFS segments of the 

pipeline, it is likely that these efforts would be negated if these mitigation measures are not 

equally applied to the private land ownership of the entire 18.2-mile section of the pipeline 

adjacent to Clover Creek Road. Not doing so would cause the landscape to appear choppy and 

incongruous with the surrounding forested areas. 

BLM requested that the application of visual mitigations required on federal lands be applied 

consistently to the entire route where it parallels Clover Creek Road. Pacific Connector has 

indicated in a letter dated January 21, 2009, that Pacific Connector does not intend to apply 

visual mitigation measures as proposed by the USFS and BLM along the private parcels where 

the route is adjacent to Clover Creek Road because there are no federal or state requirements to 

mitigate visual impacts on private lands. Pacific Connector has agreed to adopt the Forest 

Service Aesthetics Management Plan; however, site-specific details on proposed mitigation 

methods would need to be refined in consultation with the federal land managing agencies to 

ensure that VQOs would be achieved. A revised Aesthetics Management Plan was filed with the 

FERC on April 6, 2009. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-66

4.7.4 Environmental Consequences on Federal Lands 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would cross about 31 miles of NFS lands and 41 miles 

of BLM lands. Between MPs 200.5 and 214.2 the pipeline would cross 27 irrigation facilities 

that fall under the jurisdiction of the BOR (table 4.7.4-1). 

TABLE 4.7.4-1 

Federal Lands Affected by the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Jurisdiction 

Pipeline Facility/Component BLM USFS BOR 

Miles Crossed by Pipeline 41.19 30.58 0.31 a/

Temporary Construction Acreage Requirements (acres)

Construction Right-of-Way 469.83 351.43 3.46 

Hydrostatic Discharge Locations Outside the right-of-way 0.12 0.00 0.00 

TEWAs 179.52 103.68 0.52 

UCSAs 211.52 131.73 0.00 

Off-site Source/Disposal 8.10 2.33 0.00 

Contractor and Pipe Storage Yards 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Existing Roads Needing Improvements in Limited Locations b/ 6.07 2.61 0.00 

Temporary Access Roads (TAR) 0.42 0.00 0.00 

Total Temporary Impacts (acres) 875.58 591.78 3.98

Permanent Easement 249.43 185.19 1.89 

Permanent Access Roads (PAR) 0.10 0.00 0.00 

Aboveground Facilities 0.17 c/ 0.00 0.00 

30-Foot Maintained Right-of-way 149.68 111.20 1.13 

____________________ 

a/ In the 2007 FERC Certificate application, Pacific Connector calculated that 0.31 mile of BOR land was crossed by the pipeline 

using the BLM LLID_poly coverage. Subsequently 24 ditches were identified by the BOR to be under BOR jurisdiction. The 24 

ditches increased the pipeline crossing length on BOR-administered lands by 0.14 mile for a total of 0.45 mile. 

b/ Includes those existing roads requiring widening in specific locations; does not include limbing/brush clearing or 

blading/grading for potholes. 

c/ BVA #3, #4, and #9 are located on BLM lands. 

Temporary impacts of the pipeline on federal lands would include timber and brush clearing, 

grading, trenching, soil compaction as a result of equipment driving and storage of logs, slash, 

pipe lengths and other supplies. Long term impacts include the time it would take trees to grow 

back within the temporary construction right-of-way. Permanent impacts would include the 

transition from forest to herbaceous vegetation within a 30-foot-wide corridor kept clear of trees, 

and prohibitions of use of the operating pipeline easement. It should be noted that the pipeline 

would not cross, and therefore no acreage would be removed from any federally designated 

wilderness, wildlife refuge areas, or inventoried roadless areas. 

The BLM expressed concerns regarding impact of the pipeline on current and future forest 

management activities on federally administered lands that might result from prohibited or 

restricted land management and use activities within or near the pipeline right-of-way. In 

response, Pacific Connector provided a list of activities that would be prohibited or restricted on 

the proposed pipeline right-of-way (table 4.7.4-2). 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-67 on, and Visual Resources 

TABLE 4.7.4-2 

Land Management and Land Use Activities Prohibited or Restricted on the Proposed Pacific 

Connector Pipeline Right-of-Way 

Location Prohibited/ Restricted Activities Duration 

Directly over the pipeline Obstructions that may endanger, hinder or conflict with the 

construction, operation, inspection, protection, maintenance and 

use of the pipeline (i.e. trees, engineered structures, buildings, 

roads-parallel, other utilities-parallel, logging, blasting, mining) 

During the construction, 

operations, and maintenance 

of the pipeline facilities. 

Within the pipeline right-of-way 

clearing limits 

Obstructions that may endanger, hinder or conflict with the 

construction, operation, inspection, protection, maintenance and 

use of the pipeline (i.e. engineered structures, buildings, roadsparallel, limited logging, blasting, mining) 

During the construction, 

operations, and maintenance 

of the pipeline facilities. 

Within the pipeline right-of-way Obstructions that may endanger, hinder or conflict with the 

construction, operation, inspection, protection, maintenance and 

use of the pipeline (i.e. engineered structures, buildings, roadsparallel, limited logging, blasting, mining) 

During the construction, 

operations, and maintenance 

of the pipeline facilities. 

Within one-quarter mile of the 

pipeline 

Some blasting and mining During operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline 

facilities. 

On existing federally-managed 

roads and trails 

Only when within the right-of-way, obstructions that may, 

endanger, hinder or conflict with the construction, operation, 

inspection, protection, maintenance, and use of the pipeline as 

described above; otherwise none 

During the construction, 

operations, and maintenance 

of the pipeline facilities. 

The BLM also expressed concerns about how prohibited or restricted activities within the 

pipeline right-of-way may affect parties who hold valid existing rights of federal lands in the 

project area. In response, Pacific Connector stated that such situations would be handled on a 

case-by-case basis. But in general, Pacific Connector would identify all landowners and 

interested parties in each of these situations and would work with them, following the guidelines 

in the Williams Gas Pipeline Developers’ Handbook. The BLM also asked Pacific Connector to 

identify the requirements and timelines for notification to Pacific Connector when activities are 

planned on the federal lands, either by the agency or a third party. Pacific Connector responded 

that for any aboveground alterations Pacific Connector would rely on its Operations & 

Maintenance Manual Public Awareness and Damage Prevention (Policy 10.17.00.09). This 

policy requires the company to notify in writing at least once per year any landowner or 

interested party within 660 feet from either side of the pipeline. The notification would include 

written information of where the pipeline is and who and how to reach Williams Pacific Operator 

for any concerns they may have with the pipeline. These notifications would provide the 

landowner or interested party with the information they need to contact the company to discuss 

any work around the pipeline or right-of-way. 

4.7.4.1 Federal Land-Administering Agencies 

BLM Lands 

The pipeline would cross four BLM districts totaling approximately 41 miles. From west to east, 

approximate miles crossed through the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District would be, respectively: 10.7, 14.1, 14.9 

and 1.3 miles. Of the proposed aboveground facilities, three MLVs would be located within 

BLM lands. Pacific Connector also proposes to construct two new TARs on BLM lands to 

support construction, and two new PARs on BLM lands to support construction and operation 

(see table 2.3.3.1-1). Acres of BLM-administered lands, by land use classification, that would be 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-68

affected by pipeline construction and operation are listed in table 4.7.4.1-1; while a summary of 

BLM land requirements for the pipeline are listed in table 2.3.4-1. 

NFS Lands 

The proposed pipeline would cross through approximately 31 miles of NFS lands with the 

Umpqua, Rogue-Siskyou, and Fremont Winema National Forests. Acreages of NFS lands, by 

land use classification, that would be affected by pipeline construction or operation of the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline and associated aboveground facilities are included in table 

4.7.4.1-2, while a summary of NFS land requirements for the pipeline is listed in table 2.3.4-2. 

BOR Lands 

Land use in the Klamath Basin is a combination of cropland and pasture, rangeland, streams and 

canals, and transportation-related facilities. The pipeline would cross withdrawn land and 

approximately 27 facilities that fall under BOR’s Klamath Basin Area Office of the Mid-Pacific 

Region (table 4.7.4.1-3). A summary of BOR land requirements for the pipeline is listed in table 

2.3.4-3. At MP 200.52, in Section 20 of T39S, R9E, the pipeline right-of-way would cross the 

southern portion of BOR withdrawn land for about 105 feet. The BOR would not allow the 

pipeline to be installed across its features until after the irrigation season has ended and most of 

the facilities have been dewatered, so as not to interfere with Klamath project operations. 

Furthermore, the pipeline would not be constructed within BOR jurisdiction until BOR has 

reviewed and concurred with all the required plans and specifications. During construction 

across BOR lands and features (between October 15 and March 15), uses of these lands would be 

temporarily interrupted. However, after pipeline installation, Pacific Connector would restore 

those lands to their original condition, and they could continue to be used for crops, rangeland, 

irrigation, and access, as they were prior to construction. Such restoration efforts may include, 

but are not limited to, erosion control measures and revegetation.

4.7.4.2 Federal Land Use Plans and Land Allocations 

Federal land management agencies are mandated by law to prepare land use plans for managing 

federal lands under their jurisdiction. These laws also require federal agencies to analyze the 

environmental impacts of implementing their land use plans. To comply with these laws, BLM 

prepares RMPs and EISs for lands under its jurisdiction. The USFS prepares LRMPs and EISs 

for lands under its jurisdiction. 

According to federal law and corresponding BLM and USFS policy, actions on federal lands 

should conform with the approved land use plans. To be in conformance, an action must be 

specifically mentioned in the plan, or the BLM or USFS must determine the action to be 

consistent with the plan. In addition, to be consistent an action must comply with: 1) all 

stipulations, constraints, standards, and guidelines listed in a plan; and 2) all stipulations 

developed specifically for a proposed Project for the purpose of avoiding or reducing impacts on 

sensitive resources in the plan. 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-69

TABLE 4.7.4.1-1

Acreages of BLM Lands Required for Construction and Operation of the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

BLM District 

Industrial (13) 

Transportation / 

Communication (14) 

Orchards, Groves, Vineyards, 

Nurseries (22) 

Herbaceous Rangeland (31) 

Shrub/Brush Rangeland (32) 

Mixed Rangeland (33) 

Deciduous Forest Land (41) 

Evergreen Forest Land (42) 

Mixed Forest Land (43) 

Clearcut Forest Land (421) 

Regenerating Forest Land (422) 

Streams (51) 

Ditches (512) 

Forested Wetlands (61) 

Nonforested Wetlands (62) 

Coos Bay Construction 0.08 16.51 0.23 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.60 56.17 8.32 3.56 87.31 0.25 0.00 0.45 0.01 Operation 0.00 7.13 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 23.48 3.54 0.68 29.63 0.14 0.00 0.22 0.01 Roseburg Construction 0.00 27.09 0.00 3.21 0.13 2.05 0.71 224.27 19.85 31.72 87.74 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.29 Operation 0.00 9.37 0.00 1.01 0.03 0.35 0.26 48.80 3.79 3.75 17.98 0.10 0.00 0.17 0.00 Medford Construction 0.00 5.44 0.00 20.18 14.99 10.56 36.38 75.36 73.06 1.51 41.52 0.48 0.01 0.06 0.18 Operation 0.00 1.61 0.00 6.24 4.40 3.85 12.20 22.35 25.00 0.82 13.72 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.00 Lakeview Construction 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 <0.01 0.39 0.00 15.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operation 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 <0.01 0.16 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: the land use classification system used is that of the USGS. a/ Total acreage does not include 6.1 acres required for existing roads needing improvements in limited locations. 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-70

TABLE 4.7.4.1-2 

Acreages of NFS Lands Required for Construction and Operation of the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

National Forest 

Transportation / 

Communication (14) 

Herbaceous Rangeland (31) 

Shrub/Brush Rangeland (32) 

Mixed Rangeland (33) 

Evergreen Forest Land (42) 

Clearcut Forest Land (421) 

Regenerating Forest Land (422) 

Streams (51) 

Ditches (512) 

Forested Wetlands (61) 

Nonforested Wetlands (62) 

Umpqua National ForestConstruction 12.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 164.49 0.00 31.38 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.0Operation 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.63 0.00 12.77 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.0Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestConstruction 12.95 3.54 0.00 11.22 118.89 9.87 112.66 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.0Operation 2.13 0.01 0.00 2.04 40.91 0.00 37.53 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.0Fremont-Winema National ForestConstruction 1.98 0.17 0.22 0.00 55.04 0.00 32.08 0.04 0.00 0.27 0.4Operation 0.45 0.15 0.04 0.00 22.16 0.00 13.49 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.2Note: the land use classification system used is that of the USGS. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-71 on, and Visual Resources 

TABLE 4.7.4.1-3 

Acreages of BOR Lands Required for Construction and Operation of the 

Pacific Connector Pipeline

Ditches 

(512) 

Herbaceous Rangeland 

(31) TOTAL 

Construction 3.76 3.83 7.59 

Operation 2.1 1.8 3.9 

Note: the land use classification system used is that of the USGS.

The Northwest Forest Plan 

In 1993, a comprehensive NWFP was initiated to end the impasse over management of federal 

forest lands in the Pacific Northwest within the range of the NSO. With the signing of the 1994 

Record of Decision for Amendments to the USFS and BLM Planning Documents within the 

range of the NSO (commonly referred to as the 1994 ROD) a framework and system of 

Standards and Guidelines were established, using a new ecosystem approach to address resource 

management. The signing of the 1994 ROD by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior 

amended the planning documents of 19 National Forests and 7 BLM Districts within the range of 

the NSO. All National Forests revise their Forest Plans every 10 to 15 years to ensure that the 

plans are current and effective tools for managing public lands. Because of the adoption of the 

six December 2008 BLM RMPs, the land allocations under the NWFP discussed below no 

longer apply to BLM lands, but they still apply to NFS lands. 

Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations

The management direction of the 1994 NWFP ROD consists of extensive standards and 

guidelines, including land allocations that comprise a comprehensive ecosystem management 

strategy. These land allocations include areas set aside by an Act of Congress (Congressionally 

Reserved Areas), LSRs, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas, Matrix and Riparian Reserves. These land allocations have 

differing management directions and are located and configured in the landscape to support 

overall ecosystem function and to meet the vision for management of federal lands. 

Standards and guidelines for each land allocation provide a coordinated ecosystem management 

approach to the planning area and involve the use of ecological, economic, social and managerial 

principles to achieve healthy and sustainable natural systems. Ecosystem management 

emphasizes the complete ecosystem instead of individual components and looks at sustainable 

systems and products that people want and need. The NWFP land allocations that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline are LSR, Matrix and Riparian Reserves (table 4.7.4.2-1). The 

management direction or objective of the land allocations outlined in the 1994 ROD and in all of 

the USFS forest plans are described below for each of the land allocations crossed by the 

pipeline route. Descriptions of the other land allocations that are not crossed by the pipeline 

route are described in the 1994 NWFP ROD. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-72 on, and Visual Resources 

TABLE 4.7.4.2-1 

NWFP Land Allocations – Miles Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Jurisdiction Late Successional Reserves Matrix Riparian Reserves a/

USFS – Umpqua 5.89 5.33 0.55 

USFS – Rogue River-Siskiyou 13.58 0.00 0.25 

USFS – Fremont-Winema 0.00 6.09 0.08 

TOTAL 19.47 11.42 0.88 

a/ Riparian Reserves overlay other land use allocations. 

Late Successional Reserves 

LSRs are areas that are managed to protect and enhance habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth related species including the northern spotted owl. Limited silvicultural treatments are 

permitted to benefit late-successional characteristics or to reduce the risk of catastrophic loss. 

Limited salvage is also permitted. Late-successional forests are typically 80 years old or older 

and are those forest seral stages that include mature and old-growth age classes of Douglas-fir 

with four major structural attributes: live old growth trees, standing dead trees (snags), fallen 

trees or logs on the forest floor, and logs in streams. One goal of the 1994 ROD is to maintain 

late-successional and old-growth species habitat and ecosystems on NFS lands. A second goal is 

to maintain biological diversity associated with native species and ecosystems in accordance 

with laws and regulations. The proposed pipeline would cross about 19.47 miles total of LSRs. 

Specific LSRs crossed are listed in table 4.5.1.4-1. Impacts to LSR are discussed in detail in 

section 4.4.1.4. 

Matrix

Matrix areas consist of all NFS lands outside of Congressionally Reserved Areas, LSRs, 

Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn 

Areas, and Riparian Reserves. These areas include conifer and hardwood forests, brushfields, 

and open areas. Approximately 65 to 75 percent of the matrix contains forest lands available for 

regularly scheduled timber harvests. Production of timber and other commodities is an important 

objective for the matrix. However, forests in the matrix function as connectivity between LSRs 

and provide habitat for a variety of organisms associated with both late-successional and younger 

forests. The matrix also adds ecological diversity by providing early-successional habitat and 

serves as a protection buffer for specific rare and locally endemic species. The proposed pipeline 

would cross about 11.42 miles of matrix in total. Impacts to matrix area are discussed in detail in 

section 4.4.1.4. 

Riparian Reserves

Riparian Reserves are a key element of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Riparian Reserves 

provide an area along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and unstable and potentially 

unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. The main purpose 

of these reserves is to protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species. These 

Riparian Reserves also provide important habitat to terrestrial species. They help maintain and 

restore riparian structures and functions, benefit fish and riparian dependent non-fish species, 

enhance habitat conservation for organisms dependent on the transition zone between upslope 

and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-73 on, and Visual Resources 

provide for greater connectivity of late-successional forest habitat. Section 4.3 provides further 

discussion of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The proposed pipeline would cross less than 

one mile of Riparian Reserves on NFS lands (table 4.4.1.2-1). Impacts to Riparian Reserves are 

discussed in detail in section 4.3.4. 

Standards and Guidelines

As defined by the 1994 NWFP ROD, all land allocations have specific management direction 

regarding how they are to be managed. This management direction is known as “standards and 

guidelines.” The standards and guidelines provide the rules and limits governing actions and the 

principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and maintained. In 

some areas, land allocations overlap. For example, Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines 

apply and are added to the standards and guidelines of other land allocations. When Riparian 

Reserves occur within LSRs, the standards and guidelines of both designations apply. Key 

Watershed designations (see section 4.5.2) may overlap any of the land allocations 

(Congressionally Reserved Areas, LSRs, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed LateSuccessional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, or Matrix), and then the standards and 

guidelines for the allocations apply, and the Key Watershed designation adds additional 

requirements. In all allocations, standards and guidelines in current plans and draft plan 

preferred alternatives apply where they are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to latesuccessional forest related species. The standards and guidelines that address survey and manage 

species are provided in section 4.6. 

Standards and Guidelines for Multiple Use Activities Other than Silviculture 

The 1994 ROD provides standards and guidelines for multiple use activities other than 

silvicultural practices such as road construction and maintenance, fuel wood gathering, mining, 

land exchanges, range management, fire suppression and prevention as well as for development 

of new facilities and rights-of-way and easements. As a general guideline, non-silvicultural 

activities located inside an LSR that is beneficial to the creation and maintenance of latesuccessional habitat are allowed. According to the 1994 ROD, the proposed pipeline would be 

considered a new development project that would require rights-of-way and special use permits. 

The Standards and Guidelines for Development of New Facilities and Rights-of-Way, 

Contracted Rights, Easements and Special Use Permits as they relate to the Pacific Connector 

pipeline are discussed below. 

LSRs – Development of New Facilities

The standards and guidelines for development of new facilities that may adversely affect LSRs 

indicate that development should not be permitted. However, the standards and guidelines 

specify that new development proposals that address public needs or provide significant public 

benefits, such as powerlines, pipelines, reservoirs, recreation sites or other public works projects 

would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may be approved when adverse effects can be 

minimized and mitigated. 

The proposed pipeline route would affect LSRs on the Umpqua and Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. Therefore, in order for the proposed pipeline route to conform with the 

standards and guidelines so that a Right-of-Way Grant can be acquired on federal lands, it would 

be necessary to make certain that the pipeline has a public need and provides a significant public 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-74 on, and Visual Resources 

benefit. Pacific Connector must apply for, and receive, a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity from the FERC. The Commission Order issuing the Certificate would contain a 

discussion of public need. A FERC Certificate would verify that the pipeline has a public need 

and provides significant public benefit. 

In designing the pipeline, Pacific Connector would follow the principles outlined in the Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee memorandum dated January 3, 2001, regarding New 

Developments in Late Successional Reserves. Refer to section 4.5 for the Late-Successional 

Reserves Avoidance Alternative. To comply with the principles of the 2001 Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee memorandum regarding New Developments in LateSuccessional Reserves, this alternative analysis discusses how the proposed pipeline route has 

been designed to have the least possible adverse impacts on LSRs. This alternative analysis 

discusses: 

1. the pipeline route design measures that were implemented to avoid LSRs, where feasible; 

2. the pipeline route design procedures that minimize impacts to LSRs; 

3. the measures that would be implemented to rectify pipeline route related impacts to 

LSRs; 

4. the pipeline route design measures that would be applied to reduce impacts over time by 

maintenance operations during the life of the action; and 

5. the compensatory mitigation that Pacific Connector proposes to mitigate for unavoidable 

impacts to LSRs. 

In addition, Pacific Connector has studied proposed alternative routes suggested by the Umpqua 

and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests, which primarily followed existing roads and which 

the USFS predicted would have fewer impacts to LSRs. Pacific Connector met with 

representatives the National Forests to discuss the proposed routes and the goals of minimizing 

impacts to LSRs and forest fragmentation. These alternative routes are discussed in section 

3.4.2. Pacific Connector selected it proposed pipeline route through NFS lands in consultation 

with the USFS, attempting to minimize impacts on LSRs, but also taking into considerations 

such factors as geological hazards, constructability, safety, and pipeline stability and integrity. 

Pacific Connector developed measures in coordination with the USFS to mitigate effects of the 

pipeline on LSRs. 

The proposed pipeline would likely have long-term impacts on LSR lands where the route would 

cross these areas. As the forest is allowed to regenerate and the trees and habitat to mature, the 

pipeline may have an overall neutral impact, though it is possible that even taking into account 

the compensatory mitigation measures already mentioned that the overall impact would be 

adverse. 

Rights-of-Way, Contacted Rights, Easements, and Special Use Permits

The standards and guidelines for rights-of-way, easements, and special use permits specify that 

access to non-federal lands through LSRs would be considered. New access proposals may 

require mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects on LSRs. In these cases, alternate routes 

that avoid late successional habitat should be considered. Although the pipeline has been routed 

through LSRs, as previously stated, no new roads have been proposed through LSRs. Pacific 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-75 on, and Visual Resources 

Connector’s methods for identifying proposed mitigation measures as described in Development 

of New Facilities would ensure that adverse effects to LSRs are minimized. 

Riparian Reserves

As a general rule, standards and guidelines for Riparian Reserves prohibit or regulate activities in 

Riparian Reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the ACS objectives. Through Pacific 

Connector’s routing efforts, impacts to Riparian Reserves have been minimized by aligning the 

pipeline route primarily along ridgelines across the steeply dissected Coast and Cascade 

mountain ranges. This alignment places the pipeline in the most stable landscape features and 

avoids streams in most areas. Potential Project impacts on riparian reserves are discussed in 

Section 4.3.4.1. 

Transportation and Utility Corridors

Existing or designated transportation or utility corridors are not available on federal lands 

between the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Coos Bay to the pipeline terminus near 

Malin, Oregon. The proposed pipeline route was not analyzed in the West-wide Energy Corridor 

Programmatic EIS completed by the DOE, DOD, BLM, and the USFS (DOE 2008). Therefore, 

to be in conformance with the applicable existing USFS land use plans, these plans may need to 

be amended. 

Grazing Allotments

The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross a number of livestock grazing allotments currently 

under permit on NFS lands. In most cases, the grazing permittees utilize naturally occurring 

barriers, such as rock outcrops and thick stands of vegetation as livestock barriers. The pipeline 

right-of-way would remove some of these features, possibly facilitating livestock movement 

outside of the grazing allotments. Because grazing allotment management on NFS lands is sitespecific, Pacific Connector would address each allotment in the POD, in cooperation with the 

USFS and the allotment permittee. Possible mitigation measures for livestock management on 

the allotments could include placement of large felled trees and boulders removed from the 

trench to create natural-appearing barriers no less than 4 feet high, which would be adjacent to 

the existing, naturally occurring barriers, and would be maintained by Pacific Connector for the 

lifetime of the pipeline 

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions 

The WOPR revised all of the RMPs for the six BLM districts of western Oregon, including plans 

for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford Districts and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District across which the Pacific Connector pipeline would run. The WOPR process 

revised all six plans concurrently and thus resulted in a high degree of consistency among the 

plans. The BLM issued six RODs and six new plans in December 2008. The previous RMPs 

were completed in 1995, shortly after the writing of the NWFP, and had incorporated the NWFP 

ROD standards and guidelines. The December 2008 RMPs will be used to guide BLM’s 

management decisions on all lands administered by the agency. The WOPR process has 

effectively removed all of the six western Oregon BLM districts from NWFP jurisdiction, and 

thus also negated NWFP land use classifications such as LSR and Riparian Reserves on BLM 

lands. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-76 on, and Visual Resources 

Western Oregon Plan Revision Land Use Allocations 

The following land use allocation descriptions are those adopted with the issuance of the 

December 2008 RMPs (BLM 2008). The miles of each land use allocation that would be 

crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline is described in table 4.7.4.2-2. Acres potentially 

impacted within each WOPR allocation are listed in table 4.7.4.2-3. 

Administratively Withdrawn Area 

The administratively withdrawn land use allocation includes lands withdrawn from timber 

harvest for a variety of reasons. These include ACECs (including research natural areas); areas 

dedicated to specific purposes such as roads, buildings, maintenance yards, quarries, and other 

facilities and infrastructure recreation sites (such as campgrounds, trails, and day-use areas); sites 

managed for special status species; and areas identified as withdrawn from sustained yield timber 

production or identified as nonforest. We discuss ACECs near the pipeline route below in 

section 4.7.4.3 of the EIS. Areas identified as withdrawn from the harvest land base through the 

timber production capability classification system do not have specific management objectives or 

management directions. They may be managed similarly to the adjacent or surrounding land use 

allocations, if those uses are not incompatible with the reason for which the lands were 

withdrawn (as identified by the timber production capability classification codes). Areas would 

be periodically added to or deleted from those withdrawn from sustained yield timber production 

through updates to the timber production capability classification system when on-the-ground 

examinations indicate the existing classification is in error. Roads, maintenance yards, buildings, 

quarries, and other facilities also do not have specific management objectives or management 

directions but would be managed for the purpose for which the facilities were constructed. 

Late-Successional Management Area 

The Late-Successional Management Area land use allocation includes the areas of contiguous 

MAMU suitable habitat and recruitment habitat, including stands capable of becoming habitat 

for the MAMU within 25 years, within the range of the MAMU that are within 0.5 mile of 

occupied sites. The management objectives of the Late-Successional Management Areas include 

the maintenance and promotion of habitat for the NSO and the MAMU, and to recover economic 

value from timber harvested after a stand-replacement disturbance, such as a fire, windstorm, 

disease, or insect infestation. The BA discusses potential Project-related impacts on habitat for 

MAMU and NSO. 

Riparian Management Area 

As implied by it’s name, the Riparian Management Area land use allocation includes riparian 

areas throughout the western Oregon region, a land use allocation overlain on the other land use 

classifications described by the December 2008 RMPs. Within the project areas, the 

management objectives for the RMAs would be to provide for conservation of special status fish 

species; provide for riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream channels with shade, 

sediment filtering, leaf litter and large wood, and streambank stability; maintain and restore 

water quality; and maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of fish 

species. Section 4.4.1.4 of this EIS discusses potential Project-related impacts where the 

pipeline would cross areas of riparian vegetation. 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-77

TABLE 4.7.4.2-2 

December 2008 RMPs Land Use Allocations Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline, by BLM District (in miles) 

Jurisdiction 

Administratively 

Withdrawn 

Deferred Timber 

Management 

Late-Successional 

Management 

Riparian 

Management 

Timber 

Management 

U

M

Coos Bay 2.04 0.34 2.00 0.44 5.97 Roseburg 3.34 2.98 0.30 0.22 7.33 Medford 7.76 1.30 0.00 0.64 3.74 Lakeview 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 Total 13.41 4.62 2.30 1.36 17.04 Due to discrepancies between the GIS coverages for the December 2008 RMPs data and the LLI, the BLM Districts’ totals slightly differ from that provide

TABLE 4.7.4.2-3 

December 2008 RMPs Land Use Allocations Impacted by the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, by BLM District (in acre

Jurisdiction 

Administratively 

Withdrawn 

Deferred Timber 

Management

Late-Successional 

Management 

Riparian 

Management 

Timber 

Management 

U

M

BLM – Coos Bay District Construction Right-of-Way b/ 20.07 3.99 21.96 5.60 67.89 TEWAs 8.40 0.00 2.03 2.26 21.77 UCSAs 1.60 0.00 6.63 0.48 7.48 Off-site Source/Disposal 2.48 0.43 0.81 0.00 1.30 Total Temporary Impacts 32.55 4.42 31.43 8.34 98.44 Permanent Easement 12.09 2.07 12.37 2.72 36.11 PARs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Aboveground Facilities c/ <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 30-Foot Maintained 7.33 1.24 7.34 1.63 21.70 BLM – Roseburg District Construction Right-of-Way b/ 32.23 33.32 3.81 2.39 92.02 TEWAs 11.31 14.17 0.64 1.28 46.87 UCSAs 12.47 50.28 8.65 0.93 84.12 Off-site Source/Disposal 0.58 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.60 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-78

TABLE 4.7.4.2-3 

December 2008 RMPs Land Use Allocations Impacted by the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, by BLM District (in acre

Jurisdiction 

Administratively 

Withdrawn 

Deferred Timber 

Management

Late-Successional 

Management 

Riparian 

Management 

Timber 

Management 

U

M

TARs 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total Temporary Impacts 56.59 97.92 13.90 4.60 224.88 Permanent Easement 18.60 18.34 1.81 1.28 45.68 30-Foot Maintained 11.79 10.93 1.07 0.78 26.93 BLM – Medford District Construction Right-of-Way 90.88 14.11 0.00 7.85 43.02 TEWAs 41.95 5.32 0.00 2.03 14.86 UCSAs 13.13 6.26 0.00 0.11 10.75 Off-site Source/Disposal 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 Total Temporary Impacts 146.03 25.71 0.00 9.99 68.69 Permanent Easement 46.99 7.82 0.00 3.89 22.63 PARs <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 Aboveground Facilities c/ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 30-Foot Maintained 28.20 4.71 0.00 2.34 13.59 BLM – Lakeview District Construction Right-of-Way b/ 3.35 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 TEWAs 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 Total Temporary Impacts 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 Permanent Easement 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 30-Foot Maintained 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 Total BLM Impacts Temporary Impacts 239.26 128.05 45.33 23.65 392.01 Permanent Easement 79.32 28.23 14.18 8.23 104.42 30-Foot Maintained 48.30 16.88 8.41 4.95 62.22 a/ Due to discrepancies between the GIS coverages for the December 2008 RMPs data and the LLI, the BLM Districts’ totals slightly differ from that provib/ Acres impacted for the Construction Right-of-Way include Hydrostatic Test Discharge sites. c/ Aboveground facilities are also included within the permanent easement. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-79

Deferred Timber Management Area

The Deferred Timber Management Area consists of acreages taken from the underlying land use 

allocations of Uneven-Age Timber Management Area and Timber Management Area. After 

year 2023, the deferred acres would revert back to their underlying land use allocation and 

associated management objectives and actions. The management objective of the Deferred 

Timber Management Area is to maintain substantially all of the existing levels of older and more 

structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests through the year 2023. Section 4.4.2 of this 

EIS discusses timber management issues. 

Uneven-Age Timber Management Area

An Uneven-Age Timber Management Area has been established on portions of the Medford 

District and the Klamath Falls Resource Area, with the management objectives of managing 

forests to achieve continuous timber production that could be sustained and offered for sale 

annually through a balance of growth and harvest and to promote development of fire-resilient 

forests. 

Timber Management Area 

The Timber Management Area land use allocation consists of commercial forest lands that are 

not included in the above-named land use allocations. The management objectives of the Timber 

Management Areas are to manage forests to achieve continuous timber production that could be 

sustained through a balance of growth and harvest and to offer for sale annually the declared 

annual productive capacity of the lands included in the harvest base. 

Other Federal Land Use Classifications 

Critical Habitat Units

In an effort to encourage recovery of listed species, Critical Habitat designations were added to 

the ESA and are applied to protect habitat for all listed species. In the case of the Pacific 

Connector project area, Critical Habitat has been designated for coho salmon and the northern 

spotted owl. Section 4.6 includes a detailed discussion of the ESA and Critical Habitat 

designations as they apply to coho salmon and northern spotted owl. 

Oregon and California and Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands

Oregon and California Lands (O&C Lands) and Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands (CBWR Lands) 

are a unique category of federal lands crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline that are 

managed by the various BLM Districts and National Forests (table 4.7.4.2-4). These federal 

lands and their management are described below. 

The Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands were designated by Congress in 1866 to support 

the construction of a railroad in the State of Oregon. The O&C Lands, which were to be sold by 

the Oregon and California Railroad Company to aid in offsetting the cost of building the railroad 

between Portland and the California border, included all odd-numbered sections of land for a 

distance of 20 miles on both sides of the railroad. Oregon O&C Lands comprised a total of 

4,220,000 acres in 1866. The railroad ended its sales of O&C Lands to private citizens in 1903. 

In 1916, Congress passed the O&C Revestment Act, after the company failed in its obligations 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-80

TABLE 4.7.4.2-4 

Federally Managed O&C Lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands and Reserved Public Domain Land Crossed by the Pacific 

Connector Pipeline

Jurisdiction O&C Lands Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands 

Reserved Public 

Domain Lands a/ Total 

BLM – Coos Bay District 1.15 9.59 0.00 10.74 

BLM – Roseburg District 10.55 2.83 0.66 14.04 

BLM – Medford District 11.89 0.00 3.00 14.89 

BLM – Lakeview District 1.10 0.00 0.26 1.36 

Total BLM 24.69 12.42 3.92 41.03 

USFS– Umpqua 3.65 0.00 7.57 11.22 

USFS– Rogue River-Siskiyou 0.00 0.00 13.58 13.58 

USFS– Fremont-Winema 0.00 0.00 6.09 6.09 

Total USFS 3.65 0.00 27.24 30.89 

Total 28.34 12.42 31.16 71.92 

a/ Reserved Public Domain Lands are the remaining lands not classified as O&C or Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. 

under the terms of the grant, which returned over 2.4 million acres of Oregon’s O&C Lands to 

federal ownership and management (BLM with 2,084,107 acres and the USFS with 492,399 

acres). 

The CBWR Lands were established by a land grant in 1869 to the Southern Oregon Company, a 

decade after Oregon entered the United States. These lands were also subsequently reconveyed 

to the United States. The O&C Lands Act of 1937 requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

manage O&C and CBWR Lands for permanent forest production in conformity with the 

principle of sustained yield. By managing for sustained yield, protection for watersheds, 

regulation of stream flow, recreational facilities, and contribution to the economic stability of 

local communities and industries would be provided. These lands must also be managed in 

accordance with other environmental laws such as the ESA and the CWA. 

4.7.4.3 Recreation, Public Interest, and Special Use Areas on Federal Lands 

National Parks and Monuments 

The closest national park to the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline is Crater Lake National 

Park, located approximately 26 miles northeast of MP 132.0 near the proposed Butte Falls 

Compressor Station. The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is the closest monument to the 

pipeline at approximately 8.9 miles southwest of MP 175.0. Because of their distance from the 

pipeline route area, no national parks or monuments would be directly impacted by the proposed 

pipeline. Indirect impacts on nearby National Parks may include air quality effects on Class I 

areas (see section 4.11). 

National Scenic Byways 

Three National Scenic Byways would be crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline: the Pacific 

Coast Scenic Byway, the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway, and the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway. 

Direct impacts to these National Scenic Byways would be the temporary closure of the byways 

during pipeline construction, whether the road is crossed by boring or by open-cut (pavement 

removal and trenching). Short-term visual impacts in the first 5 years at these crossings would be 

greatly minimized by implementing mitigation measures from the Aesthetics Management Plan. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-81

The long-term impacts would be to the aesthetics of the Scenic Byways. As with other locations 

where the cleared pipeline right-of-way crosses roadways, there would be modifications to the 

landscape. Because part of the mission of the National Scenic Byway System is to protect a 

“distinctive collection of American roads,” it is clear that the linear nature of the deforested 

right-of-way crossing these roadways at almost any angle would create a disturbance for the 

casual observer, distracting them from the intended scenery of the byway. However, these 

impacts would be mitigated by the restoration of the construction right-of-way. In addition, 

Pacific Connector has a general plan to mitigate visual impacts at important road crossings. 

Following Highway 101 from Astoria to Brookings, many locations along the Pacific Coast 

Scenic Byway host spectacular views of the rugged Oregon coast. The Pacific Connector 

pipeline would cross the Pacific Coast Scenic Byway within the waters of Coos Bay, just north 

of the community of Glasgow (MP 2.67). As the pipeline crossing would occur within the bay, 

the only impact on users of the Pacific Coast Scenic Byway would be aesthetic and only during 

construction. Once the pipeline is placed and buried within the waterway, it would be 

undetectable to the casual observer. 

Following State Routes 138, 62, and 234, the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway forms a semi-circle 

route through the Umpqua and Rogue National Forests between the cities of Roseburg and Gold 

Hill. The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway (State 

Route 62, at that point) between the towns of Trail and Shady Grove (MP 125.99). We have 

evaluated the potential scenic impacts of the crossing of Highway 62, as seen from the post 

office at the community of Trail, above in section 4.7.3.4. 

The third National Scenic Byway crossed by the pipeline route would be the Volcanic Legacy 

Scenic Byway, which creates a touring route of south-central Oregon and northeastern 

California. The Oregon portion of the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway begins on U.S. 97, north 

of Crater Lake, circles Crater Lake, and then continues south on State Routes 62 and 140 through 

Klamath Falls and into California (NSBP 2008). The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross the 

Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway just south of Klamath Falls (MP 202.96). An HDD would be 

used to cross under Highway 97, therefore the pipeline should not impact scenic qualities of this 

byway. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would not impact any federally designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. The Rogue River, which the pipeline would cross near the community of Trail, is a 

designated Wild and Scenic River from the Crater Lake National Park boundary downstream to 

Prospect, approximately 20 miles north of the proposed pipeline crossing. Additionally, an 84-

mile section of the Rogue River is designated as Wild and Scenic starting about 7 miles west of 

the city of Grants Pass and proceeding west toward the town of Gold Beach (NPS 2005). 

Neither of these areas of designated Wild and Scenic River would be affected by the Project. 

Indirect impacts could occur if the pipeline crossing were to cause sedimentation that could run 

downstream and affect water quality of the federally designated Wild and Scenic River portion 

of the Rogue River. However, Pacific Connect proposes to cross under the Rogue River using an 

HDD, which would avoid direct impacts on this river. Also, while this segment of the Rogue 

River was found eligible by the BLM Medford District (BLM 1995c), its river-related values are 

only protected on BLM-managed lands, which are approximately 1 mile from the pipeline 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-82

crossing. The values for which the river was found eligible are not expected to be impacted by 

the pipeline construction and operation. 

Refuges, Reserves, and Wilderness Areas 

There are several federally designated Wilderness Areas in the Umpqua, Rogue River-Siskiyou 

and Fremont-Winema National Forests, but none of them would be crossed by the proposed 

Pacific Connector pipeline. Two Wilderness Areas, however, are in proximity to the proposed 

alignment: Sky Lakes Wilderness (113,590 acres) is in both the Fremont-Winema and Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forests and its southern tip is approximately 3.7 miles north of the 

pipeline alignment at MP 162.0; and Mountain Lakes Wilderness (23,071 acres), in the FremontWinema National Forest, is approximately 2.3 miles north of MP 172.0. These distances, over 

forested land, are considered to be far enough removed from the pipeline so as to not be 

impacted by pipeline construction or operation.

The Klamath Basin hosts a complex of six National Wildlife Refuges in the Klamath Falls region 

of Southern Oregon and Northern California. The refuges, managed by the FWS, consist of a 

variety of habitats including freshwater marshes, lakes, meadows, coniferous forests, sagebrush 

and juniper grasslands, agricultural lands, and rocky cliffs and slopes. The habitats support 

diverse and abundant populations of resident and migratory wildlife with 433 species having 

been observed on or near the refuges. Each year the refuges serve as a migratory stopover for 

about 75 percent of the Pacific Flyway waterfowl, with peak fall concentrations of more than 1 

million birds (FWS 2006). 

At MP 204.0, the pipeline would be approximately 5.7 miles north of the Lower Klamath 

National Wildlife Refuge and approximately 3.20 miles northeast of the Bear Valley National 

Refuge at MP 192.56. Some USGS topographic maps show old Lower Klamath Refuge 

boundaries on lands that were withdrawn from consideration in the 1920s (Coles 2006). Pacific 

Connector confirmed with the FWS in June 2006 that the pipeline would not impact any lands 

within the Klamath Basin Refuge boundaries. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

The proposed pipeline route and related facilities would not be located in any Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRA). The nearest IRA is the Brown Mountain IRA, located on the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest approximately 0.6 mile north of MP 162.0. On the FremontWinema National Forest, the West Boundary IRA is about 2.4 miles northeast of MP 171.0. 

National Recreational Areas and Trails 

Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA and Oregon Dunes NRA 

The Oregon Dunes NRA, administered by the USFS as part of the Siuslaw National Forest, is 

located north of the proposed pipeline route between MPs 0.0 and 1.25. The BLM has 

designated part of the North Spit as the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA, about 0.5 mile north of the 

beginning of the pipeline at the Jordan Cove Meter Station. The Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA 

and Oregon Dunes NRA were previously discussed in sections 4.7.1.3 and 4.7.2.3 in relationship 

to the waterway for LNG marine traffic and the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal. The pipeline 

should have no direct impacts on the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA and the Oregon Dues NRA as 

it would not cross those recreational areas. In section 4.9 we address potential indirect impacts 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-83

construction-related traffic may have on recreational users of the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA 

and the Oregon Dunes NRA who may drive on Highway 101, the Trans-Pacific Parkway, and 

Horsfall Beach Road to reach those areas. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 

The PCT is a 2,650-mile hiking and equestrian trail stretching from the Canadian border in 

Washington to the Mexican border in California. With the passage of the National Trails System 

Act of 1968, Congress designated the PCT as one of the first scenic trails in the nation (USDA 

1982). From desert valleys in Southern California to rain forests in the Pacific Northwest, the 

PCT offers users a unique and varied experience and is considered by many the “Crown Jewel” 

of American hiking trails. Thousands of hikers and horse riders use the trail each year (USFS 

2006). Approximately 430 miles of the trail runs along the mostly forested crest of the Cascade 

Mountain Range in Oregon. The PCT in Oregon is very popular among hikers of all abilities and 

is considered to contain many of the easiest sections of the trail (PCTA 2002). 

Northeast of the pipeline route area near MP 162.0, the PCT skirts the western flank of Brown 

Mountain and the lava beds to its south in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Trail users 

can access the trail in several locations near the pipeline route area, including a registered 

trailhead on the Dead Indian Memorial Highway (County Road 533). This trailhead is about 1.3 

miles west of where the pipeline crosses this road (MP 168.8). The trail can also be accessed 

using Forest Road 700 or using the Brown Mountain trail accessed by Forest Road 3705. This 

section of the trail can be used year round by hikers, equestrian users, cross-country skiers, and 

snowshoers. The proposed pipeline alignment crosses the PCT at approximately MP 167.86. 

In response to a recommendation in the draft EIS, Pacific Connector has modified its proposed 

route at the crossing of the PCT, specifically to reduce impacts on the trail and trail users. The 

modification would reduce the amount of pipeline right-of-way visible from the PCT from an 

estimated 4,000 feet along the original route to 1,000 feet on the new proposed route. See 

additional discussion in section 3.1.4.2. 

Upon completion of construction in the area, Pacific Connector would revegetate the right-ofway using large native trees, shrubs, and plants. A buffer of vegetation would skirt the right-ofway at the PCT crossing, and within 15 to 20 years the right-of-way would be expected to be 

visually subordinate to casual trail users, although evidence of forest harvest and alteration 

would be evident to trail users for several more years. The Partial Retention VQO states that 

management activities must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape, and that visual 

impacts must be reduced within one year. Because of the undisturbed setting of the foreground 

area at the proposed PCT crossing, Pacific Connector anticipates that for the short and mid term 

these objectives would not be attainable. 

South Brown Mountain Shelter 

The South Brown Mountain Shelter is a small, fully enclosed log cabin about 200 yards off the PCT 

in Section 32, T37S, R5E The shelter, located in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest near its 

boundary with the Fremont-Winema National Forest, is used year-round by hikers, cross-country 

skiers, snowmobilers, and others. The cabin contains a wood stove primitive storage facilities and 

counter spaces. In the fall of 2005, it was significantly repaired and updated by a group of volunteers 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-84

(PCTA 2006). Potable well water is also available using a hand pump that is operational from midMay to late-October. The shelter is approximately 600 feet north of the proposed pipeline route near 

MP 167.7 and would not be impacted by operation of the pipeline. Temporary noise from pipeline 

construction may be audible at the shelter, but visitors would not be able to see the pipeline because 

of the existing vegetation screening between the shelter and the proposed right-of-way. 

Brown Mountain Trail 

The Brown Mountain Trail is a path for non-motorized users on the Fremont-Winema and Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forests. The trail is linked by two short sections of forest roads and 

circles Brown Mountain. One access point is near the proposed pipeline at a trailhead on Forest 

Road 3705, near South Fork Little Butte Creek about a mile north of MP 165.0. The Brown 

Mountain Trail and access on Forest Road 3705 are not expected to be impacted by pipeline 

construction or operation. 

Keno Recreation Area and John C. Boyle Reservoir

Boat launches and the Topsy Recreation site, operated by the BLM, provide camping, picnicking, 

fishing, boating, and swimming for visitors to this section of the Klamath River south of MP 

184.31. The recreation area and access to the reservoir should not be adversely impacted by 

operation of the pipeline. However, during construction, there could be some delays on the Keno 

Access Road. Potentially, the reservoir could be a source of water for pipeline hydrostatic testing 

Section 4.3.2.5 includes a discussion of pipeline hydrostatic testing and potential impacts. 

Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

An RNA is an area dedicated to the preservation of significant ecosystems, to providing areas for 

educational activities and ecological research, and the preservation of gene pools of native 

species. In addition to RNAs, the BLM has established ACECs that have significant natural area 

values. To be designated as an ACEC, an area must require special management attention to 

protect its important and relevant values. Special management attention refers to management 

prescriptions developed expressly to protect the important values of an area from potential effects 

of management actions that would otherwise be permitted by a RMP. 

North Spit Area of Critical Environmental Concern

The North Spit ACEC is discussed in section 4.7.1.3. It is located about 3.5 miles southwest of 

where the pipeline would begin (MP 0.0) at the Jordan Cove Meter Station. Construction and 

operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline should have no impacts on the North Spit ACEC. 

Round Top Butte Research Natural Area 

The proposed pipeline alignment near MP 135.6 would be less than 0.25 mile from the Round 

Top Butte RNA, which is managed by the BLM’s Medford District. This 604-acre area was 

designated as an RNA because of its natural systems, vernal pools, Ponderosa pine, oak 

woodland, chaparral, and grassland communities. The RNA has also been proposed as an ACEC 

and nominated for further analysis because of the RNA’s existing status and because it can be 

managed in conjunction with adjacent Nature Conservancy lands. The Nature Conservancy 

lands adjacent to Round Top RNA fill ONHP Klamath Mountain Ecological Cell 59. The 

ecological elements represented in cells are generally one or more ecological assemblages of 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-85

plant associations, defined by the dominant native plants that characterize the environment. 

Unique or local ecosystems are only included in the ONHP when they appear to make a 

significant contribution to biodiversity within the ecoregion. The proposed pipeline would not 

cross or directly affect this RNA. 

Upper Rock Creek ACEC 

The proposed pipeline alignment near MP 43.85 has been routed to avoid impacts to the BLM 

Coos Bay District Upper Rock Creek ACEC. This 472-acre ACEC located in Section 5 of T29S, 

R9W was designated to preserve the area’s natural systems and botanical values which include 

western redcedar, western hemlock, and skunk cabbage as well as sedge-dominated wetlands. 

The area also fills ONHP Coast Range Ecological Cell 108 (ONHP 2003). 

In an effort to avoid the ACEC, Pacific Connector rerouted the pipeline following a ridgeline that 

trends in a southeasterly direction into Section 8, T29S,R9W and away from the ACEC. To 

avoid aligning the pipeline on side slopes in this area, the construction right-of-way was colocated in North Rock Creek Road BLM Road 30-10-3 for approximately 875 feet along the 

crest of the ridgeline. This road is also the eastern boundary of the ACEC. However, this road 

abruptly curves to the south near MP 43.45 immediately north of the section line in a side 

sloping area. Therefore, to avoid the side slopes, the alignment continues along the stable 

ridgeline for approximately 300 feet within the ACEC. The area of the ACEC that is crossed by 

the alignment is in the extreme southwest corner and is located in a regeneration forest stand that 

is approximately 30 years old according to BLM records. Although impacts to the ACEC would 

be minimized through this alignment, the pipeline would impact 1.10 acres of this regenerating 

forest within the ACEC. Pacific Connector has proposed no specific measures to mitigate the 

impacts on the ACEC. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Pacific Connector should continue to consult with the BLM as necessary to ensure 

that appropriate site-specific mitigation measures are included in the POD, 

including revegetation, to reduce or mitigate impacts on the Upper Rock Creek 

ACEC. The results of these consultations should be filed with the Secretary.

4.7.4.4 Visual Resources on Federal Lands 

Regulatory Setting and Visual/Scenic Management Systems 

The responsibility of protecting visual resources on lands owned or under the jurisdiction of the 

federal government is established by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), 

which places emphasis on the protection of scenic resources on public land, and the Forestland 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974) which empowers the USFS to manage 

scenery resources. The National Forest Management Act (1976) required the completion of 

Forest Plans which established VQOs for the National Forests. 

NFS Lands 

NFS lands are managed in accordance with the USFS Scenery Management System (previously 

known as Visual Management System, SMS and VMS, respectively), which provides a means 

with which to inventory scenic resources and provide measurable scenic quality management 

standards. The SMS is based on the relative scenic quality of each portion of the landscape and 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4.7-86

its sensitivity based on the visibility from, and uses in, the surrounding areas. The SMS uses 

Scenic Integrity Objectives to establish the desired conditions for management of an area. The 

objective of the USFS VMS and SMS is to manage NFS lands to attain the highest possible 

quality of landscape aesthetics and scenery commensurate with other appropriate public uses, 

costs, and benefits. Scenic integrity is defined as “a measure of the degree to which a landscape 

is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those 

landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its 

aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is used to describe an existing situation, standard for 

management, or desired future condition” (USDA 1995). 

Under the former VMS system, management prescriptions and related VQOs were developed for 

all NFS lands. VQOs for each national forest crossed by the pipeline are identified in their 

respective LRMPs. VQOs are management standards that identify five degrees of alteration to 

the natural landscape based on a landscape’s diversity of natural features and the public’s 

concern for scenic quality. Because the aforementioned forest plans have not been amended to 

use the SMS, both VMS and SMS systems will be used in this section. A crosswalk between the 

two systems is described in Landscape Aesthetics: a Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA 

1995) and is presented in table 4.7.4.4-1. 

Where the pipeline would cross the Umpqua National Forest, the VQOs are Modification and 

Maximum Modification. Pipeline construction, operation (including the cleared right-of-way), 

and maintenance are compatible with these VQOs. Clean-up of stumps, root wads, and boulders 

would be required by the USFS in the pipeline right-of-way, TEWAs, and UCSAs; otherwise, 

the pipeline would achieve an unacceptable modification classification. Where the pipeline 

would cross the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Fremont-Winema National Forests, the VQO are 

Retention and Partial Retention; and standard pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance 

is not compatible with these VQOs. Mitigation measures described elsewhere in this section and 

incorporated into Pacific Connector’s Aesthetics Management Plan focus on these NFS lands. 

These mitigation measures include re-contouring of the soil and mitigation of soil color contrast, 

planting larger trees than the seedlings typically used in reforestation, and thinning of existing 

tree stands along the right-of-way edge in order to break up the hard edge that would be created 

by the right-of-way clearing. Partial burial of boulders, specified root wad placements, and the 

planting of native shrub species would also be required on federal lands with Retention and 

Partial Retention VQOs. Table 4.7.4.4-2 displays the USFS VQOs that would be achieved by 

the pipeline after implementation of mitigation measures. Site-specific details on proposed 
4.7 – Land Use, Recr

4.7-87

TABLE 4.7.4.4-1 

Crosswalk Between Visual Quality Objectives, Scenic Integrity Objectives, and Scenic Integrity Levels a/

Visual Management 

System (VMS) 

1973 Direction 

Scenery Management 

System (SMS) 

1995 Direction 

Visual Quality 

Objective (VQO) 

Scenic Integrity 

Objective (SIO) Definition of Scenic Integrity Levels 

Preservation Very High Unaltered: Valued landscape character “is” intact with only minute if any visual deviations. The exis

expressed at the highest possible level. 

Retention High SIO Appears unaltered: Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Visual dev

structures or activities) may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern cocharacter so completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.

Partial Retention Moderate SIO Appears slightly altered: Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape cModification Low SIO Appears Moderately Altered: Visual deviations (human-made structures or activities) begin to domi

character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattvegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should ncharacter outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character wit

Maximum Modification Very Low SIO Appears Heavily Altered: Visual deviations (human-made structures or activities) may strongly dom

character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattervegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. Howeshaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, structures do not dominate the composition.

For Inventory and Scenic Effect Prediction Purposes Only Unacceptable Modification1 UM 

 Unacceptably Low Extremely altered: Landscapes where the valued landscape character being viewed appears extrem

deviations (human-made structures or activities) are extremely dominant and borrow little if any foror scale from the landscape character. Landscapes of this level of integrity need rehabilitation. Thiinventory existing integrity. It must not be used as a management objective. 

a/ Scenic Integrity Objectives establish desired conditions for management (equivalent to purpose of Visual Quality Objectives under former VMS); Scen

the current condition of the scenic resource. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-88 on, and Visual Resources 

TABLE 4.7.4.4-2 

USFS Visual Management System Visual Quality Objectives Crossed by Pacific Connector Pipeline, by Milepost 

Forest Plan Adopted VQO, by Milepost 

of Pacific Connector Pipeline 

VQO That Would be Achieved by Pacific 

Connector Pipeline Without Mitigation 

Would be Achieved by Pacific Connector 

Pipeline With VRM Mitigation 

VQO P: Preservation 

No occurrences No occurrences No occurrences 

VQO R: Retention 

153.76 - 154.63 

161.07 - 161.64 

162.43 - 162.51 

168.41 - 169.09 

No occurrences No occurrences 

VQO PR: Partial Retention 

155.25 - 155.46 

155.80 - 155.82 

156.25 - 156.82 

157.13 - 157.39 

157.91 - 158.15 

158.33 - 158.42 

167.49 - 168.41 

169.09 - 175.39 

No occurrences No occurrences 

VQO M: Modification 

108.47 - 109.20 

154.63 - 154.90 

155.46 - 155.53 

155.57 - 155.61 

No occurrences No occurrences 

VQO MM: Maximum Modification 

99.31 - 99.90 

100.36 - 100.66 

101.21 - 101.92 

102.30 - 102.83 

104.08 - 108.47 

109.20 - 113.20 

155.53 - 155.57 

155.61 - 155.80 

155.82 - 156.25 

156.82 - 157.13 

157.39 - 157.91 

158.15 - 158.33 

158.42 - 161.07 

161.64 - 162.43 

162.51 - 167.49 

No occurrences 99.31 - 99.90 

100.36 - 100.66 

101.21 - 101.92 

102.30 - 102.83 

104.08 - 108.47 

108.47 – 109.20 

109.20 - 113.20 

153.76 - 154.63 

154.63 - 154.90 

155.25 - 155.46 

155.46 - 155.53 

155.53 - 155.57 

155.57 - 155.61 

155.61 - 155.80 

155.80 - 155.82 

155.82 - 156.25 

156.25 - 156.82 

156.82 - 157.13 

157.13 - 157.39 

157.39 - 157.91 

157.91 - 158.15 

158.15 - 158.33 

158.33 - 158.42 

158.42 - 161.07 

161.07 - 161.64 

161.64 - 162.43 

162.43 - 162.51 

162.51 - 167.49 

167.49 - 168.41 

168.41 - 169.09 

169.09 - 175.39 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-89 on, and Visual Resources 

TABLE 4.7.4.4-2 

USFS Visual Management System Visual Quality Objectives Crossed by Pacific Connector Pipeline, by Milepost 

Forest Plan Adopted VQO, by Milepost 

of Pacific Connector Pipeline 

VQO That Would be Achieved by Pacific 

Connector Pipeline Without Mitigation 

Would be Achieved by Pacific Connector 

Pipeline With VRM Mitigation 

VQO UM: Unacceptable Modification—Never an objective. Used only for inventory of existing conditions or effect predictions of 

proposed projects such as Pacific Connector pipeline.

— 99.31 - 99.90 

100.36 - 100.66 

101.21 - 101.92 

102.30 - 102.83 

104.08 - 108.47 

108.47 – 109.20 

109.20 - 113.20 

153.76 - 154.63 

154.63 - 154.90 

155.25 - 155.46 

155.46 - 155.53 

155.53 - 155.57 

155.57 - 155.61 

155.61 - 155.80 

155.80 - 155.82 

155.82 - 156.25 

156.25 - 156.82 

156.82 - 157.13 

157.13 - 157.39 

157.39 - 157.91 

157.91 - 158.15 

158.15 - 158.33 

158.33 - 158.42 

158.42 - 161.07 

161.07 - 161.64 

161.64 - 162.43 

162.43 - 162.51 

162.51 - 167.49 

167.49 - 168.41 

168.41 - 169.09 

169.09 - 175.39 

— 

Source: USFS Landscape Architecture and GIS Departments 

mitigation methods would need to be refined in consultation with the federal land management 

agencies to ensure that VQOs would be achieved. A revised Aesthetics Management Plan was 

filed with the FERC on April 6, 2009. 

Pacific Connector adopted elements requested by the USFS in their revised Aesthetics 

Management Plan. This Aesthetics Management Plan would not apply to BLM-administered 

lands, due to the reclassification of nearly all of the BLM-administered lands crossed by the 

pipeline route as VRM Class IV. The USFS draft Aesthetics Management Plan includes the 

following features: 

1.0 Soil Color Contrast Mitigation 

1.1 Chip slash to: a. mulch right-of-way to manage slash production, b. reduce soil 

erosion, and, c. retain soil moisture to increase revegetation success. 

1.2 Hydro-mulch seeding with colorant-dark brownish green to reduce color contrast. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-90 on, and Visual Resources 

2.0 Edge/Form Mitigation 

2.1 Scallop edges by removing trees in designated areas to reduce the straight linear 

edge, and change shadow cast patterns. 

2.2 Feather edges of right-of-way by cutting tall trees (40 feet tall or taller) along the 

immediate edge, leaving trees 10 to 40 feet in height for a distance of 50 to 100 feet. 

2.3 Consider prescribed fire to burn in the area to create small openings with natural 

shapes to reduce edges, and create a less linear form. 

3.0 Revegetate for Reduction of Width and Improving Form 

3.1 Transplant trees 15 to 20 feet in height into the right-of-way in clusters by using a 

tree spade to immediately reduce the sharp linear edge, and break up the wide barren 

swath. 

4.0 Treatment of TEWAS in Highly Visible Areas 

4.1 Transplant trees into the TEWAs in clusters by using a tree spade. Combine with 

partially recessed (one-third to one-half recess) boulders to create groupings for wildlife 

use and to appear more natural. 

4.2 Treat compacted soils by sub soiling to aerate the soils. 

5.0 Root Wad and Boulder Placement in Immediate Foreground 

5.1 Every effort shall be made to bury all root wads and boulders within the pipeline 

corridor. 

5.2 Root wads and boulders placed in the immediate foreground (300 feet) should be 

partially buried to at least one-third the height of the boulder and one-third the height of 

the root wad. Cut faces should be directed away from the viewer platform, or concealed 

with soil or boulders. Root wads and boulders shall be placed in groupings of a 

maximum of 3 root wads and 2 boulders. There shall be no more than one grouping per 

one-eighth mile within Retention areas or Class I areas. Site-specific design shall be 

developed for all immediate foreground areas, and mitigation measures shall be 

constructed under the on-site advisement of a scenery specialist during the time of 

construction. 

6.0 Subsoil to Reduce Soil Compaction 

6.1 Sub-soiling shall occur on all areas that are not immediately over the pipeline to 

reduce soil compaction and to improve success of revegetation efforts. 

7.0 Planting Shrubs 

7.1 Plant 1- to 2-gallon sized shrubs and protect with plant guards. This would reduce 

the soil contrast and the single plane of the open forest floor. Plant as designated on the 

site plan for the immediate foreground of the site. 

8.0 Blocking from OHV Use 

8.1 Create a berm with boulders to discourage access from OHV use. Construct as 

designated on site plan for the immediate foreground site plan for the immediate 

foreground of the site. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-91 on, and Visual Resources 

9.0 Screening 

9.1 Screen the corridor from the viewer by leaving specific trees near the roadway that can 

be worked around, and transplanting trees of 15 to 20 feet height in groupings in the 

immediate foreground, as designated on site plan for the immediate foreground of the site. 

10.0 Plant Deciduous Trees and Shrubs for Fall Color 

10.1 Plant willow, Ceanothus, Ribes, huckleberry, chinquapin as designated by the site plan. 

12.0 Scenic Stability 

12.1 Develop a mitigation fund for National Forest project work related to design, NEPA, 

and implementation of a variable width fuel break along the highway. This project would 

thin trees 50 to 500 feet along the highway, to reduce density, fuel loads, and percent of 

canopy closure. This project would open up the stands and reduce the risk of losing existing 

scenic attributes, and recommend mitigation efforts in the event of a large stand replacement 

fire. 

BLM Lands 

The BLM has a Visual Resource Management system that is comparable to the USFS VMS. 

Based on a matrix of three factors (scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance), BLMadministered lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes (table 4.7.4.4-3). 

These classes represent the relative value of the visual resources, Class I (Preserve Character) 

and Class II (Retain Character) being the most valued, Class III (Partially Retain Character) 

representing a moderate value, and Class IV (Major Modification of Character) being of least 

value. The class objectives describe the different degrees of modification, or contrast, allowed to 

the basic visual elements of the landscape in each class. VRM management classes are then 

established through the RMP process and adjusted as necessary to reflect the resource allocation 

decisions made in RMPs. 

TABLE 4.7.4.4-3 

BLM Visual Resource Management Classes

VRM Class Definition 

Class I 

Preserve 

Landscape 

Character 

The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological 

changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. (This classification is usually applied to wilderness areas, wild

and scenic rivers, and other similar situations.) 

Class II 

Retain 

Landscape 

Character 

The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

Class III 

Partially Retain 

Landscape 

Character 

The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the 

view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

Class IV 

Major 

Modification of 

Landscape 

Character 

The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character 

of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may 

dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the 

impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-92 on, and Visual Resources 

In late December 2008, the BLM issued 6 RODs for the RMPs that were developed under the 

WOPR. With this action, the BLM completed its revision of the land use plans that will guide 

the management of 2.6 million acres in western Oregon in the BLM's Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, 

Medford, and Coos Bay Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. 

Under the December 2008 RMPs, the vast majority of the Pacific Connector pipeline crosses 

BLM lands classified as VRM Class IV (Major Modification of Character), and its construction, 

operation, and maintenance are consistent with the objectives this class. Approximately 0.26 

miles of the pipeline would cross lands now classified as VRM Class III, and with mitigation, its 

construction, operation, and maintenance are consistent with the objectives of this class. 

All BLM-administered areas and sensitive viewsheds previously identified in the draft EIS as 

Class II (Retain Character) and Class III (Partially Retain Character) are now managed as Class 

IV (Major Modification of Character). The only remaining area of VRM Class III that would be 

crossed by the pipeline route is between MPs 216.48 to 216.74, where the pipeline enters a small 

piece of land administered by the Lakeview District. The pipeline would be immediately 

adjacent to and on the south side of an existing high-voltage transmission line corridor that has 

an existing right-of-way cleared through native vegetation. Clearing for the Pacific Connector 

pipeline would not create a noticeable change in this existing landscape. 

Although the entire remainder of the pipeline corridor (except between MPs 216.48 to 216.74) 

crosses BLM lands now managed as VRM Class IV under the December 2008 RMPs, mitigation 

measures described in Pacific Connector’s Aesthetics Management Plan would be applied to the 

sensitive viewsheds described above in order to reduce the contrast of the cleared right-of-way 

corridor. These measures include re-contouring of soil, replanting of larger trees and shrubs, and 

specified placement of root wads and partially buried boulders. The BLM has requested that 

these measures also should take place on adjacent private lands in sensitive viewsheds, 

particularly near the Highway 62 and Highway 140 crossings where the pipeline corridor is in 

close proximity to the highways and climbs up the faces of steep slopes before entering BLMadministered land. However, Pacific Connector has indicated that it does not intend to do so. A 

revised Aesthetics Management Plan was filed with the FERC on April 6, 2009. 

General Mitigation for Sensitive Viewsheds on Federal Lands 

The pipeline route would be largely confined to ridgelines where a minimum area of the right-ofway would be visible from surrounding lower elevations. The ridgetop placement in many areas 

would also conform to the line and form of the landscape. In other areas, the viewing distances 

from major roads are such that contrasts to the landscape would be minimized. Pacific 

Connector would consult with the USFS and BLM visual resource specialists regarding visual 

impact resource mitigation techniques such as feathering and scalloping of edges, transplanting 

of larger trees, mulching, soil berms, placing boulders, etc., to reduce the visual impacts of the 

pipeline where it crosses or parallels roads, or climbs hills in the foreground/middleground of 

sensitive viewsheds. 

In locations next to Clover Creek Road, the USFS and BLM have requested visual resource 

mitigation measures that would lessen visual contrasts, but would not meet adopted visual 

resource management goals, objectives, and standards. Additional site-specific measures would 

be identified during Pacific Connector’s ongoing consultations with the BLM and USFS during 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-93 on, and Visual Resources 

development of the POD. A revised Aesthetics Management Plan was filed with the FERC on 

April 2009. 

The permanent easement, which is 53 feet wide on federal lands, would be replanted with trees 

outside of the 30 feet centered over the pipeline centerline. Pacific Connector would coordinate 

operational maintenance activities to minimize impacts to sensitive viewsheds through the 

federal Right-of-Way Grant. This may be accomplished by minimizing the maintained corridor 

width and by appropriately treating the woody material (slash, root wads, and cull logs) from the 

maintenance operations. The federal Right-of-Way Grant may also stipulate other measures to 

ensure that the right-of-way maintenance operations would be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes impacts to visual resources and other sensitive resources. 

All BLM-administered lands that would be crossed by the pipeline route on the Coos Bay, 

Roseburg, and Medford Districts, plus the Klamath Falls Resource Area, have been designated 

VRM Class IV (Major Modification of Character), with which pipeline construction and the 

presence of a cleared right-of-way are compatible. Table 4.7.4.4-4 displays the BLM-VRM 

classes that would be achieved by the pipeline after implementation of all visual resource 

mitigation measures. 

TABLE 4.7.4.4-4 

BLM Visual Resource Management System VRM Classes Crossed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, by Milepost

VRM Class per GIS Data, by Milepost 

of Pacific Connector Pipeline 

VRM Class That Would be Achieved by 

Pacific Connector Pipeline Without 

Mitigation 

VRM Class That Would be Achieved by 

Pacific Connector Pipeline With VRM 

Mitigation 

VRM Class I: Preserve Landscape Character 

No occurrences No occurrences No occurrences 

VRM Class II: Retain Landscape Character 

No occurrences No occurrences No occurrences 

VRM Class III: Partially Retain Landscape Character 

216.48 - 216.74 216.48 - 216.74 216.48 - 216.74 

VRM Class IV: Major Modification of Landscape Character 

All mileages All mileages All mileages 

Source: BLM Recreation and GIS Departments 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline’s short-term impacts on visual conditions during 

construction would be unavoidable and there is no mitigation available to make vehicles, heavy 

equipment, helicopters, and other project components less visible during construction. 

Following construction, the pipeline right-of-way would be recontoured to as near preconstruction contours as possible, and all disturbed areas would be seeded to provide ground 

cover, and allowed to revegetate naturally. Pacific Connector has proposed a number of 

measures that would reduce long-term visual impact. Additional site-specific measures may be 
 4.7 – Land Use, Recreati 4.7-94 on, and Visual Resources 

identified during Pacific Connector’s ongoing consultations with the BLM and USFS during 

development of the POD. We recommend that:

• Pacific Connector should continue to consult with the BLM and USFS as necessary 

to develop visual resource protection design and mitigation measures that would be 

included in the POD for construction and operation of the proposed facilities on 

federally managed lands. Pacific Connector should file with the Secretary the Final 

Aesthetics Management Plan.