4.10-1 4.10 – Cultural Resources 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment. The 

procedures for complying with section 106 are outlined in the ACHP’s implementing regulations 

at 36 CFR 800. The effects the Project may have on properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to Indian tribes must also be considered in accordance with section 101(d)(6) 

of the NHPA and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). 

All of the federal cooperating agencies, including the COE, Coast Guard, BLM, BOR, and 

USFS, have responsibilities under section 106 to consider the effect of their undertakings related 

to this Project on historic properties. As the lead federal agency for this Project, the FERC 

addresses compliance with section 106 jointly for all the federal cooperating agencies in this EIS. 

However, agencies that administer federal lands have other responsibilities associated with the 

management of cultural resources under section 110 of the NHPA, the Archaeological Resource 

Protection Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), and the Sacred Sites EO 13007. 

As allowed under Part 800.2(a)(3), we are using the services of the applicants and their 

consultants to prepare information, analyses, and recommendations so that we can meet our 

obligations under section 106. In this EIS, we summarize activities to inventory the APE, 

identify historic properties, consult with Indian tribes about properties of religious or cultural 

importance, and consult with the SHPO and other interested parties about potential project 

effects. 

4.10.1 Consultations with the SHPO, Indian Tribes, and Other Interested Parties 

The FERC staff, our third-party environmental contractor (Tetra Tech), Jordan Cove, Pacific 

Connector, and their cultural resources contractors consulted with the other cooperating 

agencies, the Oregon SHPO, and Indian tribes that may have historically occupied or used the 

project area concerning the definition of the APE, survey methods, recordation of cultural 

resources, evaluation of NRHP eligibility, and assessment of Project effects. Our NOI for this 

Project, issued June 23, 2006, was sent to the cooperating agencies; the SHPO; other federal, 

state and local government agencies; Indian tribes who historically occupied southern Oregon; 

landowners; and the public. Below, we discuss responses to our NOI and other scoping 

comments regarding cultural resources issues. 

4.10.1.1 Consultations with the SHPO 

Jordan Cove first contacted the SHPO on March 17, 2006. In response, in a letter dated March 

24, 2006, the SHPO advised that Jordan Cove acquire the services of a qualified archaeologist to 

conduct a cultural resources survey of the proposed LNG terminal tract. The Oregon statewide 

cultural resources database indicated that no previous cultural resources surveys had been 

conducted within the proposed terminal area. However, the terminal is located on a landform 

thought to have a high probability of containing cultural resources, and archaeological sites have 

previously been recorded in the vicinity. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-2

Jordan Cove hired Byram Archaeological Consulting LLC (Byram) as its cultural resources 

contractor. On June 26, 2006, a first draft cultural resources report covering the main elements 

of Jordan Cove’s proposed LNG terminal was submitted to the SHPO, with a copy filed with the 

FERC on June 30, 2006, and also provided to the cooperating agencies (Byram 2006a). On 

October 2, 2006, the SHPO reviewed that report and requested revisions. In response to those 

comments, an addendum report was prepared by Byram and submitted to the SHPO on October 

25, 2006, filed with the FERC on November 9, 2006, and provided to the cooperating agencies 

(Byram 2006b). In a conversation with Byram on February 21, 2008, Dr. Dennis Griffin, 

Oregon State Archaeologist representing the SHPO, indicated that his office did not intend to 

issue a written review of the addendum because later reports addressed his concerns. 

On November 30, 2007, Jordan Cove filed with the FERC a copy of a cultural resources survey 

report for the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard dredged and excavated material disposal site areas, 

produced by Byram for the Port on August 17, 2007 (Byram and Purdy 2007). This report was 

conveyed to the SHPO on September 13, 2007, and the SHPO commented on the report in a 

letter dated December 26, 2007. The SHPO agreed with Byram’s assessment that stockpiling 

activities within the areas should have no adverse effects on previously known archaeological 

sites. 

On May 22, 2008, Jordan Cove filed with the FERC a report, dated January 11, 2008, of a 

cultural resources inventory for the Port Commercial Sand Storage site, produced for the Port by 

Byram (Byram and Purdy 2008). A copy of the survey report for the Port Commercial Sand 

Storage area was submitted to the SHPO on February 19, 2008. The SHPO responded, in a letter 

dated May 28, 2008, concurring with the recommendation that ground-disturbing activities 

should be monitored by a professional archaeologist when the sand stockpile site is prepared to 

take dredged materials. 

On January 23, 2009, Jordan Cove filed with the FERC a cultural resources report discussing the 

haul road and two of the slurry pipelines proposed to serve the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard 

dredged and excavated material stockpile sites and Port Commercial Sand Stockpile site, 

produced by Byram in January 2008 (Byram 2008). A copy of that report was sent to the SHPO 

on March 18, 2008, and the SHPO commented on the report in a letter dated April 18, 2008. The 

SHPO indicated that subsurface excavation monitoring should occur at one road crossing along 

the route of the proposed eastern slurry pipeline and at four road crossings along the western 

slurry pipeline. 

On October 3, 2006, the SHPO commented on Jordan Cove’s first draft Resource Report 4, a 

summary of cultural resources data prepared for the FERC according to 18 CFR 380.12(f), filed 

with the FERC on June 30, 2006, and requested revisions. Jordan Cove filed a revised second 

draft Resource Report 4 with the FERC on November 9, 2006. The SHPO commented on that 

revised report on November 21, 2006. 

Pacific Connector hired Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) to coordinate its cultural 

resources investigations. Pacific Connector met with the SHPO on April 13, 2006, to discuss the 

Project, and field methods for cultural resources surveys. Between May and September 2007, 

the SHPO issued archaeological permits under Oregon state laws and regulations to allow HRA 

to conduct surveys on non-federal public lands, and testing of sites on private lands. Pacific 

Connector also met with SHPO on July 17, 2007, to discuss preliminary survey results. 
4.10-3 4.10 – Cultural Resources 

In a letter to HRA, dated March 8, 2007, the SHPO indicated that it was suspending review of 

site forms submitted by Pacific Connector until a final draft report would be submitted. Pacific 

Connector included its final draft report (HRA 2007) as part of its application filed with the 

FERC, and submitted a copy of the report to the SHPO on September 6, 2007. The SHPO 

provided reviews of this report in letters dated July 11 and December 30, 2008. In the July 11, 

2008 letter, the SHPO requested revisions to the survey report. In the December 30, 2008 letter, 

the SHPO concurred that the pipeline would have no adverse effects on three NRHP eligible 

historic complexes (Columbia Forest Products, Dora Cemetery, and the Klamath Canal system). 

HRA, on behalf of Pacific Connector, provided the SHPO with copies of its draft testing report 

and survey addendum report in March 2009. 

4.10.1.2 Consultations with Indian Tribes 

The unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian tribes is 

defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and 

differentiates tribes from other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the federal government. 

This relationship has given rise to a special federal trust responsibility, involving the legal 

responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and the application of 

fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the 

exercise of tribal rights. Indian tribes are defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m), as “an Indian tribe, 

band, nation, or other organized group or community, including a Native village, Regional 

Corporation, or Village Corporation, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs 

and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their special status as Indians.” 

The FERC acknowledges that it has trust responsibilities to Indian tribes, and so, on July 23, 

2003, it issued a “Policy Statement on Consultations with Indian Tribes in Commission 

Proceedings” in Order 635. That policy statement included the following key objectives: 

• The Commission will endeavor to work with Indian tribes on a government-togovernment basis, and will seek to address the effects of proposed projects on tribal 

rights and resources though consultations; and 

• The Commission will ensure that tribal resources and interests are considered whenever 

the Commission’s actions or decisions have the potential to adversely affect Indian tribes 

or Indian trust resources. 

In addition to consultations with federally recognized tribes on a government-to-government 

basis, the FERC also consulted with organizations and individuals lacking federal recognition 

who have legal or economic relationships with the proposed Project, a demonstrated interest in 

the undertaking, and/or may have concerns regarding the proposed Project’s effects on cultural 

resources. We are treating Native American individuals and organizations that are not federally 

recognized Indian tribes, but who have expressed an interest in the Project’s potential impact on 

cultural resources, as either additional consulting parties or members of the public, as defined by 

Part 800.2(c)(6) and (d) of the ACHP’s regulations. 

Our NOI, issued June 23, 2006, described the proposed Project, including use of the waterway 

for LNG marine traffic. The NOI was sent to Indian tribal government leaders and resource 

agencies, and other Native Americans who may have historically occupied or used the Project 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-4

area, those that may attach religious or cultural significance to sites in the region, or may be 

interested in potential Project impacts on cultural resources. Copies of the NOI were mailed to 

the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Oregon State Legislative Commission on Indian 

Services; Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

(CRITFC); Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Reservation (Grand Ronde Tribes); 

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation (Siletz Tribes); Chinook Nation; Clatsop-Nehalem 

Confederated Tribes; Coquille Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians (Coos Tribes); Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (Cow Creek 

Tribe); the Klamath Tribes; Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma; Latgawa Native American Indian Tribe 

(Latgawa Tribe); Burns Paiute Tribe; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes; Pit River 

Tribe; Shasta Nation; and Smith River Rancheria (table 4.10.1.2-1). 

In response to our NOI, we received filed written comments about the Project from several 

tribes. A letter to the FERC, dated July 21, 2006, from the Director of the Department of Natural 

Resources for the Coos Tribes, indicated that the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be 

located within the ancestral territory of the Coos Tribes. There are three historic Indian villages 

on the North Spit, known from ethnographic data, and this area may be considered a traditional 

cultural property by the Coos Tribes. The Coos Tribes are concerned about potential Project 

impacts on burials and cultural resources. They recommended testing, and monitoring by tribal 

members. The Coos Tribes also indicated that impacts on Henderson Marsh and a nearby great 

blue heron rookery should be avoided. In addition, concerns were raised about potential impacts 

from future earthquakes and tsunamis on the proposed LNG terminal. The Coos Tribes also 

requested a copy of the Pacific Connector archaeological survey report. 

On July 19, 2006, the Director of Natural Resources for the Cow Creek Tribe wrote a letter to the 

FERC acknowledging that the Tribe had been contacted by Pacific Connector regarding the 

Project. The Cow Creek Tribe recommended that Pacific Connector evaluate an alternative route 

to avoid impacting a cultural site on NFS lands. All funerary sites should be avoided by the 

pipeline, and if other cultural sites cannot be avoided, Pacific Connector should develop 

mitigation measures in consultations with the Cow Creek Tribe. In a letter to the FERC, dated 

October 20, 2006, the Cow Creek Tribe provided its comments on Pacific Connector’s first draft 

environmental Resource Report 4 on cultural resources. 

In addition, representatives of various Indian tribes and Native American organizations spoke at 

public scoping meetings held during the Pre-filing period. This included a representative of the 

Coos Tribes speaking at the public meeting held on July 11, 2006 in Coos Bay; a representative 

of the Latgawa Tribe speaking at the July 12, 2006 Medford meeting; and a representative of the 

Shasta Nation speaking at the July 13, 2006 Klamath Falls meeting. At the Coos Bay meeting, 

Cynthia Hovind, with the Coos Tribes, indicated that there was an historic Indian village located 

at Jordan Cove, that the Coos Tribes would like to be involved in consultations, and the Coos 

Tribes have concerns about potential impacts from the proposed LNG terminal on Henderson 

Marsh and a nearby great blue heron rookery. At the Medford meeting, John “Gray Eagle” 

Newkirk, of the Latgawa Tribe, requested that Indian artifacts and burial grounds be respected 

and protected. At the Klamath Falls meeting, Athena Calico, vice-chair of the Shasta Indian 

Nation, requested that tribes be hired to monitor their own sites. Representatives of the Cow 

Creek Tribe attended multiple interagency meetings with the FERC staff during the Pre-filing 

period (see table 1.6-1). 
4.10-5

TABLE 4.10.1.2-1. 

Native American Consultations

Indian Tribe/Native American Organization Addressed in FERC 

NOI Issued June 23, 2006 Dates Contacted by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Portland, Oregon c/o Lynn Dennis 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response f

Burns Paiute Tribe, Burns, Oregon c/o Chester Adams, Chair, and Charisse Snapp, Cultural Resources 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design 

No response f

Chinook Nation, Chinook, Washington c/o Gary Johnson, Chair May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response fClatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes, Turner, Oregon c/o Joseph Scovell 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response f

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon c/o Olney Patt, Executive Director 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response f

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Coos Bay, Oregon c/o Ron Brainard, Chair, and Arrow Coyote, Cultural Resources, and Howard Crombie, Environment 

October 24, 2005, letter from Byram May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design for Pacific Connector 

Project June 26, 2006, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for proposed LNG terminal November 28, 2006, Jordan Cove sent terminal addendum September 17, 2007, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for Linerboard disposal area September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report January 16, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of Port stockpile area February 25, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of haul road and slurry pipelines March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft survey addendum 

October 28 anByram April 20, 2006 June 30, 2006 July 21, 2006 September 13HRA July 18, 2007 Connector October 26, 2March 18, 200December 4, 2

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Grand Ronde, Oregon c/o Cheryle Kennedy, Chair, and Khani Schultz, Cultural Resources 

May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design 

September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft survey addendum 

October 18, 2Connector April-July 200
4.10-6

TABLE 4.10.1.2-1. 

Native American Consultations

Indian Tribe/Native American Organization Addressed in FERC 

NOI Issued June 23, 2006 Dates Contacted by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

October 24, 2005, letter from Byram May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design for Pacific Connector Project September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft cultural resources survey report June 26, 2006, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for proposed LNG terminal November 28, 2006, Jordan Cove sent terminal addendum September 17, 2007, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for Linerboard disposal area September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report January 16, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of Port stockpile area February 25, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of haul road and slurry pipelines March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft survey addendum 

December 5, 2June 28, 2006 October 27, 2Connector 

May 10, 2006, Pacific Connector sent a letter to Antone Minthorne, Chair, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla, Pendleton, Oregon 

No response f

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Siletz, Oregon c/o Delores Pigsley, Chair, and Robert Kentta, Cultural Resources 

May 10, 2006, Pacific Connector sent a letter to Ron Suppah, Chair, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Warm Springs, Oregon 

No response f

Coquille Indian Tribe, North Bend, Oregon c/o Edward Metcalf, Chair, and Don Ivy, Cultural Resources 

October 24, 2005, letter from Byram May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design for Pacific Connector 

Project June 26, 2006, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for proposed LNG terminal November 28, 2006, Jordan Cove sent terminal addendum September 17, 2007, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey report for Linerboard disposal area September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report 

2005-2006- Dwith Byram of May 4, 2006 – November 200emails with PaNovember 28February 12, 2
4.10-7

TABLE 4.10.1.2-1. 

Native American Consultations

Indian Tribe/Native American Organization Addressed in FERC 

NOI Issued June 23, 2006 Dates Contacted by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

January 16, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of Port stockpile area February 25, 2008, Jordan Cove sent copy of survey of haul road and slurry pipelines March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector survey addendum 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe, Roseburg, Oregon c/o Sue Shaffer, Chair, and Amy Amoroso, Cultural Resources 

May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design for Pacific Connector 

Project September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft survey addendum 

June 2006-Serepresentativeinteragency mduring Pre-filin2006-2007 – surveys June 2006 – mConnector July 19, 2006 October 20, 2October 25, 2November 19

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, McDermitt, Nevada c/o Karen Crutcher, Chair 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response f

The Klamath Tribes, Chiloquin, Oregon c/o Allan Foreman, Chair, and Gerald Skelton, Cultural Resources 

May 2, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector June 2, 2006, HRA sent research design for Pacific Connector 

Project September 10, 2007, HRA sent copy of final draft Pacific Connector cultural resources survey report March 23, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft testing report March 25, 2009, HRA sent copy of Pacific Connector draft survey addendum 

2006-2007 – tsurveys July 28, 2006 September 28March 2007 – 
4.10-8

TABLE 4.10.1.2-1. 

Native American Consultations

Indian Tribe/Native American Organization Addressed in FERC 

NOI Issued June 23, 2006 Dates Contacted by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

Latgawa Native American Indian Tribe, Central Point, Oregon c/o Richard Davis and John Newkirk 

June 6, 2006, Pacific Connector delivered maps in person June 6, 2006 – 

John Newkirk June 15, 2006 Davis attendehouse July 12, 2006 Medford publi

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma c/o Bill Follis, Chief May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response fPit River Tribe, Burney, California c/o Jessica Jin, Chair 

 No response f

Shasta Nation, Yreka, California and Fort Jones, California May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector 

June 29, 2006, Pacific Connector sent draft research design 

July 13, 2006 Klamath Falls Falls. 

Smith River Rancheria, Smith River, California c/o Kara Miller, Chair 

May 10, 2006, letter from Pacific Connector No response f
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-9

As required under 36 CFR 296.7, on June 30, 2006, the USFS notified the Cow Creek Tribe, 

Grande Ronde Tribes, Klamath Tribes, and Siletz Tribes, that HRA had applied for an ARPA 

permit to conduct archaeological investigations on NFS lands. Within the 30-day comment 

period, the Cow Creek Tribe met with the USFS to discuss their concerns. 

Consultations between the FERC and Indian tribes continued even after Jordan Cove and Pacific 

Connector filed their applications in September 2007. On October 25, 2007, the Cow Creek 

Tribe sent an email to the FERC commenting on the cultural resources report included with 

Pacific Connector’s application, and attaching a list of plant species considered important by the 

Cow Creek Tribe, and a map of general tribal plant gathering areas in the vicinity of the pipeline 

route. The Cow Creek Tribe requested that HRA consult with the tribe about the conduct of a 

traditional cultural properties study. 

In an October 26, 2007, letter to the FERC, the Cultural Resources Protection Coordinator for the 

Coos Tribes requested that the proposed pipeline route be altered to avoid two sites in the 

Fairview area, and that the Coos Bay alignment of the proposed pipeline be abandoned in order 

to avoid impacting 16 recorded weir sites. The Coos Tribes again commented on route 

variations, in a March 18, 2008 letter to the FERC. The Coos Tribes reiterated its request that 

the route be shifted in the Fairview area to avoid two known site locations (BAC-5 and 6). The 

WC-1A route variation could potentially impact archaeological sites LM44 and 35CS33, and a 

survey should be done to identify sites at the crossings of Willanch and Kentuck Sloughs. The 

WC-6A variation may miss known fish weir locations, but new sites may be found as a result of 

additional investigations of that route alternative. The Coos Tribes object to any route that 

would have an adverse effect on cultural sites. 

The Chairman of the Coquille Tribe wrote a letter to the FERC on November 28, 2007, 

commenting on the Pacific Connector pipeline route in the Coos Bay estuary. The tribe 

suggested that the pipeline should be re-aligned farther south than the proposed route within 

Coos Bay, on the east side of the shipping channel, between MPs 4 and 8. While it is assumed 

that the route re-alignment would not avoid all cultural resources, it would avoid many of the 

known recorded fish weir sites along the proposed route. In a letter to the FERC, dated February 

12, 2008, the Coquille Tribe commented on the route variations developed by Pacific Connector 

for the Waterbodies Crossing Methodologies Sub-Group of the Interagency Task Force for this 

Project. The tribe found both route alternatives WC-6A and WC-1A to be acceptable and 

preferable over the in-water route proposed in Pacific Connector’s September 2007 application 

to the FERC (see section 3.4.2.1 of this EIS). 

The Cow Creek Tribe commented on the draft EIS in a letter to the FERC dated November 19, 

2008. The tribe indicated that the Pacific Connector pipeline would cross usual and accustomed 

lands, and agreed with the FERC staff’s recommendation to not allow construction of the 

pipeline to begin until all studies and consultations have been completed that are part of the 

process of complying with the NHPA. 

In a letter to the FERC, dated December 4 2008, the Coos Tribes expressed a number of 

concerns regarding cultural resources. The tribes indicated concerns about potential impacts on 

unidentified prehistoric fishing weir sites or shell middens in the areas to be dredged for the 

access channel and slip; field survey methods in vegetated areas of the proposed slip; the 

adequacy of the testing methodology employed at the proposed Port Commercial Sand Stockpile 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-10

area; recommendations for deep subsurface testing; surveys of route changes along the Pacific 

Connector pipeline; and a request for consultation and direct involvement in the further 

development of monitoring and mitigation plans. In response, Jordan Cove drafted a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining future consultation responsibilities between 

itself and the SHPO, Coos Tribes, Coquille Tribe, and Siletz Tribes regarding the Jordan Cove 

LNG terminal. A draft copy of the MOU was filed with the FERC on January 23, 2009. 

In addition to the consultations between the FERC and Indian tribes, the applicants also 

conducted their own, separate Native American contact programs. Jordan Cove received 

guidance on tribal consultation from the Oregon Commission on Indian Services. Based on this 

guidance, Byram, on behalf of Jordan Cove, sent letters, dated October 24, 2005, to the Coos 

Tribes, Coquille Tribe, and Siletz Tribes, informing them about the Project and requesting 

comments. Jordan Cove received both verbal and written responses. Arrow Coyote, Cultural 

Resource Protection Coordinator for the Coos Tribes, responded via email. Donald Ivy, Cultural 

Resource Program Coordinator for the Coquille Tribe, responded verbally on November 19, 

2005. Mr. Ivy also participated in surveys of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal with 

Byram in 2005 and 2006. Robert Kentta, Cultural Resources Coordinator for the Siletz Tribes, 

responded by email. Jordan Cove provided copies of its cultural resources survey reports to the 

Coos Tribes, Coquille Tribe, and Siletz Tribes (see table 4.10.1.2-1). 

On April 29, 2006, Pacific Connector wrote a letter to Karen Quigley, Executive Director of the 

Oregon Commission on Indian Services, to verify which tribes should be contacted. Ms. 

Quigley responded that Pacific Connector should consult with the Coos Tribes, Coquille Tribe, 

Grand Ronde Tribes, Siletz Tribes, Cow Creek Tribe, and Klamath Tribes. On May 2 and 10, 

2006, Pacific Connector sent letters about the proposed Project to the tribes listed on table 

4.10.1.2-1. Pacific Connector received responses via email and telephone from several interested 

tribes. On June 2, 2006, HRA, on behalf of Pacific Connector, sent various tribes copies of its 

research design. 

Pacific Connector provided maps of the pipeline route to the Latgawa Tribe at a June 6, 2006, 

meeting, and the tribe indicated concern about potential Project impacts to Table Rock. In June 

2006, representatives of HRA meet on several occasions with representatives of the Cow Creek 

Tribe to discuss avoidance of a special use area of the Cow Creek Tribe, and archaeological 

monitoring. On September 28, 2006, HRA met with representatives of the Klamath Tribes to 

discuss survey results. Pacific Connector had a meeting with representatives of the Grand Ronde 

Tribes on October 18, 2006. In October 2006, HRA executed a tribal research permit with the 

Coos Tribes to facilitate the sharing of research data. On July 17, 2006, Pacific Connector met 

with representatives of the Coos Tribes to discuss the Coos Bay estuary route and potential 

impacts on aboriginal fishing weir sites. On October 27, 2007, Pacific Connector met with 

representatives of the Siletz Tribes to discuss survey results. 

Pacific Connector began cultural resources surveys at select areas along the pipeline route in 

mid-June of 2006, and notified interested tribes. HRA exchanged telephone calls and emails 

with various tribes regarding survey findings. The Cow Creek Tribe had members monitoring 

the cultural resources fieldwork in their ancestral territory, mostly in Douglas County. A 

member of the Klamath Tribes worked as part of the HRA crew doing surveys in Klamath 

County. In-person meetings were held between HRA and cultural resources representatives of 

the Coos Tribes, Cow Creek Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Grand Ronde Tribes, and Siletz Tribes to 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-11

discuss results of the survey, reroutes to avoid specific archaeological sites, and the need for 

testing at certain sites within their areas of concern. 

On September 10, 2007, HRA, on behalf of Pacific Connector, provided copies of its final draft 

cultural resources survey report to the Coos, Coquille, Cow Creek, Grand Ronde, Klamath, and 

Siletz tribes. In March 2009, HRA sent these tribes copies of its draft testing report and a survey 

addendum (see table 4.10.1.2-1). 

4.10.1.3 Consultations with Land-managing Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

In April 2006, Pacific Connector and its contractors met with representatives of the BLM and 

USFS to discuss cultural resources investigations and obtain GIS data on known sites in the 

project area. In May 2006, Pacific Connector’s contractors met with various BLM district and 

USFS staff to discuss cultural resources field methods. The BLM issued a Cultural Resource 

Use permit and Field Authorization permit to HRA on June 9, 2006, allowing archaeological 

survey along the route of the Pacific Connector pipeline crossing BLM lands. An ARPA permit 

for work on Roseburg District BLM lands was issued August 18, 2006. The USFS issued an 

ARPA permit to HRA to conduct archaeological investigations on NFS lands on August 30, 

2006. Throughout the remainder of 2006 and 2007 HRA had continuing informal consultations 

with the BLM, through the Roseburg District Archaeologist, and with the USFS, mostly through 

the Umpqua National Forest Archaeologist. 

Jordan Cove filed the first draft of its environmental Resource Report 4 and cultural resources 

inventory report with the FERC on June 30, 2006, a revised version on November 9, 2007, and a 

third draft on April 26, 2007. The BLM provided the FERC with its comments on the third draft 

of Jordan Cove’s cultural resources reports on May 22, 2007. 

Pacific Connector filed with the FERC the first draft of its environmental Resource Report 4 and 

cultural resources inventory report on September 22, 2006, a second draft on December 5, 2006, 

and its third draft on June 27, 2007. The USFS commented to the FERC on Pacific Connector’s 

first draft cultural resources report on October 17, 2006, and BLM provided its comments on 

October 23, 2006. The USFS commented on the second draft on December 29, 2006, and the 

BLM on January 3, 2007. The BLM provided the FERC with its comments on Pacific 

Connector’s third draft cultural resources report on July 31, 2007, and the USFS commented on 

August 3, 2007. 

HRA, on behalf of Pacific Connector, provided copies of its final draft cultural resources survey 

report to the BLM and USFS on September 6, 2007. The BLM provided the FERC with its 

comments on the cultural resources section of the applications on October 31 and November 21, 

2007. The USFS commented to the FERC on the applications on November 2, 2007. HRA sent 

copies of its draft testing report and survey addendum to the federal land managing agencies in 

March 2009. 

In response to our NOA, issued September 13, 2007, the Northwest Office of the BIA filed 

comments, dated October 3, 2007. The BIA requested that the FERC document its 

“government-to-government” consultations with Indian tribes regarding potential Project impacts 

on religious, cultural, sacred sites, and burials. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-12

On August 23, 2006, William and Cassandra Staton of Myrtle Creek, Oregon sent a letter to 

FERC to express their opposition to the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline, particularly that 

portion of the pipeline that crossed their private landholdings. One of the many concerns 

expressed in their correspondence is the potential effect to historic era structures and artifacts 

such as their house (c. 1908) and barn (c. 1890). 

On October 3, 2007, Jody McCaffree a member of the southern Oregon-based group Citizens 

Against LNG (CAL) expressed general concerns for cultural resources. CAL also served as a 

conduit for the comments of Michael McNutt, dated September 10, 2007. Mr. McNutt makes a 

claim of ancestral relationship to portions of land to be affected by the Jordan Cove LNG 

terminal. On February 22, 2007, J. Fred Kirby, a private citizen of Coos Bay, Oregon expressed 

concerns to FERC regarding the impact on prehistoric Native American burial grounds that may 

exist in a portion of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal area. Another private citizen, Paula Hoehn, 

mentioned impacts on archaeological sites among the myriad of other concerns about the Project 

expressed in a letter to the FERC dated September 27, 2007. 

4.10.2 Results of Cultural Resource Literature Searches and Inventories 

4.10.2.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

We requested that Jordan Cove perform a literature review and site file search to identify known 

cultural resources within the Zones of Concern along the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the 

proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. That review indicated that there were 24 known 

previously recorded archaeological sites and 15 known previously recorded individual historic 

resources overlapped by the Zones of Concern (with the outer perimeter of Zone 3 extending up 

to 2.2 miles from the navigation channel). 

Five of the archaeological sites within the Zones of Concern are listed on the NRHP. This 

includes sites 35CS10/11 (Cape Arago site and Baldiyaca Native American cemetery), 35CS24 

(McCullough Bridgehead site), 35CS34 (Mussel Reef Village site), 35CS54 (Wu’alach Native 

American cemetery), and 35CS129 (state land coastal shell midden). Sites 35CS24, 35CS34, 

and 35CS129, were all part of a multiple property NRHP nomination prepared by Madonna 

Moss and Jon Erlandson in 1996 for coastal archaeological sites on Oregon State lands. There 

are two sites (35CS139 and 35CS221) within the Zones of Concern that are potentially eligible 

for the NRHP. The remaining archaeological sites overlapped by the zones are of unknown or 

undetermined eligibility. 

Five of the historic resources within the Zones of Concern are listed on the NRHP. This includes 

The Coos Indian Tribal Hall, Major Morton Tower House, Tower-Flanagan House, all in the 

Empire neighborhood, the McCullough Bridge in North Bend, and the Cape Arago Lighthouse. 

The Coos Head U.S. Naval Facility is an historic district that has been determined eligible for the 

NRHP. Likewise, there is a proposed historic district in downtown North Bend that may be 

eligible for the NRHP, but has not yet been formally nominated. The Empire cemetery is also 

potentially eligible for the NRHP, as is the 1939 COE North Spit Railroad. All of the other 

historic sites overlapped by the zones are of unknown or undetermined eligibility. 

No adverse effects on cultural resources (archaeological sites or historic structures) within the 

Zones of Concern are expected from the proposed LNG marine traffic in the waterway to the 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-13

Jordan Cove LNG terminal. Jordan Cove and the operators of the LNG carriers would 

implement measures that would reduce the potential for oil or fuel spills from LNG marine 

traffic in the waterway that may affect shoreline historic properties. 

In the unlikely event of an LNG carrier incident that would result in an LNG spill and fire, 

effects would vary for different kinds of historic properties, depending upon their location within 

the Zones of Concern. There would be less impact on sites located in Zone 3 compared to sites 

located in Zone 1. There are no known historic properties located within Zone 1. There is one 

NRHP-listed and one potentially eligible archaeological sites, and two NRHP-listed and one 

potentially eligible historic sites overlapped by Zone 2. Historic buildings could be affected by a 

pool fire, while a buried prehistoric site may not. However, a buried archaeological site may be 

affected by a fire-fighting response, such as the use of bulldozers to clear a fire break. With the 

implementation of Jordan Cove’s proposed safety and security measures and the risk 

management measures recommended in the Coast Guard WSR, the possibility of an accident and 

release of LNG from a carrier in route to the terminal is remote. 

4.10.2.2 Jordan Cove LNG Terminal 

A portion of the inter-tidal margin in Coos Bay, overlapping the access channel to the LNG 

terminal, was surveyed by Dr. Scott Byram and Donald Ivy of the Coquille Tribe by boat during 

a low “minus tide.” No cultural resources were found in that portion of the APE. In its October 

2, 2006, review of the Jordan Cove survey report, the Oregon SHPO commented there are no 

records of shipwrecks or submerged sites in that part of Coos Bay, and therefore an underwater 

survey is not required for the proposed terminal’s access channel. In a January 23, 2009 filing, 

Jordan Cove indicated that only a low probability exists of encountering previously unidentified 

prehistoric fishing weir features in the area that would be dredged to create the access channel in 

Coos Bay. However, it would monitor construction along the slip shoreline in accordance with 

its draft tribal MOU. 

Dr. Byram oversaw an intensive close-interval pedestrian inventory of about 280 acres 

overlapping the main upland components of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. 

Fieldwork was conducted in July 2005 and February 2006. Survey transit intervals varied from 

20 meters to more than 30 meters spacing, depending on topography. Surveys of about 78 acres 

of forested dune on the east side of the parcel, that would contain portions of the excavated slip, 

transfer pipeline, and process area equipment, were described as “opportunistic” due to 

vegetation cover. About 64 acres along the eastern access to the LNG facility and including the 

proposed locations of the meter station, communication tower, administrative building, and 

shop/warehouse for the terminal were covered by transects spaced 20 meters apart. About 30 

acres within the existing Roseburg chip facility, including a forested dune, was also surveyed 

using 20 meter transects, while the remainder of the Roseburg tract was noted to be graded, 

surfaced, or paved. This area would include the proposed locations for part of the NGL sendout 

facilities, and portions of the route for the haul road, slurry pipeline, and water return pipeline to 

and from the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard excavated and dredged material storage areas. About 30 

acres along the western shore of the geographic Jordan Cove inlet to Coos Bay were inspected 

using 20-meter transects, overlapping part of the route for the haul road, slurry pipeline, and 

water return pipeline to and from the Weyerhaeuser material disposal sites. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-14

Consultation with the Oregon SHPO, coupled with a literature review and record search of 

available data suggested the presence of one reported site (R6), and one previously recorded site 

(35CS221) within the LNG terminal area proposed for the slip, storage tanks, and processing 

equipment. Another reported but unrecorded Native American archaeological site (R7) was 

noted near the existing Roseburg wood chip piles. 

Reported site R6 was identified as a Native American lithic scatter on the western edge of 

Henderson Marsh. This area was apparently surveyed in the 1960s and 1970s by Ron Stubbs, a 

professor of Anthropology at Southwestern Oregon Community College. He described finding 

chips and scrapers on the surface, but did no subsurface testing. Stubbs believes this site was 

buried under 15 to 20 feet of dredge materials deposited by the COE in the 1970s during 

maintenance of the navigation channel in Coos Bay. Reg Pullen, a former BLM archaeologist, 

indicated to Dr. Byram that there may also be an unrecorded prehistoric shell midden in this 

vicinity. 

During the survey of the LNG terminal tract, Byram relocated previously recorded site 35CS221, 

which he believes is the location of the historic Henderson and Pederson ranches, dating between 

about 1889 and 1950. He found the remains of two structures, evidenced by concrete rubble 

piles, together with historic bottle glass, ceramics, and bricks on the surface. 

Byram recommended archaeological testing to evaluate the NRHP eligibility of site 35CS221. 

In response to concerns raised by the Coos Tribes, Jordan Cove has committed to conducting 

deep testing in areas of high archaeological potential within the terminal complex that have been 

covered by dredged materials about 10 feet deep. Prior to terminal construction, Jordan Cove 

would open two trenches about 10 feet deep in the vicinity of reported site R6, supplemented by 

auger testing and ground penetrating radar. The intertidal area where the slip would meet the 

access channel would also be tested. Subsurface probing and monitoring was also recommended 

along the access road to the proposed LNG terminal across the Roseburg tract (Byram 2006a). 

In its October 2, 2006 review of the original June 2006 survey report, the SHPO concurred with 

the recommendations for site evaluation, excavation of probes, and monitoring. The SHPO 

further recommended that the reported site (R7) on the Roseburg property be avoided. 

In July 2007, Byram conducted a pedestrian inventory of 92 acres at the proposed Weyerhaeuser 

Linerboard excavated and dredge material disposal areas, supplemented with subsurface shovel 

probing over 32 acres of the tracts. Previously recorded site 35CS227, the historic Jordan Ranch, 

was noted outside to the west of the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard areas, but near where Jordan Cove 

would locate its haul road, and slurry and water return pipelines to the disposal areas. This is 

also the potential location of the Native American village known as Quonatitch. Previously 

recorded site 35CS26, a multi-component archaeological deposit, was noted outside of the 

Weyerhaeuser Linerboard areas to the southeast. A 1939 COE railroad spur may be within the 

Project area. However, a site form for the railroad is currently being prepared by the BLM and 

has not yet been submitted to the SHPO, and Byram found no remains related to the railroad 

during his survey. There is also a reported, but unrecorded Indian cemetery in this vicinity, and 

burials were said to have been disturbed during construction of the Menasha Mill in 1961 (later 

the Weyerhaeuser mill). The mill was closed in 2003, and the buildings removed, but there are 

still foundations and other elements related to that industrial facility within the proposed 

stockpile area. No cultural materials pre-dating the mill were observed during Byram’s survey 

of the linerboard disposal areas. Byram recommended that if any cultural resources are 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-15

discovered during stockpiling activities, that work should be halted, and the procedures outlined 

in Jordan Cove’s unanticipated discovery plan should be followed (Byram, and Purdy 2007). 

In December 2007, Byram conducted a cultural resources inventory of the area proposed for the 

Port’s Commercial Sand Stockpile. The pedestrian survey covered 90 acres and was 

supplemented by the excavation of 14 auger probes within a 10-acre area. The probes were 

excavated in areas of high archaeological sensitivity with the lowest elevation. A literature 

search revealed that a portion of the sand stockpile area was previously surveyed in 2005 by 

Melissa Darby for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, and no 

archaeological sites were identified. Archival research by Byram indicated that the sand 

stockpile area is located in the vicinity of a historic Indian village known as Jarvis Landing. In 

the 1850s, a ferry operated between this village on the North Spit and the newly settled town of 

Empire. In the early 1860s, John Henderson established a ranch at Jarvis Landing. In the late 

1880s a quarantine house was operated in this area. However, Bryam’s survey did not find any 

archaeological sites or remains related to those historic activities. Instead, the survey confirmed 

that this area had been previously used to deposit materials dredged during maintenance of the 

Coos Bay navigation channel. Bryam recommended that construction activities at this location 

should be monitored by a professional archaeologist (Byram and Purdy 2008). In a letter dated 

May 28, 2008, the SHPO agreed with the monitoring of ground-disturbing activities. Jordan 

Cove later clarified, in a January 23, 2009 filing in response to the December 4, 2008 letter from 

the Coos Tribes that the use of this area to stockpile sand would result in limited ground 

disturbance, mostly associated with the construction of berms around the settlement basin. 

In a report dated January 2008, Byram discussed the proposed haul road and eastern slurry 

pipeline between the Jordan Cove LNG terminal and the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard excavated 

and dredged material disposal sites, and the western slurry pipeline between the Jordan Cove 

LNG terminal and the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile site. The haul road and eastern slurry 

pipeline route would cross the existing industrial Roseburg facility that is graded, surfaced and 

paved, and then would be adjacent to an existing road (Jordan Cove Road) and railroad. A 

portion of this route was covered by the original June 2006 survey of the Jordan Cove terminal 

complex, the 2007 survey of the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard stockpile areas, and the survey for the 

Pacific Connector pipeline (Byram 2006a; Byram and Purdy 2007; HRA 2007). The October 

2006 Jordan Cove terminal addendum report (Byram 2006b) showed three reported but 

unrecorded archaeological sites (R2, R3, and R4) in the vicinity of the haul road and eastern 

slurry pipeline. Site R2 is the reported location of Native American burials. Site R3 represents 

the location of the historic (1880s) Jordan Ranch and associated Native American village 

(including the shell midden recently recorded as site 35CS227 during the Pacific Connector 

pipeline survey). The ethnohistoric village of Quonatitch was also in this vicinity. 

The western slurry pipeline would be located adjacent to the existing North Spit railroad that 

parallels the Trans-Pacific Parkway. The Trans-Pacific Parkway was surveyed in 1984 and no 

cultural resources found. Byram had previously surveyed the end of the slurry line that overlaps 

the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile area (Byram and Purdy 2008). Byram indicated that the 

route of the western slurry would cross a segment of previously recorded site 35CS239, the 

North Spit 1939 COE railroad. However, the former railroad lacks integrity at the proposed 

crossing, because although raised ground is present it does not resemble a well preserved railroad 

bed and has no associated ties, rails, or ballast. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-16

In December 2007, Byram performed a pedestrian inventory of the non-armored portions of the 

haul road and slurry pipelines not previously surveyed, but no cultural resources were identified. 

Byram (2008) recommended archaeological testing at one road crossing (Jordan Cove Road) 

along the eastern slurry pipeline route and four road crossings along the western slurry pipeline 

route. The SHPO concurred in a letter dated April 18, 2008. However, Jordan Cove has not 

documented that the proposed in-bay slurry pipeline route was ever examined for cultural 

resources. 

4.10.2.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline 

To provide information on the character of cultural resources in the vicinity of the pipeline route, 

Pacific Connector conducted a literature review and site files search for an arbitrary 2-mile-wide 

study corridor for its entire length. The study corridor encompasses approximately 462 square 

miles or 295,680 acres. At least 125 archaeological surveys have been conducted within the 

study corridor. These investigations resulted in the recordation of 143 archaeological sites in the 

study corridor; 7 of which may be located within the APE. 

The APE for Pacific Connector’s pipeline is defined as a 400-foot-wide corridor, extending for 

about 230 miles between Coos Bay and Malin, Oregon, and corresponds to the cultural resources 

survey corridor. The pipeline APE covers approximately 11,152 acres. In some areas the APE 

for the pipeline was expanded to include proposed construction work space outside the 400-foot 

corridor, and in other areas (where the pipeline is along narrow ridgelines) the APE corridor was 

narrowed to less than 400 feet. The APE includes proposed aboveground facilities associated 

with the pipeline, including the Butte Falls Compressor Station, four meter stations, and 16 

mainline block valves, covering an additional 21 acres. The APE also encompasses 18 new 

temporary access roads and 16 permanent access roads, 107 TEWAs, and 82 

source/disposal/storage locations, and 7 hydrostatic test water release areas that fall well outside 

the 400-foot corridor, adding about 3,496 acres that may be disturbed during pipeline 

construction activities. There may also be impacts along 62 existing access roads that may need 

to be improved in order to be used by construction equipment, affecting a total of about 17 acres. 

As of August 2007, Pacific Connector’s cultural resources consultants had surveyed about 203 

miles of the proposed pipeline route. In addition, 107 TEWAs outside of the 400-foot-wide 

corridor, and 28 proposed contractor, pipe, rock source or disposal yards were inventoried. Also, 

surveys were conducted along 584 potential access roads. Pacific Connector included a multivolume cultural resources inventory report with its application to the FERC (HRA 2007). 

The surveys identified 111 newly recorded archaeological sites and 134 isolated finds. We 

believe that 88 sites are located along the proposed pipeline route, and 10 sites were found within 

TEWAs or at yards. Pacific Connector’s cultural resources contractors recommended that all of 

the isolated finds and 13 sites be considered not eligible for the NRHP, requiring no further 

investigation. They indicated that the pipeline could be shifted slightly, or the construction rightof-way constricted, so the impacts on 10 sites could be avoided. The remainder of the sites were 

unevaluated, or were considered potentially eligible for the NRHP, and testing was 

recommended to clarify their eligibility. 

The Oregon SHPO provided comments on Pacific Connector’s archaeological report in a letter 

dated July 11, 2008. The SHPO questioned NRHP eligibility recommendations for several sites, 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-17

requested additional data on historical resources such as trails, and indicated that a traditional 

cultural properties study needs to be included in the next submission of a revised report. The 

SHPO considers sites 35DO1099, 35KL2796, 35KL2797, 35KL2800, 35KL3038, 35KL3042, 

35KL3047, 35KL3052, and 35KL3054, all on private lands, to be not eligible for the nomination 

to the NRHP, requiring no further work, and we concur. 

In a letter dated December 30, 2008, the SHPO commented on above-ground historic properties 

that may be affected by the Pacific Connector pipeline. The SHPO believes that the Columbia 

Forest Products complex (temporary site number HRA-206), the Dora Cemetery, and the 

Klamath Canal System are eligible for the NRHP; however the pipeline should have no adverse 

effects on these historic properties. In addition, the SHPO believes the proposed pipeline would 

have no effects or no adverse effects on various historic roads, trails, railroads, and other linear 

historic resources that may be eligible for the NRHP that may be crossed. We agree with the 

SHPO’s opinions. 

The Pacific Connector cultural resources team also conducted a reconnaissance 

geoarchaeological investigation in the winter of 2007 to identify portions of the pipeline route 

with the potential to contain deeply buried archaeological resources. This investigation 

identified 21 locations with the greatest potential to contain soils of the appropriate age to 

contain deeply buried archaeological deposits. Archaeological sites have been identified at 15 of 

these, but not at the remaining 6. The proposed pipeline at two of the six locations where buried 

cultural resources could occur (the Coos River/Graveyard Point and Rogue River crossings) 

would be constructed using HDD technology, and geoarchaeological investigation of the HDD 

entry and exit points may be warranted. The need for geoarchaeological investigation at these 

locations was discussed with the Oregon SHPO in July 2007. Such investigations would likely 

include a series of focused mechanical drills or cores followed by backhoe trenching in locations 

where archaeological materials and/or soils indicative of cultural activity were identified in 

mechanical drills. These investigations would be conducted prior to construction so as to allow 

an appropriate amount of time to identify historic properties and resolve adverse effects. 

As of December 2008, approximately 27 miles of the proposed route have been changed from 

the September 2007 route, almost all of which is the result of Pacific Connector accepting route 

alternatives that were evaluated and recommended in the draft EIS. The new proposed route 

between MPs 0.0 and 11.4 greatly reduces the crossing of Coos Bay, thus avoiding eight 

prehistoric fish weir sites recorded between MPs 4.7 and 7.0 along the September 2007 route. 

However, Pacific Connector has not yet provided the FERC, cooperating agencies, SHPO, and 

appropriate Indian tribes with the results of inventories of the newly proposed route segments. 

Pacific Connector indicated that by June 2009 it would file a revised cultural resources survey 

report, including the results of 2007 and 2008 inventories and archaeological testing. 

4.10.2.4 Environmental Consequences on Federal Lands 

The Jordan Cove LNG terminal would not directly affect any federal lands. However, the 

Pacific Connector pipeline would cross more than 72 miles of federal lands administered by the 

BLM (41 miles), USFS (31 miles), and BOR. 

Based on the cultural resources surveys conducted by Pacific Connector’s consultant (HRA) 

along the pipeline route, we identified 21 archaeological sites within the APE on BLM or NFS 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-18

lands (see table 4.10.2.4-1). The SHPO indicated that it considers three of the sites on federal 

lands (35JA743, 35LK3039, and 35KL3040) to be not eligible for the NRHP, requiring no 

further work. Additional data are needed for 18 sites on federal lands in order to evaluate their 

eligibility to the NRHP. Thirty-two isolated finds were identified by HRA on federal lands. 

Isolated finds are considered ineligible for the NRHP, and do not warrant additional work. The 

the FERC staff would consult with the BOR, BLM, and USFS heritage staffs before making 

official determinations of eligibility and effect for sites on federal land. 

TABLE 4.10.2.4-1. 

Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified on BLM and NFS lands

Site 

Designation Era Land Agency NRHP Recommendation a/ Future Actions 

AAR-125 Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible SHPO requested additional data 

AAR-117 Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible May be an isolated find. SHPO 

requested additional data 

AAR-118 

35DO1113 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-101 

35DO1104 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-109 

35DO1105 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-110 

35DO1109 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-111 

35DO1110 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-112 

35DO1106 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-113 

35DO1111 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

AAR-114 

35DO1112 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

HRA-150 

35DO1107 

Historic USFS – Umpqua NF Potentially Eligible Avoid or propose treatment plan 

HRA-151 Historic BLM – Roseburg Not Eligible SHPO requested additional data 

HRA-152 

35DO1071 

Prehistoric BLM – Roseburg Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

HRA-159 

35JA743 

Historic USFS – Umpqua NF Not Eligible No further work 

SOULA-39 

35JA686 

Prehistoric BLM – Medford Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

SOULA-63 

35JA739 

Prehistoric BLM – Medford Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

SOULA-29 Historic BLM – Medford Not Eligible SHPO requested additional data 

LM036 – Dead 

Indian Memorial 

Highway 

Historic USFS – Klamath Undetermined Need site form and evaluation of 

eligibility. SHPO indicated no 

effect/no adverse effect because 

the pipeline would be bored under 

road. 

HRA-10 

35KL3039 

Historic BLM – Klamath Not Eligible No further work. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-19

TABLE 4.10.2.4-1. 

Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified on BLM and NFS lands

Site 

Designation Era Land Agency NRHP Recommendation a/ Future Actions 

HRA-11 

35KL3040 

Historic BLM – Klamath Not Eligible No further work 

SOULA-14 

35JA682 

Prehistoric BLM – Medford Potentially Eligible Test or avoid 

a/ Recommendations made by HRA. 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross 27 irrigation features associated with the Klamath 

Project that are under the jurisdiction of the BOR, between MPs 200.5 and 214.2. The Klamath 

Project has been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The BOR is currently 

conducting an inventory of the features of the Klamath Project in an effort to prepare a NRHP 

nomination. The SHPO, in a letter dated December 30, 2008, indicated that the Pacific 

Connector pipeline should have no adverse effects on the Klamath Canal System, because the 

pipeline would be installed underneath the canals during the winter via dry open cut, when they 

contain little or no water, and the canals would be restored after construction. We agree with the 

SHPO. 

4.10.2.5 Unanticipated Discovery Plans 

Jordan Cove’s original first draft Resource Report 4, filed June 30, 2006, included a plan and 

procedures addressing unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and human remains 

prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC). The SHPO requested revisions to this plan 

in a letter to Jordan Cove dated October 3, 2006. A revised unanticipated discovery plan was 

filed as part of Jordan Cove’s application to the FERC in September 2007 (Appendix B.4 of 

environmental Resource Report 4). Another copy of this plan was filed on January 23, 2009, 

that addresses the SHPO’s comments on the original plan. 

Pacific Connector included an unanticipated discovery plan with its first draft cultural resources 

inventory report filed with the FERC on September 22, 2006. The BLM provided comments on 

this plan in an October 23, 2006 email to the FERC staff. On December 28, 2006, the USFS 

provided the FERC staff with comments on Pacific Connector’s second draft cultural resources 

report filed on December 5, 2006, that included corrections to the discovery plan. Pacific 

Connector’s application included a revised unanticipated discovery plan as Appendix 4H to 

environmental Resource Report 4, that was intended to address the BLM and USFS comments. 

The FERC staff has reviewed the plan included with Pacific Connector’s application, and we 

believe that it still requires some additional revisions. 

4.10.3 Compliance with the NHPA 

We have not yet completed the process of complying with the NHPA for this Project. For 

example, not all ethnographic studies and results of consultations with Indian tribes to identify 

traditional cultural properties, or sites of religious or cultural importance in the APE, in 

accordance with section 101(d)(6) of the NHPA, Part 800.2(c)(2)(ii), and the AIRFA, have been 

filed with the FERC by Pacific Connector. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-20

Jordan Cove conducted ethnographic research, and consulted with Indian tribes that historically 

occupied or used the area where its proposed LNG terminal would be located. Jordan Cove 

provided the Coos, Coquille, and Siletz tribes with copies of all of its cultural resources reports 

for the LNG Project and requested comments from the tribes on those reports. The Coos Tribes 

indicated to the FERC that the Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be located within their 

ancestral territory, and may be considered a traditional cultural property. The tribes are 

concerned about potential Project impacts on historic tribal villages, prehistoric campsites, and 

graves on the North Spit. Jordan Cove’s archaeological consultant noted that a Native American 

village and burials were reported in the vicinity of the proposed Weyerhaeuser Linerboard 

excavated and dredge material disposal areas. Another historic Indian village may have existed 

in the vicinity of the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile area. Other unrecorded prehistoric sites 

have been reported at the proposed LNG terminal. Archaeological testing and monitoring of 

construction at proposed LNG facilities has been recommended, and the FERC staff and the 

SHPO agree this future work should be done. 

As discussed above (in section 4.10.2.1), we do not believe that LNG marine traffic on the 

waterway to the LNG terminal would have any adverse effects on historic properties located 

within the Zones of Concern. The only element of the proposed LNG terminal project lacking an 

inventory is the in-bay slurry pipeline between the slip and access channel and the Port 

Commercial Sand Stockpile area. Jordan Cove thinks there is a low potential for submerged 

resources in the bay. However, it agreed to monitor shoreline construction activities, and 

proposed to execute an MOU with various tribes. The MOU would commit Jordan Cove to 

conducting additional archaeological investigations in upland areas, including deep testing, 

augering, and probing, and monitoring of construction at specific Project-related locations with a 

high potential to contain cultural resources. 

We have directed Pacific Connector to conduct an ethnographic study that includes consultations 

with Indian tribes that historically used or occupied the Project area, and seeks to identify 

traditional cultural properties or properties of cultural or religious importance. During scoping 

the Cow Creek Tribe identified an area that contains a traditional cultural property of importance 

to the tribe, and Pacific Connector has re-routed its pipeline in that area to avoid that site. We 

expect that the results of Pacific Connector’s ethnographic study and further consultations with 

tribes would be included in a revised survey report to be filed with the FERC by June 2009. 

The SHPO reviewed Pacific Connector’s cultural resources inventory report in a letter dated July 

11, 2008, and requested additional information. Pacific Connector also needs to provide the 

results of archaeological testing at unevaluated sites that cannot be avoided. In a January 21, 

2009 filing, Pacific Connector indicated it would file, by June 2009, a revised cultural resources 

report, including survey and testing data from the 2007 and 2008 field seasons. 

For about 12 percent of the pipeline route, access to private parcels was denied by the 

landowners. Pacific Connector cannot complete the inventory and testing of sites on those 

parcels until after the FERC has issued a Certificate for the pipeline, and the company could use 

the power of eminent domain under section 7h of the NGA to obtain access. Additional surveys 

on non-federal lands where access was previously denied, and testing at some sites, would have 

to been done after the FERC issues an Order, but before we would allow construction to begin. 
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4.10-21

Once cultural resources surveys and site evaluations are completed, the FERC, in consultation 

with the cooperating agencies and the SHPO, would make determinations of NRHP eligibility 

and project effects. If any historic properties would be affected by the Project, we would seek 

ways to resolve adverse effects. Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would need to file treatment 

plans outlining mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects at individual affected historic 

properties, for the review and approval by the FERC, SHPO, and appropriate cooperating 

agencies and consulting parties. If data recovery is necessary to mitigate impacts on historic 

properties that would be adversely affected, the FERC would execute a Memorandum of 

Agreement, in accordance with the ACHP regulations at 36 CFR 800. 

To ensure that the Commission’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing 

regulations are met, we recommend that: 

• Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector should not construct or use any of their 

respective proposed facilities, including related ancillary areas for staging, storage, 

temporary work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads, until: 

a. Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector each file with the Secretary the results of all 

additional cultural resource surveys, ethnographic studies, site evaluation 

investigations, a historic properties management plan, revised unanticipated 

discovery plan, and any necessary avoidance/treatment plans; 

b. Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector each file with the Secretary the comments of 

land managing agencies, the SHPO, and interested Indian tribes on all cultural 

resources reports or plans; 

c. The ACHP has been given an opportunity to comment if any historic properties 

would be adversely effected by the Project; and 

d. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources reports and 

plans, and notifies Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector in writing that treatment 

plans/mitigation measures may be implemented or construction may proceed. 

All materials filed with the Commission containing location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any 

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.”