4.9-1 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic

4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 

4.9.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

Existing marine traffic along the waterway includes cargo ships that call at Coos Bay, tugs and 

barges, and fishing and recreational boats. According to the Port, 36 deep draft vessels called at 

Coos Bay in 2006. There are no records kept for the number of tugs and barges that may use the 

waterway, but anecdotal information provided in Jordan Cove’s WSA indicated that up to 400 

tugs and barges utilize the port annually. The tugs and barges are shallow draft vessels and are 

not constrained to stay within the deep draft navigation channel. 

In 2006 the ODFW (2007) counted 71 commercial fishing vessels home ported at Coos Bay, that 

concentrated on groundfish. There are a total of 537 slips available within the inner and outer 

basins of the Charleston Marina. Of these, 278 slips can accommodate trollers and trawlers 

larger than 24 feet in length (Dyer Partnership 2007). The OSMB (2005) counted 30,996 

recreational boat trips in Coos Bay in 2004, with 88 percent of those trips related to fishing. 

Jordan Cove stated that up to 80 LNG carriers per year could come to call at its import terminal 

in Coos Bay. The Coast Guard’s WSR limits the size of these carriers to 148,000 m3 in capacity

or less. Jordan Cove’s simulation study indicated that carriers with capacities of 148,000 m3 

could successfully transit up the Coos Bay navigation channel as it is currently configured, under 

certain conditions, such at slack high tide, with specific aids to navigation moved or added 

(Moffatt & Nichol 2008). 

Typical operations for LNG carriers calling on the proposed LNG terminal are discussed in 

section 2.7.1 of this EIS. Safety and security measures relating to LNG marine traffic are 

described in detail in section 4.12.5 of this EIS. In its WSR, the Coast Guard identified the need 

for a moving safety/security zone of 500 yards around each LNG carrier in transit in the 

waterway to the terminal. However, the Coast Guard states in its WSR that the expectation is the 

Coast Guard’s representative would work with the Pilots and patrol assets to control traffic, and 

would allow other vessels to transit the safety/security zone on a case-by-case basis (see WSR in 

Appendix B). 

Currently, deep draft cargo vessels enter and exit the port under the control of a Coos Bay Pilot. 

The navigation channel provides for only a single lane of deep draft traffic. The Coast Guard’s 

WSR recognizes this, and requires that Jordan Cove develop a Traffic Management Plan, in 

coordination with the Coos Bay Pilots Association, tug operators, and security escorts, to 

minimize conflicts between LNG carriers in route to and from the terminal and other deep draft 

commercial vessels, and fishing and recreational boats. 

The Pilots currently encounter an average of six recreational boats and two commercial fishing 

boats during the transit of each deep draft vessel in the navigation channel. These numbers tend 

to be lower in winter and on weekdays. LNG carriers would most likely transit in the waterway 

at slack high tide during daylight hours, with the travel time between the offshore buoy at the 

beginning of the waterway to the proposed LNG terminal estimated to be about 90 minutes, at 

typical speeds between 10 and 4 knots. The Pilots indicated that they would not allow an LNG 

carrier to enter the navigation channel under severe weather conditions, or when the volume of 
4.9-2 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

other ship traffic in the channel is so heavy that transit to the LNG terminal could be potentially 

unsafe. 

Effects on fishing and recreational boats from LNG marine traffic in the waterway would be 

similar to current deep draft cargo traffic to the port. In general, as deep draft vessels enter the 

channel, other boats move out of their way, and boats in the ocean near the mouth of the channel 

defer entering the channel until the larger ships have passed. The escort boats accompanying 

each LNG carrier would facilitate moving other boats out of the way in a timely manner. As 

they presently do for other commercial cargo traffic, the Coast Guard and OSMB would remind 

recreational boaters of their obligation to not impede deep draft vessels transiting in the 

waterway. 

Interactions between deep draft vessels and other boats rarely occur in Coos Bay. The likelihood 

of collisions between LNG carriers and other vessels is low because the boats escorting each 

LNG carrier would help keep other boats out of the way. Non-routine events may infrequently 

occur, such as a recreational boat moving more slowly than expected, or a boat may follow an 

LNG carrier too closely. If, for example, a recreational boat were to lose power and be unable to 

move out of the way of an LNG carrier, the escort boats could come to its assistance. 

Other boats may be delayed up to 30 minutes waiting for the passage of an LNG carrier. Boats 

in Charleston Marina ready to head out to sea may have to wait about 20 minutes for an LNG 

carrier to pass before entering the channel. Based on a total of 80 LNG carriers visiting the 

proposed terminal each year, Jordan Cove estimates that LNG marine traffic in the waterway 

could potentially impact recreational and other boating activity during about 1.3 percent of 

annual daylight hours (ECONorthwest 2006c). Delays related to LNG carrier traffic would 

occur on average once every 4.5 days. These delays would be similar to those that occur during 

the current passage of a deep draft cargo vessel. 

We do not believe LNG marine traffic in the waterway should not have any significant or long 

term impacts on other boats in Coos Bay. Given the recommended measures outlined in the 

Coast Guard’s WSR, the possibility of an incident resulting in an LNG spill from a carrier in 

transit in the waterway, and an associated pool fire if the LNG vapors were to be ignited, is 

remote. The safety and security zones around LNG carriers should protect other vessels from 

harm if an unforeseen event should happen. 

4.9.2 LNG Terminal 

4.9.2.1 Marine Traffic 

While an LNG carrier is moored at berth at the terminal, the Coast Guard’s WSR recommends 

the imposition of a 150 yard security zone around the carrier, to include the entire slip. When no 

LNG carrier is at berth at the terminal, the security zone would extend 25 yards from the slip into 

Coos Bay. This security zone would not extend as far as the Coos Bay navigation channel, and 

would not affect vessels transiting in the channel. However, other boats in Coos Bay on the west 

side of the navigation channel would have to move around the terminal security zone. This 

should not be a difficult task, as they would only need to move 25 yards east from the shore. 

Therefore, use of the terminal slip by LNG carriers should not significantly impact other boats in 

Coos Bay. 
4.9-3 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

4.9.2.2 Motor Vehicle Traffic 

Primary access to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be provided by a new road that would 

cross the Roseburg property and intersect with the existing Jordan Cove Road. The TransPacific Parkway connects Jordan Cove Road to the Oregon Coast Highway (U.S. Highway 101) 

via a causeway that extends across Hayes Inlet to the North Spit. Secondary emergency access 

would be provided by a second access road on the north side of the LNG terminal parcel. This 

road would be gated and connect directly to the Trans-Pacific Parkway. 

The Trans-Pacific Parkway provides the main vehicular access to the North Spit. About 0.5 mile 

east of the intersection with Jordan Cove Road there is a turn off to the northwest for Horsfall 

Beach Road, which provides access to the Oregon Dunes NRA. The locations of these roads are 

shown in figure 4.9-1. 

A Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by David Evans & Associates, Inc. (DEA) for Jordan 

Cove1 estimated that in the 3-year time frame between 2002 and 2004 daily traffic on Highway 

101 at the intersection with the Trans-Pacific Parkway averaged 12,450 vehicles. Traffic levels 

along this section of Highway 101 vary throughout the year, with substantially larger traffic 

flows during the summer months, largely because Highway 101 is a link to popular destinations 

on the Oregon coastline. 

DEA revised the Transportation Impact Analysis for the project in 2008.2 The analysis was 

revised to incorporate updated traffic data and changes to a key assumption regarding temporary 

offsite parking for construction workers. The updated traffic data collected in June 2008 more 

accurately reflect seasonal high traffic flows than the February 2006 data used in the original 

study. These data are used in the updated report to address any reliability concerns related to the 

out-of-season (i.e., February) data used in the original report. The assumption in the 2006 

analysis that construction workers would park at an off-site lot near the south end of the 

McCullough Bridge and be bussed to and from the construction site was subsequently deemed 

nonviable for a number of reasons (Snuffin 2008), and the analysis was revised to evaluate the 

effects of more intensive traffic loading as workers commute directly to and from the proposed 

LNG terminal site. 

Construction 

During peak construction at month 18, it is estimated that approximately 930 people would be 

working daily at the Jordan Cove terminal. The updated Transportation Impact Analysis 

prepared for this Project estimated that this would result in 715 inbound and outbound vehicle 

trips each day (based on an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.3 persons per vehicle). 

Material deliveries to the site are assumed to be limited to bulk materials required to produce 

concrete in an onsite concrete batch plant. These deliveries would occur throughout the 

construction phase at the LNG terminal, peaking at 24 material deliveries (48 truck trips) per 

day. Material deliveries would typically occur during off-peak periods and are assumed to have 

a minimal impact on traffic operations (Snuffin 2008). 

 

1

 Snuffin, C., 31 July 2006, Jordan Cove Energy Project Transportation Impact Study. This report was filed with Jordan Cove’s 

application to the FERC on September 4, 2007, as part of Appendix B.5 in environmental Resource Report 5. 2

 Snuffin, C., October 2008, Jordan Cove Energy Project Transportation Impact Analysis Update. This report was filed with the 

FERC on behalf of Jordan Cove on November 6, 2008.
4.9-4 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

Figure 4.9-1 Roads in the Vicinity of the Proposed LNG Terminal 
4.9-5 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

All construction activities would occur during a single 10-hour shift, with a 30-minute lunch 

break (6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). For the purposes of analysis, all personnel traffic in the morning 

was assumed to be inbound to the site, while all afternoon personnel traffic was assumed to be 

outbound. The arrival and departure of employees was assumed to occur at a relatively constant 

rate over the course of each of the peak arrival and departure hours. In other words, arrivals and 

departures were assumed to be evenly distributed over a 60-minute period, rather than clustered 

at starting or quitting time. 

DEA’s analysis examined potential impacts from terminal construction-related traffic at four 

intersections: 

• Highway 101 at the Trans-Pacific Parkway 

• Highway 101 at North Bay Drive 

• Highway 101 at East Bay Drive 

• Trans-Pacific Parkway at Jordan Cove Road 

The results of this analysis indicated that all of these intersections would operate adequately 

during the weekday morning peak hour, with the exception of Highway 101 at East Bay Drive. 

During peak seasonal traffic and peak construction traffic (assuming the two would coincide), 

this intersection would operate with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.75, which exceeds the 

ODOT mobility standard of a v/c of 0.70 or less.3 The average vehicle delay was calculated to 

be just over 10 seconds per vehicle and vehicle queues would increase, but would not be worse 

than existing queues during the peak afternoon hour. 

The DEA analysis indicated that traffic at three of the study area intersections would be affected 

during the afternoon peak hour. The analysis found that the eastbound right movement at the 

intersection of Highway 101 and Trans-Pacific Parkway would operate with a v/c of 1.40 under 

total traffic conditions. The queue on the Trans-Pacific Parkway approach to Highway 101 was 

calculated to be about 600 feet. With no mitigation, the intersection could not adequately 

accommodate the expected traffic volumes. Operations at this intersection would be 

characterized by long delays and queuing occurring on a daily basis. Such operational 

conditions could lead to unsafe actions by drivers who become impatient and select smaller gaps 

than they otherwise would. 

During the peak afternoon hour the analysis showed the intersection of Highway 101 at East Bay 

Drive would operate at a v/c of 0.88 under total traffic conditions, which would not meet the 

ODOT mobility standard of 0.70. Despite exceeding the v/c standard, the average delay was 

calculated to be 13.5 seconds, or a level of service (LOS) B.4 The SimTraffic simulation model 

showed only moderate increases in queuing with the longest queue extending about 325 feet on 

the southbound intersection approach. Snuffin (2008) concluded that these results indicate that 

the intersection would operate reasonably well during the short time period of peak construction 

traffic and, therefore, no mitigation should be needed at this intersection. 

 

3

 The v/c ratio compares traffic volume demand to intersection capacity. A ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the volume is less 

than capacity. A v/c ratio close to 0.0 indicates that traffic conditions are generally good with little congestion and low delays for 

most intersection movements. As the ratio approaches 1.0, traffic becomes more congested and unstable with longer delays. 4

 Highway traffic congestion is expressed in terms of Level of Service (LOS) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual 

(HCM). Six standards have been established ranging from LOS A where there is little or no delay, to LOS F, where there is 

delay of more than 50 seconds at unsignalized intersections, or more than 80 seconds at signalized intersections. 
4.9-6 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

The DEA analysis identified failing operations, long queuing, and delays at the intersection of 

Trans-Pacific Parkway and Jordan Cove Road, but noted that the conflicting baseline volumes on 

free-flowing Trans-Pacific Parkway during the peak afternoon hour are very small (35 

westbound vehicles and 55 eastbound vehicles). These potential impacts were based on the 

assumption that each exiting vehicle would stop at the Jordan Cove Road approach to TransPacific Parkway (effectively the site access road). The intersection could operate below capacity 

if manual flagging control was used to facilitate more efficient traffic movement during the 

weekday afternoon peak hour. 

During construction of the terminal slip, about 2.5 mcy of excavated material would be 

transported by truck to the Weyerhaeuser Linerboard disposal sites. The truck haul route would 

extend a total distance of 2.4 miles from the slip to the Linerboard sites. The route would cross a 

previously disturbed portion of the Roseburg property until it intersects with Jordan Cove Road. 

The haul route would then follow Jordan Cove Road for approximately 2,000 feet until it 

intersects with an existing dirt road that provides access to the Linerboard sites. Jordan Cove 

and the Port have committed to allowing the wood chip trucks serving the Roseburg facility to 

have priority on Jordan Cove Road, and would have flag men to stop the haul trucks to give the 

right-of-way to the wood chip trucks. The Port estimates that the material would be hauled from 

the slip to the Linerboard site by 2 trucks a day for 7 months. 

Operation 

Once the LNG terminal is placed in service, regular operation would consist of three daily shifts, 

with a typical shift schedule as follows: 

• Days: 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.—28 employees 

• Swing: 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.—9 employees 

• Grave: 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.—9 employees 

Plant operation shift changes would occur outside peak highway hours, but are assumed to occur 

within the peak hours for the purposes of analysis. Based on all employees driving alone, 37 

passenger vehicle trips would be added to the morning and afternoon peak highway hours. Daily 

truck traffic is expected to be limited to two daily trips (one truck entering and exiting). The 

results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that the addition of these trips to projected 2011 

background traffic levels would have a negligible impact on study area intersections (Snuffin 

2006, 2008). 

Measures to Mitigate Impacts 

With no mitigation in place, construction-related traffic volumes would have significant 

operational impacts, specifically extended vehicular delays and queuing for some traffic 

movements. DEA evaluated a number of mitigation actions and recommended that the following 

measures be employed to reduce construction-related traffic impacts: 

• Temporary signalization at Highway 101 at the Trans-Pacific Parkway—Under 

temporary signalization this intersection would operate below capacity. The DEA 

analysis indicated that the projected weekday afternoon peak hour total traffic volumes 

during construction would meet the criteria for a peak hour signal warrant (Traffic Signal 

Warrant 3) identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. 
4.9-7 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

• Manual flagging control at Trans-Pacific Parkway at Jordan Cove Road—The 

northbound right-turn volume at this intersection during the peak afternoon hour would 

outnumber the conflicting eastbound movement by more than 13 to 1, and it is likely that 

the existing stop sign would be disregarded if manual flagging control were not 

implemented. Manual flagging at this intersection would help maintain efficient, lawful, 

and safe traffic operations during the weekday peak afternoon hour. 

• Temporary speed reduction on Highway 101 in the vicinity of Trans-Pacific Parkway—A 

temporary speed reduction from 55 mph to 45 mph on Highway 101 in the vicinity of 

Trans-Pacific Parkway would be appropriate because of the expected increase in 

conflicting traffic volumes. 

• Staggered work shift start and end times—The 2008 Transportation Impact Analysis 

assumes that the arrival and departure of employees would occur at a relatively constant 

rate over the course of each of the peak arrival and departure hours. In other words, 

arrivals and departures were assumed to be evenly distributed over a 60-minute period, 

rather than clustered at starting or quitting time. Staggered shifts—two sets of starting 

and quitting times—would be required to generate this type of relatively constant traffic 

flow rate. 

In a January 23, 2009 filing, responding to a January 2, 2009 data request from the FERC staff, 

Jordan Cove agreed to implement all the mitigation measures recommended in the 2008 DEA 

study, in accordance with the requirements of the ODOT, Coos County, and City of North Bend. 

Jordan Cove would be responsible for costs associated with any needed design, installation, 

implementation, and removal/cessation of the recommended mitigation measures. However, 

most of the measures would require approval of and coordination with the appropriate roadway 

jurisdiction. Temporary signalization at the intersection of Highway 101 with Jordan Cove Road 

and temporary speed reduction on Highway 101 must be approved by the office of the State 

Traffic Engineer, and coordinated with ODOT Region 3 and District 7 offices. Implementation 

of weekday afternoon peak hour flagging control at the intersection of Trans-Pacific Parkway 

and Jordan Cove Road would need to be approved by the Coos County Roadmaster. 

Comments on the draft EIS raised concerns that traffic delays on Highway 101 would increase 

emergency ground transport times for patients being moved from North Bend medical facilities 

to tertiary care hospitals in Eugene, Salem, and Portland. Heavy construction traffic would be 

temporary and short term, only occurring for a few hours each work day over a limited number 

of months. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in the DEA study, delays 

along Highway 101 would be minimized during peak construction traffic hours. There would be 

a temporary signal at the intersection of Highway 101 and the Trans-Pacific Parkway, on a 120-

second cycle. Given that the average travel times from North Bend to Eugene, Salem, and 

Portland range from approximately 2 hours 40 minutes (Eugene) to 4 hours 25 minutes 

(Portland), a delay of a few minutes due to Project-related construction traffic at peak periods 

would not significantly increase the length of any ambulance trips or endanger patents being 

transported to tertiary care hospitals elsewhere in the state. 

DEA sent copies of its 2006 Jordan Cove traffic study to ODOT, Coos County, and the City of 

North Bend. In an email to DEA dated November 14, 2006, Ron Hughes, ODOT Region 3 

Access Management Engineer, indicated that ODOT generally agreed with the analysis.5

 

 

5 This correspondence report was filed with Jordan Cove’s application on September 4, 2007 as part of Appendix A.5 in 

environmental Resource Report 5. 
4.9-8 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

However, concerns were raised about potential impacts on traffic patterns if there would be 

construction on weekends during the summer. Jordan Cove did not document comments on the 

2006 DEA traffic study from Coos County or the City of North Bend. 

In the draft EIS we recommended that prior to the end of the comment period on the draft EIS 

Jordan Cove should document review of DEA’s (2006) Jordan Cove Energy Project 

Transportation Impact Analysis by Coos County and the City of North Bend, and comments on 

the study should be filed with the Secretary. DEA revised the Transportation Impact Analysis 

following publication of the draft EIS. Jordan Cove solicited comments on the 2008 DEA report 

from ODOT, Coos County, and the City of North Bend. Ron Hughes of ODOT told DEA that 

he agreed that a temporary signal should be installed at the intersection of Highway 101 and the 

Trans-Pacific Parkway, but the approval of the State Traffic Engineer for the signal was 

pending.6 

We recommend that: 

• Prior to construction of the LNG terminal, Jordan Cove should continue to consult 

with the ODOT, Coos County, and City of North Bend regarding the DEA 2008 

Transportation Impact Analysis, and file with the Secretary any comments these 

agencies have on the report. 

4.9.2.3 Railroad Traffic 

The Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (COPR) parallels the Trans-Pacific Parkway on the east 

side of the North Spit of Coos Bay. This railroad has been out of service since September 2007 

when COPR issued an embargo to shut the railroad down from Vaughn to Coquille. On July 11, 

2008 the Port of Coos Bay filed an application with the Federal Surface Transportation Board to 

acquire this railroad line from COPR under the feeder line provision of 49 USC 10907. On July 

14, 2008 COPR filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board to abandon and 

discontinue service over this line. COPR would abandon the portions of this line it owns and 

discontinue service on the portions it leases (Melbo 2008). In a decision served on October 31, 

2008, the Surface Transportation Board (2008) ordered COPR to sell the Coos Bay railroad line 

to the Port. The Surface Transportation Board set the purchase price of the line in a November 

20, 2008 decision that also established a 90-day closing period for the sale. 

Jordan Cove does not plan to use this railroad during construction to transport materials to the 

proposed terminal site, or for any phase of operation. However, an unidentified third party may 

use the railroad to transport NGL from a non-jurisdictional NGL storage and loadout facility that 

would be located on the Roseburg property. The transportation of NGL is non-jurisdictional and 

addressed in section 2.2.1 of this EIS. In the event that the railroad is not operational at the time 

that the LNG terminal is constructed, Jordan Cove would not recover NGL during its 

regasification process. If NGL is not recovered at the terminal, there would be no need to 

transport it to another facility, and the Project would have no impact on any existing or proposed 

railroads. 

 

6

 An email from DEA to Jordan Cove documenting the conversation with Ron Hughes was filed with the FERC on January 23, 

2009. 
4.9-9 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

4.9.2.4 Air Traffic 

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

Coos Bay and less than one mile from the proposed LNG terminal site. The airport, which is 

operated by the Coos County Airport District, includes three asphalt runways. Two of these 

runways are used for air traffic. Runway 4-22 is the primary instrument runway. Runway 13-31 

is the primary general aviation runway.7 The approaches to both of these runways cross the Coos 

Bay Navigation Channel, which borders the airport to the north. The third runway (16-34) is 

used by the Coast Guard for helicopter hovering practice and maintenance checks. 

Commercial passenger service to and from the airport is currently provided by Skywest Airlines 

on behalf of United Airlines, with two flights daily to and from Portland and two flights daily to 

and from San Francisco. There were a total of approximately 72,000 passenger enplanements 

and deplanements at the airport in from December 2007 to November 2008, with approximately 

36,000 passengers departing and 36,000 arriving (DOT 2009). Horizon Air accounted for 

approximately 82 percent of passengers transported in 2008, with the remaining 18 percent 

transported by Skywest Airlines. Horizon Air discontinued service to the airport in October 

2008. 

Ameriflight and Empire Airlines operate cargo services out of the airport. The Coast Guard uses 

the airport for helicopter operations and has five helicopters based there, two of which generally 

run out of the Newport Municipal Airport. The number of aircraft based at the Southwest 

Oregon Regional Airport has ranged from 61 to 68 for the past 20 years. 

There were a total of 39,016 aircraft operations (defined as a take-off or landing) at the 

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport in 2000. Commercial air traffic (air cargo, air carrier, and 

air taxi) accounted for approximately 16 percent of this total, with the remainder comprising 

itinerant and local general aviation (77 percent), and military aviation (9 percent). The total 

number of aircraft operations was projected to increase to 49,700 by 2010 (North Bend 

Municipal Airport 2002). 

About 4 percent or 1,392 of the total operations were classified as annual instrument approaches 

(AIAs). A total of 2,500 AIAs are projected for 2010, with commercial air traffic accounting for 

65 percent of these AIAs (North Bend Municipal Airport 2002). Assuming that the peak month 

accounts for 10 percent of total annual AIAs and these operations all use runway 4-22, there 

were 35 AIA operations per week in the peak month in 2000, with about 58 per week projected 

for the peak month in 2010. 

Concern was expressed during the public comment period on the draft EIS that the passage of 

LNG tankers to the proposed terminal could affect airport operations and have consequences for 

hospital patients waiting to be airlifted to other locations, or emergency patients waiting for 

blood supplies or other medical products to be delivered via the airport. In fact, operation of the 

LNG terminal and LNG carrier marine traffic in the waterway would not halt or delay flights out 

of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport. Clair Jones, Chairman of the Coos County Airport 

District Board of Commissioners, who manage the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, stated, 

in an article published in the Coos Bay World newspaper on August 22, 2006, that the airport and 

 

7

 General aviation is generally defined as the portion of civil aviation that encompasses all aspects of aviation except commercial 

operations. Local general aviation operations are typically training operations that take place at the airport. Itinerant general 

aviation operations typically involve a specific origin or destination away from the airport (North Bend Municipal Airport 2002). 
4.9-10 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

the airspace surrounding the LNG terminal would not have to be shut down during LNG carrier 

transit to the terminal.8

 In a letter to the FERC dated July 19, 2006, Captain Charles Yates, 

President of the Coos Bay Pilots Association, stated that although the airport’s flight path crosses 

above the navigation channel, there has never been a conflict between air traffic and commercial 

ship traffic. At the public meeting to take comments on the draft EIS held in North Bend on 

October 27, 2008,9 John Briggs, a member of the Coos County Airport Commission, read a 

statement from Gary LeTellier, Executive Director of the Coos County Airport District. Mr. 

LeTellier made the following statement: 

“We have studied the draft environmental impact statement issued by the FERC in 

August of 2008, along with the Jordan Cove Energy Project Marine Traffic Suitability 

Study, the Emergency Response Plan, Resource List, and discussed the Project with the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s Airspace and Airport Certification Branches. To date 

we have found nothing that would affect the daily operations of the Southwest Oregon 

Regional Airport to the point of restrictions or closure.” 

In response to our NOI for this Project, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) commented that Jordan Cove may need to file a formal notice with the 

FAA for the review of airspace utilization, under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, 

Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. On May 8, 2007, the FAA issued an aeronautical study 

of the proposed communication tower for the Jordan Cove Meter Station.10 That evaluation 

resulted in a determination that the communication tower would not be a hazard to air 

navigation. 

In the draft EIS we recommended that Jordan Cove submit a request for a FAA feasibility study 

under IAW FAA Order 7400.2G, 6-1-6 and consult with the FAA to ensure proper aspects of 

project alternatives are studied. Jordan Cove submitted a Request for Hazard Determination and 

a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA on October 22, 2008. 

On November 1, 2008, the FAA issued a limited aeronautical review for the proposed Jordan 

Cove LNG terminal.11 The FAA review considered two alternative locations for the proposed 

LNG storage tanks: 1) South location about 6,123 feet north of the Runway 04 threshold at the 

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, and 2) North location about 6,572 feet north of Runway 04 

threshold. The FAA found that the proposed LNG terminal would have no impacts on arrivals, 

departures, or enroute procedures under Instrument Flight Rules. No impacts on planned use of 

airport facilities were identified, and no cumulative impacts on the airport were identified. 

However, both alternative LNG storage tank locations would exceed the Category C and D 

traffic patterns and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport by 13 

feet, and would exceed the VFR maneuvering areas for Category A and B aircraft (horizontal 

surface) by 66 feet. Therefore, the LNG storage tanks qualify as obstructions under Part 77 

standards. When a structure exceeds the obstruction standards of Part 77, it does not mean that 

the structure is a hazard to air navigation. Rather, it is an indication that further studies should be 

conducted to determine any adverse effects on operations in navigable airspace. A public notice 

 

8

 A copy of this article was filed with Jordan Cove’s application to the FERC, in Appendix A.5 to environmental Resource 

Report 5. 

9

 A copy of the transcript of this meeting has been placed in the public file for this proceeding. 10 A copy of this FAA study was filed with the FERC by Jordan Cove on December 5, 2008. 

11 This FAA review was filed with the FERC by Jordan Cove on February 25, 2009. The FAA clarified that the review was not 

an official determination of findings. 
4.9-11 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

of these additional studies should be issued by the FAA, with a 37-day public comment period. 

In addition, the FAA recommended that Jordan Cove should incorporate a medium-dual lighting 

system at its terminal, in accordance with the provisions of Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K. 

We recommend that: 

• Prior to construction of the LNG terminal, Jordan Cove should file with the 

Secretary documentation of continuing consultations with the FAA, and the results 

of any additional aeronautical studies conducted under FAR Part 77, together with 

copies of any official determination of findings made by the FAA with regards to the 

proposed LNG terminal. 

4.9.3 Pipeline Facilities 

The existing transportation network in the area of the Pacific Connector pipeline in southwest 

Oregon includes the following major roads: 

• U.S. Highway 101, which generally follows the coast and links Coos Bay and North 

Bend with California and Washington. In southwest Oregon, it crosses through Coos and 

Curry Counties; 

• State Route 42, which links Coos Bay and North Bend with Roseburg and passes through 

Coos and Douglas Counties; 

• Interstate 5 (I-5) links Roseburg with California and Washington and passes through 

Douglas and Jackson Counties; 

• State Highway 62 and State Route 140 in Jackson County; 

• State Route 66, State Route 39, and U.S. Highway 97 in Klamath County; 

• Highway 199, which links Grants Pass with Crescent City, California and crosses through 

Josephine County; and 

• Highway 99, which links Grants Pass with Medford, Ashland, and I-5 in Jackson County. 

In addition to these main federal highways and state routes, the area is served by county roads 

and an integrated network of forest roads, generally designed for timber harvest. Forest roads 

cross federal, state, and private land, including lands managed by the USFS and BLM. 

4.9.3.1 Roads Crossed by the Pipeline 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would extend for about 234 miles through four 

southwest Oregon counties, and would cross about 607 roads, including U.S. highways, State 

routes, county roads, private roads, and USFS- and BLM-managed roads. During pipeline 

construction, about 710 roads would be used to access to the right-of-way and move construction 

equipment, materials, and personnel. The proposed pipeline would result in short term effects on 

transportation in portions of the Project area, including traffic delays due to additional vehicles 

using the road system to transport workers and equipment to the construction site, and due to inroad work where the pipeline would cross roads. 

Major state and federal transportation routes and highways that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline include U.S. Highway 101 (at MP 2.1) and State Route 42 (at MP 51.7) in 

Coos County; I-5 (at MP 69.9) and State Highway 227 (at MP 94.7) in Douglas County; State 

Highway 62 (at MP 192.0) and State Route 140 (at MP 132.5) in Jackson County; and State 

Route 66 (at MP 192.0), and U.S. Highway 97 (at MP 199.6) in Klamath County. A more 
4.9-12 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

complete list of roads that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline, the proposed crossing 

method, and whether the identified roads would be used for construction access is provided in 

table E-2 of Appendix E. 

Pacific Connector has developed a draft Transportation Management Plan for Non-Federal 

Lands.12 This plan outlines measures Pacific Connector would implement to maintain public 

access on non-federal roads used as construction access, or crossed by the construction right-ofway during pipeline construction. Measures to be implemented by Pacific Connector to reduce 

transportation impacts include the following: 

• The majority of the proposed pipeline road crossings would involve an open cut. In these 

cases, Pacific Connector would try to maintain at least one lane of traffic with detours 

around the construction by plating over the open portion of the trench or by other suitable 

methods. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to close the road for 

approximately 24 hours. Where road closures occur, Pacific Connector would 

communicate with landowners and land managing agencies regarding construction 

scheduling to minimize potential access impacts and allow emergency vehicles and 

residential access. 

• Traffic control measures, such as flaggers, signs, lights, and barriers, would be used 

during construction to ensure public safety, allow efficient traffic movement through or 

around work areas, and provide safe working conditions for construction workers. 

Advanced signage that would provide notice of construction activities and expected 

delays may be used in some situations. Traffic control will comply with requirements of 

the jurisdictional land agency or property owner. 

• Pacific Connector would implement additional traffic control measures as determined 

during the ODOT and county permit processes. 

• Roads would be kept free of mud and other debris that may be deposited by construction 

equipment. Truck-driven equipment would cross roads on tires or construction pads to 

minimize road damage. Pacific Connector would repair any roadways damaged by 

construction activities. 

• Pacific Connector would apply for all necessary permits to cross and/or use roads as 

required by ODOT, federal, and county jurisdictions, and apply all mitigation measures 

specified in these permits and stipulations. 

• Pacific Connector and its contractors would comply with local and federal road and 

bridge weight limits and restrictions, as well as applicable ODOT, federal, local, and 

private hauling permit requirements with respect to size and weight restrictions. 

• Pacific Connector would negotiate temporary and permanent road use agreements or 

easements to use private roads during construction and operation, where necessary. 

In the draft EIS we recommended that Pacific Connector submit its draft Transportation Plan for 

Non-Federal Lands to the ODOT and appropriate county agencies for review before the end of 

the comment period on the draft EIS. Pacific Connector submitted a draft Transportation 

Management Plan for Non-Federal Lands to the ODOT and appropriate county agencies for 

review on November 3, 2008. Comments were received from Douglas County. Pacific 

Connector filed these comments and a revised draft Transportation Plan for Non-Federal Lands 

 

12 Pacific Connector filed its Preliminary Draft Transportation Plan (Non-Federal Lands) with the Commission on December 12, 

2007. 
4.9-13 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

on December 4, 2008. The revised plan differed from the preliminary draft in that Pacific 

Connector indicated that it would endeavor to notify landowners at least 7 days in advance of 

road closures (a longer period than stated in the preliminary draft). In situations where 

unforeseen changes to the construction schedule occur, a minimum 48-hours advance notice 

would be given to appropriate agencies and landowners. The revised plan also included an 

updated table identifying all proposed construction access roads. 

The Douglas County Public Works Department, in a letter dated November 17, 2008, noted that 

the Pacific Connector pipeline would cross highways under its maintenance jurisdiction 18 

times. In all but one location, Pacific Connector proposes to open-cut the roads it would cross 

within the jurisdiction of Douglas County. However, Douglas County does not permit the opencut crossings of highways under its maintenance jurisdiction, unless boring has been attempted 

and fails. Pacific Connector would need to revise its Transportation Plan for Non-Federal Lands 

to address the concerns of Douglas County. We recommend that: 

• Prior to pipeline construction, Pacific Connector should consult with ODOT and 

counties crossed by the pipeline regarding its December 2008 Transportation Plan 

for Non-Federal Lands, and file with the Secretary any comments from consulted 

agencies on its plan. 

4.9.3.2 Construction Access Roads 

Pacific Connector has identified existing egress and ingress points to and from the proposed 

construction right-of-way to provide for safe, efficient construction and movement of equipment 

and materials. In some areas, it would be necessary to grade or widen existing roads (to allow 

large equipment a turning radius) to access the construction right-of-way (see section 2.3.3). The 

stringing trucks would haul 40- to 80-foot lengths (joints) of pipe, and the total length of these 

vehicles would be more than 100 feet, which would require travel outside the existing road 

footprint, especially on corners and with oncoming traffic. Widening access roads in the 

identified constricted locations would be necessary to accommodate the potential for the 

stringing trucks to “walk” outside of the existing road footprint. In some circumstances, it may 

also be necessary for oncoming traffic to pull off of the existing road footprint for passing 

purposes. 

Minor improvements (i.e., filling potholes, grading to remove ruts, and/or limbing to remove 

overgrowth) would be needed in some areas to accommodate oversized and heavy construction 

equipment. In other cases, roadway improvements would require extensive reconstruction to 

make the roads useable for access to the construction right-of-way. Pacific Connector has 

estimated that modifications of 62 existing access roads may be required outside of the existing 

road bed resulting in about 17 acres of disturbance. 

Pacific Connector has conducted environmental surveys of access roads that would be improved, 

to the extent that the required improvements are known at this time, and these road 

improvements are included in the footprint of the project addressed in this EIS. Potential 

impacts on specific resources, including wetlands, waterbodies, and cultural resources, are 

discussed under the appropriate resource sections of this EIS. Those sections also discuss 

measures to be implemented to mitigate impacts from road improvement on specific resource 

types. 
4.9-14 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

Old Ferry Road 

We received comments from residents on the east side of the proposed Rogue River crossing 

(MP 122.6) concerned about the use of Old Ferry Road to access the right-of-way and HDD 

assembly area. Pacific Connector would use about 2.5 miles of this road to access the right-ofway, of which about 1.6 miles would be private, unpaved road along the east side of the Rogue 

River, separated from the paved portion of the road by an electronic gate. Pacific Connector 

originally stated that it would need to widen the road to approximately 20 feet primarily by 

grading and limb and brush removal, and fill some areas with gravel. Pacific Connector also 

stated that additional turn-outs of approximately 100 by 25 feet may be required to accommodate 

equipment turn arounds. The road would remain open to residents during construction. Pacific 

Connector would avoid removal of large trees if possible, and during construction would replace 

the existing gate with a temporary construction gate, and improve and reinstall the gate following 

construction. 

The Old Ferry Road Committee, which maintains the private portion of the road, has filed 

information with the Commission expressing concerns about use of this road. Specific concerns 

are disruption to residents during construction and improvements to the private road that are not 

desired by the residents. In addition, they expressed concern that several segments of the road 

may not be usable by large equipment and pipeline stringing trucks due to sharp turns and a 

narrow roadway, including a hairpin turn and a segment between a rock wall and steep drop to 

the Rogue River. The Old Ferry Road Committee believes blasting would be required to widen 

the road, and is concerned with the resulting potential impact to the Rogue River, side streams, 

and cultural resources. 

The Old Ferry Road Committee suggests that Pacific Connector use the Indian Creek Firebreak 

Road (BLM road 34-1-23) as an alternative access point to the east side of the Rogue River. 

Pacific Connector has identified this road as an existing access road that it would use, which 

would intersect the proposed pipeline at MP 124.9. In the draft EIS we stated that there may be 

reasonable alternatives that would minimize impacts on landowners along Old Ferry Road, 

including use of BLM road 34-1-23, and avoiding improvements to Old Ferry Road by limiting 

the type of construction vehicles that would use the road. Therefore, in the draft EIS we 

recommended that Pacific Connector file with the Secretary, before the end of the comment 

period on the draft EIS, a plan that identifies measures that would either avoid entirely the need 

to use Old Ferry Road as a temporary access road, or would allow use of the road but without 

improvements. 

On December 4, 2008 Pacific Connector filed with the Commission an analysis that addressed 

the use of BLM road 34-1-23, information on a potential new access road to avoid use of Old 

Ferry Road, and a revised assessment of improvements that would be required to Old Ferry Road 

if it were used as proposed. Use of BLM road 34-1-23 would require travel along 4.5 miles of 

access to reach the HDD drill site, including about 2.2 miles of the new pipeline right-of-way. 

Portions of the pipeline right-of-way would exceed 65 percent grade, which would require that 

essentially all vehicles (HDD drill rigs as well as personal and support vehicles making multiple 

trips each day during the HDD operation) receive towing assistance to negotiate the grades. We 

agree that this limitation would make it unsafe and unreasonable to use BLM road 34-1-23 as the 

only point of access to the HDD drill site. 
4.9-15 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

Pacific Connector retained an engineering firm to evaluate construction of a new, temporary 

access road that would mostly avoid the need for travel along the private portion of Old Ferry 

Road. The initial route identified would be east of Old Ferry Road across BLM (73 percent) and 

private lands (27 percent). Pacific Connector stated that if this road were used, it would remove 

the road and restore the impacted areas following construction. Pacific Connector provided a 

detailed environmental comparison of construction of this new road and use of Old Ferry Road 

(Attachment N to its December 4 filing). Construction and use of this new road would impact an 

estimated 10.81 acres of new disturbance, compared to 0.26 along Old Ferry Road. 

Since publication of the draft EIS, Pacific Connector contracted with an independent road 

construction contractor to analyze road improvements that would be needed to Old Ferry Road 

for construction access. Based on this analysis, Pacific Connector now believes the entire length 

of the road would not need to be widened as previously assumed, and that improvements would 

be limited to installing eight small TEWAs at six locations along the 1.6 miles (totaling 0.26 

acre) to accommodate turn-outs, widen a sharp curve, and add a staging area. We believe that 

this reduced amount of improvement to Old Ferry Road would be an acceptable level of impact 

to the residents using the road. 

Pacific Connector’s filing of December 4, 2008 did not specifically address our recommendation 

in the draft EIS to evaluate use of a combination of access to the site, in which Old Ferry Road 

could be used only by small vehicles that would not require road improvements, and larger 

equipment would be brought to the site using another point of access. However, considering the 

practical difficulties and safety concerns with using BLM road 34-1-23 and the new impacts 

associated with construction of a new road, combined with the reduced estimate of 

improvements that would be required along Old Ferry Road, we do not believe a combination of 

access points is necessary. We select the use of Old Ferry Road as the preferred alternative, 

provided that impacts on Old Ferry Road would be limited to the areas identified in Pacific 

Connector’s December 4, 2008 filing, and that the road would remain open to residents 

throughout construction as Pacific Connector originally stated. 

New Temporary Access Roads 

Pacific Connector would need to construct 18 new temporary access roads with a total length of 

approximately 3.2 miles, portions of which are on federal lands (see table 2.3.3.1-1). 

Construction of the new temporary access roads would impact approximately 6.1 acres. 

Appropriate environmental surveys have been completed for the temporary access roads or 

would be completed prior to construction. Construction of new temporary access roads would be 

a short term impact, lasting for approximately 2 years during the construction phase of the 

project only. All new temporary access roads would be decommissioned and the areas restored 

to the extent possible to preconstruction conditions following completion of construction. 

New Permanent Access Roads 

Pacific Connector would need to construct 16 new permanent access roads, with a total length of 

approximately 0.9 mile, portions of which would be on federal lands (see table 2.3.3.1-1. These 

roads would provide access during construction as well as for operations and maintenance 

activities while the Project is in service. Most of the new permanent access roads would be 

located within Pacific Connector’s permanent pipeline easement. Construction of these roads 

would permanently impact approximately 2.8 acres. Construction of new permanent access 

roads would be a long-term impact. Appropriate environmental surveys have been completed for 
4.9-16 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

the proposed new permanent access roads or would be completed prior to construction. Pacific 

Connector would need to avoid or minimize impacts on specific resources (i.e., wetlands, 

waterbodies, archaeological sites) identified during those surveys. 

Measures to Mitigate Impacts 

Construction of the pipeline is anticipated to extend for over 2 years, with most activities 

occurring between April and November. In the first year, the right-of-way would be surveyed, 

staked, and cleared of timber, and some water crossings may be installed. The second year the 

majority of the pipeline would be installed. Pacific Connector would space construction 

activities across five separate spreads. Each spread would be responsible for all construction 

activities within a specific milepost range along the pipeline. These activities would include 

grading, trenching, pipe stringing, welding, lowering-in, backfilling, regrading, and restoration. 

Construction activities at each spread would proceed in sequence in an assembly-line fashion 

along the right-of-way, with one crew following the next from clearing until final clean-up. As a 

result, construction workers and equipment would not only be divided between five spreads, but 

would also be distributed at different locations within each spread. 

Equipment and materials would be transported from various laydown areas and storage yards 

within the vicinity of the pipeline. Most construction equipment would remain on site during 

construction. Three to four pipe stringing trucks would make an average of two roundtrips per 

day from pipe storage yards to the construction right-of-way. Water and dump trucks would, on 

average, make up to six trips per day to deliver materials and equipment to the right-of-way. 

Construction personnel would drive to the active construction locations along the pipeline from 

the various residential centers in the area. The construction workforce would peak during the 

middle of each construction season and then gradually taper off toward the end of the season. 

The average workforce for each construction spread would be 280 workers per month, with a 

peak of 369 workers mid-season. Approximately 50 percent of the labor force would be 

expected to already reside within commuting distance of the project, with the remaining 50 

percent expected to temporarily relocate to the area. To reduce impacts on local road 

infrastructure, the majority of workers would commute to a designated yard and then be 

transported by bus to the right-of-way. 

The majority of the construction workforce would travel each morning from their permanent or 

temporary home to the construction yard established for the spread they are working on, and then 

make the return trip in the evening. Because pipeline construction typically is scheduled to take 

advantage of daylight hours and involves at least 10 hour work days, both journeys would take 

place during non-peak traffic hours. It is projected that 80 percent of the workforce for each 

spread would be transported from the contractor yard to and from the right-of-way on crew 

buses, with the remaining 20 percent using their own vehicles (92 vehicles during peak 

construction) and moving from site-to-site along the right-of-way using local roads and 

highways. The 20 percent of the workforce using their own vehicles would make two to three 

daily trips from the contractor yards to various construction locations. 

Construction of the proposed Butte Falls Compressor Station would involve a maximum of 45 

workers on-site during peak construction. During construction of the compressor station there 

would be an increase in traffic on the Butte Falls Highway, which would be used to access the 

station entrance road. The number of vehicle trips would be minimized by bussing some crews 

to the site. Construction traffic to and from the compressor station location would peak in the 
4.9-17 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

early morning and in the early evening, and the beginning and conclusion of the 10-hour daily 

work shift. 

Most primary roads used to access the construction right-of-way are paved or graveled and 

would not require improvement for access. In some cases, narrow roads or single lane roads that 

would be used to access the construction right-of-way from the primary roads would require 

improvements to allow construction access (see discussion above). The site-specific engineering 

assessments will be needed to determine the adequacy of existing surface structures. Pacific 

Connector has primary responsibility for performing these assessments in cooperation with, and 

to standards satisfactory to, the jurisdictional agency. 

Motor vehicle traffic could be affected by the addition of pipeline and compressor station 

construction-related traffic to local roads. This additional traffic would mainly consist of 

equipment and materials being transported to and between construction sites and construction 

workers commuting to and from work. Construction activities at proposed pipeline road 

crossings would also affect existing motor vehicle traffic. 

Pacific Connector’s Transportation Plan for Non-Federal Lands describes the measures Pacific 

Connector would take to access the construction right-of-way and maintain public access on nonfederal roads around construction areas. Pacific Connector would implement the following 

measures to minimize potential impacts on roadways and traffic caused by pipeline construction: 

• Construction hours would be scheduled to take advantage of all daylight hours and, as a 

result, construction workers would generally commute during off-peak hours. 

• The majority of construction workers (80 percent) would use pipe storage and contractor 

yards as the primary parking area for their vehicles and would be transported to the 

construction right-of-way by buses provided by the contractor. This would reduce 

potential traffic impacts in the vicinity of the right-of-way and the number of personal 

vehicles parked along the right-of-way or nearby roads. 

• Construction workers would use designated and approved access roads to access the 

right-of-way. 

• Most construction equipment would remain on site during construction. Equipment 

would be dropped off in one location at the beginning of the construction season and 

would move in a generally linear fashion along the pipeline right-of-way as work 

progresses, reducing the amount of equipment transported on local roads. 

Operation 

Operation of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline and Butte Falls Compressor Station would 

require an estimated permanent staff of five employees stationed at different locations along the 

pipeline. These employees would commute to various locations along the pipeline and to the 

Butte Falls Compressor Station on varying schedules. The addition of these five new employees 

stationed along the length of the pipeline would not affect local motor vehicle traffic. 

4.9.3.3 Roads on Federal Lands 

Roads Crossed 

The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 127 roads on BLM-managed lands, each of 

which would be crossed using an open cut crossing method. Some roads would be crossed at 

more than one location. The pipe would be placed in the roadway of 1 road for a distance of 
4.9-18 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

approximately 0.1 mile and within the right-of-way of another 18 roads for a total distance of 

approximately 8.5 miles (table E-2 in Appendix E). 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would cross approximately 31 miles of NFS lands and 

approximately 60 roads. Some roads would be crossed at more than one location. The pipeline 

would also be placed within the right-of-way of 20 roads for a total distance of approximately 

6.1 miles. Roads crossed are identified in table E-2 in Appendix E. Pacific Connector has also 

stated that they are investigating using a road that crosses BOR lands (Response to the Data 

Request, January 21, 2009). 

Roads Used for Access 

Pipeline construction would require the use of many miles of existing roads on federal lands, or 

existing private roads on which federal land-managing agencies hold a lease. Miles of existing 

access roads that would be used for pipeline construction on each district on federal lands are 

listed in table 4.9.3.3-1. All or portions of 120 roads that would cross a portion of BLM land 

would be used for access, and about 104 access roads cross NFS lands. 

TABLE 4.9.3.3-1 

Total Miles of Existing Roads Proposed for Use Within Federal Lands a/ 

Agency and District Access Roads Used for Construction (Miles) 

BLM 

 Coos Bay District 76.37 

 Roseburg District 58.68 

 Medford District 23.49 

 Klamath Falls Resource Area 0.73 

USFS 

 Umpqua National Forest 58.29 

 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 49.13 

 Freemont-Winema National Forest 1.93 

BOR 

 MP Region 3.12 

a/ Includes private roads for which the federal agency has an easement. Complete list of roads and 

length per road is included in Attachment D of Pacific Connector’s final Draft Transportation 

Management Plan, December 2008. 

USFS and BLM roads are of varying standards and some roads would require improvements to 

surfacing, brushing, drainage maintenance, and other work to accommodate oversized and heavy 

construction equipment. For pipeline construction access, Pacific Connector indicated it may 

need to modify 10 existing roads on BLM managed lands, requiring about 6.1 acres of 

disturbance. Modifications are also proposed for 10 roads crossing NFS lands, resulting in 

disturbance to 2.6 acres. However, the USFS has stated that a number of additional USFS roads 

that Pacific Connector has identified as construction access roads would require improvements 

prior to use, in some cases requiring clearing, grading, widening, and drainage improvements. 

Pacific Connector has begun to identify this impact, but much of the specific road improvement 

requirements would not be identified until closer to construction. These areas would be 

identified and addressed in the POD prepared in consultation with the USFS and BLM. All road 

maintenance, reconstruction, and improvements would conform to BLM and USFS 

requirements. No maintenance or improvements would be allowed on any road not authorized 

for use and approved for improvements. 
4.9-19 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

Pacific Connector would need to construct two new temporary access roads with a total length of 

approximately 0.2 mile on BLM-managed lands. Approximately 0.4 acre of land would be 

disturbed for construction of the new temporary access roads. These roads would provide access 

during construction and would be restored to preconstruction conditions following completion of 

construction. This would be a short term impact. Appropriate environmental surveys have been 

completed for the temporary access roads or would be completed prior to construction. No new 

temporary access roads would be built on NFS lands. 

Pacific Connector would need to construct two new permanent access roads on BLM-managed 

lands, with a total length of less than 0.1 mile. These roads would provide access during 

construction and for operations and maintenance activities while the project is in service. 

Construction of these new roads would permanently impact approximately 0.2 acre. This would 

be a long term impact. Appropriate environmental surveys have been completed for the new 

permanent access roads or would be completed prior to construction. No new permanent roads 

would be built on NFS lands. Two decommissioned roads (MPs 157.38 and 166.10) on the 

Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest would, however, be reconstructed as temporary roads. 

Measures to Mitigate Impacts 

Pacific Connector developed a Transportation Management Plan to support the federal Right-ofWay Grant required on federal lands, with its latest version of the plan filed with the FERC in 

April 2009. Pacific Connector met with the BLM and USFS on March 4 and 5, 2009 to discuss 

the Transportation Management Plan for Federal Lands. Based on further consultations with 

federal land-managing agencies, the plan would be finalized and submitted with the POD. It 

would identify all roads on federal lands that would be used during construction and operations. 

This plan would specify in detail the activities that would occur on federal roads and the 

standards that would be utilized where improvements are necessary. 

Motor vehicle traffic could be affected by the addition of pipeline construction-related traffic to 

local roads. This additional traffic would mainly consist of equipment and materials being 

transported to and between construction sites and construction workers commuting to and from 

work. Construction activities at proposed road crossings would also affect public access, as well 

as use by permittees, contractors, and cost share users. Pacific Connector has provided a list of 

existing rights-of-way on roads managed by the BLM that are expected to be used during 

clearing and/or construction activities (table 8A-5 in Appendix 8 of environmental Resource 

Report 8 of Pacific Connector’s application to the FERC) and a list of third party rights which 

may be affected (table 8A-6 in Appendix 8 of environmental Resource Report 8). Similar 

information has not been provided for NFS lands. 

In addition to the design criteria listed above that would be applicable to all pipeline 

construction, the potential effects on federal lands would further be minimized by implementing 

the following mitigation measures. 

• Dust abatement for access roads would include applying water or synthetic product 

depending on site-specific conditions and agency direction; 

• Any damage to dirt, gravel, or paved roads as a result of construction, including access 

for construction, would be repaired and the road would be restored to the pre-construction 

condition or better (for further clarification refer to the Transportation Management Plan, 

section 2.3, Wet Weather Access); 
4.9-20 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 

• Access roads would be maintained to comply with the USFS and BLM requirements, as 

necessary to minimize resource damage; 

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs would be utilized along access roads to 

minimize resource damage. Additional details would be included in the POD; 

• OHV barriers, such as boulders, large tree trunks, piles of dirt and rock, and gates would 

be installed at appropriate locations, generally, where the right-of-way tosses in a trail, to 

minimize OHV access to the right-of-way. Detailed plans on preventing the pipeline 

right-of-way from being used as an OHV trail would be included in the POD; 

• OHV barriers in sensitive viewsheds would be developed and installed in accordance 

with guidelines found in Pacific Connector’s Aesthetics Management Plan for Federal 

Lands; and 

• At least 7-day advance notice to the BLM, USFS, and private landowners of road 

closures. In unforeseen cases where construction schedules are changed, at least 48 hours 

advance notice would be given. 

The USFS and BLM have stated that many roads that may be used by Pacific Connector during 

construction have cost-share agreements, permits, and right-of-way grants held by other parties, 

and that all of these parties must be identified prior to review and approval of the right-of-way 

grant. In the draft EIS we recommended that Pacific Connector identify all construction access 

roads on federal lands, or access roads leading to federal lands, where non-government parties 

hold existing cost-share agreements, permits, and/or right-of-way grants. Pacific Connector has 

not yet identified all of the potentially affected parties on these roads. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to submittal of the POD, Pacific Connector should identify the construction 

access roads on, or leading to federal lands, where federal and private parties hold 

existing cost-share agreements, permits, and/or right-of-way grants and provide a 

list of these parties, and the respective road and federal land management unit 

affected to the USFS, BLM, and BOR, and file these data with the Secretary.