4.5-1 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

4.5 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.5.1 Wildlife 

The proposed Project area provides suitable habitat for a number of wildlife species associated 

with the coastal, mid-coastal, interior foothills, and mountain terrains that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project could affect. Wildlife for each major component of the 

proposed Project is described below. 

4.5.1.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

Birds 

The BLM has documented 275 avian species using habitats on or near the North Spit of Coos 

Bay (BLM 2005). LBJ Enterprises (2006) documented 151 avian species during preconstruction surveys of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal site at the end of the waterway for LNG 

marine traffic, including two additional species not documented by BLM. A mosaic of habitat 

types occurs within and near Coos Bay adjacent to the LNG carrier transit route. Some of the 

most important habitat types for birds along the waterway include nearshore rocks and islands, 

beaches, dunes, coastal forests, and palustrine and estuarine wetlands. However, birds may be 

found in all habitats along the waterway, including disturbed and developed habitat and open 

water. 

Seabirds 

Although the length of the Oregon coast is less than a quarter of the entire California–Oregon–

Washington coastline, over one-half of the nesting seabirds of the entire continental U.S. Pacific 

coastline are found along the Oregon coast (Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force 

1991). In total, 13 seabird species breed along Oregon’s coast. Offshore rocks and islands 

provide critical nesting habitat for seabirds. Seabirds depend on relatively undisturbed coastal 

nesting habitats and on the rich coastal waters for food (Oregon Ocean Resources Management 

Task Force 1991). Foraging habitat can differ by species; some species such as the sooty 

shearwater (Puffinus griseus) and the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) are found primarily 

along the mid- and outer-shelf, while California and western gull (Larus californicus, L. 

occidentalis) occur only in the nearshore (Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force 

1991). Nearshore rocks and islands are also important rest over locations for migratory species. 

Foraging sea birds can be encountered along the entire proposed LNG carrier transit route. 

Nearshore rocks and islands are of greatest importance to seabirds for nesting habitat.

Shorebirds

Foraging habitat for shorebirds includes inter-tidal mudflats, rocky inter-tidal, estuaries, salt 

marshes, and beaches. Shorebirds are most often associated with exposed mudflats for foraging 

and salt marshes for resting and preening. The vast majority of shorebirds are migratory and 

non-breeders in Coos Bay. An important exception would be the western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), which nests on upper beaches on the North Spit of Coos 

Bay. Shorebirds are most likely to be encountered along the beaches of the North Spit of Coos 

Bay and within the bay along tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and other exposed estuarine habitat, 

Zones of Concern 1, 2, and 3.
4.5-2 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Waterfowl

Coos Bay has long been recognized as an important migration and wintering waterfowl location. 

Waterfowl are most likely to be encountered within Coos Bay and the immediate near shore 

habitat.

Passerines (Songbirds)

Breeding and feeding habitat for migratory passerines is associated with terrestrial and wetland 

habitat within Coos Bay. Important habitat includes coastal scrub-shrub, coastal dune forest and 

palustrine wetlands. In the case of swallows, human-made structures can be important structures 

for nesting colonies. Passerines are most likely encountered in suitable terrestrial habitats along 

the proposed LNG carrier transit route.

Wading Birds

Several wading birds species are resident within the Coos Bay area and the North Spit. Wading 

birds are typically colonial when nesting and therefore are sensitive to anthropogenic 

disturbance. Wading birds hunt in a variety of habitat types from fields and meadows to 

palustrine and estuarine wetlands. At least two historic great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 

rookeries occur within close proximity to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal site area (LBJ 2006). 

Wading birds are most likely to be encountered along the proposed LNG carrier transit route 

within Coos Bay. 

Birds of Prey

Predatory birds are abundant year round residents in Coos Bay. The BLM has observed 14 

species (BLM 2005), and surveys conducted by LBJ (2006) detected both peregrine falcons 

(Falco peregrinus) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) near the Jordan Cove site. Coos 

Bay and the North Spit provide a mosaic of habitat types with abundant prey for raptors. Whitetailed kites (Elanus leucurus) were regularly observed during 2005 surveys especially near 

Henderson Marsh. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is relatively common near river estuaries and 

bays and nests on human-made structures including the Roseburg light poles. 

Predatory birds (i.e., hawks and owls) are most likely to be encountered within terrestrial habitats 

in the Coos Bay area. However, osprey, falcons, and eagles may be encountered in nearshore 

habitats along the proposed LNG carrier transit route. Falcons in particular are likely to be 

associated with salt marsh and tidal mudflats where shorebirds are likely to be abundant. 

Migratory Birds

The southern Oregon coast provides wintering and migratory habitat for waterfowl of the Pacific 

Flyway. Coos Bay is one of a number of important areas for shorebirds between San Francisco 

Bay and British Columbia. Key areas for migrating shorebirds include Coos Bay and the 

beaches and deflation plains in the Oregon Dunes NRA. Coos Bay's extensive eelgrass beds, 

productive sloughs, intertidal algal flats, and substantial tidal marshes provide valuable habitat 

for thousands of shorebirds. Coos Bay had the third highest total count of waterfowl on the 

Oregon Coast in a March 1992 aerial survey. 

Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–711). The MBTA prohibits the 

take, possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase 
4.5-3 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

or barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as authorized under a valid 

permit. The MBTA also prohibits the taking of migratory birds without authorization from 

FWS. EO 13186 (66 FR 3853) was enacted, in part, to ensure that the environmental analysis of 

a federal action evaluates the impacts of that action on migratory birds, and the federal agency 

and its project proponents avoid, minimize impacts, conserve species, and restore and enhance 

migratory bird habitat. EO 13186 states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, 

priority habitat, and key risk factors. 

While the EO does not apply to the FERC, because the FERC is an independent regulatory 

agency that is not part of the Executive Branch of the federal government, the EO does apply to 

the USFS, BLM, and BOR. The USFS has developed an MOU with FWS interpreting and 

detailing their responsibilities and conservation commitments to migratory birds, and the BLM 

has developed Interim Management Guidance until such a time that an MOU between the BLM 

and FWS is implemented. The USFS-FWS MOU and BLM Interim Guidance are applicable to 

this Project. 

FWS maintains a list of migratory birds of conservation concern that was developed as a result of 

a 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act; the list was most recently updated 

in 2002. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates that FWS “identify species, 

subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional 

conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing” under the ESA. The goal of the 

birds of conservation concern list is to prevent sensitive, rare, or otherwise vulnerable species 

from being listed under the ESA, by implementing proactive management and conservation 

actions and ensuring that these species be considered in accordance with EO 13186. FWS 

migratory birds of conservation concern that potentially occur in the Project area are listed in 

table 4.5.1.1-1. Federally or state-listed species are not included below as they are discussed in 

more detail in section 4.6. As the MBTA provides protection for all migratory birds, additional 

species not listed in table 4.5.1.1-1 could also be affected by the Project. 

TABLE 4.5.1.1-1 

FWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest- U.S. Only), 

Timing of Potential Occurrence in the Project Area, and Expected Habitat

Common Name Scientific Name 

Timing of Potential 

Occurrence Expected Habitat 

golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos year-round Shrub-steppe, grassland, juniper, 

open ponderosa pine woodlands 

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus year-round Near large bodies of water 

northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles year-round Mixed or coniferous forest 

prairie falcon Falco mexicanus breeding/year-round Open country with cliffs and 

outcrops 

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus winter/year-round Open habitats, nests on cliffs 

black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani year round Coastal beaches, bays, and 

estuaries 

whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Migration Coastal marshes, beaches, rocky 

shores 

long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Winter Fields, dry prairies, mudflats 

marbled godwit Limosa fedoa ( ssp. beringiae only) Winter Beaches, mudflats, shallow pools 

black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Winter Rocky shores 

surfbird Aphriza virgata Winter Rocky shores, beaches 

red knot Calidris canutus Migration Beaches and mudflats 
4.5-4 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.1.1-1 

FWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest- U.S. Only), 

Timing of Potential Occurrence in the Project Area, and Expected Habitat

Common Name Scientific Name 

Timing of Potential 

Occurrence Expected Habitat 

rock sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis Winter Rocky shores 

short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Winter Beaches, mudflats, shallow ponds 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia Migration Coastal areas 

marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus year-round Breeds in old-growth coastal 

forests; present year-round in nearshore waters 

yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Rarely occurs in Oregon Riparian areas 

northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina year-round Old-growth mountain forests 

flammulated owl* Otus flammeolus Summer Mountain pine-oak forests 

black swift* Cypseloides niger Migration Forages over forests and open 

areas 

rufous hummingbird* Selasphorus rufus summer/migration Coniferous forests 

Lewis's woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis winter/year round Open forest and woodland 

white-headed 

woodpecker* 

Picoides albolarvatus year-round Mountain conifers 

olive-sided flycatcher* Contopus cooperi Summer Coniferous forests 

loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Winter Open, lower-elevation areas 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Summer/migration Shrublands, especially big 

sagebrush 

sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Summer Arid, big sagebrush shrublands 

vesper sparrow* Pooecetes gramineus (ssp. affinis

only)

Very unlikely to occur in 

vicinity of Project

Open fields and pastures 

* Species that are addressed in the Focal Landbird Species Analysis (Appendix H-10) 

Sources: FWS 2002; Sibley 2000; NatureServe 2009 

Both Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector have proposed to implement various measures to avoid, 

minimize, and in some instances mitigate impact on habitats. These measures include among 

others pre-construction surveys for active bird nests (Jordan Cove) and scheduling routine rightof-way vegetation maintenance clearing activities late in the season to avoid most active nests 

(Pacific Connector). Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector, in coordination with the FWS and 

ODFW, would provide mitigation for upland habitats affected by construction and operation of 

its proposed facilities following the guidelines of the ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Mitigation Policy. These measures would minimize impacts on migratory birds and provide 

mitigation for other impacts. See further discussion of potential impacts below in sections 

4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3. Information on focal land bird species, priority habitats and habitat 

components within the proposed pipeline Project area is included in Appendix H-10. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

The BLM recognizes 11 species of amphibians (8 salamanders, 3 frogs) occurring on the North 

Spit (BLM 2005). Despite the presence and continual threat of invasion by non-native bullfrogs 

(Rana catesbeiana), native amphibians were observed within suitable habitat during surveys of 

the proposed LNG terminal site conducted by Jordan Cove. Northern red-legged frogs (Rana 

aurora aurora) and northwestern salamanders (Ambystoma gracile) are abundant within some 

wetlands within the Jordan Cove site area. It is likely that where non-native fish and bullfrog 

have not been introduced or invaded, native amphibians are present. The BLM has observed at 
4.5-5 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

least ten species of reptiles on the North Spit (BLM 2005) including the northwestern pond turtle 

(Clemmys marmorata marmorata). However, northwestern pond turtle were not observed 

during limited pre-construction wildlife surveys of the Jordan Cove site area (LBJ 2006). 

Palustrine wetlands are relatively common on the North Spit so it is likely that a substantial 

amphibian and reptile assemblage exists. With the exception of sea turtles, amphibians and 

reptiles would be encountered in terrestrial habitats along the LNG carrier transit route. 

Mammals 

Overall, the BLM has documented 58 mammal species on the North Spit (BLM 2005), while 

pre-construction wildlife surveys of the Jordan Cove site area documented 16 mammal species 

(LBJ 2006). Coos Bay and the North Spit provide a substantial amount of high quality habitat 

allowing for a diverse assemblage of mammals. For example, nine species of bat are known to 

occur on the North Spit (BLM 2005). While bat specific surveys were not completed during the 

pre-construction wildlife surveys, the mosaic of habitat types and abundant over-water foraging 

habitat present within the Coos Bay area suggest bat presence is high. The Pacific fisher (Martes 

pennanti pacificus) and American marten (Martes americana), as well as large mammals such as 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), Roosevelt elk (Cervis elaphus roosevelti), and black bear (Ursus 

americanus) have been documented on the North Spit (BLM 2005). 

With the exception of pinnipeds (i.e., seals) discussed in section 4.5.2, all mammals encountered 

along the proposed LNG carrier transit route would be in terrestrial habitat types on the North 

Spit. Bats may be encountered at any point along the proposed transit route within Coos Bay 

itself. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

Direct effects to animals in terrestrial habitats along the waterway for LNG marine traffic could 

include direct mortality if they were not able to flee from a spill, or the loss and/or modification 

of habitat in the event of an accident. It is possible that an oil or fuel leak from the LNG carriers 

in transit to or from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal could affect either aquatic or terrestrial 

wildlife. Jordan Cove and the operators of the LNG carriers would implement measures that 

would reduce the potential for oil or fuel spills from LNG marine traffic in the waterway. As 

discussed in section 4.12.5.2, each carrier would have a double hull that would keep fuel and oil 

onboard and prevent a spill. Furthermore, each LNG carrier would maintain a shipboard oil 

pollution emergency plan. 

In the event of an incident, LNG could escape from a carrier. If unignited, the LNG would float 

on the water until it vaporizes and would not have an adverse effect on the aquatic species. 

Some cooling of the upper water layers closest to the LNG spill would be expected, but would 

not likely cause the overall water column to cool to the point of affecting the protected area or 

species, given the ambient water temperatures in the transit route. If the vapor from an LNG 

spill were to come in contact with an ignition source, the resulting fire would burn back to the 

spill source and could affect species on the water surface that came in direct contact with the fire. 

Species underwater may not be affected, as the fire would be on the surface. In either case of 

lower or higher water temperatures based on the spill scenario, mobile species would move out 

of the area until the water temperatures return to normal. 
4.5-6 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

LNG carriers in the transit route could affect migratory birds if there was an incident that 

released LNG, and birds came into direct contact with either the leaked unignited LNG, or with a 

vapor pool fire should an LNG spill be ignited. Birds would have to be on the surface of the 

water within the vapor cloud, or flying at a level close to the spill to be affected by the unignited 

LNG. This is unlikely unless the spill was in the route to the habitat that the bird was descending 

and no other habitat was available. Given the amount of migratory bird habitat along the ship 

transit route, this would seem to be an unlikely scenario. If the spill were ignited, it would seem 

likely that the birds would avoid the heat and the smoke of the fire and the only way that an 

effect could occur is if the vapor cloud ignited at the exact same time that the bird flew through 

it. An LNG pool fire could affect terrestrial wildlife within the Zones of Concern. The kinds of 

effects would vary according to site specific conditions, including the location of the LNG spill 

and duration and extent of the fire. Species within Zone 1 would be more adversely affected 

than species within Zone 3. Because of safety and security measures recommended by the Coast 

Guard, the probability of an LNG release is extremely remote. 

The likelihood of an LNG carrier losing steerage, running aground and physically damaging 

habitat is unlikely because the channel geometry would serve to keep the LNG carrier within the 

confines of the channel. In addition, the LNG carrier would always be under tug escort when in 

the channel. The tugs would keep the LNG carrier under control and not allow it to run aground 

in the event of a steering or other control failure. The tugs and escort ships would also prevent 

the LNG carriers from collisions or allisions with other marine traffic. Therefore, there should 

not be significant impact on terrestrial wildlife caused by an LNG carrier running aground or 

running into other ships. 

4.5.1.2 Jordan Cove LNG Terminal 

Approximately 160 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals were recorded on or 

adjacent to the Jordan Cove site during surveys conducted by Jordan Cove from June to 

December 2005 and in early 2006. The species that occur in the LNG terminal area are generally 

the same species that occur in habitats adjacent to the waterway for LNG marine traffic, as the 

habitats are the same. The majority of wildlife species detected on or adjacent to the Jordan 

Cove LNG terminal site during the 2005/2006 surveys were birds (147 species). 

Less mobile wildlife species that are not able to move away from construction activities during 

clearing and site preparation for the LNG terminal could experience direct mortality. More 

mobile species would likely be displaced from the site during active construction. Wildlife in the 

vicinity of the terminal could also be disturbed by construction activities and noise, and may 

move away from the construction site. However, the primary impact to wildlife from 

construction and operation of the LNG terminal would be habitat loss. The relatively natural 

habitat that would be affected most heavily by construction of the Jordan Cove facilities is the 

dune forest, with lesser impacts to non-native grasslands and herbaceous associations. The 

natural habitats that would be affected most heavily by the Port’s construction of the slip and 

access channel are open-water habitat and dune forest, with lesser impacts to shoreline habitat. 

Jordan Cove, in coordination with the ODFW, FWS, and other stakeholders such as NMFS, and 

following the guidelines of the ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (see section 

4.5.1.4 for description of policy and habitat categorization scheme), determined that 

approximately 47.8 acres of existing Habitat Category 4 (important habitat) would be converted 
4.5-7 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

to Habitat Category 6 (low potential to become essential or important) and would require some 

type of mitigation. An additional 4.2 acres of Habitat Category 4 would be converted to Habitat 

Category 5 (having high potential to become either essential or important), and 6.4 acres of the 

access road easement would not change from the pre-construction Habitat Category 6. Impacts 

to Category 4 habitat require mitigation, which could be accomplished through in-kind and/or 

out-of-kind, off proximity habitat enhancement or protection to achieve the habitat replacement 

ratios acceptable to ODFW in terms of quantity and quality. 

Construction of the slip and access channel would impact approximately 5.6 acres of the 

intertidal unvegetated sand-mud flat (Habitat Category 4), 6.14 acres of intertidal algal flat 

(Habitat Category 4), and 1.15 acres of eelgrass (Habitat Category 3). The Port has proposed 

mitigation for this impact (see discussion of proposed mitigation in section 4.3.3.2). 

Construction of the slip would also affect approximately 21 acres of dune forest and 20 acres of 

disturbed upland habitat. These habitat types are common within the general vicinity of the slip, 

and mitigation acceptable to the ODFW would be provided for each of the habitats affected. 

Comments were received during scoping regarding potential impacts to wildlife from emissions 

from the LNG terminal during operation. Due to the combustion of gas, operation of the 

terminal would result in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Estimated 

air emissions, air quality standards and compliance with regulatory requirements, and proposed 

mitigation measures for air quality are addressed in detail in section 4.11.1. The proposed LNG 

terminal would be required to operate in compliance with U.S. ambient air quality standards, 

which were established to protect the sensitive individual from adverse impact from criteria air 

pollutants. While some types of wildlife with permeable skin may absorb air-borne pollutants 

directly and are thus particularly sensitive to increases in air pollution, compliance with these 

standards are expected to also protect wildlife by minimizing increases in air quality degradation 

and pollution. 

There could be indirect effects on wildlife because of increased human presence resulting from 

the Project. Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would take 36 months, and the number 

of construction personnel would peak at between 900 and 1,000 workers in months 18 and 19. 

During operation of the terminal, about 56 people would be employed. The current number of 

people employed at facilities operating on the North Spit is approximately 110 (Southport – 70, 

Roseburg – 20, DB Western – 20). This increase in people in the area could potentially lead to 

indirect effects such as increased snowy plover predators in the area due to trash. During 

construction and operation, the facility would be kept clear of construction debris and food 

wastes that could attract predators. Covered, animal proof receptacles would be provided in 

eating and break areas, parking lots, and at appropriate locations around the construction site. 

During construction the site would be policed on a daily basis to remove any food or other debris 

left by workers. During operations the facility and grounds would be regularly inspected to 

assure that no garbage is allowed to accumulate. Additionally, all employees would be trained 

on current snowy plover regulations and recreational use restrictions. 

In order to minimize and mitigate for potential negative impacts to wildlife in the vicinity of the 

terminal, Jordan Cove has provided a summary of terrestrial habitat mitigation, which discusses 

western snowy plover, migratory birds, and sensitive habitats (i.e., wetlands, marshes, and dune 

forests). This information, as well as maps showing habitat types at the LNG terminal site, is 

included in the applicant’s CMP. Specific wildlife groups or species are discussed below. 
4.5-8 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Birds 

With the exception of seabirds, birds that are known or that likely occur within the LNG terminal 

site are the same as described in the previous section for Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic, and 

would include shorebirds, waterfowl, passerines, wading birds, birds of prey, and migratory 

birds. The seabirds described under Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic could also occur on the 

site or adjacent Coos Bay water, but no seabird nesting habitat is present on the site. 

Great Blue Heron Rookery

There is an historical great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery near the beginning of Jordan 

Cove Road (on both sides of Trans-Pacific Parkway), about 2,000 feet to the east of the LNG 

terminal site, and about 300 feet from Jordan Cove Road. This rookery was most recently visited 

on November 1, 2006, during a site visit with ODFW and BLM biologists and was found to be 

inactive, but still contained some nests. The BLM biologist noted that it has been inactive the 

previous two breeding seasons (BLM biologist, pers. comm.). Another historical rookery is 

located adjacent to the proposed LNG terminal site on the south side of Henderson Marsh; it has 

not been active for several years (BLM biologist, pers. comm.). No evidence of great blue heron 

breeding in the area was observed during the 2005 or 2006 preconstruction surveys. 

The great blue heron rookery located 300 feet from the Jordan Cove Road would be subject to 

potential disturbance from noise from construction traffic using Jordan Cove Road. The rookery 

is currently subject to noise from truck traffic delivering chips to the Roseburg wood chip export 

facility. If it were to become active again, the nesting birds could be disturbed by the additional 

Jordan Cove construction traffic. Similarly, the historical rookery south of Henderson Marsh 

could be affected by construction noise if the rookery was active during site construction. 

Currently, Jordan Cove has proposed no mitigation for potential impacts because neither rookery 

is active. However, Jordan Cove would conduct spring status assessments annually of both 

rookeries. In the event that either rookery becomes active, Jordan Cove, in consultation with 

ODFW local biologists, would develop an appropriate mitigation plan depending on the status of 

construction or potential for indirect effects. 

Neotropical Migrants

Some neotropical migrants, birds that breed in North America and overwinter in the tropics, were 

detected during surveys of the proposed LNG terminal and slip site, and many more are likely to 

occur, especially as migrants. These are largely forest-nesting species and thus some would 

likely be affected by vegetation clearing that would be required for construction and operation of 

the proposed LNG terminal and slip. Examples of neotropical migrants detected at the proposed 

LNG terminal site include olive-sided flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, orange-crowned warbler, 

and Swainson’s thrush. 

To comply with the MBTA, Jordan Cove has proposed that any vegetation removal on the LNG 

terminal and slip site during the nesting season would be preceded by intensive searching for 

nests to determine the presence of nesting migratory birds. Should active nests be found, 

clearing activity would be delayed until the young birds have fledged (or failed due to natural 

causes). Active nests found outside the area of direct disturbance, but close enough for potential 

disturbance from noise or human activity (with that distance depending on the species) would be 
4.5-9 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

monitored and construction suspended if take under the provisions of the MBTA was found to 

occur. 

Migratory bird species described in the previous section for Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic, 

would likely experience disturbance due to Port and Jordan Cove activities, and temporary 

modification of habitat during construction of the LNG terminal. As discussed above, Jordan 

Cove would mitigate for the loss of habitat. For coastal species, areas affected by the LNG 

terminal are a relatively small portion of the available area in Coos Bay, and within the larger 

Bird Conservation Region 5. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Species occurring at the proposed LNG terminal site are the same as those occurring in terrestrial 

habitats adjacent to the waterway for LNG marine traffic, and are discussed in the previous 

section. Jordan Cove conducted an on-site assessment of amphibians and reptiles on September 

8 and 9, 2005. This timing coincides with the latter portion of the dry season, when most 

amphibian species are difficult to detect. Because there is still some concern in confirming the 

presence or absence of these species, Jordan Cove would conduct surveys of areas to be affected 

by construction of the proposed LNG terminal facilities prior to construction to confirm species 

occurrence or absence. 

Potential impacts to amphibians and reptiles would be direct mortality from construction if they 

were not able to avoid equipment or traffic, and habitat loss. Jordan Cove would mitigate for 

habitat loss as described above. 

Mammals 

Like birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals occurring at the proposed LNG terminal site are 

expected to be the same as those occurring in terrestrial habitats adjacent to the waterway for 

LNG marine traffic, and are discussed in the previous section. Potential impacts to mammals 

would be direct mortality from construction if less mobile species are not able to avoid 

equipment or traffic, or displacement from the site. Increased vehicle traffic along Jordan Cove 

Road during construction of the proposed facilities would increase the potential for collisions. 

Long-term impact would be habitat loss. Due to the already disturbed nature of much of the site, 

it is not anticipated that construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and slip would 

have measurable effects on wildlife. However, Jordan Cove would also provide general 

mitigation for habitat loss as described above. 

Specific bat surveys have not been conducted, but potentially suitable foraging habitat for many 

species occurs in areas of the proposed LNG terminal and slip, particularly around palustrine 

wetlands where insect prey is likely most abundant. Because the wetland areas would not be 

affected by either the proposed LNG terminal facilities or the slip, no effect on foraging habitat 

for bats is anticipated. Unidentified bats were observed in one of the buildings on the Roseburg 

property on July 21, 2005. Breeding and roosting sites are probably very limited due to the high 

level of disturbance at the proposed site, as well as the absence of more typical bat habitat such 

as cliffs, rock outcrops, bridges, caves, mines, and large snags. Some habitat for those species 

that roost under bark is available in the dune forest habitat on the proposed LNG terminal site. 

As with other mammals, it is not anticipated that construction and operation of the proposed 

LNG terminal and slip would have measurable effects on bats due to the already disturbed nature 
4.5-10 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

of much of the site; however, Jordan Cove would provide off-site mitigation for habitat loss, 

including potential forest roosting habit, as previously described in accordance with ODFW 

policies. 

4.5.1.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline 

In general, the areas crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline provide diverse habitat 

for wildlife, ranging from vegetated sand dunes to forests and woodlands to grasslands and 

shrublands, resulting in a diverse array of wildlife species. Overall, 47 amphibians and reptiles, 

278 birds, and 106 mammals are known or suspected to occur within the areas crossed by the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline based on their habitat associations (habitats known or likely 

to be crossed by the proposed pipeline) or direct observation. 

Specialized habitat features also occur within the vicinity of the proposed Pacific Connector 

pipeline area. Such features include cliffs that provide nesting for peregrine falcons and possibly 

other raptors. Dead standing trees (snags) provide roosting locations for several bat species and 

nesting locations for several raptor species and cavity-nesting birds. LWD is present, which is 

often associated with amphibians and reptiles, and caves are present, which some bat species use 

as hibernacula. Pacific Connector’s Environmental Resource Report 3, Appendix D, Table 3D1, filed with its September 4, 2007 application to the FERC, provides a list of species and 

associated habitat elements that are known or suspected to occur along the proposed pipeline 

route. The following sections summarize this information. 

Birds 

Based on their distributions in southwestern Oregon, 278 bird species may be present in habitats 

that would be crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline. The highest diversity of bird species 

can be expected in habitats associated with agriculture, pastures, and mixed environs (173 

species). Many species are also associated with riparian-wetland habitats (154 species), 

herbaceous wetlands (136 species), bays and estuaries (132 species), and also developed-urban 

and mixed environs (131 species). An estimated 86 to 125 bird species are associated with 

forests and woodlands, 75 species are associated with sagebrush shrub-steppe, and 79 species 

with eastside grasslands. 

Annual breeding bird survey (BBS) counts were used to determine additional potential bird 

species presence within habitats crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline. According to 

historical data from 1966 through 2007 from eight BBS routes in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline, 172 species were observed along these routes (Sauer et al. 2008). The disparity in 

number of bird species between BBS data (counted or observed) and habitat associations 

(predicted) is likely due to the fact that the BBS does not usually document all of the species 

possibly present at the time of the survey (i.e., nocturnal owls and birds that do not sing or call 

regularly), species reported are present only during the season of the survey, and survey routes 

may not include or be representative of all habitat types crossed by the pipeline. Regardless, the 

BBS survey counts can be used as an index of some species’ population trends over time. 

Of the 172 species found along the potential pipeline route, 16 show significantly increasing 

trends (P ≤ 0.10) in Oregon since 1966, 46 show significant decreasing trends, and 107 show no 

significant trend (trends for three species were unknown (Appendix H-13, Sauer et al. 2008). Of 

the 172 BBS species observed in the vicinity of proposed Pacific Connector pipeline project 
4.5-11 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

area, 109 are listed as nearctic-neotropical migratory birds by FWS, Division of Bird Habitat 

Conservation, pursuant to the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Of the 46 bird 

species with significant declining trends, 32 are neotropical migrants, as are 9 of the 16 species 

with increasing trends. 

The Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA 2000) and the Partners in Flight (PIF) Conservation 

Program (PIF 2000), under which the USFS works, recommend maintenance and restoration of 

habitats necessary to sustain healthy bird populations over the long term. The conservation plans 

for land birds in lowlands and valleys, coniferous forests, and the east slope of the Cascade 

Mountains in Washington and Oregon focus on 67 species (called focal landbird species), 24 of 

which have significantly declining population trends in the physiographic regions discussed (PIF 

2008). These species could all potentially occur within the area crossed by the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline. For a detailed analysis of focal landbird species along the proposed pipeline 

route, see Appendix H-10. 

The southern Oregon coastline provides wintering and migratory habitat for waterfowl of the 

Pacific Flyway (Bellrose 1976). Coos Bay, the beaches and deflation plains in the Oregon 

Dunes National Recreation Area (north of Coos Bay) are key areas for migrating shorebirds, 

which would use the areas mainly during spring and fall migrations (Marshall et al. 2006). Coos 

Bay's eelgrass beds, productive sloughs, sand dunes, mudflats and tidal salt marshes provide 

valuable habitat for thousands of shorebirds. 

Many migratory species have been observed during the annual Christmas Bird Count (CBC), 

sponsored by the Audubon Society. At least 285 bird species (common names are reported and 

have not been standardized) have been counted at six locations proximate to the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline project area combined, from Coos Bay to Klamath Falls. While the 176 

species have been reported both by BBS and CBC, 108 species have only been reported by CBC 

and most of those have been observed at the Coos Bay and Coquille Valley CBC locations. The 

species include various seabirds (auklets, murres, guillemots, jaegers, gulls, albatrosses, 

shearwaters, cormorants), waterfowl (scoters, geese, swans), and shorebirds (dowitchers, 

sandpipers, plovers, turnstones). 

Several raptor species are known or suspected to nest, migrate, and seasonally reside in the 

general vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. Those reported for BBS routes in the region 

include turkey vulture, osprey, bald eagle, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, 

northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, and 

American kestrel. There are also several species of owls that have been documented on BBS 

routes and are likely to occur in the areas crossed by the proposed pipeline. They include barn 

owl, western screech owl, great horned owl, northern pygmy-owl, and great gray owl. 

Several additional raptor species and owls have also been observed during CBC surveys, 

including red-shouldered hawk, Harlan’s hawk, rough-legged hawk, gyrfalcon, peregrine falcon, 

merlins, northern saw-whet owl, barred owl, northern spotted owl, snowy owl, and burrowing 

owl. Additionally, Johnson and O’Neil (2001) list flammulated owls and long-eared owls as 

occurring in habitat types coinciding with the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline route. The 

burrowing owl, boreal owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, northern pygmy owl, northern 

goshawk, ferruginous hawk, merlin, and Swainson’s hawk have special state or BLM status and 
4.5-12 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

are addressed in section 4.6. The NSO and bald eagle have threatened or endangered state and/or 

federal status and are discussed in section 4.6. 

Similar to species trends deduced from BBS data, CBC data from all six count locations in the 

pipeline vicinity were compiled to examine species’ trends over the past 15 years (1992 to 2006). 

From these data, the relative abundances of 19 species appear to be declining in the region. All 

but three of those declining species are waterfowl, seabirds, or shorebirds (including the 

threatened marbled murrelet). There are also a few species of waterfowl, seabirds, and 

shorebirds with apparent increasing trends but more species from different groups (e.g., 

passerines) are increasing. Of particular interest are the increasing trends of corvids (nest 

predators including black-billed magpie, common raven, and American crow) and brown-headed 

cowbirds (a parasitic bird – see Vander Haegen and Walker 1998), as these species can 

contribute to declines of other species through nest predation and parasitism. Corvids tend to be 

species attracted to disturbance. They are common at ecotones and in areas modified and 

frequented by humans. Because construction of the proposed pipeline project would increase 

human activity and edge during creation of the right-of-way and installation of the pipeline, there 

is a potential risk of increasing corvid densities in the vicinity of the pipeline. This could be 

detrimental to native birds if corvids predate eggs and young, or out-compete native species for 

nest sites. 

West Nile virus (WNV), a potentially fatal disease that emerged in North America in 1999 and is 

most detrimental to bird species, has the potential to impact bird populations. Mosquitoes are the 

primary vector of WNV. The virus is believed to have killed millions of birds in North America 

since its emergence (Centers for Disease Control 2006). Corvids (crows, ravens, magpies and 

jays) are particularly susceptible to the virus. Concern has been raised for threatened and 

endangered species, such as NSOs, with relatively small populations that may experience 

difficulty recovering from short-term population declines (Sallinger 2006). In 2006, the disease 

was identified in 22 Oregon counties, an increase of 11 counties from 2005. Within counties 

crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline, during 2006 the virus was found in two 

birds and one horse in Klamath County, and one bird and one horse in Jackson County. As of 

November 2007, the virus has not been documented in Coos or Douglas Counties. Both 

Klamath and Jackson Counties participate in Oregon’s WNV surveillance program (ODHS 

2006). As a result of surface disturbance during construction, the proposed Pacific Connector 

pipeline could create additional depressions in soil where rainwater could accumulate and create 

potential breeding sites for mosquitoes. However, as part of right-of-way restoration, including 

within wetland areas, Pacific Connector would restore surface contours and drainages such that 

the presence of standing water on the right-of-way would not expected to be greater than prior to 

construction. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline 

is not expected to facilitate or increase the spread of WNV. 

Bird species in the region with increasing or no significant trends are unlikely to be affected by 

the proposed pipeline because most habitats used by those species are either not affected by the 

pipeline, are extensive in the region, and/or because those species utilize a variety of habitats as 

described for general associations. Species with declining trends could be most affected by the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline. Twenty-four of the 27 species with significant declining 

trends observed in the region (BBS data) inhabit one or more types of forested habitats that 

would be impacted by the proposed pipeline. Likewise, 16 of 19 species with significant 
4.5-13 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

declining trends observed during winter (CBC data) are seabirds, waterfowl or shorebirds. 

Limited impact to those species is expected from the proposed pipeline because most would be 

closely or generally associated with herbaceous wetlands, riparian wetlands, coastal 

dunes/beaches, and/or open water, bays and estuaries. Impact to those habitats could contribute 

to further declines, though probably not measurably on a regional scale. 

To avoid taking species including eggs and nests, in compliance with the MBTA, Pacific 

Connector would conduct all vegetation maintenance actions that would involve mowing or hand 

clearing the 30-foot-wide operational corridor in late summer or early autumn, after nesting has 

generally been completed, although there may be some occupied nests by species that 

characteristically produce multiple clutches during a single breeding season. Pacific Connector 

would also adhere to its Mitigation Plan. 

Five new communications towers would be located within the footprints of the four-meter station 

sites and the compressor station. Communication towers at Clarks Branch, Shady Cove, and 

Tule Lake/Russell Canyon/Buck Butte Meter Stations would be 26 feet in height, whereas towers 

located at the Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station and Butte Falls Compressor Station would be 

140 feet and 160 feet in height, respectively. None of these towers would have guy-wires. 

Communications towers are estimated to kill millions of birds each year. However, the majority 

of bird-tower collisions are reported from towers over 500 feet tall, with mortality being higher 

near guyed towers than self-supporting towers, and may also increase at towers with lighting 

(Gehring 2004). Most bird-tower collisions occur at night, generally during conditions with low 

visibility, and during the day under foggy conditions. 

The proposed communications tower at Clarks Branch Meter Station would be located within an 

agricultural field near a residential area near Dole Road and I-5 and 0.3 mile north of the South 

Umpqua River. This tower would be located in an area that could potentially have birds flying 

between the South Umpqua River and its tributaries, which meander within the vicinity of Clarks 

Branch Meter Station, and therefore bird-tower collisions could occur. The proposed 

communications tower at Shady Cove Meter Station would be located within Westside 

Grasslands near Mixed Conifer/Mixed Deciduous forests and residential areas, approximately 

0.4 mile from the Rogue River. Because the proposed location of the tower is close to forested 

habitat and the Rogue River, bird-tower collisions could occur. The proposed communications 

tower at the Tule Lake/Russell Canyon/Buck Butte Meter Station site would be located within an 

agricultural complex adjacent to Old Alturas Highway (Highway 114) and approximately 1.0 

mile west of juniper and sagebrush habitat. Each of these towers would be 26 feet tall, and not 

have guy wires or lighting. Therefore, while some bird-tower collisions could occur, the 

relatively low height of these towers and lack of guy wires and lighting would minimize the 

incidences of bird collisions. 

The proposed 140-foot communications tower at Jordan Cove Receipt Meter Station would be 

located within the Pacific Flyway, increasing the potential for bird collisions and tower-related 

kills, especially during fall and spring migrations. However, the communications tower would 

be located between the Roseburg facility, including an existing 190-foot-tall loading tower, and 

the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal which would have two 180-foot-high LNG storage 

tanks. Impacts to birds should be minimal, because the other large dominating features currently 

within the area of the proposed location would have great potential to alter the flight of birds 
4.5-14 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

away from the Jordan Cove Meter Station communication tower; however, some bird-tower 

collisions could occur. 

Within the site of the Butte Falls Compressor Station, a free-standing 160-foot steel 

communications tower, without guy wires, would be constructed adjacent to 50-foot-tall exhaust 

stacks. The proposed compressor station would be located within mixed coniferous/mixed 

deciduous forest, adjacent to an agricultural field and pastureland. Based on the habitat in which 

this tower would occur, some bird-tower collisions could occur. However, its proximity to the 

50-foot exhaust stacks, and the fact that the station would be surrounded by trees which would be 

more visible than the tower to birds in flight, may minimize impact by diverting the birds’ flight. 

Grouping these tall structures together should reduce potential impacts to birds (FWS 2000c). 

There are also typically very few kills associated with towers less than 400 to 500 feet in height 

(Kerlinger 2000). 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Based on their distributions in southwestern Oregon, 23 species of amphibians and 24 species of 

reptiles may be present in habitats that would be crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector 

pipeline (Leonard et al. 1993; Nussbaum et al. 1983). Habitat associations of reptiles and 

amphibians in the four counties that would be crossed by the pipeline are listed in Pacific 

Connector’s Environmental Resource Report 3, Appendix D, Table 3D-1, filed with its 

September 4, 2007 application to the FERC. Habitats in the area of the proposed pipeline that 

support the highest diversity of reptiles and amphibians include wetlands/eastside riparianwetlands (38 species), developed-urban and mixed environments (37 species), and southwest 

Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest (35 species). One species (western terrestrial garter 

snake) is potentially found within bays and estuarine habitats. 

As indicated above, reptiles are diverse and can be found in a wide variety of habitats, from dry, 

rocky areas (e.g., western fence lizard, striped whipsnake) to aquatic habitats (e.g., Northwestern 

pond turtle, western terrestrial garter snake). The pipeline would traverse some rocky ridge tops 

along the route, which could potentially serve as habitat for reptiles (for example some lizards), 

as well as aquatic areas. Impacts from the proposed pipeline to reptiles could include direct 

mortality, habitat alteration, fragmentation, and disturbance. Due to the mobility of reptiles, the 

secure status of most of these species, the small amount of habitat that would be affected, and the 

short duration of disturbance, population-level impacts are not expected to any non-sensitive 

reptile species. Sensitive reptile species are addressed in detail in the Biological Evaluation. 

Amphibians demonstrate close associations with aquatic and riparian habitats, although they may 

occur in other habitat types if not too distant from water. In general, amphibians with extremely 

limited distributions and with relatively specific ecological requirements may be more at risk of 

further population declines (Walls et al. 1992), including those caused by human-related actions. 

Some amphibian species are associated with a variety of habitats and as a result, are common 

and widespread with healthy populations, such as the Pacific tree frog and rough-skinned newt. 

Other species that have been documented within the proposed pipeline area, such as the Oregon 

spotted frog (a candidate species for listing under ESA) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (a 

federal species of concern, state vulnerable, BLM assessment, and USFS sensitive species) are 

declining due to loss of habitat, including wetland destruction, alteration of flow regimes, and 
4.5-15 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

siltation; invasions of non-native plants; introduction and spread of non-native predators, 

especially bullfrogs; toxins; and disease (ODFW 2006d). 

The pipeline would affect 131 acres of riparian habitat, the habitat type on which most 

amphibian species rely. The Pacific Connector pipeline could negatively impact these species by 

directly killing adults or juveniles through trampling, altering or destroying habitat, or affecting 

the prey base. Other threats could be loss of habitat connectivity, changes in hydrology and 

water quality, predation, spread of invasive species including chytrid fungus and New Zealand 

mud snail, and competition with invasive species (ODFW 2006d). Some effects to habitat and 

flow regime would be avoided by following the Hydrostatic Test Plan, which calls for measures 

that would minimize siltation and alteration of flows by such measures as using filter bags and 

locating discharge sites at least 150 feet from waterbodies. The transfer of pathogens and 

invasive species between waterbodies would be prevented by testing the source waterbody for 

pathogens before water withdrawal. The Oregon spotted frog is highly aquatic, living in or near 

permanent, slow-moving bodies of water, usually non-woody wetlands. No impact to this 

species is expected due to no habitat or known populations being crossed by the pipeline. The 

foothill yellow-legged frog stays very close to perennial streams with cobble substrate in a 

variety of habitats. This species has been documented in the Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg 

BLM districts and the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Umpqua National Forests, and there are several 

locations of this species within 2 miles of the pipeline route. The proposed pipeline could 

possibly impact individual foothill yellow-legged frogs but is not expected to have populationlevel effects due to the small amount of habitat that would be affected. See the Biological 

Evaluation (Appendix H-11) for more details. 

Reptiles potentially occurring within the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline area are also 

associated with a variety of the habitats that would be crossed by the pipeline, although not all 

are as closely associated with water and/or water-dominated features as amphibians. The 

primary threats to reptiles are habitat loss and fragmentation, predation, and competition with 

nonnative invasive species, such as turtles, fish, and bullfrogs (ODFW 2006d). 

Mammals 

Based on their distributions in southwestern Oregon and habitat associations described by 

Johnson and O’Neil (2001), 107 species of mammals may be present in habitats that would be 

crossed by and/or are adjacent to the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline. Mammal species and 

potential distributions, based on habitat associations, in the four counties that would be crossed 

by the pipeline are listed in Pacific Connector’s Environmental Resource Report 3, Appendix D, 

Table 3D-1, filed with its September 4, 2007 application to the FERC. The most diverse groups 

likely to occur are rodents (46 species), carnivores (19 species), and bats (13 species, primarily 

seasonal inhabitants). Mammal species with special state or federal status are discussed in 

section 4.6. 

Similar to the pattern described above for bird species diversity relative to habitat, the highest 

diversity of mammals can be expected in habitats associated with agriculture, pastures, and 

mixed environs (77 species with some association) followed by eastside and westside riparianwetlands habitat (76 species). Mammalian species’ diversity is also relatively high in westside 

lowland conifer-hardwood-forest (66 species), southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest 

(64 species), westside oak, dry Douglas-fir forest and woodlands (62), montane mixed conifer 
4.5-16 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

forest (60 species), as well as in developed-urban and mixed environs (63 species). The lowest 

species diversity of mammals is expected in bays and estuaries (12). 

Project effects to mammals could include disturbance; habitat loss; direct mortality, particularly 

to juveniles; and habitat fragmentation. Of the 107 species of mammals potentially encountered 

by the pipeline, 11 are sensitive species, with some listing status with a federal agency. Of these 

11, the pipeline could impact individuals or habitat of seven species, but should not contribute 

towards a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species; the pipeline would have 

no impact on the remaining four species. For details on individual species, see the Biological 

Evaluation (BE in Appendix H). 

Invertebrates 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline may affect terrestrial invertebrates, including 

arthropods (insects, spiders, and crustaceans) and mollusks (snails and slugs). Arthropods occur 

within all habitat types crossed by the proposed pipeline. Terrestrial mollusks are considerably 

more restricted, occurring with a few exceptions only in moist habitats associated with springs, 

seeps, decaying wood, moist mature forests, and habitats maintained in the coastal “fog” zone 

near the ocean. Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline could impact invertebrates 

due to direct mortality, habitat alteration, and habitat fragmentation. Additionally, populations 

could also become isolated due to the creation of the pipeline corridor that could act as a barrier 

to species movement. To mitigate for that possibility, large woody debris would be placed along 

the pipeline corridor. Based on their distributions within Oregon, 59 special status invertebrates 

may occur in the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline area, all of which are mollusks (35 

species) or arthropods (24 species). Special status species are discussed in section 4.6. 

Harvested Wildlife 

Several species of mammals and birds are harvested annually for recreation and/or subsistence in 

Oregon. With the exception of wildlife harvest administered and managed under tribal 

authorities, harvest is regulated by ODFW within defined hunt units. 

Big Game

Demographic data and harvest data were compiled from ODFW reports available online for 

various big game species (black-tailed deer, mule deer, Roosevelt elk, Rocky Mountain elk, 

black bear, and cougar). 

Linear trend analyses were conducted on available demographic estimates for black-tailed deer, 

mule deer, and Roosevelt elk. Significant decreasing trends were observed in the population 

indices for Roosevelt elk in the Tioga Hunt Unit and Rogue Hunt Unit. A significant increasing 

trend was observed in the population index of mule deer in the Klamath Falls Hunt Unit. No 

trends were apparent for any black-tailed deer populations; however, ODFW (2007) indicated 

that most units have observed a prolonged decline except for the past two years, which indicated 

upward trends. Columbian white-tailed deer may also be harvested, although data are not 

available in the ODFW reports. Most black bears have been harvested in the Tioga and Powers 

hunt units and average cougar harvest has been highest in the Rogue and Tioga hunt units. 

Two subspecies of mule deer occur within the Pacific Connector pipeline area (ODFW 2006b): 

the larger Rocky Mountain mule deer are usually found east of the Cascade Mountain crest and 
4.5-17 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

black-tailed deer that are generally found west of the Cascades. A second species, Columbian 

white-tailed deer, was recently state and federally delisted (2003) and may occur between Olalla 

Creek and Clarks Branch Road in Douglas County (ODFW 2007a), within an area considered by 

ODFW and Douglas County “peripheral big game range” (Wood pers. comm. 2007). Blacktailed deer are considered management indicator species for both the Umpqua and Rogue River – 

Siskiyou National Forests (USFS 1990a and 1990b). 

In eastern Oregon, mule deer are mainly confined to open woods or isolated mountain ranges, 

although they once ranged into sagebrush plains in canyons or rimrock. During the winter, a 

period considered critical for the mule deer, they descend to lower elevations to browse 

sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, juniper, and mountain-mahogany, which are high in fats 

(ODFW 2006c, 2003a; Csuti et al. 2001). In western Oregon, black-tailed deer are found in 

heavy brush areas at the edges of forests and chaparral thickets, but not in dense forests. Blacktailed deer prefer early successional stages created by clear-cuts or burns, providing grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs (ODFW 2006c; Csuti et al. 2001). Most black-tails that summer in the high 

Cascades winter at lower elevations on the west slope, although some wintering may occur east 

of the Cascade crest (ODFW 2006c). Winter loss of black-tailed deer is generally far less than 

for mule deer, because the snow does not remain on the valley floors for extended periods and a 

crust does not form on the surface as it does on the east side of the Cascades (ODFW 2006c). 

Within Jackson County, black-tailed deer are highly migratory and often move along welldefined migration trails at night during the months between October and March (ODFW 2007a). 

In Douglas County, Columbian white-tailed deer are most often associated with riparian habitats, 

although they are known to use a variety of lower elevation habitat types, such as grasslands, 

grass shrub, oak woodlands, coniferous woodlands, and mixed deciduous and coniferous 

woodlands (FWS 2003). 

Rocky Mountain elk inhabit most of eastern Oregon and Roosevelt elk occupy most of western 

Oregon with concentrations in the Cascades and Coast ranges. They are known to make 

significant movements in response to disturbances from humans and predators, as well as 

seasonal weather patterns. Rocky Mountain elk are considered management indicator species for 

both the Umpqua and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests (USFS 1990a,b). 

Numerous studies have shown that both Rocky Mountain and Roosevelt elk are sensitive to 

human disturbances such as motorized travel on and off roads (Rowland et al. 2000). Roads are 

generally avoided by elk when they are open, but are heavily utilized by elk as travel corridors 

when closed. Several herds of elk are known to winter on the western slopes of the Cascades 

(ODFW 2003b). Summer elk forage consists of a combination of lush forbs, grasses, and shrubs, 

which is usually attained at higher elevations within wet meadows, springs, and riparian areas in 

close proximity to forested stands. Forage becomes less abundant and accessible in winter and 

the nutritional quality declines. Winter range is usually within forested sites, which provide 

protection against weather, as well as lichens and other plants, used as forage (ODFW 2003b); 

however, in Jackson County, winter range also consists of other habitat types such as grassy 

meadows, recent clearcuts, industrial forestlands, agricultural fields, orchards and urban edges. 

Most elk range is on BLM and NFS lands (ODFW 2003b); however, within the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline project area, most winter range occurs on private lands (table 4.5.1.3-1). 
4.5-18 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.1.3-1 

Designated Big Game Winter Range Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Miles Crossed By Landowner 

Winter Range or Management Area BLM USFS Other a/,

, b/ Total 

Douglas County 

Big Game Winter Range – Umpqua N.F. 0.66 0.66 

Douglas County Total 0.66 0.66 

Jackson County 

Sensitive Wildlife Area c/ 2.18 2.32 4.50 

Especially Sensitive Deer and Elk Winter Range

d/

11.08 1.42 19.80 32.30 

Jackson County Total 13.26 1.42 21.99 36.81 

Klamath County 

Deer Low/Medium Density Winter Range e/ 4.28 4.28 

Deer Low/Medium Density Winter Range f/ 0.26 12.30 12.56 

Klamath County Total 0.26 16.58 16.84 

Overall Total 13.52 2.08 38.57 54.31 

a/ Other includes non-federal lands, such as private, county, and state. 

b/ Seasonal restrictions are specific to landownership. "Other" designation is stipulated by ODFW. 

c/ Sensitive Wildlife Areas coverage was provided by ODFW from Jackson County big game GIS coverage. This area also 

incorporates USFS Deer Winter Range coverage (Trail Creek). 

d/ Especially Sensitive Deer and Elk Winter Range coverage was provided by ODFW from Jackson County big game GIS 

coverage. This area also incorporates BLM Deer (Camel Hump, BFRA Salt Creek, Little Butte Creek South) and Elk (Camel 

Hump, BFRA Salt Creek) Winter Management Area coverages, as well as USFS Deer Winter Range coverages (Big Butte 

Creek, Lake Creek). 

e/ Deer Low/Medium Density Winter Range coverage was provided by ODFW from digitizing efforts of Klamath planning maps. 

This is the Keno Unit Winter Range (Milburn 2007). 

f/ Deer Low/Medium Density Winter Range coverage was provided by ODFW from digitizing efforts of Klamath County planning 

maps. This area also incorporates BLM Deer Winter Management coverages (Stukel, South Bryant). 

Big-game winter ranges have been delineated for management planning efforts within Jackson 

and Klamath Counties and typically include winter ranges for both deer and elk (ODFW 2003a). 

The big-game winter management areas were digitized in GIS from Jackson and Klamath 

Counties’ planning maps by ODFW and are still considered to be in draft form (Wood, pers. 

comm. 2007). The delineated areas do not necessarily represent complete deer and elk winter 

ranges within each county, but designate areas that provide some level of protection for biggame winter range while allowing development to occur (Milburn, pers. comm., 2007). 

Additionally, GIS coverage of big-game winter range on BLM lands and NFS lands has been 

incorporated. Table 4.5.1.3-1 provides miles (by landowner) of designated big game winter 

ranged crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline. 

Upland Game Birds

Upland game birds that may be harvested in the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline area are 

sooty grouse, ruffed grouse, mountain quail, ring-necked pheasant, California quail, chukar 

partridge, Hungarian partridge, and mourning dove (ODFW 2006b). Habitats for these species 

are highly variable, from agriculture and urban areas to riparian and mixed woodland-conifer 

forest. Upland game birds harvested per unit effort (expressed as harvest per hunter-day) 

indicate neither increasing nor decreasing populations in each hunt unit. Wild turkeys are also 

harvested in Jackson and Douglas Counties (USFS 2007), but harvest data were not provided for 
4.5-19 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

this species. Jeff VonKienast, a wildlife biologist with the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest, indicated that turkey populations within Jackson County appear to be increasing. 

Small Game and Furbearers

For small game and furbearers, harvest information was not available by hunt units. Instead, 

information was provided for each county that would be crossed by the pipeline. In all four 

counties, harvested small game and furbearer species are beaver, bobcat, gray fox, red fox, 

marten, mink, muskrat, otter, raccoon, badger, coyote, nutria, opossum, spotted skunk, striped 

skunk, and weasel (ODFW 2006b). Habitats for these species include almost all habitat types 

present in the pipeline area. 

Important Wildlife Habitats

Grasslands and/or meadows include a variety of upland grass-dominated habitats, with perennial 

bunchgrasses and forbs dominating the native grasslands. Shrub or tree layers are usually not 

present, but may be an important feature of the meadow edge. Loss of these habitats has 

occurred within southwest Oregon and is a result of conversion to agriculture and development, 

invasive plant species, grazing, and encroachment of shrubs and trees through natural succession 

and elimination of natural fire regimes (ODFW 2006a). Meadows and grasslands within the area 

of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline are an important habitat for 43 special status wildlife 

species (see section 4.6). For miles of each of these habitat types crossed, see table 4.5.1.3-2. 

Wetlands are covered with water during all or part of the year and include bogs, swamps, 

marshes, estuaries, and some riverine (riparian) ecosystems (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). 

Wetlands provide important habitat for migrating and breeding waterfowl, shorebirds, 

waterbirds, songbirds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as providing important rearing 

habitat for juvenile salmons (ODFW 2006a). In terms of management, riparian zones, including 

wetlands, are considered the most critical of wildlife habitats because they support the most 

species diversity (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). Most loss of wetlands within lower elevations and 

valley bottoms has occurred as a result of diking, draining, and conversion to agriculture. In 

addition, plant species composition has changed from the spread of noxious weeds and overgrazing (ODFW 2006a). There are over 50 special status wildlife species that could occur in the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline project area that are associated with wetlands for all or part 

of their life history (see section 4.6). 

Deciduous hardwood species, such as oak and tanoak occur within the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline project area. The presence of these species may be within mixed coniferous 

and deciduous forests, deciduous-dominated riparian areas, and/or oak woodlands and occur 

most often in Douglas and Jackson Counties. In Coos County, many of the historical deciduous 

woodlands have been reduced as a result of conifer plantings and changes in fire frequency and 

intensity, as well as conversion to agricultural and residential uses. However, in Douglas and 

Jackson Counties, loss of deciduous woodlands has not been as severe and actually has expanded 

into some shrub-steppe and grassland habitats as a result of fire suppression, although 

development within these counties threatens these habitats (ODFW 2006a). Loss of oaks is of 

particular concern in Oregon because the trees have a slow growth rate and reproduction and 

recruitment of younger trees is poor. In addition, invasive plant species degrade the understory 

(ODFW 2006a). Thirty-four special status wildlife species (see section 4.6) are associated with 
4.5-20 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

deciduous forests or woodlands and/or habitat features found within deciduous-dominated forests 

and woodlands (i.e., snags, nest cavities). 

Mature (greater than 40 years old), late successional (80 to 175 years), and old-growth (greater 

than 175 years old) forests are unique, important habitat elements, and are especially valuable to 

preserve because they take so long to form after disturbance. Late successional and old-growth 

forests have been especially impacted because it takes a century or more of no disturbance for 

the structural diversity that some wildlife species require to develop (Brown 1985). These older 

forest types have been drastically decreased by logging activities. In the Pacific Northwest, tree 

species common in mature to old-growth forests are western hemlock (Tsuga heterophyla), 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea 

sitchensis), red alder (Alnus rubra), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) (Chappell et al. 

2001). Many species of wildlife are obligates of mature forests, including the federally 

threatened NSO and MAMU, both of which are old-growth obligates. The proposed pipeline 

would cross through 76.9 miles of mature forest, 65.4 on the west side of the Cascades and 11.5 

miles on the east side (table 4.4.1.3-2). 

TABLE 4.5.1.3-2 

Wildlife Habitat Types Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline and Potential Number of Wildlife Species Associated with 

Habitats

General 

Vegetation Type Mapped Habitat Category Type 

Miles of Late Successional or Old-Growth Forest a/ Miles of Mid-Seral Forest b/ Miles of Clearcut or Regenerating Forest c/

Total 

Miles 

Percent of 

Total by 

Habitat 

Type 

Number of Species 

Associated 

Westside Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest 

4.1 11.6 28.2 43.6 18.7 32-Herpetofauna 

113-Birds 

66-Mammals 

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 3.2 0.9 4.9 9.0 3.9 21-Herpetofauna 

94-Birds 

60-Mammals 

Southwest Oregon Mixed ConiferHardwood Forest 

31.7 14.8 16.9 63.3 27.1 35-Herpetofauna 

125-Birds 

64-Mammals 

Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodlands 

2.5 2.34 0.8 5.7 2.4 31-Herpetofauna 

124-Birds 

56-Mammals 

Forest-Woodland 

(West of 

Cascades)

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir 

Forest and Woodlands 

2.9 4.2 0.0 7.2 3.1 32-Herpetofauna 

113-Birds 

62-Mammals 

Subtotal 44.4 33.6 50.8 128.8 55.2 

Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

3.6 3.2 4.0 10.9 4.65 31-Herpetofauna 

124-Birds 

Forest-Woodland 56-Mammals 

(East of Cascades) Western Juniper and Mountain 

Mahogany Woodlands 

<0.1 7.1 3.0 10.1 4.33 19-Herpetofauna 

86-Birds 

34-Mammals 

Subtotal 3.7 10.3 7.0 21.0 9.0 

Total All Forest 48.1 43.9 57.8 149.8 64.2 

GrasslandsShrubland

Shrub-Steppe 12.9 5.5 22-Herpetofauna 

75-Birds 

46-Mammals 
4.5-21 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.1.3-2 

Wildlife Habitat Types Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline and Potential Number of Wildlife Species Associated with 

Habitats

General 

Vegetation Type Mapped Habitat Category Type 

Miles of Late Successional or Old-Growth Forest a/ Miles of Mid-Seral Forest b/ Miles of Clearcut or Regenerating Forest c/

Total 

Miles 

Percent of 

Total by 

Habitat 

Type 

Number of Species 

Associated 

Westside Grasslands 10.1 4.3 26-Herpetofauna 

84-Birds 

Grasslands- 37-Mammals 

Shrubland Eastside Grasslands 1.9 0.8 20-Herpetofauna 

79-Birds 

44-Mammals 

Subtotal 24.8 10.6 

Westside RiparianWetlands/Eastside Riparian 

Wetlands 

0.4 0.2 38-Herpetofauna 

154-Birds 

76-Mammals 

Bays and Estuaries 0.0 0.0 1-Herpetofauna 

132-Birds 

12-Mammals 

Riparian

Herbaceous Wetlands 6.9 2.9 18-Herpetofauna 

136-Birds 

43-Mammals 

Subtotal 7.2 3.1 

Agricultural 

Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed 

Environs 

33.8 14.5 32-Herpetofauna 

173-Birds 

77-Mammals 

Subtotal 33.8 14.5 

Developed 

Urban and Mixed Environs 2.4 1.0 37-Herpetofauna 

131-Birds 

63-Mammals 

Subtotal 2.4 1.0 

Coastal Dunes and Beaches <0.1 <0.1 6-Herpetofauna 

100-Birds 

26-Mammals 

Barren 

Roads 12.0 5.1 NA 

Subtotal 12.0 5.1 

Open Water – Lakes, Rivers and 

Streams 

1.1 0.5 17-Herpetofauna 

94-Birds 

20-Mammals Open Water Bays and Estuaries 2.4 1.0 1-Herpetofauna 

132-Birds 

12-Mammals 

Subtotal 3.6 1.5 

Project Total 233.5** 100.0 

Notes: 

**Total does not include 0.73 mile associated with HDD crossings. 

a/ The “Late Successional and Old-Growth” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 80 years of age. 

Forests with stands greater than 175 years are considered to have old-growth characteristics. 

b/ The “Mid-Seral” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 40 years of age but less than 80 years of age. 

c/ The “Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating Young Forest” category describes those forest areas that are either clear-cut (tree age 0-

5 years) or regenerating (tree age 5 to 40 years). Forest areas in this category are divided into forest vegetation types based on their 

potential to become those types of forests.
4.5-22 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Other habitat diversity features with which special status wildlife species are associated include 

dead standing trees or snags, down large wood, talus slopes, and cliffs. These structures occur 

throughout the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline project area or within the vicinity. 

The Klamath Wildlife Area occurs approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed pipeline route 

near mileposts 185 through 192. The Klamath Wildlife Area is managed to provide habitat for 

wintering and nesting waterfowl, upland game birds, and a variety of other wildlife (ODFW 

2007a). The proposed pipeline would not cross or otherwise affect the Klamath Wildlife Area. 

ODFW Habitat Characterization 

On July 24, 2008 Pacific Connector filed with the Commission its revised habitat categorizations 

developed in consultation with the ODFW, FWS, and others. The ODFW developed a Fish and 

Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-000) that provides a framework for assigning 

one of six categories to habitats that would be affected by the PCG pipeline. The categorization 

of habitats impacted would provide a means for ODFW to review the impacts of the proposed 

action to wildlife throughout the project area on non-Federal lands, and the policy establishes 

consistent goals and standards to mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. On February 15, 

2009, the ODFW stated it accepted Pacific Connector’s characterization with some revisions. 

Pacific Connector would continue to work with the ODFW and FWS to define measures that 

would be taken to comply with OAR 635-415-000. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

Numbers of miles in each of the various habitat types (categories from Johnson and O’Neil 2001) that 

would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are included in table 4.5.1.3-2. Acres that would be affected 

are listed in table 4.5.1.3-3. 

Many species have very specific habitat requirements that may or may not be present along the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline, and therefore would not be described in the relatively broad 

habitat types utilized here (habitat types described by Johnson and O’Neil 2001). Consequently, the 

assumption has been made that if a species’ occupied range is known or likely to coincide with the 

proposed pipeline, and if general habitat types that would be affected by the pipeline could include 

more specific habitat components required by that species, then the species could occur and be affected 

in some way by the Pacific Connector pipeline. 

Various impacts may occur to wildlife resources including direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term. 

Short-term impacts to wildlife would occur during construction, and extend beyond construction 

activities to include disturbances within habitats that may not be returned to former levels of 

functionality for up to 3 years following restoration efforts. Long-term impacts to wildlife can extend 

through the life of the project, and possibly longer, if affected habitats and their functions require more 

than 3 years to be fully restored. Direct impacts to wildlife habitat, whether by direct removal, 

conversion of one type to another, alteration of key components, or degradation due to proximity of 

disturbances, indirectly affect wildlife populations. Compared to effects of direct impact, such indirect 

impact to wildlife is often more subtle and difficult to document. Indirect impacts also may be 

expressed over the long-term, with some time lag between onset of impact and detection of impact to 

wildlife populations. In addition to variability over time, indirect impact to wildlife due to direct impact 

to habitats may be variable over space so that the expression of impact may occur some distance away 

from the impact source.
4.5 – W

4.5-23

TABLE 4.5.1.3-3 

Summary of Construction-Related Disturbance to Habitat (acres)

Pipeline Facilities 

General 

Vegetation 

Type 

Mapped Habitat 

Category Type 

Forest 

Stand by 

Age 

Construction 

Right-of-Way 

Hydrostatic 

Discharge Sites d/

Temporary Extra 

Work Areas 

Uncleared Storage 

Areas 

Rock Source/ 

Disposal 

Access Roads 

(TARs/PARs/ 

Improvements) e/

Subtotal Late 

Successional – Old 

Growth 

Subtotal Mid-Seral 

L-O a/ 50.1 9.1 12.0 71.1 M-S b/ 131.7 33.3 31.9 1.1 2.2 200.1 Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 

C-R c/ 331.6 137.8 53.5 7.3 0.2 

L-O a/ 37.0 1.6 18.3 56.9 

Montane Mixed Conifer M-S b/ 8.9 0.2 4.1 13.1 Forest C-R c/ 53.2 19.8 24.7 

L-O a/ 370.1 79.8 316.6 4.6 771.0 

Southwest Oregon Mixed M-S b/ 168.5 52.7 91.7 0.4 0.3 313.7 Conifer-Hardwood Forest C-R c/ 201.4 0.3 122.4 135.6 4.4 

L-O a/ 69.3 14.8 12.6 96.6 

Ponderosa Pine Forest M-S b/ 64.2 0.1 9.6 3.1 77.0 and Woodlands C-R c/ 54.5 7.9 7.3 0.9 0.2 

L-O a/ 34.9 12.3 11.7 58.8 M-S b/ 50.4 19.3 5.5 75.2 

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands C-R c/

L-O a/ 0.4 0.1 0.5 M-S b/ 79.1 0.2 20.1 0.3 99.6 

ForestWoodland (Cascades) 

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands C-R c/ 34.7 3.3 0.1 

Subtotal 1740.0 0.6 543.9 728.4 19.0 2.9 1055.0 778.7 Percent of All Forest 57.3 <0.1 17.9 24.0 0.6 0.1 34.8 25.7 

Shrub-Steppe 151.8 44.1 23.2 0.6 Westside Grasslands 117.4 108.1 7.1 0.1 0.8 

Grasslands- Shrubland 

Eastside Grasslands 20.9 10.2 3.5 

Subtotal 290.1 0.0 162.4 30.3 3.6 1.4 

Herbaceous Wetlands 77.3 0.1 46.6 1.5 0.6 

Riparian Westside Riparian- Wetlands/Eastside 

Riparian Wetlands 

4.0 0.9 

Subtotal 81.3 0.1 47.5 1.5 0.6 
4.5 – W

4.5-24

TABLE 4.5.1.3-3 

Summary of Construction-Related Disturbance to Habitat (acres)

Pipeline Facilities 

General 

Vegetation 

Type 

Mapped Habitat 

Category Type 

Forest 

Stand by 

Age 

Construction 

Right-of-Way 

Hydrostatic 

Discharge Sites d/

Temporary Extra 

Work Areas 

Uncleared Storage 

Areas 

Rock Source/ 

Disposal 

Access Roads 

(TARs/PARs/ 

Improvements) e/

Subtotal Late 

Successional – Old 

Growth 

Subtotal Mid-Seral 

Agriculture Agriculture, Pastures and Mixed Environs 386.0 0.6 230.9 3.0 0.4 1.7 Subtotal 386.0 0.6 230.9 3.0 0.4 1.7 Developed Developed-Urban and Mixed Environs 26.5 212.1 <0.1 29.1 0.2 Subtotal 26.5 0.0 212.1 <0.1 29.1 0.2 

Coastal Dunes and Beaches 0.3 1.1 

Barren 

Roads 114.2 84.6 15.2 2.9 17.8 

Subtotal 114.5 0.0 85.6 15.2 2.9 17.8 

Open Water-Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 13.3 34.3 0.1 0.1 <0.1 

 Bays and Estuaries 73.3 2.6 Subtotal 86.5 0.0 36.9 0.1 0.1 <0.1 Project Total 2724.8 1.3 1319.3 778.5 55.3 24.7 1055.0 778.7 Percent of Pipeline Facilities 55.6 <0.1 26.9 15.9 1.1 0.5 21.5 15.9 

a/ The “Late Successional and Old-Growth” category (L-O) describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 80 years of age. Forests with stands 

considered to have old-growth characteristics. b/ The “Mid-Seral” category (M-S) describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 40 years of age but less than 80 years of age. 

c/ The “Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating Young Forest” category (C-R) describes those forest areas that are either clear-cut (tree age 0-5 years) or r

Forest areas in this category are divided into forest vegetation types based on their potential to become those types of forests. 

d/ Small brush or trees may be cleared by a rubber-tired rotary or flail motor (brush hog) or by hand with machetes/chainsaws. No soil disturbance would 

utilized to lay the discharge line and to remove the saturated hay bales or filter bags upon completion of hydrostatic discharge. 

e/ Portions of some of the PARs are located within the construction right-of-way and, therefore, there is some duplication in the acreage calculations. 
4.5-25 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Direct mortality of species could occur during construction and right-of-way maintenance 

operations. Individuals of some wildlife species may be also be directly impacted by 

construction of the proposed project if they are killed by vehicles traveling to and from 

construction sites. Species most susceptible to vehicle-related mortality include those that are 

inconspicuous (salamanders, frogs, snakes, small mammals), and wildlife with behavioral 

activity patterns making them vulnerable, such as deer that are more active at dusk and dawn, 

and wildlife that may scavenge roadside carrion (Leedy 1975; Bennett 1991; Forman and 

Alexander 1998; Trombulak and Frissel 2000). Species most susceptible to mortality from 

clearing and grading operations during the right-of-way construction are those with limited 

mobility (amphibians) and burrowing species (mice and voles, weasels, beaver, frogs and toads, 

snakes, subterranean mollusks). 

Other species are likely to be displaced from habitats that are cleared of vegetation (passerine 

birds, and tree-dependent/cavity-dependent birds and mammals such as woodpeckers and bats) 

and from areas adjacent to construction sites (waterfowl, raptors and medium-sized mammals). 

Species displaced solely due to construction and restoration-related disturbance would be 

expected to return once human activity is absent. Species displaced due to removal of critical 

habitat features would only be expected to recolonize the area once those habitat features 

returned, i.e., several years for a shrubby understory, several decades for mid-seral stage forest, 

and a century or more for old-growth forest and snags. Therefore, impacts would last longer for 

those species dependent on mid-seral and old-growth forests and snags. Pacific Connector 

would enact mitigation measures that could shorten some of these recovery times, such as snag 

creation. However, if adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity for the species, displaced 

individuals could be adversely affected by competition for resources, increased susceptibility to 

predation, or disease that may be facilitated by crowding, until their original habitat recovers 

from disturbance. Additionally, the habitat modified within the 30-foot right-of-way would be a 

permanent impact, and species would be displaced from that area permanently. Activities 

associated with construction of the proposed pipeline could decrease individuals’ reproductive 

success by increasing neonate or nest abandonment and possibly by interfering with breeding 

behaviors, sustenance, and growth of fetuses and/or young, conception rates, and fetal survival. 

These direct impacts may negatively affect population growth through diminished rates of 

survivorship and fecundity. Wildlife populations may also be negatively affected if individuals 

are displaced from habitats affected by disturbances. Disturbance associated with construction 

of the proposed pipeline would be variable and time spent at any one location along the route 

would be dependent on topology, geology, and habitat types present. Pacific Connector 

anticipates that timber clearing would occur from May through November, and that pipeline 

construction would occur from early May, concurrent with timber clearing, through November 

the following year. 

Both long-term and short-term impacts could occur to amphibians and reptiles associated with 

waterbodies and riparian areas affected by the Project. Removal of riparian vegetation along 

stream edges that are crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would temporarily 

increase sedimentation into the waterbody during the time of disturbance and a short time (hours) 

afterward until sediments settled. Removal of vegetation along the width of the right-of-way is 

not expected to cause temperature changes substantial enough to cause effects to aquatic wildlife 

species (see section 4.3.2.5, Stream Temperature). Changes in hydrology could also occur 

within wetlands and waterbodies used for breeding, limiting dispersal or reducing breeding 
4.5-26 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

habitat (ODFW 2006d). However, Pacific Connector has proposed measures to minimize 

potential changes in hydrology. For example, during hydrostatic test water discharge, Pacific 

Connector would use filter bags and would discharge water at least 150 feet from water bodies 

(see Hydrostatic Test Plan for more details). Changes in hydrology would, however, occur 

temporarily during most stream crossings, but the changes would be largely restricted to the time 

spent effecting the crossing. There are also numerous BMPs in the FERC Staff’s Procedures that 

are designed to minimize negative effects to waterbodies, including associated vegetation, fish, 

and wildlife, and water quality. Despite these BMPs and construction and restoration methods, 

the various modifications to riparian habitat that would be caused by the pipeline could 

negatively impact reptiles and amphibians, for example by causing direct mortality (if they were 

not able to flee from equipment), causing disturbance and/or displacement, and indirectly 

lowering breeding success and survival. However, none of these effects is expected to result in 

viability concerns. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline through upland forests would require removal of 

deciduous and coniferous trees and would remove those habitat features over the long-term. 

Affected forested habitats within the construction right-of-way and TEWAs along the pipeline’s 

permanent operational right-of-way would be converted to shrub-sapling dominated or 

herbaceous cover over the short-term, benefiting some species that characteristically inhabit 

shrub or grassland habitats while being detrimental to species adapted to forest interiors. 

Construction through forested areas could also result in the removal of snags and LWD that are 

used by a variety of wildlife, including cavity nesting birds and bats; however, LWD would be 

replaced in the permanent operational easement upon completion of construction. 

Where the proposed pipeline would cross shrub-dominated habitats, short-term habitat loss 

would result because the right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate with native shrubs and 

grasses following construction. Some shrubs, such as species of sagebrush, would require longer 

than 3 years to become re-established and removal would be a long-term effect. Further, 

maintenance of a 30-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline would be a long-term loss of 

forested and shrub vegetation types greater than 6 feet in height (15 feet tall in riparian areas) 

due to periodic right-of-way maintenance (i.e., every 3 to 5 years), which potentially could 

reduce densities of breeding birds and small and large mammals by reducing forage, nesting 

substrate, and cover on the right-of-way. 

The areas of wildlife habitat (categories from Johnson and O’Neill 2001) that would be affected 

by construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline are listed in table 4.5.1.3-3. Shortterm and long-term effects to vegetation would affect wildlife habitats. A total of 4,903.8 acres 

of habitat would be impacted by construction of the pipeline and associated aboveground 

facilities, and 432 terrestrial wildlife species could be associated with habitat types that would be 

temporarily altered and/or removed. Short-term impacts would occur on areas used for UCSAs 

and hydrostatic test water discharge sites, and account for 779.8 acres of the total acreage (table 

4.5.1.3-3). 

Forest and woodland habitats that would be impacted by the pipeline and associated 

aboveground facilities include 3.034.8 acres, and account for 61.9 percent of the total impact 

acreage. Of forest habitats, the most heavily impacted type would be Southwest Oregon Mixed 

Conifer-Hardwood forest (1399.19 acres, of which 656.16 is either clear-cut or regenerating). 
4.5-27 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Thirty-five reptiles and amphibians, 125 birds, and 64 mammals are associated with this forest 

type (table 4.5.1.3-2). The second most heavily impacted forest type would be Westside 

Lowland Conifer-Hardwood forest (1,548.9 acres, of which 464.2 acres is clear-cut or 

regenerating). Thirty-two reptiles and amphibians, 113 birds, and 66 mammals are associated 

with this forest type. Most of the animals present in these habitats have stable populations, and 

the pipeline would affect only a small fraction of their total ranges. Therefore, construction and 

operation of the proposed pipeline in these ecosystems should not have a population-level effect 

on any of these species. Sensitive species are more likely to be negatively impacted by the 

proposed pipeline and are addressed individually in the BE (Appendix H-11). 

Within agricultural habitats, 622.5 acres of habitat classified as pastures and mixed environs 

would be impacted by construction, within which 32 reptiles and amphibians, 173 birds, and 77 

mammals are associated. Other habitats affected would include grasslands (10 percent of the 

total impact acreage or 487.8 acres), of which Westside grasslands would be the most heavily 

impacted (259.58 acres), and where there are 26 reptiles and amphibians, 84 birds, and 37 

mammals associated. Herbaceous wetlands account for 2.6 percent (126.1 acres) of the total 

acreage impacted, and have associations with 18 reptiles and amphibians, 136 birds, and 43 

mammals. Westside and Eastside riparian wetlands account for only 0.1 percent (4.9) of the total 

acreage impact, and are associated with 38 reptiles and amphibians, 154 birds, and 76 mammals 

(table 4.5.1.3-2). 

During operation of the proposed pipeline, Pacific Connector would maintain a 30-foot wide 

corridor, centered over the pipe, for the length of the pipeline. As a result, 545.7 acres of 

forested habitat would be maintained in a shrub/herbaceous state, including 334.5 acres of forestwoodland habitat and 211.2 acres of regenerating or clear-cut forest that has the potential to 

become mature forest-woodland habitat (table 4.5.1.3-4). All other non-forested habitats that 

would be affected by proposed pipeline construction would be revegetated and restored back to 

their preconstruction state, and it is expected that only right-of-way maintenance activities (i.e., 

mowing, cutting) occurring every 3 to 5 years would have the potential to impact species 

associated with those habitats. To avoid destruction of bird eggs and nests, all vegetation 

maintenance would be conducted in late summer or early autumn, after nesting has generally 

been completed. However, some species, especially those that produce multiple clutches during 

a single breeding season, could still have nests and/or chicks that could potentially be destroyed 

by mowing or trampling. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species 

Short- or long-term impacts to wildlife habitat could also result if the proposed pipeline causes 

the establishment and spread of noxious weeds, as well as other invasive species (animals and 

microbes) not native to a region. In general, habitats with more bare ground, such as grasslands 

(6.8 percent of wildlife habitat crossed by the pipeline route), riparian areas (0.19 percent), 

relatively dry, open forests (14.4 percent), and disturbed areas such as roads (5.1 percent) are 

more susceptible to invasive species establishment than are dense, moist forests, high mountain 

areas, and serpentine areas that have relatively closed plant cover or have extreme climate or 

soils (≤ 4.2 percent). 

Noxious weeds often out-compete native vegetation. They displace native species by spreading 

rapidly and utilizing resources (nutrients, water, sunlight) that can eventually lead to a weed-
4.5-28 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

dominated monoculture (see section 4.4.1.3). Such transformed habitat can be unsuitable to 

former wildlife inhabitants. Often, as habitat quality degenerates, wildlife diversity declines. 

For example, purple loosestrife forms dense monocultures that inhibit native vegetation, causing 

decreasing species’ diversity, limit water flows and wildlife access to water, and in some 

instances can make waterfowl nesting areas unsuitable (Whitson 1996). Scotch broom, as 

another example, is also highly aggressive and becomes rapidly established within open areas, 

including forest clearcuts where it may inhibit reforestation. In addition, infestations create 

highly flammable fuel loads (Bio-Integral Resource Center, no date). Fires in wildlife habitat 

can directly kill animals that are not able to flee, and can modify habitat rendering it unsuitable 

for certain species. For a summary of noxious weed species found along the pipeline route, see 

table 4.4.1.3-6. 

Clearing of vegetation from the linear right-of-way and soil disturbance from right-of-way 

grading could increase the chance of spreading noxious weeds through the removal of native, 

established species and soil disturbance, which could encourage the establishment of invasive 

plants. Equipment moving along the right-of-way could also bring seeds from one place to the 

next, aiding the spread of these species. Pacific Connector has measures in place to help prevent 

this. Weed surveys would take place prior to vegetation removal, and areas would be pretreated 

through mowing. Any infested areas found would be cleared to minimize the spread of invasive 

plants. Equipment would also be inspected and cleaned of any dirt, plant seeds, and microbes 

prior to moving to new areas of the pipeline. During restoration, disturbed areas would be 

revegetated with native seed mixtures. Monitoring would take place to ensure that no non-native 

plants establish themselves in lands disturbed by pipeline activities. Due to measures that would 

be employed before, during, and after construction, the risk of the pipeline causing noxious 

weeds to spread in the area of the pipeline should be low. See section 4.4 for more details on 

invasive plants and mitigation measures. 

Invasive insects, mites (e.g., spruce spider mite), and terrestrial mollusks (e.g., the predatory 

spotted leopard slug) can similarly disperse along a newly created corridor where native 

vegetation formerly presented barriers to dispersion. In general, invasive exotic wildlife species 

can adversely affect native species and their populations through various pathways, singly or in 

combination that include: 

• introduction of disease or parasites to native wildlife, 

• interbreeding (hybridization) with native wildlife, 

• competition for habitat with native wildlife, 

• degradation of habitat of native wildlife, 

• predation on native wildlife, and/or 

• alterations of foodwebs and ecosystem processes. 
TABLE 4.5.1.3-4 

Summary of Operation-Related Disturbance to Habitat by the Proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline (ac

Pipeline Facilities 

General 

Vegetation Type

Mapped Habitat Category 

Type

Forest Stand by Age

30-foot Maintenance 

Corridor 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

Subtotal Late 

Successional – Old 

Growth 

Subtotal Mid-Seral 

Subtotal Clearcut or 

Regenerating 

Subtotal of ForestWoodland by 

Habitat Type 

Permanent Easement

Jordan Cove MS & MLV 

#1 & CT e/

MLV #2 

MLV #3 

MLV #4 

MLV #5 

MLV #6 

Clarks Branch MS & 

MLV #7 &CT 

L-O b/ 15.0 15.0 25.3 M-S c/ 41.5 0.3 41.8 69.4 

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest C-R d/ 103.0 0.2 103.1 

159.9 

172.8 0.06 0.06 

L-O b/ 11.7 11.7 19.6 M-S c/ 3.3 3.3 5.4 Montane Mixed Conifer Forest C-R d/ 17.7 17.7 

32.7 

29.4 

L-O b/ 115.4 115.4 192.7 M-S c/ 53.6 53.6 89.2 0.7 

Southwest Oregon Mixed ConiferHardwood Forest C-R d/ 62.2 62.2 231.1 104.8 

L-O b/ 22.6 22.6 37.5 M-S c/ 20.1 20.1 33.4 Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands C-R d/ 17.4 0.2 17.6 

60.3 

29.0 

L-O b/ 10.8 10.8 18.0 M-S c/ 15.4 15.4 25.7 

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands C-R d/

26.1 

L-O b/ 0.1 0.1 0.2 M-S c/ 25.1 25.1 41.4 

ForestWoodland 

(Cascades) 

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands C-R d/ 10.9 0.1 11.0 

36.2 

18.2 

Subtotal 545.7 0.7 175.6 159.2 211.6 546.3 911.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 Percent of Forest-Woodland of Total Project 64.1 0.1 20.6 18.7 24.8 64.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Shrub-Steppe 46.8 78.1 Westside Grasslands 36.9 0.1 61.7 

GrasslandsShrubland 

Eastside Grasslands 6.9 11.5 

Subtotal 90.6 0.1 151.2 

Herbaceous Wetlands 24.9 41.4 0.1 

Riparian Westside Riparian- Wetlands/Eastside 

Riparian-Wetlands 

1.3 2.2 

Subtotal 26.2 43.6 0.1 

Agriculture Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs 122.9 0.6 204.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 

Subtotal 122.88 0.63 204.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 

Developed Developed-Urban and Mixed Environs 8.47 14.1 1.1 

Subtotal 8.47 14.1 1.1 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-30

TABLE 4.5.1.3-4 

Summary of Operation-Related Disturbance to Habitat by the Proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline (ac

Pipeline Facilities 

General 

Vegetation 

Type 

Mapped Habitat 

Category Type 

Forest Stand by Age 

30-foot Maintenance 

Corridor 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

Subtotal Late 

Successional – Old 

Growth 

Subtotal Mid-Seral 

Subtotal Clearcut or 

Regenerating 

Subtotal of ForestWoodland by 

Habitat Type 

Permanent Easement

Jordan Cove MS & 

MLV #1 & CT e/

MLV #2 

MLV #3 

MLV #4 

MLV #5 

MLV #6 

Clarks Branch MS & 

MLV #7 &CT 

Coastal Dunes and Beaches 0.1 0.1 0.5 

Barren 

Roads 42.0 1.4 67.1 <0.

Subtotal 42.1 1.4 67.2 0.5 <0.

Open Water-Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 4.1 6.9 

Open Water 

Bays and Estuaries 8.8 14.7 

Subtotal 12.9 21.5 Project Total 848.9 2.8 175.6 159.2 211.6 546.3 1414.0 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 Percent of Operations Facilities 

99.7 0.3 20.6 18.7 24.8 64.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

L-O b/ 15.0 15.0 25.3 M-S c/ 41.5 0.3 41.8 69.4 

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest C-R d/ 103.0 0.2 103.1 

159.9 

172.8 0.06 0.06 

L-O b/ 11.7 11.7 19.6 M-S c/ 3.3 3.3 5.4 Montane Mixed Conifer Forest C-R d/ 17.7 17.7 

32.7 

29.4 

L-O b/ 115.4 115.4 192.7 M-S c/ 53.6 53.6 89.2 0.7 

Southwest Oregon Mixed ConiferHardwood Forest C-R d/ 62.2 62.2 231.1 104.8 

L-O b/ 22.6 22.6 37.5 M-S c/ 20.1 20.1 33.4 Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands C-R d/ 17.4 0.2 17.6 

60.3 

29.0 

L-O b/ 10.8 10.8 18.0 M-S c/ 15.4 15.4 25.7 

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands C-R d/

26.1 

L-O b/ 0.1 0.1 0.2 M-S c/ 25.1 25.1 41.4 

ForestWoodland 

(Cascades) 

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands C-R d/ 10.9 0.1 11.0 

36.2 

18.2 

Subtotal 545.7 0.7 175.6 159.2 211.6 546.3 911.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 Percent of Forest-Woodland of Total Project 64.1 0.1 20.6 18.7 24.8 64.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Shrub-Steppe 46.8 78.1 Westside Grasslands 36.9 0.1 61.7 

GrasslandsShrubland 

Eastside Grasslands 6.9 11.5 
TABLE 4.5.1.3-4 

Summary of Operation-Related Disturbance to Habitat by the Proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline (ac

Pipeline Facilities 

General 

Vegetation 

Type 

Mapped Habitat 

Category Type 

Forest Stand by Age 

30-foot Maintenance 

Corridor 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

Subtotal Late 

Successional – Old 

Growth 

Subtotal Mid-Seral 

Subtotal Clearcut or 

Regenerating 

Subtotal of ForestWoodland by 

Habitat Type 

Permanent Easement

Jordan Cove MS & 

MLV #1 & CT e/

MLV #2 

MLV #3 

MLV #4 

MLV #5 

MLV #6 

Clarks Branch MS & 

MLV #7 &CT 

Subtotal 90.6 0.1 151.2 

Herbaceous Wetlands 24.9 41.4 0.1 

Riparian Westside Riparian- Wetlands/Eastside 

Riparian-Wetlands 

1.3 2.2 

Subtotal 26.2 43.6 0.1 

Agriculture Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs 122.9 0.6 204.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 

Subtotal 122.88 0.63 204.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 

Developed Developed-Urban and Mixed Environs 8.47 14.1 1.1 

Subtotal 8.47 14.1 1.1 

Coastal Dunes and Beaches 0.1 0.1 0.5 

Barren 

Roads 42.0 1.4 67.1 <0.

Subtotal 42.1 1.4 67.2 0.5 <0.

Open Water-Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 4.1 6.9 

Open Water 

Bays and Estuaries 8.8 14.7 

Subtotal 12.9 21.5 Project Total 848.9 2.8 175.6 159.2 211.6 546.3 1414.0 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 Percent of Operations Facilities 

99.7 0.3 20.6 18.7 24.8 64.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

Notes: a/ Acres disturbed were evaluated using GIS; footprints for each component (aboveground facilities, permanent easement, and 30-foot maintenance corridor) were overlaid on the digb/ The “Late Successional and Old-Growth” category (L-O) describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 80 years of age. Forests with stands greater than 175 years are c/ The “Mid-Seral” category (M-S) describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 40 years of age but less than 80 years of age. d/ The “Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating Young Forest” category (C-R) describes those forest areas that are either clear-cut (tree age 0-5 years) or regenerating (tree age 5 to 40 their potential to become those types of forests. e/ CT = Communications tower f/ Subtotal by Habitat Type includes the 30-foot maintenance corridor, permanent access roads, and only aboveground facilities with a meter station or compressor station (mainline bGeneral: If percentages were less than 1/100ths, they were not included in the table. 
 4.5-32 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Invasive animals such as introduced bullfrogs have adversely affected various native frog 

populations through predation (Hayes and Jennings 1986), including populations of Oregon 

spotted frogs in Washington (Watson et al. 2000). The range of the barred owl has expanded and 

this species competes with NSO for prey resources. Barred owl expansions have made headway 

into NSO habitat due to fire expansion allowing more trees to grow in the northern Great Plains, 

enabling the owls to cross over from the eastern United States into NSO range on the west coast. 

More aggressive than NSOs, they are able to out-compete the threatened species (Livezey et al. 

2007). Bullfrogs prey on and out-compete native frog species. They spread very quickly due to 

their prolific nature, lack of predators, ability to travel long distances over dry land, and wide 

habitat and diet preferences. These two species spread on their own and their range expansion 

should not be affected by the pipeline. 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline could contribute to the spread of these and other 

introduced species by physically transporting them from one location to another as a result of 

equipment travel along the right-of-way, and/or by creating a travel corridor along the right-ofway. Mitigation measures would be employed to minimize the spread of invasive plants, such as 

noxious weed surveys; pretreatment through mowing; clearing infested areas to minimize spread 

of weeds; and washing equipment to remove dirt, plant seeds, and microbes before moving 

between areas. 

Herbicides

Herbicides could be applied to portions of the proposed pipeline right-of-way during operation to 

control noxious weeds. Herbicides could affect native plant species, thereby affecting wildlife 

habitat and potentially the animals themselves. The use of herbicides to treat invasive plants also 

has the potential to harm wildlife species. While adverse effects tend to be low, some symptoms 

include breakdown of vital organs, reduction in numbers of healthy offspring, decreased fitness, 

and direct mortality (USFS 2005). Amphibians can be deformed or killed by some herbicides if 

they get in the water. Herbicides tend to form residue on grasses more readily than other 

vegetation; therefore, wildlife that eats grass, as well as those species above them on the food 

chain, tend to be most susceptible to the effects of herbicides (USFS 2005). Pacific Connector 

would only use agency-approved herbicides authorized in current planning documents for short 

periods of time and limited applications to control noxious weeds where infestations occur on the 

right-of-way after construction and during operation. Presently, according to the Pacific 

Northwest Weed Management Handbook (Peachey et al. 2007), all herbicides used in forests to 

control brush and weed-trees include one of the following: 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, 

picloram, ticlopyr, and clopyralid, described below. 

2,4-D is moderately toxic to animals but depends on species and formulations. For example, 

dogs are more sensitive to 2,4-D organic acids than rats and humans and dogs have developed 

malignant lymphomas when exposed to 2,4-D applications. 2,4-D does bio-accumulate, though 

general risk to browsing wildlife is considered low (Tu et al. 2001). 

Glyphosate is of low toxicity to animals and birds. There appears to be relatively little 

bioaccumulation. Toxicity of glyphosate-based pesticides to amphibians varies with 

developmental stage because there is some evidence that some formulations may interfere with 

metamorphosis (Howe et al. 2004). 
4.5-33 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Similarly, imazapyr is of relatively low toxicity to birds and mammals and appears to be rapidly 

excreted in urine and feces with no residues accumulating in viscera, muscle, fat, or blood. 

Imazapyr has not caused mutations or birth defects in animals (Tu et al. 2001). Adverse effects 

to terrestrial and aquatic animals appear to be unlikely (Durkin and Follansbee 2004). 

Picloram is slightly to practically non-toxic to birds and mammals, although it has long-term 

persistence in the environment and chronic exposure of wildlife to picloram is of concern. 

Picloram is water soluble and thus highly mobile. Studies on mice found effects to offspring of 

adults that had ingested the herbicide, including death, low birth weights, and birth defects (Cox 

1998a). 

Triclopyr is only slightly toxic to birds and mammals although sub-lethal doses applied for 29 

days in diets of forest songbirds caused weight loss and behavioral changes (Tu et al. 2001). A 

study of three species of frogs in Ontario, Canada, found that low concentrations of triclopyr 

butoxyethyl ester inhibited their avoidance behavior. Researchers concluded that exposure to 1.2 

ppm of triclopyr is likely to paralyze the more sensitive tadpoles (Cox 2000). A metabolite of 

triclopyr, 3,56-trichlorol-2-pyridinol, is toxic to animals (USFS 2005). 

Clopyralid is relatively non-toxic to fish, birds, mammals, and other animals, although it does not 

degrade rapidly (soil half-life of 40 days). Consequently, herbivores consuming clopyralid may 

accumulate residues in their livers and kidneys (Tu et al. 2001). One study found that weights of 

rabbit fetuses decreased at both low and high doses of clopyralid. Skeletal abnormalities were 

also observed in these fetuses at all doses and at the highest dose, accumulation of excess fluid 

around the brain was evident, which resulted in small brains and enlarged skulls (Cox 1998b). 

Information is absent on adverse effects to terrestrial mollusks for the range of herbicides 

discussed. 

Because the above herbicides are generally of low toxicity to animals, direct adverse effects to 

wildlife from applied herbicides along the proposed pipeline route or adjacent to aboveground 

facilities should be low, especially if applied according to directions on labels. If some species 

are exposed to high levels of herbicides at other locations away from the pipeline due to 

chemicals being carried away from the site by wind or water, the additional herbicides applied as 

part of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline could contribute to overall toxicity levels and 

have increased detrimental effects. 

Noise

Noise could potentially impact wildlife for a short duration during clearing and grading the 

construction right-of-way, during pipeline construction including proposed HDD and 

conventional boring operations, and during right-of-way clean up and restoration. The average 

time a given point along the pipeline is estimated to be disturbed by construction noise would be 

approximately 8 weeks. This would vary, as the speed at which crew would be able to work 

would be affected by terrain, construction methods and activities, weather, and environmental 

construction windows. In some remote and steep areas crossed by the proposed pipeline, 

helicopters may be used during right-of-way clearing and during pipeline delivery. Minimal 

increase in ambient noise levels would also occur during periodic right-of-way vegetation 

maintenance activities (i.e., mowing, chainsaws) during operation. Noise would most likely 

displace wildlife some distance away from noise sources especially if wildlife species are nearby. 
 4.5-34 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

However, any short-term effects to wildlife by noise would occur simultaneously with human 

presence and the presence of heavy machinery normally required for pipeline construction. Most 

likely, any impacts to wildlife due to noise could not be separated from those due to all other 

construction-related activities occurring concurrently. Noise and human presence would move 

along the construction right-of-way, albeit at a rather slow pace. Therefore, impacts to wildlife 

because of noise would be of short duration and spatially localized. 

Research has demonstrated varying short-term reactions of wildlife to noise. Most research has 

focused on wildlife reaction to more constant noise generated by roads and high-volume traffic 

(e.g., Forman and Alexander 1998). However, some research has recorded wildlife reaction to 

airplanes, sonic booms, helicopters, artillery, and blasting that could produce similar reactions 

from noises associated with construction activities for the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline 

projects. 

Specific studies to determine impacts to wildlife from noise generated from construction of a 

pipeline have not been conducted; however, it is expected that construction noise in remote areas 

that are relatively free from noise would have a greater potential to disrupt wildlife. Potential 

impact to wildlife from some noises generated from construction activities can be evaluated to an 

extent, such as noise from vehicles and/or increased road traffic, blasting, helicopter timber 

harvest or pipeline delivery, and aerial fly-overs. For example, effects of short-duration seismic 

exploration (blasting) have been documented. Mule deer respond with alert postures, 

occasionally running for short distances, but did not shift home ranges or otherwise avoid 

seismic blast 2 miles away (Ihsle 1982). Mule deer did avoid areas of seismic exploration that 

were closer (0.6 mile away) but whether avoidance was due to human presence, noise, or a 

combination was not distinguishable (Horejsi 1979). 

Raptors and other forest-dwelling bird species have demonstrated more adverse impacts to 

project-generated sound during nesting and breeding when levels substantially exceed ambient 

conditions existing prior to a project (i.e., by 20 to 25 decibel [dB] experienced by the animal) 

and when the total sound level is very high and exceeds 90 dB. Such impact could potentially 

result in egg failure or reduced juvenile survival, malnutrition or starvation of the young, or 

reducing the growth or likelihood of survival of young. However, these effects may be minimal; 

Awbrey and Bowles (1990) found that raptors flushed from their nests while incubating did not 

leave the eggs exposed for more than 10 minutes and concluded that multiple, closely spaced 

disturbances would be required to cause lethal egg exposure. Some raptors, for example osprey, 

refuse to be flushed from their nest despite closely approaching helicopters (Poole 1989). 

Golden et al. (1980) provided the following behavioral and physiological reactions of animals to 

known noise levels ranging between 75 and 105 dB from various disturbances, including aircraft: 

fish demonstrate reduced viability, survival, and/or growth (20 dB for 11 to 12 days); ungulates 

become nervous and/or run (82 to 95 dB) or panic (95 to 105 dB); waterfowl flock (80 to 85 dB), 

move and/or become nervous (85 to 95 dB), or startle (95 to 105 dB); and birds scare (85 dB). 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT 2004) has summarized numerous studies and 

literature that have reported the effects of noise on wildlife, specifically focusing on impacts 

from roads. Overall, existing information suggests that fish are unlikely to be adversely affected 

by noise levels produced from road traffic, reptiles and amphibians show some barrier effect due 

to roads (but no clear evidence of a noise effect alone), bird numbers and breeding can be 
4.5-35 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

strongly affected by the proximity of roads, large mammals can be repelled by road/vehicle 

noise, and small mammals do not appear to be adversely affected by road noise. 

Ambient sound levels in much of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline area probably would 

be similar to the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office’s projections (FWS 2006). Ambient sound is 

defined as the sound qualities as they might exist currently and might include human-generated 

sources over the long term. The typical ambient sound level for forest habitats ranges from 25 

dB to 44 dB. Considering ambient sound as a base, noise levels associated with some common 

machines and activities that would be present during pipeline construction are included in table 

4.5.1.3-5. 

TABLE 4.5.1.3-5 

Common Sound Levels for Equipment/Activities Potentially Associated with the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Measured Sound Source 

Range of Reported dB Values 

(at Distance Measured 50 feet) Relative Sound Level a/

Forest Habitats 25 – 44 Ambient 

Yelling 70 Low 

Chain Saw (various types/conditions) 61 – 93 Low - Very High 

Pickup Truck (idle to driving) 55 – 71 Very Low – Moderate 

Mowers 68 – 85 Low – High 

Log Truck 77 – 97 Moderate - Very High 

Dump Truck 84 – 98 High - Very High 

Rock Drills 82 – 98 High - Very High 

Pumps, Generators, Compressors 87 High 

Drill Rig 88 High 

General Construction 84 – 96 High - Very High 

Track Hoe 91 – 106 Very High – Extreme 

Helicopter or Airplane (various 

types/conditions) 96 – 112 Very High – Extreme 

Rock Blast 112 b/ Extreme 

Logging Helicopter (Columbia double rotor) 108 – 123 Extreme 

Source: FWS 2006c. 

a/ A general, subjective ranking of noise levels created by the sources considered when used for analysis of relative noise effects 

on species. 

b/ Blasting required for the Pacific Connector pipeline would be underground and muffled, which should result in a lower dB value 

at 50 feet. 

Distances at which noise would attenuate to ambient levels would depend on local conditions 

such as tree cover and density, topography, weather (humidity), and wind, all of which can alter 

background noise conditions. Consequently, short-term impact to wildlife by noise would vary 

along the length of the proposed pipeline. 

Pacific Connector proposes to cross the Coos, Rogue, and Klamath Rivers using HDD 

technology. Noise levels associated with the drilling equipment at each site are not expected to 

exceed the Oregon State noise regulations of 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night within 

25 feet of a residence. Mitigation would be applied to the drilling equipment, such as vinyl 

fabric acoustic tents to ensure that noise levels do not exceed this regulation. Noise studies 

conducted for the HDD of each proposed crossing determined that with the use of mitigation 

measures, daytime noise levels at the three crossings would not exceed 3.9 dBA above ambient 

for Coos River HDD, 13.0 dBA above ambient for Rogue River HDD, and 0.01 dBA for the 

Klamath River HDD. Nighttime noise levels at the three proposed HDDs increased slightly over 
 4.5-36 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

ambient levels, but the greatest predicted noise level at any nearby residence was never more 

than 13.7 dBA above ambient noise (740 feet from drilling equipment). Noise impact to wildlife 

from the operation of the drilling equipment from the HDD crossings at Coos, Rogue, and 

Klamath Rivers should be negligible. In 2005, a study was conducted during a 4,000-foot HDD 

crossing of the Nooksack River crossing in Whatcom County, Washington to determine if 

drilling noise associated with the HDD (noise levels between 47 and 52 dBA at the study area) 

had a negative impact on wintering bald eagles. Eagles were observed from November 1, 2005 

through April 7, 2006 and results indicated that bald eagles were not negatively affected by HDD 

rig activity (Edge Environmental, Inc. 2006). 

Blasting may be required for pipeline trench construction in areas where hard, non-rippable 

bedrock occurs within the trench profile; however, alternate mechanical methods would first be 

employed in order to attain the desired trench depth, such as ripping, hydraulic hammers or rock 

saws. The bedrock units that may require blasting are expected to consist primarily of volcanic 

and metavolcanic rocks in the Klamath Mountains, and volcanic rocks in the Cascade Range and 

along the ridges in the Basin and Range physiographic province. In addition, local areas of welllithified sedimentary rock may require blasting in the Coast Range. Approximately 116.50 miles 

of the proposed pipeline alignment is considered to have moderate to high blasting potential, 

although not all substrate within those areas identified may require blasting to achieve the 

required trench depth. Blasting activities may involve a single blast or a repetitive blasting 

sequence. The noise associated with blasting activities is reported to be in the range of 112dB 

within 50 feet of the trench (see table 4.5.1.3-5) and may cause alarm in wildlife such as mule 

deer responses to seismic blasts, described earlier. Blasting during pipeline construction, 

however, is expected to generate lower dB levels since all blast charges would be underground 

and muffled with blasting mats (see February 2008 Blasting and Helicopter Noise Analysis and 

Mitigation Plan1

). 

Double rotor helicopters may be used along a portion (25.8 miles) of the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline during timber clearing and pipeline construction in areas that would be less 

accessible to pipeline construction contractors and logging trucks. Noise associated with this 

size of helicopter (generally >92 dBA) could have negative impacts to species, especially bird 

species during the breeding season, within 650 to 700 feet of the area of use. 

Habitat Fragmentation and Edge 

Construction of the Pacific Connector pipeline would create an estimated 76.4 miles of new edge 

through contiguous forest and woodland vegetation types. This estimate does not include 

removal of trees in younger aged clearcut or regenerating forest or woodland, and not include 

both sides of the pipeline right-of-way. Edges would similarly be created through contiguous 

sagebrush steppe (9.32 miles), grasslands (11.24 miles west of Cascades, 1.16 miles east of 

Cascades), and palustrine forested and/or shrub wetlands (0.52 mile). Because the pipeline rightof-way would be linear, the created patch associated with the new edge would be narrow and 

elongated unlike edges created by forest practices (Forman and Godron 1986). 

Along with the creation of edge, pipeline construction would fragment habitat. Habitat 

fragmentation has already occurred to some extent in the areas crossed by the proposed pipeline 

 

1

 Blasting and Helicopter Noise Analysis and Mitigation Plan is included in Appendix P of the Draft Biological Assessment, 

which Pacific Connector filed with the FERC in March 2008. 
4.5-37 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

because of residential and rural residential developments, tree harvests, highways, roads and 

utility corridors. These sources of habitat fragmentation are expected to increase in the 

foreseeable future outside of protected areas such as Late Successional Reserves and LSMAs. 

Mitigation for pipeline-related effects on edge creation and habitat fragmentation in LSRs is 

discussed below, under USFS Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations. 

Different species composition and abundance occurs in edge habitats (Forman and Godron 1986) 

than within patch interiors, depending on species’ tolerances for the variation in microclimatic 

and habitat parameters. The pipeline right-of-way would create some medium-size (>1 acre) and 

many small cleared patches within contiguous habitats. Douglas fir dominant-mixed conifer 

forest would be most impacted by 222 patches cleared, averaging 1.40 acres per patch though 

ranging from 8.64 acres to less than 0.01 acre (see figure 4.6-2). Existing forests, including 

those 80 years and older, have already been considerably fragmented in the pipeline area, so 

these effects would not be as pronounced as in a pristine, unfragmented forest. Most 

microclimatic variables are affected by edge to some degree, including humidity and soil 

moisture (Gelhausen et al. 2000) These effects can penetrate up to 650 feet into the forest and 

are especially pronounced in late-successional and old-growth forests because of the more 

dramatic difference between the two habitats (in this case, clear-cut swath for the right-of-way 

and the old growth forest). Some terrestrial amphibians have narrow temperature and moisture 

tolerances (Spotila 1972; Feder 1983). Moist, cool, and stable microclimatic conditions are 

essential to these species. Loss of canopy cover and coarse woody debris that could occur at 

these forest edges could affect amphibians’ microclimatic conditions, potentially causing them to 

move to adjacent suitable habitat. If there is no suitable habitat close to the disturbed habitat, 

some individuals might not be able to escape disturbance; however, this is not expected to have 

population-level impacts on any amphibian species encountered by the proposed pipeline due to 

the small percentage of the population and habitat that would be impacted. Measures that would 

be implemented that would help to minimize impact on amphibians include bank stabilization, 

the return of stream bottoms to original contours, and installation of sediment barriers and 

erosion control fabric. Special status amphibians are discussed in section 4.6. 

Edge habitat created by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline right-of-way would have 

positive and negative impact on bird species. Potential positive effects are increased diversity 

and density of bird species, increased access to a variety of food resources, and increased ground 

cover favoring ground-nesting species (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). Potential negative 

impacts include increased brood parasitism, increased nest depredation in grasslands, forests and 

edge habitats, and lower nesting success (Thomas and Towiell 1982; Burger et al. 1994; Vickery 

et al. 1994; Marini et al. 1995; Danielson et al. 1997; Brand and George 2000). The observed 

regional increase in brood parasites (brown-headed cowbird) and nest predators (corvids 

including black-billed magpie, American crow, and common raven) are expected to contribute 

additional impact to breeding birds as a consequence of edge created by the pipeline right-ofway. Corvids in particular could be attracted to the work areas during construction if trash and 

food is inappropriately left by work crews. 

Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds is especially likely in fragmented shrub-dominated 

habitats (Vander Haegen and Walker 1998). Such impact could be facilitated over the long-term 

because maintenance of the 30-foot permanent easement would create areas of early-seral habitat 
 4.5-38 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

throughout the operational life of the proposed pipeline. These areas would not only provide 

habitat used by some wildlife species, but could also connect patches of suitable habitat, 

allowing wildlife to move between one patch and another (Turner et al. 2001). 

Some wildlife species use right-of-way corridors created by pipelines and other linear utilities. 

For example, bird species diversity in powerline corridors through forested vegetation was found 

to be higher in the corridor than within the adjacent forest (Kroodsma 1984). Often present 

along the edge are higher levels of flower and fruit production, pollinator, and frugivore densities 

and seed dispersal. In addition, deer and elk use of available browse within corridors or on edges 

of corridors that are adjacent to hiding and thermal cover have been documented (Hartley et al. 

1984; Brusnyk and Westworth 1985). However, few studies have evaluated the establishment of 

forage within pipeline rights-of-way and utilization by big game. The study conducted in 

Alberta by Brusnyk and Westworth (1985) focused on forage and browse production on a 17-

year old pipeline right-of-way and on a 2-year old right-of-way. They compared big game use 

(moose, deer – Odocoileus spp. - and elk) of forage on the two rights-of-way to use in adjacent 

undisturbed forest ecotones and undisturbed forest. Browse production was most extensive on 

the 17-year old right-of-way, which was utilized most by moose, though they are not present in 

the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline area. 

Deer appeared to utilize browse in the 17-year old right-of-way but returned to adjacent 

undisturbed forest, probably utilizing available hiding or thermal cover. Deer utilized the rightsof-way for travel in early winter prior to limiting snow depths. Elk utilized forage on the 2-year 

old right-of-way primarily where portions were adjacent to forested habitats. The principal 

conclusion of this study was that pipeline rights-of-way increased local habitat diversity and that 

the diversity influenced use of the rights-of-way by ungulates. 

Increased herbivore density provides a food source for predators (Forman 1995), so predator 

density can also increase because of edge habitat created along a pipeline right-of-way. With 

heavy browsing at the edge, wind can penetrate further into the woods, effectively widening the 

edge. However, vegetation maintenance within rights-of-way can decrease bird densities (de 

Wall Malefyt 1984), and rabbit and deer densities (Hartley et al. 1984) depending on whether 

maintenance involves mowing or application of herbicides. Similar impacts would be expected 

because of vegetation maintenance, primarily by mowing or hand cutting, along the proposed 

Pacific Connector pipeline right-of-way. Pacific Connector would typically use mechanical 

methods for vegetation maintenance, or manual clearing where access of machinery is infeasible. 

Herbicides would be used where necessary to control some noxious weeds. 

During right-of-way restoration, Pacific Connector would create habitat diversity features within 

the permanent right-of-way, such as rock and brush piles, that would provide habitat for a variety 

of wildlife species including mollusks, amphibians, and small mammals. Such features reduce 

fragmentation effects of abrupt edge characteristics by creating local irregularities. LWD placed 

within and/or across the right-of-way may eventually contribute to microsite diversification and 

provide corridors for some wildlife (e.g., terrestrial mollusks) to travel across an otherwise 

potential barrier. Such movements would be essential to avoid potential genetic isolation of 

relatively non-mobile species. 
4.5-39 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Shrub cover under 6 feet tall would be allowed to establish itself over the LWD placed within the 

30-foot operational right-of-way to allow for cover and safe passage for smaller wildlife crossing 

the right-of-way. LWD would be placed within the right-of-way in similar quantities to adjacent 

forested stands. 

To mitigate for loss of cavities and snags within the construction right-of-way, Pacific Connector 

would create snags in large trees strategically left on the edge of the construction right-of-way by 

topping and/or girdling trees. Snags and cavities are essential for many wildlife species found 

along the pipeline route such as birds and bats. Not only is it critical to maintain habitat for these 

species so they can thrive, but the animals are in turn important to the ecosystem, for example 

primary excavators such as pileated woodpeckers (Rose et al. 2001). Creating snags along the 

right-of-way is an important step in mitigating habitat destruction caused by building the 

pipeline. 

In addition to creating snags at the edge of the right-of-way, Pacific Connector would also erect 

nesting boxes within riparian areas where trees were removed that contained nesting cavities. 

Nesting boxes can be constructed with smaller diameter openings and no external perches to 

encourage use by native cavity nesters such as bluebirds, chickadees, and house wrens, and 

discourage use by invasive species such as European starlings. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• All nest boxes installed to replace natural cavities removed during construction 

should have entrance holes no larger than 1.25 inches in diameter and no external 

perches. To measure the effectiveness of the nest boxes in attracting native cavity 

nesters, Pacific Connector should monitor activity at the nest boxes for one year 

after pipeline construction, and file with the Secretary a report detailing the 

number, location, and species use of the nest boxes. 

Potential impacts to nesting birds by predatory corvids attracted to the right-of-way would be 

addressed by ensuring that all construction contractors practice appropriate and responsible trash 

disposal every day. 

Harvested Wildlife

During construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline there would be short-term, 

localized effects on hunter success rates within the affected hunt units. If construction in a 

particular hunt unit coincides with hunting seasons, hunter utilization and success in the 

immediate vicinity would probably be adversely affected for the duration of construction in that 

area. However, hunter success rates for any species in each affected hunt unit are relatively low 

despite seemingly extensive hunter efforts. 

In addition, big game is expected to be displaced from habitats adjacent to construction-related 

disturbance. In general, deer and elk return to habitats from which they have vacated within 

some relatively short period of time, which would likely depend on the time of year, available 

hiding cover, and duration of local disturbances. Following construction, big game may utilize 

the right-of-way for travel and for foraging. 

After construction there could potentially be a secondary impact (Comer 1982) on harvest rates 

because of increased access by hunters using the pipeline right-of-way to access remote areas. In 

addition, big game species utilizing a cleared right-of-way may be more likely to be harvested 
 4.5-40 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

than animals in forested habitat. Increased public recreation along cleared rights-of-way in the 

fall hunting season, especially near crossings of existing access points, has been documented 

elsewhere (Crabtree 1984). 

Increased public access as a result of creation of the cleared pipeline right-of-way could increase 

poaching of game animals and non-game wildlife on a local level. Enforcement of wildlife 

regulations is the responsibility of the Oregon State Police, Fish and Wildlife Division. 

Individual incidences of illegal harvest are reported in the Fish and Wildlife Division Newsletter. 

From those records it appears that poaching is somewhat commonplace in southwest Oregon. In 

the April 2007 edition, a deer poaching investigation in the vicinity of the proposed route (Eagle 

Point, Jackson County) lead to 130 charges, including 23 felonies, against 8 suspects. Those 

particular crimes involved several black-tailed deer (Freeman 2006) but, according to the April 

2007 Fish and Wildlife Division Newsletter, other species that have been poached include elk, 

turkeys, and even livestock. There is no information to relate poaching effects to wildlife 

population status. 

Within big game winter management areas in Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties, 

approximately 85 acres of forested lands more than 40 years old (coniferous, mixed coniferous 

and deciduous, and deciduous) and 31 acres of regenerating and/or clear-cut forest would be 

converted to an herbaceous/shrub vegetative cover for the long-term, increasing the amount of 

forage available to big game adjacent to forested stands potentially used for thermal cover (table 

4.5.1.3-6). Approximately 450 acres of forested, regenerating, or recently clear-cut stands 

TABLE 4.5.1.3-6 

Acres of Habitat Types Impacted Within Big Game Winter Ranges by 

Construction and Operation of the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Acres of Habitat Impacted in Winter Range 

Project Component County 

Mature 

Forest–

Woodland 

Regenerating 

or Clear-cut 

Forest 

Grasslands 

Shrublands Riparian 

Other 

Terrestrial 

Habitat a/

Douglas 9.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 

Jackson 322.60 70.45 144.23 14.20 41.93 Pacific Connector 

Pipeline Construction Klamath 61.91 21.20 71.02 2.23 44.81 

Total Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Construction 393.99 91.65 215.25 16.43 

Douglas 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 

Jackson 79.70 14.54 27.60 3.92 7.59 Pacific Connector 

Pipeline Operation b/ Klamath 14.21 5.83 17.11 0.50 7.93 

Total Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Operation 96.20 20.37 44.71 4.42 

Douglas 7.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 

Jackson 242.90 55.91 116.63 10.28 34.34 

Revegetation Outside 30-

foot Maintenance 

Corridor c/ Klamath 47.70 15.37 53.91 1.73 36.88 

Total Revegetation Outside Operation/Maintenance 

Corridor 297.79 71.28 170.54 12.01 

a/ Other terrestrial habitat includes: agriculture, developed, and barren. Restoration efforts would allow habitat type to be 

converted back to original state. 

b/ Upland 30-foot Operation/Maintenance Corridor would be maintained in an herbaceous/shrub state less than 6 feet in height. 

Riparian 30-foot Operation/Maintenance Corridor would be maintained in an herbaceous/shrub state within a 10-foot corridor 

centered over pipeline and the additional 10 feet either side of the pipeline would be maintained in an herbaceous/shrub/tree state 

less than 15 feet in height. 

c/ Habitat Revegetation: trees planted within forested habitats, including regenerating and clear-cut forest; grasses and shrubs

planted within non-forested habitat and 30-foot maintenance corridor (except riparian areas). On private lands, revegetation 

would occur in consultation with the landowners. 
4.5-41 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

removed during construction on big game winter range would be replanted with trees after 

construction of the pipeline, eventually providing similar habitat to that present prior to 

construction. 

Construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline may coincide with big game calving 

and fawning times, generally in late spring (May-early June). Calving and/or fawning areas may 

be close to winter ranges or may be at higher elevations than winter range. During active 

construction, big game would most likely avoid construction areas and may be adversely affected 

in one or more ways, including increased energy expense if they escape from disturbances or are 

displaced to areas of deeper snow accumulation, use of suboptimal habitats that do not provide 

adequate functions (food, shelter, escape cover), and use of habitats that increase the risk of 

predation. The expected consequences of these responses would be decreased over-winter 

survival and decreased calving/fawning success (for example, see Bradshaw et al. 1998). 

Seasonal road closures on public lands have been applied to big-game winter range within BLMand USFS-managed lands to minimize the effect of winter stress on deer and elk. Additionally, 

BLM, USFS, and ODFW recommend the application of seasonal construction restrictions on 

big-game winter range. Pacific Connector would apply the following ODFW, BLM, and USFS 

recommend seasonal closures for big game winter range (with the exception of big game winter 

range located in Klamath Basin, where a waiver would be obtained): November 15 to April 1 

(BLM), December 1 to April 30 (USFS), and other landowners from December 1 to March 31 

(private and state). Pacific Connector may need to request additional waivers from federal landmanaging agencies where timber-clearing activities are affected by ESA-listed species’ seasonal 

restrictions. 

After pipeline construction, elk tend to use pipeline rights-of way for feeding areas, especially 

when hunting is not occurring (Lees 1989) and deer use open areas for foraging (Jageman 1994). 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline right-of-way would provide an opportunity for 

developing high quality feeding areas (Lees 1989) for elk and deer species, especially if noxious 

weeds are controlled and high-quality native forage is seeded. Within big-game winter ranged 

disturbed by the proposed pipeline, Pacific Connector would seed disturbed areas with preferred 

deer and elk forage species as recommended by ODFW, BLM, and USFS, including an 

important winter forage species, wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus), as well as in 

riparian areas and areas outside of the 30-foot maintenance corridor on NFS lands. Additionally, 

Pacific Connector would control noxious weeds on the right-of-way on all lands crossed 

including both summer and winter rangelands, because it is a priority management objective to 

maintain native forage species (ODFW 2003a). The ODFW expressed concern that open 

trenches during construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline could entrap deer and 

elk. To minimize potential impact of open trenches on big game within delineated big-game 

winter and summer range, Pacific Connector would leave breaks at least 5 feet wide at 

approximately 0.5-mile intervals, and at visible wildlife trails, to serve as routes for big game to 

cross the construction right-of-way until pipe is ready to be installed (Forman et al. 2003). 

Alternatively, Pacific Connector would install soft plugs (backfilled trench materials) in the 

trench after excavation at these distances to provide wildlife passage. Additionally, 20-foot gaps 

would be left in spoil and topsoil stockpiles at all hard or soft plug locations, and a corresponding 

gap in the welded pipe string would be left in these locations. Suitable ramps would also be 
 4.5-42 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

installed from the bottom of the trench to the top to allow any wildlife that enters the trench to 

escape. 

In coordination with ODFW’s specific management goals and the appropriate land management 

agency or owner, Pacific Connector would install OHV barriers to reduce unauthorized public 

access and to maximize elk use of the right-of-way. These barriers may include dirt/rock berms, 

log barriers, signs, and locked gates. Slash from clearing operations would also be redistributed 

on the right-of-way, which would help discourage OHV travel along the right-of-way. 

General Mitigation

Pacific Connector would follow the guidance provided by the CEQ (1978, section 1508.20) for 

mitigation in general and mitigation for wildlife and their habitats in particular, which includes 

the following approaches to mitigation: 

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. 

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. 

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action. 

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments” (see Mitigation Plan in Appendix L3). 

In consultation with federal and state agencies, Pacific Connector has 1) avoided some impact by 

re-routing the Pacific Connector pipeline, 2) minimized impact to habitat by restricting widths of 

the pipeline corridor in environmentally sensitive situations (i.e., riparian areas) and utilizing 

UCSAs within forested areas, 3) proposed to restore affected habitats to the maximum extent 

practicable, including replanting in forested areas, 4) proposed to reduce impact over time by 

minimizing future disturbances (i.e., routine vegetation maintenance every 3 to 5 years), and 

5) proposed to compensate for impact after consultation with agencies. 

Pacific Connector is working with state and federal agencies such as ODFW and FWS to 

complete the ongoing evaluation of potential habitat restoration pursuant to ODFW and FWS 

policy and discuss mitigation measures in order to develop an upland habitat mitigation plan. 

The upland habitat mitigation plan would be applicable to federal and state lands. In instances 

where an ODFW habitat category would be affected but has no ESA or other land management 

agency mitigation requirement, Pacific Connector would work with ODFW and FWS to apply 

ODFW and FWS mitigation policies. For mitigation for federal land specifically, see section 

4.5.1.5, below. 

4.5.1.4 Environmental Effects on Federal Lands 

In order to meet their purpose and objectives, the BLM and USFS have various strategies in 

place for managing their lands in the West. A central goal of the NWFP (USFS and BLM 1994) 

is to maintain and/or create a connected or interactive old-growth forest ecosystem on federal 

lands within the range of the NSO. The management direction of the NWFP consists of 

extensive standards and guidelines for NFS lands. These land allocations include areas set aside 
4.5-43 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

by an Act of Congress (i.e., Wilderness Act), LSRs, Adaptive Management Areas, Matrix areas, 

and Riparian Reserves. Each land use allocation has a differing management direction, and is 

located and configured in the landscape to support overall ecosystem function and to meet the 

vision for management of federal lands. In addition to NSOs, LSR and riparian reserve land 

allocations were designated to benefit a rather broad spectrum of terrestrial and aquatic species. 

The BLM’s December 2008 RMPs change the way the BLM manages 2.6 million acres in 

western Oregon in its Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Coos Bay Districts. Two of the 

changes on BLM land resulting from the December 2008 RMPs are that LSRs no longer exist 

and have been largely replaced with LSMAs; the concept of riparian reserves has likewise been 

replaced with RMAs. The changes in management and regulations involved with this switchover 

on BLM land are not expected to provide increased protection for NSO and MAMUs and their 

habitat (BLM 2008). 

USFS Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations 

Late Successional Reserves

The objective of LSRs is to protect and enhance conditions of functional, interactive late 

successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for old-growth-related 

species including the NSO. Some species associated with old-growth forests may prefer denser, 

multistoried forests (e.g., NSO) while some prefer more open, old-growth stands (e.g., pileated 

woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl) (Buchanan et al. 1995; Johnson and 

O’Neil 2001). Some USFS and BLM Sensitive species within the Pacific Connector pipeline 

project area that are closely associated with old growth forests are the white-headed woodpecker, 

red tree vole, Siskiyou mountain salamander, Crater Lake tightcoil, Siskiyou sideband, and 

evening fieldslug. LSRs provide a distribution, quantity, and quality of old-growth forest 

habitat. They help ensure that late-successional species diversity is conserved. Latesuccessional forest communities are the result of a unique interaction of disturbance, 

regeneration, succession, and climate. Late-successional and old-growth characteristics include 

varied tree species and age (typically 80 years or older), accumulations of large logs and snags, 

moderate-to-high canopy closure, moderate-to-high numbers of trees with physical imperfections 

such as cavities, broken tops, and large deformed limbs, and moderate-to-high accumulations of 

non-vascular vegetation - fungi, lichens, and bryophytes (USFS and BLM 1994). 

Forest types found within LSRs include 1) dry, ponderosa pine forests found mainly in a narrow 

band on the east side of the Cascades; 2) dry, mixed-conifer and mixed-evergreen forests found 

at lower and middle elevations in eastern Cascades above the ponderosa pine forests and in 

southwestern Oregon; and 3) mesic, mixed-conifer and mixed-evergreen forests that provide the 

most structurally diverse stands and are primarily found west of the Cascades. Ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir are typically the long-lived seral dominants within the NWFP area in each forest 

type (Spies et al. 2006). 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would impact 96.54 acres (21.83 of which would be used for 

UCSAs) in RO 223 on the Umpqua Nation Forest, and 280.23 acres (73.46 of which would be 

UCSAs) in RO 227 on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (table 4.5.1.4-1). Variability of 

conditions within each LSR that would be crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline is 

summarized in table 4.5.1.4-1. Consequently, impact to wildlife associated with LSRs would 

likely vary by construction within specific habitats. Nevertheless, impacts would be generally 
 4.5-44 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.1.4-1 

Designated Late Successional Reserves Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline

Area (acres) of Habitat Affected During Construction 

LSR 

Crossed 

Federal 

Jurisdiction Pipeline Component 

Forested Habitat – Late Successional or OldGrowth a/

Forested Habitat – MidSeral b/

Clearcut or Regenerating Forest c/

Unaltered Nonforested HabitatWetlandsAltered Habitat

Total 

Habitat 

Affected 

Construction Right-of-Way 38.53 4.26 11.61 – 0.29 3.63 58.03 

Temporary Extra Work Areas 6.35 1.48 3.47 – – 3.05 14.35 

Uncleared Storage Areas 20.43 0.19 1.21 – – – 21.83 RO 223 Umpqua N.F. 

Rock Source/ Disposal d/ – – – – – 2.33 2.33 

Construction Right-of-Way 65.85 9.80 68.86 3.96 – 8.37 156.84 

Temporary Extra Work Areas 2.73 0.56 23.03 10.45 – 13.15 49.93 

Uncleared Storage Areas 35.37 4.52 30.37 0.58 2.62 73.46 RO 227 Rogue River – 

Siskiyou N.F. 

Rock Source/ Disposal d/ – – – – – – – 

a/ The “Late Successional and Old-Growth” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 80 years of age. Forests 

with stands greater than 175 years are considered to have old-growth characteristics. 

b/ The “Mid-Seral” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 40 years of age but less than 80 years of age. 

c/ The “Clearcut or Regenerating Forest” category describes those forest areas that are either clear-cut (tree age 0-5 years) or 

regenerating (tree age 5 to 40 years). Forest areas in this category are divided into forest vegetation types based on their potential to 

become those types of forests. 

d/ Estimated areas of habitat affected by rock source/disposal sites are larger than existing quarries and would be modified on-site to avoid 

any additional disturbance outside the existing disturbed footprint. 

similar to those described above wherein direct impact could occur during clearing and pipeline 

construction if individuals are killed, injured, and/or displaced to other locations where possible 

mortality increases and/or fecundity decreases. Disturbance impacts to listed species such as 

NSO and MAMU would be minimized by adhering to construction timing windows. Direct 

impact to late-successional habitat (removal and/or conversion to different vegetation) may 

indirectly affect wildlife by decreasing the amount of habitat locally available and decreasing the 

effectiveness of adjacent habitats in providing life-requisite functions for wildlife. That impact 

would not be able to be mitigated and is assumed to persist through the long-term. Impacts to 

species inhabiting other, non-forested habitats within the affected areas in each LSR would be 

similarly affected, although the amount of time required to restore impacted habitats would be 

less. Pacific Connector sited the proposed pipeline to avoid LSRs if no geological hazards 

existed. Where it was not possible to avoid LSRs, Pacific Connector, with the assistance of 

BLM and USFS, routed the proposed pipeline to attempt to minimize habitat fragmentation and 

creation of edge habitat, staying within regenerating and mid-seral forests when possible. Pacific 

Connector would also neck down construction right-of-way widths, utilize existing access roads, 

and use UCSAs instead of cleared TEWAs when possible. They also have proposed on-site 

mitigation measures for crossing Riparian Reserves, LSRs, and old growth stands. 

Pacific Connector’s mitigation plan would attempt to neutralize the net impact of the proposed 

pipeline on LSRs. See section 4.4.1.3 of this EIS for additional description of impact on LSR 

and proposed mitigation. 
4.5-45 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Riparian Reserves

Riparian Reserves are key components of the NWFP ACS, which seeks to prevent further 

degradation of aquatic ecosystems and to restore and maintain habitat and ecological processes 

on public lands administered by the USFS and BLM. Riparian reserves provide the ecological 

functions and processes necessary to create and maintain habitat for aquatic and terrestrial 

riparian-dependent species, dispersal corridors for terrestrial species, and connectivity of streams 

within watersheds. Riparian reserves include areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and 

unstable and potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources, both aquatic and 

terrestrial occur. See additional discussion on Riparian Reserves, including potential impacts 

and mitigation, in section 4.3.4 of this EIS. 

The importance of riparian areas to wildlife is disproportionate to their abundance. For example, 

the majority of amphibians and reptiles require an aquatic habitat and associated riparian habitat 

during at least one stage of their life cycles. In addition, birds utilize riparian areas more than 

any other habitat type. Neotropical migratory birds depend on this habitat during migration and 

breeding, and resident land birds depend on riparian areas for wintering habitat. Even wildlife 

that is not closely associated with riparian zones, might use them secondarily or as travel 

corridors (Bookhout 1994). More than 800 of the 1,100 species considered by the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (Reeves et al. 2006) were associated with Riparian 

Reserves. The Pacific Connector pipeline would affect 25.1 acres of Riparian Reserves. 

Construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would affect 21.9 acres of forested habitat 

within designated Riparian Reserves. The goals of Riparian Reserves are to protect the health of the 

aquatic system and its dependent species and to provide incidental benefits to upland species. 

Protecting aquatic systems with vegetated buffers maintains and restores riparian structures and 

functions, benefits fish and riparian-dependent non-fish species, enhances habitat conservation for 

riparian species, improves travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and 

provides greater connectivity of late-successional forest habitat. By removing vegetation, including 

trees, in Riparian Reserves, the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would not be meeting the goals 

of these land allocations, and would be negatively affecting habitat in terms of the major objectives 

of the Riparian Reserves. Impacts on Riparian Reserves that would be caused by the proposed 

pipeline could cause long-term effects and potentially adversely affect wildlife species directly or 

indirectly. Direct impact to wildlife could occur during clearing and pipeline construction if 

individuals are killed, injured, and/or displaced to other locations where possible mortality increases 

and/or fecundity decreases. Direct impact to riparian habitat (removal and/or conversion to different 

vegetation) may indirectly affect wildlife by decreasing the amount of habitat locally available and 

decreasing the effectiveness of adjacent habitats in providing life-requisite functions for wildlife. 

Impact to species inhabiting other, non-forested habitats within defined riparian zones would be 

similarly affected, although the amount of time required to restore impacted habitats would be less. 

See additional discussion of Riparian Reserves, including mitigation measures to reduce impacts in 

section 4.3.4 of this EIS. 

BLM - Western Oregon Plan Revision Land Allocations

In December 2008, the BLM issued RODs adopting the Proposed RMPs to guide management of 

2.6 million acres of land in western Oregon. The plans are expected to increase timber harvest, 

meet conservation needs for the NSO, increase MAMU habitat, maintain water quality, and 
 4.5-46 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

improve habitat for federally listed fish. Under the new RMPs there are six land use allocations 

designated (see section 4.7 of this EIS). The land use types that are most relevant to wildlife are 

Late Successional Management Areas and Riparian Management Areas. Some land use 

allocations overlap for example, a Riparian Management Area could occur within any of the 

other allocation types except for Administratively Withdrawn. Administratively Withdrawn 

areas include lands withdrawn from the possibility of being harvested. For miles crossed and 

acres impacted of each BLM land use allocation type by BLM district, see Section 4.7.4.2 

Federal Land Use Plans and Land Allocations. 

Late Successional Management Areas

LSMA is land set aside by the BLM, for the purpose of providing connected blocks of 

structurally complex suitable NSO and MAMU habitat. LSMAs are similar to LSRs, but 

different management activities, timber harvest regulations, and habitat component goals (e.g., 

snags, down wood) apply to each (BLM 2008). Salvage harvesting in LSMAs would be allowed 

after stand-replacing events. LSMAs also completely overlap NSO CHUs, which LSRs do not; 

this is meant to clear up land use conflicts between listed species protection and timber harvest 

(BLM 2008). The proposed pipeline would cross 2.3 miles of LSMAs, impacting 45.3 acres 

(15.3 acres of which would be used for UCSAs), 8.4 of which would be maintained free of brush 

for the life of the pipeline. Impacts to LSMAs would be the same impacts discussed above for 

LSRs (table 4.5.1.4-1a). 

TABLE 4.5.1.4-1a 

Designated Late Successional Management Areas Crossed by the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Area (acres) of Habitat Affected During Construction 

Federal Jurisdiction Pipeline Component 

Late Successiona l or Old-Growth a/Mid-Seral b/Clearcut or Regenerating Forest c/

Unaltered Nonforested Habitat Wetlands 

Altered Habitat 

Total Habitat 

Affected 

Construction Right-of-Way 15.59 0.08 5.36 – – 0.83 21.86 

Temporary Extra Work Areas 1.37 0.01 0.42 – – 0.21 2.01 

Uncleared Storage Areas 5.13 – 1.47 – – – 6.60 BLM Coos Bay District 

Rock Source/ Disposal d/ – – 0.74 – – 0.06 0.80 

Construction Right-of-Way 3.78 0.01 0.01 – – – 3.80 

Temporary Extra Work Areas – 0.61 0.02 – – 0.01 0.64 

Uncleared Storage Areas 7.80 0.71 0.07 – – 0.06 8.64 BLM Roseburg District 

Rock Source/ Disposal d/ – – 0.64 – – 0.16 0.80 

Construction Right-of-Way 19.37 0.09 5.37 – – 0.83 25.66 

Temporary Extra Work Areas 1.37 0.62 0.44 – – 0.22 2.65 

Uncleared Storage Areas 12.93 0.71 1.53 – – 0.06 15.23 

LSMA TOTAL 

Rock Source/ Disposal d/ – – 1.38 – – 0.22 1.60 

a/ The “Late Successional and Old-Growth” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 80 years of age. Forests with stands 

greater than 175 years are considered to have old-growth characteristics. 

b/ The “Mid-Seral” category describes those forest areas with a majority of trees over 40 years of age but less than 80 years of age. 

c/ The “Clearcut or Regenerating Forest” category describes those forest areas that are either clear-cut (tree age 0-5 years) or regenerating (tree age 5 

to 40 years). 

d/ Estimated areas of habitat affected by rock source/disposal sites are larger than existing quarries and would be modified on-site to avoid any 

additional disturbance outside the existing disturbed footprint. 
4.5-47 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Riparian Management Areas

RMAs, which are dispersed throughout BLM lands, are half the width of riparian reserves (one 

tree height from the OHWM for fish-bearing and perennial streams, one-half tree height for nonfish-bearing intermittent streams). Within the management area, there are restrictions on 

silvicultural activities so that a mature and structurally complex forest can develop. This type of 

forest provides many benefits to the stream, including lower water temperature through shading; 

decreased sediment loads; and organic material, habitat for aquatic organisms, and bank 

stabilization through leaf litter, woody debris, and root wads. The proposed pipeline would cross 

1.4 miles of RMAs. Construction would impact 29.9 acres temporarily (1.5 acres of which 

would be used for UCSAs), and 6.8 acres would be maintained free of brush for the life of the 

pipeline. Impacts to RMAs would be the same as those discussed above for Riparian Reserves. 

4.5.1.5 Habitats, Effects, and Mitigation 

Habitats that are designated as especially important wildlife habitats or features were discussed 

in section 4.5.1.3. These habitats receive special consideration from the BLM and ODFW. 

BLM RMPs (BLM 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, and 1995e) and USFS LRMPs (USFS 1990a, 1990b, 

and 1990c) provide consideration and protection for the following habitat types and features to 

ensure that BLM special status and USFS sensitive species do not become endangered because 

of management activities: meadows, wetlands, deciduous/hardwood stands, cliffs, talus slopes, 

snags, and coarse woody debris. Additionally, ODFW considers the above-mentioned habitats 

and features to have a high importance for the persistence and/or conservation of native species 

within southwest Oregon (ODFW 2006a). 

Effects to general habitat types are discussed above in section 4.5.1.3. Pacific Connector 

prepared estimates of snag density (numbers per acre) that would be affected within the 

construction right-of-way and TEWAs on each of the three National Forests during timber 

reconnaissance conducted in 2007 (Chapman 2007). Snag density by size class (inches, dbh) and 

decay class (hard or soft), from a site-specific inventory within the proposed construction rightof-way and work space that was completed at the request of the USFS in 2007, are provided in 

table 4.5.1.5-1. Within the areas that would be affected by construction, conifer snags less than 

TABLE 4.5.1.5-1 

Snag Density Estimates on USFS Lands 

Estimates of Snag Density (Number per Acre) by Size 

Category (inches, DBH) 

National Forest Tree Type Decay Class <13 13-24 25-36 >36 

Hard 5.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 

Umpqua conifer Soft 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 

Hard 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.01 

conifer 

Soft 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 

Hard 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rogue River-Siskiyou 

hardwood 

Soft 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Hard 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Fremont-Winema conifer 

Soft 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 
 4.5-48 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

13 inches dbh are generally most dense on each forest, although there are numerous hardwood 

snags in that size category on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (table 4.5.1.5-1). Most 

of the smaller snags (<13 inches, dbh) were observed as hard wood, rather than softened due to 

decay. Loss of snags regardless of decay class is expected to be a long-term impact because 

recruitment of new snags within the affected areas would take much longer than 3 years. For 

detailed information on snag and down wood, per a request from USFS, see Appendix H-12. 

The FWS and ODFW have developed mitigation policies to assist in the evaluation of habitats of 

fish and wildlife impacted by proposed land and water developments, as well as provide 

guidance in the development of consistent and effective mitigation measures. The two policies 

are similar in that they present a framework to assign categories to habitat types impacted by a 

proposed project based on the relative importance and/or availability of habitats to fish and 

wildlife, and the status of species associated with impacted habitats. The FWS policy established 

four “resource categories” with varying mitigation goals and provided five actions (prioritized) 

that could be taken to mitigate the impacts, whereas the ODFW policy established six “habitat 

categories” and provided mitigation goals and actions for each category. FWS's four Resource 

Categories are quite similar to ODFW Habitat Categories 1 through 5 in habitat description and 

recommended mitigation goals. ODFW presents an additional habitat category that captures 

habitats not valuable or important to fish and wildlife that occur in the proposed Project area. 

The FWS’s mitigation policy is served by the ODFW mitigation policy, and the ODFW 

mitigation policy is being used as a surrogate for FWS’s for this Project. Pacific Connector 

agreed to have the Interagency Task Force create a subgroup, the Habitat Quality Subgroup, to 

devise a system of grouping habitats similar to ODFW’s, but with more specific criteria for 

classification. ODFW has agreed to the categories developed by the Subgroup. 

After completing the ongoing evaluation of potential restoration pursuant to ODFW and FWS 

mitigation policy, Pacific Connector has discussed mitigation measures for upland habitats with 

ODFW, FWS, and other stakeholders such as NMFS. Mitigation would address both ESA-listed 

species and their habitats (see section 4.6) and specific habitat or land designations where the 

NWFP and BLM or USFS require or request mitigation for effects to their lands (e.g. mitigation 

for effects to LSRs, LSMAs, RMAs, and Riparian Reserves). In instances on federal or nonfederal lands where an ODFW habitat category would be affected but would have no associated 

ESA or other land management agency mitigation, Pacific Connector would work with ODFW 

and other stakeholders to apply the ODFW mitigation policy. 

Mitigation Measures for Federal Lands 

In order to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to sensitive habitats on federal lands, Pacific 

Connector has developed a Mitigation Plan to ensure that the proposed Project would comply 

with the Objectives and Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP, and treatments would be 

consistent with respective LSR Assessments and Watershed Analyses. Pacific Connector would 

likewise comply with the December 2008 RMPs, which outline goals for LSMAs and riparian 

management areas on BLM lands. This Mitigation Plan was developed with the goal that the 

proposed Project, which would be considered a new development within LSRs and LSMAs, 

would be neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late-successional forests and 

NSO and MAMU habitat. Because of the linear nature of the pipeline and its proposed start and 

end points, the Pacific Connector pipeline it could not be routed and constructed without 

affecting designated late successional forests and riparian habitat on NFS and BLM lands. 
4.5-49 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

The Mitigation Plan was developed to compensate for impacts to all riparian and upland habitats 

impacted on federal lands, including short-term, long-term, and permanent habitat impacts. The 

plan includes funding for projects such as: 

• decommissioning roads in LSMAs and LSRs that are identified by the BLM and USFS as 

being no longer required for management activities; 

• acquiring title or easement to private lands adjacent/near the pipeline that could be 

managed/preserved as late successional habitat; alternatively Pacific Connector may find 

and acquire these easements or properties and deed them to a federal agency or a 

conservation organization or trust; 

• acquiring title or easement to private lands to block up ownership with BLM or USFS to 

increase connectivity; alternatively Pacific Connector may find and acquire these 

easements or properties and deed them to a federal agency or a conservation organization 

or trust; 

• funding the conversion of Matrix lands to LSR; 

• funding non-commercial thinning treatments or other silvilcultural projects to create or 

accelerate development of old growth characteristics on LSMAs and elsewhere on federal 

land; 

• creating snags in adjacent habitat; or 

• funding spotted owl demographic studies. 

The mitigation projects would be focused where possible on lands near the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline and near the home ranges of occupied NSO stands, on MAMU habitat, where 

key listed fish occur, and in migratory bird habitat. 

The mitigation plan funding could also be used to: 

• manage appropriate sections for Mardon skipper habitat, Kincaid’s lupine, and Umpqua 

chub; 

• close access roads and restore watershed function, limit access, replace impassable 

culverts, restore instream habitat, or purchase key aquatic and riparian habitats; or 

• fence or otherwise exclude cattle from sensitive areas (i.e., Buck Lake) to 

protect/enhance habitat. 

Pacific Connector would also provide: 

• LWD and large rock for use by the agencies in habitat restoration projects. Some of this 

material would be used on the restored right-of-way as habitat diversity features, while 

other material could be stockpiled for agency use in off-site habitat enhancement 

projects. 

4.5.2 Aquatic Resources 

4.5.2.1 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 

The area traversed by the waterway for LNG marine traffic has a very diverse and abundant 

collection of freshwater, estuarine and marine organisms and associated habitat. The marine 

environment along the waterway outside of Coos Bay consist of varied habitats used by 
 4.5-50 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

important marine aquatic organisms including important marine commercial and recreational fish 

such as salmon, crabs, shrimp and marine mammals including whales, seals and dolphins. This 

habitat includes gently sloping nearshore intertidal and subtidal sand area near the Coos Bay 

mouth and rocky shoreline to the south. Offshore deeper soft bottom habitats extending over one 

hundred feet deep with main pelagic surface water along the shipping route. These areas are 

highly productive for important marine resources of varied life stages. 

The marine area along the shipping route contains important commercial and recreational fish 

including salmon, crabs, shrimp and marine mammals including whales, seals and dolphins. The 

area near the mouth of the bay is diverse in its habitat containing sand beaches, to rocky 

shorelines. Coos Bay is well protected from ocean waves along the navigation channel leading 

to the proposed LNG terminal, and is joined by several freshwater streams and sloughs, while the 

bay proper along this route ranges from marine to estuarine. This area also contains important 

crab, clam and salmon resources, as well as marine fish such as flatfish and rockfish. It is a 

major migration corridor for salmon and steelhead that spawn and rear in the Coos River 

systems. The bay along the waterway for LNG marine traffic contains mostly sloping beaches 

with algae and eelgrass beds that supply important habitat for the estuarine organisms. A total of 

over 14,000 acres of habitat is present in Coos Bay, including some 1,500 acres of eelgrass beds, 

an important habitat component for major estuarine resources. The flat inner portions of the bay 

are used by most species found in the bay (Cummings and Schwartz 1971). These regions are 

where most eelgrass beds are found. 

A list of the major fish resources that may be present along the waterway for LNG marine traffic 

that are designated as essential fish habitat species are shown in Appendix G (table G-1). 

Species of groundfish, pelagic anadromous and marine species would be present along the 

shipping route in the nearshore and marine waters outside of Coos Bay estuary. 

Marine Fish 

Species of groundfish, pelagic, anadromous, and marine species would be present along the 

shipping route in the nearshore and marine waters outside of Coos Bay estuary. This includes a 

variety of salmon species, rockfish, flatfish, shark, skates, sturgeon, sablefish, cod, migratory fish 

such as anchovy and sardine and in the outer regions may rarely include some highly migratory 

species such as thresher shark and tuna. 

Marine fish communities within Coos Bay consist of species found in estuarine and marine 

waters. Their distribution and abundance varies with physical factors such as bottom conditions, 

slope, current, salinity, and temperature, as well as season, which can affect migration and 

spawning timing. Some of the more commonly abundant fish include Pacific herring, and the 

non-native American shad. Most fish species are migratory or seasonal, spending only part of 

their life in these waters. Other common seasonal marine fish species include surfperch, lingcod, 

rock greenling, sculpin, surf smelt, Pacific herring, English sole, black rockfish, anchovy, 

eulachon, longfin smelt, Pacific tomcod, sandsole, and topsmelt. A few common species like 

kelp greenling and starry flounder reside in the bay year-round. The region from just beyond the 

proposed project area toward the mouth of the bay is a prime feeding area for many local and 

seasonal fish species. Herring spawn on the eelgrass areas of Jordan Cove, just upstream of the 

proposed LNG facility site. Common seine sampling has found abundant and diverse fish 

species at a sand point upstream of Jordan Cove. Fish abundance varies with salinity. Near CM 
4.5-51 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

1.5 the sloughs are mostly of high salinity, while farther up the bay, near CM 15.5, sloughs are 

generally brackish, of lower salinity. Toward the mouth of the bay, the salinity is higher, 

especially in the summer, which is when the number of fish increase. 

Anadromous Fish 

A common group of anadromous fish species found in the region along the shipping route 

includes Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, Pacific 

lamprey, river lamprey, white and green sturgeon, and American shad. Anadromous is a term 

describing fish that return from the ocean to the rivers where they were born in order to spawn. 

Adult anadromous fish spend a portion of their adult life in the ocean; the amount of time varies 

among the species. Sexually mature adults migrate or “run” from the ocean and estuaries 

upstream to fresh water streams to spawn in shallow gravel stretches. The fertilized eggs drop 

into the intergravel spaces. Hatched fry remain in these spaces for a time and then emerge to 

remain in the rearing areas of quiet waters, usually pools or backwaters. After a period of time, 

which varies with the species, juveniles migrate downstream to estuaries where they undergo 

smolting (physiological maturation to adjust from fresh to salt water) before entering marine 

waters as adults. Salmon species die after spawning but some steelhead and anadromous coastal 

cutthroat survive to return to the ocean, and can spawn again. Steelhead typically remain in 

freshwater streams after emergence for 2 to 3 years before migrating to the ocean, with adults 

returning to spawn in their fourth or fifth year (Behnke 1992). Sea-run cutthroat usually remain 

in fresh water for 2 to 4 years before smolting and migrating to saltwater, usually staying in the 

estuaries or near shore (Behnke 1992). 

Coldwater anadromous fisheries in the proposed project area comprise eight species: Chinook 

salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, river 

lamprey, and green sturgeon (see section 4.5.2.1). The Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon ESU is 

present in the proposed project area and is listed under the ESA. The North American Green 

Sturgeon – Southern DPS, which is listed as Threatened under the ESA, may be present in 

migrate through Coos Bay. The Project effects to the listed species are discussed in section 4.6. 

The aquatic species table in Appendix G table G-2 summarizes most of the major runs of 

anadromous salmon, steelhead, and trout species within the proposed project area and their 

general timing of life phases. 

True freshwater fish are not present along the shipping route. Anadromous salmon are generally 

transitory, passing through the bay in the fall as adults to Coos River; juveniles primarily 

outmigrate in the spring and summer. 

Shellfish 

Beyond the nearshore waters of the Coos Bay entrance, a large and diverse number of benthic 

and epibenthic invertebrates are present in Coos Bay. Clams, crabs, oysters, and shrimp make up 

important components of these invertebrates in the bay. Some of the most abundant and 

commercially important of these species include bentnose clams, Pacific oyster (which is grown 

commercially), Dungeness crab, and ghost shrimp. Distribution varies along the route from the 

proposed LNG terminal to the bay mouth. Principal subtidal clam beds are found in the lower 

bay and South Slough. Clam Island, located at the mouth of Coos Bay, has a high abundance of 

recreationally important clams. At the mouth of Coos Bay itself, are located some of the highest 

recreational harvest of clams and crabs. Razor clams are an important commercial and 
 4.5-52 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

recreational species. Within Jordan Bay, ghost shrimp, a commonly harvested bait shrimp, is 

found in the fine sediment and eel grass beds. Mud shrimp are also present in this region and are 

harvested. 

Coos Bay contains one of only two native Oregon coastal populations of the Olympic oyster. 

Within its native range, this species has significantly diminished from historical levels. Efforts 

have been taken in the bay to restore this species and improvements in bay water quality and 

sediment have resulted in self-sustaining populations over the last two decades. Because of its 

low abundance and efforts to improve the quality of the Coos Bay environment and its survival, 

the Olympia oyster is not harvested. They are found subtidally and intertidally from the 

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport to Millington in Isthmus Slough in the upper bay, which is 

not an area that would be affected by the proposed LNG terminal. 

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

The coastal marine waters off Coos Bay along the shipping route support important recreational 

and commercial fisheries including Dungeness crab, salmon, and bottom fish. While no 

commercial harvest of vertebrate fish occurs in Coos Bay, recreational fishing is common. 

Recently, however, some commercial bait fishing has occurred in the bay. Additionally, 

commercially important marine fish species are produced in the bay and many anadromous fish 

migrate through Coos Bay to Coos River; many spend part of their juvenile life stage rearing in 

Coos Bay. 

The main recreationally harvested fish species in the region are coho and Chinook salmon. 

Other recreationally harvested species include: American shad, shiner perch, redtail surfperch, 

striped seaperch, white seaperch, pile perch, black rockfish, lingcod, Cabazon, red Irish lord, 

Pacific staghorn sculpin, surf smelt, Pacific herring, sturgeon, eulachon, and Pacific tomcod. 

Annual recreational harvest of coho and Chinook salmon from Coos Bay region (primarily ocean 

harvest) reported as landings at Charlston harbor has ranged from about 6,000 to 8,000 fish 

between 2000 to 2004 (ODFW, Sport Catch Statistics web site, http://www.dfw.state. 

or.us/resources/fishing/sportcatch.asp). Ocean harvest fish have varied origin and may not 

originate from the Coos River System. This harvest is a substantial portion (e.g. about 10% in 

2002) of the ocean port reported harvest of these two species for the Oregon Coast. Substantial 

additional harvest of coho and Chinook salmon, occurs in Coos Bay, Coos River, and Coos River 

tributaries. Recent coho salmon harvest in these areas is often in the range of 100 to 400 fish, 

whereas the fall Chinook harvest was about 2,000 to 5,000 fish during the 2000 to 2006 period 

(ODFW, Sport Catch Statistics web site, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/ 

fishing/sportcatch.asp). Harvest of coho salmon in the Coos Bay region has fallen sharply since 

the mid-1990s. Between 1985 and 1991, sport harvest at Coos Bay (Charleston) ranged from 

about 13,000 to 25,000 coho salmon. By the mid-1990s, coho salmon populations along the 

entire west coast decreased substantially and remained extremely low through 2000. While 

increases in harvest have been recorded since then, harvest numbers fluctuate significantly 

(ODFW, Salmon Catch Index web site, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/catchindex.asp). 

Much of the recreational salmon fishing in Coos Bay occurs in late summer and fall. It usually 

begins in late summer at jetty areas near the bay mouth, moving up the bay as returning salmon 

migrate upstream. Bank angler access on the North Spit is limited. Boat angling occurs 

throughout the bay, but is limited in some areas by wind exposure. For example, the Roseburg 
4.5-53 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Forest Products Company dock area has less boat angling because of wind exposure and tidal 

action. Much of the boat angling for coho and Chinook salmon in the fall is concentrated around 

the railroad bridge and downstream towards the Jordan Cove site. Marshfield Channel can be an 

area of concentrated angling for fall salmon. 

Perch fishing begins in Coos Bay in late February to early March, depending on freshwater 

runoff, and can continue through July. Rocks around bridge abutments are targeted by anglers 

on the outgoing tide. 

Recreational fishing for sturgeon occurs primarily upstream of the McCullough Bridge. White 

sturgeon can be taken year round, but the best angling is during December through March, and 

when there is a heavy freshwater plume in Coos Bay. 

The shellfish fishery includes commercial and recreational harvest within the bay. The main 

harvest species are clam, oyster, crab, and shrimp, and they are of significant economic 

importance to the Coos Bay area. Additionally there are commercial oyster beds within the bay, 

which include seeding of beds with young Pacific oysters and later commercial harvest of these 

areas. Commercial harvest includes spot prawn, urchins, and abalone. In addition to the 

commercial fisheries for shellfish, recreational clamming and crabbing brings year-round tourist 

income to the region. Crabbing occurs primarily during slack tide in the main channel areas 

from the Southern Oregon Regional Airport to the river mouth. Recreational crabbing occurs 

year-round while commercial crabbing occurs September through December. The much larger 

ocean commercial crab season is generally December through April. 

Status of Fish in the Project Area 

The status of federally listed fish species and other commercial fish species that are managed 

under the MSA are presented in the EFH Assessment that will be submitted to the FWS and 

NMFS under separate cover and are summarized in section 4.6 and in the EFH sections below. 

ODFW (2005) has evaluated the status of salmon and steelhead, trout, and other selected species 

of interest. The status, or risk, is based on the threat to the conservation of a unique group of 

populations in the near term (5 to 10 years). The criteria used for evaluating the status of these 

species included consideration of six varied factors including: as status of existing population, 

habitat use, abundance, productivity, reproductive independence and hybridization. The details 

of the methods are presented in ODFW (2005) (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ 

ONFSR/report.asp). 

ODFW used these factors to determine the status of what they designate Species Management 

Units (SMUs). SMUs are groups of populations from a common geographic area with similar 

genetic and life history characteristics. ODFW classified each SMU into one of five status 

categories: 1) not at risk, 2) potentially at risk, 3) at risk, 4) extinct, 5) not assessed. This rating 

system was only directly applied to the SMUs, not individual populations. The Coos River 

system has populations in 10 SMUs. Of these, three of the SMUs were rated as “not at risk,” one 

“potentially at risk,” four “at risk,” and two “not assessed.” Two of the four SMUs rated “at 

risk” (spring Chinook and chum salmon) are actually extinct within the Coos basin. The species 

and SMU ratings of the Coos River system populations are: 

• Coastal spring Chinook salmon - At Risk (extinct in the Coos River system) 
 4.5-54 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

• Coastal chum salmon - At Risk (extinct in the Coos River system) 

• Pacific lamprey – At Risk 

• Coastal winter steelhead - Potentially at Risk 

• Coastal cutthroat trout - Not at Risk 

• Coastal coho salmon – Not at Risk 

• Coastal fall Chinook salmon – Not at Risk 

• Western brook lamprey - Not Assessed 

• Southern green sturgeon - Not Assessed 

• White sturgeon - Not Assessed 

Marine Mammals 

Thirty species of marine mammals occur in Oregon, including 7 species of baleen whales; 7 

species of toothed whales, 17 species of toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises; 5 species of 

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions); and sea otters (NMFS 2008). 

Steller sea lions, California sea lions, northern elephant seals, and Pacific harbor seals use 

haulout sites in the vicinity at Cape Arago, Three Arch Rocks, and Shell Island. Eight species of 

whales and Steller sea lions are federally and state-listed and are discussed in section 4.6. The 

remaining marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and are 

discussed in section 4.6. 

Sea Turtles 

Four species of sea turtles have been documented off the coast of Oregon; the green, olive ridley, 

leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. Sea turtles potentially occurring in the waterway are 

protected under the ESA and are discussed in detail in section 4.6. 

Impacts and Mitigation 

Release of LNG or Fuel

A spill of unignited LNG or fire of the LNG could occur along the transit route. The greatest 

threat to aquatic organisms in the vicinity of a spill would be from changes in water temperature. 

A spill of LNG would float on the water surface and not mix, but in the process of changing state 

from solid to liquid would rapidly cool off the upper water layers closest to the LNG spill. As 

the LNG would vaporize and turn to natural gas it would be less dense than air and would rise 

above the water. Fish would not be directly affected unless individuals come in direct contact 

with the LNG. Should a fish directly contact the LNG when it is first released, before any 

warming occurs, it could have its flesh frozen because the temperature is very low (-260 °C). 

The chance of this occurring would be extremely remote because it would require a fish to be at 

or above the water surface at the direct point of LNG spill as rapid warming would occur on 

contact with the ocean waters. If the LNG were to ignite it would cause very local heating of the 

surface water. Neither the cooling nor heating would likely cause the overall water column to 

change temperature to the point of affecting aquatic organism beyond the surface layer at the 

time of initial spill or ignition. Marine organisms, other than possibly the smallest planktonic 

stages, in the vicinity of this spill would be able to detect undesirable temperatures and avoid the 

region. The likelihood of such an event occurring within Coos Bay and along Coos Bay 

shoreline, where sessile intertidal organisms such as clams or oysters may be affected by a spill, 
4.5-55 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

is very low because LNG carriers would always be escorted by tugs and would typically enter 

and leave on slack tides. The chance of a spill occurring outside of the shipping route or having 

gas reach some important habitat local regional habitat areas, such as the marine sanctuary, 

which is greater than 2 miles from the main route, are extremely low. This is based on both the 

escort requirements of the vessel near Coos Bay entrance and the fact that the gas would likely 

dissipate before it would reach this area if a spill were to occur along the designated route. 

Additionally, other spills such as oil from LNG carriers would have a very low probability of 

causing harm to fish or shellfish due to the low chance of a spill occurring and the small amount 

of fuels and oils available to leak. Fuel (e.g., diesel) used for vessel propulsion and power could 

possibly leak or be spilled while in route, and more could be spilled should a catastrophic loss of 

an LNG carrier occur. The carrier would have measures aboard to contain fuel oil spills should 

they occur. Additionally, LNG carriers are double hulled, which would protect the major fuel 

sources should the carrier be grounded or damaged. The relatively small quantity of oil and 

other petroleum products on board and LNG carrier are low relative to oil tankers, so any spill is 

likely to be small and the chance of any spill remote. As reported by Pacific States/British 

Columbia annual reports, the number of oil spills reported from fishing and other harbor marine 

vessels ranged from 9 to 65 per year, fairly infrequent for the large number of marine vessels. 

If an unignited LNG spill were to occur along the LNG carrier transit route in the areas used as 

migratory routes by marine mammals and sea turtles, the LNG would float on the water until it 

vaporizes and would not have an adverse effect on the animals, unless they come in direct 

contact with the LNG. Some cooling of the upper water layers closest to the LNG spill would be 

expected, but would not likely cause the overall water column to cool to the point of affecting the 

mammals and turtles in the water, given the ambient water temperatures in the transit route and 

the adaptability of marine mammals and turtles to varying water temperatures. If the vapor from 

an LNG spill were to come in contact with an ignition source, the resulting fire would burn back 

to the spill source and would affect species on the water or in the area that come in direct contact 

with the fire. Mammals and turtles in the water would not be affected, as the fire would be 

above the water in the area of the spill where the vaporized LNG is flammable. In either case of 

lower or higher water temperatures based on the spill scenario, mobile mammals and turtles 

would move out of the area until the water temperatures return to normal. 

Introduction of Nuisance Species

Exotic or nuisance organisms are unlikely to be transported to Coos Bay in LNG carriers. LNG 

carrier origin location is not known at this time be could be from ports originating across the 

Pacific. Operators of commercial vessels have a significant economic interest in maintaining 

underwater body hull platings in a clean condition. Fouling of bottom platings would result in 

increased fuel costs for voyages and could reduce the vessel’s maximum transit speed. To 

prevent fouling and the associated economic costs, operators aggressively and conscientiously 

apply hull plating preservation and maintenance programs. Furthermore, failure to preserve and 

maintain hull plating not only raises short-term operation costs but also sets the stage for 

increased long-term hull maintenance costs. There is a particular sensitivity to this engineering 

and economic reality regarding commercial vessels operating at the higher end of the sailing 

rates schedule, as is the case for LNG carriers. 
 4.5-56 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

In addition to the antifouling program measures, fluid dynamics plays a practical role as a barrier 

to the introduction of invasive species in the manner described. The amount of water that passes 

over the hull and through the sea chest is a massively large volume. (A sea chest is an opening 

with associated piping in the hull below the waterline to provide seawater to condensers, pumps, 

and other associated equipment.) The velocity of the seawater, abrasive by nature, along the hull 

would be expected to “waterblast” off anything that is not affixed to the hull (e.g., a barnacle). 

Normal ballast exchange requires only three changes of water through the ballast tanks to purge 

any loading port organisms before arrival at the unloading port. These exchanges are done at sea 

and the exchanges occur at relatively low velocity. By contrast, the hull and sea chest would 

have the equivalent of untold multiples of seawater exchange such that an organism on the hull 

or in the sea chest would be flushed off with much more velocity and volume of water than the 

accepted international ballast exchange procedure. 

Ballast water may be another source of organisms. The water is held in the ballast tanks and 

cargo holds of LNG carriers to provide stability and maneuverability during a voyage when 

carriers are not carrying cargo, are not carrying enough cargo, or require more stability due to 

rough seas. LNG carriers do not discharge ship-ballast water after arriving in a receiving 

terminal. Thus, LNG carriers are not expected to import exotic species or cause impacts to the 

slip area associated with exotic species. LNG carriers returning to their home ports do take on 

ballast water as they unload their cargo either in port or in open-ocean waters. Thus, the LNG 

carriers may introduce non-native marine organisms into waters at their return ports. 

All vessels would be required to comply with ballast water management requirements 

promulgated by U.S. Law (e.g., Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 

of 1990; 1996 National Invasive Species Act) and agency programs (Department of 

Defense/EPA regulations at 40 CFR 1700, which implement §312(n) of the Clean Water Act), 

and establish discharge standards for vessel ballast water. Additionally, Coast Guard 

regulations, Mandatory Practices for All Vessels with Ballast Tanks on All Waters of the United 

States, require proper cleaning of fouling organisms on the boat exterior, anchor, and anchor 

lines in manner to prevent the likelihood of exotic species being transferred between ports. In 

addition, ships must adhere to a Ballast Water Management Plan, which is to be kept on-board 

and must maintain a Ballast Water Record Book to record the intake and discharge of ballast 

water (IMO 2004). On September 2006, a federal district court ruled that by September 30, 

2008, the EPA needs to take specific action to ensure that shipping companies comply with the 

intent of the CWA and restrict the discharge of ballast water into United States waters (Buck 

2006). While the EPA has not developed specific actions, operation of the proposed project 

would be required to comply with any future EPA discharge requirements. The FERC has 

assumed that the provisions of this Act and expected future EPA requirements apply both to the 

import and export of nuisance species, and by compliance with this Act the LNG carriers would 

not cause exotic nuisance species to be introduced into the ports of origin of the LNG cargos. 

Vessel Strikes

The incremental LNG carrier traffic of 80 carriers per year plus the three attending tugs over the 

existing approximate number of 50 ships would, logically, result in a higher probability of 

potential incidents of ships hitting mammals and turtles in the water. However, most species 

would be able to avoid interaction with moving objects in the waterway. Jordan Cove conducted 

numerous simulations of LNG carriers transiting to the proposed terminal. Based on these 
4.5-57 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

simulations, the LNG carriers would enter the waterway at speeds between 8 and 10 knots, and 

slow to 6 to 4 knots as they proceed up the waterway to the LNG terminal. As required by the 

WSR, two tugs would escort each LNG carrier within the Coos Bay navigation channel, and 

another tug would assist in docking the carriers at the terminal. Use of tugs would allow the 

LNG carriers to maintain steerage even at these slow speeds. In the open ocean prior to entering 

the Coos Bay navigation channel, it is estimated the LNG carriers would travel at speeds of 

about 12 knots. In addition, Jordan Cove would include as part of its Terminal Use Agreement 

with LNG carrier operators the NMFS Vessel Strike Avoidance Policy, in the event that NMFS 

in the Northwest develops or adopts such a policy. In addition, once inside the navigation 

channel, LNG carriers would voluntarily transit to the slip at slow speeds (approximately 6 knots 

or less) which would result in minimal wakes, such that marine mammals and sea turtles would 

not be affected by the wakes of passing LNG carriers. Jordan Cove would provide to shippers 

delivering LNG cargo to the proposed LNG terminal measures proposed by NMFS for avoidance 

of marine mammals while in transit at sea to further reduce the likelihood of adverse effects on 

these species. Some of the suggested measures could include the following: 

• Provide training to LNG carrier crews that would include the use of a reference guide 

such as the Marine Mammals of the Pacific Northwest, including Oregon, Washington, 

British Columbia and South Alaska by Pieter Folkens. This is a pamphlet that could be 

kept aboard LNG carriers. 

• Require LNG carrier crews to maintain a watch for marine mammals and slow the ship to 

avoid striking protected species. 

• Require LNG carriers to establish navigation policies when species are sighted, 

including: 

− When whales are sighted maintain a distance of 90 meters or greater from the whale. 

− Attempt to maintain a parallel course to the animal and avoid excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in direction until the animal has left the area. 

− Reduce ship speed when pods or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an 

underway ship. 

− When whales are sighted in a ship’s path or in close proximity to a moving ship, 

reduce speed or shift the engine to neutral until whales are clear of the area or path of 

the ship. 

− Report sightings of any injured or dead protected species immediately, regardless of 

whether the injury or death is caused by the ship. If the injury or death is caused by 

collision with the ship, FERC would be notified within 24 hours of the incident. 

Information to be provided would include the date and location (latitude/longitude) of 

the strike, the ship name, the species or a description of the animal, if possible.

Ship Grounding

The likelihood of an LNG carrier losing steerage, running aground, and physically damaging 

marine areas aquatic species is unlikely. In the Coos Bay navigation channel, damage to shallow 

shoreline shellfish areas is unlikely because the channel geometry would serve to keep the LNG 

carrier within the confines of the channel. In addition, the LNG carrier would always be under 

tug escort when in the channel. The tugs would keep the LNG carrier under control and not 

allow it to run aground in the event of a steering or other control failure. The likelihood of 
 4.5-58 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

grounding in other regions, including marine sanctuary south of the channel, is also low due to 

requirements for tug escort when near the Coos Bay entrance. 

Shoreline Erosion from Prop Wash and Waves

Prop wash from LNG vessels and tug boat propellers associated with the proposed Project, as 

well as ship wakes breaking on shore could cause increased erosion along the shoreline and 

resuspend the eroded material within the water column. Increased erosion and suspended 

sediment levels can adversely affect fish eggs and fish survival, benthic community diversity and 

health, and spawning habitat. At high concentrations, suspended sediments can affect oxygen 

exchange over the gills, resulting in weakened individuals or mortality. Additionally, waves 

from vessels breaking on the shoreline can cause fish strandings, which is discussed below. 

Other than the first mile of entrance of Coos Bay, when vessels may travel 8 to 10 knots, speed 

for the route in Coos Bay would be 6 knots or less. To estimate the effects of prop wash and 

waves from LNG vessels in Coos Bay, Jordan Cove developed a model of the effects of waves 

from a vessel traveling a maximum of 6 knots (6.9 miles/hour). The model considered waves 

generated at seven locations between the mouth and docking location of an LNG carrier (Moffatt 

and Nichol 2008). They found that maximum wave height generated would be about 1.1 foot. 

This wave size, while small, occurs uncommonly in Coos Bay based on wind-generated waves. 

Overall, waves of this size occur within much of the bay about 2 percent or less of the time 

annually based on locations modeled. Overall, among the seven points modeled the waves 

generated would equal from 0.0 to 3.1 percent of the annual wave energy at these seven 

locations. The model assumed about 200 vessel transits per year (combined inbound and 

outbound; about 160 combined vessel transits are proposed) of a 934-foot-long vessel traveling 

at about 6 knots, which is the upper range of speed that may occur during transport within the 

Coos Bay navigation channel. Some additional shore sediment movement may occur from these 

waves, but overall effects would be small because they would infrequently occur, they contribute 

a very small portion of total annual wave energy, and they are within the normal magnitude of 

waves that naturally occur within the bay. The outer mile of the entrance, where the vessel 

would be traveling 8 to 10 knots, may have higher vessel-generated waves because of the greater 

speed. But this area is already less protected from naturally occurring ocean-generated waves 

(this region directly faces the ocean entrance) and likely has higher background naturally 

generated waves than the regions farther in the bay. Also, the wave analysis did not include 

effects of ocean-generated waves, which would be more substantial near the bay entrance 

(Moffatt and Nichol 2008). So, relative change from background near the entrance, even with 

the higher speeds, may not be substantial. Assisting vessels (tugs) would also contribute to the 

waves, but their much smaller size (cross-sectional area) traveling at the same vessel speed 

would greatly reduce their effects on wave energy relative to that of the much large LNG carrier. 

The much lesser effect on wave size is because for equal parameters (e.g. vessel velocity, 

channel characteristics) wave height is proportional to cross-sectional area of the ship, although 

bow shape is also a factor (Moffatt and Nichol 2008). Overall, increased sedimentation and 

disruption of aquatic nearshore habitat are unlikely because of the factors noted. 

The propeller wash potential was also modeled by Jordan Cove (Moffat and Nichol 2008). The 

estimate indicated that along most of the route within the navigation channel, prior to just 

approaching the docking area, the bottom velocity caused by the propeller would be similar to 

maximum velocity of peak tides (about 4 feet per second). Near the docking location, bottom 
4.5-59 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

velocity would be roughly double, or about 7 to 8 feet per second. It was noted that along most 

of this route the bottom is considered coarse (sand and sandstone). This type of substrate is hard 

to suspend and rapidly settles. Generally, along most of the route no marked bottom disturbance 

or sediment suspension would occur, as the increased velocity would be similar to maximum 

tidal currents. Within about the last half- to quarter-mile before reaching the slip (based on the 

point selected for modeling) is where bottom velocity is increased. Because some bottom 

disturbance would occur over a narrow band (width of the propeller wash) where these high 

bottom velocities occur, some benthic organisms would be disrupted and some sediment would 

be moved during arrival and departure. This would occur below the intertidal area. Mobile 

organisms would be able to return to the region, while some benthic organisms may be 

permanently displaced. Turbidity would likely be slight because of coarse characteristics. 

Overall, some loss of benthic organisms may occur during each transport trip near the slip 

approach, but the magnitude would be small. 

Fish Stranding

Fish stranding can occur when fish become caught in a vessel’s wake and are deposited on shore 

by the wave generated by the vessel wake. Stranding typically results in mortality unless another 

wave carries the fish back into the water. A recent study of strandings (Pearson et al. 2006) 

suggests that a series of interlinked factors act together to produce stranding during a ship 

passage. These factors include:

• Water-surface elevation – low tides are generally more likely to result in strandings than 

high tides. 

• Beach slope – low-gradient beaches are generally more likely stranding locations than 

high-gradient ones. 

• Wake characteristics – ship wakes that result in both the greatest drawn-down and run-up 

on the beach are generally most likely to result in strandings. Wake characteristics are 

influenced by a number of dynamics including vessel size and hull form (“short and fat” 

vessels have a greater displacement effect and generate larger wakes than “long and thin” 

vessels); vessel draught (the smaller the under-keel clearance, the larger the wakes; thus, 

loaded vessels are more likely to result in strandings than unloaded vessels); vessel speed 

(fast moving vessels generate larger wakes than slow vessels); the distance between the 

passing vessel and the beach (strandings are generally more likely at beaches close to the 

shipping channel than more distant beaches). Fish strandings were observed as a result of 

four types of vessel passages including oil tankers, container ships, car carriers, and bulk 

carriers (in order of the vessels observed to cause the highest to lowest stranding 

frequency). 

• Various biological factors – for example, the larger number of sub-yearling salmon that 

are present near the shoreline, the more fish that are likely to be stranded; salmon that are 

larger and relatively strong swimmers are generally less prone to stranding. 

• Vessel speed was also a factor with no stranding observed on the Columbia River at 

speeds less than 8 to 9 knots, about 10 MPH). 

All of these factors can vary simultaneously, making it difficult to predict the location and to 

what degree strandings may occur. A few areas may have the potential to strand fish in the Bay. 

One is the mud flats on the west side of the channel along Coos Bay and Empire Range that have 
 4.5-60 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

beach morphology that has been shown to have potential for stranding, especially at low tide. 

Jordan Cove modeled the potential wave height and overall energy from 200 LNG carrier transits 

a year (combined inbound and outbound; about 160 vessel transits are proposed, see discussion 

of shoreline erosion, above). As noted above, the wave’s height would not exceed that of normal 

conditions in Coos Bay and overall waves contribute a small portion of total waves in the Bay. 

In addition, the vessel would be arriving and leaving at high tide, which is a period when gently 

sloping beaches are mostly covered, and less likely to be dewatered from waves. The maximum 

vessel speed once within the navigation channel, about 6 knots, is less than that observed to 

cause stranding in the Pearson et al. 2006 study. The one exception is near the Coos Bay 

entrance (first mile), when vessels may be traveling 8 to 10 knots. While waves generated in this 

region may be larger than farther in the bay, this is an area likely already receiving larger oceangenerated waves, so the vessel-generated waves would be little different than current conditions 

in this region. Additionally, the presence of sub-yearling Chinook salmon in Coos Bay, which 

are the outmigrating fish most likely to be stranded, is limited to the summer months, 

approximately mid-June through the end of August. Considering the conditions including boats 

entering and leaving at high slack tide, low velocity in most areas, wave height within normal 

range, and infrequent occurrence of susceptible fish, it appears unlikely that LNG carrier traffic 

would contribute to fish stranding. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The MSA (Public Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996) was established to 

promote the protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conducted under 

federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such 

habitat. EFH is defined in the MSA as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake activities that may adversely impact EFH 

must consult with the NMFS. Although absolute criteria have not been established for 

conducting EFH consultations, the NMFS recommends consolidated EFH consultations with 

interagency coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as NEPA, the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, and the Federal Power Act in order to reduce duplication 

and improve efficiency (50 CFR 600.920(e)). Generally, the EFH consultation process includes 

the following steps: 

1. Notification – The action agency should clearly state the process being used for EFH 

consultations (e.g., incorporating EFH consultation into an EIS, section 10 permit). 

2. EFH Assessment – The action agency should prepare an EFH Assessment that includes 

both identification of affected EFH and an assessment of impacts. Specifically, the EFH 

should include: 

• a description of the proposed action; 

• an analysis of the effects (including cumulative effects) of the proposed action on 

EFH, the managed fish species, and major prey species; 

• the federal agency’s views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and 

• proposed mitigation, if applicable. 
4.5-61 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

3. EFH Conservation Recommendations – After reviewing the EFH Assessment, the NMFS 

should provide recommendations to the action agency regarding measures that can be 

taken by that agency to conserve EFH. 

4. Agency Response – Within 30 days of receiving the recommendations, the action agency 

must respond to the NMFS. The action agency may notify the NMFS that a full response 

to the conservation recommendations would be provided by a specified completion date 

agreeable to all parties. The response must include a description of measures proposed 

by the agency to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the activity on EFH. 

The FERC, as the action agency, will consolidate the EFH and the ESA process for all portions 

of the proposed Project. This will include development of an EFH assessment and BA together 

for submittal to NMFS and USFWS with a request to initiate formal consultation. 

Section 302 of the MSA established regional fishery management councils. Among other 

responsibilities, these councils develop management plans for each fishery that requires 

conservation and management. Section 303(a) (7) of the MSA requires that these fishery 

management plans describe and identify EFH. The proposed Project would be constructed and 

operated within the region of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The PFMC has 

developed four fishery management plans (FMP) for species in Oregon marine, estuarine and 

freshwater areas: Pacific Groundfish, Coastal Pelagic Species, Salmon and Highly Migratory 

Species. EFH occurs both inside and outside of Coos Bay along the waterway for LNG marine 

traffic. The locations of EFH within the zones of concern within the U.S. territorial waters along 

the LNG carrier transit route are shown in figure 4.5-1. Additional EFH habitat of concern 

would occur along the potential route extending out to the 200 mile EEZ (not shown in the 

figure). EFH is described and identified as everywhere that species managed by the PFMC 

occur. Species with EFH in the proposed project area are summarized below. 

Groundfish EFH

The groundfish group includes 82 species of groundfish. For the Pacific coast groundfish 

fishery, the EFH determination is based on habitat use by life stage for all 82 species within each 

composite EFH shown in Appendices B-1 and B-3 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Management 

Plan (PFMC 2008). The life history descriptions and maps showing species distributions are 

also available in Appendices B-2 and B-4, respectively, of the Management Plan (PFMC 2008). 

Coastal Pelagic Species EFH

The EFH for coastal pelagic species is defined by the species’ temperature and geographic range 

during all life stages in the past, present, and where they could occur in the future. In addition to 

all marine and estuarine waters off the Pacific Coast to the limits of the EEZ, EFH for coastal 

pelagic species also includes portions of the water column where sea surface temperatures range 

between 50 °F (near the United States/Mexico maritime boundary) and 79 °F (seasonally and 

annually variable) (PFMC 2006b). The coastal pelagic species FMP includes five species: 

Northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub) mackerel, jack mackerel, and market squid. Of 

these, two species (market squid and Pacific sardine) are known to occur in estuaries (PFMC 

1998). The others would be found in the marine waters off the Oregon Coast along the shipping 

route. 
4.5-62 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Figure 4.5-1. Essential Fish Habitat Along the Waterway within United States Territorial Waters 
4.5-63 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Pacific Coast Salmon EFH

For the Pacific salmon fishery, the PFMC identified EFH using USGS hydrologic units as well 

as habitat association tables and life history descriptions for each life stage (PFMC 1999, 

Appendix A, Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan). These areas encompass all 

streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable waterbodies and most of the habitat 

historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. In estuarine and 

marine areas, EFH for Pacific salmon extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged 

environments within state waters out to the full extent of the EEZ (200 nautical miles). Three 

species are included in the management: coho, Chinook and pink salmon. 

Highly Migratory Species EFH

Highly migratory fish EFH may exist along the outer portion of the waterway for LNG marine 

traffic. This EFH is found in temperate waters within the Pacific Council’s region. Variations in 

the distribution and abundance of these species are affected by ever-changing oceanic 

environmental conditions including water temperature, current patterns and the availability of 

food. Sea surface temperatures and habitat boundaries vary seasonally and from year to year, 

with some of the species are much more abundant from northern California to Washington 

waters during the summer and warm waters years than during winter and cold water years, due to 

increased habitat availability within the EEZ. The species include five species of shark, tuna, 

striped marlin, swordfish, and dolphinfish. Based on the EFH habitat defined for these species, 

few if any, of these species are off the Coos Bay at coastal depths less than 100 fathoms (100 

fathoms is the approximate edge of the shipping route defined area in Oregon coastal waters to 3 

miles offshore). However, in waters farther offshore some habitat is available for some of these 

species and life stages out to the 200 mile EEZ. Overall, little EFH for these managed species 

would be present along the shipping route to the EEZ near Coos Bay. However, depending on 

the shipping route traveled, additional EFH of the highly migratory species may occur in 

southern west coast waters where more of these species’ habitat may be present. 

Project Area Specific EFH Species Characteristics

Within Coos Bay a subset of these managed species are present including, two salmon (Chinook 

and coho salmon), three pelagic (northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, and Pacific mackerel), and 

29 groundfish species may be in or near Coos Bay, based on typical habitat use of these species. 

The general life history and expected habitat use within and near the proposed Project area are 

shown in Appendix G, table G-1, which will also be in the BA and EFH assessment developed 

for this EIS. However, the documented species composition is less than noted in table G-1. 

Based on sampling (e.g. ODFW data from 1996 to 2000), 13 groundfish, 2 salmon, and 1 pelagic 

species would be considered common. The information below provides details on most of these 

fish species use within the Bay, relative to the proposed Project site. 

Managed groundfish and coastal pelagic species are not estuarine resident species and therefore 

utilize Coos Bay on a seasonal basis, primarily in summer months. During the summer, the 

estuary may be utilized as a forage area for juveniles and adults and as a nursery area for larvae 

and juveniles. Starry flounder spawn near river mouths and sloughs. Juvenile starry flounder are 

found exclusively in estuaries. Sampling in upper Coos Bay from 1979 to 1990 showed that 

young-of-the-year flounder are present at least in the spring and summer months (Wagoner et al. 

1990). Flounder and sole are found in sandy or muddy substrate and juveniles are found in 
 4.5-64 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

shallow water near rivers and in estuaries in eelgrass beds. Adults generally are found in deeper 

waters in the winter and migrate to shallower water in the spring. English sole juveniles depend 

heavily on inter-tidal areas, estuaries, and shallow nearshore waters for food and shelter. 

Adult Chinook and coho salmon may utilize habitat in the transit route in Coos Bay for migration 

and offshore for migration and feeding. Adults would return to the rivers in late summer and 

fall. Juveniles and smolts may use the transit route in Coos Bay for resting and foraging during 

emigration in the spring and summer, and offshore for migration and feeding. ODFW (2005) has 

captured coho and Chinook salmon, starry flounder, northern anchovy, and sand sole in the 

Jordan Cove area adjacent to the proposed Project site. 

The black rockfish is the only member of the rockfish family that is consistently caught in Coos 

Bay (Wagoner et al. 1990). The copper, blue, grass, canary rockfishes, and bocaccio are 

occasionally caught. The rockfishes are in the lower areas of Coos Bay, mainly during the late 

spring and summer months (Wagoner et al. 1990). Black rockfish are not known to spawn in 

estuaries. Rockfish recruit to seagrass beds in shallow, soft bottom embayments (Love et al. 

1991). Johnson et al. (2003) reported that juveniles of many commercially important species 

utilize eelgrass habitat in Southeastern Alaska. Rockfish juveniles settle into shallow, vegetated 

habitats for rearing. Vegetated habitats (eelgrass and kelp) provide refuge from predators and 

access to prey. Juvenile rockfish may also be closely associated with seagrass drift for both 

feeding and refugia while they move between pelagic and near shore habitat (Nightingale and 

Simenstad 2001). Rockfish have not been seined by ODFW in or near the proposed Project area, 

indicating that this area is not utilized by rockfish. 

Black rockfish and Cabazon were the most abundant juvenile rockfish species captured within 

Coos Bay (near the entrance) between June 2003 and December 2005 (Schlosser and Bloeser 

2006). Trap sites were located in eelgrass beds, along dock pilings and in sandy bottom habitat 

near the entrance to Coos Bay. Juvenile chilipepper, copper, grass, yellowtail, and kelp 

greenling were also captured near the entrance. 

Lingcod begin life in near-surface marine waters and estuarine areas. Juvenile lingcod primarily 

use estuaries, entering to feed, while adults are usually found in marine waters of 100 to 150 

meters deep. Lingcod lay eggs in rocky, marine subtidal areas. Larvae are found in the nearsurface marine waters and estuarine areas. In this life stage, lingcod feed primarily on copepods, 

eggs, and other crustaceans. As it matures, lingcod are commonly found in shallow, inter-tidal 

areas of bays near algae and seagrass beds. 

Phillips (1984) described northern anchovy to be transient users of eelgrass. Eelgrass provides 

indirect benefits to these species as well through contributions to productivity in the estuary, and 

eelgrass drift may provide cover for coastal pelagic species (Nightengale and Simenstad 2001). 

Other species managed by the PFMC that occur in Coos Bay include sand sole and big skate. 

Sand sole require a sand-mud-eelgrass type of habitat but have not been captured in or near the 

proposed Project area. Big skate occur nearshore and occasionally in the bay (Wagoner et al. 

1990). 

In offshore waters, along the shipping route out to the 200 mile EEZ, additional species and life 

stages of groundfish, coastal pelagic species, Pacific Coast salmon and highly migratory species 
4.5-65 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

would be present. The details of the species and life stages and likelihood of being present 

within the EEZ analysis area are presented in the BA/EFH. 

Food Web Importance to EFH

Prey species that are important for local EFH fish species rely on many of the same habitat 

conditions as the EFH fish species. The food web components including phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, detritus, epiphyton, and SAV (e.g., eelgrass, macrophytic algae) are all important in 

supplying the habitat and food base for EFH species within Coos Bay. For example, submerged 

grasses or SAV are important habitat for small prey species of adult lingcod (in Appendix B-2 of 

PFMC 2008). Forage items that are habitat components for the managed species do depend to 

some extent on estuarine systems. Many species of groundfish and salmonids occupy inshore 

areas of the lower bay during juvenile stages (e.g., Chinook salmon, coho salmon, English sole) 

where they feed on estuarine-dependent prey, including shrimp, small fishes, and crabs. As they 

mature and move offshore, their diets in many cases change to include fish, although estuarinedependent species (e.g., shrimp, crabs) can still constitute an important dietary component. 

A variety of habitat of importance occur along the waterway for LNG marine traffic. They 

include fresh, estuarine, and marine waters. Within Coos Bay are estuarine environments with 

freshwater streams and slough. The habitat in the marine environment includes shallow sandy 

shorelines, and nearshore and offshore rocky environments. Also up and down the coast are 

rocky reefs and kelp forest regions. But pelagic and deep ocean waters with soft bottoms 

habitats are most common directly along the route outside of the bay (ODFW 2005b). The fish 

and other aquatic organisms along this route are highly diverse and abundant containing very 

important EFH habitat for many species. 

Impacts and Mitigation to EFH

Actions associated with marine traffic ship transit route in the areas where the essential fish 

habitat are located that could potential adversely affect designated EFH along the LNG carrier 

transport route would be limited to LNG spills, grounding of the vessel, and hazardous substance 

spills within Coos Bay and along the shipping route out to the EEZ. A summary of potential 

impacts to EFH is shown in table 4.5.2.1-1. The details of the effects and practices in place to 

avoid or minimize these impacts are discussed in the impacts sections for the waterway above. 

No specific additional mitigation is proposed for EFH related to LNG carrier traffic along the 

waterway. See mitigation for impacts for all proposed LNG facilities. 

TABLE 4.5.2.1-1. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to LNG Carrier Traffic Along the Waterway

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

Impacts Determination of Effects 

Groundfish All waters from the extent of the 

high tide line (and parts of 

estuaries) to offshore to the 3,500 

meter (1,914 fathoms) depth. 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances, entrainment 

Minimal adverse effects or less 

than substantial effects to 

multiple groundfish species EFH 

(see Aquatic sections on Along 

the Waterway for impacts and 

mitigation) 

Coastal Pelagic 

Species 

All marine and estuarine waters 

from the coast to the limits of the 

EEZ and above the thermocline 

where sea surface temperatures 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances, entrainment 

Minimal adverse effects or less 

than substantial effects to 

coastal pelagic species 

(northern anchovy, Pacific 
 4.5-66 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.2.1-1. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to LNG Carrier Traffic Along the Waterway

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

Impacts Determination of Effects 

range between 50 °F and 79 °F sardine) EFH (see Aquatic 

sections on Along the Waterway 

for impacts and mitigation) 

Pacific Coast 

Salmon 

All streams, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, and other waterbodies 

currently and 

historically accessible to salmon. 

Estuaries and marine areas 

extending to the EEZ and beyond. 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances, entrainment 

Minimal adverse effects or less 

than substantial effects to 

Pacific coastal salmon species 

(coho and Chinook salmon) 

EFH (see Aquatic sections on 

Along the Waterway for impacts 

and mitigation) 

Highly Migratory 

Species 

EFH is defined by temperature 

ranges, salinity, oxygen levels, 

currents, shelf edges, and sea 

mounts. Based on species 

characteristics closest EFH would 

be beyond the 40 fathom depth off 

of Coos Bay. b/

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

Minimal adverse effects or less 

than substantial effects to highly 

migratory species EFH (see 

Aquatic sections on Along the 

Waterway for impacts and 

mitigation) 

a/ PFMC 2006 (fact sheet, update version, July 24, 2006) 

b/ PFMC 2007 

4.5.2.2 Jordan Cove LNG Terminal 

The Jordan Cove facility would be located on the North Spit of Coos Bay. The proposed location 

is in the central portion of Coos Bay (CM 7.0 to 8.0). The site is near the inner portion of the 

transition zone between fresh and marine waters. The region of Coos Bay near the proposed LNG 

facility has been frequently disturbed from dredging and dredge disposal including the region near 

CM 3, between CM 4 and 5, near CM 6, and between CM 8 and 9. Maintenance dredging is an 

ongoing activity in this region. The dredged material has in the past been deposited in a variety of 

areas in the bay including marshes and flats that were used for development. Toward the ocean 

beyond CM 6 (within a mile of the proposed LNG terminal site) the shore slope is steep, with less 

intertidal area exposed during tidal changes. The current in this region is high, scouring the shore, 

resulting in efforts by the COE to reduce this erosion through the construction of five pile dikes 

(COE 1973). Detailed discussion of the aquatic species that have designated EFH near the LNG 

terminal or are listed as threatened or endangered are included in sections 4.5.2.1 and 4.6, 

respectively 

Coos Bay contains a variety of habitat for anadromous, marine, and estuarine fish species. The 

fish species and characteristics and use of Coos Bay, including commercial and recreational 

fisheries and fisheries of special concern, are discussed in section 4.5.2.1. A large diverse 

invertebrate population exists in Coos Bay. Shellfish, predominantly clams, crabs, and shrimp, are 

of significant economic importance to the Coos Bay area (see also section 4.5.2.1). Marine 

mammals in Coos Bay and adjacent ocean waters are also discussed in section 4.5.2.1. Only the 

harbor seal, northern sea lion and killer whale are likely to enter the bay itself and only the harbor 

seal has been observed at the slip site during field surveys. Killer whales enter Coos Bay only on 

an occasional basis; the northern sea lion is expected to occur more frequently at the mouth of the 

bay. These species and other marine mammals are protected by the MMPA and are described 

further in section 4.6. 
4.5-67 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

The proposed maintenance dredging disposal Site F, located about 1.6 miles off the mouth of Coos 

Bay, has many of the same anadromous and marine species found in Coos Bay and discussed in 

section 4.5.2.1. This site encompassed about 2,700 acres, ranging in depth of 25 to 150 feet. The 

area is generally has high hydraulic energy, with uniform bottom topography, coarse sand grading 

to fine sediment in deeper areas. The site was established by EPA in 2006 (EPA 2006) as the Coos 

bay maintenance dredging site for clean sediment. The area has been used since the 1970s for 

disposal. Trawl sampling in the site has identified 28 species including herring, anchovy, sculpin, 

flatfish, rockfish, greenling, skate, and others (Hinton and Emmertt 1994). A flatfish, speckled 

sanddab, was the most abundant. Chinook and coho salmon migrate through and may feed in this 

area, both as juveniles and adults. Shellfish were not common here but include some Dungeness 

and red rock crab and Cragon and smooth bay shrimp. 

The general aquatic habitat in Coos Bay is discussed in section 4.5.2.1. At the site of the proposed 

LNG terminal is an area of SAV, consisting of approximately 1.10 acres of eelgrass (Zostera 

marina) and 5.7 acres of macrophytic algae. The SAV is in the lower tidal and subtidal region in 

the area that would be affected by the slip and access channel (figure 4.5-2). 

Submerged grasses are one of the important major habitat components in Coos Bay. 

Recreationally and commercially harvested species such as clams and shrimps, Dungeness crab, 

English sole, and salmonids use the eelgrass beds extensively. Previous studies (Akins and 

Jefferson 1973) have reported that Coos Bay has 1,400 acres of lower intertidal and shallow 

subtidal flats covered by eelgrass meadows. ODFW (1979) conducted habitat mapping in Coos 

Bay and documented intertidal and subtidal aquatic beds. Submerged grass meadows provide 

cover and food for a large number of organisms including burrowing, bottom-dwelling 

invertebrates; diatoms and algae; herring that deposit eggs clusters on leaves; tiny crustaceans and 

fish that hide and feed among the blades; and, larger fish, crabs and wading birds that forage in the 

meadows at various tides. Eelgrass provides shelter for a variety of fish and may lower predation, 

allowing more opportunity for foraging. The protective structure attribute of eelgrass is primarily 

for smaller organisms and juvenile life history stages of fishes. 

Project activities associated with the proposed LNG terminal that could potentially impact aquatic 

resources include in-water construction activities, habitat modification, water appropriations, 

artificial lighting, accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials, and operation of the LNG 

terminal. Much of the impact discussion included below applies to fish protected under the ESA, 

which are described in detail in section 4.6 and to EFH designated under the MSA, which is 

discussed later in this section. 

The proposed project would require excavating and dredging out a large area of the shoreline of 

Coos Bay near Jordan Cove, including removal of about 5.6 mcy of sediment as part of the 

development of a slip and access channel. This would include the modification of 31.0 acres of 

subtidal and intertidal habitat and current shoreline. Additionally, 32.7 acres of upland habitat 

would become intertidal and subtidal habitat (figure 4.5-3). The LNG facility would be build 

adjacent to this newly developed slip and access channel. The construction of the slip would 

impact local fisheries by removal of some habitat and short-term turbidity. Additionally, there is 

the potential for fuel and chemical spills from dredging equipment and shoreline construction 

activities during the construction of the proposed LNG import terminal and slip. 
Section 4.5 – W

4.5-68

Figure 4.5-2. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Within Proposed Slip and Access Channel 
4.5-69 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Jordan Cove and the Port would attempt to reduce or eliminate potential effects from 

construction on aquatic organisms first through avoidance of impacts, then minimization, and 

finally with habitat restorations and enhancement. Jordan Cove would be required to comply 

with a number of regulatory requirements and programs designed specifically to protect aquatic 

resources, including adherence to its project-specific Plan and Procedures, which details 

construction and restoration methods (see section 2.4). In addition, conditions of approval are 

incorporated into many of the permits and/or authorizations, which would apply to both Jordan 

Cove and the Port, helping to minimize impacts on aquatic resources. A list of permits required 

and reviewing/issuing agencies is presented in table 1.5-1. Potential impacts to aquatic resources 

from construction and operation of specific components of the LNG terminal facilities are 

described below. 

Construction 

Dredging for the Slip and Access Channel

The construction of the slip and access channel would require excavation of 2.3 mcy of material, 

and dredging of 2.0 mcy of material from the slip area and 1.3 mcy from the access channel, for 

a total of approximately 5.6 mcy. The proposed excavation and dredging operation is described 

in section 2.1.4.4 and 2.4.1.1. About 6.8 acres of SAV would be modified during the dredging 

process, being changed from shallow inter and subtidal habitat to a deepened channel. 

Increasing depth and removal of vegetation would reduce the quality of habitat for juvenile 

salmonids and other juvenile marine species. To mitigate for this impact, the Port has developed 

a mitigation plan that includes development of replacement habitat. 

The dredging operation would change physical conditions of the bottom, locally altering the 

bathymetry and potentially altering the morphology and water currents. About 47 acres of 

upland habitat would be converted to open water. While this region would have little intertidal 

habitat due to steep banks, it would supply some subtidal habitat that would not have been 

present without the proposed project. This habitat, however, would be highly disturbed due to 

large vessel arrivals and departures and would generally be of low quality habitat for most 

species. The 4.9 acres of intertidal unvegetated sand-mud flats, 5.7 acre of intertidal algal flat, 

and 1.1 acres of eel grass affected by construction would be mitigated. The Port’s proposed 

mitigation would include restoration of 30.74 acres of low and high marsh along Isthmus Slough 

(mitigation for loss of non-eel grass habitat). The loss of 1.1 acres of eel grass would be 

mitigated by development and planting of about 2 acres of off-site eel grass habitat, with the 

intention of ensuring 1.10 acres eel grass development occurs, in an area due south of the west 

end of the Southern Oregon Regional Airport runway. 

The major impacts to marine and estuarine organisms would result from increased turbidity and 

sediment during dredging operations. A large quantity of suspended sediment can reduce light 

penetration, which in turn reduces primary production of both pelagic and benthic algae and 

grasses. Increased suspended sediment can affect feeding of benthic and pelagic filter feeding 

organisms (Brehmer 1965; Parr et al. 1998), and the settling of the suspended particles can cause 

local burial, affect egg attachment, and modify benthic substrate. High enough levels can have 

direct adverse effects to fish ranging from avoidance to direct mortality. 
 4.5-70 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Figure 4.5-3. Aquatic Habitat Affected by Proposed Slip and Access Channel 
4.5-71 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Use of pumps to convey the material from the cutter heads in a hydraulic dredging operation 

would serve to contain most of the siltation caused by the dredging. The siltation would be 

conveyed with the material removed to the disposal area where it would settle out before being 

discharged back to the waterbody. The suspended sediment and turbidity levels would decline to 

ambient levels following completion of dredging activities. Dredging of the berm that separates 

the bulk of the dredging activity from Coos Bay would result in temporary siltation and 

sedimentation impacts similar to those that currently occur during maintenance dredging 

activities. On the average, the COE removes approximately 550,000 cy from the bar, 200,000 cy 

from CM 2 to 12 and 150,000 cy from CM 12 to 15 each year. In comparison, approximately 

500,000 cy would be removed in the water during the removal of the berm separating the slip 

from the bay and access channel. Dredging of the access channel is predicted to result in 

approximately the same level of turbidity as the maintenance dredging of the channel, but the 

access channel dredging would be in addition to regular dredging maintenance. 

The ambient turbidity levels in the water (generated by flows, waves and ship traffic) create a 

background level of turbidity. Within Coos Bay, turbidity measurements taken at the Charleston 

Bridge over a 2-year period show an average summer turbidity level of 10 mg/l and an average 

winter level of 27.3 mg/l.2 Some individual events (e.g., winter storms) measured at the 

Charleston Bridge were recorded between 100 and 500 mg/l. Aquatic organisms in Coos Bay 

are adapted to and exposed to periods of high to moderate turbidity during the winter months. 

Dredge operations are expected to result in similar effects, with higher concentrations of 

suspended sediments in the immediate area of dredging. 

Within the slip and access channel, dredging would be conducted using a hydraulic dredge with a 

cutterhead. Cutterhead dredges use a rotating cutter to loosen soil particles. A model 

commissioned by Jordan Cove provides a range of turbidity from dredging activities based on 

the velocity of the tidal current. The highest resultant turbidity was modeled to be approximately 

500 mg/l at the cutterhead with a current velocity of 0.2 meters/second with turbidity decreasing 

to approximately 14 mg/l at 200 feet from the cutterhead. 

During the dredging process some small fish, larvae, and fish eggs could be entrained through 

the water. Larger fish would be able to avoid this process and would likely actively avoid the 

area during the dredging disturbance process. A review of many maintenance dredge studies 

concluded that entrainment of many marine fish and shellfish species is not a significant problem 

(Reine et al. 1998). Impacts would be minimized by the current in-water work windows 

(October 1 to February 15) and by maintaining of the cutterhead near the bottom. 

If salmonids are exposed to moderate to high levels of turbidity (suspended sediment) for 

prolonged periods, a number of adverse effects could occur including behavioral changes, sublethal effects, and increased mortality from predators. Dredging is expected to create spikes of 

high to moderate turbidity in a localized area. Effects to salmonids are expected to be slight and 

not measurable due to the limited area affected and the short duration of proposed dredging 

operations, and limitations on construction periods. Rearing and migrating salmonids would 

likely avoid active work areas. 

 

2

 Jordan Cove included in its application to the FERC a study by Moffatt &Nichol entitled “Report on Turbidity Due to 

Dredging,” attached as Appendix B.2 of Environmental Resource Report 2 submitted September 2007. 
 4.5-72 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

In Coos Bay, suspended sediment from this activity would adversely affect a population of clams 

and other filter feeders within the immediate vicinity of the proposed dredging area. Major 

oyster growing areas, however, which are upstream of the proposed dredging area, are located 

outside of the area affected by increased suspended sediment, and therefore, would not be 

adversely affected. 

The proposed dredging would also directly remove benthic organisms (e.g., worms, clams, 

starfish, and vegetation) from the dredged area. Mobile organisms such as crabs, many shrimp, 

and fish could move away from the region during the process, although some could be entrained 

during dredging so that direct mortally or injury could occur. Based on 1978 maps of shellfish 

(Gaumer et al. 1978), shrimp, softshell calms, bentnose clams, and cockles are located within the 

intertidal areas near the slip and within proposed dredge areas (west of the Roseburg Forest 

Products Company site). ODFW captured Dungeness crab and red rock crab in this area during 

2005 seining efforts. These species could be injured or killed during dredging operations. 

The proposed area for dredging is adjacent to the existing shipping channel, which is subject to 

periodic maintenance dredging. It is reported (Newell et al. 1998) that benthic communities on 

mud substrates in Coos Bay, when disturbed by dredging, recovered to pre-dredging conditions 

in 4 weeks. Thus, it is anticipated that the benthic communities in the areas to be dredged would 

recover in a similar time period, resulting in short-term effects to these benthic populations. 

However, the new community would be less productive deeper water habitat than what is 

currently there, so some long-term reduction in benthic production would occur. Some of this 

net loss would be offset by added annual benthic production from the newly formed 47-acre slip 

habitat, even though it would likely be of poor quality. We would also expect increased organic 

matter production to the Coos Bay system (at 3:1 habitat replacement) from the mitigation site. 

The dredged areas would also be subject to periodic maintenance dredging and the same cycle of 

disturbance and recolonization (to an unknown extent) would likely occur. All primary dredge 

material would be placed at upland sites and would not be discharged into the marine 

environment. 

The dredging of sediments would also have the potential to resuspend contaminated sediment, 

which could adversely affect benthic and pelagic fish and shellfish species. Based on the DMEF 

guidelines for Tiered Evaluation Approach for Aquatic Disposal, all initial samples collected and 

analyzed for grain size distribution and TVS indicates sediment from the potential port dredge 

area are suitable for safe disposal in aquatic area (SHN 2007). However, prior to dredging, 

sediment characteristics would be further analyzed to determine if any additional risks are 

present from removal of sediment from this area. Any additional dredging that may occur for 

other proposed project related actions would include sediment analysis required by agencies. A 

final dredging plan considering the outcome of these studies would be developed to ensure risks 

are acceptable for contaminant levels. Additionally, high oxygen demand sediment could be 

encountered during dredging. This could remove oxygen from the local water areas, putting 

local organisms at risk from insufficient oxygen. This effect would be temporary and tidal 

exchange would be expected to replenish oxygen. In most cases, where dredging and disposal 

occurs in open coastal waters, estuaries, and bays, localized removal of oxygen has little, if any, 

effect on aquatic organisms (Bray et al. 1997). 

Dredging may also resuspend nutrients to the water column and could affect primary production. 

At low levels this could be of benefit, increasing phytoplankton production, which could benefit 
4.5-73 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

prey species eaten by fish. However, in estuaries this production is limited by turbidity and 

flushing, so any effects would be slight and local. 

Pile Driving 

Pile driving and other terminal construction related noise could cause adverse effect to local fish 

in the area of the activity. Pile driving is required to install pile supported piers, dolphins, and 

other associated LNG terminal and ship berthing facilities. There is varied response of fish to 

noise in waters but include a range from no response, avoidance, and physical damage to direct 

mortality depending on sound intensity (decibel level and frequency), distance and species. Pile 

driving with an impact hammer is the most sound-intense method and would not be used unless 

the substrate is exceptionally hard. Vibratory hammers create less noise and primarily would be 

used. This method produces low-intensity sound waves compared to an impact hammer. Fish 

have shown avoidance response to a vibrating hammer (Dolat 1997; Knudsen et al. 1997). 

Mortality of fish has occurred with pile driving hollow steel piles with impact hammer (Hanson 

et al. 2003). 

Potential impact on aquatic resources from pile driving would largely be avoided by conducting 

most pile driving during the first phase of slip construction when the slip would still be isolated 

from Coos Bay by an upland berm (see section 2.4.1.1). Pile driving within the pocket excavated 

from an upland area, prior to removal of the berm, would not affect aquatic resources. If it were 

not possible to complete the installation of all shoreline structures prior to removal of the berm, 

and some limited pile driving would be required after the slip is exposed to the bay, the Port and 

Jordan Cove would implement several measures to avoid impact to fish from pile driving. First, 

a vibrating hammer would be used to drive piles to the extent possible, which greatly reduces 

sound waves in water. A noise-deadening hammer cushion would be used between the top of the 

pile and the driver. The cushion would be wood or one of the commercially available hammer 

cushion materials. 

For any pile driving that is required after the berm is removed, piles in intertidal areas would be 

driven at low tide to avoid or minimize propagation of noise through water. For other piles, a 

bubble curtain surrounding the pile would be used. The bubble curtain would distribute small air 

bubbles around the piling for nearly the full depth of the water column. The bubble curtain has 

been found to reduce sound waves even further. Since construction would occur in fairly low 

velocity areas (always less than 3 to 4 feet per second) the bubble curtain would remain effective 

during this construction. The result is that few if any fish would be adversely affected with 

greatest likely effect being some potential local avoidance of the area directly adjacent to pile 

driving. The NMFS has expressed concerns that bubble curtains are not always effective. As 

noted below Jordan Cove would also develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan that 

would be designed to monitor the effectiveness of bubble curtains and other noise mitigation 

measures, and adapt to conditions as necessary to maintain the pile driving noise below the 

NMFS noise criteria. 

If an impact driver would be required, the smallest feasible or practical hammer and the 

minimum force necessary to complete the job would be used. Other mitigation described above 

for vibrating hammers would also be applied to any piles driven with an impact hammer. 
 4.5-74 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

The effects of pile driving noise on pinnipeds would be limited to harassment. In order to reduce 

the potential harassment impacts to pinnipeds, Jordan Cove would monitor for pinnipeds within a 

designated safety zone and would stop pile driving until they have moved beyond the safety zone 

boundaries. Noise in air produced by pile driving was modeled by Jordan Cove and it was found 

that the noise contour for sound levels >65 dB extended less than 0.25 mile from pile driving 

operations. It can be assumed that the distance to noise greater than 100 dBrms (the in-air 

disturbance threshold for pinnipeds) would be much less than that, although it was not modeled 

by Jordan Cove. Laughlin (2007) found that the maximum noise in air 300 feet from a 36-inch 

hollow concrete pile was 98.3 dBA while the noise 300-feet from a 36-inch diameter steel pile as 

96.7 dBA. Therefore, it is unlikely that sound levels of 100 dBrms or greater in air would be 

experienced within 300 feet of the piles at the proposed LNG terminal site. 

Jordan Cove would consult with NMFS to design a monitoring and adaptive management plan 

including the development of a pinniped safety zone. Should exceedances of the NMFS noise 

criteria be measured during pile driving, pile driving would cease and additional mitigation 

measures would be implemented. These measures could include the use of a different type of 

pile cap or hammer cushion, re-design of the bubble curtain, or other measures identified through 

consultation with NMFS. Following completion of the pile driving, Jordan Cove would provide 

a written report on hydroacoustic monitoring to NMFS. 

LNG Terminal – Upland Facilities

Impacts to marine resources could occur from the clearing of coastal forest and replacement with 

hard surface, sediment runoff during construction, and potential hazardous substance spills 

during construction or operations. While no streams are present in this area, the change from 

coastal forest to hard surface would modify the runoff amount and character from this area. 

However, no more than 10 percent of the area developed would be hard surface, which would 

minimize any changes in runoff. Also, during construction, uncontrolled increases in sediment 

runoff to Coos Bay could result in adverse impact to local marine species. Jordan Cove would 

prevent uncontrolled releases of sediment runoff during construction and operation by 

implementing erosion control and revegetation measures from its Plan and Procedures. 

Additionally, potential accidental spills (e.g., fuel oils, paints) during construction and operation 

could cause adverse effects to marine organisms. Jordan Cove has prepared a preliminary draft 

site-specific SPCC plan for both construction and operational phases of the proposed LNG 

terminal to minimize the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials and to establish 

proper protocol for minimization, containment, remediation, and reporting of any releases that 

would occur. Minimal hazardous substances (e.g., paint, solvents, and oils) would be used on 

the site during operation. Also, no untreated stormwater would be discharged into state waters. 

If properly followed and adhered to, the SPCC plan would reduce the chance of upland activities 

adversely affecting the water quality of the local Coos Bay marine environment. 

Some loss of nearshore vegetation as a result of the clearing could indirectly affect fish resources 

in the bay. Nearshore vegetation supplies resources to water systems, so clearing in this area 

would reduce those resources. Additionally, the clearing has the potential to increase runoff of 

sediment to the nearshore waters. However the amount of nearshore vegetation that would be 

removed is small as much of the region is low lying brush. In addition, sediment and erosion 

control methods from Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures would be in place to eliminate run off 
4.5-75 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

to the marine system. Therefore, adverse effects to the marine systems are not anticipated from 

the proposed vegetation clearing. 

Hydrostatic Testing

Approximately 28 million gallons of water would be used for hydrostatic testing of the LNG 

storage tanks prior to placing them in service. The source of water would be local potable supply 

from the CBNBWB and would not be treated. After completion of the hydrotest, the water 

would be discharged to the on-site firewater pond. Water would be sampled to confirm it meets 

NPDES permit requirements. If treatment is required, treatment procedures would be developed 

prior to discharge. Approximately 10 million gallons would be retained in the firewater pond, 

reducing need for additional water to fill the pond. The remaining water would be discharged 

through the existing industrial waste water discharge pipeline, which connects to the previously 

existing ocean discharge point. It is not anticipated that water would be changed markedly from 

its source chemical composition and would have no adverse effects to the aquatic environment. 

Operation 

Ballast and Cooling Water 

During operation of the proposed LNG import terminal, two primary sources of water intake 

would occur for vessels arriving at the slip that may entrain marine organisms: ballast water for 

vessel stability and cooling water needed for carrier power plant operations. Cooling water 

discharges may also increase the temperature of surrounding water. Vessels delivering liquefied 

natural gas to the LNG terminal would take in ballast water as they unload. Additional water 

would be added once they have left the facility. The quantity of water used for these two items 

depend primarily on size and type of vessel, time at the dock, and power source used while at the 

dock. Estimated water used for each vessel while at dock is between 35 and 50 thousand cubic 

meters (about 9 to 13 million gallons). Section 4.3.2.4 of this EIS includes additional discussion 

of estimated volumes of ballast and cooling water that may be used by vessels at the LNG 

terminal. 

To reduce the potential for entrainment of fish, Jordan Cove originally proposed to develop an 

external screening system that would be used on vessels for both the ballast and cooling water 

intakes when they are at port. Water would have been prescreened and than pumped to the 

vessel through a temporary external pressure attachment to the vessel’s water intake. The 

screening system was designed to meet NMFS screening criteria. The system consisted of a 

wedgewire screen intake system, shoreline storage for filtered water, and a floating delivery 

system. The design philosophy of the screen system was to provide the required quantities of 

water at the LNG carrier sea chests that have been screened for organisms that would have 

impinged on the LNG carrier’s screens or been entrained in the ballast water system. The screen 

systems for the water to be supplied to the vessel would consist of stainless-steel wedge bar 

screen fabric of a mesh size suitable for preventing the passage of particles greater than 2.0 mm 

in size. The intake for the water supply would be located in the back of the berthing area to 

reduce the chance of entraining or impinging small larvae, fish eggs or zooplankton on the 

screen. The screen size and low velocity was designed to ensure no juvenile salmon would be 

impinged or entrained. Since publication of the draft EIS, the Coast Guard has raised concerns 

about the viability of an external attachment to the vessel water intake of LNG vessels. To 

successfully employ an external water supply attachment at the proposed terminal, the system 
 4.5-76 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

would have to be tested and approved for use by each LNG vessel arriving at the proposed 

terminal. Because the testing and approval process would be beyond the control of Jordan Cove, 

Jordan Cove does not believe such a system would be viable. Because of these issues, Jordan 

Cove has proposed to develop a shore-based delivery system that would still utilize the screening 

water intakes to attempt to minimize or eliminate entrainment of pelagic organisms. This system 

had been initially proposed prior to the direct screening system described above. The approach 

would be to develop a pre-filtered water system that pumps a high-velocity stream of water 

toward the sea chest intake without directly contacting the ship. The velocity of the jet would 

exceed that of the ship’s intake system. The distance this stream would originate from the ship is 

not currently known. The intent is for the high-velocity stream to displace the in-situ water, 

containing planktonic and pelagic fish and shellfish, from the water intake pathway near the sea 

chest. The high velocity should impede organisms from actively or passively entering the intake. 

However the effectiveness of this method have not been tested and managing agencies who 

attended the Joint Agency Workgroup meetings have not agreed that this method is acceptable to 

protect marine resources. 

Should the currently proposed water jet system be totally ineffective, the following describes 

how the current intake systems on the vessels may work relative to current screening criteria 

intended to protect primarily juvenile salmonids. The current screen bar spacing on most LNG 

vessels is about 25 mm (about 1 inch) and the total open area (considering screen open area is 

about 80 to 90 percent of total intake size) of both the ballast water and cooling water intakes is 

about 7 m2 or 75 ft2. Additional finer mesh screens are located internally on the vessels to 

prevent larger items from entering the system. These screens would not meet NMFS (1997b) 

screening criteria for juvenile salmonids. Table 4.3.2.4-1 lists the estimated rates, volumes, and 

duration of water intakes for the expected range of LNG vessels that may call on the LNG 

terminal. The estimated velocity at the opening of the water intakes would range from 0.5 to 1.8 

ft/sec (0.15 to 0.54m/s) during loading from water intake for both ballast and cooling water. 

This velocity would occur for about 13 hours. While during the remainder of the dock time 

(about 11 hours), from just intake of cooling water, the velocity at the opening would range from 

0.2 to 1.3 ft/sec (0.05 to 0.39 m/sec) depending on the volume of cooling water used. NMFS 

recommended approach velocity to screening systems for salmonids under 60 mm is 0.33ft/ sec, 

and 0.8 ft/sec for larger juvenile salmonids (NMFS 1997b). These guidelines also include other 

requirement such as sweeping velocity and type and size of openings that are not present on 

these screens. The result is likely to be that fish at least up to fry size salmonids that would be 

near the intakes may be entrained or impinged during at least offloading and assuming the higher 

flow volumes also during just cooling water intake. Larger juvenile salmonids could also be 

susceptible during the whole 24-hour period of water uptake under the higher flow assumptions. 

Also, if the jet system does not work effectively, smaller marine and estuarine fish, juvenile 

stages of crab and shrimp, as well as other zooplankton and eggs and larvae fish could also be 

entrained. Some estuarine organisms potentially including juvenile salmonids would be removed 

from Coos Bay with this process during every off loading. Over 35 species of icthyoplankton 

have been documented in Coos Bay (Miller and Shanks 2005). Five species, all small forage 

fish, made up over 70 percent of the catch including penpoint gunnel (Apodichthys flavidus), 

northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), rosy lip sculpin (Ascelichthys rhodorus), Pacific sardine 

(Sardinops sagax), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). There are some seasonal trends, with 

highest occurrence October through May, but less differences by month in the upper bay then 
4.5-77 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

near the ocean. It is expected that a high portion of juvenile larval stages of fish and 

invertebrates entrained or impinges would suffer mortality. But, natural mortality of these small 

life stages in extremely high, with well less than less than 1 percent of earliest life stages 

reaching adult size, with natural mortality over 20 to 30 percent per day during earliest growth 

periods (Comyns et al. 2003). For example, data from an estuarine cooling water intake site 

determined that intake water larval stage entrainment, had very low natural survival (Marine 

Research Inc. 2004, as cited in FERC 2005). 

On a typical LNG carrier the location of the water intake would be near the inner portion of the 

slip away from the main channel, which would likely reduce overall abundance of organisms in 

the intake area. Salmonids migrating to the ocean would likely be more closely associated with 

the main channels than the nearshore area and the inset slip, reducing their chance of 

encountering the intakes. In addition, there is no reason to suggest that intake area would have 

any higher abundance of juvenile salmonids than the rest of the bay area, and in fact may be 

lower as the fish would have to enter the off-channel slip that is out of the main flow region. 

Assuming that the density of eggs, larvae, and juveniles in the slip area is either less than or 

equal to the density found throughout the bay, then an estimate of the relative impact may be 

derived by considering the projected water uptake relative to the volume of the waterbody. Each 

vessel visit would take in less than 10 percent of the slip water and a very small portion of Coos 

Bay water. Consequently, operation of the Project would impact approximately 10 percent of the 

population of the slip and far less of the Coos Bay population of eggs, larvae, and juveniles. 

These impact estimates do not consider the measures that would be developed to minimize 

impacts. In conclusion, the extremely small portion of total water intake relative to the volume 

of Coos Bay suggests that the relative portion of number of juvenile salmonids, eggs, and larvae 

that would suffer direct mortality would be small. 

Overall, the loss of marine fish, shellfish, and juvenile salmonids, relative to numbers in Coos 

Bay would be very small. Lacking specific data on the type, size, and distribution of organisms 

in Coos Bay estuary, especially near the proposed slip, limits the ability to provide impact 

estimates at a level sufficient for determining mitigation, if necessary. Jordan Cove has therefore 

proposed to develop and conduct a study plan to determine this information. The proposed study 

period would be during the 3 years prior to and during slip construction. The study would 

determine background species numbers and spatial and seasonal distribution of organisms 

around the slip area. This plan would be presented to NMFS and FWS to discuss the approach 

and potential findings. The goal would be to establish numerical estimates of likely entrainment, 

and following this provide mitigation, if necessary. 

In the draft EIS we recommended that Jordan Cove continue to consult with the NMFS and 

ODFW regarding the details of its proposed fish screening design to ensure the final design 

meets the requirements of these agencies. In its comments on the draft EIS, Jordan Cove stated 

that it continues to consult with these agencies on the design. But, as noted above, it is not 

possible to fully meet NMFS screen criteria, due to the requirement of having to obtain 

concurrences from owners, operators, and/or flagship states that is beyond the control of Jordan 

Cove, eliminating the proposed attached screening design. We expect that impact minimization 

strategies would be developed in conjunction with the NMFS EFH and ESA consultations for the 
 4.5-78 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Project. Because Jordan Cove has not reached a final resolution with its proposed water intake 

for LNG carriers calling on the LNG terminal, we recommend that: 

• Jordan Cove should finalize its pelagic sampling and entrainment estimating studies 

and develop alternative methods to reduce entrainment of juvenile salmonids as a 

result of LNG carrier water intakes while at the LNG terminal. Jordan Cove 

should consult with NMFS, ODFW, FWS and the Coast Guard regarding the need 

for compensatory mitigation. These study results should be filed with the Secretary 

for review and written approval of the Director of OEP prior to commissioning of 

the LNG terminal. 

Water Temperature 

The LNG carriers would increase water temperature slightly while at dock. Two sources 

affecting overall temperature are the volume of cooling water and the LNG present on the ship. 

The cooling water, based on the range of values presented in table 4.3.2.4-1 could range from 

about 30 to 235 thousand cubic meters (about 7.9 to 62.1 million gallons), while at the dock. 

The estimated temperature of the discharge water is about 3°C (5.4 °F) warmer than ambient 

water temperature within a zone around the vessel. Temperature at the exact point of discharge 

may be higher than this as some dilution, likely less than 75 feet, for this temperature to be 

achieved, based on other project assessment (FERC 2008). Based on an estimated volume of the 

slip area of 4.8 mcy (3.7 million cubic meters), the average water increase for the total slip 

volume during one day when the carrier is unloading would range from 0.04 to 0.35 °F, based on 

the two cooling water estimates in table 4.3.2.4-1. Considering the volume of Coos Bay, 

virtually no change in Bay temperature would occur from heated water discharge. This change, 

based on projected LNG traffic, would occur about 80 times per year. 

We expect the actual average increase would be less then the higher value for several reasons. 

First, tides would be continually exchanging the water, about 25 percent each tidal cycle. 

Second, the cooling water discharge is near the ballast intake, so much of the heated water would 

enter the ship. There may be some local areas near the cooling water discharge that would be 

warmer than these averages. Coos bay temperatures historically remain less than 20 °C 

(McAlister and Blanton 1963). Considering the projected temperature increase from cooling 

water discharge, the modified water temperature would be, well below levels that would be 

considered lethal in the short term (a few days) for salmonids, which would be over about 24 to 

26 °C (WDOE 2002). While optimum temperatures are much lower for salmonids, short-term 

local temperature increase would remain well below short-term adverse levels, and any small 

concentrated changes in temperature would be easily avoided by fish. Therefore, the cooling 

water discharge should result in no adverse effect on fish resources from temperature changes. 

Terminal Lighting

The proposed LNG terminal would have lighting present along the berthing facility. Fish 

response to lighting is varied and may be innate or in response to changes in food supply (i.e., 

some organisms are attracted to light) (Simenstad et al. 1999, Valdimarsson et al. 1997, Tabor et 

al. 2004). Juvenile coho salmon show no response to moderately high light intensity, but 

become inactive in very low light (Hoar et al. 1957). In contrast, schools of juvenile chum 
4.5-79 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

salmon show marked preference for light, while juvenile sockeye prefer the dark. Depending on 

their reaction, fish may have migration delayed, be moved into less protected deepwater habitat, 

or they may become more susceptible to predation, as light increases predators’ ability to see fish 

and also may be attached to the area. The location of the facility, set back from the main 

channel, would reduce fish encountering any shoreline lighting effects. The facility would have 

highest intensity lighting on shore away from the water, although some lower level lighting 

would be present near the water. The reduced lighting levels near the water would reduce or 

eliminate any behavioral effects to fish in the proposed project vicinity. However, some adverse 

modification in fish behavior could occur from the lighting present at the site, possibly delaying 

migration, moving fish to less desirable habitat conditions, or subjecting juvenile fish to greater 

nighttime predation. The final details of the lighting arrangement would be determined through 

consultation with resource agencies including NMFS and ODFW to reduce these potential 

adverse effects. 

Stormwater Runoff

During operation of the proposed LNG import terminal, approximately 15.8 acres of the 

159-acre site would be impervious surfaces and would have increased runoff from natural 

conditions. The storm water systems would be designed to handle the additional runoff. 

Stormwater flows that could come into contact with equipment containing potential 

contaminants would be directed to a holding area in the fire water pond where they can be tested 

before being released to the slip. No untreated stormwater would be allowed to enter waters of 

the state. Jordan Cove would obtain an NPDES permit for discharge of the stormwater, which 

would ensure discharge does not affect the water quality of Coos Bay. Since all surface water 

discharges would essentially be the same as occurs presently through surface flow to Coos Bay, 

there are no anticipated changes to water quality, temperature, salinity, and current/hydrology in 

Coos Bay channel that would result from the release of stormwater from the LNG terminal. 

Maintenance Dredging

Jordan Cove and the Port have estimated that the volume of maintenance dredged material from 

the slip and access channel would be approximately 350,000 cy every 2 years, which is about the 

same total amount that the COE removes from CM 2 to 12 over the same period. This would be 

placed at disposal Site F outside the mouth of Coos Bay (see section 2.1.4.4 and figure 2.1-14). 

Based on the turbidity modeling conducted for this maintenance dredging by Jordan Cove and 

the Port, the effects are predicted to be localized and relatively short term within the bay; 

however, based on this model, the effects would be higher than during initial dredging because it 

would be with clamshell dredging, which has high concentrations of suspended sediment. Some 

benthic organisms (e.g. clams, shrimp, tube worms) would be removed during this dredging. 

The placement of the maintenance dredged material at Site F would result in periodic impacts to 

primarily benthic marine organisms, but these impacts would be short-term due to rapid 

recolonization on a small bottom area. Some direct mortality would occur to benthic and slowmoving organisms from burial during disposal at Site F. This may include very early juvenile 

stages of the locally abundant flatfish, sanddab. While some turbidity would occur from 

disposal, possibly causing fish to temporarily avoid the region and inhibiting primary production, 

the high energy of the region would rapidly dissipate turbidity plumes generated from discharge, 

reducing these effects to short term and temporary. Testing of sediment for contaminants 
 4.5-80 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

occurred under an approved SAP in October 2006, and they have been found to be suitable for 

clean disposal based on the DMEF of the EPA and COE. 

The distribution and location of dredge material deposited at Site F has been planned by the COE 

and EPA to meet the needs of currently anticipated volume for just meeting the Coos Bay 

maintenance channel dredging. However, the size and characteristics of Site F would allow 

additional disposal beyond that currently planned (EPA 2006). Due to non-redistributed 

mounding in the past at this site, there is some concern about adding additional unplanned dredge 

spoils at Site F that may mound to less than 50 feet deep, a depth consider minimum for safe ship 

passage (EPA comments on the draft EIS, March 13, 2009). The planning process and 

management has been developed and defined in the site management and monitoring plan 

(SMMP) for Site F. Current average annual disposal at Site F is about 858,000 cy, so 

maintenance dredge discharge during the year it occurs would be about a 40 percent increase, or 

average 20 percent over 2 years. 

Changing of the habitat conditions at Site F resulting from “mounding” is also a concern. 

Should this occur, it may alter normal habitat conditions found in this area, and as noted above 

may be a shipping hazard. However bathymetric and photographic surveys would be used to 

select disposal sites to ensure this does not occur in the future as a result of project site 

maintenance dredging. The large size of the Site F would allow disposal locations to be selected 

to eliminate or greatly reduce mounding. Maintenance dredge deposits, if evenly distributed, 

would equal about 1 inch (2.5cm) additional sediment to the total area of Site F every 2 years, a 

relatively small sediment depth change. However, we have recommended that Jordan Cove 

develop a plan for the deposition of maintenance dredged material at Site F, in coordination with 

the COE and EPA (see section 4.3.2.2). 

Routine Discharge of Condensate Water from the SCVs

During the operation of the proposed LNG import terminal, each submerged combustion 

vaporizer (SCV) would produce approximately 20 gpm of water from the combustion process. 

With five SCVs operating, approximately 100 gpm (or 144,000 gallons per day) would be 

generated. This water would be slightly acidic and would be neutralized at the SCV before being 

conveyed to the firewater pond where it would be used to recharge the pond and the overflow 

discharged to the industrial wastewater pipeline, which ultimately discharges to the ocean. 

Jordan Cove would apply for a new NPDES permit for this discharge. Because this water would 

be neutralized of acidity and would meet NPDES standards, no adverse water quality impacts 

would occur in the nearshore ocean environment outside of Coos Bay. 

Operational Acoustic Effects

Maintenance dredging activities and LNG vessel and tug operations along the LNG carrier 

transit route and at the LNG import terminal would generate underwater sounds pressure levels 

that could elicit responses in marine organisms. The intensity of the sound pressure levels from 

vessel traffic and dredging activities can vary considerably. However, sound pressure levels are 

generally in the range of 112 to 160 dB, intensities that may influence organism behaviors or 

perceptions but are not great enough to cause physiological damage (Richardson et al. 1995; 

NMFS 2005a). 
4.5-81 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Operational acoustic impacts would depend upon the specific schedule, duration, and type of 

vessel traffic and the timing and extent of maintenance dredging. Generally, response to these 

impacts would be behavioral and perceptual, and not physiological in nature as fish would tend 

to avoid the area during periods of high noise output. 

Mitigation Measures for the LNG Terminal Activities 

Proposed project design, construction, and operation plans have been modified to avoid or 

minimize impacts on aquatic resources. These efforts would be ongoing during construction in 

order to capitalize on avoidance and minimization opportunities that cannot be predicted. 

However, both direct and indirect impacts on aquatic resources would result from construction 

and operation of the proposed LNG terminal. Following construction of the proposed LNG 

import terminal, habitat and ecosystem function would be restored in place where possible. 

Permanent impacts on aquatic resources would be mitigated by restoring habitat with similar 

ecological function. Mitigation would occur in areas equal to and in some cases substantially 

larger than that lost to permanent impacts from the proposed project. However, although 

compensatory mitigation actions would restore habitat and have long-term benefits to wetlands, 

estuarine ecosystems, and habitat for salmonids and marine and estuarine fish in general, there 

would be short-term adverse effects and longer-term adverse effects on some non-target species. 

Intertidal and Subtidal Habitat and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mitigation

The Port and Jordan Cove have identified two specific sites in Coos Bay that would be set aside 

and/or developed as compensatory mitigation3 for loss of tidal and subtidal SAV from dredging. 

First, dredging of the slip and access channel would eliminate 5.70 acres of algae flats, 4.88 acres 

of unvegetated mud flats, and 1.10 areas of eelgrass. The original proposed mitigations for 

mudflats and algae flats was the restoration and/or enhancement of approximately 3 times that 

acreage (30.74 acres) of low and or high marsh along Isthmus Slough. Based on concerns 

expressed by agencies that this location was too far from the major outmigration and early 

marine rearing of most juvenile salmonids, Jordan Cove has selected a different site. The site is 

on Kentuck Slough on the east shore adjacent to the main inner bay between the Project area and 

Coos River mouth, in closer proximity to the main channel than the Isthmus Slough site. 

Second, to mitigate for impacts on approximately 1.10 acres of eelgrass, the Port and Jordan 

Cove propose to create approximately 1.10 acres of new eelgrass habitat in an area due south of 

the west end of the Southern Oregon Regional Airport runway. The area proposed is adjacent to 

an area that the airport has used for eelgrass mitigation in the past. The details of plan, measures 

of success, and contingencies are provided in Estuarine Resources (Intertidal and Shallow 

Subtidal) Mitigation Plan (David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2007). However, the final 

acceptance of the adequacy of the plan to meet replacement of lost habitat have not been 

developed with resources agencies. Therefore, we have recommended that Jordan Cove continue 

to consult with the COE, NMFS, ODSL, and ODFW and other appropriate resource agencies to 

develop a final compensatory mitigation plan for permanent impacts on eelgrass (see section 

4.3.2.2). 

 

3

 Jordan Cove included in its application to the FERC the “Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal Draft Estuarine Resource 

Mitigation Plan” attached as Appendix B.3 of environmental Resource Report 3 submitted September 2007. 
 4.5-82 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Timing of Construction and Maintenance Dredging

Construction windows for in-water dredging developed by the state are intended to reduce the 

likelihood of salmonid presence during their critical life stages in the region where effects may 

be greatest. The proposed in-water work window (October 1 through February 15) would 

minimize the exposure of juvenile salmonids (during emigration) to increased turbidity but 

would occur during much of the adult salmonids’ upstream migration. The elevated turbidly in 

localized areas, however, could be actively avoided by these larger fish and should not cause 

adverse effects. Maintenance dredging, occurring every two years, would occur in October to 

correspond to the Coos Bay in-water work window and the EPA recommended disposal period 

for Site F (June 1 through October), which would also avoid major juvenile salmonid presence in 

the region. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Following mitigation efforts, Jordan Cove and the Port would monitor the sites to ensure that all 

criteria for successful mitigation (e.g., acreage amount, condition of vegetation, function) have 

been met. Monitoring would occur up to 5 years for the eelgrass site and 2 years for the 

intertidal sites, unless specified by agencies. Should eelgrass sites not be successful, the 

condition(s) causing lack of success would be evaluated. If failure resulted from errors in 

planting, the sites would be replanted. If there were other problems and the site was not viable, 

discussion would occur between Jordan Cove and the Port and agencies to determine alternative 

mitigation strategies. For the intertidal flat, a contingency plan would be implemented should 

success criteria not be met. The details of the contingency plan would depend on the source of 

the problem. Considering the mitigation measures proposed, and assuming agency concurrence 

for the water filtering system and the implementation of mitigation plans, construction and 

operations of the proposed LNG import terminal would have only short-term impacts on marine 

aquatic resources in Coos Bay. 

Essential Fish Habitat at the Proposed LNG Terminal 

EFH and species present in Coos Bay, including in the vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal, 

are described in detail in section 4.5.2.1, and additionally for Site F above. EFH effects from 

construction and operation of the proposed LNG import terminal and maintenance dredging are 

summarized in table 4.5.2.2-1. Three habitat types occur within the slip site that would be 

affected by the slip and access channel that are tidally influenced and function as EFH: the 

shoreline habitat, SAV, and the open water of Coos Bay. The effects of the LNG terminal and 

Site F disposal on aquatic resources as described above also apply to EFH species. 

TABLE 4.5.2.2-1. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to LNG terminal, Slip, and Access Channel Construction and Operations

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

impacts Determination of Effects 

Groundfish All waters from the extent of 

the high tide line (and parts 

of estuaries) to offshore to 

the 3,500 meter (1,914 

fathoms) depth. 

• Dredging of 31 acres of estuarine 

habitat in Coos Bay 

• Potential food and larval organism 

impingement/entrainment 

• Periodic channel dredging and 

disposal 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

Substantial adverse effects to 

multiple groundfish species (e.g. 

rockfish, English soul, Starry 

flounder) EFH (see Aquatic 

sections on LNG for impacts 

and mitigation) 
4.5-83 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

TABLE 4.5.2.2-1. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to LNG terminal, Slip, and Access Channel Construction and Operations

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

impacts Determination of Effects 

Coastal Pelagic 

Species 

All marine and estuarine 

waters from the coast to the 

limits of the EEZ and above 

the thermocline where sea 

surface temperatures range 

between 50 °F and 79 °F 

• Dredging of 31 acres of estuarine 

habitat in Coos Bay 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

• Periodic channel dredging and 

disposal 

• Potential food and larval organism 

impingement/entrainment 

Substantial adverse effects to 

coastal pelagic species 

(northern anchovy, Pacific 

sardine) EFH (see Aquatic 

sections on LNG for impacts 

and mitigation) 

Pacific Coast 

Salmon 

All streams, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, and other 

waterbodies currently and 

historically accessible to 

salmon. Estuaries and 

marine areas extending to 

the EEZ and beyond. 

• Dredging of 31 acres of estuarine 

habitat in Coos Bay 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

• Periodic channel dredging and 

disposal 

• Potential food organism 

impingement and entrainment 

• Potential impingement and 

entrainment 

Substantial adverse effects to 

Pacific coastal salmon species 

(coho and Chinook salmon) 

EFH (see Aquatic sections on 

LNG for impacts and mitigation) 

a/ PFMC 2006 (update version July 24, 2006) 

Approximately 37.7 acres of EFH within Coos Bay would be affected by the dredging of the slip 

and access channel. This includes approximately 4.88 acres of unvegetated flat, 5.7 acres of 

intertidal algal flat, 1.10 acres of eelgrass, and 26 acres of subtidal habitat. Within these habitats, 

approximately 6.8 acres of SAV (figure 4.5-2) would be lost as a result of the proposed dredging. 

The area of SAV comprises 1.10 acres of eelgrass and 5.7 acres of intertidal algal flat. Therefore, 

dredging of the slip and access channel would create approximately 41 acres of new EFH by 

converting upland to tidal and subtidal habitat. A small portion of the 2,700-acre sand/fine 

sediment bottom nearshore ocean benthic habitat at Site F just off the mouth of Coos Bay would 

be affected every other year from disposal of maintenance dredge sediment. 

Based on aerial photo interpretation, the distribution and spatial extent of SAV within the area to 

be dredged is patchy and sparse. Due to the low density and narrow extent of distribution of 

SAV in this area, habitat value is expected to be lower relative to the more extensive and 

contiguous SAV beds located in Coos Bay. While the construction of the slip and associated 

dredging would adversely impact EFH through loss of this narrow band of SAV, the potential 

adverse impacts to EFH would not be substantial. 

Several of the EFH species would not be near the habitat area affected by the proposed Project 

and therefore have low probability of being affected. While rockfish and lingcod have been 

captured in Coos Bay, they have not been seined by ODFW in or near the proposed Project area, 

indicating that this area is not likely utilized by rockfish or lingcod. Impacts are expected to be 

low or absent due to distribution (down bay from the proposed Project area) and the in-kind 

mitigation proposed for lost habitat. Juvenile chilipepper, copper, grass, yellowtail, and kelp 

greenling were captured near the Coos Bay entrance only, so habitat they utilize within the bay 

would not be disturbed by the proposed Project. 

While some of each of the three management groups have been documented near Site F dredge 

disposal site (18 groundfish, 2 coastal pelagic, and 2 Pacific salmon), abundance appears low for 
 4.5-84 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

many of these species in this area. The uniform high-energy bottom area may restrict high 

benthic species abundance as well, as indicated by surveys of the region. Impacts to this region 

are expected to be low from the additional deposition because of the limited use of this region 

and overall small contribution of sediment amount and frequency relative to total available site 

area, and plans to distribute sediment to avoid mounding, and maintenance of clean sediment 

quality added. Also, the site has been approved as a standard dredge disposal site by EPA partly 

because impacts to EFH would be limited at this site. 

All associated activities, including construction and operation of the proposed LNG import 

terminal, dredging of the slip, maintenance dredging of the channel, and docking and loading of 

marine vessels, carry the risk of accidentals spill or leaks of hazardous substances occurring. 

Should these occur, they could have minimal adverse effects to coastal pelagic, groundfish, or 

Pacific Coast salmon species that may be present near the spill. Effects would be slight because 

of the procedures that would be in place in Jordan Cove’s SPCC Plan to reduce the chance of 

spills occurring and magnitude of a spill should one occur. 

EFH Conservation Measures – LNG Terminal Activities

The following measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to EFH: 

• The bulk of the slip construction would take place in isolation from Coos Bay by 

maintaining a portion of the existing shoreline as a berm; 

• Construction activity to remove the remaining portion of the existing shoreline and 

connect the slip with Coos Bay would be planned during the ODFW preferred work 

windows (October 1 through February 15) to minimize effects on vulnerable life stages 

of important fish species; 

• Monitoring would be conducted before, during, and after slip construction to ensure 

compliance with the design; 

• A spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures plan would be implemented; 

• Mitigation for habitats removed or disturbed plan would be conducted. Only clean 

dredge material would be placed at Site F; 

• Primarily sand would be disposed in nearshore area of Site F to augment North Jetty and 

Coos Bay-Umpqua beach/dune system; 

• Disposal locations would be staggered to allow maximum recovery of sites and dilute 

impacts; and 

• Routine bathymetric and photometric monitoring of dredge discharge sites would be 

conducted to properly locate disposal sites. 

4.5.2.3 Pacific Connector Pipeline 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would cross or affect 2494 waterbodies (excluding 

ditches): 111 perennial streams, 131 intermittent streams, 4 stock ponds, 1 excavated pond, 1 

industrial pond, 1 natural pond, and Coos Bay (1 crossing). Available data indicate that about 

123 of these waterbodies are known (59) or assumed (64) to be inhabited by fish. The proposed 

pipeline would cross about 2.4 miles of Coos Bay, the largest estuary completely within Oregon. 

 

4

 This number includes waterbodies adjacent but not crossed by the pipeline, that may be affected by construction activities. The 

pipeline would cross 218 waterbodies, some multiple times. 
4.5-85 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Coos Bay consists of about 14,000 acres of varied intertidal and subtidal substrate habitat 

conditions including algae beds, eelgrass sites, marsh lands, and mostly unconsolidated substrate. 

The upper Coos Bay estuarine habitat contains important rearing habitat supplied by estuarine 

wetlands, algae, and eelgrass beds, which are important conditions for estuarine fish and 

migratory salmon, as well as commercial oyster beds. The freshwater streams crossed by 

proposed pipeline route include 6 major subbasins of rivers in southern Oregon. Most of the 

major streams, and many of the minor streams crossed contain salmon and steelhead, some of 

which are federally listed as threatened fish species. Appendix G, table G-4 lists information on 

waterbodies crossed or potentially affected, other than ditches and ponds, and known fish 

distribution and classification relative to the crossing. 

Fish species present in the proposed pipeline area can be classified as warmwater, coolwater, 

coldwater resident, anadromous, and estuarine. Coldwater resident and anadromous streams are 

the most common along the proposed pipeline route and associated facilities other than in Coos 

Bay estuary, while warm water species are typically associated with ponds in southeast Oregon. 

Warmwater Fish 

Typical warmwater species in the proposed pipeline area include black and white crappie, and 

brown bullhead, which are not native to the region. Warmwater species are present in several 

lakes near the route and are present at pipeline crossing areas, and are likely in some Klamath 

Basin streams crossed by the pipeline. 

Coolwater Fish 

Coolwater fish present in the project area include both non-native and native species. Some 

important non-native species include smallmouth bass and yellow perch. These fish are often 

present in lakes, and smallmouth bass may be found in some larger rivers. Other native 

coolwater species of note include the Lost River sucker, shortnose and Klamath largescale 

suckers, and blue chub. These latter species occur primarily in the Klamath Basin, in Upper 

Klamath Lake and its tributaries. Umpqua chub are a species of concern, as this fish species has 

declined precipitously in the last decade. The pipeline would cross habitat occupied by Umpqua 

chub. Lost River and shortnose suckers that are listed under ESA are discussed in section 4.6 

and the BA and BE. 

Resident Coldwater Fish 

Resident coldwater fish species spend their entire lives in fresh water. Various waterbodies 

crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline provide yearlong habitat for several resident 

coldwater fish species. Resident cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and redband trout are the most 

common resident coldwater game species along the route. Non-game fish species, some of 

which migrate between freshwater and marine habitats (e.g., threespine stickleback), and others 

that are freshwater residents (e.g., speckled and longnose dace, sculpins, chislemouth, sucker) 

also may occur in waterbodies in the proposed pipeline area. 

Anadromous Fish 

Anadromous fisheries in the proposed pipeline area comprise eight species: Chinook salmon, 

coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, 

and green sturgeon (see section 4.5.2.1). Additionally the Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon ESU 
 4.5-86 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

listed under ESA is present in the Coos River Basin and Rogue River system of the pipeline 

route (see Section 4.6). On July 18, 2008 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission approved 

plan to initiate an effort to re-establish anadromous fish into the Oregon portion of the Klamath 

River Basin. Although there is no definite timetable, this could result in the ESA listed Northern 

California/Southern Oregon coho salmon being present in the Klamath River system at some 

point in the future. Section 4.5.2.1 summarizes most of the major runs of anadromous salmon, 

steelhead, and trout species within the proposed pipeline Project and their general timing of life 

phases. 

Marine (estuarine) Fish 

The marine species that may be present along about 2.4 miles of the proposed pipeline where it 

would cross Haynes Inlet between about MPs 1.7 and 4.1, are the same as those discussed above 

for the bay portion of the waterway for LNG marine traffic (section 4.5.2.1). However the total 

number of species that would normally be present in this part of the bay would be less than found 

in the outer bay. Only fish adapted to tolerance of lower salinity conditions would normally be 

present because of the influence of freshwater in this region. 

Shellfish 

Major invertebrate taxa present in Coos Bay are described in section 4.5.2.1. Invertebrate groups 

include pelagic (in the water column), epibenthic (residing on sediment surface), and benthic 

(residing within the sediment) organisms. Pelagic invertebrates include juvenile and larval 

stages of many species, such as crab, shrimp, clams, worms (polychaetes) as well as adult and 

juvenile crustacean zooplankton (e.g. copepods). Epibenthic organisms including harpacticod 

copepods, snails, amphipods, mussels, oysters are all present to varying degrees. Benthic 

organisms include clams and the most abundant polychaetes and amphipods, the latter an import 

food for juvenile salmonids. 

Marine Mammals 

The marine mammals that may be present along the proposed pipeline route within Coos Bay are 

the same as those discussed for the Bay portion of the waterway for LNG marine traffic (see 

section 4.5.2.1). 

Commercial, Recreational, and Tribal Trust Fisheries 

Anadromous fisheries, especially salmon, are very important commercially, recreationally, and 

to the Native Americans in the proposed pipeline project area. Native American fishing in the 

project area goes back to prehistoric times, as evidenced by the fish weir sites found during 

Pacific Connector’s archaeological survey in Coos Bay. Additionally, suckers in the Klamath 

Basin were used as a subsistence resource for Native Americans before these fish were listed 

under ESA. In section 4.10 we discuss cultural resources, including consultations with Indian 

tribes about the identification of locations for subsistence activities (hunting, gathering, fishing) 

that may have religious or cultural importance to the tribes. The details of fisheries associated 

specifically with Coos Bay are discussed in section 4.5.2.1. Also the proposed pipeline would 

cross drainages to the Rogue and Umpqua Rivers that contain salmon, steelhead, and trout stocks 

of recreational and commercial importance. We address commercial and sport fishing in 

sections 4.7 and 4.8. 
4.5-87 Section 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Commercial Oyster Beds 

Commercial Pacific oyster growing (a non-native Asian species) operations occur in Coos Bay. 

Four companies lease lands within the bay that they seed with juvenile oysters (spat) and later 

harvest. These commercial beds are located on the north and east side of Coos Bay from 

Glasgow Point (north) to Crawford Point (south). Another commercial oyster operation is in 

South Slough. Hazardous spills or burial of spat have the potential to impact survival and 

production of these oysters. However, all oyster growing areas have been avoided by re-routing 

the proposed pipeline with no construction occurring near any commercial oyster growing sites 

so the possibility of any adverse effect is remote. However, because of concerns raised by oyster 

growers about the pipeline crossing of Haynes Inlet, we are recommending that Pacific 

Connector consult with oyster growers to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Fish Hatcheries 

There are five fish hatcheries (Bandon, Butte Falls, Coles River, Rock Creek, and Klamath) that 

supply fish to waters along the pipeline route. Bandon Hatchery supplies fall Chinook and coho 

salmon, and steelhead and rainbow trout to local waters about 15 miles southwest of MP 17.81 

on Ferry Creek, a tributary to Coquille River. Coles River Hatchery is located on the Rogue 

River and provides spring and fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, summer and winter steelhead, 

and rainbow trout (located about 8 river miles northeast of MP 122.68), where the pipeline 

crosses the Rogue River). Butte Falls Hatchery is east of Butte Falls and provides fall Chinook 

salmon, winter steelhead, and rainbow trout (located about 5 river miles east of MP 133.57 

where the pipeline crosses the south fork of Big Butte Creek). Rock Creek Hatchery cultured 

fish include fall and spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter and summer steelhead, and 

rainbow trout (located about 22 miles northeast of MP 75.32 on Rock Creek). Klamath Fish 

Hatchery cultures rainbow, brown and resident cutthroat trout (located about 28 miles northeast 

of MP 170.94). 

Status of Fish in the Pipeline Project Area 

The status of federally listed fish species and other commercial fish species that are managed 

under the MSA are presented in our BA and EFH Assessment that will be submitted to the FWS 

and NMFS, and are summarized in section 4.6 of this EIS. The status of other state fish species 

and fisheries of concern are discussed in section 4.6 of this EIS. 

ODFW (2005) has evaluated the status of salmon and steelhead, trout and other selected species 

of interest. This document did not address all species that may be of concern along the route. 

The assessed status or risk of these stocks is based on the threat to the conservation of unique 

groups of populations in the near-term (5 to 10 years) period (ODFW 2005) (see section 4.5.2.1 

for criteria details). The species categorized as to status by ODFW are called SMUs. The 

proposed pipeline route crosses six major subbasins (i.e., USGS hydrologic units). Each of these 

subbasins include from 1 to 10 SMUs. The ratings of each of the SMUs that correspond to these 

subbasins are shown in table 4.5.2.3-1. The proposed pipeline would cross a total of 20 SMUs 

distributed among the six subbasins. The number ranges from ten SMUs in Coos hydrological 

unit to one SMU in the Lost River hydrological unit. A specific SMU population that may be 

present near an individual crossing area varies within these subbasins. 
 4.5-88 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Among salmon and steelhead species SMUs, six are rated as Not at Risk, two Potentially at Risk, 

three At Risk, and two Extinct. For trout SMUs, two are Not at Risk, and one is At Risk. 

Regarding other species of interest, two are rated At Risk, and two are Not Assessed. 

Additionally, two ESA-listed species, the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, are present in 

the Klamath and Lost River basins. These two species were not included in the ODFW (2005) 

evaluation. The life history of federal, state, BLM and USFS species of special concern 

including those with state designate risk status in all subbasins crossed by the pipeline are 

provided in Appendix H. 

The reasons for the At Risk rating vary by subbasin and species but include: hatchery interaction; 

exotic species introduction that causes predation, competition or genetic interaction; low 

abundance and production of the stocks; irrigation diversions and water withdrawals; grazing and 

forestry practices; and habitat loss, pollution, and fish passage barriers. Non-native fish species 

may pose an equivalent, if not greater, threat than habitat degradation to native freshwater fish 

since non-native fish are more widespread in western streams (50 percent) than habitat 

degradation (18 percent) (Schade and Bonar 2005). 

Fish Species of Special Concern 

Fisheries and fish species of special concern that occur in the vicinity of the proposed Pacific 

Connector pipeline include federally designated EFH, state- and federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, and other state and federally designated species of concern. EFH is 

discussed in section 4.5.2.1. Endangered and threatened species and other special status species 

are addressed in section 4.6. 

Aquatic Habitat in the Coos Bay Estuary 

The estuarine habitat of the Coos Bay estuary along the proposed pipeline route is located in 

mostly shallow regions of the Haynes Inlet part of the bay (see figure 4.5-1). The estuarine 

habitat area crossed by the current proposed route is greatly reduced from that crossed by the 

previously proposed route (from about 6.8 to 2.5 miles). Most of the proposed pipeline route and 

associated work areas are in about equal areas shallow intertidal and subtidal fine bottom and 

unconsolidated bottom habitat, with a few regions of mixed seabeds of eelgrass, attached algae, 

and tidal marsh. The fisheries in these habitats include a mix of anadromous and marine species, 

as well as shellfish, and are described above in section 4.5.2.1. 

Aquatic Habitat in Inland Waterways 

The aquatic habitat crossed by the proposed pipeline outside of Coos Bay is primarily coldwater 

streams, but with a few warm water ponds adjacent to the proposed pipeline. Most stream 

riparian areas crossed are heavily forested, and are therefore shaded by conifer trees, providing 

typical salmon trout habitat. Several waterbodies crossed are large (over 100 feet wide), while 

the majority are small waterbodies with generally low flow. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

The pipeline route would cross 2.4 miles of estuarine habitat in Coos Bay and cross or pass near 

an additional 248 waterbodies, of which about 130 are known or presumed to be inhabited by 

fish. The entire estuarine habitat and many of the freshwater streams contain EFH habitat. 

Additionally many crossings contain ESA listed fish resources as well as many other species of 
Section 4.5 – W

4.5-89 

TABLE 4.5.2.3-1. 

Status Rating of Fish Populations by Major Subbasins Areas Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline

Risk Criteria by Subbasin Populat

Group 

Species Management 

Units (SMU) 

Risk Category by 

SMU Coos Coquille South Umpqua Upper Rogue 

Coho Salmon Coastal Not at Risk None None None  Rogue Not at Risk None  Klamath Extinct Fall Chinook Salmon 

Coastal Not at Risk Reproductive 

Independence 

None None 

 Rogue Not At Risk None Spring Chinook Salmon 

Coastal At Risk Extinct Abundance and 

Production 

None 

 Rogue Potentially At Risk Reproductive 

Independence 

 Upper Klamath Extinct Chum Salmon Coastal At Risk Extinct Winter Steelhead Coastal Potentially at Risk Reproductive 

Independence 

Reproductive Independence 

None 

 Rogue Not at Risk None Summer Steelhead Rogue Not at Risk None  Klamath At Risk Redband Trout Upper Klamath Basin At Risk Cutthroat Oregon Coastal Not at Risk None None None  Southern Oregon Coastal Not at Risk None Other Species of Interestd Pacific Lamprey At Risk Abundance and Production Abundance and Production Abundance and Production Abundance an

Production 

Western Brook Lamprey At Risk Abundance and 

Production 

Abundance and Production 

Abundance and Production 

Abundance anProduction 

Northern Green Sturgeon Not Assessed Abundance Oregon White Sturgeon Not Assessed None Lost River Sucker c/ ESA listed Shortnose Sucker d/ ESA listed 

Source: ODFW 2005 a/ Insufficient data for three of six categories for Upper Klamath population b/ Two Populations: Jenny= failed Distribution and Reproductive Independence; Klamath River= failed Production c/ These species not evaluated under the ODFW 2005 document, but are ESA-listed species found in the basins indicated. Risk criteria not assessed bindependence, water quality and quantity, distribution and abundance, and others d/ Species of special concern, that were not assessed by ODFW 2005, are not included in this table. See section 4.6 for special species assessments. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-90

concern. As such, there is the potential for many special fish and fishery resources to be affected 

by the proposed pipeline Project. Pacific Connector proposes to cross the Coos Bay estuary 

using wet open cut dredging. At three large river sections, HDD methods would be used (Coos, 

Rogue, and Klamath Rivers), and at two crossings of the South Umpqua River Pacific Connector 

would use a diverted open cut method. . Pacific Connector proposes to cross three waterbodies 

(Kentuck Slough, Catching Slough, and Medford Canal) using conventional bores. All other 

stream crossings would employ a dry open cut method. The revised proposed pipeline route 

would eliminate about 4.4 miles of wet open cut in Coos Bay which would also reduce impacts 

on migrating salmonids in the estuary. General stream crossing methods for each of these are 

described in section 2, and specific crossing methods are listed in Appendix G, table G-4. 

General project activities potentially impacting aquatic resources include estuarine in-water 

construction, freshwater in-water construction activities, terrestrial/riparian habitat modification, 

accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials, and periodic maintenance of the pipeline. Much 

of the impact discussion below applies to the salmonids protected under the ESA and other 

special status species (see section 4.6 on Special Status species). 

Construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline (early spring through late fall) would 

coincide with juvenile out-migration and upstream adult migration for most anadromous fish 

species in most river basins; however, following ODFW recommended in-water construction 

windows should minimize the coincidence of pipeline construction with upstream adult salmonid 

migration and minimize impact during sensitive spawning periods in the streams. During 

construction within the Coos Bay estuary (October 1 through February 15), adult salmonids 

would be present (ODFW 2007b). 

The extent of impact on aquatic resources from pipeline construction would depend on the 

waterbody crossing method, the existing conditions at each crossing location, the mitigation 

measures employed, and the timing of construction. Impacts can either be short term or long 

term. Shortterm impact is likely to last from the initiation of construction up to 3 years 

afterward. Longterm impact to aquatic organisms and habitat is expected to last for more than 3 

years and much longer in instances where, for example, mature trees are cleared. Potential shortterm impacts that degrade habitat could occur with trenching and laying of the pipe at waterbody 

crossing sites. Additionally, sediment entering the water column can be re-deposited on 

downstream substrates. Long-term degradation of habitats can occur if stream contours are 

modified in the area of the crossing, changing the flow patterns, and if erosion of the bed or 

banks introduces sediment that becomes deposited in the stream. 

Pacific Connector would attempt to reduce or eliminate potential impacts on aquatic resources 

first through impact avoidance, then minimization, and then habitat restoration and enhancement. 

Pacific Connector has developed its project-specific ECRP, which includes specifications for 

waterbody crossing techniques and associated sediment and erosion controls to be implemented 

during waterbody crossings. A detailed description of proposed construction and mitigation 

measures that Pacific Connector would implement at waterbody crossings is included in section 

4.3.2.5. In addition to its proposed construction and restoration measures, Pacific Connector 

would be required to comply with any measures specified as conditions to waterbody crossing 

permits that Pacific Connector has applied for but has not yet obtained (see table 1.5-1.). 

In addition to actual waterbody crossings by the proposed pipeline, Several of the proposed 

pipeline related facilities do not have in water construction that would directly affect aquatic 
4.5-91 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

resources, but could indirectly affect aquatic resources by increasing erosion and runoff to 

nearby streams. The approximate relevant characteristics of these activities and potential effects 

to aquatic resources are summarizes in table 4.5.2.3-2 below. 

TABLE 4.5.2.3-2 

Pacific Connector Pipeline Approximate Associated Construction Disturbance and Aboveground Facilities and Their 

Potential Effects to Aquatic Resources

Category Facility Location Notes Effects to Aquatic Resources 

Hydrostatic testing 81 potential sites, 7 sites 

located outside of 

construction right- ofway. 

Recommendation developed 

for Hydrostatic Testing Plan 

(see text recommendation) 

Potential erosion to streams and 

invasive species introduction if not 

properly managed. Potential flow 

reduction during withdrawal. 

Measures from ECRP would avoid 

adverse effects. 

Temporary extra work 

areas (TEWA) 

174 TEWAs, would 

impact 81 wetland and 

119 waterbodies 

104 are fish bearing Potential for erosion or hazardous 

spills. Slight LWD and shade 

reduction Measures from ECRP 

and SPCC would avoid adverse 

effects. 

Uncleared storage areas 

(UCSA) 

36 UCSAs within 50 feet 

of 6 fish and 10 non-fish 

bearing streams 

11 waterbodies directly 

affected 

Some potential for sedimentation 

effects to aquatic resources. Slight 

LWD and shade reduction. 

Measures from ECRP would avoid 

or reduce adverse effects. 

Contractor and pipe 

storage yards. 

Of 39 sites, 32 surveyed, 

20 no wetlands 

12 have wetland or drainage 

ditches 

Potential modification of flow, 

sediment runoff. Measures from 

ECRP would avoid adverse 

effects. 

Pipeline 

related 

facilities 

Rock sources, and 

permanent disposal 

sites 

Two of the rock and 

disposal sites within 50 

feet of streams 

Willis Creek and tributary (fish 

bearing) within 50 feet of 

disposal site 

Potential sediment runoff to 

stream. Measures from ECRP 

would avoid adverse effects. 

5 new Temporary 

Access Roads (TARs) to 

be constructed, near 

streams 

2 near fish streams 

(within 50 feet), 2 near 

non-fish streams 

No TARS on Federal Riparian 

reserves 

Potential sediment effects and loss 

of riparian shade. Measures from 

ECRP would avoid adverse 

effects. 

Construction 

access roads 

Permanent Access 

Road 

One crosses non-fish 

ditch 

No PAR on federal Riparian 

Reserve 

No effect 

Jordan Cove Receipt 

Meter Station 

Warmwater fish pond in 

Dunes area within 0.4 

miles 

 No effect due to distance 

Clark Branch Delivery 

Meter Station 

0.1 mile of Clark Branch 

with high fish value 

No effect due to distance and use 

of measures from ECRP. 

Shady Cover Delivery 

Meter Station 

0.4 mile from Rogue 

river and fish stream 

 No effect due to distance 

Tule Lake, Russell 

Canyon, and Buck Butte 

Meter Stations 

No fish bearing streams 

near sites. 

 No effect 

Butte Falls Compressor 

Station 

89 feet from fish bearing 

Neil Creek 

Potential effect on shading, but 

area small so no effect 

Gas Control 

Communications 

No streams near site No effect 

Above 

ground 

facilities 

Launcher/Receivers and 

Mainline Block 

Located in permanent 

easement. 

Any adverse effects addressed 

under pipeline right-of-way 

No effect 

Construction in Estuarine Habitats

During in-water pipeline installation within Coos Bay, fish and other aquatic resources could be 

impacted. Construction of the pipeline across the Coos Bay estuary would utilize a wet-open cut 

method. The current pipeline route in the bay would span 2.4 miles and disturb approximately 

86 acres of subtidal (41 acres) and intertidal (44 acres) habitats (table 4.5.2.3-3). This is an 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-92

TABLE 4.5.2.3-3 

Approximate Areas of Subtidal and Intertidal Habitats within the Coos Bay Estuary Directly Affected by Construction of 

the Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Construction Rightof-Way Total b/

Tidal 

Regime Habitat Class 

Estuary 

Total Area 

(acres) 

Area 

(acres) 

Length 

(miles) 

Temporary 

Extra Work 

Areas 

(acres) 

Total 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent 

Area of 

Habitat 

Class 

Unconsolidated Bottom 5,129 40.3 1.2 1.0 41.3 0.8 

Subtidal 

Subtidal Total 5,129 40.3 1.2 1.0 41.3 0.8 

Shore – Sand 395 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Beach Bar - Mud 16 2.8 0.1 0.0 2.8 18.3 

Flat - Sand/Mud 3,297 13.9 0.5 3.3 17.1 0.5 

Flat - Other 201 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 

Aquatic Bed-Seagrass a/ 1,214 14.0 0.5 0.0 14.0 1.2 

Undifferentiated Aquatic Bed 404 1.8 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.5 

Tidal Marsh–Low Salt Mash 463 1.8 0.2 1.2 2.9 0.6 

Tidal Marsh–High Salt Marsh 1,022 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 

Undifferentiated Tidal Marsh 283 3.5 0.3 0.7 4.2 1.5 

Intertidal 

Intertidal Total 7,295 38.6 1.6 5.9 44.5 0.6 

Estuary Total 12,425 78.9 2.8 6.9 85.8 0.7 

a/ Impact to seagrasses (eelgrass) is based on 1987 data (ODLCD 1998), not on the 2008 survey of eelgrass 

conducted within the Estuarine analysis area. 

b/ Lengths habitat vary slightly from actual length because data shown is based on the older survey data; current 

total length of pipeline is 2.48 miles of estuary 

overall reduction to about 35 percent of the estuarine habitat area affected by the original route 

(243 acres originally). 

Ellis Ecological Services, Inc. conducted a survey of eelgrass beds within Coos Bay along the 

pipeline route in 2008. Based on the survey of the route in 2008, there were about 1.0 acres of 

eelgrass beds that would be directly affected by the construction right-of-way (including 

TEWAs). Eelgrass beds were placed into three categories based on density: low, medium, and 

high. From that survey, most of the area affected would be low density, and none were 

categorized as high-density eel grass. A total of 1,400 acres of eelgrass beds are present in Coos 

Bay (Ellis Ecological Services 2008), so less than 0.1 percent of this important habitat would be 

directly disturbed from construction with the new route. Overall, construction disturbance would 

be less than 1 percent of the entire estuarine area. 

Trench excavation to install the pipeline in the bay would bury, displace, or injure benthic 

organisms (e.g. worms, clams starfish and vegetation). Mobile organisms like crabs, shrimp, and 

fish would move away from the trenching activities. Short-term impacts would occur to other 

benthic taxa in Coos Bay that include ribbon worms (Nemertinea), various burrowing segmented 

worms (Polychaeta), small crustaceans including amphipods, Dungeness crab, echinoderms, 

clams (i.e., Macoma sp.), and coral/anemone polyps (Anthoszoa) (Miller et al. 1990). However, 

benthic communities on mud substrates in Coos Bay that were disturbed by previous dredging 

activities recovered to pre-dredging levels in four weeks (Newell et al. 1998). Some impacts 

may be long-term if important habitat elements are affected, such as the effects of turbidity on 

eelgrass growth (Martin and Tyrrel 2002). In addition, oyster beds near the construction right-
4.5-93 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

of-way would be affected by turbidity (Couch and Hassler 1989) similar to potential effects to 

eelgrass. While Pacific Connector has sited the pipeline route to be outside of all known oyster 

beds, impact to commercial oyster aquaculture and native Olympic oyster beds would depend on 

construction location relative to unknown oyster beds, the time of year of construction relative to 

oyster seeding, duration of construction, substrate materials mobilized during construction, and 

interaction of those materials with tides and currents in the bay. 

Sediment and Turbidity

Turbidity and increased suspended sediment would be generated during pipeline construction 

across the Coos Bay estuary. While the exact duration of pipeline construction in the bay is 

unknown it would be completed during one season (i.e. less than the 4.5-month in-water work 

window). “Wet” crossing construction or open cutting (trench excavation, pipe installation, and 

backfilling the trench through flowing water) produces the highest downstream (or relative tidal 

flow direction) sediment loads of any construction technique (Mutrie and Scott 1984; Reid and 

Anderson 1999; Reid et al. 2004). The amount of sediment produced by open cutting depends 

on multiple characteristics at the construction site including depth and width of the waterbody 

(affects mixing of the sediment plume in the water column), current velocity and local turbulence 

at the site and downstream, concentrations of suspended sediment initially at the site and at some 

distance downstream, particle diameter, specific weight, and settling velocity of the excavated 

and backfilled materials (Ritter 1984; Reid et al. 2004). The general effects of increased 

turbidity and sediment on marine organisms and anadromous salmonids are presented in the 

earlier LNG impact discussion (section 4.5.2.1). 

A records search has not indicated any known hazardous waste sites in the area of Coos Bay that 

would be crossed by the pipeline, so toxic effects from resuspended sediment should not occur. 

However, much development, including boat painting with toxic compounds (e.g. lead, 

tributyltin), has occurred in Coos Bay in the past. Catching Slough has records of elevated levels 

of tributyltin in the sediment (Elgethun et al. 2000). Pacific Connector would avoid direct 

impacts on Catching Slough by crossing under it with a bore. There may be some risk of newly 

disturbed areas containing some unknown quantities of potentially hazardous compounds. 

Potential unknown sediment contaminants could be identified through sampling if required 

during federal and state permitting process (e.g. 404 and 401 permits) that would be completed 

prior to any pipeline construction in Coos Bay. Also, Pacific Connector has formulated a plan to 

handle contaminated sediments discovered by pipeline construction. 

As discussed above for the LNG terminal (4.5.2.1), salmonids exposed to moderate to high levels 

of suspended sediment for extended periods could be adversely affected. Salmonids may avoid 

areas of increased turbidity based on some studies at about 70 mg/l (Lloyd et al. 1987) while 

some other studied suggest avoidance may occur at 20 mg/l suspended sediment, and possibly 

lower depending on length of exposure (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). The elevated suspended 

sediment conditions would be short-term during pipeline installation and would not be 

continuous at any one location. This would reduce the chances of continuous elevated exposure 

for fish that may move little. Concentrations as low as 17 mg/l have been noted to potentially 

have some adverse effects (e.g. gill irritation, respiration) for juvenile coho salmon (Wheeler 

2008). Some other studies have found varied effects including lesser effects at these 

concentrations, with overall effects related to both duration as well as concentration (Newcomb 

and Jensen 1996). Additionally, estuarine environments often have moderately elevated 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-94

suspended sediment concentrations (i.e. > 15 mg/l) and they are very productive (Gregory et al. 

1993). As noted above, concentrations typically exceed this value (i.e. 17 mg/l) in Coos Bay in 

the winter, so fish present in Coos Bay in the winter are commonly present in regions with 

natural concentrations exceeding this value. The construction time would avoid periods of high 

abundance of salmonids in the construction area, with the possible exception of migrating coho 

salmon adults in the fall. Sediment concentrations from pipeline trenching in the bay would be 

similar to winter background levels for much of the construction period and few fish would be 

near the highest plume concentration due to active avoidance. 

Similar to freshwater invertebrates, composition of invertebrates inhabiting estuarine and tidal 

flats is likely to change seasonally (Higley and Holton 1981) and those invertebrate taxa most 

predominant at the time of construction would be affected. Estuarine benthic invertebrates 

including shellfish are likely to be affected by disturbed substrate and turbidity generated by 

pipeline construction. Construction within the estuary is scheduled from October 1 through midFebruary to occur during the recommended in-water construction windows established by 

ODFW (2000). Abundance of benthic invertebrates (except for shellfish) is expected to be 

minimal (Higley and Holton 1981). Similarly, impact from turbidity to local low salt marsh and 

high salt marsh would be during vegetation dormancy and low abundance of invertebrate 

inhabitants. Consequently, impact to those resources is expected to be limited. 

Suspended sediment may adversely affect filter feeding commercially and recreationally 

important clams and oysters near the pipeline route in the bay where most of the sediment would 

be suspended. Adverse effects would be restricted to the short-term period of active construction 

as sedimentation and erosion control plans would attempt to limit elevated turbidity and 

suspended sediment near known rearing areas. 

Eelgrass can be adversely affected by turbidity because the depth and distribution of eelgrass is 

strongly associated with water clarity and depth of light penetration (Dennison and Orth 1993; 

Thom et al. 1998) as well as nutrient availability (Short et al. 1995), salinity, and water 

temperatures (Thom et al. 2003). Effects to eelgrass from turbidity generated during trenching 

would, in large part, depend on type of equipment utilized and strength and direction of currents 

within the estuary during construction. As noted above, modeling suggests a very narrow range 

of elevated suspended sediment (>100 mg/l) during low tidal velocity extending out a few 

hundred feet, while during typical tidal cycle values are up to 50 mg/l out about 0.2 to 0.3 miles. 

Moderately low values of 25 to 50 mg/l may extend out to about 3.5 miles depending on flow, 

sediment, and equipment used. Generated turbidity could affect light penetration potential 

affecting primary production. This could affect overall production. But the timing of the 

construction based on ODFW requirements, October 1 through February 15, is during most of 

that period when eelgrass in Coos Bay would be dormant, coinciding with low temperatures and 

short photoperiods (Fonseca et al. 1998). Therefore, light limitations would have minor effects 

on local patches of eelgrass beds proximate to construction sites and should not contribute 

additional indirect source of impact to eelgrass habitats or dependent aquatic species. 

Vegetation and Habitat Removal and Modification

During construction of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline within Coos Bay, various habitat 

areas would be disturbed by trenching. Approximately 20.0 acres of sand/mud shore and beach 

habitat and 17.1 acres of sand/mud flats would be affected by the construction right-of-way and 
4.5-95 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TEWAs (table 4.5.2.3-3). In-water construction in Coos Bay would also affect undifferentiated 

aquatic beds (2.0 acres). Based on the most recent distribution mapping of eelgrass, construction 

along the proposed route could temporarily remove about 1.0 acre of eelgrass (Ellis Ecological 

Services 2008). Following pipeline installation the pipeline trench would be backfilled with 

sediments removed during trenching, and the bottom elevation and flow conditions would be 

restored to pre-construction conditions. It is anticipated that following pipeline backfill, the 

areas disturbed by construction would be suitable for eelgrass to regroup. Pacific Connector has 

proposed a plan to replant the disturbed areas with eelgrass (Ellis Ecological Services 2009). 

Construction within Coos Bay would also affect low and high salt marsh, and undifferentiated 

tidal marsh areas. Pacific Connector has prepared a plan to mitigate for a disturbance that would 

include primarily retaining the rooted plants and top foot of soil, and planting them back after the 

pipeline has been backfilled and the pre-construction contours restored. Both the eelgrass 

restoration and marsh plant restoration have monitoring and contingency plans to ensure habitat 

is restored along the route (Ellis Ecological Services 2009). The plan includes details of how 

habitat would be restored, schedules, measures of success, monitoring, and contingency plans 

and schedule. Some of the main factors include: 

• Goal of 1:1 restoration of habitat with standard meeting or better than pre-project 

conditions specifically for eel grass bed, mud/sand flats, and salt marsh; 

• On-site mitigation (restoring the habitat in place where it was disturbed); 

• Recontouring of pipeline route to pre-project conditions returning original covering 

substrate; 

• Pre-construction survey, physical and some biological, including references methods to 

resurvey same location; 

• Success criteria for eel grass is same acreage at equal or greater density; 

• Take no more than 10 percent of eel grass donor plants from other areas for replanting; 

• Contingency is if plants not established to pre-conditions within 5 years Pacific 

Connector would consult with agencies on next steps; and 

• For mud/sand flats and shallow subtidal, success would be recontouring to preconstruction with natural substrate. 

Construction in Stream Habitats

Construction of the pipeline outside of Coos Bay would affect 118 perennial streams and 131 

intermittent streams (summarized in table 4.5.2.3-4). Direct impacts to six perennial streams 

would be avoided by placing the pipeline beneath them either by horizontal directionally drilling 

or by conventional boring. At two crossings of the South Umpqua River, Pacific Connector 

would use diverted open cut. All other waterbody crossings that have flow at the time of 

construction would be crossed using dry open cut which are designed to minimize activities 

directly in flowing water (see section 2.4.2.2). Of streams that would be crossed using dry open 

cut, method, about 44 are known to support anadromous salmon and/or steelhead and another 43 

streams are assumed to also have anadromous species. Sixty-six streams are known to support 

primarily coldwater resident fish, or in the lower Coos estuarine species and in the Klamath 

River Basin important endemic species. Resident trout are mostly cutthroat trout. Sixty-four 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-96

TABLE 4.5.2.3-4 

Number of Streams (and ponds) crossed or adjacent to the Pacific Connector Pipeline, by Fish Status Category and Fifth 

Field Watershed 

Fish-bearing Streams with : 

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Fifth Field HUC) 

Perennial 

Streams 

Intermittent 

Streams 

Anadromous 

Species 

(assumed) a/

Resident 

Species 

(assumed) a/, 

b/

EFH Species 

and Habitat 

Present 

(assumed) a/

ESA Species 

or Habitat 

Present 

(assumed) a/

Coos County 

Coos Bay Frontal 

(1710030403) 

46 13 20(11) 12(22) 15(25) 20(21) 

Lower Coquille River 

(1710030505) 

5 1 1(4) 1(4) 1(4) 1(4) 

North Fork Coquille River 

(1710030504) 

3 6 3 3 3 3 

East Fork Coquille River 

(1710030503) 

7 5 3(5) 5(4) 1(7) 3(5) 

Middle Fork Coquille 

River (1710030501) 

2 3 0(1) 1(2) 0(1) 0(1) 

Douglas County 

Middle Fork Coquille 

River (1710030501) 

3 3 0(1) 3(1) 0(1) 0(1) 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass 

Cr (1710030212) 

4 10 2(2) 3(11) 2(2) 2(2) 

Middle South Umpqua 

River (1710030210) 

7 6 5(2) 5(7) 5(2) 5(2) 

Myrtle Creek 

(1710030211) 

6 2 3(2) 4(4) 3(2) 3(2) 

Middle South Umpqua 

River (1710030210) 

3 1 3 3 3 3 

South Umpqua River 

(1710030205) 

2 3 2 2 2 2 

Upper Cow Creek 

(1710030206) 

5 1 0(4) 0(4) 0(4) 0(4) 

Jackson County 

Trail Creek (1710030706) 2 4 2(2) 2 2 2(2) 

Rogue River-Shady Cove 

(1710030707) 

5 13 1(3) 4 1(3) 1(3) 

Big Butte 

Creek(1710030704) 

3 7 2(2) 2(2) 2(4) 2(4) 

Little Butte Creek 

(1710030708) 

7 32 4(4) 6(1) 2(6) 4(4) 

Klamath County 

Spencer Creek 

(1801020601) 

3 5 0 1(2) 0 0 

Klamath R-John C Boyle 

(1801020602) 

0 4 0 3 0 0 

Lake Ewauna-Upper 

Klamath (1801020412) 

2 1 0 3 0 1 

Lower Lost River 

(1801020409) 

3 11 0 3 0 7 

Total 118 131 51(43) 66(64) 42(61) 59(55) 

a/ known and assumed (value in parentheses) crossings or pipeline proximity with indicated fish category designation 

b/ Includes primarily cold water trout, but also estuarine species in lower Coos system, and endemic species in the Klamath Basin 

additional streams that would be crossed are assumed to support important resident fish. In all, 

about 130 of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline are known or assumed to 

have fish. 
4.5-97 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Pipeline construction potentially could adversely affect EFH species in up to 103 streams, as 

well streams with numerous special status fish species (11 non-anadromous and 12 anadromous 

species). Pathways leading to impact of special status species are the same as those that would 

affect non-sensitive species. Risk of adverse impact to relatively sessile species, such as 

mollusks, could extend downstream from construction sites if degradation of water quality 

affects downstream habitats. 

In-stream construction could interfere with essential life processes of aquatic species. The 

majority of the waterbodies identified as known, presumed, or classified as being fish bearing 

would be crossed using isolated or “dry” crossing construction techniques including the flume or 

dam and pump method if water is flowing in the waterbody at the time of construction. At two 

sites on South Umpqua, the method used would be diverted open cut would require diversion of 

the flow to one side of the channel at a time. Potential effects of trapping fish from these 

methods are discussed under Entrainment and Entrapment subsection below. 

Timing of Construction

The degree of impacts on aquatic resources associated with construction activities would depend 

on the timing of in-water construction. Construction during periods of sensitive fish activity 

(i.e., spawning, juvenile and adult rearing, and migration) can have a greater impact on fish than 

construction during other periods. To minimize impacts on fish in Coos Bay, Pacific Connector 

would limit pipeline trenching and other in-water activities in those waterbodies to the October 1 

through February 15 in-water work window recommended by ODFW. Site-specific information 

needs and site-specific actions that may deviate from the stated plans for construction would be 

addressed during the 401 permitting process, which would require individual stream crossing 

permits (see section 4.3 for details). 

Pacific Connector would cross fish-bearing waterbodies in accordance with its ECRP and any 

more restrictive timing windows specified by ODFW. The timing restrictions would prevent 

construction during periods of sensitive fish use and would typically allow construction only in 

periods of lower flow rates in streams. In general, construction of the pipeline would be timed to 

miss periods of major juvenile or adult anadromous salmonid migrations in freshwater based on 

allowed fishery construction windows, typically July 1 to Mid September for most streams, and 

some other dates for specific waterbodies. These are tentative dates and timing restrictions 

would be subject to change by the ODFW. Any modifications to the allowable construction 

windows would be dictated by stream and fish migration conditions in the year of construction, 

and would be stated as conditions of state water crossing permits. 

Because the ODFW construction windows were intended to minimize effects of stream 

disturbance when most sensitive fish life stages are present, the potential for adverse effects to 

these resources would increase if construction occurred outside the recommended windows. The 

primary effects could be to spawning salmon or trout in the regions downstream of construction. 

Increased turbidity at those times may restrict movement of adults and, if spawning nests (redds) 

are developed near the crossings, in some cases they may be adversely affected by increases in 

suspended sediment. Pacific Connector currently plans to cross all streams during the ODFW 

designated work windows. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-98

Turbidity and Sedimentation

Pipeline crossings of surface waterbodies would cause some downstream turbidity and 

sedimentation. The dry open-cut, and diverted open-cut are the only crossing methods that 

would be used in streams and produce minor levels of sediment and turbidity. Turbidity and 

sedimentation impacts associated with dry open cut methods are generally minor and are 

associated with 1) installation and removal of the upstream and downstream dams used to isolate 

the construction area; 2) water leaking through the upstream dam and collecting sediments as it 

flows across the work area and continues through the downstream dam; 3) movement of instream rocks and boulders to allow proper alignment and installation of the flume and dams; and 

4) when streamflow is returned to the construction work area after the crossing is complete and 

the dams and flume are removed. Both “dry” techniques produce much less sediment in the 

water than alternative “wet” open cut methods (Reid and Anderson 1999; Reid et al. 2002; Reid 

et al. 2004). Dry methods have been reported to produce at least seven times less suspended 

sediment in streams than “wet” methods (Reid et al. 2002). 

There is considerable variability in amounts of turbidity produced during “dry” crossing 

construction. Peak turbidity within 160 feet downstream from flumed and dam and pump 

crossings has been documented as high as 1,483 mg/l and 1,028 mg/l above background levels 

respectively, and as low as 54 mg/l and 59 mg/l above background levels by fluming and dam 

and pumping, respectively (Reid et al. 2002). This impact is expected to be short term. Reid and 

Anderson (1999) indicated that most sediment increase 300 feet (average) downstream from 

installation and removal of the dams and flume/pump was temporary, between 20 minutes and 

16.5 hours. Generally, during other phases of construction, mean downstream turbidity levels 

were less than 8 mg/l above background. According to Pacific Connector, a Williams Northwest 

pipeline project recently completed in Washington State had only one state turbidity standard 

exceedance out of 67 waterbody crossings. 

Pacific Connector further refined the estimate of suspended sediment effects from dry cut 

crossings methods, using a value of 17 mg/l as an index of where some effects may be occurring 

to fish resources as this concentration had been found to cause some adverse effects to juvenile 

coho salmon. Using results of field measurement of suspended sediment concentration by 

stream distance from wet open-cut and two other commonly used methods of dry open-cut 

methods, they developed regressions of the relative distance from dry cut methods downstream 

concentrations would exceed 17 mg/l. In general, large streams (those wider than 20 feet), 

depending on the dry cut methods used (fluming or dam-and-pump), may have a distance of 211 

or 127 feet downstream the crossing exceeding this concentrations. For smaller streams (about 

less than 20 feet wide) the distance for dry cut fluming and dam-and-pump methods would have 

a distance of about 61 and 40 feet exceeding 17 mg/l, respectively. The duration would be fairly 

brief when these concentrations would occur and they would not be this high across the entire 

stream. So overall the effects of turbidity (suspended sediment) would be minor because of 

relative low concentrations, small area affected, short duration, and ability of fish to move from 

the areas when concentrations were high. 

The distance of higher turbidity is estimated to be much greater on a diverted channel open cut 

stream crossing. Pacific Connector proposes to use this method for two crossings of the South 

Umpqua River. The distance suspended sediment may exceed 17 mg/l was estimated to be 740 

feet downstream at these crossings. 
4.5-99 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Increased sediment loads associated with high turbidity can have effects on fish behavior and 

physiological processes (e.g., blood chemistry, gill trauma, immune system resistance), and can 

result in mortality. Sediment stirred into the water column can be redeposited on downstream 

substrates, which could bury aquatic macroinvertebrates (an important food source for 

salmonids, and other fish in estuarine areas). Additionally, downstream sedimentation could 

affect spawning habitat, spawning activities, eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish survival, as well as 

benthic community diversity and health. Because the effects of increased sedimentation and 

turbidity are often limited to the period of in-stream work, the duration of these effects would 

usually be relatively short. However, specific site characteristics including flow, substrate 

composition, relative disturbance and other factors could make the duration of construction 

effects last longer. For example, rapid recolonization of benthic organisms has been documented 

within 30 post pipeline construction (Gartman 1984). Other pipeline stream crossings in a 

coldwater streams have documented a return to pre-construction conditions 2 to 4 years postconstruction (Blais and Simpson 1997). 

The abundance of fish before and after crossing a waterbody using dry open cut construction 

methods has the potential to be altered over the short term. Reid et al. (2002) indicated that fish 

abundance (brook trout) before and after dam and pump construction was lower downstream (but 

not upstream) one month after construction. One year after construction, no differences 

(increased abundance was observed downstream in one stream) were found (Reid et al. 2002). 

Pacific Connector has developed a Fish Salvage Plan that details methods that would be taken to 

ensure safe collection and removal of fish from areas to be dewatered and reduce or eliminate 

impacts to fish, including ESA-listed fish, during this process. The Fish Salvage Plan is 

described in detail in the BA prepared for this Project. Pacific Connector would minimize 

impacts on surface waters and aquatic resources by implementing the waterbody crossing and 

erosion and sediment control measures from its project-specific ECRP. Construction across 

waterbodies would be completed as quickly as possible to shorten the duration of sedimentation 

and turbidity. Pacific Connector would stabilize the construction site, including the streambanks, 

immediately following installation of the pipeline. Pacific Connector would also install and 

maintain throughout construction sediment barriers, such as silt fence and straw/hay bales, to 

prevent sedimentation from surface runoff into a stream. If circumstances required a 

construction delay, adequate site stabilization measures would be employed in accordance with 

the ECRP and permit conditions. 

Sediment Resuspension

Impacts from nutrient and oxygen demand on aquatic organisms from dredging are discussed in 

section 4.5.2.1 and would be limited. A records search has not indicated any hazardous sites in 

Coos Bay or most streams in the sediment regions, so toxic effects from resuspended sediment in 

Coos Bay and other areas should not occur. Dredging within the bay may modify local current 

patterns and water circulation of EFH during construction. But current patterns would not be 

affected following completion of pipeline installation. 

One region along the pipeline route crosses a mining area, which raised concern that pipeline 

construction activity may have the potential to elevate mercury concentrations in the East Fork 

Cow Creek. Stream sediment samples were collected from areas near the mercury mining sites 

at the proposed pipeline crossing, a short distance downstream of the crossing, and at an area 

upstream (presumed background relative to potential mercury sources) (GeoEngineers 2007e). 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-100

Some sediment samples from all three locations had mercury concentrations that exceeded 

ODEQ Level II screening levels (i.e., 0.07 and 0.2 mg/kg for sediment bioaccumulation and 

freshwater, respectively), including the background site. Although one sample (of six) had the 

highest mercury concentration at the crossing site there was no significant difference in mercury 

concentrations among all three stream sites, suggesting there may be little difference in mercury 

sediment concentrations along this stream reach and sources may be naturally occurring. 

Additionally most of the samples in all three areas were below ODEQ screening level 

concentration noted above. Since the crossing would be done in the dry, little sediment would be 

disturbed or suspended from the crossing activity. Also adjacent upland disturbance would 

follow the ECRP to greatly eliminate upslope potential sediment entry into the stream. Overall 

adverse effects to fish would not occur because of the infrequent occurrence of elevated mercury 

levels in the area, occasional elevated mercury levels may be naturally occurring locally, and the 

crossing of East Fork Cow Creek would be done in the dry with limited sediment disturbance. 

Entrainment and Entrapment

Waterbody crossings using the “dry” crossing methods, either flume and dam or pump, may 

result in some fish being entrapped in streams. Flumes and dams would be completely installed 

and functioning before any in-stream disturbance. Construction across a waterbody would take 

up to seven days using dry open cut methods, but less for small and intermediate streams. Once 

streamflow is diverted through the flume pipe, but before pipeline trenching begins, fish trapped 

in any water remaining in the work area between the dams would be removed and released. 

Pacific Connector would contract with either the ODFW or a qualified consultant to capture the 

fish. Personnel that would handle and/or remove fish on NFS lands would be approved by the 

USFS or BLM or be done directly by USFS or BLM personnel if approved by ODFW. Because 

the flume would maintain streamflow, fish may move upstream through the flume. With the 

dam and pump method, the fish would not be able to move upstream or downstream through the 

work area until the dams have been removed. Flumes and dams would be removed as soon as 

possible following backfilling of the trench. At two crossings of the South Umpqua River, a 

diverted open cut crossing would be used. This is similar to a dry open cut in that all in channel 

construction would be done in the “dry” but would require diversion of the flow to one side of 

the channel at a time. This method could take about 14 days to complete per site. Because one 

channel would be open during the entire crossing, no passage of fish would be impeded and no 

fish removal would be required. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Non-indigenous aquatic species (NAS) are aquatic species that degrade aquatic ecosystem 

function and benefits, in some cases completely altering aquatic systems by displacing native 

species, degrading water quality, altering trophic dynamics, and restricting beneficial uses 

(Hanson and Sytsma 2001). Currently there are 180 reported NAS in Oregon, of which 134 are 

documented within the USGS hydrologic basins crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector 

Pipeline Project (USGS 2005). Within the Coos Bay estuary, over 67 NAS have been identified 

(Aquatic Nuisance Species Taskforce 2006). All of the invertebrate NAS in the Coos Bay 

estuary have been introduced by ship fouling or discharge from ballast water of ocean-going 

vessels. 
4.5-101 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Not all non-indigenous species pose a threat to native species and their habitat in Oregon. For 

example, the Pacific oyster and largemouth bass provide economic and recreational benefits. 

Management priorities in Oregon concentrate on the species whose current or potential impacts 

on native species and habitats and economic and recreational activity in Oregon are known to be 

significant, known as aquatic nuisance species (ANS) (Hanson and Sytsma 2001). In Oregon 

agencies follow the Oregon Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan (Hanson and 

Sytsma 2001), which is used to minimize the harmful ecological, economic, and social impact of 

ANS through prevention and management of introduction, population growth, and dispersal of 

ANS into, within, and from Oregon. 

To prevent the introduction of ANS, Pacific Connector would follow the guidelines of this 

management plan, which would include measures such as inspection and cleaning of all dredge 

and similar equipment prior to use. Some concerns, however, remain relative to potential 

dispersal of aquatic nuisance organisms including from hydrostatic testing. Also, the cited plan 

is too broad to be site-specific in its application to project-specific activities. Some of the major 

potential invasive species are mussels including the zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena 

polymorpha, and Dreissena rostriformis bugenisis). A draft monitoring plan has been developed 

by BOR (2008) for these mussels, which includes recommendations for prevention of spread of 

the mussels. The plan includes detailed washing of boats to be used between waterbodies, which 

includes such actions as: inspection for mussels, intensive washing of all surfaces with at least 

high pressure, removal of plant and animal material, and drain and dry of all water holding areas. 

We believe some of these procedures would be suitable for pipeline construction equipment that 

is used for waterbody crossings. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Pacific Connector, in consultation with appropriate resource agencies, should 

develop a project-specific Aquatic Species Nuisance Prevention Plan, based on the 

Oregon Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. This plan should address 

movement of equipment and hydrostatic test water between USGS hydrologic 

basins crossed by the proposed pipeline. The plan should be specific on methods to 

be used to ensure species such as Quagga mussels, zebra mussels, New Zealand mud 

snails, Chytrid fungus, and other species would be prevented from both entering 

waterbodies in the pipeline project area and being transferred between waterbodies. 

The plan should incorporate appropriate prevention methods from the BOR (2008) 

Draft Dreissenid Monitoring Plan. The plan should be filed with the Secretary, 

together with any consulted agency comments on the plan, for review and approval 

by the Director of OEP prior to pipeline to construction. 

Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud 

Although the HDD method avoids in-stream impacts because it eliminates the need for in-stream 

excavation, it does not completely eliminate the possibility of impacts on aquatic resources. 

Pacific Connector proposes to use this method to cross the Coos, Rogue, and Klamath Rivers. 

Because HDD requires a lubricant during the process, this fluid is under pressure and there is a 

possibility of an inadvertent release of drilling mud or fluid (also referred to as a frac-out). 

Drilling mud primarily consists of water mixed with bentonite, which is a naturally occurring 

clay material. The only other possible additives would be nontoxic solid materials (e.g., 

sawdust, nut shells, bentonite pellets, or other commercially available nontoxic products) that 

could be needed to plug an inadvertent release. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-102

Bentonite by itself is essentially a non-toxic drilling mud (Breteler et al. 1985; Hartman and 

Martin 1984; Sprague and Logan 1979). However, bentonite, as with any fine particulate 

material, can interfere with oxygen exchange by the gills of aquatic organisms (EPA 1986). The 

degree of interference generally increases with water temperature (Horkel and Pearson 1976). 

Impacts would be localized and would normally be limited to individual fish in the immediate 

vicinity of the frac-out. The majority of highly mobile aquatic organisms, such as fish, would be 

able to avoid or move away from the affected area. Other less mobile or immobile organisms, 

such as mussels and other macroinvertebrates, would incur direct mortality. 

The effects of an in-stream frac-out on spawning habitat, eggs, and juvenile survival depend on 

the timing of the release. If spawning habitat is nearby, redds could be affected in the vicinity of 

frac-out (Reid and Anderson 1999). During establishment of the spawning bed, a minor addition 

of sediment would likely be cleaned out by the female as part of the normal preparation 

behavior. However, a heavy sediment load dispersing downstream could settle into spawning 

beds and clog interstitial spaces, reducing the amount of available spawning habitat, which could 

be a limiting factor in areas of already reduced habitat. When redds are active, eggs could be 

buried, disrupting the normal exchange of gases and metabolic wastes between the egg and water 

(Anderson 1996). The impacts of sediment intrusion into the redd on larval survival are more 

severe during the earlier embryonic stages than following development of the circulatory system 

of larvae, possible because of a higher efficiency in oxygen uptake by the older fish (Shaw and 

Maga 1942; Wickett 1954). Clogging of interstitial spaces also reduces cover and food 

availability for juvenile salmonids (Cordone and Kelley 1961). Benthic organisms could also be 

affected by burial. However, bentonite is more likely to stay in suspension and less likely to 

immediately settle than common bottom sediment so, in flowing water areas, effects to benthic 

organisms from burial from frac-out are likely to be low. The locations where any frac-out may 

occur are all large waterbodies, which would be affected less because of the dilution factor of 

large volume of water from any spill. 

The impacts associated with an inadvertent release of drilling mud would likely be limited 

because the probability of an inadvertent release is greatest when the drill bit is working near the 

surface (i.e., near the entry and exit points). At the three potential sites where this could occur, 

Pacific Connector would design the HDDs so that areas at greatest risk to a potential inadvertent 

release are in upland areas away from the water’s edge. Locating the HDD entry and exit points 

a good distance away from the banks of the waterbody would minimize the potential for an 

inadvertent release into a waterbody. Pacific Connector’s HDD Contingency Plan describes how 

the drilling operations would be conducted and monitored to minimize the potential for 

inadvertent drilling mud releases. The HDD Contingency Plan also includes procedures for 

cleanup of drilling mud releases, if it occurs, and for sealing the hole if a drill cannot be 

completed. See also discussion of the Coos River, Rogue River, and Klamath River crossings in 

section 4.3.2.5. 

Vegetation and Habitat Removal and Modification

Aquatic resources could be affected as a result of removal of vegetation and habitat at the 

waterbody crossing sites as required for pipeline construction. Short-term, physical habitat 

disruption would occur during trenching activities. Long-term degradation of habitats could 

occur if the stream contours are modified in the area of the crossing; the flow patterns are 

changed; and if erosion of the bed, banks, or adjacent upland areas introduces sediment into the 
4.5-103 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

waterbody. Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks would reduce shade, potentially 

increasing water temperatures, remove an important source of terrestrial food for aquatic 

organisms, and decrease LWD and the associated reduction in habitats, and potentially increase 

mass failures adjacent to waterbodies. 

Much of the impact to coldwater anadromous and resident fisheries by past land uses have been 

alterations of riparian habitats by logging, road building, agriculture, or other developments such 

as residences and utility corridors. A total of 406 acres of riparian habitat would be directly 

affected by all construction related activities including right-of-way construction, TEWA, 

uncleared storage areas (which are not cleared), and rock sources (table 4.5.2.3-5). About 389 

acres within the riparian zone of all lands would be affected by major clearing activities 

including clearing the construction right-of-way and TEWAs (table 4.5.2.3-5); about 103 acres 

of this would be forested. Within Riparian Reserves on NFS lands and RMAs on BLM lands 

about 54 acres (of which 32 would be forested) would be affected by clearing the construction 

right-of-way and TEWAs (table 4.5.2.3-5). Removal of primarily 32 acres of forested land in 

Riparian Reserves and RMAs (by clearing the construction right-of-way and TEWAs) would 

cumulatively impact anadromous and resident fisheries in streams associated with those Riparian 

Reserves. Removal or alterations of some of the other habitats (e.g. clearcut/regenerating habitat 

and wetlands) would also contribute to cumulative effects. 

TABLE 4.5.2.3-5

Areas of Habitats Within Riparian Areas on Non-Federal Land and Riparian Reserves and Riparian Management Areas on 

Federal Lands Affected by Construction of the Pacific Connector Pipeline a/ 

Total Disturbance (acres) in Riparian Areas Affected by Component b/ 

Construction 

Component Jurisdiction 

Forested 

Habitat 

Clearcut or 

Regenerating 

Habitat 

Wetland 

Habitat 

Unaltered 

Nonforested 

Habitat Agriculture 

Altered 

Habitat 

Total 

Habitat 

Affected 

Non-Federal 52.2 54.0 17.6 32.6 30.4 13.0 199.6

Federal - 

Forest Service 9.0 7.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 17.4

Federal - BLM 13.9 3.1 0.1 3.5 0.0 1.0 21.5

Construction 

Right-of-Way c/

Total 75.1 64.7 18.1 36.1 30.4 14.1 238.5

Non-Federal 19.6 18.2 11.6 27.2 22.9 35.5 134.9

Federal - 

Forest Service 4.2 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.3 7.7

Federal - BLM 4.4 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.5 7.5

Temporary 

Extra Work 

Areas 

Total 28.2 20.6 11.9 28.1 23.1 38.3 150.1

Non-Federal 6.8 1.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 9.8

Federal - 

Forest Service 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

Federal - BLM 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.2

Uncleared 

Storage Area 

d/

Total 8.6 3.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 13.6

Rock Source Non-Federal 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.9 4.2

TOTAL All 112.1 88.7 30.0 65.7 53.5 56.5 406.4

TOTAL 

Federal 33.3 14.9 0.7 4.6 0.2 4.1 57.8

a/ Riparian areas on non-federal lands based on one site potential tree height. Federal Forest Service base on Riparian Reserve

management and Federal BLM based on RMA management. 

b/ Effects to riparian areas for individual streams are included in Table 3C-9, Appendix 3C in Resource Report 3.

c/ Includes clearing for aboveground facilities. 

d/ Impacts to riparian areas from Uncleared Storage Areas are expected to be short-term impacts to primarily under story species. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-104

Likewise, removal of approximately 19 acres of forested habitats on state and private lands 

would cumulatively impact riparian zones on those lands. Proportionately, there has been more 

cumulative impact within riparian areas on the non-federal lands that would be crossed by the 

pipeline by forest practices, agriculture, and other alterations, than on federal lands (table 

4.5.2.3-5). 

Clearing the right-of-way would remove shading vegetation from uplands and riparian areas, 

exposing the land and water to increased sunlight, potentially resulting in both direct increases in 

water temperatures and indirect increases as water flows over the warmer land surface and 

eventually reaches the waterbody (Beschta and Taylor 1988). For the waterbodies that would be 

crossed by HDD, the potential disturbance in riparian areas would be minor trimming of 

vegetation using hand tools directly over the pipeline. This minor clearing is required to 

facilitate the temporary deployment of HDD guidance (telemetry) cables along the ground during 

construction and to perform a leakage survey after installation and commissioning. This is a 

relatively small area along the riparian zone of any stream and would have minimal adverse 

effect on aquatic resources. 

Pacific Connector has attempted to minimize impacts on riparian vegetation by minimizing the 

width of it standard construction right-of-way at waterbody crossings, and by maintaining a 

setback between waterbody banks and TEWAs in forested areas. Where exceptions apply we 

have reviewed the site-specific locations and have determined them to be acceptable or have 

asked Pacific Connector to modify its proposal (see table I-1 in Appendix I). Following 

construction, Pacific Connector would implement measures to replant or encourage regrowth in 

riparian areas, and would minimize vegetation maintenance by allowing the development of a 

riparian strip at least 25 feet wide to be permanently revegetated. Pacific Connector would plant 

native tree and shrub species at all fish-bearing streams. In designated Riparian Reserves and 

RMAs on federal lands, the plantings would extend 100 feet from the waterbody banks or to the 

limit of existing riparian vegetation if less than 100 feet. Within the 25-foot-wide corridor along 

the pipeline, the plants would be maintained by periodic vegetation maintenance to 5-foot shrubs 

and 15-foot trees. 

Water Temperature

The effects of water temperature on salmonid life stages have been extensively reviewed by 

McCullough (1999) and others. Maximum water temperatures ranging from 71.6 °F to 75.2 °F 

limit distribution of many salmonid species. For spring Chinook salmon, for example, the 

optimum temperature for growth is 60.1 °F and higher temperatures during summer could reduce 

growth and lead to increased mortality rates (McCullough 1999). Vegetative cover that provides 

shade, especially during summer, is one factor that regulates water temperature (WDNR 1997). 

Construction across waterbodies would necessitate removal of trees and riparian shrubs at the 

crossing locations. 

Available information on the effects of pipeline construction in other regions on water 

temperature has found no or immeasurable change. The total width of riparian area affected by 

shade tree removal would be small (less than 100 feet) relative to the length of any stream 

crossed. In one study, construction across two coldwater, fish-bearing streams in Alberta 

required removing forested riparian vegetation; water temperatures at construction sites and 

downstream did not increase above temperatures at control sites upstream from construction 
4.5-105 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

(Brown, et al. 2002). Similarly, water temperatures measured at four coldwater streams in New 

York before and during pipeline construction and for 3 years following construction showed no 

short-term or long-term effects on water quality parameters, including water temperature, even 

though such effects were expected because streambank vegetation had to be cleared, which 

reduced shading (Blais and Simpson 1997). In the Alberta study, the highest water temperature 

recorded was 66 °F (19 °C in August). In the New York study, the highest temperature was 

79 °F (26 °C during sometime between August and October). Long-term average water 

temperatures recorded during July-August in Elk Creek (a tributary to the Umpqua River) at 

USGS gauge 14338000 are 72 to 73 oF, intermediate to water temperatures in the Alberta and 

New York studies. Conditions in Oregon appear comparable to those in the cited studies. 

Following requests by the USFS, Pacific Connector had temperature models run on 6 different 

stream segments on NFS lands in the Umpqua River basin on tributaries to East Fork Cow Creek 

(5 crossings) and on the upper Rogue River basin on Little Butte Creek (North State Resources 

2009). Of the three smallest streams modeled average temperature increase ranged from 1.0 to 

8.6 0C right after construction. Because these streams were so small they likely also would have 

temperatures reduced rapidly downstream of the clearing from ground water inflow and likely 

would have no measurable effects on streams they flow into downstream. The two 5 and 6 foot 

wide streams would have estimated maximum increases ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 0C with 

maximum temperature remaining at or below 15.6 0C in these two streams just downstream of 

crossing. These temperatures would remain well within suitable range for salmonids. The 

largest stream (22 feet) estimated increase was estimated to be 0.02 to 0.1 0C depending on the 

temperature model. The modeled results, based on assumptions used about rate of vegetation 

regrowth, found that most temperature increases remained within the first 5 years, but were 

approaching pre-project temperatures within 10 years. Conditions at other streams along the 

pipeline route may vary from these due to site specific differences, but these results may be fairly 

representative of changes that may occur at forested streams along the route. Overall results 

suggest that other than the very smallest streams where fish resources would be limited changes 

in temperature from vegetation removal are likely to remain small and immeasurable having 

unsubstantial effects on fish resources. 

Also plantings and regrowth in riparian areas, as was suggested by these modeling results, would 

help moderate potential temperature increases in the short term (a few years). Much of the 

riparian area would be allowed to regrow from plantings with herbaceous plants (only 10 feet 

wide would be maintained without some growth) and confer and other trees (all but 30 foot 

width). On small streams and to a lesser extent larger streams even 10 to 15 foot high trees 

would supply shade reducing solar heating effects on streams. So, slight effects of solar heating 

from clearing would gradually be reduced or completely eliminated over time, based on the 

model most between 5 and 10 years. 

Based on available information, we concluded that any changes in water temperature, related to 

vegetation clearing at waterbody crossings, are likely to be very small and undetectable through 

measurements, except for possibly the very smallest and often intermittent flowing streams. Any 

temperature changes that may occur would gradually be reduced or eliminated over time as most 

riparian vegetation, from plantings and natural vegetation growth, increases in size increasing 

stream shading. Adverse effects too fish resources along the route would be unsubstantial due to 

limited distribution of any measurable changes to regions with minimal or no fish resources. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-106

Large Woody Debris

A potential effect on fisheries that would result from forest clearing at pipeline crossings of 

waterbodies is the reduction of LWD in streams and on adjacent uplands (Harmon et al. 1986; 

Sedell et al. 1988). Large logs provide in-stream channel structures (i.e., pools and riffles), 

which are critical to salmon spawning and rearing. As the size of individual logs or 

accumulations of logs increases, the size and stability of pools that are created also increase 

(Beschta 1983). Riparian forests that undergo harvesting of large trees take on secondary-growth 

characteristics and contribute lower quantities of woody debris than unmanaged, old-growth 

forests (Bisson et al. 1987). However, sufficiently wide, carefully managed riparian buffers that 

retain a full complement of ages, sizes, and species of native trees and vegetation can ensure 

adequate recruitment of LWD to streams (Bisson et al. 1987; Murphy and Koski 1989; Morman 

1993). 

Pacific Connector has proposed to mitigate for impacts on waterbodies by installing LWD at 

agency- and land owner-approved and appropriate areas within the construction right-of-way 

across certain waterbodies. The use of LWD as a mitigation measure for impacts associated with 

in-stream construction has been documented as an effective means of creating in-stream habitat 

heterogeneity, reducing streambank erosion, reducing sediment mobilization (Bethel and Neal 

2003), and enhancing local fish abundance (Scarborough and Robertson 2002). Placement of 

LWD on the streambanks and in the streams can provide slight shade and increase bank stability, 

while vegetation is maturing following construction. Additionally, placement of LWD in 

streams or on streambanks can provide habitat for benthic invertebrates and important food 

source for salmonids, and also increase habitat for forage species with the creation of pools and 

enhancement of the salmonid rearing potential of an area (Cederholm et al. 1997; Slaney et al. 

1997). 

To mitigate for short-term losses of LWD from riparian clearing and in-stream removal of wood 

during construction, Pacific Connector has proposed to install 514 pieces of LWD over several 

fifth field watersheds along the pipeline route where the two ESA-listed coho salmon ESUs are 

present. The number of LWD pieces is based on ODF and ODFW (1995) guidelines for number 

and sizes of LWD pieces to be present in streams to meet habitat needs for specific stream sizes 

and number of streams crossed. These numbers would be developed as part of Pacific 

Connector’s Mitigation Plan, which may have some modification prior to construction. Specific 

streams for LWD installation have been identified by Pacific Connector however, the specific 

locations within the streams would be determined through discussion with ODFW and agencies 

as appropriate. The size of LWD installed would follow ODF and ODFW (1995) suggested 

guidelines for size of LWD based on stream size. Depending on private landholder approval, 

some pieces may be installed at different times and locations, but in general, LWD would be 

placed at waterbody crossings during the last phases of pipeline construction and right-of-way 

restoration. Pacific Connector has proposed that, if for some reason not all pieces proposed are 

actually installed, they would be donated to local water conservation groups for installation 

locally. 

Long-term losses of large woody debris input would largely be mitigated from riparian 

replanting of conifers in the right-of-way. A 30-foot-wide area would remain in herbaceous 

plants, while the remainder of the right-of-way would be replanted with conifers. The desired 

future condition of RMAs and Riparian Reserves in late successional forests is 40 mature trees 
4.5-107 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

per acre, which would result in tree spacing of about 33 feet. Therefore, a 30-foot-wide corridor 

would generally allow the riparian area to reach the desired goal of large trees in the riparian 

areas, which would provide the potential for future desired level of input of LWD to the adjacent 

streams. 

We have received comments that to be most effective, site-specific placement of LWD should be 

determined with agency insight and concurrence at each waterbody crossing. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• In consultation with appropriate resource agencies, Pacific Connector should 

develop a stream habitat mitigation plan for placement of LWD or other stream 

improvements at each waterbody crossing where mitigation is proposed. The plan 

should include details of when, where, and what structures (e.g., LWD) would be 

placed in streams, and/or describe the process for making those decisions in the 

field. The plan, together with agency comments on the plan, should be filed with the 

Secretary prior to pipeline construction, for review and approval by the Director of 

OEP. 

Blasting

Blasting in stream channels can have adverse effects to fish, especially for fish with swim 

bladders, if they are in the vicinity of activity. This can result from high pressure waves near the 

site. Explosives detonated near water produces shock waves that can be lethal to fish, eggs, and 

larvae by rupturing swim bladders and addling egg sacs (British Columbia Ministry of 

Transportation 2000). Explosives detonated underground produce two modes of seismic wave 

(Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991). Shock waves propagated from ground to water are 

less lethal to fish than those in-water explosions since some energy is reflected or lost at the 

ground-water interface (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1991). Peak overpressures as low 

as 7.2 pounds per square inch (psi) produced by blasting on a gravel/boulder beach caused 40 

percent mortality in coho smolts and other studies revealed 50 percent mortality in smolts with 

peak overpressures ranging from 19.3 to 21.0 psi (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991). 

The best way to reduce or eliminate effects to fish is to keep fish out of regions where pressure 

waves are harmful. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1991) reported that a pressure change 

of 2.7 psi is the level for which no fish mortality occurs and is from 1.7 to 4.5 psi below any 

level where mortality would be expected. Based on normal charges used in trenching (about 1 to 

2 pounds at 8 millisecond delay) the zone of the above pressure wave would extend 34 to 49 feet, 

depending on substrate near the charge (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991). Typically 

the dry area (where fish could not be) would be at least 25 feet wide during construction. If 

blasting were to occur with only a 25-foot-wide dry working space buffer between the blast and 

the stream, the potentially hazardous pressure wave (i.e. greater than 2.7 psi) would extend no 

more than an additional 25 feet. In all likelihood, the effects would be felt over a much smaller 

distance. Because of construction timing restrictions that would be applied to the Pacific 

Connector pipeline, no spawning fish should be near the pipeline crossings during blasting; 

however, other fish could be within this zone during blasting. 

Pacific Connector proposes to implement several measures during and prior to blasting to reduce 

or remove all fish from within the zone where blasting may have an adverse effect. First, Pacific 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-108

Connector proposes to do all blasting in the dry to minimize the effect to fish. Drilling holes for 

the charges is hoped to cause fish to move away from the areas. Pacific Connector may also 

deploy noise-generating devices or scare charges to move fish from the affected area prior to 

blasting. Additionally, Pacific Connector may actively move fish from the construction zone 

prior to drilling or blasting. The specific plans would be approved by the managing resource 

agencies. Prior to any blasting, proper permits would be obtained and agencies notified as 

required by permits. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Water would be required on a one-time basis near the end of construction to hydrostatically test 

the pipeline (see section 2.4.2.1). Potential impacts associated with hydrostatic testing include 

entrainment of fish, reduced downstream flows, and impaired downstream uses if test water is 

withdrawn from surface waters, and erosion, scouring, and a release of chemical additives as a 

result of test water discharge. The USFS has also expressed concern that hydrostatic testing 

where the source and discharge locations were in different water basins could potentially transfer 

exotic organisms between basins. Pacific Connector would obtain its hydrostatic test water from 

commercial or municipal sources or surface water rights owners and come from lakes, 

impoundments, and streams, and has identified 81 potential discharge locations for the test water 

(see Draft Hydrostatic Testing Plan December 2008, Table 1). Total water used would be about 

58 million gallons, with about half from impoundments or lakes, and the rest from streams, 

including South Umpqua River, Rogue River, North Fork Little Butte Creek, and Klamath River. 

All of the streams identified as potential test water sources include anadromous salmonids or 

trout. 

Pacific Connector would minimize the potential effects of hydrostatic testing on these systems 

by adhering to the measures in its ECRP, including screening intake hoses to prevent the 

entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms, meeting NMFS screening criteria, and 

regulating the rate of withdrawal to avoid adverse impact on aquatic resources or downstream 

flows. Additionally, Pacific Connector would test all water used for potential pathogens of 

concern and invasive species. Waters containing these organisms would either not be used or 

treated as needed to ensure no transfer. The specific requirements for pump intake screens, total 

volume and allowable rate of water withdrawal, and any other provisions would be included in 

the permits that would be issued by the ODWR. The permits would be reviewed by ODEQ and 

ODFW prior to approval. 

The total volume and allowable rate of water withdrawal would be based on flow in the systems 

at the time of construction. Pacific Connector would be testing only new pipe and no chemicals 

would be added to the water during hydrostatic testing. As discussed in section 4.3, Water 

Resources, Pacific Connector would discharge all hydrostatic test water to upland locations at 

least 150 feet from flowing waterbodies and wetlands in a manner that would avoid runoff or 

erosion into surface waters or wetlands, and would not discharge test water directly into surface 

waters or wetlands. If chlorinated water is used (e.g. the source of test water is a treated 

municipal water supply) it would be treated as required to minimize potential impacts to 

sensitive areas during discharge. 

Pacific Connector would attempt to discharge water in the same USGS water basin as the source 

of the water, but some cross basin transfer would occur because of the linear nature of the 
4.5-109 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

pipeline. To minimize the potential for cross basin transfer of organisms, both the intake and 

discharge points would be screened. Pacific Connector has consulted with the USFS and BLM 

during development of the Hydrostatic Testing Plan and the USFS has stated that additional 

consultation would be required to finalize the plan. Pacific Connector has stated that it would 

continue this consultation. 

Fuel and Chemical Spills

For any large construction project, there is the potential for spills of fuel or other hazardous 

liquids from storage containers, equipment working in or near streams, and fuel transfers. Any 

spill of fuel or other hazardous liquid that reaches a waterbody would be detrimental to water 

quality. The chemicals released during spills could have acute, direct effects on fish, or could 

have indirect effects such as altered behavior, changes in physiological processes, or changes in 

food sources. Fish could also be killed if a large volume of hazardous liquid is spilled into a 

waterbody. Ingestion of large numbers of contaminated fish could affect primary and secondary 

fish predators in the food chain. 

To minimize the potential for spills, Pacific Connector has developed an SPCC Plan. Pacific 

Connector’s implementation of this SPCC Plan would minimize the potential for and the impact 

of any spill near surface waters. Specific measures in this plan include prohibiting liquid 

transfer, vehicle and equipment washing, and refueling within 100 feet of waterbodies and 

specific steps to be followed to control, contain, and clean up any spill that occurs. The SPCC 

Plan is further described in section 4.3.2.5. Pacific Connector’s implementation of this SPCC 

Plan would minimize the potential for and the impact of any spill near surface water on aquatic 

resources. 

Herbicide Application

Pacific Connector would not use herbicides for routine vegetation maintenance. However, 

Pacific Connector would implement a Noxious Weed Control Plan, which would include the 

selective use of herbicides where necessary to control noxious weeds by application from the 

ground. Herbicides would not be applied by aerial or broadcast spraying. Herbicides can have 

toxic or other adverse effects on fish and other aquatic organisms. Noxious weeds would be 

removed only by manual methods in the riparian zone as defined as one site potential tree height, 

being greater than 150 feet in most areas along the route. As noted in section 4.5.1.3 of this EIS, 

only agency-approved herbicides would be used, which includes up to six different compounds 

of herbicide. Most would be applied during the dormant plant spring or fall season. In general, 

most impacts to aquatic systems occur from direct spray of herbicides, and possibly drift when 

herbicides are sprayed, and leaching through soils and groundwater (Tu et al. 2001). Pacific 

Connector would not directly spray, or otherwise apply herbicides, in waterbodies or in riparian 

zones. The risk of drift would be avoided by selectively applying herbicides from the ground. 

The six different types of potential herbicides that could be used have various levels of toxicity 

to aquatic organisms. However, the restriction to selective applications outside of riparian zones 

would greatly reduce the potential of adverse effects to fish by keeping herbicides outside of 

riparian zones and preventing herbicides from reaching streams. 

Streambank Erosion

The clearing and grading of vegetation during construction could increase erosion along 

streambanks and turbidity levels in the waterbodies. The rootwad network of trees adjacent to 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-110

stream supplies bank stability. Those within 25 feet of the stream are considered most important 

at providing the root source aiding in bank stability (WDR 1997). To aid in maintaining this 

bank stability, Pacific Connector would cut most trees near the bank, except those in the trench 

line, at ground level leaving the root systems in place helping to maintain riparian stability. 

Roots would be removed over the trench line or from any steam banks that would need to be cut 

down or graded to accomplish the pipeline crossing. Alteration of the natural drainage ways or 

compaction of soils by heavy equipment near streambanks during construction may accelerate 

erosion of the banks, runoff, and the transportation of sediments into waterbodies. The degree of 

impact on aquatic organisms due to erosion would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, 

turbulence, streambank composition, and sediment particle size. To minimize these impacts, 

Pacific Connector would use temporary equipment bridges, mats, and pads to support equipment 

that must cross the waterbody (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral if water is present) or work 

in saturated soils adjacent to the waterbody. Pacific Connector would also install sediment 

barriers, such as silt fence and straw/hay bales, across the right-of-way at the edge of 

waterbodies throughout construction except for short periods when the removal of these 

sediment barriers is necessary to dig the trench, install the pipe, and restore the right-of way. 

The FWS has expressed concerns that more detailed site-specific information on bank material, 

streambed composition, shoreline vegetation and other information is needed to adequately 

ensure that actions occurring at a stream crossing do not significantly increase streambank 

erosion. More detailed discussion of specific recommended information requested by FWS is 

presented in section 4.3.5. 

Crossing of Unstable Slopes

Potential impact to waterbodies by deep-seated landslides and shallow-rapid hazards on 

unchannelized slopes is difficult to evaluate. Slope failure near the waterbody during pipeline 

operation could result in soil and sedimentation falling into the waterbody. Pacific Connector 

evaluated all likely unstable areas during selection of the proposed pipeline route, and moved the 

route as necessary to areas considered to have low risk. Only one moderate risk area 

approximately between MP 18.14 to 18.20 just upslope from a small (2-foot-wide) stream, a 

tributary to Cunningham Creek is known to remain along the route. 

Operation and Maintenance Activities

Once installed, maintenance of the pipeline would include activities such as aerial inspections, 

gas flow monitoring, visual inspection of surrounding vegetation for signs of leaks, and integrity 

management, which includes smart pigging to investigate the interior surface of the pipe for any 

signs of stress cracking, pitting, and other anomalies. All of the proposed maintenance activities 

would be outlined in the Operations and Maintenance plan that would be prepared according to 

operating regulations in DOT 49 CFR Subpart L, Part 192 and would be completed prior to 

going in-service. These general maintenance activities would require only surface activities and 

usage of the existing right-of-way, such as insertion of the pig at one of the pig launching 

facilities. 

The potential estuarine or stream channel disturbance would occur if an integrity issue with the 

pipeline were found. If this were to occur, the pipeline would need to be unearthed within the 

right-of-way and repair work done in-water. Within stream sites, repair work could require 

isolated flow from the section of pipe that is to be exposed. Typically, repairs would be made to 
4.5-111 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

the pipe within the right-of-way (within the trench) or, depending on the site-specific conditions 

and nature of the repair needed, a reroute around the affected section may be considered. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed above for initial installation except on a much 

smaller scale, and would include similar BMPs and mitigation. 

Vegetation maintenance would be limited adjacent to waterbodies to allow a riparian strip to 

permanently revegetate with native plant species across the entire right-of-way. To facilitate 

periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet 

wide would be maintained in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees that are located within 15 

feet of the pipeline and that are greater than 15 feet in height would be cut and removed from the 

right-of-way. 

Pipeline Rupture

As discussed in section 4.12.10, the pipeline would be designed, installed, tested, and maintained 

such that the chance of a pipeline rupture would be extremely remote. However, we received 

comments questioning the potential impact on aquatic resources if a pipeline were to rupture 

underneath a waterbody crossing. If a pipeline rupture were to occur beneath a waterbody 

crossing, natural gas would percolate through the soil and sediments underlying the stream, rise 

through the water column of the stream, and rapidly dissipate into the atmosphere. The potential 

outcome would depend on the volume of natural gas released and whether an ignition source is 

available. A pipeline break could result in soil, sediment, and debris being thrown from the area 

of the break, destruction of streambank vegetation, and, in the case of ignition, explosion or fire 

potentially resulting in destruction of nearby fisheries. For a less severe release, natural gas 

would displace oxygen within the interstitial water of the sediments, resulting in temporary 

hypoxia within the sediments. As natural gas ascended through the water column, it would 

displace oxygen, possibly producing hypoxic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the release 

and for some distance downstream. Fish in the vicinity of a natural gas release could also be 

impacted by temporary hypoxia. Considering the narrow width of the majority of the 

waterbodies that would be crossed and their relatively shallow depth, most of the natural gas 

would be rapidly released to the atmosphere and any change in water chemistry or quality would 

be minor. Because fish are mobile, they would have the ability to avoid or leave the areas with 

unfavorable environmental conditions resulting from such a release. As stated above, we believe 

the chance for a pipeline rupture to affect aquatic resources is extremely remote. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

EFH and species present in Coos Bay are described in detail above in section 4.5.2.1. In Coos 

Bay, the amount of EFH habitat that would be directly disturbed in the estuarine environment 

from either right-of-way construction or TEWAs is estimated to be about 86 acres (table 4.5.2.3-

3). Additional areas would be affected from sediment and turbidity from pipeline installation. 

The directly disturbed areas would include approximately 1.0 acres of aquatic eelgrass, and 

additional 2.0 acres of aquatic beds, 3.8 acres of low and high tidal marsh, and 4.2 acres of 

undifferentiated tidal marsh, all in intertidal areas. All are important habitat components for 

estuarine food webs, especially the eelgrass beds. The characteristic and life history of PMFC 

EFH species that may be in the pipeline area at waterbody crossings are summarized in table 

4.5.2.3-4 and described in the FERC’s BA and EFH Assessment prepared for the Project. 

Impacts would be reduced in the estuarine region of Coos Bay by following the in-water 

construction window developed by ODFW, and measures from Pacific Connector’s ECRP. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-112

Within the freshwater EFH regions a list of the waterbodies crossed by the proposed route and 

EFH assumed or known for coho and Chinook salmon species are shown in Appendix G, table 

G-3. A total of 103 of the stream crossing areas (either directly crossed or near the pipeline) 

contain or are assumed to contain EFH for either one or both of these species. All streams that 

would be directly crossed would have all construction work done in the dry (three would be 

passed by HDD). Of approximately 100 streams that would be crossed using dry open cut 

methods that are potentially designated as EFH for Chinook and/or coho salmon, in-water work 

for the pipeline crossings would temporarily affect EFH. Most waterbody crossings that involve 

open trenching would be constructed during established in-water work windows, although some 

would not due to conflicts with other sensitive resources. 

In freshwater, EFH for Chinook and coho salmon include habitats for spawning, rearing, and 

migration corridors (PFMC 2003). Components of the proposed pipeline with the potential to 

adversely affect designated EFH include removal of terrestrial and riparian vegetation, in-water 

pipeline construction, accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials, and hydrostatic testing. 

Construction adjacent to EFH could also result in increased stormwater runoff and/or an 

inadvertent spill of hazardous materials, either of which could result in substantial adverse 

effects on EFH. A detailed discussion of measures that would be implemented to avoid or 

minimize impacts on aquatic resources (including EFH) as a result of pipeline construction is 

presented above in section 4.5.3.1. 

The determinations of effect on EFH resulting from the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline 

project are described below. For actions within the estuary, effects to EFH would be similar to 

those described for the LNG terminal slip. Additional adverse effects would occur at freshwater 

crossings that would affect Pacific Coast salmon. For coastal pelagic, groundfish, and Pacific 

coast salmon, effects would be similar although magnitude would vary (table 4.5.2.3-6). Major 

sources of impact would include: 

• Dredging for the trench to install pipeline along the 6.9-mile route within Coos Bay; 

• Potential accidental spills of fuel and other petroleum products; 

• Loss of riparian habitat; 

• Water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing; and 

• Construction at stream crossings. 

FERC, as the lead federal agency, will consolidate the EFH and the ESA process for all portions 

of the proposed Project. This includes development of an EFH Assessment and BA submitted 

about the time of this final EIS to NMFS and FWS with a request to initiate formal consultation. 

TABLE 4.5.2.3-6. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to Pipeline Construction and Operation

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

Impacts Determination of Effects 

Groundfish All waters from the extent of the 

high tide line (and parts of 

estuaries) to offshore to the 

3,500 meter (1,914 fathoms) 

depth. 

• Dredging of 2.5-mile pipeline 

route in Coos Bay 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

Substantial adverse effects to multiple 

groundfish species (e.g., rockfish, 

English sole, Starry flounder) EFH (see 

Aquatic sections on LNG and Pipeline 

for impacts and mitigation) 
4.5-113 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.5.2.3-6. 

Potential Impacts to EFH due to Pipeline Construction and Operation

EFH Description of EFH a/

Project Actions and Potential 

Impacts Determination of Effects 

Coastal 

Pelagic 

Species 

All marine and estuarine waters 

from the coast to the limits of the 

EEZ and above the thermocline 

where sea surface temperatures 

range between 50 °F and 79 °F 

• Dredging of 2.5-mile pipeline 

route in Coos Bay 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

Substantial adverse effects to coastal 

pelagic species (northern anchovy, 

Pacific sardine) EFH (see Aquatic 

sections on LNG and Pipeline for 

impacts and mitigation) 

Pacific Coast 

Salmon 

All streams, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, and other waterbodies 

currently and historically 

accessible to salmon. Estuaries 

and marine areas extending to 

the EEZ and beyond. 

• Dredging of 2.5-mile pipeline 

route in Coos Bay 

• Accidental spills of hazardous 

substances 

• Pipeline construction at 

waterbody crossings 

• Water withdrawal 

• Loss of riparian habitat along 

streams 

Substantial adverse effects to Pacific 

coastal salmon species (coho and 

Chinook salmon) EFH (see Aquatic 

sections on LNG and Pipeline for 

impacts and mitigation) 

a/ PFMC 2006 (update version 7/24/2006) 

4.5.2.4 Environmental Effects on Federal Lands 

The Pacific Connector pipeline would have some effect on 47 waterbodies or riparian areas 

within the approximately 72 miles of federal lands that would be crossed by the pipeline. 

Watersheds crossed on federal lands and characteristics of those watersheds are discussed in 

section 4.3.3. Aquatic species present on federal lands would be similar to those discussed in 

section 4.5.2.3, except no marine and estuarine fish and shellfish are present within the 

waterbodies crossed on federal lands. Commercial and recreational fisheries of importance in 

waterbodies crossed include primarily anadromous salmon and steelhead and resident trout. 

Specials status species present in some stream segments crossed include federally listed Oregon 

Coastal Coho salmon and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal coho salmon ESU. EFH 

habitat is also present along the route for coho and Chinook salmon stocks. Other state and 

federal fish species of special status are discussed in section 4.6. Aquatic habitats that would be 

affected by the proposed pipeline on federal lands are primarily coldwater and anadromous 

streams, with a few warm water ponds adjacent to the construction areas. Much of the stream 

riparian areas crossed on BLM and NFS lands is heavily forested and shaded by coniferous trees. 

The general impacts on aquatic resources, and mitigation for those effects, would be similar on 

federal lands as those discussed above in section 4.5.2.3 for the entire pipeline. Crossing 

techniques for most waterbodies would include dry-open cut methods. Eighteen perennial and 

29 intermittent streams or ponds would either be crossed, or would be nearby riparian areas 

disturbed or removed during pipeline construction on federal lands (table 4.5.2.4-1). Of these 

streams 10 are known or assumed to contain anadromous fish, and 18 known or assumed to 

contain resident fish species. ESA species and EFH habitat for salmon may be present in up to 

13 stream disturbance areas (primarily crossings) (table 4.5.2.4-1). 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-114

TABLE 4.5.2.4-1 

Number of Streams (and ponds) crossed or adjacent to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Route on Federal lands by fish status 

category within Each Fifth Field Watershed Coinciding with the Pacific Connector Project

Fish-bearing Streams with a/: 

Fifth Field 

Watershed (Fifth 

Field HUC) 

Federal Land 

Agency 

Perennial 

Streams 

Intermittent 

Streams 

Anadromous 

Species 

(assumed) b/ 

Resident Species 

(assumed) a,b/ 

EFH Species 

and Habitat 

Present 

(assumed) a/ 

ESA Species or 

Habitat Present 

(assumed) a/ 

Coos County 

North Fork Coquille 

River (1710030504) 

BLM Coos Bay 

Dist. 

1 5 1 1 1 1 

East Fork Coquille 

River (1710030503) 

BLM Coos Bay 

Dist. 

0 2 0 0 0 0 

Middle Fork Coquille 

River (1710030501) 

BLM Coos Bay 

Dist. 

1 3 0(1) 0(2) 0(1) 0(1) 

Douglas County 

Middle Fork Coquille 

River (1710030501) 

BLM Roseburg 

Dist. 

1 0 0 1 0 0 

South Umpqua River 

(1710030205) 

BLM Roseburg 

Dist. 

0 1 0 0 0 0 

Upper Cow Creek 

(1710030206) 

USFS Umpqua 

NF 

5 1 0(4) 0(4) 0(4) 0(4) 

Jackson County 

Trail Creek 

(1710030706) 

USFS Umpqua 

NF 

0 1 0 0 0 0 

Trail Creek 

(1710030706) 

BLM Medford 

Dist. 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

Rogue River-Shady 

Cove (1710030707) 

BLM Medford 

Dist. 

1 4 0 0 0 0 

Big Butte 

Creek(1710030704) 

BLM Medford 

Dist. 

2 2 0(1) 0(2) 0(3) 0(3) 

Little Butte Creek 

(1710030708) 

BLM Medford 

Dist. 

1 4 1 1 0(1) 1 

Little Butte Creek 

(1710030708) 

USFS Rogue 

River NF 

1 1 1 2 0(1) 1 

Klamath County 

Spencer Creek 

(1801020601) 

USFS Winema 

NF 

4 3 0 1(2) 0 0 

Spencer Creek 

(1801020601) 

BLM Lakeview 

NF 

0 1 0 0 0 0 

Total 18 29 4(6) 7(11) 2(10) 4(8) 

a/ known and assumed (value in parentheses) crossings or pipeline proximity with indicated fish category designation 

b/ trout 

Riparian Reserves and Riparian Management Areas 

The special management areas along the streams that would be crossed on federal lands are 

defined for NFS lands by the ACS under the NWFP, and on BLM lands under the December 

2008 RMPs. The ACS was developed as part of the NWFP Standards and Guidelines to restore 

and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within NFS 

lands (USFS and BLM 1994) for a variety of species. Major components of the ACS are 

Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds. The reserves also carry their own set of standards and 

guidelines for development activities. While the ACS focuses primarily on the conservation of 

anadromous salmon and steelhead, the nine objectives listed for the ACS include maintaining 

and restoring aquatic systems, floodplains, wetlands, upslope habitats, and riparian zones in 

general to support invertebrate and vertebrate species dependent on those habitats. Generally, 

these standards and guidelines prohibit or regulate activities that hinder or prevent attainment of 
4.5-115 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

ACS objectives (see Section B-11 in Standards and Guidelines, Attachment A to the Record of 

Decision for Amendments to USFS and BLM Planning Documents within the Range of the 

NSO). 

RMAs are defined in the BLM’s December 2008 Resource Management Plans. Management 

objectives for RMAs include providing for conservation of special status fish species, 

maintaining and restoring access to stream channels for all life stages of fish species, and 

maintaining and restoring water quality (BLM 2008). RMAs include all streams, lakes, 

wetlands, etc. within LSMAs, Eastside Forest Management Land, and all BLM Timber 

Management Areas (BLM 2008). 

Riparian Reserves and RMAs are used to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions 

of perennial and intermittent streams. Lands under these designations are determined through 

watershed analysis. If watershed analysis has not been conducted for a particular waterbody, 

interim widths are assigned by stream channel and water body type as indicated in table 4.5.2.4-

2. Additional details relating to both the Riparian Reserves and RMAs designations, 

characteristics, and management objectives are supplied in section 4.3.3. 

TABLE 4.5.2.4-2 

Widths for Riparian Reserves on NFS Lands and Riparian Management Areas on BLM Lands that Have Not Been 

Previously Analyzed

Federal 

Agency Waterbody Category Description 

USFS Fish-bearing streams 

Consists of whichever is greatest: 1) 100-year flood plain, 2) 

outer edges of riparian vegetation, 3) distance equal to height of 

two site-potential trees, or 4) 300 feet slope distance on either 

side of stream channel. 

BLM Perennial and intermittent fish-bearing streams and 

perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

One site-potential tree height on each side of a stream channel 

as measured from the ordinary high water line. 

USFS Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 

Consists of whichever is greatest: 1) 100-year flood plain, 2) 

outer edges of riparian vegetation, 3) stream and edge of active 

stream channel extending out distance equal to height of one 

site-potential tree, or 4) 150 feet slope distance on either side of 

stream channel. 

BLM Intermittent non-fish-bearing streams Half of one site-potential tree height on each side of a stream 

channel as measured from the ordinary high water line. 

USFS Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre 

Consists of the body of water or wetland and whichever is 

greatest: 1) outer edges of riparian vegetation, 2) extent of 

seasonally saturated soil, 3) extent of unstable and potentially 

unstable areas, 4) distance equal to height of one site-potential 

tree, or 4) 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland 

greater than 1 acre or the maximum pool elevation of 

constructed ponds and reservoirs. 

USFS Lakes and natural ponds 

Consists of the body of water and whichever is greatest: 1) the 

area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 2) the extent 

of seasonally saturated soil, 3) to the extent of unstable and 

potentially unstable areas, 4) to a distance equal to the height of 

two site-potential trees, or 5) 300 feet slope distance. 

BLM Natural lakes and ponds greater than 0.25 acre One site-potential tree height extending from the edge of the 

water body as measured from the ordinary high water line. 

USFS 

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands 

less than 1 acre, and unstable and potentially 

unstable areas 

This category applies to features with high variability in size and 

site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the Riparian 

Reserve must include: 1) the extent of unstable and potentially 

unstable areas, 2) the area from the edges of the stream 

channel or wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 

3) a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 4) 

100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-116

TABLE 4.5.2.4-2 

Widths for Riparian Reserves on NFS Lands and Riparian Management Areas on BLM Lands that Have Not Been 

Previously Analyzed

Federal 

Agency Waterbody Category Description 

BLM 

Natural wetlands, springs, seeps, constructed 

reservoirs, ditches, canals, and ponds smaller than 

0.25 acre. 

The edge of a body of water or wetland to the outer edge of its 

riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, 

whichever is greatest. 

BLM Eastside non-forest areas of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

The extent of the water influence zone as indicated by 

hydrophilic vegetation. 

Sources: USFS and BLM 1994 for Riparian Reserves, and BLM (2008) for Riparian Management Areas 

The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline would cross riparian zones for approximately 21.5 

miles, of which 1.4 and 1.5 miles would cross BLM RMAs and USFS Riparian Reserves, 

respectively (table 4.5.2.4-3). Additionally, the acres of temporary RMA and Riparian Reserve 

affected by all proposed construction activities (e.g. pipeline right of way, TEWAs, permanent 

access, and temporary roads) would be 29.9 and 25.1 acres, respectively on BLM and NFS lands, 

respectively. The amount of permanent riparian areas of these two categories would be much 

less at 6.8 and 5.5 acres for the BLM and USFS, respectively. The new pipeline routed 

developed by Pacific Connector has reduced the overall riparian area affected from the original 

proposed routes for all districts combined, reducing overall effect to aquatic systems on federal 

lands. Overall, the relative amount of Riparian Reserves and RMAs affected is a very low 

portion (much less than 0.1 percent) of designated riparian areas present within in each federal 

districts. For example the estimates of RMAs ranges from 1,900 to 69,000 acres among these 

four BLM districts with all but one over 34,000 acres (BLM web site for Resource Management 

TABLE 4.5.2.4-3 

Distances Crossed Within Riparian Areas And Total Acres Of Riparian Reserve (NFS) And Riparian 

Management Areas (BLM) Affected By The Pacific Connector Pipeline 

Property Jurisdiction 

Total Riparian Areas 

Crossed (miles) a/

Temporary Riparian 

Reserve/RMAs (acres) 

Permanent Riparian 

Reserve/RMAs (acres) 

Private 17.5 Na Na 

State 1.0 Na Na 

Unknown 0.1 Na Na 

Non-Federal Total 18.6 Na Na 

BLM Coos Bay District 0.4 9.2 2.2 

BLM Roseburg District 0.2 4.8 0.9 

BLM Medford District 0.6 15.2 3.6 

BLM Lakeview District 0.1 0.7 0.2 

BLM Total 1.4 29.9 6.8 

Umpqua NF 0.8 13.9 2.8 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 0.2 3.5 0.8 

Fremont- Winema NF 0.5 7.7 1.9 

USFS Total 1.5 25.1 5.5 

21.5 55.0 12.3 

a/ Total miles of riparian area crossed on non-federal land based on one site potential tree height on all streams 

(perennial and intermittent); federal lands based on Riparian Reserve and RMA prescriptions by stream. Totals may 

differ from sums due to rounding. 
4.5-117 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Plans). Comparisons would be similar for Riparian Reserve lands on NFS lands. The Pacific 

Connector pipeline’s consistency at meeting the standards and guidelines of the Riparian 

Reserves and RMAs, as well as project design and mitigation measures, is discussed in section 

4.3.3. 

Key Watersheds on NFS Lands 

Key watersheds on NFS land, as designated by the NWFP (USFS and BLM 1994), provide high 

water quality and are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks. They are the highest priority for 

watershed restoration. Lands administered by the USFS within the range of the NSO are 

allocated to one of three watershed categories: Tier 1 Key Watersheds, Tier 2 Key Watersheds or 

non-Key Watersheds (all others). 

Tier 1 Key Watersheds consist primarily of watersheds directly contributing to anadromous 

salmonid, bull trout, and resident fish species conservation. Tier 2 watersheds do not necessarily 

contain at-risk fish stocks, but are important sources of high quality water (USFS and BLM 

1994). The key watersheds crossed by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline are discussed in 

section 4.3.4 (table 4.3.4-2) and include three Tier 1 (South Umpqua River, North and South 

Forks Little Butte, Spencer Creek) and one Tier 2 (Clover Creek) watershed. 

Mitigation Plan 

Pacific Connector would develop project design, construction, and operation measures to avoid 

or minimize impacts on aquatic resources to the extent practicable, and to meet long-term 

consistency with the ACS on NFS lands and the respective RMPs on BLM lands. However, 

short-term and possibly long-term impacts to Riparian Reserves and RMAs would occur from 

the removal of riparian vegetation, modifications of streambanks, and stream bed substrates as a 

result of pipeline construction. To compensate for unavoidable impacts along streams from loss 

of riparian vegetation and LWD input that do not meet the objectives of the ACS and 

management objectives for RMAs, Pacific Connector has developed a Mitigation Plan (see 

Appendix L3). 

To ensure that the Pacific Connector Project is consistent with the objectives of the ACS on NFS 

lands and the management objectives of RMAs on BLM lands, Pacific Connector would 1) 

donate LWD to agencies/conservation groups to perform in-stream restoration projects; and/or 2) 

relocate large boulders greater than 24 inches in diameter for use as fish habitat structures. 

Pacific Connector would develop a mitigation plan that may include a fund to compensate for the 

proposed Project’s temporary long-term and permanent riparian vegetation and aquatic impacts 

from construction and operation of the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. Examples of the 

types of projects that could be funded include but are not limited to the following: 

• restore degraded riparian habitats through off-site revegetation projects; 

• conduct off-site in-stream habitat improvement and fish passage projects; 

• acquire conservation easements on private land to protect or improve important riparian 

habitats, particularly targeting streams containing listed fish, 303(d) streams, and key 

watersheds; 

• conduct pre-commercial thinning projects where feasible to improve riparian habitats; 

• install fences in allotments to improve riparian habitats; and 
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4.5-118

• decommission roads and waterbody features (e.g. culverts, crossings, bridges)identified 

by the BLM and USFS that are no longer needed for resource management to provide 

numerous benefits including lower road density, minimization of channel extensions, 

minimization of sedimentation, improvement of fish passage through culvert removal, 

and reduction of riparian habitat fragmentation. 

The list of mitigation measures noted above is not all that would be in place, but identifies some 

of the major efforts that could be put in place to reduce and mitigate impacts from the proposed 

actions to aquatic resources. Following construction of the pipeline, habitat and ecosystem 

function would be restored in-place as much as possible. However, although mitigation actions 

would restore habitat and have long-term benefits to wetlands, estuarine ecosystems, and habitat 

for salmonids in general, there would be short-term adverse effects and longer-term adverse 

effects on some non-target species. The goal of additional mitigation would be to restore habitat 

with similar ecological function for the remaining impacts to aquatic resources. Specific sites 

and actions for the mitigation were identified through meetings with the USFS and BLM. These 

are provided in the Mitigation Plan for Federal Lands included in Appendix L3 with this EIS.