ES-1 Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector Gas 

Pipeline Project, proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (Jordan Cove) and Pacific Connector 

Gas Pipeline, L.P. (Pacific Connector), has been prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to fulfill the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Commission’s implementing regulations under 

Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380. The purpose of this document is to inform the public 

and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed Project and its alternatives, and to recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or 

reduce any significant adverse impacts. 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act, and is the lead 

federal agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of the NEPA. The 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard (Coast Guard); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

Douglas County, Oregon are cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. A cooperating 

agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts 

associated with the Project. 

The Coast Guard has authority over the safety and security of LNG carriers, and the waterway for 

LNG marine traffic. The Coast Guard determines the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine 

traffic by issuing a Letter of Recommendation (LOR). The COE has authority to issue dredging and 

wetland permits for the Project under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA has responsibilities under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CWA. 

The DOT has authority to enforce safety regulations and standards for the LNG terminal beginning at 

the last valve before the LNG storage tanks and the design and operation of the natural gas sendout 

pipeline. The BLM is responsible for issuing a Right-of-Way Grant across federal lands, under the 

Mineral Leasing Act, with the concurrence of the USFS and BOR. 

All actions on federal lands proposed in Pacific Connector’s application must comply with the 

respective Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) of the affected federal land management 

agencies. In implementing the NEPA process to assess the proposed action on federal lands, this EIS 

is tiered by reference to these management plans, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

or the BLM’s December 2008 Western Oregon Plan Revisions. To be consistent with the NWFP, 

the USFS may need to amend the existing Umpqua, Rouge River, and Winema National Forest 

LRMPs to account for some Project activities, prior to issuance of a federal Right-of-Way Grant. 

The BLM has indicated that the Project may be consistent with the December 2008 revised Resource 

Management Plans for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area. The EIS examines the proposed action and alternatives that require amendment or 

other administrative actions by the federal land management agencies. 
ES-2 Executive Summary 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The purpose of Jordan Cove’s and Pacific Connector’s proposed action (collectively referred to as 

the JCE & PCGP Project, or Project) is to provide a new access point for LNG supplies and a new 

source of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest, northern California, and northern Nevada markets to 

diversify the supply sources for these markets. Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector propose to 

provide up to 1.0 billion standard cubic feet per day of natural gas to the region through interconnects 

existing natural gas pipeline systems. 

The LNG terminal facilities would include: 

• an access channel between the existing Coos Bay navigation channel and slip; 

• an LNG unloading berth and transfer pipeline; 

• two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with capacity 160,000 cubic meters (m3) (or 

1,006,000 barrels); 

• a vapor handling system, and vaporization equipment capable of regasifying the LNG for 

delivery into the natural gas sendout pipeline; 

• piping, ancillary buildings, safety systems, and other support facilities; 

• a natural gas liquids (NGL) extraction facility, with the NGL to be sold to another entity and 

transported from the terminal using existing, but inactive, rail lines; and 

• a 37-megawatt, natural gas-fired, simple-cycle combustion turbine powerplant to provide 

electric power for the LNG terminal. 

The natural gas pipeline facilities would include: 

• a 234-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter, underground high-pressure welded steel sendout pipeline; 

and 

• one natural gas compressor station, four natural gas meter stations, four pig1

 launchers and/or 

receivers, sixteen mainline block valves, five new communication towers, and additional 

communications equipment installed at eight existing towers. 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would deliver natural gas to the Williams Northwest Pipeline 

Corporation (Williams Northwest) Grants Pass Lateral interstate pipeline near Clarks Branch, 

Oregon, and would terminate near the California border, east of Malin, Oregon, with 

interconnections with the existing natural gas systems of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, 

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The Pacific 

Connector pipeline would also deliver gas to Avista Corporation, a local distribution company that is 

not regulated by the FERC, at an interconnection near Shady Cove, Oregon. 

In addition to the LNG terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities, the JCE & PCGP Project would 

require construction of facilities that do not fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction. These include 

electric generation and NGL facilities at the LNG terminal, utility connections at the LNG terminal 

and compressor and meter stations, and facilities that might be constructed by Avista as a result of 

the interconnect to the Pacific Connector pipeline. 

 

1

 A “pig” is a tool for cleaning and inspecting the inside of a pipeline. 
ES-3 Executive Summary 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

As part of the Commission’s Pre-filing Process, on June 23, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent 

to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific 

Connector Gas Pipeline Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of a 

Joint Public Meeting. This notice was sent to elected federal, state, and local government officials; 

agency representatives; environmental and public interest organizations; Native American tribes; 

affected landowners as identified by the applicants; and local libraries and newspapers. The notice 

encouraged Project stakeholders or interested parties to provide input on environmental issues that 

should be addressed during the environmental review process. Between the beginning of Pre-filing 

and the filing of applications we received 332 letters commenting on the proposed Project. The 

FERC conducted seven public scoping meetings in the Project area to provide an opportunity for the 

public to learn more about the Project and to provide comments on environmental issues to be 

addressed in this EIS. The public scoping meeting in Coos Bay on July 12, 2006, was held jointly 

with the Coast Guard. Additional public meetings were held in North Bend (January 24, 2007), 

Roseburg (July 10, 2006 and January 23, 2007), Medford (July 12, 2006 and January 25, 2007), and 

Klamath Falls (February 13, 2006). 

The FERC issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS on August 29, 2008. The 

NOA established a 90-day period for comments on the draft EIS, ending on December 4, 2008. 

The 90-day comment period was established to satisfy public review requirements of the federal 

land managing agencies for possible LRMP amendments. The FERC mailed approximately 

1,900 copies of the draft EIS to interested parties, including federal, state, and local officials and 

agencies; special interest groups; parties to the proceedings; area libraries and newspapers; and 

individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS. On September 19, 

2008, the FERC issued a notice announcing the time, date, and location of four public comment 

meetings to take comments on the draft EIS. 

Comments from the public meetings, as well as written comments on the draft EIS submitted by 

the public and agencies, are provided along with our responses in Appendix J. This final EIS is 

being mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations shown on the mailing list in 

Appendix A. 

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

We2

 evaluated the impacts of the Project, as reduced by Jordan Cove’s and Pacific Connector’s 

proposed mitigation measures, on geology, soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, 

special status species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, 

noise, and safety. Where necessary, we have recommended additional mitigation measures to 

minimize or avoid these impacts. We also considered the cumulative impacts of this Project with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Project area. Section 5.2 of the EIS 

contains a compilation of our 131 recommended mitigation measures. 

The major issues identified in our analysis are geologic hazards, dredging-related impacts, potential 

impacts on waterbodies and wetlands, forest clearing, federally listed endangered and threatened 

species, visual resources, cultural resources, and safety. These are discussed below. 

 

2

 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 
ES-4 Executive Summary 

Geology and Soils 

The proposed LNG terminal is within the active Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ); however, no 

faults are reported at the LNG terminal site, and the Coos Bay area is located in a region with 

historically (last 170 years) moderate seismic activity. Lateral spreading poses a potential problem 

for the site. A further series of geotechnical studies would be performed during detailed design, and 

ground improvement would be used to mitigate the hazard. A tsunami generated by a megathrust 

earthquake on the CSZ would present inundation risk at the site, with the maximum calculated 

inundation estimated at about 21 feet above MSL. Jordan Cove has proposed construction of a 

protective 55-foot-high storm surge barrier around the LNG storage tanks, and foundations for other 

structures would be installed at an elevation higher than the predicted tsunami runups. We are 

recommending that Jordan Cove retain a Board of Consultants to review the final LNG terminal 

design and perform construction and quality inspections to ensure that final site improvement designs 

would satisfy both the FERC Seismic Guidelines and the 2007 Oregon Structural Safety Specialty 

Code. Pacific Connector selected the proposed pipeline route to avoid areas with high risk of 

geological hazards; however, the proposed route in the Klamath Falls area would cross an area that 

has experienced numerous earthquakes. Empirical reviews of historical earthquakes demonstrate 

that welded steel pipelines are not prone to failure due to earthquakes. The pipeline would also cross 

two known moderate-risk rapidly moving landslide sites, and previously unidentified landslides or 

new landslides could affect the pipeline after installation. Pacific Connector would conduct 

monitoring of potential landslide areas to prevent damage to the pipeline. 

Permanent impacts to soils would occur at the proposed aboveground facilities where sites would be 

graveled or where permanent facilities would be constructed. Longterm impacts on soils are not 

anticipated within areas temporarily affected by pipeline construction. Potential impacts on soils 

would be minimized through measures specified in Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures and Pacific 

Connector’s Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan (ECRP). These plans were based on the FERC 

staff’s Plan and Procedures, and Pacific Connector’s ECRP was also modified based on input from 

the BLM and USFS. 

Water and Wetlands 

Water requirements for the LNG terminal would be supplied by the Coos Bay North Bend Water 

Board (CBNBWB). There are no public groundwater supply wells within 400 feet of the proposed 

pipeline; however, the pipeline would cross six wellhead protection areas. Pacific Connector 

identified five private wells within 200 feet of the proposed pipeline, but none of these are used for 

drinking water. Groundwater wells beyond 200 feet of the construction work areas are not expected 

to be adversely affected by the proposed Project. 

Dredging the slip and access channel would have limited temporary impacts on water quality in Coos 

Bay. About 28.25 million gallons of water obtained from the CBNBWB would be used to hydrotest 

the LNG storage tanks, of which about 10 million gallons would be retained in the firewater pond on 

site and the remaining 18.25 million gallons would be discharged to an existing, permitted, industrial 

wastewater pipeline that drains into the Pacific Ocean. During operation, the submerged combustion 

vaporizer would produce excess water that would be slightly acidic but would be neutralized before 

being transferred to the firewater pond, and then discharged through the existing industrial 

wastewater pipeline. Jordan Cove would apply for a new National Pollutant Discharge and 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit for this discharge. No ballast water from LNG carriers would 

be discharged into Coos Bay during their transit to the terminal. However, once at dock each LNG 
ES-5 Executive Summary 

carrier would take in water from Coos Bay for ballast and engine cooling during offloading 

operations. 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross 218 waterbodies (some multiple times) within six (Coos, 

Coquille, South Umpqua, Upper Rogue, Upper Klamath, and Lost River) hydrological subbasins. 

The pipeline would be installed under three major rives (Coos, Rogue, and Klamath) using horizontal 

directional drills, while three waterbodies (Kentuck Slough, Catching Slough, and the Medford 

Aqueduct) would be bored, one river (South Umpqua) would have diverted crossings, and the 

remainder of the waterbodies would be dry crossed, except for the open cut wet crossing of a portion 

of Coos Bay. Pacific Connector’s current proposed route reduced the crossing of the Coos Bay 

estuary to less than 2.5 miles. Pipeline construction at waterbody crossings would be in accordance 

with all federal and state regulations and permit requirements, and Pacific Connector would 

minimize impacts by following its ECRP. Installation of the pipeline would have only temporary 

impacts on waterbodies. The pipeline would be buried below scour depth, would not create new 

channels, would not result in long term sedimentation or turbidity, and would not increase water 

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

regulations. Pacific Connector would follow procedures during hydrostatic testing to not greatly 

reduce water levels as source locations, lessen erosion potential at release points, and prevent the 

transport of pathogens between hydrologic basins. 

Construction and operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal facilities would not directly affect 

wetlands, except for about 0.1 acre at the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile site. Construction of the 

slip and access channel would result in the permanent loss of 6.8 acres of submerged aquatic 

vegetation. The Pacific Connector pipeline would cross approximately 11.5 miles of wetlands 

affecting about 251.7 acres. Construction and operation of the pipeline would result in the 

permanently filling of 0.14 acre of wetlands. The remaining wetlands affected by the pipeline would 

be restored, although forested wetlands within the maintained pipeline right-of-way would be 

converted to herbaceous or shrub-scrub wetlands. Jordan Cove would reduce temporary impacts on 

wetlands by following its project-specific Plan and Procedures, and Pacific Connector would follow 

its ECRP. The Port, Jordan Cove, and Pacific Connector have developed plans for mitigating long 

term impacts on aquatic vegetation and wetlands, including the creation of new wetland habitat at 

off-site locations. 

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

We identified essential fish habitat (EFH) for groundfish, coastal pelagic species, Pacific Coast 

salmon, and highly migratory species within the proposed Project area. We consolidated EFH 

consultations for the proposed Project with the consultations required under the ESA, and have 

included an EFH assessment with our Biological Assessment for the Project, to be submitted to the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and FWS at about the same time as the final EIS is issued. Based on modeling results it is 

anticipated that turbidity generated by dredging the access channel and slip would not present an 

adverse impact to the aquatic species located in the vicinity of the dredging. We identified 29 

federally listed endangered or threatened species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project. We conclude that the proposed Project would likely adversely affect eight federally listed 

species. 
ES-6 Executive Summary 

Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Areas within the Zones of Concern along the LNG transit route include the unincorporated 

communities of Charleston, Barview, and Empire; the city of North Bend; and a portion of the city of 

Coos Bay. The Zones of Concern also overlap the Coos Bay Shorelands Special Recreation 

Management Area, portions of the Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge, the Siuslaw National 

Forest, and some state and local parks. Under normal operations, LNG carriers transiting the 

waterway would have no adverse impacts on current land uses, recreation, or visual resources. 

The LNG terminal would be located on a tract of about 160 acres of vacant, open land, including a 

former dredged material disposal area zoned for water dependant development. There are no 

residences closer than 1 mile from the proposed LNG terminal. The most visible part of the LNG 

terminal would be the LNG storage tanks. Visual impact of the LNG terminal in general would be 

minor because views would be screened by landscape, topography, and distance and the site is within 

an existing industrial area. 

The majority of the pipeline route (62 percent) would cross forested land, and 14 percent of the route 

is categorized as agricultural land. The pipeline centerline would be within 50 feet of one residence, 

and the edge of the construction right-of-way would be within 50 feet of 13 residences. We are 

recommending that Pacific Connector prepare site-specific plans to mitigate impacts on residences 

within 25 feet of the construction right-of-way. The main visual impact from construction of the 

pipeline would be from the clearing of forest. Pacific Connector has developed an Aesthetics 

Management Plan to lessen visual impacts at key observation points, such as heavily traveled 

highway crossings. 

Cultural Resources 

Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector have conducted cultural resource inventories covering the 

LNG terminal facilities, and all but 31 miles of the proposed pipeline route. Further 

investigations at some archaeological sites are necessary before the FERC, in consultations with 

the cooperating agencies and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, can make 

determinations of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and potential Project 

effects. While the FERC staff and the applicants have consulted with Indian tribes to learn their 

concerns, and identify sites of religious or cultural importance to the tribes, Pacific Connector 

has not yet submitted its ethnographic study. Once cultural resource investigations are finished, 

Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would develop treatment plans to resolve adverse effects at 

NRHP eligible properties, for our review and approval, and the FERC would provide the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the undertaking, as 

required by section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act. We have recommended that no 

construction begin until after we complete the section 106 compliance process. 

Safety and Reliability 

We evaluated the safety of both the proposed facilities and the related LNG carrier transit through the 

Coos Bay navigation channel. As part of our evaluation, we performed a cryogenic design and 

technical review of the proposed terminal design and safety systems including the proposed seismic 

design measures. Several areas of concern were noted with respect to the proposed facility, and we 

identified specific recommendations to be addressed by Jordan Cove prior to initial site preparation, 

prior to final design, prior to construction, prior to commissioning, and prior to commencement of 

service. 
ES-7 Executive Summary 

Thermal radiation distances and flammable gas dispersion distances were calculated for the LNG 

facility. Because portions of the exclusion zones extend beyond the plant fence line, Jordan Cove 

entered into an option for an easement with the Port to satisfy the exclusion zone requirements of 49 

CFR 193. This option for an easement would give Jordan Cove legal control over the land which 

would be covered by the exclusion zone. 

Thermal radiation and flammable vapor hazard distances were calculated for an accident or an attack 

on a 148,000 m3

 capacity LNG carrier. The results of these calculations are in agreement with the 

Zones of Concern used by the Coast Guard in assessing the waterway suitability. However, the 

evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of worst-case scenarios. 

Rather, it is a determination of the acceptability of risk which considers: the probability of events, the 

effect of mitigation, and the consequences of events. Based on the extensive operational experience 

of LNG shipping, the structural design of an LNG carrier, and the operational controls imposed by 

the Coast Guard and the local pilots, the likelihood of a cargo containment failure and subsequent 

LNG spill from a vessel casualty is highly unlikely. As a result, the risk to the public from accidental 

spills from LNG carriers should be considered negligible. 

Unlike accidental causes, historical experience provides little guidance in estimating the probability 

of a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier. For an LNG import terminal proposal that would involve 

having a large volume of energy transported and stored, the perceived threat of a terrorist attack is a 

primary concern of the local population and requires that resources be directed to mitigate possible 

attack paths. While the risks associated with the transportation of any hazardous cargo can never be 

entirely eliminated, they can be managed. 

If an accidental or intentional breach of an LNG carrier resulting in a release of LNG were to occur 

during transit along the waterway, impacts on the various environmental resources within the Zones 

of Concern could result. LNG would not contaminate water, because it is not soluble, it floats, and 

the LNG would vaporize shortly after being spilled. The primary hazard from an LNG spill would 

be a pool fire if the vapors are ignited. A pool fire could have adverse affects on vegetation, wildlife, 

structures, and people. In general, the effects of an LNG release and any resulting fire would be 

fairly limited in area and short-lived. The severity and duration of the impacts would vary depending 

on the resource and its distance from the source, as resources in Zone 1 would be more severely 

impacted than resources in Zone 3. However, with implementation of the risk management measures 

recommended by the Coast Guard’s Waterway Suitability Report (WSR), a release would be highly 

unlikely and the potential impact on resources would be less than significant. 

Based on its review of Jordan Cove’s Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA), the Coast Guard 

advised the FERC in its WSR dated July 1, 2008 that to make the Coos Bay navigation channel 

suitable for the LNG marine traffic, specific risk mitigation measures would be necessary. These 

measures would include, among others, a 500-yard moving safety and security zone around LNG 

carriers in transit, and a 150-yard fixed security zone around the LNG carriers moored at the 

proposed LNG terminal. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Alternatives considered by the FERC include no action or postponed action, system alternatives, 

LNG terminal site alternatives, LNG terminal layout alternatives, and pipeline route alternatives. 

While denying Project approval or taking no action (or postponing action) would avoid the 
ES-8 Executive Summary 

environmental impacts identified in this EIS, the objective would not be met of providing a new 

source of natural gas for the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and Northern Nevada. 

We considered five newly proposed jurisdictional interstate pipelines as possible system alternatives 

to the proposed JCE & PCGP Project. We do not consider the Palomar project to be a preferable 

alternative because it could not meet one of the main objectives, to provide new sources of natural 

gas through imported LNG to markets in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, and northern California. 

We do not consider the Sunstone, Blue Bridge, Ruby, or Bronco pipeline projects to be 

environmentally preferable alternatives because they would be substantially longer than the proposed 

Pacific Connector pipeline. If these projects submit applications to the FERC, we would review each 

project individually, on its own merits. If the Commission authorizes any of these projects, market 

conditions would determine which infrastructure is ultimately put into service. 

We considered if other LNG import terminals proposed for the west coast of North America could 

serve as reasonable alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed JCE & PCGP Project. The 

existing Costa Azul LNG terminal in Baja Mexico is too far away from the target market in southern 

Oregon, and is committed to servicing customers in northern Mexico and southern California. One 

(Kitimat) of the two LNG terminals proposed in British Columbia, Canada has been transformed into 

an export facility, while the other (Westport) has not received all its permits. The other LNG 

terminals proposed in California have not been authorized. We concluded that none of these projects 

would meet all the objectives of the proposed Project. 

We considered alternative LNG terminal locations along the coast of northern California, Oregon, 

and Washington that would be accessible to LNG carriers and within a reasonable distance of an 

interstate pipeline system, and eliminated sites with harbors too shallow to handle LNG carriers, or 

having other constraints that have prevented them so far from being considered by potential 

developers as LNG import terminals. The FERC recently authorized the Bradwood Landing LNG 

project on the Columbia River, which includes a 36.3-mile sendout pipeline in Oregon and 

Washington. The Oregon LNG project in Warrenton, Oregon, and its associated 121-mile-long 

sendout pipeline, are currently being evaluated. We do not consider either Bradwood or Oregon 

LNG to be preferable alternatives to the proposed Project because neither were conceived to serve 

markets in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, and northern California. 

In the draft EIS we recommended eight route variations as having environmental advantages over the 

September 2007 application route, and Pacific Connector has revised its proposed route to 

incorporate those segments. Pacific Connector also made slight modifications to its proposed route, 

which we reviewed and found acceptable, to avoid specific resources, such as threatened and 

endangered species, as recommended in the draft EIS. We evaluated other route variations in this 

final EIS that do not appear to be environmentally superior to the proposed route, and we did not 

recommend that those alternatives be adopted. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

We conclude that construction and operation of the JCE & PCGP Project would result in some 

adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than- 
ES-9 Executive Summary 

significant levels with the implementation of the applicants’ proposed mitigation measures and the 

additional measures we recommend in the final EIS. The primary reasons for our decision are: 

• the final engineering design for the LNG terminal would incorporate detailed seismic 

specifications and other measures to mitigate the impacts of earthquakes, and mitigation 

measures would be implemented along the pipeline route to address landslides and other 

geological hazards; 

• an engineering peer review process is recommended to ensure compliance with all applicable 

regulations, codes, design specifications, and conditions of the Commission Order; 

• Jordan Cove would implement its project-specific Upland Erosion Control and Revegetation 

Plan and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, and Pacific 

Connector would implement its project-specific ECRP, which would minimize impacts on 

soils, wetlands, and water resources; 

• Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would implement various mitigation plans to compensate 

for impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation, and habitats; 

• Pacific Connector would continue to consult with the BLM, USFS, and BOR to address 

impacts and mitigation measures on federal lands managed by these agencies, and would 

incorporate project-specific design and mitigation measures into Plans of Development for 

each affected federal land unit; 

• consultations with the COE, Coast Guard, NMFS, FWS, Oregon Department of Land 

Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon 

Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, SHPO, and other 

appropriate agencies and issuance of relevant permits and authorizations would be completed 

before Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would be allowed to begin construction; 

• the proposed LNG terminal would meet the federal safety regulations regarding the thermal 

radiation and flammable vapor dispersion exclusion zones, and appropriate safety features 

would be incorporated into the design and operation of the LNG import terminal and LNG 

carriers; and 

• an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program would be implemented to 

ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of any FERC 

authorization. 

In addition, our conclusions are based on the Coast Guard’s preliminary determination in the WSR 

that the waterway may be suitable for LNG marine traffic if additional risk management measures 

and operational controls are implemented. Some of these recommended measures and controls 

include: 

• a 500-yard moving safety/security zone around the LNG carrier during transit of the 

waterway, and a 150-yard fixed security zone while the LNG carrier is moored; 

• a security zone covering the entire LNG terminal slip and extending 25 yards into the 

waterway when there is not a vessel at the dock; 

• a restriction on the size of LNG carriers transiting the Port of Coos Bay to a vessel with 

physical dimensions of a 148,000 m3

 and capacity class vessel; 

• requirement that LNG vessels must board Pilot(s) at least 5 miles outside the Coos Bay sea 

buoy; 

• requirement that for the first 6 months, all transits must be during daylight hours, unless 

approved in advance by the Captain of the Port; 
ES-10 Executive Summary 

• LNG carrier transits and bar crossings must be coordinated to minimize conflicts with other 

deep-draft vessels, recreational boaters, seasonal fisheries, and other marine events; 

• escort of the vessel by at least two tugs along the waterway with a third to assist with turning 

and mooring; 

• requirement that LNG carrier transit is limited to periods of high tide and 25 knot winds or 

less; 

• installation of four new navigational aids and relocation of eight existing aids; 

• a Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System must be contracted with NOAA to provide 

real-time river, current, and weather data; 

• augmentation of regional emergency response planning resources to adequately develop, and 

continuously update, regional emergency response procedures; 

• augmentation of shoreside firefighting capabilities to provide protection services to the 

facility as well as communities along the transit route; 

• implementation of a comprehensive public notification system to notify the public along the 

transit route, including deployment of associate equipment and training; and 

• installation of gas detection equipment at strategic points along the waterway, and 

appropriate training and maintenance infrastructure.