4.2-1 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS 

The five principal factors of soil formation include parent material, climate, relief, living 

organisms or biological activity, and time. In the Project area, soils have formed as a result of 

these five factors and soil differences are primarily a result of the relative importance, or 

dominant influence, of the various soil formation factors. 

4.2.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

No excavation, dredging, or other direct impact to soils or sediments is proposed for the 

waterway from the territorial seas to the proposed LNG terminal site. The Coos Bay navigation 

channel is currently used for industrial water supply, fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, 

fishing, boating, water contact recreation, aesthetic quality, and commercial navigation and 

transportation (ODEQ 2006d) and is maintained by the COE. The Port and Jordan Cove are not 

proposing to make any modifications to the existing navigation channel, with the exception of 

facilities proposed at the LNG terminal site, which are discussed below in section 4.2.2. 

Jordan Cove has conducted a shoreline erosion study to determine the shoreline impacts during 

the transit of LNG carrier traffic. The study determined that the relative wave energy from LNG 

carriers would comprise an estimated 0.0 to 3.1 percent of the total wave energy (Moffatt and 

Nichol 2008a)36. Jordan Cove does not expect soils along the waterway to be adversely affected 

by the wave action from the additional LNG carrier traffic as the LNG carriers would transit the 

bay at slow speeds and would not produce wakes that could erode the banks of the waterway. 

The channel width is relatively narrow compared to Coos Bay and the wave action would tend to 

dissipate before the waves reached the shoreline. Impacts from LNG carriers on shoreline 

erosion would be similar to conditions resulting from existing ship traffic within Coos Bay. 

Spills, leaks, or other releases of hazardous materials during the LNG carrier transit could 

adversely impact sediments in the bay or the ocean. The addition of 80 LNG carriers to the 

existing ship traffic would increase the probability of potential spills. Jordan Cove has prepared 

a draft Emergency Response Plan for the operational phase of the terminal to minimize the 

potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials and to establish proper protocol 

concerning minimization, containment, remediation, and reporting of any releases that might 

occur. Fuel (e.g., diesel) used for vessel propulsion or auxiliary/emergency generators on an 

LNG carrier could potentially spill or leak. However, fuel on each carrier is protected by the 

vessel’s double hull. Furthermore, each LNG carrier would maintain a Shipboard Oil Pollution 

Emergency Plan (SOPEP) as required by international convention. The SOPEP would comply 

with MARPOL [marine pollution] 73/78 Consolidated Edition 2002 Annex 1 Regulation 26, 

which requires every oil tanker of 150 tons gross and above, and every vessel of 400 tons gross 

and above to carry an approved SOPEP. All LNG carriers would also be required to comply 

with state spill prevention and contingency plans. 

A release of LNG from an LNG carrier as a result of an accident or intentional breach would not 

have an impact on bottom sediments because LNG is not soluble in water and would float on the 

water surface before vaporizing. If an unignited release of LNG were to occur that resulted in 

 

36 This report, Jordan Cove LNG Terminal, Coos Bay, Oregon, Shoreline Erosion Study, Responses to FERC Recommendation 

#15, dated November 13, 2008, was filed with the FERC by Jordan Cove on December 5, 2008. It is available for viewing by the 

public through the FERC Internet website, using the eLibrary feature. 
4.2-2 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

contact with the shoreline soils, these soils could be affected due to the cold properties of the 

LNG. The cold effects would be temporary because the LNG would vaporize quickly and 

disperse to the air, and no long-term effects would be anticipated. If the vapor from the release 

of the LNG cargo were in the presence of an ignition source, the resulting fire could increase soil 

surface temperatures within the Zones of Concern, as well as damaging or destroying vegetation. 

The loss of vegetation could result in increased erosion. The probability of these scenarios 

occurring is low given the marine transit safety and security measures employed. Therefore, 

LNG marine traffic should not have significant impacts on sediments or soils along the 

waterway. 

4.2.2 LNG Terminal 

4.2.2.1 Soil Composition 

Construction of the LNG terminal would disturb a total of about 108.3 acres. This would include 

about 7.1 acres of Dune Land soils, 4.1 acres of Heceta Fine Sand soils, 35.2 acres of Waldport 

Fine Sand soils, and 23.8 acres of dredged material. The dredged material, upwards of 12 to 17 

feet deep, covers the area between the dune at the eastern side of the terminal parcel and 

Henderson Marsh on the west (SHN 2006). This dredged material was deposited at the terminal 

location in the 1970s by the COE. The Bullards-Nehalem-Duneland soil association underlies a 

portion of this disturbed area. 

GRI (2007a) performed geotechnical investigations in the area of the LNG storage tanks and 

process area of the proposed LNG terminal, including 11 deep borings. The subsurface data 

revealed that generally the area was mantled by relatively clean, fine-grained sand, with traces of 

silt that is underlain by weathered sandstone. The sand layer extended from the surface to a 

depth of at least 124 feet. 

Excavation and dredging to create the slip and access channel would disturb a total of 72 acres. 

This would include approximately 1.8 acres of Dune Land soils, 0.2 acre of Heceta Fine Sand 

soils, 21.6 acres of Waldport Fine Sand soils, and 20.9 acres of dredged material. Sediments in 

the vicinity of the site consist of rock and sand. These sediments settle quickly and would 

generate little turbidity (Moffatt and Nichol 2006a). Additional geotechnical sampling of the 

subsurface sediments within the proposed slip was recommended by GRI in August 2007. As 

described in section 4.1.2, a further series of geotechnical studies would be performed during 

detailed design. Those studies would be reviewed by the Board of Consultants, also described in 

section 4.1.2. Sampling of the sediments off-shore, which would be dredged to create the access 

channel, indicate that they mainly consist of densely packed, fine to medium sized sand (SHN 

2007). Because these soils are predominantly sands, they are not as cohesive as traditional soils. 

A portion of the LNG terminal was previously disturbed by the operations of Roseburg and 

Weyerhaeuser, and by the placement of dredged material. 

Walport Fine Sand, which makes up almost 33 percent of the terminal and about 46 percent of 

the slip, is a deep, excessively drained soil, located on stabilized sand dunes. It is formed in 

aeolian deposits. Permeability of the Walport soil is rapid, but runoff is slow. This soil is 

susceptible to wind and water erosion. 

Heceta Fine Sand comprises about 4 percent of the terminal and 0.4 percent of the slip. This is a 

deep, poorly drained soil found in deflation basins. It is formed on aeolian materials. 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-3

Permeability of this soil is rapid, and runoff is ponded. It only has a slight potential for water 

erosion. 

Dune Land soil makes up almost 7 percent of the terminal parcel and about 4 percent of the slip. 

It consists of fine and medium textured sands on hills and ridges, formed in eolian deposits. 

Permeability is rapid and runoff is slow. This soil type is susceptible to erosion. 

Jordan Cove characterized the dredged material that caps a major portion of the terminal and slip 

area as loose to medium dense brown sand. The sand is fine grained, with some gravel, a trace 

of silt, and scattered shell fragments. Permeability of the dredged material is rapid, and runoff is 

slow. It has low potential for water erosion, but may be susceptible to wind erosion. 

Soils in the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard Sites are Waldport-Heceta Fine Sand, described 

previously. Soils in the Port Commercial Stockpile site are primarily sand dunes with the 

characteristics described above. 

Construction of the LNG terminal and slip would require clearing of vegetation and grading of 

the site to an approximate elevation of +20 feet (above MSL) for the LNG storage tank area and 

+55 feet (above mean sea level) for the process areas. Based on the proposed site elevations, 

approximately 1.2 mcy of cut and fill material would be generated from these graded areas. The 

planned site work would not require any disposal of material off the LNG terminal site. 

The slip would be created by excavating and dredging a current upland area, down to a depth of 

–45 feet NAVD88. This would remove a total of about 4.3 mcy of soil. As described in section 

2.1.4.4 under Dredged and Excavated Material Disposal, excavated materials from the slip and 

access channel would be stockpiled in the Jordan Cove placement site, and two locations on the 

former Weyerhaeuser Linerboard site. Materials dredged from the slip and access channel would 

be stored at the Weyerhaeuser sites and at the Port site. Except for the berms built to contain the 

excavated and dredged materials, no permanent facilities would be constructed at the 

Weyerhaeuser and Port sites. 

Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures include measures to minimize potential effects on soils from 

construction and operation of its proposed facilities. Specific measures defined in Jordan Cove’s 

Plan and Procedures include, but are not limited to: 

• stormwater pollution prevention plan; 

• topsoil segregation; 

• temporary and permanent erosion control; 

• minimization of soil compaction; 

• BMPs for revegetation; 

• off-road vehicle control; and 

• waterbody and wetland crossing procedures. 

Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures are based on the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures that have 

been developed for projects under the review of the FERC to avoid or minimize impacts on soils, 

waterbodies, and wetlands. Jordan Cove has included project- and site-specific modifications to 

its Plan and Procedures. We have reviewed these modifications and believe they would provide 

an equal or greater level of protection than the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures. 
4.2-4 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

4.2.2.2 Soil Limitations 

Prime Farmland 

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, forage, fiber, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of 

fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS 2005). Prime farmland can include land that possesses 

these characteristics but is being used currently to produce livestock and timber. Urbanized land 

and open water are excluded from prime farmland. Prime farmland typically contains few or no 

rocks, is permeable to water and air, is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long 

periods, and is not subject to frequent, prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that 

do not meet the above criteria may be considered prime farmland if the limiting factor is 

mitigated (e.g., using artificial drainage or irrigation). 

No prime farmland soils exist on the proposed LNG terminal or slip areas. The proposed Jordan 

Cove LNG terminal tract is currently open, vacant land (see section 4.7.2 of this EIS for more 

details about land use). It is not currently being used to raise crops or livestock. 

Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as "soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or 

ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 

part" (Federal Register 1994). Soils that are artificially drained or protected from flooding (e.g., 

by levees) are still considered hydric if the soil in its undisturbed state would meet the definition 

of a hydric soil. These soils are typically associated with jurisdictional wetlands, which must 

meet three required criteria: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation, except 

in “difficult wetland situations” where not all criteria are evident. These situations are defined in 

the regional interim supplements to the COE’s Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental 

Laboratory 1987). 

Jordan Cove has conducted wetland delineations of the site, including evaluation of hydric soils 

(see section 4.3). The LNG terminal and slip sites area would temporarily impact 25.6 acres of 

hydric soils within the Heceta map unit (NRCS 1989). The Heceta soils, located on the western 

edge of the LNG terminal and on the northwestern corner of the slip area, have mostly been 

covered with dredged materials. 

The proposed LNG facility and slip sites would be constructed in accordance with Jordan Cove’s 

Procedures, including provisions for construction in areas of saturated soils, such as postponing 

soil disturbances when soils were excessively wet. Implementation of these measures, as well as 

use of BMPs during construction (e.g., use of appropriate erosion and sedimentation control 

measures), would minimize impacts of the proposed action on hydric soils. 

Erosion Potential 

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbances. Factors 

that influence soil erosion include soil texture, structure, length and percent of slope, vegetative 

cover, and rainfall or wind intensity. Soils most susceptible to erosion by wind or water are 

typified by bare or sparse vegetative cover, non-cohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates, 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-5

and moderate to steep slopes. Wind erosion processes are less affected by slope angles but 

highly influenced by wind intensity. 

Terminal and Slip Areas

The potential for soil erosion at the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal varies based on the 

erosion mechanism and the soil characteristics. The soils at the terminal site occur within an 

area of high wind intensity and are in wind erodibility groups 1 (extreme) and 2 (high), which are 

the most susceptible to wind erosion. For the 56.8 acres of Waldport Fine Sand, the potential for 

water erosion is moderate to severe and the potential for wind erosion is extreme to severe when 

winds are strong. The 4.3 acres of the Heceta Fine Sand and 8.9 acres of the Dune Land soils 

both have a slight potential for water erosion and high to severe potential for wind erosion, with 

the Dunelands considered severe. Runoff from the 44.7 acres of dredged materials is slow, and 

the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate, and the hazard to wind erosion is moderate to 

severe. 

Clearing, grading, and equipment movement could accelerate the erosion process, and without 

adequate protection could result in discharge of sediment to waterbodies and wetlands. Soil loss 

due to erosion could also reduce soil fertility and impair revegetation. To minimize the potential 

for soil loss due to erosion, all temporary erosion controls would be installed and maintained in 

accordance with Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures. 

Temporary ditches, sediment fences and silt traps would be installed as necessary. Individual 

excavations would be made for equipment foundations. Following completion of foundations, 

the site would be filled, compacted, and brought up to final grade. Final grading and landscaping 

would consist of gravel areas, asphalt areas, concrete surfaces, and grass areas. 

Areas of the LNG terminal site susceptible to aeolian processes that would be disturbed by 

construction activities and not permanently covered by aboveground facilities would be grassed 

using a seed mixture specified by the NRCS as being capable of surviving in highly permeable, 

xeric regimes, binding loose sand, and withstanding burial and deflation from aeolian processes. 

Native species would be used and, if any non-native species were required for specific problem 

areas, species would be selected that would not become nuisance species to the surrounding 

areas. European beachgrass would be avoided. 

For portions of the storm surge/tsunami barrier and terminal areas above +25 feet in elevation, 

which are not expected to normally be subjected to severe wind or water conditions, alternative 

erosion control would be used. The slope areas would be protected from potential tsunami 

runups using either concrete cellular mattresses, grout injected geotextile fabric mattresses, or 

other suitable means as determined during detailed design. The design of the slope protection 

against waves would be developed through consultation with the DOGAMI. The erosion control 

measures would be designed in accordance with the ODOT Erosion Control Manual. By 

implementing the above-mentioned erosion control measures, construction of the LNG terminal 

and slip would not result in significant soil erosion by water or wind. 

The sides of the slip would be protected from LNG carrier and tug propeller scour with riprap 

extending from the toe trench to above the water line where it would be tied into other slope 

stabilization techniques (concrete cellular mattresses, grout injected geotextile fabric mattresses, 

and/or geotextile reinforced vegetative planting). The erosion control methods would be 
4.2-6 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

designed to withstand expected rainfall runoff and would be in accordance with the ODOT 

Erosion Control Manual. 

Excavated and Dredged Material Stockpile Areas

The Jordan Cove Dredged Material Placement site would be located on the LNG terminal area 

(figure 2.1-6). The soils in the LNG terminal have been described previously. Soils in the 

Dredged Material Placement at the terminal site are Waldport Fine Sand covered in dredged 

material. 

The dredged materials placed at the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard sites and the Port site would be 

contained within earthen berms. In the case of the Weyerhaeuser storage sites, the berms would 

be constructed from materials excavated from the terminal slip upland area. At least two layers 

of silt fence would be placed at the toe of the berms to contain the movement of the sand by wind 

or water forces. The exterior of the berms would be covered in erosion-control matting and 

seeded with native grasses in April to May or September. The interior faces of the berms within 

the site would be controlled in both of these ways—wet material would be used for inundation, 

and the height of the berms would act as a barrier to windblown debris. As placement cells fill 

and can no longer receive wetted material, finger dikes, silt fence, or similar structures would be 

installed in all directions (not more than 200 feet from the center) to limit migration. Silt fence 

placed more than 100 feet from the center would generate small berms. If the material began to 

move, the small berms would limit transport distance and potential movement. At final or longterm condition, the entire area would be hydroseeded. Hydroseeding would be limited to March 

to June and September to November when temperatures and moisture levels are conducive to 

seed germination. Interim methods, such as spraying tackifier on bare soils, have limited 

effectiveness but could be used for short-term stabilization. 

The stockpiled material at the Port site that would not be disturbed by the shipment of sand for 

commercial sale would be contoured and stabilized with native grasses. Jordan Cove would 

avoid creating unvegetated flat surfaces. 

Jordan Cove has conducted modeling of potential wind effects on the dredged material 

stockpiled at the Port site (Moffat & Nichol 2008). Modeling results show that if the material 

were vegetated sufficiently to provide a vegetation cover similar to or slightly less than that 

currently existing at the site, the rate of sand transported by aeolian processes would remain 

similar to or decrease slightly compared to existing conditions. It is important that rapidly 

establishing vegetation types be used so that a vegetation cover similar to that already present 

can be obtained within a single season. As an additional mitigation measure, sand fences would 

be placed around the site, at the top and the bottom of the dike and maintained, regularly and 

after storm events, so they would not be buried over time. With these mitigation measures in 

place, it is anticipated that no unacceptable increase in aeolian transport would result from the 

proposed placement of dredged material at the Port site. 

Revegetation Potential 

Successful restoration and revegetation in areas that are not permanently developed is important 

to maintain ecosystem productivity and to protect underlying soil from potential damage, such as 

erosion. Excluding the excavated and dredged material storage areas, there would be a total of 

about 40.6 acres of soils that would be disturbed during construction of the LNG terminal 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-7

facilities that would be within areas not permanently developed, or used during operation. Those 

areas would be revegetated or returned to their present condition during site restoration. 

Each of the soils at the LNG terminal site have land capability classifications that indicate certain 

limitations. Soils in the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard and Port sites also have classifications that 

indicate limitations. The land capability classification is a system of grouping soils primarily on 

the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without 

deteriorating over a long period of time. Although many of the specific classifications address 

erosion limitations, the classifications can be used to assess the suitability and any limitations 

(including erosion) of soils for growing vegetation. The Dunelands are classified VIIIe. Class 

VIII soils have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and limit their 

use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or for aesthetic purposes. Subclass e is made up of 

soils for which the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant problem or hazard affecting their use. 

Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors that affect soils in this 

subclass (NRCS 2005). Both the Waldport Fine Sand and the Waldport-Heceta Fine Sands are 

classified as VIIe. Class VII soils have very severe limitations related to erosion that make them 

unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forest land, or wildlife. The 

Heceta Fine Sand has a classification of IVw. Class IV soils have very severe limitations that 

restrict the choice of plants or require very careful management, or both. Subclass w soils are 

soils for which excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation affecting their use. Poor soil 

drainage, wetness, a high water table, and overflow are the factors that affect soils in this 

subclass (NRCS 2005). 

Jordan Cove would implement the necessary requirements specified in its Plan and Procedures 

for revegetation and maintenance of disturbed areas at the terminal. These site-specific measures 

would compensate for any limitations that affected soils have for revegetation. Jordan Cove 

would revegetate and restore disturbed areas using seed mixtures recommended by appropriate 

state and federal agencies. Landscaping and surface treatments at the LNG terminal should 

prevent wind and water erosion from the site during operation. 

Compaction Potential 

Soil compaction is the process where soil pore air space is reduced in size because of physical 

pressure exerted on the soil surface. Compaction results in soil conditions that reduce 

infiltration, permeability, and gaseous and nutrient exchange rates of the soil. Physical resistance 

to root growth can occur with high soil bulk densities. Soil compaction changes the soil 

structure by reducing the porosity and increasing the bearing strength of the soil. As a result, the 

ability to receive water is reduced, leading to an overall reduction in the moisture-holding 

capacity of the soil. The degree of compaction depends on the moisture content at the time of 

compaction and soil texture. Compaction decreases infiltration and thus increases runoff and the 

hazard of water erosion. Fine-textured soils with poor internal drainage are the most susceptible 

to compaction. Sandy loam, loam, and sandy clay loam soils compact more easily than silt, silt 

loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay soils (NRCS 1996). 

Based on previous activities at the Roseburg tract, and when Weyerhaeuser owned the terminal 

parcel, including dredge and fill activities, the soils at the terminal site are considered to be 

compacted. During most dredge and fill operations, material placed onto the land surface is 

compacted using heavy machinery. 
4.2-8 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Construction equipment traveling over wet soils could further disrupt soil structure, reduce pore 

space, increase runoff potential, and cause rutting. Further compaction and rutting of impacted 

areas would be more likely to occur when soils were moist or saturated. Excluding the 

excavated and dredged material storage areas, a total of 100.8 acres of soil would be compacted 

when constructing the permanent terminal facilities, including access roads, buildings, LNG 

storage tanks and process equipment, firewater pond, transfer pipeline, and the slip. An 

additional 37.7 acres would be compacted during construction of the terminal, at the batch plant, 

berth dune, and staging areas that would not become part of the permanent operating facilities 

and could be restored and revegetated. This compacted area would be susceptible to increased 

levels of runoff and decreased wind erosion. Information on stormwater control within the site is 

included in section 4.3.3. Specific measures defined in Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures 

include BMPs to minimize soil compaction. 

Potentially Contaminated Upland Soils 

As part of Jordan Cove’s determination of the likelihood to encounter contaminated soils, at the 

LNG terminal site, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I) and Phase II 

Environmental Site Assessments (Phase II) were conducted for the LNG terminal, slip area, 

Rosenberg property (Phase I and II: GRI 2005), and Weyerhaeuser Linerboard material storage 

area (Phase I: GRI 2006; Phase II: GRI 2007c). Phase I protocols consist of record searches, 

inventories, site visits, and other methods, but are not intrusive. Phase II protocols consist of 

intrusive sampling. Included in each environmental site assessment was a search of federal and 

state databases and records, including EPA lists of sites ranked as high priority for cleanup 

(National Priority List), sites with hazardous releases (Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act List and EPA Response Notification System), permitted 

hazardous waste sites (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), and ODEQ hazardous release 

sites (Environmental Cleanup Site Information List), solid waste disposal facilities and landfills, 

registered and leaking underground storage tanks, and reportable spills. 

The site of the LNG terminal, referred to as the “Ingram Yard,” was the location of a livestock 

ranch until 1958. After it was acquired as part of the mill complex, the tract was occasionally 

used for log sorting activities. In 1972-1973, the COE spread materials dredged during 

maintenance of the Coos Bay navigation channel on the site. From the late 1970s through the 

early 1980s sand, boiler ash, and wood debris from milling operations were placed on the 

property. Weyerhaeuser, which acquired the mill in 1981, spread decant solids from its 

wastewater treatment facility at the Ingram Yard between 1985 and 1994. 

In 1996, Weyerhaeuser had CH2M Hill conduct Phase II investigations that found, with the 

exception of one sample, potential contaminates in the fill at the Ingram Yard were below levels 

that would necessitate cleanup work. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in one 

sample were above the residential cleanup level but below the industrial level. Concentrations of 

arsenic were within natural background levels. 

Additional Phase II investigations were conducted by PES Environmental, Inc. (PES) in 2005. 

Eight composite samples were taken, at depths up to 18 inches, from the northern portion of the 

Ingram Yard. Trace amounts of barium, chromium, lead, and mercury were detected, but below 

screening levels. Low levels of dioxins, furans, and butylin compounds were also detected in 

soil samples from the site. The amount of these contaminants were found to be below the EPA 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-9

screening levels that represent a risk to human health for either residential or industrial or 

residential land use (PES 2006). 

A third Phase II investigation was done at the LNG terminal site by GRI in October 2006 (GRI 

2007c). Twelve test pits between 4 to 9 feet deep were excavated at the Ingram Yard, and two 

additional pits were located along the proposed eastern access road to the LNG terminal on the 

Roseburg property. Samples collected in areas where the black ashy mill waste was deposited 

typically had higher concentrations of contaminants than those taken at locations consisting only 

of sand. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and tributylin were not detected. Detected levels of 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were below 

state and federal guidelines. Dioxins and furans were detected throughout the site at levels 

below the preliminary remedial goals (PRG) for individual compounds. The toxic equivalent 

(TEQ) value for one sample collected at a depth of 2 feet was above federal guidelines for a 

dioxin/furan compound (2,3,7,8TCDD), but the statistical level for the site as a whole is below 

state requirements. Chromium and arsenic values for one sample were above naturally occurring 

levels, but that was likely caused by decaying treated wood waste. GRI recommended that when 

the slip is excavated, the former mill waste should be separated, placed in the center of the 

bermed disposal areas at the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard sites, and managed according to ODEQ 

standards and regulations (GRI 2007c). 

GRI (November 3, 2005) performed a Phase II investigation of the Roseburg property in 2005. 

Roseburg has been using the property for wood processing activities since 1968. Geoprobe 

explorations were advanced to a maximum depth of 16 feet below the ground surface. 

Contaminants were detected in several locations throughout the area that would be used for 

temporary construction facilities. Detected levels of barium, chromium, and lead are within 

normal background levels for soils in Oregon. Soil samples from around an old burn pile 

(located to the east of the former shipping building) indicated contamination from VOCs. The 

detected compounds were petroleum hydrocarbons constituents found only in soils samples and 

not in groundwater samples. The detected concentrations were below the ODEQ Risk-Based 

Concentrations (RBCs) for residential soils (ODEQ 2003). Contaminated areas were also found 

in the two existing buildings. Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents were found in the soil within 

the former sawmill building. Groundwater analysis indicated solvent constituents in the former 

sawmill building and petroleum hydrocarbon constituents in the former shipping building. 

Measured concentrations of the petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, 

1,2,4-trimethylbenezene and total xylenes are all within the ODEQ RBCs for residential soils 

and groundwater (ODEQ 2003). 

The Phase I literature review that covered the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard excavated and dredged 

material disposal areas indicated that there were previous reports of spills of contaminated or 

hazardous waste. The site was originally developed as a sulfite pulp and paper mill by the 

Menasha Wood Ware Corporation in 1961. It was acquired by Weyerhaeuser in 1981, and 

converted to a recycle paper mill in 1995. The mill was closed in 2003. Between 1981 and 

1992, Weyerhaeuser leased the southern portion of the property adjacent to the geographic 

Jordan Cove portion of Coos Bay to a fish hatchery operation. The buildings for both the mill 

and the fish hatchery have been removed. The Weyerhaeuser mill is included in the ODEQ’s 

Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) database and in the Oregon Emergency 

Response Information System for a release of hydraulic oil to the ground surface in 1995. The 
4.2-10 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

fish hatchery has a separate entry in the ECSI database, identified as a level II area of concern, 

from a release of diesel fuel. 

PES conducted Phase II testing in portions of the areas to be used for the Weyerhaeuser 

Linerboard disposal sites. Concentrations of contaminants, including VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, 

dioxins and furans, and metals detected in soil and groundwater samples were below screening 

levels that would represent a risk to public health (PES 2006). Based upon the results of these 

studies, ODEQ has recommended a “No Further Action” determination for the containerboard 

mill location and proposed LNG terminal site (ODEQ 2008a). Jordan Cove has prepared an 

Unanticipated Hazardous Waste Discovery Plan that includes the following measures that would 

be implemented in the event that unanticipated soil contamination is discovered during 

construction of the LNG terminal facilities: 

• Contractor would stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contamination; 

• Contractor would cordon off or otherwise restrict access to the suspected area; 

• Contractor would immediately notify Jordan Cove’s on-site EI; 

• Jordan Cove’s on-site EI would immediately notify the Environmental, Health and Safety 

Division of Jordan Cove; and 

• Jordan Cove would notify the landowner(s) of the suspected parcel(s). 

If Jordan Cove’s Environmental, Health and Safety Division determines that additional action is 

necessary, Jordan Cove would implement the following measures: 

• contact a qualified consultant and/or testing laboratory to assist with the determination of 

the extent and nature of the contamination; 

• notify all applicable environmental authorities as required by law, including ODEQ; 

• devise a site-specific plan depending on the nature and extent of the contamination 

encountered for continuation of construction; 

• devise a strategy or plan for handling wastes in an appropriate manner including waste 

characterization, hauling, manifesting, and disposal necessary to support continuing 

construction; 

• devise a plan for site stabilization and backfilling; and 

• complete all required and necessary agency follow-ups and reporting. 

Spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, or coolant from construction equipment could contaminate 

soils. The effects of contamination would typically be minor because of the low frequency of 

spills and leaks. However, the soil and sand on the LNG terminal site have high permeabilities, 

shallow groundwater (10 feet or less), and rapid transmissivity. If a spill occurred, it would 

spread quickly (in three dimensions) before mitigation and/or remediation could begin. Jordan 

Cove would implement a water quality management plan that includes an SPCCP. These plans 

describe spill prevention practices, spill handling and emergency notification procedures, and 

training requirements and would be implemented during construction of the LNG terminal and 

pipeline. The SPCCP addresses the unique soil and subsurface conditions of the LNG terminal 

site, including the high permeability, shallow groundwater, and rapid transmissivity. With the 

design features and SPCCP, construction of the LNG terminal is not anticipated to spread 

existing contamination or cause additional soil contamination. 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-11

Potentially Contaminated Bay Sediments 

Construction of the LNG terminal would require dredging an area of Coos Bay to form the 

access channel to the slip (figure 2.1-7). It is estimated that 1.3 mcy would be dredged to create 

the access channel. This dredged material would be disposed of at the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard 

sites and the Port site. The locations of these stockpiles are discussed in section 2.1.4.4 under 

Dredged and Excavated Material Disposal and above under Erosion Potential. During operation 

of the LNG terminal, maintenance dredging would keep the access channel and slip from silting 

up, and those sediments would be disposed of at offshore Site F. The sediments that would be 

dredged from within Coos Bay for construction of the access channel consist primarily of 

densely packed fine-grained sand with traces of silt. 

The Port developed a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) (SHN 2006) that details the sediment 

collection and testing program conducted on the proposed dredged material. The SAP was 

developed based on procedures outlined in the Lower Columbia River Management Area 

Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) (COE et al. 1998). The sediment sampling 

and analysis program followed the DMEF Tier IIB approach for physical and chemical 

evaluation of the proposed dredged material. Four horizontally delineated areas were selected 

within the proposed dredging footprint to characterize the proposed slip access channel 

sediments (figure 4.2-1). Areas 1 and 2 were closest to the shoreline, whereas areas 3 and 4 were 

offshore, parallel to the Coos Bay navigation channel. Generally, two core locations were 

designated within each area in locations with the thickest deposits of proposed dredged materials 

(dredge prism). A total of eight sediment core borings were completed using direct-push 

methodology. 

Dredged Material Management Units (DMMU) were designated as “moderate” based on the 

DMEF ranking protocol with a maximum volume frequency of 40,000 cy for homogenous 

sediments. Two sediment bore locations were completed within each DMMU. Each sediment 

bore location was continuously cored in 4-foot intervals. Core intervals for each sediment bore 

were designated alphabetically, beginning with “A” representing the surface layer interval, and 

proceeding downward from the top in 4-foot increments. Each 4-foot DMMU depth interval was 

represented by one sample. The DMMU sample submitted for chemical analyses comprised core 

sections within the same sediment depth interval and with similar characteristics. Sample 

compositing was completed by the analytical laboratory. Four DMMUs were positioned on the 

proposed dredge area sediment surface that contained material from the depth interval 0 to 4 feet. 

This pattern was repeated for each subsequent depth interval of 4 feet, until the final designated 

characterization depth of -48 feet MLLW was attained or refusal was encountered. A total of 21 

DMMUs representing the full dredge prism were characterized. Several sediment borings 

encountered refusal at deeper depths (25 to 35 feet below the sediment surface) and the deepest 

sediment sample collected at these locations was considered acceptable as a Z-sample. Zsamples represent the newly exposed sediment surface after dredging occurs. 

During the week of October 23, 2006, direct-push boring samples were collected at eight 

locations specified in the revised SAP. The sediment core sections were segmented and sealed 

with Teflon tape and plastic end caps. The sediment core sections were transported by overnight 

courier to the analytical test laboratory for compositing. Collected samples were stored in iced 

coolers, or kept in a secured refrigeration unit at 39.2 oF. Methods and materials used for each 
4.2-12 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Figure 4.2-1. Dredged Material Management Units and Bore Locations 
 - 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4.2-13

physical and chemical analysis performed at the lab are detailed in Sediment Sampling and 

Analysis Report, dated January 2007, which was filed as Appendix B.2 of Resource Report 2 

with Jordan Cove’s September 2007 application to the FERC (SHN 2007). 

Grain size analysis was immediately performed on all 21 DMMU composite samples following 

COE approved methods (COE et al. 1998). The results of the grain size distribution indicated 

the average percent of sand present in sediment samples was approximately 99.85 percent. The 

results of the TVS analysis indicated that the average percent TVS present in dredge prism 

sediments was approximately 0.71 percent. 

Based on the results of the sediment sample analyses for grain size and TVS, and the DMEF 

guidelines for the Tiered Evaluation Process, no further analytical testing of sediment samples 

was completed. Specifically, DMEF Tier IIA states “If the results of grain size analysis are at 

least 80 percent sand and TVS is less than 5 percent, the proposed dredging material qualifies for 

unconfined, aquatic disposal based on exclusionary status.” The Port’s report concluded that no 

areas of contaminated sediments were observed. 

The SAP received conditional approval from the RMT in May 2006. The RMT conditions did 

not affect the results of the grain size and TVS analysis, or the recommendations for no further 

testing. 

4.2.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 

Soils along the proposed pipeline route were identified using NRCS surveys for Coos, Douglas, 

Jackson and Klamath Counties (NRCS 2004; SCS 1985, 1989, 1993). The USFS soil inventory 

was used to describe soils in the Umpqua National Forest (USFS 1976). Soil surveys are 

currently ongoing and unavailable on portions of the Rogue River-Siskiyou and FremontWinema National Forests (Dorr 2008). The USFS is conducting the survey of the Winema 

portion of the Fremont-Winema National Forest, which NRCS will eventually certify and post to 

their Web site. No active soil survey is occurring on the Fremont portion of the FremontWinema National Forest or on NFS lands in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The 

NRCS is currently conducting soil surveys on the private lands (inholdings) within both National 

Forests. Information in these surveys was supplemented by NRCS State Soil Geographic 

Database (STATSGO and SSURGO) soil classifications (NRCS 2006a). 

Regional maps from NRCS county soil surveys and the STATSGO data were used to provide 

descriptions of the soil associations that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline and 

aboveground facility sites, including proposed storage yards, rock sources, permanent disposal 

sites, proposed access roads, and proposed aboveground facilities. Generally, these associations 

are composed of two or three soil series. Each of the soil associations is a unique natural 

landscape with a distinctive pattern of soils, relief and drainage. 

According to the NRCS Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) 

(NRCS 2006b), the proposed pipeline would cross six MLRAs: 

• the Sitka Spruce Belt including the Pacific Coast and Coos Bay area in Coos County; 

• the North Pacific Coast Range, Foothills, and Valleys including Coos and portions of 

Douglas County; 
4.2-14 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

• the Willamette and Puget Sound Valleys including the South Umpqua River and its 

tributaries along the I-5 Corridor; 

• the Siskiyou-Trinity Area including portions of Douglas and Jackson Counties and the 

Umpqua and portions of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests; 

• the Olympic and Cascade Mountains including Jackson and Klamath Counties and 

portions of the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Fremont-Winema National Forests; and 

• the Klamath and Shasta Valleys and Basins in the southern part of Klamath County. 

To provide the highest level of detail in quantifying the soil properties and impacts, analysis was 

based on the characteristics of the individual soil mapping units crossed within each soil 

association. Major soil characteristics and limitations for the pipeline and aboveground facilities 

are discussed below. Table 4.2.3-1 provides a summary of soil limitations that could be 

encountered by the proposed pipeline route, and table 4.2.3-2 provides a summary of the soil 

limitations associated with the proposed aboveground facilities. 

Pacific Connector has developed a detailed ECRP to ensure that short- and long-term impacts 

from erosion and sedimentation caused by construction and operation of its proposed facilities 

would be minimized. The erosion control and revegetation procedures outlined in Pacific 

Connector’s ECRP were developed using the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures that have been 

developed for projects under the review of the FERC to avoid or minimize impacts on soils, 

waterbodies, and wetlands. Pacific Connector’s ECRP includes project- and site-specific 

modifications to the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures. We have reviewed these modifications 

and identified recommendations to ensure the ECRP would provide an equal or greater level of 

protection than the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures (our review is described in section 2.4). 

Where applicable, the Standards and Guidelines and BMPs for soil resources from the various 

BLM and USFS Resource Management Plans have been included in Pacific Connector’s ECRP. 

The ECRP incorporates erosion control and revegetation recommendations provided by the 

USFS and BLM for federally managed lands. Erosion control and revegetation guidelines 

provided by the NRCS also have been incorporated for use on private lands. Pacific Connector’s 

ECRP is described in detail in the following section. 

4.2.3.1 General Construction and Operational Impacts 

Pipeline construction activities have the potential to adversely affect natural soil characteristics 

(i.e., infiltration, water storage and routing, and nutrient levels), thus reducing soil productivity 

(i.e., the capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, to support plant growth) and restoration 

potential during clearing and grading, trenching, and cleanup activities. Adverse soil impacts 

that alter natural soil conditions may affect soil productivity resulting in changes to plant habitat 

types and loss of vegetation growth. Reductions in soil productivity may occur both in the short 

and long term, depending on the extent of the impact and the measures used to rectify the 

impacts. Adverse impacts to soils from pipeline construction activities also may cause direct and 

indirect impacts to other resources both in the short and long term depending on the construction 

and restoration practices used. 
4.2-15

TABLE 4.2.3-1 

Acreages and Characteristics of Soils Affected by Construction of the Pacific Connector Pipeline a/ 

County 

High Wind 

Erosion 

Potential b/

High Water 

Erosion 

Potential c/

Steep 

Slopes d/

Large 

Stones e/

Restrictive 

Layer f/

Saline/ 

Sodic g/

High 

Compaction 

Potential h/

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potential i/

High 

Water 

Table j/

Coos (49.5 mi) 

157.11 

(1.25) 

401.50 

(25.55) 

385.70 

(24.48) 

78.99 

(4.98) 

398.5 

(24.36) 

0 

(0) 

802.51 

(45.88) 

571.76 

(27.51) 

145.03 

(4.88) 

Douglas (66.3 mi) 

0 

(0) 

567.68 

(37.98) 

572.07 

(38.43) 

256.99 

(13.16) 

720.39 

(46.13) 

0 

(0) 

955.46 

(55.73) 

889.65 

(56.29) 

235.33 

(13.18) 

Jackson (63.4 mi) 

0 

(0) 

293.17 

(18.49) 

617.77 

(38.68) 

545.47 

(34.44) 

674.91 

(42.41) 

0 

(0) 

620.62 

(39.16) 

686.83 

(43.90) 

295.86 

(18.95) 

Klamath (64.5 mi) 

166.05 

(10.37) 

105.69 

(6.36) 

147.40 

(10.24) 

265.26 

(19.30) 

544.28 

(33.48) 

210.09 

(8.73) 

946.74 

(57.06) 

850.11 

(50.72) 

236.02 

(9.94) 

Total (234.7 mi) 

323.16 

(11.62) 

1368.04 

(88.38) 

1722.94 

(111.83) 

1146.70 

(71.85) 

2337.83 

(146.38) 

210.09 

(8.73) 

3325.33 

(197.83) 

2998.35 

(178.42) 

912.24 

(46.95) 

a/ Figures shown are acres affected by construction, including construction right-of-way and TEWAs. Miles crossed shown in parenthesis. Soil data from 

(1985, 1989, 1993); and USFS (1976). b/ soils with NRCS wind erodibility groups 1 and 2. 

c/ soils with NRCS rating of high or severe. 

d/ soils with slopes greater than 30 percent. 

e/ soils with greater than 25 percent cobbles and/or stones within pipeline trench depth. 

f/ soils with a restrictive soil layer (bedrock or cemented layer) within 60 inches of the soil surface. 

g/ soils with an electrical conductivity of 8 mmhos/cm or greater and/or a Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) of 13 or greater. 

h/ soils with an NRCS rating of high or severe for the Haul Roads, Log Landings, and Soil Rutting category. 

i/ combined rating for soils with high or severe erosion potential, steep slopes, large stones, shallow soils, saline/sodic conditions, clayey soils (greater than 

units with dominant amounts of rock outcrop. j/ soils saturated within 60 inches of the surface in most years. 

k/ soils with at least one major named map unit included on the county hydric soil list. 

l/ soils with dominant map unit included on either the state or county list of farmland of importance.
4.2-16

TABLE 4.2.3-2 

Summary of Soils Limitations – Pacific Connector Pipeline Aboveground Facilities

Proposed Facility 

Area 

(ac) a/

Soil 

Mapping 

Unit 

High 

Erosion 

Potential b/

Large 

Stones c/

Restrictive 

Layer d/

Saline/ 

Sodic e/

High 

Compaction 

Potential f/

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potential g/

Jordan Cove Receipt MS, BVA #1, Launcher & CT k/ 

2.25 OR071 N/A k/ N/A k/ N/A k/ N/A k/ N/A k/ N/A k/ 

BVA #2 (Coos River Hwy) 0.06 OR071 No No No No Yes No BVA #3 (South Summer Rd) 0.06 OR072 No No Yes No Yes No BVA #4 (Dora Ridge Rd) 0.06 OR068 Water No No No Yes Yes BVA #5 (Upper Camas Rd) 0.06 OR081 No No Yes No Yes Yes BVA #6 (S. of Ollala Creek) 0.06 OR017 No No No No Yes No Clarks Branch MS, BVA #7 Launcher/ Receiver & CT 

1.02 OR058 No Yes No No No Yes 

BVA #8 (BLM Rd 30-3-34.1) 0.06 OR017 No Yes No No Yes Yes BVA #9 (BLM Rd 30-1-5.0) 0.06 OR054 Water Yes Yes No Yes Yes Shady Cove MS & CT 3.08 OR53 Water Yes Yes No Yes Yes Butte Falls Compressor Station, BVA #10, Launcher/Receiver & CT 

7.39 OR053 Water Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

BVA #11 (Gardner/Salt Cr. Rd) 0.06 OR053 No No Yes No Yes Yes BVA #12 (Clover Creek Rd) 0.06 OR060 No No Yes No N/A No BVA #13 & Launcher/ Receiver 0.46 OR010 No Yes Yes No No Yes BVA #14 (Midland Highway Crossing) 

0.06 OR008 No No No Yes Yes Yes 

BVA #15 (Hill Road) 0.06 OR007 No No No No Yes No Tule Lake, Russell Canyon and Buck Butte Delivery MSs, BVA #16, Receiver & CT 

6.6 OR007 Wind No No No Yes Yes 

MS = meter station, BVA = block valve, CT = communication tower Soil data from NRCS (2004, 2006a,b); SCS (1985, 1989, 1993); and USFS (1976). 

a/ Area of construction and operation disturbance. Construction disturbance is included within the pipeline construction right-of-way. 

b/ soils with NRCS rating of high or severe. 

c/ soils with greater than 25 percent cobbles and/or stones within pipeline trench depth. 

d/ soils with a restrictive soil layer (bedrock or cemented layer) within 60 inches of the soil surface. 

e/. soils with an electrical conductivity of 8 mmhos/cm or greater and/or a SAR of 13 or greater. f/ soils with an NRCS rating of high or severe for the Haul Roads, Log Landings, and Soil Rutting category. 

g/ combined rating for soils with high or severe erosion potential, steep slopes, large stones, shallow soils, saline/sodic conditions, clayey soils (greater tha

dominant amounts of rock outcrop. h/ soils saturated within 60 inches of the surface in most years. 

i/ soils with at least one major named map unit included on the county hydric soil list. 

j/ soils with dominant map unit included on either the state or county list of farmland of importance. 

k/ These aboveground facilities would be located entirely within the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. This soil association has been previously disturb

during construction of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal prior to construction of the Pacific Connector pipeline. 
4.2-17 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

Pacific Connector developed a preliminary draft Hydrostatic Test Plan. After consultation with 

the USFS and BLM in November 2008, the draft Hydrostatic Test Plan was revised to address 

additional suggestions and concerns. Pacific Connector’s January 21, 2009 filing of responses to 

environmental data requests provided the MPs with high erosion hazard that would be affected 

during hydrostatic testing discharge. A total of 16 hydrostatic test breaks would occur on soils 

with high water erosion hazard, and of those 5 would occur on BLM lands and 2 would occur on 

NFS lands. A total of 21 hydrostatic test breaks would occur on soils with severe to very severe 

water erosion hazards, and of those 6 would occur on BLM lands. The remaining high, severe, 

and very severe water erosion hazards associated with hydrostatic discharge would be located on 

private lands. Soils have not been mapped for 2 hydrostatic test breaks on NFS lands (at MPs 

160.12 and 168.60). 

Pacific Connector would implement measures in its ECRP to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of pipeline construction on soils. This 

document outlines the erosion control and revegetation procedures that Pacific Connector would 

use during construction to minimize erosion and enhance revegetation success on all lands 

crossed by the pipeline. The goal of Pacific Connector’s ECRP is to identify and specify the 

BMPs that would be used to protect soil productivity and water quality by controlling soil 

erosion, mass wasting, soil displacement, and the loss of surface organic matter. Pacific 

Connector’s ECRP also describes the measures that would be implemented to minimize impacts 

from potential soil compaction. The revegetation measures outlined in Pacific Connector’s 

ECRP have been prescribed to stabilize disturbed areas and to revegetate the right-of-way to a 

condition that supports the preconstruction land use (i.e., forest lands, range lands, crop lands, 

hayfields, and pasture lands) as quickly as possible after construction. Measures outlined in 

Pacific Connector’s ECRP have also been designed to mitigate pipeline construction impacts to 

wildlife habitat, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

4.2.3.2 Project-Specific Soil Limitations 

Prime Farmland 

The proposed pipeline alignment crosses 75.42 miles (32 percent of the pipeline) of soils where 

the dominant map unit in the MLRA is classified on either the NRCS state or county list of prime 

farmland or “farmland of statewide importance.” Not all of these soils are currently in 

agricultural production. A total of 1,120.2 acres that would be affected by construction and 

368.0 acres that would be affected by operation along the proposed pipeline are mapped as 

agriculture or rangeland (see table 4.7.3.1-1). Approximately 65.3 percent of the land that would 

be crossed by the proposed pipeline is classified as open or forested land; 22.7 percent is 

classified as agricultural or rangelands, 9.3 percent as industrial or commercial, 2.5 percent as 

water, and the remaining 0.2 percent as residential. 

In some areas, land that does not meet the criteria for prime or unique farmland is considered to 

be “farmland of statewide importance” for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed 

crops. The criteria for defining and delineating farmland of statewide importance are determined 

by the appropriate state agencies. Generally, this land includes areas of soils that nearly meet the 

requirements for prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when 

treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some areas may produce as high 
4.2-18 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

a yield as prime farmland if conditions are favorable. Farmland of statewide importance may 

include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law (NRCS 2006b). 

Impacts on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance soils would be less crop or no 

crop production for a short term during the construction phase, which, depending on the crop 

being produced, could physically interrupt farming practices for 1 to 2 years. Following 

construction, the pipeline right-of-way would continue to be used for farming practices, except 

where aboveground facilities would be located. Pacific Connector would implement mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts to prime farmland and crop yields, such as topsoil salvaging, 

scarification, and subsequent testing to ensure that potential compaction was removed. Topsoil 

salvaging and segregation would occur in these areas to minimize potential impacts to soil and 

agricultural productivity. Construction in the Klamath Basin would occur in the winter, outside 

of the typical agricultural period, to minimize impacts to agricultural activities. The winter 

construction schedule in the basin also would allow the irrigation canals to be crossed when they 

were mostly dry and out of operation. The only permanent impacts on prime farmland soils from 

the proposed pipeline would be associated with the aboveground facilities located on prime 

farmland soils. 

Hydric Soils 

Construction activities have the potential to result in structural damage to wet soils and soils with 

poor drainage. Some MLRAs contain at least one major soil unit that is classified as a hydric 

soil. The proposed pipeline alignment crosses a total of 10.30 miles (4 percent of the pipeline 

length) of hydric soils. Specific wetland locations, based on ground surveys conducted for 

pipeline construction, are discussed in section 4.3 of this EIS. As described above, hydric soils 

are typically associated with jurisdictional wetlands, which must meet two of the three required 

criteria: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. 

Mitigation measures described in section 4.3 of this EIS and Pacific Connector’s ERCP would be 

used during pipeline construction to minimize potential impacts to wetlands and hydric soils. 

With these measures, such as segregating topsoil, leaving root systems intact during vegetation 

removal, using low ground-weight equipment or prefabricated equipment mats, installing 

permanent and temporary erosion control near waterbodies, using trench breakers or sealing 

trench bottoms to maintain wetland hydrology, constructing during dryer seasons, and 

monitoring, impacts are not anticipated to hydric soils.

Erosion Potential 

Accelerated erosion leads to the direct soil loss of plant nutrients and sediment in streams and 

lakes, which degrades stream condition and fishery habitat. Although sediment and wood debris 

inputs form part of a natural process, accelerated mass wasting often results in stream scouring, 

which degrades stream condition, riparian zones, and fishery habitat. 

The proposed pipeline crosses about 88 miles (38 percent of pipeline length) of soils with a high 

or severe water erosion potential. Of these soils, approximately 14 percent are rated severe, 

based on soil attributes. Severe ratings indicate that erosion is very likely and that erosioncontrol measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised; and very severe indicates 

that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and 

erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical. All soils crossed are susceptible 
4.2-19 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

to erosion and potential sedimentation impacts where vegetation has been removed and 

appropriate BMPs have not been applied. 

Pacific Connector would minimize impacts from erosion-and-sedimentation-producing actions 

and ensure the stability of the proposed pipeline alignment during the design phase by routing 

the pipeline along stable landscapes (such as ridgelines) and away from side slopes as much as 

practicable. In addition, as described in section 4.1 of this EIS, an extensive geotechnical review 

was conducted to ensure that the route avoided known or potential areas of mass soil movement. 

This effort required minor reroutes in numerous areas along the proposed alignment to ensure the 

safety and integrity of the pipeline. In addition, Pacific Connector would implement specific 

water erosion prevention measures such as covering temporary storage piles; covering, seeding 

and mulching of waste piles; and convex covering of the pipeline trench so that water flows 

away from the pipeline trench. With these measures, significant water erosion is not anticipated. 

The USFS requested and, in their January 21, 2009 filing, Pacific Connector agreed that groundbased mechanized vegetation clearing and maintenance work would be performed between 

August and October to limit soil erosion and reduce the potential for sediment delivery into 

downslope waterbodies. Ground-based mechanized equipment could be needed during the 

construction right-of-way replanting, restoration, stabilization, and BMP inspection and 

maintenance efforts for one to two years after pipeline installation. These activities would 

proceed until successfully completed and would likely continue through winter months. 

However, temporary erosion control and stabilization measures installed during construction 

would be maintained throughout the replanting, restoration, and stabilization efforts to prevent 

sedimentation to sensitive areas until permanent revegetation measures would have stabilized the 

disturbed work areas. 

After backfilling, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT 

regulations to ensure that the system is capable of operating at the maximum operating pressure. 

Permission to discharge the hydrostatic test water would be applied for concurrently with the 

request for coverage under the ODEQ General Stormwater Discharge Permit and permitted 

through a separate letter of approval. Hydrostatic test water would be discharged in upland 

settings, into erosion control devises, to minimize the potential for scour, erosion, and 

sedimentation into nearby wetlands and waterbodies, in accordance with Pacific Connector’s 

ECRP. Straw bale barriers and silt fence would typically be used to retain sediment and reduce 

velocity. Discharge rates would range from several hundred gallons per minute to several 

thousand gallons per minute, depending on the length of the test section, profile, topography, 

vegetation cover, and soil type, as reviewed by the contractor and the EI. See additional 

discussion in section 4.3.2 of this EIS. 

Soils that are susceptible to wind erosion are included in NRCS wind erodibility groups 1 and 2. 

Soil textures primarily range from very fine to coarse sand to silt loam soils with 5 percent or 

less clay and 25 percent or less of very fine sand. The proposed pipeline alignment crosses a 

total of 11.62 miles (5 percent of the pipeline length) of soils in this group. Pacific Connector 

would implement reseeding efforts, apply mulch, and water for dust control to minimize 

potential erosion by wind on the disturbed soils during construction and over the long term. 
4.2-20 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Revegetation Potential 

The proposed pipeline alignment would cross a total of 178.42 miles (76 percent of the pipeline 

length) of soils that are rated as having reclamation sensitivity. These soils may have a 

combination of characteristics that could require additional measures or BMPs to reduce erosion 

and sedimentation potential. Restoration of these soils in most cases requires adaptive seed 

mixtures and implementation of revegetation practices (i.e., fertilization, mulching, monitoring) 

to enhance revegetation success. Revegetation of areas with extensive rock outcrop may not be 

possible. Soils in this group may have high or severe erosion potential, steep slopes, large 

stones, shallow soils, and saline or sodic conditions, clayey soils (greater than 40 percent) or 

soils with loamy sand or sand textures. This soil group also includes soil map units with 

dominant amounts of rock outcrop. The specific climatic condition of the pipeline area such as 

rainfall and temperature also affect soil reclamation potential. 

Pacific Connector would work with individual landowners to address restoration of active 

agricultural and residential landscaping, if affected by pipeline construction. In active 

agricultural areas, Pacific Connector would encourage the landowner to complete final 

restoration efforts in these areas and would compensate the landowner for these efforts. In 

residential areas, Pacific Connector would use contractors familiar with local horticultural and 

lawn establishment procedures for reclamation work or would compensate the landowner to 

restore these areas. Pacific Connector would implement revegetation procedures, such as 

recontouring, scarification, soil replacement, seedbed preparation, fertilization, seed mixtures, 

seeding timing, seeding methods, supplemental wetland and riparian plantings, and supplemental 

forest plantings to ensure revegetation success. 

Compaction Potential 

Soil compaction and displacement reduces water infiltration and often diverts lateral movement 

of the water within the soil. These conditions not only lead to increased erosion and 

sedimentation potential but could contribute to higher stormwater runoff from normal peak 

flows. The movement of heavy construction equipment, soil mixing or displacement from 

grading/excavation activities, or rutting from equipment or vehicle traffic could result in soil 

compaction and damage to soil structure. 

The proposed pipeline alignment would cross a total of 197.83 miles (84 percent of the total 

pipeline length) of soils that are highly susceptible to compaction. Soils in this sensitive group 

were determined based on the NRCS rating of high or severe for the Haul Roads, Log Landings, 

and Soil Rutting categories. Soils in this group are rated based on Unified soil texture 

classification, rock fragments on or below the surface depth to a restrictive layer, depth to a 

water table and slope. However, most soils are susceptible to compaction depending on the 

number of passes of heavy equipment and the moisture content of the soils at the time of 

construction. Unmitigated soil compaction can result in long-term reductions of soil productivity 

and increased erosion from increased surface runoff. 

Pacific Connector would minimize soil compaction, rutting, and structural damage to wet soils 

and soils with poor drainage by scheduling the majority of the clearing and construction 

activities during the dry season. During forest clearing activities, the potential for soil 

compaction would be minimized where cable and helicopter logging methods are used. Where 

log skidding occurs, several practices would be employed, where feasible, to minimize the 
4.2-21 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

potential for soil compaction. Regrading, recontouring, scarifying, and final cleanup activities 

after pipeline construction would mitigate potential soil compaction. Pacific Connector 

incorporated USFS and BLM comments related to measures and mitigation for soil compaction 

into the ECRP. The operational descriptions meet agency guidelines and contract standards for 

treating soil compaction. Both mechanical and biological mitigation are described. 

Restrictive Layer 

Soils that are rated as having a restrictive layer are shallow soils that have a lithic, paralithic, or 

other restrictive soil layer within 60 inches of the soil surface. The proposed pipeline alignment 

would cross a total of 146.38 miles (62 percent of the pipeline length) of soils with a restrictive 

layer. These soils have thin profiles, restrictive root zones and hold less available water for plant 

growth. However, the amount of precipitation received in the pipeline area greatly benefits the 

productivity of the shallow soils crossed by the proposed pipeline alignment. Shallow and hard 

bedrock can also restrict trenching, requiring special equipment (rock hammers/saws) or blasting 

in some areas to efficiently excavate the trench to required design depths. Excavation of bedrock 

or cemented layers may require additional measures to provide suitable pipe bedding materials. 

Soils in this group are also included in the soils that have reclamation sensitivity. Section 4.1 of 

this EIS discusses potential blasting locations based on soil depth and rock lithology. 

Steep Slopes 

The proposed pipeline alignment would cross a total of 111.83 miles (48 percent of the total 

pipeline length) of soils rated as has having slopes greater than 30 percent. This slope range was 

selected because the operation of rubber-tired equipment becomes hazardous when the slope 

approaches and exceeds 30 percent (NRCS 2004; Adams 1997; Garland 1997). Pacific 

Connector has routed the pipeline to ensure safety and integrity of the pipeline and has identified 

adequate work areas to safely construct. Mitigation for soil erosion would be required on soils 

with slopes less than 30 percent, but additional BMPs would typically be required when the slope 

approached or exceeded 30 percent; therefore, Pacific Connector would: 

• use appropriate construction techniques to minimize disturbance and to provide a safe 

working plane during construction; 

• use temporary cribbing to store material on the slope; 

• optimize construction during the dry season; 

• use slope breakers/waterbars during construction; 

• install trench breakers in the pipeline trench to minimize groundwater flow down the 

trench; 

• backfill the trench according to Pacific Connector’s construction specifications; 

• restore the right-of-way promptly to approximate original contours or to stable contours 

after pipe installation and backfilling; 

• install properly designed and spaced permanent waterbars; 

• revegetate the slope with appropriate native, local source seed mixtures; 

• provide effective ground cover from redistributing slash materials, mulching, or installing 

erosion control fabric on slopes; and 

• monitor and maintain the right-of-way to ensure stability. 
4.2-22 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Large Stones 

Soils with more than 25 percent cobbles and stones in the soil profile can present significant 

problems with surface reclamation because they hold less available water for plant growth and 

generally require broadcast seeding methods. Further, the introduction of stones or rocks to 

surface soil layers during trenching can adversely affect agricultural productivity and agricultural 

equipment operation. Additional construction measures also may be required to ensure proper 

pipe bedding. The proposed pipeline route would cross a total of 71.85 miles (31 percent of the 

pipeline length) of soils containing cobbles and stones. Rocks excavated from the trench would 

be kept separate from topsoil during construction and during surface preparation as part of 

restoration. The rock removed during construction would either be hauled to an approved 

landfill or commercial quarry, or would be disposed of in identified permanent disposal sites 

within the certified construction limits, with approval of the landowner or land-managing 

agency. Large rocks and boulders would be used as OHV barriers along the right-of-way and at 

road crossings to block access at OHV points to restrict traffic on the right-of-way. Additionally, 

large rocks and boulders would be piled in upland areas along the right-of-way to create habitat 

diversity features where approved by the EI or Pacific Connector’s authorized representative and 

the landowner or land management agency. 

High Water Table 

Soils that have a high water table have a saturated zone in the soil profile within 60 inches of the 

surface in most years. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water 

table (NRCS 2005). The proposed pipeline alignment would cross 46.95 miles (20 percent of the 

pipeline length) in this sensitive soil group. Depending on the specific time of construction, 

trench dewatering may be required in some areas if access to the trench were required. All water 

associated with trench dewatering would be pumped to a discharge structure that is appropriately 

sized for the discharge volume. Water associated with trench dewatering would not be directly 

discharged to waterbodies. Pacific Connector would minimize the potential for trench 

dewatering by scheduling the majority of construction activities during the dry season. 

Saline/Sodic Soils 

Sensitive soils in this group include soils that have an electrical conductivity of 8 millimhos (a 

scale used to measure salt levels) per centimeter (mmhos/cm) or greater, or a SAR of 13 or 

greater. Saline/sodic soils can be difficult to revegetate and generally require special seed mixes. 

The pipeline facilities would cross a total of 8.73 miles (4 percent of the pipeline length) of soils 

in this group, all in the Klamath Basin. Pacific Connector would follow the revegetation 

mitigation measures described previously and would revegetate saline/sodic soils using salinetolerant seed mixes. 

Contaminated Soils 

Federal and state databases were reviewed for documentation of National Priorities List (NPL) 

sites, state hazardous waste sites, or landfills located within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline 

route. No sites would be directly crossed by the pipeline; therefore, contact with contaminated 

soil from pipeline construction at these sites would not occur. One contractor yard would 

overlap a listed site. Use of the yard would not require excavation or ground disturbance; 

however, prior to using that yard Pacific Connector would further investigate the status of this 

site with the ODEQ. Implementation of Pacific Connector’s SPCCP, and our recommendation 
4.2-23 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

that the company develop a plan to handle the unexpected discovery of hazardous materials 

during construction (see section 4.1.3.2), would prevent contamination from pipeline activities. 

4.2.3.3 Aboveground Facilities 

Pacific Connector’s proposed aboveground facilities would be located within the pipeline 

construction right-of-way. Each facility would be fenced and graveled immediately after 

construction. 

In summary, long-term commitments of soil resources would occur at aboveground facilities 

where soils would be graded and graveled or where permanent facilities would be constructed. 

Some of these soils are mapped as hydric and some may be prime farmland or used for 

agriculture. Increased wind erosion potential may occur but would be monitored. 

Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station 

The Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station (MP 0.00) would be located in Coos County, within the 

Roseburg tract that would be acquired by Jordan Cove and adjacent to the proposed LNG 

terminal. The meter station would occupy approximately 2.25 acres on the Bullards-NehalemDune Land soil association. The meter station parcel is partially vegetated with trees and scrubs. 

The Roseburg property that includes the proposed meter station location is currently used for 

industrial purposes. The meter station site would be graded and built up by Jordan Cove’s 

construction activities at the LNG terminal, and the entire site would be graveled. Impacts to 

soils from construction of the Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station would occur in the graded and 

graveled areas disturbed during construction of the LNG terminal facilities. There are no known 

soil limitations that would affect the construction and use of this parcel for a meter station. 

Clarks Branch Delivery Meter Station 

The Clarks Branch Delivery Meter Station would be located at MP 69.70 in Douglas County. 

This station would be located on the Fordice very cobbly loam mapping unit within the RuchMedford-Takilma soil association. This mapping unit has few limitations for use as a meter 

station site other than being cobbly. Although the area is currently used as a pasture, the 

mapping unit is not classified as prime farmland soil or farmland of statewide importance. The 

soil does not have a high water table and is not subject to flooding. However, some soil 

inclusions within this soil mapping unit may be hydric. This meter station would permanently 

remove 1.02 acres of soils from pasture production. 

Shady Cove Delivery Meter Station 

The Shady Cove Delivery Meter Station would be located at MP 122.10 in Jackson County. The 

meter station would occupy approximately 3.08 acres on the Carney cobbly clay mapping unit 

within the McNull-Medco-McMullin soil association, which is sensitive to soil erosion, 

compaction, and reclamation, and has steep slopes, large stones, high water table, and restrictive 

soils. The main limitation of this mapping unit for use as a meter station site is that the soil has a 

high shrink/swell potential, which would require that building foundations be properly designed 

to prevent structural damage. The soils have a very slow permeability and a water table that 

fluctuates between depths of 3.0 and 3.5 feet from December through April, which would need to 

be considered in the foundation design. The site is currently used for rangeland pasture. 
4.2-24 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Construction and operation of this meter station would permanently remove 3.08 acres of soils 

from pasture production. 

Butte Falls Compressor Station 

The Butte Falls Compressor Station would be located at MP 132.10 in Jackson County. The 

compressor station would occupy a 7.39-acre site that would be mostly graveled except for a 

possible tree buffer on the southern portion of the site. An existing two-track dirt road would be 

improved (remaining a dirt road) to serve as an access road to the station. An additional 5-foot 

corridor next to the access road would contain commercial three-phase power and phone lines to 

the station. 

The proposed site is relatively flat, supports an open stand of pine trees, and is adjacent to a 

small pasture. The site is located on the McNull-Medco-McMullin soil association, described 

under the previous aboveground site. The proposed 1,476-foot access road would also be located 

on this mapping unit. The main limiting characteristics of the mapping unit is depth to shallow 

bedrock in both the Medco and McMullin soil, which is typically encountered between 12 and 40 

inches and a seasonal high water table within about 12 inches of the surface in the Medco soil. 

This mapping unit is not classified as a prime farmland soil or a hydric soil and is not susceptible 

to flooding. This meter station would permanently remove 7.39 acres of soils from forest 

production. 

Tule Lake, Russell Canyon, and Buck Butte Meter Stations 

The Tule Lake, Russell Canyon and Black Butte delivery Meter Stations would be co-located at 

MP 230.9 immediately north of the Oregon/California state line in Klamath County. These 

meter stations would occupy 6.60 acres that would be graveled. The meter stations would be 

located in an alfalfa field on the Fordney-Calimus Poman soil association, which has few 

limitations for use as a meter station. The loamy fine sand textures of this mapping unit have a 

high potential for wind erosion, but the graveled meter station surface would prevent erosion at 

the facility. If wind erosion became a problem at the meter station during construction, the EI 

would direct watering of soil stockpiles to help form soil crusts on these disturbed areas, which 

would minimize wind erosion. The meter stations would permanently remove 6.60 acres of 

prime farmland from agricultural use. 

Launchers/Receivers and Mainline Block Valves 

Sixteen mainline block valves would be located along the pipeline according to DOT spacing 

requirements (49 CFR Part 192 Section 192.179). Potential impacts from the MLV block valves 

are accounted for within the proposed pipeline because these facilities would be located entirely 

within the construction right-of-way. However, because these small (~0.06-acre) sites would be 

permanent aboveground facilities, they would have the potential to affect soil in the long term, 

especially if they were located on prime farmlands under agricultural production. Although eight 

of the block valve locations would be located on soils designated as prime farmland, only four of 

these locations (MLVs 5, 6, 14, and 15) would be located within existing pastures or hayfields. 

MLV 16 also would be located within an existing alfalfa field, together with the Tule Lake, 

Russell Canyon, and Buck Butte Delivery Meter Stations. Construction and operation of the 

launchers/receivers and MLVs would take a total of about 0.24 acre out of agricultural 

production, excluding acres that were already discussed under the proposed meter stations. 
4.2-25 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

4.2.3.4 Storage Yards 

Pacific Connector has identified 39 potential, privately owned contractor and pipe storage yards 

in the general area of the proposed pipeline. Most (29 of the 39) of the proposed yards are 

located in existing industrial areas or sites that have been previously disturbed by filling, grading, 

and gravelling activities, and therefore the soils resources at these locations have been 

significantly altered and do not exist or do not represent the descriptions provided in the NRCS 

soil surveys or geographic databases. Of the remaining storage yards, another 3 have been 

partially disturbed. Only 7 storage yards have not been disturbed previously. These include 5 

storage yards that are currently used for agriculture (Days Creek Yard, Riddle Pasture, Highway 

99 Hayfield Yard, Klamath Falls North of Cross Road East, and Klamath Falls North of Cross 

Road West). The remaining 2 undisturbed storage yards (Oregon Opportunities and Avenue C 

and 7th Street – Elite Cabinet and Doors) are undeveloped land in industrial parks. All but the 

two Klamath Falls storage yards are part of the Siskiyou-Trinity Area MLRA, which includes 

soils that generally are moderately deep or deep, well drained, and loamy. The Klamath Falls 

storage yards occur in the Klamath and Shasta Valleys and Basins MLRA, which generally are 

well drained, but they may be poorly drained or very poorly drained in the basins. They 

generally are loamy, clayey, or sandy and are shallow to very deep. 

Pacific Connector would use appropriate erosion control measures to minimize potential impacts 

to the yards. After the pipeline is constructed, the temporary yards would be restored back to 

their previous condition and use. 

4.2.3.5 Access Roads 

Access roads for the pipeline would be existing federal (BLM and USFS), state, county, and 

private roads that intersect the proposed pipeline alignment. Egress and ingress points from 

existing roads would be sufficient along most of the proposed pipeline to allow for safe, efficient 

construction and movement of equipment and materials. Pacific Connector proposes modifying 

existing roads and constructing new roads to ensure construction and operation access. 

Approximately 6.06 acres of soils would be used to construct 18 temporary access roads (TARs), 

and approximately 2.79 acres of soils would be used to construct or reconstruct 16 permanent 

access roads (PARs) to provide permanent access to some of the aboveground facilities (i.e., 

block valves, meter stations, and the compression station). The TARs would be constructed 

using appropriate BMPs to minimize potential impacts and would be designed and constructed 

for their intended use. All TARs would be reclaimed (i.e., regraded, scarified, and replanted) 

upon completion of construction according to the landowner or agency requirements. Several of 

the PARs are existing roads that Pacific Connector would need to reconstruct to ensure 

permanent all-weather access. Long-term impacts to soils are not anticipated in the TARs but 

would occur in the PARs. These soils would be permanently compacted and unvegetated. 

4.2.4 Environmental Consequences on Federal Lands 

General measures to mitigate impacts on soils caused by the pipeline construction are discussed 

above, and would also apply to BLM, USFS, and BOR lands crossed by the pipeline and 

associated facilities. In addition, Pacific Connector would develop a POD for activities on 

USFS, BLM, and BOR lands that would identify the specific areas where mitigation measures or 

BMPs would be employed to minimize potential impacts. 
4.2-26 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

The pipeline construction would affect approximately 874.2 and 560.8 acres of forest lands on 

BLM and NFS lands, respectively (tables 4.4.2.3-6 and 4.4.2.3-7, excluding non-forest dominant 

overstory on BLM-administered lands and unmapped areas on NFS lands). An additional 63 

acres on NFS lands are unmapped and could include forested vegetation. 

Pacific Connector developed BMPs and mitigation measures to protect soils in consultation with 

the USFS and BLM during the FERC pre-filing process. These BMPs are described in the 

ECRP. Pacific Connector also completed a geologic hazard assessment to ensure the safety and 

integrity of the proposed pipeline and to verify that soil disturbance from the Project does not 

increase the risk of mass movement. The ECRP describes procedures (e.g., regrading, ripping, 

scarification, and monitoring) that would be implemented to mitigate potential soil compaction. 

Pacific Connector has proposed fertilization of the right-of-way (as described in the ECRP) to 

mitigate the potential effects of lost soil productivity. Pacific Connector would scatter slash 

across the right-of-way during restoration for erosion control and to preserve nutrient recycling. 

The area of soil mixing along the trench line would coincide with the 30-foot-wide maintained 

easement where trees greater than 15 feet in height would not be allowed. Within the 30-footwide maintained easement, native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be used for revegetation. 

These species are not expected to be affected by the potential loss in soil productivity from soil 

mixing. Pacific Connector believes that these BMPs would mitigate most Project soil impacts, 

except for potential soil productivity losses from topsoil dilution during construction. 

The USFS and BLM requested changes to Pacific Connector’s ECRP measures and mitigation 

for soil compaction. The original operational descriptions did not meet agency guidelines and 

contract standards for treating soil compaction. In addition, an action that creates soil 

disturbances (soil compaction or displacement) would require both mechanical and biological 

mitigation to be considered fully mitigated. Both displacement and compaction are potential 

effects to long-term soil productivity that would need to be fully analyzed. In response to these 

requested changes, Pacific Connector has incorporated USFS and BLM comments into its ECRP. 

In addition, the ECRP addresses revegetation and erosion control in compliance with BOR’s 

guidelines (BOR 2008). Trench backfill within the right-of-way on BOR-administered lands 

would be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 698, Standard Proctor) (or 90 

percent of ASTM D 1557). Mechanical compaction using heavy equipment (greater than 2,000 

pounds) would not be used within 18 inches of the pipeline on BOR lands. Flowable fill (or 

controlled low strength material) would be substituted for compacted pipe embedment under 

BOR canals and could be used when crossing existing buried BOR pipelines. 

Pacific Connector’s ECRP incorporates erosion control and revegetation recommendations 

provided by the USFS and BLM for their respective federally-managed lands. Erosion control 

and revegetation guidelines provided by the NRCS also have been incorporated for use on 

private lands. Pacific Connector’s ECRP has been reviewed by the various agencies, including 

the USFS and BLM, and their review comments have been incorporated into the plan. The plan 

includes construction BMPs for addressing slope stability and erosion on side slope areas, 

mitigation measures from the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures, and revegetation 

recommendations from the BLM, USFS, NRCS, and County Soil and Water Conservation 

Districts. Per the USFS’ request, language was added to Pacific Connector’s ECRP to meet the 

Umpqua National Forest LRMP Standard and Guideline 13 and Table IV-15 (USFS 1990). 

Pacific Connector has agreed to meet the LRMP Standard and Guideline 13, which provides the 
4.2-27 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

protocols for establishing effective ground cover. Pacific Connector coordinated the 

development of the revised ECRP with the various agencies, resolved any conflicting agency 

requests, satisfied specific right-of-way grant requirements, and ensured erosion and 

sedimentation control for resource protection. 

Each of the National Forests crossed by the proposed pipeline has Standards and Guidelines in 

their LRMPs that establish thresholds for soil displacement. Generally, the LRMP for the 

Umpqua National Forest requires that the combined total amount of unacceptable soil condition 

(e.g., cutting unit, range allotment, site preparation area) within an activity area should not 

exceed 20 percent. Also, tree cutting or other ground-disturbing activities that would increase 

the risk of mass movements are not allowed on lands classified as unsuitable because of 

irreversible soil damage, including steep granitic soils. The Geologic Hazards and Mineral 

Resources Report (GeoEngineers 2007e) and the Addendum to Geologic Hazards Evaluation

(GeoEngineers 2009) found that operation and construction of the proposed pipeline would not 

increase the risk of mass movement. (A detailed discussion of these findings is presented in 

section 4.1.3.2 of this EIS.) Therefore, the Project would comply with this Umpqua National 

Forest LRMP standard and guideline. 

In the Fremont-Winema National Forest, the cumulative effects of detrimental soil conditions 

can not exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the activity area. Detrimental soil 

conditions include compaction, displacement, puddling, and moderately or severely burned soil. 

Sites where the standards for displacement, puddling, and compaction are not currently met 

require rehabilitation such as ripping, backblading, or fertilization. The Winema LRMP also 

states that the potential for creating detrimental soil conditions should be addressed through 

project environmental analysis. If needed, alternative management practices should be 

developed, and mitigating measures planned and implemented. 

The LRMP for the Rogue River portion of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest contains more 

restrictive Standards and Guidelines for soils. It limits new compaction and displacement of 

soils to 10 percent of the total area, and 20 percent for both current and previous impacts 

combined. The Standards and Guidelines for the Rogue River area also limit soil exposure in 

riparian areas to less than 20 percent on low hazard sites, less than 10 percent exposure on high 

or severe hazard sites, and less than 7 percent exposure for very severe hazard sites. 

In a data response filed January 21, 2009, Pacific Connector estimated that trenching and grading 

during pipeline construction through the Umpqua National Forest would displace a total of 30.75 

acres, including the trench and grading of the working side of the construction right-of-way. 

This would represent about 14.33 percent of the total project-related activity area in the Forest, 

including the entire construction right-of-way, TEWAs, and UCSAs. Through the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest, construction of the Pacific Connector pipeline would affect about 

38.37 acres of soil, or 13.78 percent of the total project activity area. About 17.16 acres of soil 

would be displaced by pipeline construction through the Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

representing about 19 percent of the total Project activity area in that Forest. 

The restrictions for soil exposure within the Rogue River area of the Rogue-Siskiyou National 

Forest apply specifically to the crossings of Riparian Reserves. The Pacific Connector pipeline 

would cross three Riparian Reserves within the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest: the South Fork 

of Little Butte Creek at MP 162.45, tributary to South Fork Little Butte Creek at MP 164.96, and 
4.2-28 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Daley Creek at MP 166.21. These locations have a low erosion hazard potential because the 

soils are course textured and well drained, and the pipeline would cross the drainages in areas 

without steep slopes. Therefore, the Standards and Guidelines would allow up to 20 percent of 

soil exposure. Pacific Connector intends to be consistent with this Standard and Guideline. As 

specified in section 10.15 of its ECRP, Pacific Connector would comply with USFS Ground 

Cover standards (as outlined in table 10.15.1 of its ECRP) to minimize surface soil loss from 

gravity, water, or wind action. 

Pacific Connector proposes to use these standards in all forested areas along the pipeline route 

where slash would be returned to the right-of-way. Pacific Connector would assume that all 

areas where slash would be used have a high to very high erosion potential. The slash would be 

used to cover 65 to 85 percent of the right-of-way. Within riparian areas Pacific Connector 

would comply with the Standard and Guideline to limit soil exposure to 20 percent by applying a 

minimum of 80 percent effective ground cover. 

Pacific Connector requested a change for forest lands from Section IV.B.1.d. of the FERC staff’s 

Plan, which specifies topsoil stripping at the landowner’s or land managing agency’s request. To 

effectively conduct topsoil salvaging on level terrain using a 95-foot-wide right-of-way for a 36-

inch-diameter pipeline, Pacific Connector has requested an additional 10 feet of TEWAs. Pacific 

Connector would salvage topsoil in wetlands on all forested lands according to the FERC staff’s 

Procedures. 

This change has been requested because the USFS and BLM have requested topsoil segregation 

in forested lands. In the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, the USFS has observed specific 

incidences where topsoil mixing has radically reduced the quality and quantity of the natural 

vegetation recovery. 

Pacific Connector states that in steep forested landscapes that would be crossed by the pipeline, it 

would be impractical and unreasonable to salvage topsoil based on topographic and vegetation 

conditions (i.e., large trees and stumps would have to be removed to accomplish the task). 

Pacific Connector believes that creating long-term impacts from cutting additional forested areas 

and causing added disturbance to segregate topsoil is not reasonable or advantageous. Further, 

the topsoil segregation area (trench and spoil storage area) would coincide with the 53-foot 

permanent easement (50 feet for federal lands plus the width of the pipeline) and the overlapping 

30-foot operational corridor centered over the pipeline, which would be maintained in a shrub or 

herbaceous state to facilitate corrosion and leak surveys and for aerial surveillance according to 

DOT regulations (49 CFR Part 192, Section 192.705). For most of the affected area on BLMand USFS-administered lands, vegetation in the trench and spoil storage areas would be 

converted from forest to shrub. In most areas, the mixing of topsoil and subsoil from the trench, 

while likely to decrease the soils’ productivity in the long term, should not significantly inhibit 

herbaceous and shrub revegetation in the trench and spoil storage areas.

Additionally, some of the forest lands managed by the USFS that the proposed pipeline would 

cross are designated as LSRs. LSRs are managed with an objective to protect and enhance 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, and limited silvicultural treatments 

are permitted in LSRs. Creating long-term impacts to LSR habitats by enlarging the construction 

right-of-way to segregate topsoil may not provide a benefit compared to the habitat lost. 
4.2-29 4.2 – Soils and Sediments

The magnitude of the impact on soil productivity from not salvaging topsoil would likely have a 

greater effect where soils were shallow and the mixing effect was increased. The decrease in soil 

productivity from not salvaging topsoil in these sensitive soil areas would be expected to 

decrease the soil reclamation potential and, in turn, could require a longer period for these soils 

to revegetate fully. However, to mitigate the potential reduction in soil productivity, to ensure 

that these areas properly revegetate to stabilize the site, and to prevent long-term erosion 

impacts, Pacific Connector proposes to fertilize the right-of-way as described in its ECRP. 

Further, slash from timber clearing would be salvaged at the edge of the right-of-way and 

scattered across the right-of-way during final cleanup, according to USFS and BLM fuel loading 

standards. The redistributed slash material would provide surface cover for erosion control and 

organic matter inputs for nutrient recycling over time. 

Disturbed areas, especially those where soil productivity has diminished through soil compaction 

and loss of topsoil has occurred from soil mixing or displacement, would be expected to provide 

increased suitability for undesirable plants such as noxious weeds. However, the noxious weed 

control plan provided in the ECRP describes the measures that Pacific Connector would 

implement to ensure that noxious weeds did not become established or spread. 

In response to Pacific Connector’s request to not segregate topsoil on forested lands, the USFS 

and BLM responded that, unless topsoil was replaced in a decompacted state, displaced topsoil 

would result in a loss of soil productivity within the impacted area. However, because soil 

mitigation is a long-term biological and physical process, Pacific Connector suggested that soil 

compaction could be partially mitigated by following the Umpqua National Forest LRMP 

Standards and Guidelines for Soil Productivity, particularly Standard and Guideline 12 (USFS 

1990b), which requires that restoration plans be implemented on lands where management 

activities cause soil conditions that do not meet Standards and Guidelines. 

To ensure that we could fully evaluate Pacific Connector’s request to not segregate topsoil on 

forested lands, we requested that Pacific Connector continue to consult with the USFS and BLM 

regarding whether additional acreage should be restored to offset the topsoil segregation on 

USFS and BLM forested lands. Pacific Connector consulted with the USFS regarding their Soil 

Productivity Standards and Guidelines within the various LRMPs and the appropriate mitigation 

to determine whether the Pacific Connector pipeline would be consistent with the soil 

productivity Standard and Guidelines in these LRMPs. 

During consultations with Pacific Connector in February 2009 (following the January 21, 2009 

data request responses), USFS commented that Pacific Connector had underestimated the extent 

of soils that would be affected by project activities. During this consultation, Pacific Connector 

clarified that they had based their estimates on the broad-scale percentage of potential soil 

displacement or soil mixing within the Project activity area in the January 21, 2009 responses to 

data requests. Both Pacific Connector and USFS concluded that site-specific circumstances 

could require more grading, soil displacement, and soil compaction than estimated in Pacific 

Connector’s January 21, 2009 response. These site-specific circumstances could exceed the 20 

percent soil disturbance thresholds in the Umpqua National Forest and Winema National Forest 

LRMPs, and would exceed the 10 percent threshold in the Rogue River LRMP. Furthermore, the 

broad-scale approach did not include soil compaction caused by the pipeline, which would be 

impossible to fully mitigate. After erosion control and mitigation measures, more than 20 

percent (and probably at least 30 percent) of the soils affected by construction of the pipeline 
4.2-30 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

could be left in degraded conditions. The USFS has concluded that if soil impacts would not 

meet the LRMP standards, then it may choose to amend its individual National Forest Plans to 

allow for the installation of the Pacific Connector pipeline. 

The BLM’s December 2008 RMPs do not include specific metrics for soils. Instead, 

management objectives and directions are to design management activities that could affect soil 

productivity to provide for long-term soil productivity. By implementing the measures described 

above, Pacific Connector would mitigate potential effects to long-term soil productivity.