4.8-1 4.8 – Socioeconomics 

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The potential socioeconomic effects associated with the JCE & PCGP Project include impacts on 

population, housing, property values, the economy and employment, tax revenues, local 

infrastructure and public services, and recreation and tourism. These impacts are likely to occur 

primarily within Coos County for the waterway for LNG marine traffic and the Jordan Cove 

LNG terminal, and Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties along Pacific Connector’s 

proposed pipeline route. 

4.8.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

Potential socioeconomic effects associated with LNG marine traffic along the waterway would 

affect Coos County and more specifically the communities located within the immediate vicinity 

of the waterway. These communities and neighborhoods include Charleston, Barview, Empire 

(which is part of the city of Coos Bay), Coos Bay, and North Bend. For the purposes of this 

analysis, we discuss potential Project impacts that may result from LNG carrier transit in the 

waterway to the terminal with regard to the three Zones of Concern (as further discussed in 

section 4.12). 

4.8.1.1 Population 

Population data are summarized for the communities within two miles of the waterway in table 

4.8.1.1-1. Of the communities overlapped by the Zones of Concern, only Coos Bay and North 

Bend are incorporated cities for which population data is available from the U.S. Census, the 

State of Oregon Internet Web site, or the Portland State University Population Research Center. 

The unincorporated community of Barview had a population of about 1,872 people in 2000 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000). 

Coos County had a population density of 39.2 persons per square mile in 2000, slightly higher 

than the state average of 35.6 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a). The city of 

Coos Bay has a population density of about 1,490 people per square mile and the city of North 

Bend has a population density of about 2,516 people per square mile (city-data.com). 

Population density along the waterway is graphically illustrated by zone in figure 4.8-1. Where 

Zone 3 overlaps parts of the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, population densities range from 

2,500 to 5,000 people per square mile. The population density within all three zones north and 

west of the LNG carrier transit route is less than 200 people per square mile. 

TABLE 4.8.1.1-1. 

Population in the Counties and Communities along the Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

1990 to 2006 

State/County/Community 1990 2006 Net Change Percent Change 

Oregon 2,842,321 3,700,758 858,437 30 

 Coos County 60,273 64,820 4,547 8 

 Coos Bay 15,076 15,999 923 6 

 North Bend 9,614 9,846 232 2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2007 
4.8-2 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Jordan Cove provided an estimate of the population within each of the Zones of Concern based 

on the number of residential structures located within each zone. There are no houses, 

apartments, or other residential structures located within Zone 1 and, therefore, no people are 

believed to reside within this zone. Approximately 7,411 people are estimated to live within 

Zone 2, and approximately 9,511 people reside within Zone 3. 

The proposed LNG marine traffic in the waterway is not expected to affect the distribution of 

local population. LNG marine traffic would not, in and of itself, result in people moving into or 

out of the communities along the waterway. The LNG carriers are manned by seamen who come 

into port and out of port with the carrier. The only additional workers that would be newly 

employed as a result of LNG marine traffic would be the crews of the tug and escort boats. It is 

likely that most of the tug and escort boat operators would be local residents. 

The population within the Zones of Concern along the waterway could be affected if there were 

an accidental or intentional breach of an LNG carrier en route along the waterway to the 

proposed LNG terminal. The severity of the effect would depend on the location of the spill 

relative to the population area, the size of the spill, and whether the LNG vapor from the spill 

came into contact with an ignition source. Potential effects would be greatest in those areas 

within the Zone 1, where no one lives, with the severity of the potential effects decreasing with 

distance from the spill. There would be no adverse impacts to populations residing outside of the 

zones. With the implementation of the safety and security measures recommended in the Coast 

Guard’s WSR, an LNG release from a carrier transiting in the waterway would be highly 

unlikely, and potential impacts on population from LNG marine traffic should be less than 

significant. 

4.8.1.2 Housing 

Coos County had a total of 29,247 housing units in 2000, including houses, apartments, and 

mobile homes. A total of 3,064 of the housing units were identified as vacant or vacant partyear; and of these, approximately 28 percent (843 units) were for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use and 31 percent (949 units) were available for rent (table 4.8.3.2-1). There are 

1,864 spaces in private and public campgrounds and RV parks in Coos County, with an average 

occupancy rate of 47 percent in the RV parks. In the city of North Bend there are about 4,300 

housing units, with 7.5 percent identified as vacant or vacant part-year. Of the vacant housing in 

North Bend, about 6 percent (18 units) were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use and 51 

percent (165 units) were available for rent. In the city of Coos Bay in 2000 there were about 

7,100 housing units, of which 8.4 percent were identified as vacant or vacant part-year; 12 

percent (69 units) of this vacant housing was for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use and 51 

percent (307 units) were available for rent. 

No houses, apartments, motels, hotels, or any other residential structures occur within Zone of 

Concern 1. Approximately 2,588 residential structures, including houses, apartments, duplexes, 

multiplexes, and mobile homes/trailers, were identified by Jordan Cove in Zone 2. There are 

five hotels and motels within Zone 2, with a total of approximately 83 rooms available for rent. 

Approximately 2,869 residential structures are located within Zone 3. There are four hotels and 

motels within Zone 3, with approximately 135 rooms available for rent. 
4.8-3 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Figure 4.8-1. Population Density Along the Waterway 
4.8-4 4.8 – Socioeconomics

LNG marine traffic is not expected to result in changes in demand for housing in the 

communities along the waterway. There would be few non-local workers seeking housing in the 

project area because of LNG marine traffic. 

Residential structures, including motels and hotels, overlapped by the Zones of Concern could be 

affected in the event of an LNG spill from a carrier in transit to the terminal. However, with the 

implementation of the safety and security measures recommended by the Coast Guard in its 

WSR, an LNG release would be highly unlikely, and there should be no significant impacts on 

housing along the waterway. 

4.8.1.3 Property Values 

The real market value of property in Coos County in Fiscal Year 2006 to 2007 was $7.3 million 

(Oregon Department of Revenue 2007). The median value of owner-occupied housing in Coos 

County was $98,900 in 2001, compared to a statewide average of $152,100. In the city of Coos 

Bay, the median price for a vacant for sale house or condominium in 2000 was about $67,000. 

In the city of North Bend, the median price of vacant houses or condominiums for sale in 2000 

was about $55,000 (city-data.com). 

The addition of LNG marine traffic to current commercial cargo ships coming to port at Coos 

Bay would still be well below historical numbers. There are very few studies that assess the 

impact of LNG marine traffic on property values along a waterway and none that we are aware 

of that examine property values in the vicinity of an existing LNG transit route.1 While LNG 

carriers represent a potential hazard, there are commercial vessels that carry hazardous materials, 

including petroleum products, and currently call at the Port of Coos Bay. With the 

implementation of the safety and securityrisk management measures outlined as 

conditionsrecommended in the Coast Guard WSR, the chance of an LNG release would be 

highly unlikely, and LNG marine traffic should not have significant impacts on the future value 

of properties adjacent to the navigation channel. 

4.8.1.4 Economy and Employment 

The government sector was the largest employer in Coos County in 2004, followed by consumer 

services, producer services, and retail trade (table 4.8.3.4-1). The total labor force in Coos 

County in 2007 was 28,592 people, with an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2007). In 2003, the per capita income of Coos County was $24,380. According 

to the U.S. Census, the per capita income for working citizens of the city of Coos Bay was 

$18,158 in 2000, and in North Bend it was $16,703. The median household income in Coos 

County in 2005 was $33,150, compared to an Oregon statewide average of $43,065. In 2000, the 

median household income for the city of North Bend was $33,333, while for the city of Coos 

Bay it was $31,212. Along the waterway for LNG marine traffic Jordon Cove identified 3 

commercial businesses within Zone 1, 159 commercial businesses within Zone 2, and 336 

commercial businesses within Zone 3. 

Employment directly associated with LNG marine traffic in the waterway would include crews 

of the tugboats and other escort boats. The additional future carrier traffic may also have 

 

1

 Yellow Wood Associates Inc. (2004, 2006) prepared studies for two potential LNG terminal projects in Maine and projected 

that property values would decrease within 2 miles of the waterways that would be used by LNG vessels. These projections were 

not substantiated by data from existing LNG transit routes or other specific studies, and have limited applicability to the Jordan 

Cove terminal.
4.8-5 4.8 – Socioeconomics

implications for the number of bay pilots employed. One of the economic benefits of LNG 

marine traffic in the waterway would be the employment of crews for the tugs and escort vessels. 

The economy of the area could be negatively affected in the event of an accidental or intentional 

breach of an LNG carrier that resulted in a release of LNG, and an associated pool fire with 

ignition; especially if such an incident were to directly impact commercial structures or 

businesses. With the safety and security conditions outlinedrisk management measures 

recommended in the Coast Guard’s WRS, the likelihood of an LNG spill would be highly 

unlikely, and LNG marine traffic in the waterway should not have significant adverse impacts on 

the local economy. 

4.8.1.5 Tax Revenues 

LNG marine traffic along the waterway would not affect or contribute to local tax revenues. Tax 

revenues would be generated through construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal 

and associated pipeline, as discussed in sections 4.8.2.5 and 4.8.3.5, respectively. 

4.8.1.6 Local Infrastructure and Public Services 

Infrastructure within 2.2 miles of the LNG carrier transit route includes the Highway 101 bridge, 

also known as the McCullough Bridge, the railroad bridge crossing the bay, the bridge crossing 

South Slough to Charleston, the Southern Oregon Regional Airport, and the sewage treatment 

plant. There is also an overhead electric transmission line that parallels the west side of the 

McCullough Bridge. Besides the marina at Charleston, there are nine other commercial or 

recreational docks along the waterway. 

Six docks are located within Zone of Concern 1: the Cape Arago Dock; D.B. Western, Inc.; 

North Bay Marine Industrial Park; Southport Forest Products Barge Facility; the BLM boat 

launch; and the Roseburg Forest Products Chip Terminal. The Charleston Marina is overlapped 

by Zone 2. The McCullough Bridge, transmission line parallel to the McCullough Bridge, and 

the railroad bridge are within Zone 3. The other infrastructure elements, including a portion of 

the airport, are overlapped by Zone 2. 

There are no schools within Zone of Concern 1. Four schools occur within Zone 2: Sunset 

Middle School (641 students) and Madison Elementary School (387 students) in the Coos Bay 

School District; the Alternative Youth Activities school (approximately 28 students); and the 

University of Oregon, Institute of Marine Biology (less than 100 students). Eight schools occur 

within Zone 3, including the Hillcrest Elementary School (202 students), North Bend Middle 

School (606 students), and North Bend High School (774 students) within the North Bend 

School District. Also within Zone 3 are the Southwest Oregon Community College 

(approximately 14,500 students), Oregon Coast Culinary Institute within the Southwest Oregon 

Community college campus (approximately 60 students), and the Gold Coast Christian School 

(approximately 37 students). The Village Daycare and South Coast Head Start are also within 

Zone 3, but there is no data available on the number of students in attendance. 

There are no government offices within Zone of Concern 1. Two government offices occur 

within Zone 2: the Coos Bay Fire Department and the BLM Coos Bay Division office. Three 

government offices occur within Zone 3, including the Coos County Courthouse, the North Bend 

Fire Department, and the North Bend Police Department. 
4.8-6 4.8 – Socioeconomics

There are no hospitals within the Zones of Concern. The nearest hospital is the Bay Area 

Hospital, located approximately five miles to the east of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. 

LNG marine traffic in the waterway should not stress existing infrastructure or public services of 

Coos County. Jordan Cove filed a draft ERP in May 2007. In accordance with the EPAct, the 

ERP is supposed to include a Cost Sharing Plan to fill resource gaps for local first responders. 

On March 31, 2009, Jordan Cove filed with the FERC a copy of an MOU it signed with the State 

of Oregon agreeing to develop an emergency procedures program with the ODE. Jordan Cove 

committed to providing the ODE and local emergency response organizations with adequate 

funding, personnel, equipment, and other resources as appropriate to execute the ERP. We 

further discuss the ERP in section 4.12 of this EIS. 

An ignited LNG spill could have an adverse impact on local infrastructure and public services 

depending on the location, extent, and timing of the spill. With the safety and securityrisk 

management measures outlined recommended in the Coast Guard’s WSR, the likelihood of an 

LNG spill from a carrier while in transit in the waterway to the Jordan Cove terminal would be 

extremely remote. In addition, Jordan Cove’s ERP and Cost Sharing Plan should ensure there 

would be adequate public services in place in the unlikely event of an emergency related to LNG 

marine traffic on the waterway. Therefore, this action should not have significant impacts on 

infrastructure and public services. 

4.8.1.7 Recreation and Tourism 

The Zones of Concern along the waterway would overlap with federal and state recreational 

areas, marinas, boat ramps, city parks, RV parks, and campgrounds. Recreational facilities 

located within Zone 1 include the Empire boat ramp, and the BLM boat launch. Recreational 

facilities within Zone 2 include the North Spit Overlook and Wetland Trail, Bayview Wayside, 

Charleston Marina and fishing pier, the Airport Heights Park, Ed Lund Park, Taylor-Wasson 

Park, and Charleston County Park. Recreational facilities within Zone 3 include the Pony Point 

boat ramp, Yoakam Point State Natural Site, Sunset Bay Park and campground, Bastendorff 

Beach Park and campground, Ferry Street Park, Simpson Park, Oak Street Park, State Street 

Park, Empire Lakes at John Topits Park, Boynton Park, and Alder Acres RV Park. Dispersed 

recreation use occurs within the Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA. Potential Project-related impacts 

on parks and other recreational areas are more fully discussed in section 4.7 of this EIS. 

A potential impact on users of recreation facilities would be visual effects as LNG carriers transit 

in the waterway to and from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal. However, the number of LNG 

carriers would be below historic levels of commercial vessel traffic in the Coos Bay navigation 

channel. In addition, an LNG carrier would pass through the viewshed in a couple of minutes, 

traveling at speeds of between 10 and 4 knots. Visual impacts are more fully discussed in 

section 4.7 of this EIS. 

An ignited LNG spill could affect recreational facilities within the Zones of Concern, depending 

on the location, extent, and timing of the spill. However, with the risk management measures to 

be implemented to meet the conditions outlinedrecommendations in the Coast Guard’s WSR, the 

likelihood of a spill would be extremely remote. Therefore, LNG marine traffic should not have 

significant impacts on users of recreational facilities along the waterway. 
4.8-7 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Recreational Boating 

Recreational boaters took 30,996 boat trips in Coos Bay in 2005 and engaged in 36,547 use-days 

of boating activity. A use-day in this context represents one person engaging in the activity for 

all or part of one day. The majority of these use days (88 percent) were fishing related. Most of 

the remainder (9 percent) involved pleasure-cruising, with a small number involving sailing and 

waterskiing. In addition, boaters took 8,954 boat trips from Coos Bay to the ocean and engaged 

in 6,196 use-days of activity. All of these trips involved fishing (Oregon State Marine Board and 

Oregon State University, Survey Center 2005). 

During operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal, when an LNG carrier is transiting in the 

waterway to the terminal, other boats in or near the channel would be required to move away and 

those seeking to approach the channel would have to delay doing so until the LNG carrier had 

passed. The Coos Bay Pilots Association estimated that recreational boaters may be briefly 

inconvenienced by moving out of the safety and security zone around an LNG carrier for a 

period between 3 to 4 minutes while the carrier passes by. At present, recreational boaters 

already know to stay away from commercial ship traffic using the Coos Bay navigation channel. 

ECONorthwest (2006c) estimated that each LNG carrier visiting the terminal would, on average, 

affect about 6 pleasure craft per transit. Based on an estimated total of 80 LNG carriers visiting 

the proposed terminal each year, ECONorthwest concluded that operation of the terminal would 

impact recreational and other boating activity during about 1.3 percent of annual daylight hours. 

LNG marine traffic in the waterway should not have any significant adverse impacts on 

recreational boaters. There is the remote possibility that an incident could result in the release of 

LNG from a carrier, and if the vapors were ignited there could be a pool fire that may affect 

boats within the Zones of Concern. However, this potential would be mitigated by the risk 

management measures recommended by the Coast Guard. For example, there would a safety 

and security zone established around LNG carriers in transit to the proposed LNG terminal, and 

escort vessels would assist in keeping recreational boats out of harms way. 

4.8.1.8 Other Commercial Activities 

Commercial Shipping and Fishing 

In 2006, 36 deep-draft cargo ships called at Coos Bay. In addition, up to 400 tugs and barges per 

year use the Coos Bay navigation channel, carrying wood, petroleum, and other products. 

Current commercial traffic averages 4 ships per mouth. 

A study done for Jordan Cove in April 2008 estimated that it would take a 148,000 m3 capacity 

LNG carrier about 90 minutes to transit between the offshore buoy and the LNG terminal, at 

typical speeds between 10 and 4 knots.2

 Another consultant to Jordan Cove indicated that other 

ships using the navigation channel would not be delayed by more than 30 minutes during the 

passing of an LNG carrier (ECONorthwest 2006c). The Coast Guard’s WSR recommends that 

Jordan Cove develop a Traffic Management Plan, to minimize conflicts between LNG carriers in 

route to and from the terminal and other vessels in the waterway. The likelihood of collisions 

between LNG carriers and other ships would be low, because of the presence of assisting tug 

boats and escort vessels as required by the WSR. 

 

2

 Moffat & Nichol, 14 April 2008, Jordan Cove LNG Terminal Coos Bay, Oregon, Class LNG Carrier Transit and Maneuvering 

Simulations March 17-20, 2008. This report was filed with the FERC by Jordan Cove on May 23, 2008. The duration of transit 

and LNG carrier speed was reaffirmed in a filing with the FERC made by Jordan Cove on January 23, 2009.
4.8-8 4.8 – Socioeconomics

The addition of 80 LNG carriers per year transiting in the waterway to the Jordan Cove terminal 

should not have significant adverse impacts on other commercial ship traffic. Historically, 

commercial ship traffic in Coos Bay was much higher than the combined estimate of projected 

LNG carriers added to current ship traffic. In the late 1980s as many as 300 commercial ships 

came to call at Coos Bay. The Coos Bay Pilots Association filed a letter with the FERC dated 

July 12, 2006 stating that the effects of LNG marine traffic in the waterway on other commercial 

ship traffic would be negligible. 

Commercial and recreational fisheries are discussed in the Aquatic Resources section of this 

document (section 4.5). There are no commercial fisheries for vertebrate fish species in any of 

the estuary or freshwater habitats of Coos Bay. Commercial ocean fisheries exist for salmonids 

and marine species and commercial boats (trollers and trawlers) targeting tuna, salmon and 

groundfish dock and sell their products in Coos Bay. A fisherman’s market cooperative and a 

small commercial fishing fleet are located in Charleston. The Port indicated that the marina has 

moorings available for 213 trollers and trawlers between 24 and 48 feet in length, and 65 boats of 

larger size (Dyer Partnership Engineers 2007). 

Coos Bay is the third most important harbor in the state of Oregon in terms of total personal 

income generated from commercial fishing (exceeded only by Astoria and Newport). 

Commercial landing data compiled by ODFW indicate that a total of $20.1 million worth of fish 

and shellfish were landed at Charleston in 2006. Crab and shrimp accounted for about $13.1 

million or 65 percent of this value, with Dungeness crab harvested from the ocean accounting for 

about $11.6 million or 58 percent of the total value. Dungeness crab harvested from the bay 

accounted for about $9,000 of the total value landed at Charleston. Fish accounted for about $7 

million or 35 percent of the total landed at Charleston, with sablefish and albacore tuna 

accounting for about $2.3 million and $1.1 million, respectively (ODFW 2007). The Research 

Group (2007, Table V.3) estimated that fishing income in the Coos Bay area was approximately 

$31.2 million in 2005, approximately 1.3 percent of the total income for Coos County. 

Limited commercial fishing takes place in the bay itself, with the majority of the landing value 

associated with ocean harvest. During LNG carrier transit in the waterway to the terminal, 

fishermen and others using that area would be required to temporarily move out of the security 

zone for the duration of the transit. Passive fishing equipment, such as crab pots, would be 

permitted to remain. 

ECONorthwest (2006c) estimated that each LNG carrier visiting the terminal would, on average, 

encounter two commercial fishing boats per transit. It is unlikely that LNG marine traffic in the 

waterway would have significant impacts on commercial fishing boats operating out of Coos 

Bay. The LNG marine traffic would only overlap with the portion of the navigation channel 

used by the ocean going fishing fleet from Charleston for about 2 miles. There may be slight 

delays resulting from meeting situations between an inbound LNG carrier and an out bound 

fishing vessel, because of the security and safety zones or other conditions imposed by the Coast 

Guard. Jordan Cove indicated that the passing of an LNG carrier may cause fishing boats based 

out of Charleston to wait about 20 minutes before they could enter the channel. 

In the event of an LNG spill from an LNG carrier in transit to the Jordan Cove terminal, and a 

related pool fire if there was ignition, there could be impacts on commercial ships or fishing 

boats. However, with the risk management measures recommended by the Coast Guard in its 

WSR being implemented, the likelihood of an LNG carrier incident is extremely remote. 
4.8-9 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Airport 

The Southwestern Oregon Regional Airport is located in the city of North Bend, directly across 

the bay to the east from the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. The end of runway 4-22 is 

about 1 mile from the middle of the Coos Bay navigation channel. There were a total of 39,016 

aircraft operations (defined as a take-off or landing) at the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport in 

2000. The 2002 Airport Master Plan prepared for this airport in 2002 (North Bend Municipal 

Airport 2002) estimated that this number would increase to 49,700 by 2010. Potential impacts 

on this airport are discussed in more detail in section 4.9.2.4 of this EIS. 

Flights taking off or landing at the airport and using runway 4-22 would pass over the Lower 

Jarvis Range portion of the waterway that would be used by LNG carriers transiting to the 

terminal. Planes should be about 300 feet above the water after take off or during approach 

when crossing this portion of the navigation channel. The planes should fly above the air draft 

for an LNG carrier, which would be about 150 feet high. At a speed of 5 knots it would take an 

LNG carrier about 4 minutes to transit the entire Lower Jarvis Range, and about 4 minutes to 

pass by the airport runway. Based on 80 LNG carriers coming to the terminal in a year, these 

carriers would pass by the airport 4 times a week. 

Jordan Cove believes it should be able to coordinate with the airport authority regarding the 

schedule for arrival of LNG carriers so that it would not disrupt air traffic using runway 4-22. 

The Coos County Airport District, which operates the airport, has stated that the airport would 

not have to stop operations while an LNG carrier was transiting in the waterway past the airport. 

Currently, commercial ships carrying petroleum products transit in the waterway by the airport 

without incident relating to air traffic, and the Coos Bay Pilots Association foresees no delays for 

airplanes using the airport resulting from LNG marine traffic in the waterway. Potential Projectrelated impacts on the airport are discussed in Section 4.9.2.4. 

4.8.1.9 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 requires that agencies that are part of the Executive Branch of the federal government 

to address the adverse health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities 

on minority or low-income populations. That EO also requires that Executive Branch agencies 

produce documents, notices, and hearings related to a project that are readily available to the 

public. Although the FERC is an independent regulatory agency, not a part of the Executive 

Branch, we carry out our programs in the spirit of EO 12898. As discussed in section 1.6, the 

FERC issued notices and held public meetings to inform local communities about the Project, 

and provide information about involving the public in the FERC review process. All documents 

that form the administrative record for these proceedings are available to the public through the 

eLibrary link on the FERC’s Internet web page (at www.ferc.gov). 

Table 4.8.1.9-1 describes the ethnic and racial composition and income distribution of the 

communities occurring within the Zones of Concern along the waterway for LNG marine traffic. 

Data are provided for the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, and the unincorporated community 

of Barview, as well as Coos County and the State of Oregon. Data are also provided for the two 

census tracts located within 2 miles of the waterway and the Coquille Reservation Block Group 

6, which consists of two reservation areas that may be overlapped by the Zones of Concern. 

Approximately 61 percent of the population of the Coquille Reservation Block Group 6 

identified as American Indian in the 2000 Census (table 4.8.1.9-1) and meets the definition of a 
4.8-10 4.8 – Socioeconomics

minority community based on the environmental justice guidelines developed by the CEQ (1997) 

and EPA (1998). 

This area represents a community with a disproportionately high percentage of a minority when 

compared to the applicable county and census tract benchmarks. Approximately 2 percent of the 

Coos County population identified as American Indian in 2000. This percentage was slightly 

higher in the two census tracts overlapped by the Zones of Concern, with 4 percent and 3.1 

percent of the population identifying as American Indian in Census Tracts 5.01 and 5.02, 

respectively (table 4.8.1.9-1). 

Table 4.8.1.9-1 

Race and Ethnicity in Communities along the Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

Percent of Total 

 Total White a/

Hispanic 

or 

Latino 

Black or 

African 

American a/

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native a/ Asian a/

Other 

Race b/

Two 

or 

more 

races 

Oregon 3,421,399 83.5 8.0 1.6 1.2 2.9 0.3 2.4 

Coos County 62,779 90.2 3.4 0.3 2.2 0.9 0.3 2.8 

Barview CDP 1,872 89.9 3.0 0.2 3.3 1.1 0.2 2.4 

Coos Bay 15,374 88.4 4.5 0.3 2.1 1.4 0.4 2.8 

North Bend 9,544 90.4 3.7 0.3 1.7 1.3 0.4 2.2 

Census Tract 5.01 c/ 7,238 85.0 5.6 0.5 4.0 1.4 0.3 3.2 

Census Tract 5.02 2,935 89.5 2.4 0.2 3.1 1.5 0.2 3.1 

Coquille Reservation 

Tribal Block Group 6 d/ 198 22.7 9.6 0.5 60.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 

Notes: 

CDP = Census Defined Place 

a/ Non-Hispanic only. The federal government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. 

People identifying Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. The data summarized in this table present Hispanic/Latino as a 

separate category. 

b/ The “Other Race” category presented here includes census respondents identifying as “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander” or “Some Other Race.” 

c/ Data are presented here for the six block groups (Block Groups 1 to 6) in Census Tract 5.01 located within the three zones. Data 

for Census Tract 5.01 Block Groups 7 and 8 are excluded because these areas are not within the zones. 

d/ The Coquille Reservation Tribal Block Group 6 consists of two reservation areas within the zones. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 

The headquarters for the Coquille tribe is in the city of North Bend, while the headquarters for 

the Coos tribes is in the city of Coos Bay. The Coquille Economic Development Corporation 

manages the Mill Casino and Hotel in Coos Bay, and Coquille Cranberries operates in North 

Bend. We discuss these Indian tribes and their concerns about the Project in more detail in 

section 4.10 of this EIS. 

No other communities with disproportionately high percentages of minorities have been 

identified within the Zones of Concern along the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The 

proportion of the population identifying as White in the 2000 Census exceeded the statewide 

average (83.5 percent) in Coos County, the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, and Census 

Tracts 5.01 and 5.02 (table 4.8.1.9-1). 

Coos County, and the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, have lower per capita incomes than 

the state of Oregon, as a whole, and higher poverty rates. Coos County had a poverty rate in 

2004 of 16 percent. Out of all Oregon counties, the Oregon Progress Board rated Coos County 

14th on its economic index scale in 2007 (Oregon Progress Board 2007). 
4.8-11 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Data compiled by the U.S. Census at the block group level indicate the potential presence of a 

minority community in the vicinity of the proposed action (table 4.8.1.9-1). LNG marine traffic 

is not, however, expected to generate any adverse human health or environmental effects on 

nearby communities. Potential impacts to public safety are discussed in section 4.12 of this EIS. 

4.8.2 LNG Terminal 

LNG terminal construction and operation-related impacts are expected to occur within Coos 

County. As a result, the following analysis focuses on Coos County, although some construction 

workers may reside in surrounding counties.

4.8.2.1 Population 

The Portland State University Population Research Center estimated that in July 2007, the 

population of Coos County was 63,050 people; which represented about a 4 percent increase 

since 2000. The two closest cities to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal are North Bend, 

with a population estimated at 9,830 people, and Coos Bay, with a population of about 16,210 in 

July 2007 (Proehl 2008). 

Construction of the terminal slip is expected to take approximately 20 months and employ an 

average workforce of 27 people for the duration of construction. The workforce would peak at 

45 people during months 7 through 10. Employment would then decline until construction is 

completed 10 months later. Assuming that 41 percent of the slip construction workforce would 

commute daily from their homes to the job site (see the discussion below for the source of this 

percentage), the number of non-local workers would average 16 over the construction period, 

with a peak of 27 non-local workers in months 7 through 10. 

Construction of the rest of Jordan Cove’s LNG terminal is anticipated to last for 36 months. The 

construction labor force is expected to begin with 12 workers in the first month and rise to a peak 

of 929 workers in the 18th month. Employment would then decline until construction is 

completed. An average of 430 people would be working on site each month, with workers of 

different crafts required at different times. 

An estimated 1,110 different jobs would need to be filled, with the average job lasting 14 

months. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 2.1 percent of construction workers quit 

their jobs each month. Applying that figure to the estimates developed for the Jordan Cove 

terminal suggests that the average worker employed during construction of the LNG terminal 

would be employed for 10.4 months or approximately 45 weeks. 

Jordan Cove’s economic consultant estimates that there is a construction labor pool of almost 

72,000 people within a 4.5 hour commuting distance to Coos Bay. It is expected that about 41 

percent of the employees working on construction of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal would 

commute between their homes and the job site. Black and Veatch, based on its past experience 

with other construction projects in mid-sized Oregon communities, assumes that 60 percent of 

the craft workers and 50 percent of staff employees would be “non-local” and require places to 

stay in Coos County. These workers would either temporarily move to the Coos Bay area or 

take-up overnight lodging on weekdays, commuting in from their permanent residences on 

Sunday nights and returning to their homes on Friday evenings. The number of non-local 

workers is estimated to average 255 people a month during construction, peaking at 549 out-oftown employees mid-way through construction (ECONorthwest 2006b). 
4.8-12 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Combining the workers constructing the slip with the workers constructing the LNG terminal, an 

average of about 556 non-local employees per month would be working on the Jordan Cove 

Project during peak periods. This would represent about a 9 percent increase in the total 

population of Coos County and a 21 percent increase in the combined populations of the cities of 

Coos Bay and North Bend. While these numbers indicate a large influx of new people into the 

local communities to work on the Project, this influx would be relatively short term, with peak 

construction lasting for about ten months (between months 14 and 23 after project construction 

begins). At non-peak periods, we estimate an average of 241 non-local workers per month, or an 

increase of 0.4 percent over the present county total population and about a 1 percent increase in 

the combined populations of the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend. We believe that the local 

communities could absorb an increase equivalent to approximately 1 percent of their populations 

without significant adverse impacts. 

Operation of the proposed LNG terminal would require an estimated permanent staff of 56 

employees. As many as 70 percent or 39 employees could be hired locally, with the remaining 

17 workers hired from elsewhere and relocating to the area. The Port does not anticipate that 

additional staff would be needed to operate the slip. The permanent addition of 17 workers and 

their families to the local communities would not be a significant adverse impact to the regional 

population. 

The construction and operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal should have positive economic 

benefits for the local communities, as the Project would generate income from wages, purchases, 

rental of housing, and taxes, as more fully discussed below. Negative impacts would include 

non-local workers competing with tourists for available housing. 

4.8.2.2 Housing 

In 2000, Coos County had a total of 29,247 housing units, with 10.4 percent (3,034 units) 

identified as vacant or vacant part of the year. There are 51 manufactured houses (mobile home) 

parks in Coos County, with 1,405 spaces. While there are no available statistics for occupancy 

rates at mobile home parks, Jordan Cove’s economic consultant estimated that perhaps as many 

as half of those spaces could be vacant. There are 1,864 spaces in private and public 

campgrounds and RV parks in Coos County, with an average annual occupancy rate of 47 

percent in 2006, and winter occupancy rates below 30 percent. The cities of North Bend and 

Coos Bay, combined, had 11,354 housing units in 2000. 

Within 35 miles of Coos Bay are more than 50 hotels with 2,358 rooms, with an additional 250 

rooms to be found in small motels and bed-and-breakfast type facilities. Because this region is a 

summer vacation destination for tourists, occupancy rates are lowest in the winter, averaging 

under 37 percent in January, and highest in the summer, with occupancy rates averaging almost 

80 percent in August. However, even in August, there were an average of 868 unsold 

hotel/motel rooms available on a typical Sunday night (ECONorthwest 2006a). 

Jordan Cove’s economic consultant estimates that about 614 non-local employees would move to 

the Coos Bay area alone to work on construction of the LNG terminal and slip, combined, and 69 

workers would move to the region with their families over the course of the 36 months it would 

take to build the terminal and slip. The analysis assumes that six percent of the non-local work 

force would share living quarters. During an average month, 27 additional families associated 
4.8-13 4.8 – Socioeconomics

with the project would need local housing, with 56 non-local families moving to the area during 

peak months. 

In total, during the 36-month-long construction period for the LNG project, it is estimated that 

about 600 temporary housing units would be needed for non-local labor and their families. The 

current and projected supply of vacant housing units, mobile homes, hotel and motel rooms, and 

RV sites should be adequate to accommodate this demand. A total of 29,247 housing units were 

identified in Coos County in 2000, with a total of 2,028 units identified as available for rent, for 

sale, or other vacant (table 4.8.3.2-1). ECONorthwest (2006a) projected that 1,658 housing units 

would be available for rent, for sale, or otherwise vacant in 2009. A total of 2,608 hotel and 

motel rooms were identified within 35 miles of Coos Bay, with vacancy rates ranging from 20 

percent in August to almost 70 percent in January. In addition, there are about 3,270 mobile 

home and RV spaces in Coos County, with annual vacancy rates averaging almost 50 percent 

(ECONorthwest 2006a). 

Based on their analysis of the stock of housing, hotel and motel rooms, RV park sites, and 

manufactured dwelling parks, ECONorthwest concluded that the market could comfortably 

accommodate the anticipated influx of non-local Jordan Cove terminal and Port site construction 

personnel. The supply of RV sites and motel rooms would, however, be tighter on summer 

weekends. Labor supply data suggest that many of the projected workers would come from 

Eugene and Portland, and commute home on weekends, and would, therefore, free up hotel and 

motel rooms for Friday and Saturday overnight stays by tourists (ECONorthwest 2006a). 

Hotel vacancy rates in the Coos Bay area are at their lowest during peak demand by tourists and 

other visitors, which occurs on Saturday nights in August, when an average of 160 rooms are 

usually vacant, compared to more than 500 unsold rooms during the week in August, and about 

1,500 unsold rooms in January. ECONorthwest concluded that the available supply of unsold 

rooms could accommodate non-local workers commuting to and from home each week, even 

during the peak season. For workers looking for continuous residence during the summer 

months, other accommodations would be more practical. Other available accommodation in the 

area includes an estimated 1,658 vacant housing units in Coos County and numerous RV sites. 

Operation of the LNG terminal would employ an estimated permanent staff of 56 employees, 

with an estimated 70 percent or 39 employees expected to be local hires. The permanent 

relocation of approximately 17 employees and their families to the local area is not expected to 

affect local housing markets. The Port does not anticipate that additional staff would be needed 

to operate the slip. 

4.8.2.3 Property Values 

The closest residences to the proposed LNG terminal site are located across Coos Bay in the 

cities of North Bend and Coos Bay. Many of the residences in the cities of Coos Bay and North 

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

Visual impacts are discussed in section 4.7 of this EIS. 

Based on the findings of a previous study that assessed the impact of 11 LNG storage facilities 

on residential property values and a review of property values within 1 mile of the existing LNG 

“peak storage” facilities in Newport and Portland, Oregon, ECONorthwest (2006b) concluded 

that there is no basis to anticipate that the proposed facility would reduce nearby property values. 
4.8-14 4.8 – Socioeconomics

The cited study (Clark and Nieves 1994), conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory, 

examined the economic impacts of the presence of so-called “noxious” facilities on local wages 

and property values. Eight types of “noxious” facilities were studied: nuclear power plants; 

coal-, gas-, or oil-fired power plants; military chemical weapons sites; hazardous waste sites; 

refineries; chemical weapon storage facilities; former storage sites that are now contaminated; 

and LNG facilities. The study examined the effects of 262 facilities on standardized 1,000-

square-mile areas across the United States; 11 were LNG facilities. The results of the study 

concluded that the presence of five of the eight types of “noxious” facilities has a significantly 

negative effect on property values and a positive effect on wages. However, the study concluded 

that the presence of an LNG facility did not have a significant positive or negative effect on 

either wages or property values (Clark and Nieves 1994). 

These facilities in Newport and Portland are similar to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal 

in that they take natural gas from a pipeline, liquefy it, and store it as a liquid in an aboveground 

storage tank, then vaporize back to a gas when it is needed. Using data from the Lincoln County 

Tax Assessors Office, ECONorthwest found that property values around the Newport LNG plant 

were not depressed and 25 homes within 0.5 mile and overlooking the facility had above average 

market values. They also argue that the presence of many other industrial and commercial 

properties, including the second-largest industrial employer in the city, around the Portland LNG 

facility suggest that the presence of this facility has not discouraged other businesses from 

locating in the area. Further, they note that Advanced American Construction, a marine 

construction firm, has recently moved to a site in close proximity to the Portland LNG facility 

(ECONorthwest 2006b). 

4.8.2.4 Economy and Employment 

In 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that the labor force in Coos County 

consisted of 28,592 people, with an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2007). Health care, social assistance, and retail were the highest ranking sectors for 

total wages. In 2006, per capita income in Coos County averaged $26,031. Transfer payments, 

including government payments for retirement, disability, unemployment insurance benefits, 

income maintenance payments, and veteran benefits accounted for about 25 percent of the Coos 

County per capita income in 2004, compared to 15 percent statewide. Retirement and disability 

payments accounted for about 11 percent of per capita income in Coos County, compared to 6.7 

percent statewide, indicating the relative importance of this source of income (U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2007). The median household income for the county in 2005 was $33,150. 

The Port does not anticipate that additional staff would be needed to operate the slip. The Port 

estimated it may charge Jordan Cove up to $60 million for capital investment services. In 

addition, the Port may collect receipts from users of the terminal up to $5.5 million per year, and 

$2 million per year in maintenance fees. 

During construction of the proposed LNG terminal, there should be beneficial economic impacts 

on the local community in terms of employment, wages, purchases of materials, indirect 

expenditures, and taxes. Construction of the LNG terminal would involve an average monthly 

workforce of 430 workers with a projected peak of 929 workers midway through construction. 

The construction workforce for the slip would average 27 workers with a projected peak of 45 

workers. Jordan Cove estimated that about 41 percent of its workforce would be local, and could 

commute from their homes to the job site. Total wages for construction of the terminal and slip 
4.8-15 4.8 – Socioeconomics

would be about $119 million. Local expenditures for goods and services are estimated to total 

$74 million during construction of the Jordan Cove terminal and slip. 

Jordan Cove estimates that the average monthly employment of 457 construction workers for the 

LNG terminal and slip would result in indirect and induced employment impacts of 63 jobs and 

268 jobs, respectively, resulting in total (direct, indirect, and induced) average monthly 

construction employment of 788 jobs. Direct impacts may be defined as activities that occur 

primarily on site at the location of the terminal and slip. These direct impacts have downstream 

impacts that are felt elsewhere in the economy. Indirect jobs are those with the suppliers who 

would provide goods and services to the construction project (and the suppliers of suppliers, 

usually a small number). Induced jobs are those supported by the incomes earned by all the 

employees, as well as by the profits made by self-employed and small business owners directly 

and indirectly employed by the construction project. 

The indirect jobs supported for the project would be relatively low because most of the supplies 

and services would come from outside Coos County. The induced employment impacts are 

relatively high because the payrolls associated with the project would represent the introduction 

of a large amount of new money into the local economy for the duration of the construction 

period. These impacts were estimated using multipliers derived from an IMPLAN model 

developed to assess the impacts of the proposed LNG terminal (ECONorthwest 2006b). 

IMPLAN is a commercially available data and software program that uses an input-output 

modeling approach to evaluate local and regional economic impacts based on the relationships 

between and among industries. 

Operation of the proposed LNG terminal is expected to have beneficial impacts to the local 

economy and is not expected to cause a reduction in economic productivity or local employment 

opportunities. Operation of the LNG terminal would employ an estimated permanent staff of 56 

employees and Jordan Cove estimated it would spend about $4 million on salaries per year, and 

up to $10 million per year in direct expenditures for goods and services. The ECONorthwest 

(2006b) analysis assumes that these employees would reside within Coos County and support an 

additional indirect (128 jobs) and induced (63 jobs) in the county, and result in a total of $17.3 

million in personal income being paid in the county (table 4.8.2.4-1). In addition, the terminal 

would also support an estimated 11 direct jobs, and 167 indirect and 103 induced jobs elsewhere 

in Oregon, as well as an additional $19 million in personal income (table 4.8.2.4-1). 

TABLE 4.8.2.4-1 

Economic Impacts of the LNG Terminal Operation and Associated Vessel Services (Income and Jobs)

Coos County Oregon, including Coos County 

Income (million $) Jobs Income (million $) Jobs 

LNG Operation 

Direct 7.1 56 8.1 68 

Indirect 7.9 128 20.5 295 

Induced 2.3 63 7.7 166 

Total 17.3 248 36.3 529 

Vessel Services 

Direct 2.8 26 8.8 26 

Indirect 2.4 38 4.7 68 

Induced 0.7 21 2 43 

Total 5.9 85 15.5 137 

Source: ECONorthwest 2008 
4.8-16 4.8 – Socioeconomics

A report prepared on behalf of Jordan Cove by ICF (2008e) indicated that Jordan Cove would 

pay the salaries of 12 tractor tug employees to man the new tugboats it would purchase, and 2 

harbor pilots for the Port. Vessel services associated with operation of the LNG terminal are 

expected to result in an estimated 26 direct jobs, and 38 indirect and 21 induced jobs in Coos 

County, with total associated personal income of approximately $5.9 million. Vessel services 

would also support an estimated 30 indirect and 22 induced jobs elsewhere in Oregon, as well as 

an additional $9.6 million in personal income (table 4.8.2.4-1). 

4.8.2.5 Tax Revenues 

In fiscal year 2008, Coos County had tax revenues of about $9.9 million, of which 97 percent 

was generated by property taxes. Total revenues for Coos County were approximately $47 

million in fiscal year 2008 (Coos County 2009). Construction and operation of the proposed 

LNG terminal is expected to have beneficial impacts on property and corporate tax revenue in 

Coos County. One estimate developed for the South Coast Development Council concluded that 

operation of the proposed LNG terminal, the Pacific Connector pipeline, and LNG carrier 

operations would generate annual net tax revenues of approximately $34.4 million by 2016, with 

$13.6 million generated in Coos County and $20.8 million generated elsewhere in Oregon. 

Approximately 70 percent of these tax revenues would accrue to state and local government, 

with the remaining 30 percent accruing to the Federal government (ECONorthwest 2006b, 

2008). 

ECONorthwest also estimated the economic impact of an increase in household and business 

expenditures that they assumed would occur as a result of decreases in local energy costs as a 

result of operation of the LNG terminal. They estimated that increased economic activity 

associated with these savings would generate annual net tax revenues of approximately $9.7 

million by 2016, with $1 million generated in Coos County and $8.7 million generated elsewhere 

in Oregon. Approximately 50 percent of these estimated revenues would accrue to state and 

local government, with the remaining 50 percent paid to the federal government (ECONorthwest 

2006b, 2008). 

A separate analysis prepared by ICF (2008e) estimated that during construction and the first 3 

years of operation, the LNG import terminal would generate about $2 million per year in ad 

valorem taxes to Coos County. ICF projected that following this period tax receipts from the 

facility would increase to between $8 million to $10 million per year. 

4.8.2.6 Local Infrastructure and Public Services 

There are three acute care hospitals located in Coos County, with a total of 218 beds. Within the 

city of Coos Bay is the Bay Area Hospital, with 172 beds licensed for acute care. Because of the 

safety and security measures that would be in place at the LNG terminal to protect the public 

from an emergency situation, and the location of the terminal more than one mile from any 

residences, there is a very remote likelihood that an accident could result in the need for 

additional hospital facilities in excess of what is currently available in the county. 

With the measures outlined in the WSR, ERP, and MOU, the Jordan Cove Project is not likely to 

have significant adverse impacts on local public safety or health infrastructure. In fact, the 

Project should benefit the local communities by adding to its police and fire fighting capabilities, 

and improving Port infrastructure and vessel traffic control systems. 
4.8-17 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Coos County currently has one sheriff’s office and seven police departments. The city of Coos 

Bay has 34 paid and reserve police officers and the city of North Bend has 28 police officers. 

Coos County has 17 fire departments. The city of Coos Bay has 64 volunteer and paid 

firefighters, the city of North Bend has 48 paid and volunteer firefighters, and the town of 

Charleston has 33 volunteer and paid firefighters. Following the validation of its WSA by the 

Coast Guard, Jordan Cove committed to making certain improvements to the infrastructure of the 

Port. The major navigational improvements to be sponsored by Jordan Cove include a Vessel 

Traffic Information System (VTIS) and a Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS). 

The VTIS would help the Port track ship movements. The PORTS would allow the Port to 

monitor water levels, currents, and other meteorological parameters needed to guide ships in the 

area. In addition, Jordan Cove has committed to purchasing three new fire-fighting tractor 

tugboats and paying for the crew for each. 

In its WSR, the Coast Guard recommended risk management measures that would need to be 

implemented to make the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic. Some of these measures 

would require additional local law enforcement and fire fighting capabilities to meet safety and 

security needs related to the Project. According to ICF (2008e), other infrastructure 

improvements in the region to be sponsored by Jordan Cove would include a county-wide 

reverse 911 calling system, and a fire and police training center. ICF claims that Jordan Cove 

would also build a new fire station on the North Spit, and pay to equip and staff the station, 

including the employment of 40 to 45 firefighters and public safety workers in the area. 

In accordance with its MOU with the State of Oregon, Jordan Cove would be responsible for 

funding additional personnel, equipment, and other resources necessary to meet obligations 

outlined in its ERP. The ERP is discussed in more detail in section 4.12. In the MOU, the fire 

fighting resources that Jordan Cove committed to include: 

• At least 3 pumpers; 

• 1 ladder truck (or combination apparatus); and 

• No fewer than 16 fire fighters, 1chief officer, 1 safety officer, and a Rapid Intervention 

Team (of 4 to 5 fire fighters on standby status). 

The Project is also not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on public utilities, 

including electric and natural gas infrastructure. The Jordan Cove LNG Project may in fact 

result in benefits for the local communities by providing access to new sources of electricity and 

natural gas. 

Electric power is provided to the Coos Bay area by Pacific Power and Light. Northwest Natural 

provides natural gas to Coos County as part of its local distribution network. Coos County is 

situated near the end of the existing power grid in Oregon, with transmission lines bringing in the 

majority of its electricity from power plants located in the Columbia River region. This has 

resulted in occasional power interruptions in Coos County during winter peak months. Jordan 

Cove proposes to construct and operate a 37 MW co-generation power plant within its terminal 

tract. This power plant would produce more electricity than can be used all the time by the LNG 

terminal. Therefore, Jordan Cove can become an exporter of electricity, helping to improve local 

electric infrastructure. The extra power could offset some the interruptions that may occur 

during peak winter months in Coos County, by building redundancy into the local power grid, 

and enhancing voltage control by having a power source close to the area it would serve (ICF 

2008e). 
4.8-18 4.8 – Socioeconomics

According to the report prepared for Jordan Cove by ICF (2008) the Project would increase 

natural gas availability and improve system reliability in southern Oregon. The Coos Bay area 

receives natural gas through the Coos County pipeline that connects to the existing Williams 

Northwest Grants Pass Lateral near Roseburg. The Project could provide up to 300 Mscfd in 

new gas supplies to the Williams Northwest system through the proposed Pacific Connector 

pipeline interconnection with the Grants Pass Lateral via the Clarks Branch Delivery Meter 

Station. This would require that the capacity of the existing Grants Pass Lateral be increased 

from 100 Mscfd to 300 Mscfd from its intersection with Pacific Connector 100 miles north to 

Eugene. 

Water is provided to the North Spit by the CBNBWB. Jordan Cove would use about 28.25 

million gallons of water it would obtain from the CBNBWB to hydrostatically test the LNG 

storage tanks during terminal construction. Potential impacts to CBNBWB infrastructure are 

discussed in section 4.3 of this EIS. 

Access to the terminal would be by way of the Trans-Pacific Parkway, which is adjacent to the 

northwest boundary of Jordan Cove’s parcel. Potential effects to the Trans-Pacific Parkway are 

evaluated in section 4.9. 

At its peak LNG terminal construction activities would result in an additional estimated 53 

family households in Coos County. Based on statewide data, the average non-single household 

headed by a person with a full-time job had 1.202 children. Using these data and county-specific 

data from the 2000 Census, ECONorthwest estimated that the average non-single household 

headed by a person with a full-time job in Coos County has 0.915 children enrolled in public 

schools. These data indicate that during the peak month of construction there would be 49 more 

public school students spread over five of the county’s six school districts (ECONorthwest 

2006a). These districts currently have a combined enrollment of approximately 8,400 students. 

The projected increase represents less than 1 percent of the current enrollment and, as a result, 

the overall impacts would not be significant. A September 27, 2006 email from the 

Superintendent of the North Bend School District to a consultant for Jordan Cove indicated that 

the district would have “no problems admitting the new students into our schools” resulting from 

the Project.3

Operation of the LNG terminal would employ an estimated permanent staff of 56 employees, 

with an estimated 70 percent or 39 employees expected to be local hires. The permanent 

relocation of approximately 17 employees and their families to the local area would result in an 

estimated increase of 19 public school students in Coos County. The projected increase would 

represent less than 0.01 percent of the current enrollment in the Coos County school system and 

the overall impact on the school system would not be significant. 

4.8.2.7 Recreation and Tourism 

Recreation 

The proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal may affect recreational use of Coos Bay in that boaters 

on the bay would have to avoid construction activities around CM 7.5 during the Port’s dredging 

of the access channel for the terminal. Likewise, during operation of the LNG terminal, 

 

3

 This correspondence is included in Appendix A.5 of environmental Resource Report 5, filed as part of Jordan Cove’s 

application to the FERC. 
4.8-19 4.8 – Socioeconomics

recreational boaters would have to keep outside of the safety and security zone established by the 

Coast Guard around LNG carriers at berth. Construction and operation of the LNG terminal 

should not have significant effects on recreational boating in Coos Bay, as boaters should be able 

to go around the terminal location and avoid Project-related activities. 

As discussed in section 4.7, the North Spit of Coos Bay experiences limited dispersed 

recreational use. A 2002 study indicated that the area between Coos Bay and Tenmile Creek 

averages four recreationists per mile on the weekends, and three people per mile on weekdays. 

Recreational activities in this region include beach-combing, clamming and crabbing, surf 

fishing, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hiking, horseback riding, and ORV use (ECONorthwest 

2006c). Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal would not preclude these 

activities from continuing. The proposed LNG terminal is on private land, formerly owned by 

Weyerhaeuser, that is not open to the public for recreational activities. No parks, recreational 

areas, or developed facilities would be directly affected by construction or operation of the LNG 

terminal. The only potential for effects on recreational use of other portions of the North Spit 

would be from an incident at the LNG terminal that resulted in a closure of the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway, limiting access. However, if this should occur, there are alternative routes that could 

be used (see section 4.9). 

Tourism 

Tourism in Coos County generated retail sales of $172.7 million and supported an estimated total 

of 2,790 jobs (about 8 percent of total county employment) in 2005 (Dean Runyan Associates 

2007). In 2002, tourism-related spending represented 27 percent of total retail sales in Coos 

County (ECONorthwest 2006c). Tourism in the area mainly occurs during spring break and 

summer, when families visit the area. Few visitors come to Coos County for extended business 

or commercial trips. Lodging in Coos County, therefore, mostly consists of smaller 

establishments dependent on leisure travelers who visit during spring break and summer and 

come mostly for the outdoor recreation opportunities. The proposed LNG terminal is not 

expected to adversely affect tourism in Coos County (ECONorthwest 2006c). One way that 

construction of the LNG terminal could affect tourism, would be that out-of-town workers would 

compete with tourists for housing. Housing is discussed in section 4.8.2.2. 

4.8.2.8 Other Commercial Activities 

Industries 

There are several industrial enterprises in proximity to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal 

on the North Spit. Adjacent to the terminal on the northeast is the Roseburg wood chip facility. 

Jordan Cove would temporarily lease land from Roseburg for a staging area during construction 

of the LNG terminal. During construction of the slip for the LNG terminal, excavated materials 

would be trucked to the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard sites through the Roseburg property, and the 

slurry pipeline from dredge material and return water pipeline would also be located on 

Roseburg land. During operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal, access would come across 

the Roseburg tract. Certain facilities for the removal of NGLs would also be located on 

Roseburg property. The Port believes it is possible for Roseburg to relocate its wood chip ship 

berth to the commercial cargo side of the Jordan Cove terminal slip. 

Southport operates a sawmill and barge facility, at CM 6.3, about 1.2 miles south of the proposed 

Jordan Cove LNG terminal on the North Spit. It is adjacent to the north of the proposed Port 
4.8-20 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Commercial Sand Storage site for dredged material from the creation of the terminal slip. The 

barge facilities at Southport would be utilized by barges taking sand away from the Port storage 

site for distance commercial uses. 

At CM 5.6 on the North Spit is the D.B. Western factory and berth, about 2 miles south of the 

proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. This company engages in vessel repair and construction 

work. The D.B. Western property is located on the south side of the Port Commercial Sand 

Storage site. 

Airport 

The Southern Oregon Regional Airport is located in the city of North Bend, directly across the 

bay to the east from the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. The airport has three asphalt 

runways. Runway 4-22 is the primary instrument runway, and is 5,330 feet long and 150 feet 

wide. Potential impacts to this airport are addressed in section 4.9. 

4.8.2.9 Environmental Justice 

Construction and operation of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal should not have any 

significant disproportional impacts on low-income or minority communities, given its location 

within industrial zoned currently vacant land on the North Spit, more than one mile away from 

any residences. The closest city to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal is North Bend. In 

2000, the city of North Bend had an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, compared to a state 

average of 4.2 percent. Approximately 90 percent of the population in North Bend identified as 

White in 2000, compared to a state average of 83.5 percent (table 4.8.1.9-1). Native Americans 

comprised 1.7 percent of North Bend’s population compared to 1.2 percent statewide and 2.2 

percent in Coos County. 

The closest minority community identified near the LNG terminal is the Coquille Reservation 

Block Group 6, which consists of two reservation areas located approximately 5 miles south of 

the terminal site (table 4.8.1.9-1). The headquarters for the Coquille Tribe is in the city of North 

Bend., while the Coos Tribe’s headquarters is in the city of Coos Bay. 

We know through scoping, that the Coos Tribes consider the area around the geographic location 

known as Jordan Cove, where the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard dredge disposal sites would be 

situated, to be a traditional cultural property because this area was the former location of historic 

Indian villages and cemeteries. This issue is discussed in more detail in section 4.10 of this EIS. 

Jordan Cove selected Coos Bay for the location of its proposed LNG terminal because it is the 

largest deep draft port on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Puget Sound. It 

purposefully sought a site for the terminal away from densely populated areas. The criteria used 

by Jordan Cove in its LNG terminal location selection process are discussed in detail in section 

3. In addition, the FERC has made available to the public documents and notices about the 

Project, as explained in section 1 of this EIS.
4.8-21 4.8 – Socioeconomics

4.8.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline 

4.8.3.1 Population 

Population data for the four counties that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are 

summarized in table 4.8.3.1-1. The following section discusses the potential impact of 

construction and operation proposed pipeline on the regional population. 

The pipeline traverses through a mainly rural region, with population densities ranging from 10.7 

people per square mile in Klamath County to 65.1 people per square mile in Jackson County. In 

2006, the combined populations of Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties was nearly 

433,500 people, or approximately 12 percent of the entire state of Oregon. Jackson County is the 

fastest growing county along the proposed pipeline route, with a 7.7 percent population increase 

between 2000 and 2005, while Coos County had the slowest growth rate. 

TABLE 4.8.3.1-1. 

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for the Project Area

State/County 

Population 

2006 

Percent 

Change in 

Population 

2000-2005 a/

Persons 

per Square 

Mile 2000 

Average 

Per Capita 

Income ($) 

2000 

Median 

Household 

Income ($) 

2000 

Civilian 

Labor 

Force 2000 

Unemployment 

Rate (%) 2006 

Oregon 3,700,758 6.4 35.6 $20,940 $40,916 1,742,638 5.4 

 Coos 64,820 3.1 39.2 $17,547 $31,542 27,700 6.9 

 Douglas 105,117 3.8 19.9 $16,581 $33,223 45,166 7.6 

 Jackson 197,071 7.7 65.1 $19,498 $36,461 87,189 5.8 

 Klamath 66,438 3.8 10.7 $16,719 $31,537 29,324 6.8 

a/ These data represent the change from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005. 

Sources: 

Population 2006: U.S. Census Bureau 2007. 

Percent Change in Population 2000-2005 and Persons per Square Mile 2000: U.S. Census Bureau 2006a. 

Annual Unemployment Rates 2006: Oregon Employment Department 2007. 

The largest city in Douglas County is Roseburg, the county seat of government, with a 

population of 21,255 people in 2007. The pipeline in Douglas County would also pass in the 

vicinity of the cities of Winston, with a population of 5,780 people, and Myrtle Creek, with a 

population of 3,630 people in 2007. 

The largest city in Jackson County is Medford, the county seat, with a population of 75,675 

people in 2007. The pipeline in Jackson County would pass nearby the city of Shady Cove, with 

a population of 2,820 people in 2007. 

The largest city in Klamath County is the county seat of Klamath Falls, with a population of 

21,040 people in 2007. Near the terminus of the pipeline is the city of Malin, with a population 

of 800 people in 2007 (Proehl 2008). 

Construction of the pipeline would extend over 2 years. Most of the work would be done 

between April and November, with the workforce expected to peak during the middle of each 

season and then gradually taper off toward the end of the season. The pipeline would mostly be 

installed during the second year, with a peak workforce of 1,844 people spread over five 

construction spreads. The average workforce for each construction spread would be about 280 

workers per month, with a peak of 369 workers mid-season. The average construction-related 
4.8-22 4.8 – Socioeconomics

job for the Pacific Connector pipeline would last between 3 to 8 months per season, with some 

functions working for longer periods. 

Pacific Connector estimates that approximately 50 percent of the construction jobs for its 

pipeline would be filled by local workers. The average local union hiring for this Project would 

be about 700 people. Local firms would be hired to perform some specific tasks, such as 

logging, surveying, and environmental protection and restoration. The number of non-local hires 

would peak at approximately 922 workers, or 184 per construction spread, with an average 

monthly total of 140 non-local workers. 

Long-term operation of the proposed pipeline would require an estimated permanent staff of five 

employees. These permanent operational employees would be stationed and reside at different 

locations along the pipeline corridor, but would report to a main office in Eugene, Oregon. 

The construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline should not have significant 

adverse impacts on the populations in the counties along the pipeline route. Half the 

construction crew would be local hires. At its peak, pipeline construction would bring in about 

922 non-local workers. Based on its experience building other large pipeline projects in the 

West, Williams does not expect many of the out-of-town workers to bring their families with 

them to the job site. This is because, in part, the jobs are short-term in duration, lasting less than 

8 months, and broken into two seasons. We estimate that if 10 percent of the non-local workers 

brought their families to the project area, and each family averaged 3 people, there could be a 

total influx of not more than 1,200 people directly related to project construction relocating to the 

region. This represents a less than 3 percent increase in the total population of the four counties 

over which the pipeline would pass. The project workforce would be distributed throughout the 

four counties, over at least five construction spreads. The local communities near the pipeline 

route should easily be able to absorb this influx of out-of-town workers. 

The construction and operation of Pacific Connector’s pipeline would have some economic 

benefits for the region, because of expenditures for wages, supplies, room rentals, and taxes. 

Negative impacts would include workers competing with tourists for housing, as discussed 

below. 

4.8.3.2 Housing 

Approximately 55,650 rental housing units were identified in the 2000 Census in the four 

counties that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. About 4,000, or 8.5 percent, of these 

units were identified as vacant and available for rent (table 4.8.3.2-1). Available rental units in 

2000 ranged from about 750 in Klamath County to 1,250 in Jackson County. 

TABLE 4.8.3.2-1. 

Project Area Housing Units, 2000

 Coos Douglas Jackson Klamath 

Project Area 

Total 

Total Housing Units 29,247 43,284 75,737 28,883 177,151 

Occupied 26,213 39,821 71,532 25,205 162,771 

Vacant or Vacant Part-Year: 3,034 3,463 4,205 3,678 14,380 

 Seasonal use 843 734 834 1,473 3,884 

 Rented/sold, unoccupied 163 241 349 157 910 

 For rent 949 1,060 1,250 747 4,006 
4.8-23 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.2-1. 

Project Area Housing Units, 2000

 Coos Douglas Jackson Klamath 

Project Area 

Total 

 For sale, other 1,079 1,428 1,772 1,301 5,580 

Total Rental Housing a/ 9,298 12,320 25,218 8,814 55,650 

 Rental Vacancy Rate b/ 10.2% 8.6% 5.0% 8.5% 8.5% 

Note: 

a/ This total includes both occupied and vacant rental housing. 

b/ This rate is based on the number of vacant units available “For rent” divided by the total number of rental units. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006b. 

Pacific Connector developed partial estimates of the number of motel rooms and RV hookups for 

communities within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route (table 4.8.3.2-2). These data 

should be considered partial estimates because they were gathered from the Oregon State 

Tourism Web site and local chamber of commerce organizations. These sources vary in level of 

detail and in some cases are likely based on subscription. In addition, this data collection effort 

focused on those communities in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline corridor and, as a result, 

excludes other potential commercial lodging and RV facilities that not in the immediate vicinity 

of the proposed pipeline but would be within commuting distance. Pacific Connector would not 

allow for the use of temporary construction camps along the pipeline route to house non-local 

employees. 

TABLE 4.8.3.2-2. 

Project Area Rental Housing, Motel Rooms, and RV Hookups

Housing/County a/ Coos Douglas Jackson Klamath 

Available Rental Housing b/ 606 488 693 408 

Total Motel Rooms c/ 1,064 1,537 3,830 1,089 

Total RV Hookups c/ 1,166 1,170 1,247 181 

Estimated Available Motel Rooms d/ 213 307 766 218 

Estimated Available RV Hookups e/ 583 585 624 91 

Notes: 

a/ Data are provided for the communities in each county in the vicinity of the pipeline. These communities are as follows: Coos 

County—Bandon, Charleston, Coos Bay, Coquille, North Bend; Douglas County—Canyonville, Green, Myrtle Creek, 

Roseburg/Roseburg North, Winston/Dillard; Jackson County—Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix, Shady Cove, 

Talent, White City; Klamath County—Bonanza, Klamath Falls, Merrill-Malin. 

b/ Data are for vacant housing units that were identified as available for rent in the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a). 

c/ These data should be considered partial estimates because they were gathered from the Oregon State Tourism Web site and 

local chamber of commerce organization and are variable in level of detail and in some cases likely based on subscription. 

d/ The number of available rooms is assumed to be 20 percent of the total based on the peak monthly occupancy rate of 80 

percent estimated for Coos County in August (ECONorthwest 2006b). 

e/ The number of available RV hookups is assumed to be 50 percent of the total based on an average annual occupancy rate of 50 

percent estimated for Coos County (ECONorthwest 2006b). 

The number of non-local construction workers would peak at approximately 922 workers or 184 

per construction spread with an average monthly total of 140 workers. Based on its previous 

pipeline construction experience, Williams estimated that about 30 percent of the non-local 

workers would provide their own temporary housing by bringing in RVs or pop-up trailers, or 

setting up tents in campgrounds (table 4.8.3.2-3). They would need to find hook-ups at RV 

camps or vacant sites in campgrounds. Pacific Connector estimated that at peak construction 

periods, about 277 RV hookup sites may be needed for construction crew housing across the 
4.8-24 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.2-3 

Estimated Housing Demand by Pacific Connector Workers by Housing Type

Estimated Peak Non-Local Employment 

Temporary Housing Estimated Use (Percent) Total Per Construction Spread 

Rental Houses 10 92 18 

Mobile Homes 5 46 9 

Apartments 25 231 46 

Hotel Rooms 30 277 55 

RV hook-ups 30 277 55 

Total 100 922 184 

entire four county pipeline route, which is equivalent to approximately 7 percent of the 3,764 

existing RV hookups in those counties. Assuming one spread per county, the demand for RV 

hookups would range from about 4 percent of the available spaces in Jackson County to 30 

percent of the estimated available hookups in Klamath County. 

Subtracting the non-local workers who find accommodations at RV camps and campgrounds, 

there would be about 645 non-local workers who would need standard temporary 

accommodations. By construction spread, Pacific Connector expects to need an average of 129 

housing units—18 rental houses, 9 mobile homes, 46 apartments, and 55 hotel rooms—for shortterm construction employee housing (table 4.8.3.2-3). There may be some counties where two 

spreads are operating at the same time. There would also be competition for housing from 

tourists who seek accommodations in the region during the summer. 

Nevertheless, the Project should not result in significant adverse impacts on housing in the four 

counties crossed by the proposed pipeline. There should be sufficient housing units to 

accommodate the peak estimated non-local workforce, even during the tourist season. The data 

compiled by Pacific Connector and summarized in table 4.8.3.2-3 indicate that there are 

approximately 2,195 housing units available for rent in the four affected counties and an 

estimated 1,504 motel and hotel rooms normally vacant and available for rent during peak 

season. 

In the worse case scenario of two construction spreads within one county at the same time, there 

would be a total demand for about 258 housing units for both spreads combined at peak 

construction periods. This would represent less than 18 percent of the available vacant rental 

housing and hotel rooms in Jackson County, and 41 percent of the available standard housing in 

Klamath County. Because there would be five construction spreads distributed over four 

counties, and construction would divided between two years, the impacts of pipeline construction 

on housing would be minimal. In the event that temporary housing should become limited in the 

immediate vicinity of a particular spread, workers would have to commute greater distances from 

other cities in the project vicinity. 

Operation of the proposed pipeline would require five permanent employees who would be 

stationed and reside at different locations along the pipeline. This small number of operational 

employees would have no impact on the local housing markets.
4.8-25 4.8 – Socioeconomics

4.8.3.3 Property Values 

Approximately 151 miles, or 66 percent, of the proposed pipeline route would cross private 

property. The remaining 79 miles (34 percent) of pipeline route would cross public lands 

administered by the BLM (18 percent), USFS (12 percent), BOR (0.14 percent), State of 

Oregon, and various counties and cities (3 percent). Pacific Connector would need to obtain a 

Right-of-Way grant from the BLM, also representing the BOR and USFS, in order to cross 

federal lands. 

For private and non-federal public lands, Pacific Connector would need to negotiate a mutually 

agreed upon easement for its pipeline with the landowners. The agreement between Pacific 

Connector and the landowner would specify compensation for the easement, and for damages, 

loss of use during construction, and loss of renewable and nonrenewable or other resources. In 

situations where Pacific Connector is unable to reach an agreement with a landowner, and the 

Project is authorized by the FERC, the Certificate for the pipeline conveys with it the right of 

eminent domain under section 7h of the NGA. Pacific Connector could initiate condemnation 

proceedings, and the value of the easement and the amounts for compensatory damages would be 

determined by a local state or district court. 

The impact a pipeline may have on the value of a tract of land depends on many factors, 

including the size of the tract, the values of adjacent properties, the presence of other utilities, the 

current value of the land, and the current land use. Subjective valuation is generally not 

considered in appraisals. This is not to say that the pipeline would not affect resale values. A 

potential purchaser of property may make a decision to purchase land based on his or her 

planned use, such as agricultural, future subdivision, or second home on the property in question. 

If the presence of a pipeline renders the planned use infeasible, it is possible that a potential 

purchaser would decide not to purchase the property. However, each potential purchaser has 

different criteria and differing capabilities to purchase land. 

We received numerous comments concerned that the proposed pipeline on or near properties 

would reduce property values. Because this is a concern common for large-diameter, highpressure natural gas pipelines, INGAA conducted a national case study to determine if the 

presence of a pipeline on a piece of property affected the property value or sales price of the 

property. The INGAA Foundation Natural Gas Pipeline Impact Study (Allen, Williford & Seale, 

Inc. 2001) found that there was not a significant impact on the sales price of properties located 

along natural gas pipelines. They further determined that neither the size of the pipeline 

(diameter) nor the product carried by a pipeline had any significant impact on sales price. 

Whatcom County, Washington also analyzed the impacts on property values associated with 

pipelines to determine the effect that the June 1999 Olympic pipeline explosion had on sales of 

real estate on or near the pipeline route and determined that the explosion of the pipeline, which 

transported liquid petroleum fuel, had little effect on property values (Whatcom County 2001). 

4.8.3.4 Economy and Employment 

Tables 4.8.3.4-1 and 4.8.3.4-2 present data on the current affected environment for the counties 

crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline, in terms of employment by economic sector, and per 

capita income. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007 the total work force of 

the four counties crossed by the pipeline combined was 209,123 people. 
4.8-26 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.4-1. 

Project Area Employment by Economic Sector, 2004

 Oregon Coos Douglas Jackson Klamath 

Total Employment a/ 2,136,790 32,001 53,763 113,069 32,626 

Percent of Total Employment 

By Type: 

Wage and salary employment 79 76 76 75 75 

Proprietors employment 21 24 24 25 25 

By Industry: 

Farm employment 3 3 5 2 6 

Nonfarm employment 97 97 95 98 94 

Private Employment 84 78 80 87 77 

Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other 2 6 4 3 (D) 

Mining 0 1 0 0 (D) 

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 

Construction 6 5 5 7 5 

Manufacturing 10 5 13 7 9 

Wholesale trade 4 2 2 3 2 

Retail trade 11 13 12 15 12 

Transportation and warehousing 3 4 4 3 3 

Finance, insurance, and real estate 8 6 6 8 7 

Consumer services b/ 14 15 13 16 15 

Producer services b/ 14 13 9 13 (D) 

Social services b/ 12 9 11 13 11 

Government and Government Enterprises 13 19 15 10 17 

Federal, civilian 1 1 3 1 3 

Military 1 1 1 1 1 

State and local 11 16 12 8 13 

Notes: 

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Estimates for these items are, however, included in the totals.

a/ Total employment includes self-employed individuals. Employment data are by place of work, not place of residence, and, 

therefore, include people who work in the area but do not live there. Employment is measured as the average annual number of 

jobs, both full- and part-time, with each job that a person holds counted at full weight. 

b/ Nine 2-digit North American Industry Classification System categories are combined into these three divisions for ease of 

presentation. Consumer service includes other services; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food 

services. Producer services includes information; professional and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; 

and administrative and waste services. Social services includes educational services; and health care and social assistance. 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006. 
4.8-27 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.4-2. 

Components of Per Capita Income, 2004

 Oregon Coos Douglas Jackson Klamath 

Per Capita Income a/ $30,561 $26,031 $25,623 $28,531 $24,917 

Earnings b/ $20,334 $13,737 $14,880 $17,478 $14,207 

Transfer Payments c/ $4,630 $6,454 $6,342 $5,009 $5,951 

Dividends, interest, and rent $5,597 $5,840 $4,401 $6,044 $4,759 

Percent of Total 

Earnings 67% 53% 58% 61% 57% 

Transfer Payments 15% 25% 25% 18% 24% 

Dividends, interest, and rent 18% 22% 17% 21% 19% 

Notes: 

a/ Total per capita income consists of earnings, transfer payments, and dividends, interest, and rent. 

b/ Earnings includes wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietors’ income. 

c/ Transfer payments consist mainly of government payments to individuals, including retirement, disability, and unemployment 

insurance benefit payments, income maintenance payments, and veterans benefit payments. 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007. 

The sectors of private industry employing the most people in Douglas County in 2004 were 

manufacturing, consumer services, retail trade, and social services (table 4.8.3.4-1). In Jackson 

County the leading private employment sectors were consumer services, retail trade, producer 

services, and social services. In Klamath County, the largest private employers were the 

consumer services, retail trade, and social services sectors. 

Per capita income for the entire state of Oregon in 2004 averaged $30,561, while in the project 

area it ranged from $28,531 in Jackson County to $24,917 in Klamath County (table 4.8.3.4-2). 

In Douglas County, 25 percent of the per capita income was derived from transfer payments, 

while 18 percent of the per capita income came from that source in Jackson County. Median 

household income for the entire state of Oregon in 2005 averaged $43,065, while in the project 

area it ranged from $40,997 in Jackson County to $33,150 in Coos County (USDA Economic 

Research Service). Out of 36 counties in the state, the Oregon Progress Board rated Jackson 

County 4th, Douglas County 15th, and Klamath County 27th on its economic index scale. 

Construction of the pipeline would involve an average monthly workforce of 1,400 workers with 

a projected peak of 1,844 workers in the middle of the second construction season. Pipeline 

construction crews would be spread over the length of the pipeline in five construction spreads. 

Operation of the proposed pipeline would require five permanent employees. 

Pacific Connector estimates that construction of the proposed pipeline and associated compressor 

and metering stations would cost approximately $889 million. Total construction payroll is 

estimated to be $166 million. Costs for materials and equipment bought or brought to Oregon 

are estimated at about $320 million. About $14 million would be spent during construction for 

local professional contracted services, such as logging and hauling. Approximately 27 percent 

($244 million) of the total estimated cost is expected to be spent locally (within the four study 

area counties) (Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC [Levy] 2008a).4 Estimated local expenditures 

include approximately $24.2 million in spending by non-local workers, $77.6 million in local 

 

4

 On March 11, 2008 Pacific Connector filed with the FERC an Economic Impact Analysis of the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline

Project produced by Lloyd Levy Consultants, LLC. 
4.8-28 4.8 – Socioeconomics

worker compensation, and $88.4 million on construction materials. These estimated costs would 

be distributed over the construction period, with the bulk of the work projected to take place 

during 2010 and 2011. 

Total projected construction impacts are summarized in table 4.8.3.4-3 for the four study area 

counties for the 5-year period when project planning (Year 1 to Year 3) and construction (Years 

4 and 5) would take place. Total impacts include direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. 

These estimates were developed using a project-specific IMPLAN model developed for this 

analysis (Levy 2008a). Economic impact analysis and the IMPLAN model are discussed further 

in section 4.8.2.4. 

This analysis estimates that project construction activities in Years 4 and 5 would support 

approximately 1,119 and 3,110 jobs, respectively. These totals include direct, indirect, and induced 

employment and these jobs would all be located within the four county study area. Project 

construction would support total (direct, indirect, and induced) industry output of approximately 

$55.8 million and $127.3 million in Years 4 and 5, respectively, and employee compensation of 

approximately $10.8 million (Year 4) and $26.7 million (Year 5) (table 4.8.3.4-3). 

TABLE 4.8.3.4-3 

Economic Impacts of Pacific Connector Pipeline Construction

Impact Component Years 1 to 3 Year 4 Year 5 

Employment (Jobs) 21 1,119 3,110 

Output a/ $2,265,000 $55,756,000 $127,336,000 

Employee Compensation $491,000 $10,784,000 $26,650,000 

Proprietors' Income $267,000 $2,508,000 $5,504,000 

Other Income b/ $321,000 $9,850,000 $25,444,000 

Notes: 

a/ Output is a measure of the total value of goods and services produced by the affected industries. 

b/ Other income includes Other Property Income (corporate dividends, interest payments, and rental income) and Indirect 

Business Taxes. 

Source: Levy 2008a, Table 3 

The IMPLAN model developed for this analysis was also used to estimate the economic impacts 

of pipeline operation. These impacts were estimated as annual impacts for the projected 50 year 

life of the pipeline based on projected employee compensation for pipeline workers (Levy 

2008a). This analysis estimates that project operation would support approximately seven jobs, 

total (direct, indirect, and induced) industry output of approximately $340,000, and employee 

compensation of approximately $62,000, along with proprietors’ income ($10,000) and other 

income ($65,000) (table 4.8.3.4-4). These impacts are all projected to occur annually within the 

four county study area. Operation of the proposed pipeline is not expected to cause a reduction 

in long-term economic productivity or local employment opportunities. 
4.8-29 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.4-4 

Economic Impacts of Pacific Connector Pipeline Operation, 2013 to 2062

Impact Component 2012 a/ 2013-2062 

Employment (Jobs) 15 7 

Output b/ $4,366,000 $340,000 

Employee Compensation $260,000 $62,000 

Proprietors' Income $43,000 $10,000 

Other Income c/ $241,000 $65,000 

Notes: 

a/ The economic impacts for 2012 include private easement and damage payments, as well as the employee-related impacts 

assessed for 2013 to 2062 (Levy 2008a, Table 2). 

b/ Output is a measure of the total value of goods and services produced by the affected industries. 

c/ Other income includes Other Property Income (corporate dividends, interest payments, and rental income) and Indirect 

Business Taxes. 

Source: Levy 2008a, Tables 2 and 3 

A separate analysis was prepared by REMI Northwest for the Southwest Oregon Economic and 

Transportation Team as part of a larger study of public transportation improvements as a means 

to stimulate economic activity in Oregon (REMI Northwest 2006).5 This analysis used economic 

software developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) and forecast the regional 

economic benefits of construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline. This analysis 

assumed that industrial users of natural gas would achieve a 50 percent reduction in natural gas 

prices as a result of the Project and forecast that operation of the pipeline would result in about 

400 jobs in the directly affected counties and elsewhere in Oregon, and about $50 million in 

Gross Regional Product by 2020. 

4.8.3.5 Tax Revenues 

The proposed pipeline would generate tax revenues for the local economy during both the 

construction and operation phases of the Project. During construction, the Pacific Connector 

pipeline would generate approximately $13.2 million in state income tax based on an estimated 

construction payroll of $165.5 million and an average state income tax rate of 8 percent. 

Temporary workers associated with pipeline construction would generate approximately $45,000 

in state lodging taxes. Personal property taxes on approximately $320 million worth of 

equipment and materials either purchased in or brought into Oregon would generate $4.8 million 

in tax revenues (table 4.8.3.5-1). Pacific Connector estimates that the construction phase of the 

pipeline project would generate approximately $18 million in state tax revenues. 

During operation, the proposed pipeline would generate approximately $32.5 million in annual 

federal taxes based on projected income during the first year of operation. The proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline would not involve federal land disposal, acquisition, or exchange and is, 

therefore, not expected to affect existing Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments to the 

affected counties.6

 During operation the proposed pipeline would generate approximately $6.6 

million in annual state taxes based on projected income during the first year of operation (table 

4.8.3.5-2). 

 

5

 The final report by REMI Northwest, 31 December 2006, Transportation Investment Economic Impact Analysis, was included 

as Appendix 5B in environmental Resource Report 5 filed with Pacific Connector’s application to the FERC. 6

 The PILT program is designed to compensate local governments for lost property tax revenue associated with federal lands.
4.8-30 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.5-1. 

Estimated Tax Revenues from Construction of the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Tax Estimated Tax Revenues 

State Income Tax a/ $13,240,000 

Lodging Tax b/ $44,835 

Personal Property c/ $4,800,000 

Total $18,084,835 

Notes: 

TBD—To be determined 

a/ Based on a state income tax rate of 8 percent applied to a total estimated construction payroll of $165,500,000. 

b/ Based on a 1 percent lodging tax on an estimated $4,483,500 dollars spent on lodging (assumes $35 per day for 183 

days for 700 workers [assuming that half the projected labor force temporarily relocates to the state]). 

c/ Personal Property Tax is based on an estimated $320,000,000 of equipment and materials either purchased in Oregon or 

brought into Oregon. This is an annual tax based on $15 on $1,000 of value. Note: this number is overstated because 

some of the cost of materials and equipment is for supplies that are expendable. 

TABLE 4.8.3.5-2. 

Estimated Annual Tax Revenues from Operation of the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Tax a/ Estimated Tax Revenues 

Federal Income Tax on Earnings $32,500,000 

State Income Tax on Earnings $6,600,000 

Personal Property Tax $8,400,000 

Total $47,500,000 

Notes: 

a/ Based on projected income during the first year of operation. 

Following construction of the proposed pipeline Pacific Connector would provide estimates of 

the value of the installed facilities in each county to the Oregon Department of Revenue. 

Personal property taxes would be levied by the Oregon Department of Revenue based on these 

values with a portion of the associated revenues returned to the affected counties. The proposed 

Pacific Connector pipeline would generate an estimated $8.4 million in property tax revenues in 

its first year of operation. These revenues would be distributed among the affected counties as 

follows: Coos County - $2.1 million; Douglas County - $1.8 million; Jackson County - $2.3 

million; and Klamath County - $2.2 million. 

4.8.3.6 Local Infrastructure and Public Services 

Law Enforcement and Fire Protection 

There are approximately 30 police departments and 541 police officers located in the counties 

that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline, with the number of police officers ranging from 

an estimated 62 in Klamath County to 244 in Jackson County (table 4.8.3.6-1). 

Approximately 61 fire departments, 429 full-time firefighters, and 876 volunteer firefighters are 

located in the counties that would be crossed by proposed pipeline, with the total number of 

firefighters (full-time and volunteer) ranging from an estimated 184 in Klamath County to 514 in 

Jackson County. 
4.8-31 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.6-1. 

Law Enforcement and Fire Protection Resources by County 

County a/

Police 

Departments Police Officers Fire Departments 

Full-time 

Firefighters 

Volunteer 

Firefighters 

Coos 7 82 17 48 262 

Douglas 8 153 19 59 238 

Jackson 11 244 13 239 275 

Klamath 4 62 12 83 101 

Total 30 541 61 429 876 

Note: 

a/ Data are provided for the communities in each county in the vicinity of the pipeline. These communities and Rural Fire 

Protection Districts (RFPDs) are as follows: 

Coos County—Bandon, Charleston RFPD, Coos Bay, Coquille, Dora-Sitkum Rural Fire Department, Fairview RFPD, Hauser 

RFPD, North Bend, Myrtle Point, Powers; 

Douglas County—Days Creek, Douglas County Sheriff, Glide, Myrtle Creek, North Douglas County Fire and EMS, Oakland, 

Reedsport Volunteer RFPD, Roseburg/Roseburg North, Roseburg VA, Sutherlin, Tri City RFPD, Winston/Dillard; 

Jackson County—Applegate RFPD, Ashland, Butte Falls, Central Point, Colestin RFPD, Eagle Point, Jackson County Fire District, 

Jackson County Sheriff, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Rogue River, Rogue River RFPD, Rogue Valley International Airport, 

Shady Cove, Talent, White City; 

Klamath County—Bly RFPD, Bonanza RFPD, Crescent RFPD, Crater Lake National Park, Harriman RFPD, Klamath County Fire 

Districts #1 and #5, Klamath County Sheriff, Klamath Falls, Malin, Merrill. 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety, and the DOT pipeline standards are published 

in 49 CFR Parts 190-199. Part 192 of 49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety 

issues. Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate 

fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization 

that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The 

operator must also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, 

government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline 

emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. Pacific Connector would provide the 

appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before the pipeline is placed in service. 

No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would be required to handle pipeline 

emergencies. In addition, to offset potential demands on local services Pacific Connector has 

stated that it would consider implementing a fire prevention and control program consistent with 

the Oregon Department of Fire Protection Program, as well as BLM and USFS requirements. 

See additional discussion of pipeline safety in section 4.12 of this EIS. 

Medical Facilities 

There are eight hospitals in the four counties that would be crossed by the Pacific Connector 

pipeline, with a total of 1,094 beds (table 4.8.3.6-2). There are emergency medical providers 

with helicopter medical evacuation services available in Medford, Oregon. In addition, there are 

five Level III Trauma System Hospitals that can receive helicopter transport and two level IV 

Trauma Hospitals in the Project area.7

 To offset potential demands on local services, Pacific 

Connector has stated that it would consider implementing a health and safety program that would 

include training on-site personnel in first aid and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). 

 

7

 Trauma hospitals differ from other hospitals in that they guarantee the immediate availability of surgeons, anesthesiologists,

physician specialists, nurses, ancillary services, and resuscitation life-support equipment 24 hours a day and are dedicated to the 

care of trauma patients. Trauma facilities in Oregon are designated as Level I, II, III, or IV, with Level I and II centers offering 

the highest level of care (ODHS 2008).
4.8-32 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.6-2. 

Number of Hospitals and Beds in the Project Area

County Number of Hospitals Number of Beds 

Coos 3 218 

Douglas 1 153 

Jackson 3 547 

Klamath 1 176 

Total 8 1,094 

The Pacific Connector pipeline should not have significant adverse impacts on local police or 

fire departments or regional hospitals. The pipeline would be safely installed and operated 

according to DOT regulations, and would not be a threat to public safety. In addition, Pacific 

Connector would have an emergency response plan in place. Existing police, fire protection, and 

medical services should be adequate to handle issues resulting from the influx of non-local 

employees working on pipeline construction. During peak construction periods, we estimated 

that not more than 1,200 people directly related to the pipeline project (including out-of-town 

employees and their families) may move into the project area. But these people would be spread 

out over five construction spreads over two years. 

Schools 

The number of school districts and school enrollment by district within the four counties that 

would be crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline are summarized by county in table 4.8.3.6-3. 

Because of the short duration of pipeline construction, non-local pipeline construction workers 

that may move to the area for the project typically do not relocate with their families. Williams 

past experience with similar projects suggests that most workers work for 6 weeks to 12 weeks 

and then move to the next job. Therefore, the temporary influx of construction workers to the 

area during pipeline construction would not measurably impact local school enrollment. 

TABLE 4.8.3.6-3. 

Number of School Districts and Student Enrollment in the Project Area for the 2006-2007 School Year

County Number of School Districts Enrollment 

Coos 6 8,393 

Douglas 14 16,299 

Jackson 9 28,966 

Klamath 2 10,511 

Total 31 64,169 

Pacific Connector estimates that operation of the proposed pipeline would require five permanent 

employees who would be stationed and reside at different locations along the pipeline. The 

permanent relocation of five employees and their families to the area, spread over the four 

counties crossed by the pipeline, would not be expected to measurably affect enrollment of local 

schools. 

Utilities 

The basic utilities for each county crossed by the pipeline are listed on table 4.8.3.6-4. In Coos 

County Pacific Power provides electricity, Northwest Natural provides natural gas, the 

CBNBWB provides water, and Coos Bay Sanitary Service and North Bend Sanitation provide 
4.8-33 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.6-4 

Utilities Crossed by the Pipeline by County

County Water & Sanitation Electric & Heat 

Coos Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board 

Bandon Utility Department 

Lakeside Water District 

SRCA Water District 

Glide Water Association 

Coos Bay Sanitary Service 

North Bend Sanitation 

Pacific Power 

Coos Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

Bandon Utility Department 

Ferrellgas 

Northwest Natural Gas 

Douglas City of Roseburg 

Roberts Creek Water District 

Winston-Dillard Water District 

South Umpqua Water Association 

Umpqua Basin Water Association Incorporated 

Roseburg Disposal 

Roseburg Urban Sanitary 

Douglas County Landfill 

Douglas County Public Works 

Avista Utilities 

Douglas Electric Cooperative 

Pacific Power 

AmeriGas 

Suburban Propane 

Jackson Rogue Valley Sewer Services 

Shady Cove Water Works 

Southern Oregon Sanitation Inc. 

Medford Water Commission Big Butte Springs Reservoir 

Rogue Disposal & Recycling 

City of Ashland Water 

Avista Utilities 

Pacific Power 

City of Ashland Electric Department 

W P Natural Gas 

Klamath Crescent Water Association 

Bly Water & Sanitary District 

Garbage & Rubbish Collection 

Avista Utilities 

Pacific Klamath Energy Inc. 

Pacific Power 

Klamath Natural Gas Service 

AmeriGas 

Cascade Natural Gas 

Ed Staub & Sons Petroleum Incorporated 

trash removal services. In Douglas County, Pacific Power and Douglas County Cooperative 

provide electricity, Avista provides natural gas, and there are several water districts. In Jackson 

and Klamath Counties, Pacific Power provides electricity, Avista is the LDC for natural gas 

delivery, and there are several water companies. 

Pacific Connector’s application claimed that construction of the pipeline would have only minor, 

temporary impacts on local community facilities, services, and infrastructure. Pacific Connector 

would need to hook up to local utilities, including electric and telephone lines, at its proposed 

Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station, Clarks Branch Delivery Meter Station, Shady Cove 

Delivery Meter Station, Tule Lake Meter Station, Russell Canyon Meter Station, Buck Butte 

Meter Station, and Butte Falls Compressor Station. Pacific Connector would also need electric 

power and telephone lines at its proposed contractor yards. 

Other than water required for hydrostatic testing and dust control, Pacific Connector claims it 

does not require public water or sewer services. The pipeline would not require wastewater 

treatment or the construction or expansion of wastewater facilities and stormwater drainage 

systems. Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would generate minimal amounts 

of solid waste that would be accommodated by existing landfills and recycling programs. 

Pacific Connector has estimated that approximately 2,700 cy of solid waste would be removed 

from each construction spread during the 2 years of construction. For five construction spreads, 

the total estimated volume is approximately 13,500 cy. Pacific Connector would require that the 

construction contractor(s) remove and dispose of all solid waste generated from the pipeline 

project at approved solid waste disposal facilities. Pacific Connector has identified potential 
4.8-34 4.8 – Socioeconomics

landfills and recycling facilities that may be utilized during construction (see table 4.8.3.6-5) and 

would require the contractor to identify all disposal locations proposed for use prior to 

construction. Solid waste generated by the project would be disposed of throughout the two-year 

construction duration at multiple small-load intervals. Pacific Connector would comply with all 

federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to wastewater, stormwater, and waste 

disposal. 

TABLE 4.8.3.6-5 

Potential Landfills and Recycling Facilities Available for Solid Waste Disposal 

During Construction of the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Coos County Solid Waste 

55722 HWY 101 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

Ashland Sanitary Services 

170 Oak Street 

Ashland, OR 97520 

City of Coos Bay Recycling Center 

1210 S Broadway 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Service 

170 Oak St 

Ashland, OR 97520 

Douglas County – Roseburg Landfill 

McClain Avenue – Exit 121 

Roseburg, OR 97470 

Valley View Landfill & Recycling 

3000 N Valley View Rd 

Ashland, OR 97520 

Roseburg Disposal Co 

835 Se Sheridan St 

Roseburg, OR 97470 

Rogue Disposal Services 

20 South Grape Street 

Medford, OR 97501 

Douglas County Public Works 

1036 SE Douglas 

Roseburg, OR 97470 

North Pacific Recycling and Textiles 

407 Boardman St 

Medford, OR 97501 

Sunrise North Side Donation & Recycling Center 

2244 NE Stephens St 

Roseburg, OR 9747 

Klamath County 

343 Main Street 

Klamath Falls, OR 97601 

4.8.3.7 Recreation and Tourism 

Recreation 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would cross or pass within the vicinity of federal, state, 

and county lands designated for recreation use, as well as lands that offer dispersed recreation 

opportunities. These areas and the potential impact of the proposed pipeline on these areas are 

discussed in section 4.7 of this EIS. The primary impact on recreation would be from 

construction activities, including construction traffic on public roadways. Transportation is 

discussed in section 4.9 of this EIS. During operation of the pipeline, the right-of-way through 

forested areas would be a new visual impact for recreational users of these areas. Visual impacts 

are addressed in section 4.7 of this EIS. 

Construction of the pipeline would temporarily affect waterbodies that provide habitat for fish, 

and, therefore, may have short-term impacts on recreational fishing in those waterbodies. 

Impacts to aquatic resources are evaluated in section 4.5.2 of this EIS. During construction, 

fishermen could be temporarily prevented from fishing at the specific location of the pipeline 

crossing for the duration of river crossing construction activities. There may also be temporary 

impacts on fishing immediately downstream from the pipeline crossing, as a result of turbidity or 

sedimentation caused by pipeline construction activities. Potential impacts on waterbodies, 

including turbidity and sedimentation, blasting, and contamination, and measures to be 

implemented to mitigate those impacts are discussed in section 4.3.2.5. 
4.8-35 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Concern was expressed during scoping and during the public comment period on the draft EIS 

that the proposed crossing of the Rogue River near the community of Trail would have 

detrimental effects on salmon and steelhead and, in turn, have negative effects on the recreationrelated economy in the area. The Rogue River is well known for its salmon and steelhead 

fishery, and this section of the river is popular for recreationists using rafts and inflatable kayaks, 

with use occurring primarily between May and September (Crowe 2009; Satherthwait 2009). 

American Whitewater (2009) describes the stretch of the river that extends 13 miles upstream 

from Shady Cove, and includes the proposed crossing location, as “popular as a summer float for 

self-guided trips.” Steelhead is fished all year around. The 2009 Chinook salmon season 

extends from January 1 to July 31, and Chinook salmon fishing normally peaks during May, 

June, and July (Crowe 2009; ODFW 2009; Satherthwait 2009). Anglers fish from the banks and 

also from drift boats. 

Visitors to the area support local businesses by spending money on guide services, bait, and 

equipment rentals, as well as lodging, restaurants, transportation, and other local goods and 

services. Outfitters and guides from nearby communities serve this section of the river, as well 

as guides from further afield, including Klamath Falls and coastal Oregon (Crowe 2009). The 

FWS and U.S. Census Bureau (2008) found that the average expenditures by anglers fishing 

Oregon rivers in 2006 were $27 per day for Oregon residents and $57 per day for non-residents. 

The same survey estimated that non-residents accounted for about 12 percent of the 8.4 million 

days fished in Oregon (FWS and U.S. Census Bureau 2008). This percentage is likely to be 

higher for well-known rivers like the Rogue. 

Pacific Connector proposes to cross the Rogue River using HDD technology, which would avoid 

direct impacts on the river (see sections 2.4.2.2 and 4.3.2.5). There would, therefore, be no inriver work and no impacts to fish runs in this area. Potential impacts to fishing and other riverbased recreation activities could occur as a result of construction activities having a negative 

effect on the experience of people recreating in the immediate vicinity. However, the HDD 

drilling sites on the Rogue River would be set back from the banks, approximately 500 feet on 

the east side and 2,000 feet on the west side, and would not be visible from most locations on the 

river. Pacific Connector proposes to use a temporary extra work space on the west side next to 

the river adjacent to Highway 62 and would be used as access to the river to obtain hydrostatic 

test water. This activity would be more visible but adjacent to the existing road. 

Concern was also expressed that an inadvertent release of drilling mud during the HDD river 

crossing could have a significant and detrimental impact on fish populations and the local 

economy. The potential impacts of this type of release on fish are discussed in section 4.5.2.3 of 

the EIS under the heading Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud, which suggests that the 

likelihood of a release of significant magnitude to affect local recreation and tourism activities is 

low. 

Tourism 

Travel spending in the four potentially affected counties in 2005 was approximately $859 

million, ranging from $118 million in Klamath County to $335 million in Jackson County (table 

4.8.3.7-1). Travel spending generated earnings of approximately $221 million and supported 

approximately 12,400 jobs, accounting for 2.7 percent of total earnings and 5.1 percent of total 

employment in the four-county area (table 4.8.3.7-1). Construction of the proposed Pacific 
4.8-36 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.3.7-1. 

Travel Spending, Earnings, and Employment, 2005

Earnings Employment 

State/County 

Travel Spending 

($ million) $ million 

Percent of 

State/County Total Jobs 

Percent of 

State/County Total 

Oregon 7,367.2 1,793.9 2.0 87,590 4.0 

Coos 172.7 45.2 4.3 2,790 8.2 

Douglas 234.1 59.9 3.3 3,620 6.5 

Jackson 334.5 84.0 2.1 4,250 3.6 

Klamath 117.6 32.3 2.9 1,720 5.0 

Project Area Total 858.9 221.4 2.7 12,380 5.1 

Source: Dean Runyan Associates 2007. 

Connector pipeline would have temporary effects on recreation during Project construction, and 

therefore could have related impacts on recreational tourism in the region (see section 4.7 of this 

EIS). 

The major impact that the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would have on tourism is 

competition for lodging when peak construction periods overlap peak visitor seasons. At the 

peak of pipeline construction about 922 non-local workers, spread over four counties along the 

pipeline route, would need housing. As discussed in the section (4.8.3.2) above on housing, 

these out-of-town construction workers would compete with tourists for hotel/motel rooms and 

spaces at RV camps in the region. The four counties crossed by the pipeline have 3,764 RV 

hook-ups and 7,520 motel rooms available. 

Using the Oregon Coast as an example, the peak visitor season lasts from June to October. The 

highest demand for hotel/motel rooms by tourists would be in August, where occupancy rates are 

over 93 percent on a Saturday night and 63 percent on a Sunday night. In January, average 

occupancy rates along the Oregon Coast fall to less than 37 percent (ECONorthwest 2006c). The 

impact on tourist accommodations would be minimized by the Project having only temporary 

peaks in construction; construction of the pipeline over a 2-year period; working in off-seasons 

when fewer tourists come to southern Oregon; using multiple construction spreads over several 

counties; and having workers commute longer distances from cities with more housing to areas 

where housing is mostly filled. 

4.8.3.8 Commercial Fishing 

Commercial fishing landing data for Charleston are summarized in section 4.8.1.8. 

Approximately 2.5 miles of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would be installed in the 

Coos Bay estuary. This could result in short-term impacts to aquatic resources, including shortterm impacts to juvenile Dungeness crab rearing habitat and juvenile salmon rearing habitat. 

This is discussed further in section 4.5 of this EIS. These short-term construction-related effects 

are expected to have minimal effects on commercial fishing activities. 

Construction of the pipeline outside of Coos Bay would affect waterbodies that may provide 

habitat for aquatic resources that are commercially havested. Potential impacts resulting from the 

pipeline crossing waterbodies are discussed in section 4.3.2.5, and impacts on aquatic resources 

in stream habitats are evaluated in section 4.5.2 of this EIS. 
4.8-37 4.8 – Socioeconomics

We did not identify a commercial fishing industry associated with the rivers crossed by Pacific 

Connector’s proposed pipeline. However, fish, such as salmon and steelhead, that spawn in the 

affected rivers are commercially harvested in coastal areas off Oregon, Washington, and 

California, as well as British Columbia and Alaska. One recent study estimates that fish 

originating in the Rogue River and commercially harvested off the Northwest coast have an 

annual economic impact of approximately $1.36 million (ECONorthwest 2009). In addition, 

there is a local tourist-related industry in southern Oregon associated with sport fishing along 

principal streams, such as the Rogue River, including commercial fishing guide services and the 

rental or sales of fishing equipment (see section 4.8.3.7). Short-term construction-related effects 

on streams and rivers are not expected to adversely affect commercial fishing activities in the 

region. 

4.8.3.9 Other Commercial Activities 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would not result in the displacement of any 

businesses. Potential effects on existing residences and businesses are discussed in more detail 

in section 4.7 of this EIS. 

The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 77 miles of mature forested lands and 67 miles 

of recently harvested forested lands. Land ownership within forested lands includes privately 

owned timberland as well as state lands, NFS lands, and BLM-administered lands. Timber 

volume estimates developed for the potentially affected federal lands indicated that 

approximately 393 acres of federal lands would be harvested, with an average volume of 43 

MBF/acre (17,170 MBF/393 acres) (Levy 2008a). Applying this ratio to the 1,559 acres of 

mature forestland that would be harvested suggests that approximately 68 MMBF would be 

harvested. This total likely represents an overestimate because some portion of the trees would 

be retained for restoration (large woody debris and stream restoration). 

Approximately 964 MMBF was harvested in the four affected counties in 2007, with an annual 

average harvest from 2003 to 2007 of 1,086 MMBF (ODF 2008). Assuming for the purposes of 

analysis that approximately 68 MMBF were harvested in one year, this would represent 

approximately 7.1 percent of the total harvest in the four affected counties in 2007 and 6.3 

percent of the annual average harvest from 2003 to 2007. 

Levy (2008a) concluded following consultation with the USFS that while the projected log 

volume from federal lands (17.2 MMBF) may substitute for other sources of logs, it is not likely 

to result in higher mill output. Based on the relatively small volume (6.3 percent of average 

annual harvest for the four affected counties from 2003 to 2007) this is likely also the case for 

the volume harvested from all lands. 

4.8.3.10 Environmental Justice 

The Pacific Connector pipeline traverses a mostly rural region. We did not identify any 

communities in close proximity to the pipeline that has a disproportionately high percentage of 

low income or minority populations. Comments received during public scoping were concerned 

that the proposed pipeline was being located in Oregon because the affected communities are 

less affluent than the population in California that may be served by the Project. 

Race and ethnicity data are summarized for the four counties that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline in table 4.8.3.10-1. These data compiled as part of the 2000 Census indicate 
4.8-38 4.8 – Socioeconomics

that the population in all four counties is predominantly White. Persons of Hispanic or Latino 

origin make up the largest share of the non-White population in all four counties and Oregon as a 

whole. The percentage of the population that is American Indian is slightly higher than the state 

average in Coos, Douglas, and Klamath counties (table 4.8.3.10-1). 

Table 4.8.3.10-1 

Race and Ethnicity in Counties Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Percent of Total 

 Total White a/

Hispanic 

or Latino 

Black or 

African 

American a/

American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native a// Asian a/

Other 

Race b/

Two or 

more 

races 

Coos County 62,779 90.2 3.4 0.3 2.2 0.9 0.3 2.8 

Douglas County 100,399 91.9 3.3 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.2 2.4 

Jackson County 181,269 88.7 6.7 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.3 2.1 

Klamath County 63,775 84.1 7.8 0.6 3.8 0.8 0.3 2.7 

Oregon 3,421,399 83.5 8.0 1.6 1.2 2.9 0.3 2.4 

United States 281,421,906 69.1 12.5 12.1 0.7 3.6 0.3 1.6 

a/ Non-Hispanic only. The federal government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two separate and distinct 

concepts. People identifying Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. The data summarized in this table present 

Hispanic/Latino as a separate category. 

b/ The “Other Race” category presented here includes census respondents identifying as “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander” or “Some Other Race.” 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 

Approximately 2.2 percent of the population of Coos County is Native American, with the 

Coquille Tribe headquartered in the city of North Bend and the Coos tribes headquartered in the 

city of Coos Bay. About 1.4 percent of the population of Douglas County is Native American. 

The Cow Creek tribe is headquartered in Douglas County in Roseburg and operate a hotel and 

casino in Canyonville, also in Douglas County. Pacific Connector mapped Native American 

populations by census blocks for the four counties crossed by the pipelines, and found the 

highest concentration of Native Americans in Douglas County residing in the southwestern 

portion of the county where the proposed pipeline corridor is located. Native Americans 

represent 3.8 percent of the population of Klamath County, with the Klamath tribes 

headquartered at Chiloquin. 

Some economic indicators are lower in the four counties crossed by the pipeline than for the state 

of Oregon as a whole. In 2007, the state of Oregon had an unemployment rate of 5.2 percent, 

while the unemployment rate for Coos County was 6.7 percent, 7.8 percent in Douglas County, 

5.7 percent in Jackson County, and 7.0 percent in Klamath County. The median household 

income for the entire state of Oregon in 2005 was $43,065, while in Coos County it was $33,150, 

$36,678 in Douglas County, $40,997 in Jackson County, and $35,664 in Klamath County 

(USDA Economic Research Service 2007). Douglas and Jackson Counties had the same poverty 

rate as the state average in 2006 of 14 percent, while Coos and Klamath Counties had poverty 

rates of 20 percent (Northwest Area Foundation 2008). 

However, the route for the Pacific Connector pipeline was not selected taking into consideration 

either regional income or ethnic settlement patterns. We discuss the route selection process in 

section 3. Pacific Connector needed to find the shortest, buildable route between Coos Bay, 

where the pipeline would begin at the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal, and Malin, Oregon, 
4.8-39 4.8 – Socioeconomics

where the pipeline would terminate at interconnections with GTN, Tuscarora, and PG&E. Along 

the way, the pipeline tended to follow ridges in the mountains, and existing rights-of-way, where 

possible. Pacific Connector also attempted to locate the pipeline route away from densely 

populated areas, and avoid residential communities. The FERC made documents and notices 

about the pipeline available to the public, and had a robust program for public participation and 

comment, as explained in section 1 of this EIS. 

4.8.4 Environmental Consequences on Federal Lands 

Potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Project on federal lands would be related to 

impacts on recreation and visual resources, and transportation. These are discussed in sections 

4.7 and 4.9 of this EIS. 

4.8.4.1 Financial Efficiency Analysis 

Pacific Connector has prepared a Financial Efficiency Analysis that assesses the net present 

value of costs and benefits that would accrue to the federal government as a result of 

construction and operation of the proposed project (Levy 2008b, 2008c). This analysis was 

prepared in general accordance with direction contained within the USFS Handbook. The 

analysis is limited to those costs and revenues that would result from the direct use of federal 

assets (land, timber, and roads) and can be directly quantified based on existing fee schedules. 

The analysis does not include government administrative revenues that would be generated from 

the fees charged to process the project application and monitor the right-of-way. In addition, the 

analysis does not include non-market economic costs or benefits that are not part of federal 

monetary transactions. 

Costs and benefits were projected over a 50-year time period, where appropriate, and discounted 

using a real discount rate of 4 percent. The analysis identifies two sources of direct government 

revenue: 1) Pacific Connector’s payment for timber that would need to be cut, and 2) Pacific 

Connector’s rental payments for construction access and the pipeline right-of-way. The analysis 

also identifies three sources of government costs: 1) the value of lost timber productivity along 

the new right-of-way, 2) the value of non-merchantable trees that would need to be cut 

prematurely (lost timber growth), and 3) the incremental cost of future maintenance for existing 

roads that Pacific Connector may upgrade above their existing federal maintenance level (Levy 

2008b, 2008c). The present values of these projected revenues and costs are summarized in table 

4.8.4.1-1. The projected net present value of the Project based on this analysis is $2.91 million 

in 2007 dollars (table 4.8.4.1-1). 

This analysis does not, however, as noted above, account for other costs and benefits that are not 

assigned monetary values by the federal government. Other potential impacts (not valued) to 

federal lands include impacts to recreation, the PCT, grazing, LSRs, and Riparian Reserves 

(Levy 2008b). While no monetary value is assigned to these potential impacts they are 

considered in detail elsewhere in this document. 

4.8.4.2 Mitigation of Impacts on Federal Lands 

General Project mitigation measures would apply to federal lands crossed by the Pacific 

Connector pipeline. In addition, Pacific Connector would develop a POD for activities on NFS 

and BLM lands that would identify the specific areas where mitigation measures or BMPs would 

be employed to minimize potential impacts. 
4.8-40 4.8 – Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.8.4.1-1 

Financial Efficiency Analysis of the Pacific Connector Project 

 Timing 

Present Value in 2010 

(2007$ millions) 

Revenues 

Timber Revenue a/ 2010 3.7 

Temporary Use Permit and Right-of-Way Revenue b/ 2010 0.66 

Costs 

Lost Timber Productivity c/ 2010 -0.004 

Lost Timber Growth d/ 2010 -$0.051 

Incremental Road Maintenance e/ 2012 to 2062 -1.4 

Net Present Value 2.91 

a/ Timber revenue was calculated based on the pond value of the estimated timber volume, less the costs of logging and hauling 

the timber to the mill, slash disposal, and road work. Timber volumes and other values used in this estimate are based on 

preliminary estimates prepared by Pacific Connector. 

b/ This analysis assumes that Temporary Use Permits would be required for construction for 2 years and the right-of-way would be 

required for 50 years. Revenues are estimated based on the federal 2008 Linear Right-of-Way Rental Schedule values per acre 

for the affected counties. The analysis assumes that Pacific Connector would make a one-time payment, rather than make annual 

payments over the life of the project. 

c/ Lost timber productivity was estimated based on the soil expectation value of the lands that would be permanently lost to timber 

production and is based on an average soil expectation value of $14.30 per acre. 

d/ Lost timber growth accounts for the value of non-merchantable trees that would be cleared in the right-of-way. This value is 

based on the projected value of these trees at merchantable age. Premature harvest of these trees represents foregone revenue 

for the federal government and is, therefore, counted as a cost here. 

e/ Non-design improvements, such as turn-outs, widening, or blading/grading, to existing roads on NFS and BLM lands would likely 

be necessary as part of this project and may change the maintenance level of the existing road (by, for example, adding base and 

gravel to an existing road surface of native materials) and, as a result, impose an incremental maintenance cost on the 

government. This analysis assumes that all roads on federal lands used by Pacific Connector for construction access would be 

upgraded from native materials to gravel and, therefore, result in costs at the upper end of the range of possible outcomes. 

Incremental cost increases are assumed to be $343 per mile per year. 

Source: Levy 2008b, 2008c