4.13-1 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

4.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

4.13.1 Introduction

Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with a proposed 

project are added to temporary (construction-related) or permanent (operations-related) impacts 

associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although the 

individual impact of each separate project might not be significant, the additive or synergistic 

effects of multiple projects could be significant. This cumulative analysis focuses on potential 

impacts from the proposed Project on resource areas or issues where their incremental 

contribution would be potentially significant when added to the potential impacts of other 

actions. 

An action must first meet three criteria to be a candidate for inclusion in the cumulative analysis. 

The action must: 

• affect a resource (e.g., forests) or resources potentially affected by the proposed project; 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the project area; and 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the timespan for the potential impact from the 

proposed project. 

Existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed slip, LNG terminal, pipeline, 

and associated aboveground facilities reflect the extensive changes brought about by long-term 

human occupancy and use of the Project area. For example, native vegetative communities in 

the Project area have been substantially altered from their pre-Euro-American settlement 

condition by timber harvest, agricultural practices, introduction of non-native species, and 

commercial/industrial and residential developments; rivers and streams have been physically 

altered; and fish and wildlife resources have been impacted by habitat alteration or loss. 

Current and reasonably foreseeable projects within the fifth-field watersheds in the Project area 

that may cumulatively impact resources that would be affected by construction and operation of 

the proposed slip, LNG terminal, and pipeline and associated aboveground facilities are listed in 

table 4.13.1-1. The acres of impact associated with these projects, the acres impacted by the 

proposed Project, and the cumulative acres impacted are displayed by watershed in table 

4.13.2-1. 

In addition to the current and reasonable foreseeable projects identified in table 4.13.1-1, two 

other natural gas pipelines are currently proposed in Oregon. On December 11, 2008, Palomar 

Gas Transmission, LLC filed an application with the FERC, in Docket No. CP09-35-000, to 

build and operate a bi-directional natural gas pipeline in Oregon. The Palomar Project would 

include about 217 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, with a bi-directional flow capable of 

handling up to 1.4 Bscfd of natural gas. The pipeline would begin at an interconnection with 

GTN northwest of Madras, and extend over portions of Wasco, Clackamas, Marion, Yamhill, 

Washington, Columbia, and Clatsop Counties, Oregon. Potential environmental impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the Palomar pipeline would be similar to those 

described for this Project. However, due to the fact that the Palomar Project is not located in any 

of the fifth-field watersheds affected by this Project, there would be no cumulative impacts 

associated with the Palomar Pipeline Project to these watersheds. 
4.13-2 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Ruby Pipeline LLC filed an application with the FERC on January 27, 2009, in Docket No. 

CP09-54-000. We are preparing a separate, stand-alone environmental document for the Ruby 

project. The Ruby pipeline would be a 42-inch-diameter pipeline that would extend for about 

680 miles from the Opal Hub in southwestern Wyoming to the Oregon/California border near 

Malin, Oregon, where it could interconnect with three interstate natural gas pipelines. The Ruby 

pipeline would be designed to eventually transport up to 2.0 Bscfd. The purpose of the Ruby 

Project is to deliver Rocky Mountain gas to markets in northern California and northern Nevada. 

Potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Ruby pipeline 

would be similar to those described for this project. However, due to the fact that the current 

route proposed by Ruby travels away from areas impacted by the Pacific Connector pipeline, 

cumulative impacts associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project would be primarily limited to the 

area near the interconnection near Malin, Oregon. 

Section 2.2.3.1 describes that Pacific Connector would connect with the Avista distribution 

system in Jackson County. In order to distribute natural gas it receives from Pacific Connector 

to its customers, Avista would need to construct and operate the following facilities: a regulator 

station, line heater, and appurtenant facilities adjacent to the meter station; approximately 4 miles 

of 12-inch-diameter high pressure natural gas distribution pipeline; and two distribution regulator 

stations. Avista has not yet designed the facilities it would need to construct to transport the gas 

it would receive from Pacific Connector, so we do not yet know the route of the Avista pipeline. 

Its regulation stations would be located within plots approximately 10 by 20 feet in size (total 

estimated impact of about 0.01 acre) while the Avista pipeline would be installed within a 30-

foot-wide right-of-way easement (estimated temporary impact of 14.5 acres). Although Avista 

has not yet designed the pipeline, LDC pipelines are commonly installed within or immediately 

adjacent to roadways. Although most large energy facilities in Oregon are under the jurisdiction 

of the Energy Facility Siting Council, depending on the final design, this distribution system may 

not be considered an “energy facility” under ORS 469.300 due to its smaller size and would then 

fall under the local jurisdiction of Jackson County. 

Additional projects that may occur within the watersheds are anticipated as population growth 

continues in the region. Associated road and commercial development, as well as maintenance 

and upgrading of the existing infrastructure, are therefore likely to occur in the foreseeable 

future. Within the Project area, gradual habitat and water quality improvements may also occur 

over time as federal, state, and private conservation and habitat enhancement efforts are 

implemented. It is not possible to quantify or assess the potential cumulative impacts or benefits 

that may occur from future projects that may occur within the watersheds as population growth, 

associated road and commercial development, as well as maintenance and upgrading of the 

existing infrastructure occur. 

Projects that may occur but are not practical to predict or identify in table 4.13.1-1 include the 

following: 

• Reciprocal Rights-of-Way Actions. All of the fifth-field watersheds are covered by 

multiple reciprocal road use and rights-of-way agreements enacted between the BLM and 

adjoining industrial forest landowners. While requests are frequently received, under the 

terms of these agreements, to construct new roads or to renovate, improve, and use 

existing roads, there is no practical means to forecast the timing and location of such 
4.13-3 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

requests. Historically, the Districts receive between about five and ten crossing requests 

annually from major timber companies, which may or may not involve construction of 

new roads. 

• Temporary Hauling Permits. Requests are received from time to time from private 

individuals without reciprocal road use and rights-of-way agreements for permits to haul 

forest products over BLM-controlled roads. As with non-discretionary actions permitted 

under reciprocal road use and rights-of-way agreements, there is no practical means by 

which to forecast the timing and location for such requests. Historically, the Districts 

receive less than five requests annually from small landowners, which may or may not 

involve construction of new roads. 

• Pre-commercial Thinning and Manual Maintenance (Brushing). Silvicultural 

treatments of young stands (generally less than16 years old) will continue as these stands 

reach their target condition. 

• Livestock Grazing and Fence Maintenance. Almost all acreage within the watersheds 

crossed on the Klamath Falls Resource Area by the proposed pipeline is allotted to 

livestock grazing. Grazing use occurs during the spring and summer months. Fence 

maintenance can occur any time during the grazing season. 

• Other Actions. Within the Coos Bay District, BPA is currently improving (rocking) and 

renovating its powerline access roads. It is anticipated this action will continue for the 

next several years. 

• Ongoing operation and maintenance of the Klamath Project by the BOR in the 

Klamath and Lost River Basins. Originally authorized as the Klamath Project 1905, 

the Klamath project now includes three storage reservoirs providing 1,104,418 acre-feet 

of active storage in the Klamath River and Lost River basins. More than 1,400 miles of 

canals and drains, 37 pumping plants, and 2 tunnels provide service to water users, and 

indirectly to 4 of 6 national wildlife refuges, which are part of the Klamath Basin 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

• Ongoing commercial fishing, recreational boating, and shipping use of Coos Bay 

and the waterway. 

• Other, similar economic developments in the region that may occur and, if they did, 

could contribute to the region’s population growth and associated impacts. 

Road maintenance operations would continue at the current rate. Road maintenance activities 

are directly related to timber hauling activities and increases in private timber company 

operations would result in more road maintenance in that geographical area. The BLM Districts 

have active noxious weed programs. Noxious weeds would continue to be chemically treated 

adjacent to BLM roads within these project areas. These treatments occur during the spring and 

summer months. Management actions on the BLM lands that would be crossed by the Pacific 

Connector Pipeline currently fall under the December 2008 RMPs as amended by the RODs for 

the December 2008 WOPR. 
4.13-4 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

Coos Bay Frontal Watershed 

Port owned General Cargo 

Dock at Slip 

The Port would construct and own a dock for unspecified general cargo on 

the west side of the slip proposed for Jordan Cove LNG. This dock would 

likely accommodate a “roll on-roll off” type terminal, although an intended 

user has not yet made a commitment to the Port to locate there. The cargo 

dock would be about 1,200 feet long and 70 feet wide, supported by 774 

24-inch octagonal concrete pilings. Serving the cargo dock would be an 

impervious paved access and staging area covering about 1.7 acres. The 

Port has not identified a date for construction or operation of this general 

cargo dock. 

unknown 

Blue Retro Density 

Management Thinning Study 

Thin 30 acres of mid-seral forest in Matrix and 15 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. Includes renovation of 2.1 miles road (brushing, grading, rock 

replacement) 

2009 

North Spit Barge Slip at 

Southport Forest Products 

Approximately 32 acre development of multimodal barge facility with access 

to rail and road. The existing barge slip will be reconfigured to handle 

ocean going cargo barges able to move inbound logs, outbound woodchips 

and a variety of general cargo. 

2007 

TransPacific Parkway 

Realignment 

The realignment would combine two road/rail crossings into a single 

signalized crossing and create safer intersection access for visitors to the 

southern portion of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, as well as 

to nearby industrial sites. 

2009 or later 

Coos Bay Channel 

Modification (Includes 

Oregon Gateway Project) 

The Port would deepen and widen the Coos Bay navigational channel from 

the entrance at the Pacific Ocean to the railroad bridge located at 

approximately CM 9.2. Would include dredged material disposal, entrance 

jetty modification, ecosystem restoration, and maintenance dredging. 

2009 or later 

Charleston Marina Developments at the Port owned and operated the Charleston Marina, the 

Charleston Marina RV Park, and Charleston Shipyard. As a component of 

the Port’s economic development, the focus of the Charleston Marina 

Master Plan is to develop commercial fishing and seafood processing, 

recreational fishing and boating, tourism, and growth in the retail and 

commercial sectors. 

2010 or later 

Coos Bay Rail Line Rehab Rehabilitate portions of the inactive Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, 

including portions on the North Spit of Coos Bay. 

2009 or later 

Lower Coquille River Watershed 

No identified current or reasonably foreseeable projectsNorth Fork Coquille Watershed 

South Powerstrip Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 134 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 131 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. Includes 19 acres of alder conversion in primarily in Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 1.3 miles of temporary new road construction; 

0.6 mile of road improvement (widening, new road surface); and 1.7 miles 

of road renovation; and 1.4 miles of road decommissioning. 

To be completed 

by 2009 

North Powerstrip Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 121 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 101 acres Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 7 acres of alder conversion primarily in Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 1.6 miles of temporary new road construction; 0.3 mile of 

road improvement; 2.3 miles of road renovation; and 2.3 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

To be completed 

by 2008 

McKinley Garage 

Commercial Thinning 

Thin 116 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 113 acres Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 14 acres of alder conversion in Matrix and Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 0.7 mile of temporary new road construction; 

0.6 miles of road improvement; 1.4 miles of road renovation; and 1.3 miles 

of road decommissioning. 

2007 

Jerusalem Creek Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 269 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 251 acres Riparian Reserves 

and includes 142 acres of alder conversion/partial cut in Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 1.9 miles of temporary new road construction; 1.1 miles of 

road improvement; 3.2 miles of road renovation; and 2.0 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

To be completed 

by 2009 

Bitter Cherry Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 276 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 134 acres Riparian Reserves 

and includes 89 acres of alder conversion primarily in Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 1.5 miles of temporary new road construction; 2.9 miles of 

road improvement; 7.6 miles of road renovation; and 1.6 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

To be offered in 

2008 
4.13-5 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

East Fork Coquille Watershed 

Brown Elk Timber Sale Regeneration harvest 44 acres late-seral forest in Matrix and thin 10 acres 

Riparian Reserves. Represents 0.25 percent of all late-seral forest on BLM 

lands in the watershed. Project includes 0.2 mile of temporary new road 

construction; 10.6 miles of road renovation; and 0.4 mile of road 

decommissioning. 

Ongoing, 

expected in next 

2 to 3 years. 

Status: 

Protested Sold & 

Unawarded. 

Scattered Skeeter Density 

Management Thinning 

Thin 568 acres mid-seral forest in LSR and 113 acres Riparian Reserves 

and includes 52 acres of alder conversion in LSR and Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 1.1 miles of temporary new road construction; 0.2 mile of 

road improvement; 24.4 miles of road renovation; and 11.3 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

Ongoing, 

expected next 2 

to 3 years. 

Status: 

Protested Sold & 

Awarded sale. 

Broken Wagon Density 

Management Thinning 

Thin 178 acres mid-seral forest in LSR and Riparian Reserves and includes 

126 acres of alder conversion in LSR and Riparian Reserves. Project 

includes 1.3 miles of temporary new road construction; 0.1 miles road 

improvement; 20.6 miles road renovation; and 3.1 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

Ongoing, 

expected in next 

2 to 3 years. 

Status: 

Protested Sold & 

Awarded sale. 

Burnt Brum Timber Sale Thin 590 acres mid-seral forest in LSR and 265 acres in Riparian Reserves 

and includes 51 acres alder conversion in LSR and Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 1.0 mile of temporary new road construction; 1.3 mile of 

road improvement; 24.6 miles of road renovation; and 8.6 miles of road 

decommissioning. 

2008 

Dora Reload Timber Sale Thin 15 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 27 acres in Riparian Reserves 

and includes 43 acres of alder conversion in Matrix. Project includes no 

temporary new road construction; 0.5 mile of road improvement; 1.2 miles 

of road renovation; and 0.9 mile of road decommissioning. 

2007 

Knepperville Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 173 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 84 acres in Riparian Reserves 

and includes 14 acres alder conversion in Matrix and upland Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 1.5 mile of temporary new road construction; 

0.2 mile of road improvement; 10.0 miles of road renovation; and 3.6 miles 

of road decommissioning. 

To be completed 

by May 2010 

Lost Harry Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 196 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 168 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 0.5 mile of temporary new road construction; 

0.2 mile of road improvement; 10.8 miles road renovation; and 3.6 miles of 

road decommissioning. 

2007 

Elk Creek Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 182 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 122 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 0.7 mile of temporary new road construction 

and 1.6 miles road renovation. 

2007 

Camas Powerline 

Commercial Thinning 

Thin 214 acres mid-seral forest in Matrix and 82 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. Project includes 1.0 mile of temporary new road construction 

and 10.0 miles of road renovation. 

2007 

Brummed Out Density 

Management Thinning 

Thin 325 acres mid-seral forest in LSR and Riparian Reserves and includes 

94 acres of alder conversion primarily in Riparian Reserves. Project 

includes 1.3 miles of temporary new road construction; 0.7 mile of road 

improvement; and 1.2 miles of road renovation. 

Offering in 2008 

Cherry Wall Density 

Management Thinning 

Thin 364 acres mid-seral forest in LSR and Riparian Reserves and includes 

116 acres of alder conversion primarily in Riparian Reserves. Project 

includes 0.6 mile of temporary new road construction; 0.1 mile of road 

improvement; and 1.1 miles of road renovation. 

Offering in 2008 

Brummit Creek Instream 

Restoration Project 

Place 200 logs along 3 miles of West Fork Brummit Creek by helicopter. 2007 

Methane Energy Corp (MEC), 

Coos County Methane 

Project 

If determined to be economically feasible, 30 to 60 well pads housing up to 

300 production wells, and a system of pipeline connections from the wells 

to existing or planned pipelines. 

Feasibility 

evaluation 

ongoing, 

Middle Fork Coquille Watershed 

Remote Control 

Regeneration Harvest 

Regeneration harvest 201 acres of late-seral forest in Matrix. Represents 

less than 1 percent of all LSR on BLM lands in watershed. Project 

includes: 1.2 mile of temporary new road construction; 0.2 mile of road 

improvement; and 1.8 miles of road renovation. 

Planned offering 

2008 
4.13-6 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

Think Big Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 243 acres of mid-seral forest in Matrix and Riparian Reserves. The 

number of miles of temporary road construction, road improvement, and 

renovation are unknown at this time. 

Planned offering 

2008 

Slater Rocks Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 1,800 acres of mid-seral forest in Matrix and Riparian Reserves and 

includes 100 acres of alder conversion primarily in Riparian Reserves. 

Project includes 8+ miles of temporary new road construction. 

Planned offering 

2008 

Smoke Screen Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 78 acres of mid-seral forest, 64 acres in Matrix and 14 acres in 

Riparian Reserves. Three acres of right-of-way clearcut. Hauling utilized 2 

existing BLM roads. 

2007 

Taylor-Made Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 211 acres of mid-seral forest, 168 acres in Matrix and 

Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation, and 43 acres in Riparian 

Reserves. One acre of right-of-way clearcut. Hauling utilized 15 existing 

BLM roads and 3 private roads. 

2007 

Golden Gate Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 218 acres of mid-seral forest, 162 acres in Matrix and 56 acres in 

Riparian Reserves. Three acres of right-of-way clearcut. Hauling utilized 5 

BLM roads and 4 private roads. 

2007 

Sherlock’s Denn Density 

Management 

Thin 135 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. Three acres of right-of-way will 

be clearcut. Hauling would utilize 7 existing BLM roads. 

To be completed 

end of 2008 

Bogey Gap Density 

Management 

Thin 174 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. One acre of right-of-way will be 

clearcut. Hauling would utilize 10 existing BLM roads. 

Contracts 

through March 

2009 

Camas Height Density 

Management 

Thin 262 acres of mid-seral forest in unmapped LSR (marbled murrelet site) 

and Riparian Reserves. Hauling utilized 9 existing BLM roads and 4 private 

roads. 

2007 

Deep Six Density 

Management 

Thin 223 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. Project includes approximately 

0.5 miles of new, permanent road construction. Hauling would utilize 6 

existing BLM roads. 

2008 

Burma Triangle Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 313 acres of mid-seral forest in Matrix. Project includes approximately 

0.68 miles of new, permanent road construction. Hauling would utilize 8 

existing BLM roads. 

2008. 

Suicide Squeeze Density 

Management 

Thin 89 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. Approximately 0.2 miles of new, 

permanent road construction. Hauling would utilize 4 existing BLM roads. 

2008 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Watershed 

Dickerson Heights 

Regeneration Harvest 

Harvest 128 acres of late-serial forest allocated to Matrix – 83 acres and 45 

acres to Connectivity/Diversity Block. The harvest represents about 1.1 

percent of all late-seral forest on BLM lands in watershed. Project includes 

0.37 mile of new, permanent road construction. Hauling would utilize 3 

existing BLM roads and 4 private roads. 

Completion 

expected next 2 

to 3 years. 

Status: 

Presently 

suspended. 

Power Wagon Density 

Management 

Thin 58 acres of mid-seral LSR. Project primarily located in East Fork 

Coquille watershed, but approximately 5 acres cross the divide into the 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek Watershed. Hauling utilized 1 BLM and 

BPA road. 

2007 

Deep Six Density 

Management 

Thin 139 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. Project includes approximately 

0.5 mile of temporary road construction. Approximately 1 acre of clearcut 

right-of-way in early-seral stands. Hauling would utilize 7 BLM roads and 

one private road. 

Planned 2008 

sale 

Olly Cat Density 

Management 

Thin 511 acres of mid-seral forest in LSR. Approximately 2.9 miles of 

temporary road construction. Approximately 4 acres of clearcut in earlyseral stands. Hauling would utilize 17 existing BLM roads and 8 private 

roads. 

Planned 2008 

sale 

Pre-commercial Thinning Thinning and manual maintenance (brushing) 270 acres. 2007 

Middle South Umpqua Watershed 

Precommercial Thinning Thinning and manual maintenance (brushing) 165 acres. 2007 

Myrtle Creek Watershed 

Buck Fever Timber Sale Harvest 230 acres of late-seral forest. Approximately 164 acres in the 

Matrix and 66 acres in the Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation. 

When taken together with the other three sold/unawarded sales the total 

harvest represents 3.3% of late-seral forest on BLM-managed lands in 

watershed. Estimated 0.57 mile of new road constructed, with 0.5 mile 

Sold but 

unawarded sale 

from the late 

1990s; a new 

effects analysis 
4.13-7 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

being permanent. Hauling would utilize 8 existing BLM roads. pending. 

Class of ’98 Timber Sale Harvest 204 acres of late-seral forest with approximately 182 acres in 

Matrix and 22 acres in the Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation. 

When taken together with the other three sold/unawarded sales the total 

harvest represents 3.3% of late-seral forest on BLM-managed lands in the 

watershed. Estimated 1.4 mile of new road would be constructed, with 1.2 

mile being permanent. Hauling would utilize 5 existing BLM roads and 2 

private roads. 

Sold but 

unawarded sale 

from the late 

1990s; a new 

effects analysis 

pending. 

Dream Weaver Timber Sale Harvest 128 acres of late-seral forest, with 103 acres in Matrix and 25 acres 

in the Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation. When taken 

together with the other three sold/unawarded sales the total harvest 

represents 3.3% of late-seral forest on BLM-managed lands in watershed. 

Estimated 0.6 mile of new, permanent road would be constructed. Hauling 

would utilize 6 existing BLM roads. 

Sold but 

unawarded sale 

from the late 

1990s; a new 

effects analysis 

pending. 

Sweet Pea Timber Sale Harvest 6 acres of late-seral forest in Matrix land use allocation. When 

taken together with the other three sold/unawarded sales the total harvest 

represents 3.3% of late-seral forest on BLM-managed lands in the 

watershed. Hauling would utilize 1 existing BLM road. 

Sold but 

unawarded sale 

from the late 

1990s; a new 

effects analysis 

pending. 

Rise and Fall Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 141 acres of mid-seral forest with 43 acres in Matrix and 65 acres in 

the Connectivity/Diversity Block and 33 acres in Riparian Reserves land 

use allocation. 0.2 mile of new, permanent road constructed. Hauling 

utilized six existing BLM roads. 

2007 

Lucky Louis Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 120 acres of mid-seral forest with 106 acres in Matrix and 14 acres in 

Riparian Reserves land use allocation. 0.2 mile of temporary road 

construction. Hauling utilized 5 existing BLM roads and 1 private road. 

2007 

Bobbin Weave Commercial 

Thinning 

Thin 226 acres of mid-seral forest with 94 acres in Matrix, 96 acres in the 

Connectivity/Diversity Block and 46 acres in Riparian Reserves. 2 acres of 

right-of-way clearcut to accommodate the construction of 0.9 mile of new 

road. Hauling utilized 14 existing BLM roads and one private road. 

2007 

Pre-commercial Thinning Thinning and manual maintenance (brushing) acres in 2007. 2007 

Reciprocal Rights-of-Way 

Actions 

Renovation of approximately 700 feet and construction of 300-foot 

extension of BLM Road No. 29-4-31.0. The proposed 300 feet of 

construction would remove less than 0.25 acre of mid-seral BLM forest. 

2008 

South Umpqua River Watershed 

Myrtle Morgan Timber Sale Harvest 228 acres of late-seral forest with 77 acres in Matrix and 151 acres 

in the Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation. Taken together with 

the Screen Pass and Hi-Yo Silver timber sales, this represents 

approximately 1.6 percent of all late-seral forest on BLM Lands in the 

watershed. Estimated 1.8 miles of new roads consisting of temporary, 

semi–permanent and permanent roads. Approximately 1 acre clearcut 

right-of-way. Hauling would utilize 4 existing BLM roads and 1 private road. 

Completion next 2 

to 3 years 

Status: suspended 

Screen Pass Timber Sale Harvest 113 acres of late-seral forest in Matrix land use allocation. 

Approximately 0.9 mile of temporary road would be constructed requiring 1 

acre of right-of-way clearcut. Hauling would utilize 6 existing BLM roads 

and 1 private road. 

Completion next 2 

to 3 years 

Status: suspended 

Hi-Yo Silver Timber Sale Harvest 142 acres of late-seral forest with 67 acres in Matrix and 75 acres 

in the Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocation. 0.8 mile of new 

temporary and semi-permanent road constructed with less than 0.25 acre 

of right-of-way clearcutting. Hauling utilized 2 existing BLM roads and 4 

private roads. 

2007 

Pre-commercial Thinning Thinning and manual maintenance (brushing) of 199 acres. 2007 

Manual Maintenance Manual Maintenance (brushing) of 1,114 acres. 2007 

Elk Creek South Umpqua Watershed 

Cattle Grazing 32,860 acres ongoing 

Joe Hall Instream Phase 2 

Enhancement 

1 mile – placing large wood completed 

Joe Hall Landslide 

Stabilization Enhancement 

5 acres excavation, willow planting 2008 
4.13-8 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

Brownie Instream 

Enhancement 

3 miles – placing large wood 2008 

Brownie Instream logs 

Enhancement 

14 acres – removing blow-down trees ongoing 

Devils Knob Fuel Break 475 acres commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, prescribed burn. 2009 

Diamond Cr. Bridge 

Construction 

2 acres – tree removal, bridge construction 2008 

Drew Vegetation 365 acres pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, prescribed burn. 2008 

Weed Treatment 50 acres per year. Hand pulling and cutting. ongoing 

Upper Cow Creek River Watershed 

Cattle Grazing 8,250 acres ongoing 

Devils Flat Fuel Break 180 acres pre-commercial thinning. ongoing 

Cow Creek Timber Sale 3,000 acres commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, prescribed 

burning. 

2010 

Weed Treatment 5 acres per year ongoing 

Red Mountain fuel break 300 acres commercial thinning, 350 acres pre-commercial thinning 2009 

Un-named Rock Pit 

Expansion 

Development of a new rock pit, encompasses about 12 acres, near the 

existing Peavine Rock Pit 

2010 or later 

Trail Creek Watershed 

Precommercial Thinning 26 acres 2008 

Maintenance-Underburn 189acres 2009 

Cattle Grazing 4,230 acres ongoing 

Rogue River-Shady Creek Watershed 

Butte Falls Highway 815 acres fuels – understory removal 2008 

Old Ferry Road 350 acres Fuels – understory removal 2009 

SE Shady Cove 456 acres Fuels – understory removal 2009 

West Shady Cove 308 acres Fuels – understory removal 2010 

Trail Creek 189 acres maintenance – underburn 2009 

Avista Distribution Facilities Facilities to be constructed to distribute natural gas received from Pacific 

Connector pipeline. Facilities not yet designed, but described in section 

2.2.3.1. 

In service by 2011 

Big Butte Creek Watershed 

Bear Springs 450-acre timber sale 2010 

Campy 1,010-acre timber sale 2009 

Corridor 530-acre timber sale 2009 

Hare 650-acre timber sale 2010 

Holy Cow 875-acre timber sale 2010 

Jax 285-acre timber sale 2011 

Pan 225-acre timber sale 2011 

Salty 595-acre timber sale 2009 

Sweeter 825-acre timber sale 2011 

Whisker 530-acre timber sale 2011 

Rustler 940-acre timber sale 2013 

Rustler 725-acres pre-commercial thinning 2009-2014 

Willow Prairie 8 acres danger tree felling/salvage harvest 2009 

Bowen Arrow 615-acre timber sale 2008 

Camp Cur 799-acre timber sale 2005 

Camp Stew 266-acre timber sale 2005 

Double Ginger 754-acre timber sale 2008 

Eighty Acre 2,608-acre timber sale 2010 

Lower Big Butte 467-acre maintenance underburn 2008-2010 

Ranch Stew 1,208-acre pine plantation thin, residual stand thin 2008 

Twin Ranch 900-acre timber sale 2008 
4.13-9 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1-1. 

Current or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Potentially Affecting Resources of Concern 

Activity Project Description 

Construction 

Dates 

Little Butte Creek Watershed 

Heppsie Mountain 3 million board feet regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and density 

management. 

Sale 2010 

Bieber Wasson 170 acre maintenance underburn. 2009 

East Ashland (Big Elk) 340 acres commercial timber harvest-thinning 2009 

East Ashland (Big Elk) 2110 acres pre-commercial thinning 2010 

Camp Latgawa 117 acres hazardous fuels reduction pre-commercial thinning, hand pile 

and burn slash 

2009 

Meadow Restoration 31 acres underburning and 37 acres pre-commercial thinning 2010 

Cattle Grazing 15,404 acres ongoing 

Hazard Tree Removal In campgrounds ongoing 

Active Campgrounds Three campgrounds along FS Road 37 are maintained and utilized in the 

summer. 

ongoing 

Snowmobile Trail Grooming Along several FS roads that would be crossed by the pipeline. ongoing 

Spencer Creek Watershed 

Tunnel Creek DDR 252.18-acre hand cut –scatter and prescribed burn-underburn 2007-2008 

Buck 13 24-acre timber sale 2008 

Buck Again 823-acre timber sale 2008 

Buck Indian Allotment 20,000 acres Ongoing 

annually 

Dead Indian Memorial and 

Clover Creek Highways 

Noxious Weed Treatment 

7 miles Ongoing 

annually 

Klamath River John C Boyle Reservoir Watershed 

Big Bend Thinning 115-acre hand cut-pile 2007 

Dorris 1 9-acre hand cut-pile 2007 

Oak Thin 1,954-acre hand cut-pile 2007 

KRC Oak Thin 1-6 3,815-acre hand cut-pile 2007 

Pleasant Valley 884-acre prescribed burn-underburn 2007 

Hamaker II 78-acre timber sale 2007 

Pleasant Valley 13-3 & 7 724-acre utilization 2007 

PVJ 648-acre timber sale 2008 

Big Bend Thinning 115-acre prescribed burn-underburn 2008 

Oak Thin 1,954-acre prescribed burn-underburn 2008 

Klamath River Campground 102-acre hand cut-pile 2009 

Chicken Hills DDR 174-acre utilization 2009 

Lake Ewauna-Upper Klamath River Watershed 

Keno 2 199-acre prescribed burn-piles 

Lower Lost River Watershed 

FTZ 176 Mod 124-acre prescribed burn-piles 2008 

FTZ 176 M 329-acre prescribed burn-piles 2008 

Hill Allotment 270-acre prescribed burn-piles 2008 

North Aspen 210-acre prescribed burn-piles 2008 

FTZ 98-9 35-acre prescribed burn-underburn 2008 

Seven Little Stukels 400-acre prescribed burn-piles 2009 

FTZ 98-2 836-acre prescribed burn-underburn 2009 

4.13.1.1 Existing Conditions in the Area Evaluated for Cumulative Effects 

Existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed slip, LNG terminal, pipeline, 

and related structures reflect the extensive changes brought about by long-term human 

occupancy and use of the Project area. For example, native vegetative communities in the 

Project area have been substantially altered during historic times by timber harvest, agricultural 

practices, mining, introduction of non-native species, and commercial/industrial and residential 
4.13-10 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

developments; rivers and streams have been physically altered; and fish and wildlife resources 

have been impacted by habitat alteration or loss. Some changes, such as altered habitat, may be 

beneficial for one resource while detrimental to another. 

Even before the Euro-American settlement of Oregon began in the early 1800s, Native 

Americans were known to alter the natural environment through the use of fires to clear forests 

and understory and increase the size of meadows for wild plant collecting and create browse for 

large game animals. Native Americans also altered waterbodies for fishing purposes, such as the 

building of weirs evidenced by archaeological remains in the Coos Bay estuary. 

Cutting of forests in the Pacific Northwest began in the 1800s when the first European 

immigrants began to settle and farm in this region. Initially, forests in the valley floors were 

cleared to make way for agriculture. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, extraction of timber for 

commercial purposes began to increase. Lumber camps sprang up around the region, especially 

in areas accessible by river or steam locomotive. Lowland areas close to human population 

centers were logged first, followed eventually by less accessible areas in more mountainous 

terrain (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993). 

Agriculture and development of agrarian communities followed the clearing of lowland areas. 

As population increased so did railways and transportation infrastructure. The central economy 

of the region remained tied to the lumber industry for many decades. Logging in these early 

years frequently consisted of a clearcut and burn approach in which noncommercial species and 

many small diameter trees were left following logging, with little or no attention to replanting 

after harvest (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993). Over the last 150 years, 

Oregon’s environment has been significantly altered, converting grasslands, wetlands, and 

woodlands to ranches, farms, and cities. Its streams and rivers have been harnessed as sources of 

water, energy, and transport, and as a way to dispose of residues and pollutants (Oregon Progress 

Board (OPB) 2000). 

Shortly after World War II, subsequent to the invention of the gas-powered chain saw, and 

improvements in transportation, logging began in earnest on forested lands in the Pacific 

Northwest, particularly on federal lands. European methods of forest management were 

gradually adopted on most federal and private lands, including techniques such as clearcutting, 

removal of logs and snags, slash burning, thinning, and planting of single species stands on 

cutover areas (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993). The assumption was 

that forests managed in this manner could be cut and regrown at relatively short intervals (e.g., 

40 to 80 years) without negatively affecting other resources such as water quality, fish, soils, or 

terrestrial animals. 

As a result of over a century of logging and fire control, the forests of the Pacific Northwest 

presently consist of a fragmented mosaic of recent clearcuts, thinned stands, and young 

plantations interspersed with uncut natural stands (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 

Team, 1993). The natural stands that remain range from 1,000-year-old or older forests of large 

trees to relatively young, even-aged stands that have regenerated following wildfires. Because 

wildfires and windstorms often killed only part of the trees in a stand, natural stands are 

frequently characterized by uneven-aged mixtures of trees that survived a catastrophic event and 

younger trees that filled in the understory after the event. Where many large old trees remain in 

the overstory, these stands are usually referred to as "old growth,” "late successional,” or 
4.13-11 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

"ancient forests" (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993). Where only 

scattered individuals or patches of large old trees remain and the majority of the stand consists of 

young or mature trees, stands are referred to as "mixed age" or even "young." Mixed-age stands 

are particularly common in some areas, such as the Oregon Coast Range, where extensive fires 

occurred in the 1800s. Species associated with or dependent on these late-successional and oldgrowth forests, such as NSOs and MAMUs, have been negatively impacted by habitat loss (see 

section 4.6). 

Land management practices, hydroelectric development, agriculture and population growth have, 

in combination with ocean habitat conditions and over fishing, negatively affected many resident 

and anadromous fish populations. Restoration efforts in recent years have done much to improve 

aquatic habitats but many fish species remain in decline. 

Changes in public perceptions and expectations concerning management on federal lands in the 

Pacific Northwest and elsewhere have led to a substantial increase in protection of unique 

ecosystems and species, increased concern with riparian areas, and experimentation with 

methods of "new forestry" designed to retain some of the structural features found in old forests 

and thereby more closely imitate natural disturbance regimes. As these changes have occurred, 

harvest rates of timber on federal lands have declined, and considerable controversy has ensued 

(Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993). The 1990s saw revolutionary 

changes in the management of federal lands, which make up approximately half the state, mostly 

forest and range land. Federal managers reduced the timber harvest on federal lands by 80 

percent in less than a decade and refocused management onto protection of biodiversity, 

especially old growth species and fish stocks. In addition, evolving plans for federal range lands 

call for management that restores the natural processes, especially disturbance processes to these 

lands (OPB 2000). 

Today, Oregon’s environment reflects a mixture of natural processes and human influences 

across a range of conditions, from areas defined by relatively natural structures and functions to 

areas completely dominated by human activities (OPB 2000) and federal lands are managed 

primarily for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitats with an emphasis on hazardous forest fuels 

reductions. In the past decade, large, stand replacing wild fires have been among the central 

issues affecting public lands in southwest Oregon. Since the inception of the NWFP in 1994, the 

majority of the NSO habitat loss in the region has been the result of stand replacing wildfire. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all 

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute 

to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking 

this approach. A catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile. 

Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and 

beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would 

be nearly impossible. Finally, the CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 

regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 
4.13-12 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into 

the historical details of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with USFS implementing NEPA 

Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past 

actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified 

those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the 

extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, 

modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the 

cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, 

during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must 

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required 

analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be 

useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do 

not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past 

actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with 

reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. 

(40 CFR 1508.7)” 

For these reasons, this cumulative impact section recognizes past impacts as expressed by current 

environmental conditions as described in the previous sections (sections 4.1 through 4.12).

4.13.1.2 Mitigation Proposed to Offset Unavoidable Project Impacts 

In addition to the projects identified in table 4.13.1-1 and the text above, restoration and 

enhancement projects have occurred and are expected to continue to occur across the watersheds 

affected, which would decrease the cumulative impact of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. This would include the mitigation measures required by the USFS and BLM 

to offset unavoidable impacts due to the proposed PCG Pipeline across federal lands. Working 

with the USFS and BLM, Pacific Connector has developed a mitigation plan that includes 

specific mitigation measures to offset unavoidable impacts (Appendix L3). These mitigation 

measures are reasonably foreseeable actions, and have been included in this EIS in the evaluation 

of impact on those resources for which the mitigations are designed to address. These measures 

are summarized by category in table 4.13.1-2 and are listed in more detail in Appendix L3, and 

include habitat and vegetation improvements (creation of down wood and snags, stand density 

management, riparian plantings, and noxious weed monitoring and treatment); placing large 

woody debris and providing large wood pieces for restoration projects; road decommissioning, 

paving, and maintenance to reduce sedimentation; protecting springs and seeps, cattle exclusions, 

land acquisition to benefit specific species or habitats; culvert replacements; visual impact 

mitigations, and other beneficial projects. 
4.13-13 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.1.2-1 

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Actions to Offset Unavoidable Impacts 

Bureau of Land Management USDA-Forest Service

Compensatory Mitigation 

Coos Bay District Roseburg District Medford District Lakeview District Umpqua National Forest Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Fremont-Winema National Forest Non-Federal Lands 

Land Re-Allocation (Matrix to LSR) 585 

acres 

593 

acres 

Road Decommissioning/Closure 9.9 

 miles 

13 

miles 

54.5 

miles 

Other Road Mitigation 5.3 

miles 

Forest Stand Treatments 830 

acres 

250-300

acres 

270 

acres 

3,500

acres 

2,840 

acres 

500 

acres 

Stream/Riparian Treatments 4.5 

miles 

2.75 

miles 

21.5 

 miles 

6 

miles 

Stream Crossing Treatments 1 

site 

5 

sites 

23 

sites 

1 

site 

LWD Stream/Riparian Placement 27 

pieces 

307 

pieces 

34 

pieces 

19 

pieces 

6 

pieces 

430 

pieces 

Other, Specific Habitat Mitigation Yes Yes Yes 

Coos Bay Estuary Habitat Mitigation 39 

acres 

Land Acquisition 72 

acres 

150 

acres 

68 

acres 

558 

acres 

4.13.2 Cumulative Effects to Resources 

Cumulative effects are discussed by resource below. For each resource, the potential direct and indirect 

impacts associated with the Project are discussed in relation to the cumulative effects that may occur if 

the other current, past, or reasonably foreseeable projects overlap in time or space. 

The temporal period where effects may overlap those of other projects varies; short-term effects 

may last only a few years, while long-term effects may last for decades. Only projects that occur 

or have remnant effects within the period of time where the effects of this Project occur or 

remain could have a cumulative effect. Similarly, the spatial extent of the effects of other 

projects must overlap those of this Project to have a cumulative effect. Impacts included in the 

following discussion are those for which, temporal scales and impact footprints coincide with 

impacts addressed in the previous sections (4.1 through 4.12). 

In table 4.13.2-1, the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed 

in table 4.13.1-1 are presented as a percentage of impacts within each watershed and are summed 

with the Project’s expected impacts. In some of these watersheds, the cumulative impacts from 

the other projects represent a relatively large percentage of the total watershed area. In most 

cases, however, the largest (by area of impact, does not necessarily correlate with greatest 
4.13-14 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

magnitude of impact) projects involve ongoing cattle grazing (Elk Creek South Umpqua 

Watershed, Little Butte Creek Watershed, Upper Cow Creek River Watershed, and Trail Creek 

Watershed), vegetation thinning (Klamath River John C Boyle Reservoir Watershed), or Indian 

allotment (Spencer Creek Watershed). 

TABLE 4.13.2-1 

Cumulative Acres Impacted by Watershed a/

Activity Acres 

Percent of 

Watershed 

Watershed: Coos Bay Frontal 187,098 

Other Identified Projects b/ 166 0.09 

Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 911 0.49 

Cumulative Acres 1,076 0.58 

Watershed: Lower Coquille River 112,081 

Other Identified Projects c/ 0 0.00 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 60 0.05 

Cumulative Acres 60 0.05 

Watershed: North Fork Coquille River 97,928 

Other Identified Projects 1,646 1.68 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 145 0.15 

Cumulative Acres 1,791 1.83 

Watershed: East Fork Coquille River 85,828 

Other Identified Projects d/ 3,720 4.33 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 188 0.22 

Cumulative Acres 3,908 4.55 

Watershed: Middle Fork Coquille River 197,176 

Other Identified Projects 18,440 9.35 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 307 0.16 

Cumulative Acres 18,747 9.51 

Watershed: Olalla Creek – Lookingglass 103,109 

Other Identified Projects 1,106 1.07 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 159 0.15 

Cumulative Acres 1,265 1.23 

Watershed: Middle South Umpqua 59,397 

Other Identified Projects 165 0.28 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 610 1.03 

Cumulative Acres 775 1.30 

Watershed: Myrtle Creek 76,265 

Other Identified Projects e/ 1,057 1.39 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 265 0.35 

Cumulative Acres 1,323 1.73 

Watershed: South Umpqua River Watershed 141,442 

Other Identified Projects 1,796 1.27 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 786 0.56 

Cumulative Acres 2,582 1.83 

Watershed: Elk Creek South Umpqua 54,895 

Other Identified Projects f/ 33,771 23.88 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 47 0.09 

Cumulative Acres 33,818 61.61 

Watershed: Upper Cow Creek River 47,416 

Other Identified Projects 12,097 25.51 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 99 0.21 

Cumulative Acres 12,196 25.72 
4.13-15 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

TABLE 4.13.2-1 

Cumulative Acres Impacted by Watershed a/

Activity Acres 

Percent of 

Watershed 

Watershed: Trail Creek 28,867 

Other Identified Projects 4,445 15.40 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 235 0.82 

Cumulative Acres 4,680 16.21 

Watershed: Rouge River – Shady Creek 58,436 

Other Identified Projects 2,132 3.65 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 149 0.25 

Cumulative Acres 2,267 3.88 

Watershed: Big Butte Creek 43,813 

Other Identified Projects 15,365 35.07 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 97 0.22 

Cumulative Acres 15,462 35.29 

Watershed: Little Butte Creek 238,598 

Other Identified Projects g/ 2,805 1.18 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 620 0.26 

Cumulative Acres 3,425 1.44 

Watershed: Spencer Creek 54,420 

Other Identified Projects 21,099 38.77 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities g/ 2 0.00 

Cumulative Acres 21,101 38.77 

Watershed: Klamath River / John C Boyle Reservoir 84,703 

Other Identified Projects 10,572 12.48 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 132 0.16 

Cumulative Acres 10,704 12.64 

Watershed: Lake Ewauna – Upper Klamath River 78,038 

Other Identified Projects 199 0.26 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 487 0.62 

Cumulative Acres 686 0.88 

Watershed: Lost River 110,118 

Other Identified Projects 2,204 2.00 

Pacific Connector Pipeline and Associated Facilities 506 0.46 

Cumulative Acres 2,710 2.46 

a/ Other Identified Projects include only those listed in table 4.13.1-1

b/ Does not include TransPacific Railway Realignment. Coos Bay Channel Modification is estimated to impact 102 acres within 

Coos Bay. 

c/ No projects have been identified in this watershed. 

d/ Does not include Brummit Creek Instream Restoration Project. 

e/ Does not include pre-commercial thinning. 

f/ Does not include placing large wood. 

g/ Does not include Heppsie Mountain thinning. 

h/ Does not include noxious weed treatments. 

4.13.2.1 Geology 

Aside from soil liquefaction potential at the LNG terminal site, geologic hazards related to the 

Project have been studied and determined not likely to present significant impacts. Pipeline 

design and routing would avoid significant or potential geologic hazard areas including 

landslides and faults. During construction, Pacific Connector would implement site-specific 

construction techniques and BMPs to mitigate local geological hazards that could not be 

completely avoided. Implementation of Pacific Connector’s ECRP would minimize or avoid the 

potential for construction to adversely affect slope stability at known or unknown geologic 
4.13-16 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

hazard sites. Consequently, cumulative impacts related to landslides and fault movements are 

not anticipated. 

Active, inactive, and planned mining sites within 0.25 mile of the Pacific Connector pipeline are 

identified in section 4.1. Other than mineral material sites (rock quarries), there are no 

reasonably foreseeable mining projects that would increase cumulative effects in the Project 

area. Rock removal and use from quarries managed by the BLM and the USFS may occur 

related to other projects identified in table 4.13.1-1 or for use by the agencies, such as for 

maintenance of existing roads. 

It is not anticipated that the cumulative effects of rock removal from quarries would be adverse. 

Because removal of rock from quarries on federal lands is at the discretion of the agency, rock 

needed for use by the agencies would be reserved. Rock stored in quarries as a result of pipeline 

construction could be used or sold by the agencies in the future. Adverse cumulative effects to 

geologic resources resulting from this project are not anticipated. 

4.13.2.2 Soils and Sediments 

Past land uses within watersheds crossed by the Project have disturbed soils from land clearing, 

residential development, forest harvest, agricultural mining, livestock grazing, and road 

development. These past actions removed soil cover and altered soils, increasing erosion 

potential and sediment yield. Any increase in land clearing and soil disturbance due to Project 

construction and operation has the potential to contribute to direct cumulative impacts. 

The site of the proposed LNG terminal is dominated by sandy soils. No prime farmland soils 

exist on the proposed LNG terminal or slip areas. The LNG terminal and slip sites area would 

temporarily impact about 26 acres of hydric soils within the Heceta map unit (NRCS 1989), 

much of which have been previously covered with dredged materials. About 100 acres may be 

further compacted during construction of the LNG terminal site and associated facilities; 

however, much of this site is already considered compacted due to previous uses. 

Implementation of Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures, as well as use of BMPs during 

construction (e.g., use of appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures), would 

minimize or reduce soil compaction, impacts of the proposed action on hydric soils, as well as 

temporary and long-term erosion potential. 

The pipeline could disturb more than 6,000 acres of soil. Soils along the proposed pipeline route 

are variable. About 32 percent of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are 

classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance (not all of these soils are 

currently in agricultural production), about 4 percent are hydric soils, and 83 percent are soils 

prone to compaction. The impacts to prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance soils 

would be less crop or no crop production for a short term during the construction phase, which, 

depending on the crop being produced, could physically interrupt farming practices for 1 to 2 

years. The only long-term and permanent impacts to prime farmland soils from the proposed 

pipeline that could contribute cumulatively to the effects of other projects would be associated 

with the aboveground facilities located on prime farmland soils. 

All soils crossed are susceptible to erosion and potential sedimentation impacts, compaction, and 

decreased soil productivity. Potential impacts on soils would be minimized through measures 

specified in Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures (for the LNG terminal) and Pacific Connector’s 
4.13-17 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

ECRP (for the pipeline). These plans were based on the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures and 

have been in practice for about 15 years. Pacific Connector’s ECRP was modified based on 

input from BLM and USFS, as well as revegetation recommendations from BLM, USFS, NRCS, 

and County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. With these measures, impacts are not 

anticipated to hydric soils, thus no cumulative effect would occur. Soil erosion is not expected to 

be significant, but the Project would result in some increase in erosion. 

Approximately 6.1 acres of soils would be used to construct 18 TARs, and approximately 2.8 

acres of soils would be used to construct or reconstruct 16 PARs to provide permanent access to 

some of the aboveground facilities (i.e., block valves, meter stations, and the compression 

station). Long-term impacts to soils are not anticipated in the TARs but would occur in the 

PARs. These soils would be permanently compacted unvegetated, and could cumulatively 

contribute to sedimentation within the watersheds crossed. Roads that have been or may be 

constructed as part of other projects within the same watershed would contribute cumulatively to 

this effect. 

On NFS lands, more than 20 percent of the soils affected by construction of the pipeline could be 

left in degraded conditions, due to compaction and displacement, which could exceed the 20 

percent soil disturbance thresholds in the Umpqua National Forest and Winema National Forest 

LRMPs, and would exceed the 10 percent threshold in the Rogue River LRMP. The USFS 

concluded that soil impacts would not meet the LRMP standards within the actual pipeline right 

of way. Decommissioning over 70 miles of roads on NFS lands would provide mitigation for 

acres that are displaced or compacted as result of pipeline construction by decompacting road 

surfaces and restoring surface drainage and water infiltration. See Appendix L3. 

Cumulative impacts to soil by erosion, compaction, or decreased productivity could occur where 

the LNG terminal and pipeline disturbance occurs in proximity to other planned projects within 

the watersheds (table 4.13.1-1). However, foreseeable silvicultural actions and associated road 

construction would have sufficient forest canopy remaining; most of the roads would be 

temporary, and all road building and maintenance would include BMPs to mitigate potential 

impacts to soil resources. Therefore, these projects should only have an incidental cumulative 

effect on soil erosion, compaction, and productivity. 

Facilities that are likely to be constructed as part of the Avista connection and distribution 

system (see section 2.2.3.1) would contribute to the soil impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the pipeline and Shady Cover Meter Station (near MP 122.1). As described in 

section 4.2, the soil at this site is sensitive to soil erosion, compaction, and reclamation, has steep 

slopes, large stones, high water table, restrictive soils, and has a high shrink/swell potential. The 

site is currently used for rangeland pasture. Construction and operation of Pacific Connector’s 

meter station would permanently remove 3.08 acres of soils from pasture production. 

Cumulative effects to soils and sediment resulting from this project may occur, but considering 

the measures in the applicants’ Plans and erosion control measures that would be implemented, 

the contribution would be very small. 
4.13-18 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

4.13.2.3 Water Resources and Wetlands 

Groundwater 

The Project would not use groundwater during construction or operations. Pipeline construction 

activity would be temporary and limited to surface disturbance and shallow trenching. Although 

trench and excavation dewatering would be required in some locations, dewatering discharge 

would occur on the surface and would be reintroduced to groundwater by infiltration, reducing 

localized impacts to groundwater. Potential cumulative impacts to groundwater from the 

proposed Project facilities are not expected to be measurable. 

While the pipeline would require tree clearing along the Project right-of-way, which would 

consequently lower the transpiration potential in the immediate area of the right-of-way, the 

potential increase in groundwater supply in the root zone is expected to be minor and 

immeasurable. Similarly, where the reasonably foreseeable silvicultural actions occur within the 

watershed crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline, sufficient forest canopy would remain such 

that no measurable effects on water yields and peak and base flows would be anticipated. 

Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to groundwater from cumulative forest clearing in the 

watersheds are expected to be insignificant.

Surface Water 

Past and current activities within watersheds that contribute to surface water resources 

cumulative impacts include: past settlement, forest harvesting, and extensive land clearing for 

livestock grazing, riparian logging, bottomland use for pasture, residential developments, road 

building on floodplains and timber lands, stream channelization, and log transport. Rivers have 

been harnessed as sources of water, energy, and transport, and as a way to dispose of residues 

and pollutants (OPB 2000). Water quality has been impacted through the removal of riparian 

shade, water withdrawals, and increased stream temperatures. Sediment delivery to streams has 

increased from development, land clearing, and road building. Many in-stream habitats have 

become degraded with loss of gravel and cobble as well as loss and degradation of pools, and 

depletion of LWD in streams and potential recruitment. As described in the section 4.3, 

construction of the Project could result in short-term impacts to waterbodies that have been 

previously impacted. Potential impacts on water resources would be minimized through 

measures specified in Jordan Cove’s Plan and Procedures (for the LNG terminal) and Pacific 

Connector’s ECRP (for the pipeline). 

The proposed Project, together with the projects identified in table 4.13.1-1 and elsewhere in this 

section, is not expected to cause significant cumulative impacts to surface waters. Where 

silvicultural actions occur, sufficient forest canopy would remain such that no measurable effects 

on water yields and peak and base flows would be anticipated; most roads would be temporary, 

and all road building and maintenance would include BMPs to mitigate potential impacts to 

water resources, including peak flows. It is not expected that forest clearing associated with 

pipeline construction and operations within any of the watersheds would have a measurable 

influence on water yields, or peak and base flows. Table 4.13.2-1 shows that impacts related to 

the proposed Project range from less than 0.01 percent to just over 1 percent of the affected 

watersheds. Clearing within the transient snow zone is not likely to measurably as discussed in 

section 4.3.2.5. Therefore, we would not expect Project impacts to water resources to be 

cumulatively significant. 
4.13-19 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Potential cumulative impacts within the fifth-field watersheds could include turbidity and 

sediment from construction and future runoff from areas cleared during construction but not 

stabilized with vegetation. Pacific Connector proposes to cross waterbodies that contain flowing 

or standing water at the time of construction using one of the “dry crossing” methods, which 

would substantially reduce in-stream turbidity caused by construction. Temporary spikes in 

turbidity would be expected for a short period of time during the setup and removal of structures 

to support the dry crossing. However, given the proposed construction sequence, it is unlikely 

that more than one of these temporary turbidity spikes would occur at the same time within the 

same fifth-field watershed. Measures from Pacific Connector’s ECRP would limit the potential 

for runoff and sediment from the right-of-way entering waterbodies. As a result, we do not 

believe that the Project would cause a discernable increase in stream turbidity or sediment even 

when considered cumulatively with the other projects discussed in this section. 

Cumulative impacts from erosion and sedimentation could occur where the pipeline disturbance 

occurs in proximity to other planned projects within the watersheds. However, as previously 

indicated, foreseeable silvicultural actions and associated road construction would have 

sufficient forest canopy remaining; most of the roads would be temporary, and new permanent 

roads would not be connected to drainage networks. Therefore, these projects should only have 

an incidental effect on erosion and sedimentation. 

The use of water for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline may result in the transfer of water from 

one drainage basin to another. However, as discussed in section 4.3.2.4, Pacific Connector 

would be required to adhere to all necessary permit conditions and is proposing to use methods 

for test water withdrawal and discharge that we believe are consistent with industry practices, 

and that have been shown through use on many similar pipeline projects to adequately minimize 

impacts on waterbodies. We have also recommended that Pacific Connector continue to consult 

with the federal land management agencies during development of final hydrostatic testing plans 

to ensure that concerns about potential transfer of test water between drainage basins are 

adequately addressed. No other projects have been identified that involve the inter-basin transfer 

of water in the same watersheds and the direct and indirect effects due to the pipeline hydrostatic 

testing have been minimized by design measures. Cumulative effects to surface water resources, 

including flow volumes and timing, could occur if another project affected the same waterbodies 

during the same time (when hydrostatic test water is being withdrawn, store/used, or discharged, 

and until the effects of the discharge have dissipated); no such projects have been unidentified 

that are expected to have a consequential effect. 

Within the Coos Bay estuary, short-term cumulative impacts can be expected from the slip 

construction, while it would be open to Coos Bay, and the pipeline trenching and installation. As 

discussed in section 4.3.2.3, approximately 41 acres of the 72 acres to be dredged for the slip and 

access channel would be conducted in isolation from the waters of Coos Bay. However, the 

potential for these short-term cumulative effects would depend on the year in which these two 

components of this Project were implemented. Construction of both the pipeline and slip, while 

it would be open to Coos Bay, would be scheduled during the recommended ODFW in-water 

work periods between October and mid-February to minimize impacts to aquatic species in the 

estuary. If the access channel and slip were constructed at the same time as the pipeline, shortterm cumulative increases in turbidity from channel access dredging and pipe trench excavation 
4.13-20 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

activities as well as construction and removal of the earthen berm used to isolate the slip could 

contribute to turbidity increases. 

The primary cumulative impact associated with dredging is turbidity. Turbidity impacts 

associated with the projects discussed in this section would be of a short duration and would not 

be expected to overlap spatially with the JCE & PCGP Project. That is, the turbidity plumes 

associated with dredging would not likely be additive. Consequently, turbidity impacts are 

cumulative only in the sense that a single body of water would incur these impacts. Given the 

volume and dynamic nature of Coos Bay, we would not expect water quality impacts to be 

cumulatively significant. Both Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would develop turbidity 

monitoring and management plans for their Project activities, which would minimize the 

potential for significant short-term cumulative turbidity effects. 

As a result of the pipeline’s linear nature, it is not possible to avoid crossing waterbodies and 

riparian areas. While the removal of riparian vegetation during silvicultural practices can 

increase the temperature of streams, available information on the effects of linear pipeline 

crossings of streams on water temperature indicates there is little or no change as a result of 

pipeline crossings (see section 4.3). If another project resulted in shade removal along the same 

waterbody, at or near the proposed crossing location, there could be a cumulative effect to stream 

temperature; however, because measurable temperature increases are only expected to occur 

within streams with extremely small flow volumes, the contribution of this Project to cumulative 

stream temperature changes would be minimal. 

Proposed mitigation measures on NFS lands that would reduce impacts to surface waters 

include: 

• Road decommissioning which protects surface waters by restoring drainage and 

infiltration, thus reducing the hydrologic impact of the road. 

• Repairing stream crossings associated with road decommissioning which benefits surface 

waters by reducing sediment and restoring connectivity 

• Installing stream simulator culverts in the East Fork of Cow Creek, which benefits 

surface waters by restoring aquatic connectivity. 

Although dredging and excavation activities of both the Jordan Cove terminal and the Pacific 

Connector pipeline could resuspend sediment contaminants, cumulative impacts are not expected 

to be significant. Sediment sampling information provided by the COE indicates that potential 

sediment contamination is unlikely in the vicinity of the proposed slip and the pipeline. Both 

Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector would adhere to site-specific SPCCPs to ensure that potential 

contamination of surface water from Project construction activities is minimized. 

Lower Coos Bay, within the Project area, is listed on the Oregon 303(d) list as water quality 

limited for fecal coliform. The ODEQ is in the process of developing TMDLs for watersheds 

and subbasins in Oregon. TMDLs describe the amount of each pollutant a waterway can receive 

and still not violate water quality standards. Construction of the slip, access channel, and 

pipeline and operation of the LNG terminal would comply with COE 404, ODSL Removal-Fill, 

and NPDES permit conditions. Sanitary waste would be collected in an on-site holding tank and 

removed by a sanitary waste contractor. There would be no discharge of sanitary waste to Coos 

Bay. 
4.13-21 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Development of the North Spit Barge Slip at Southport Forest Products, or any other shipping 

slips, would likely have similar impacts to those of the slip. Because both projects would be 

required to meet all regulatory and permit conditions, the cumulative effects to the environment 

would be short term and minimal. There would likely be a cumulative increase in vessel traffic 

associated with the LNG terminal and the improved North Spit Barge Facility. 

Wetlands 

Oregon has lost an estimated 38 percent of its original wetlands (Morlan 2000). Most Oregon 

estuaries have been significantly altered historically, mostly through the diking and draining of 

estuarine marshes in the early to mid-1900s for pasture and other agricultural use. Filling of 

intertidal lands for urban and port development up through the late 1960s further reduced the 

area of estuaries, as ports grew and navigation channels were deepened to support that growth 

(OPB 2000). Between 1870 and 1970, tidal wetlands and estuaries in Coos Bay decreased an 

estimated 66 and 20 percent, respectively (OPB 2009). 

Construction and operation of the slip and access channel would result in the additional loss of 

approximately 3.85 acres of intertidal habitat, 4.45 acres of shallow subtidal habitat, and 39.5 

acres of deep subtidal habitat. Included among the subtidal habitat affected would be 

approximately 6.8 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation. The Port has proposed mitigation to 

offset the permanent impact to wetlands that would result from construction and operation of the 

slip and access channel. To mitigate for loss of intertidal unvegetated sand-mud flats and algal 

flat, the Port proposes to restore and enhance approximately 35 acres of low mud-flat habitat at 

the Kentuck mitigation site. 

With the exception of the communities described above, construction and operation of the Jordan 

Cove LNG terminal facilities would not directly affect wetlands. During construction, Jordan 

Cove would implement erosion and sediment control measures from its Plan and Procedures, 

which would prevent impact to wetlands not directly affected by facility construction. 

Some wetlands at the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile site may be impacted due to the storage 

of dredged material. Sand generated during dredging activities would be stored at the Port 

Commercial Sand Stockpile site for 7 years, resulting in a long-term adverse impact to 0.1 acre 

of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. The Port is prepared to undergo revegetation efforts at this 

location following closure; however, the implementation of these revegetation efforts would be 

dependent on the land use proposed for the Port Commercial Sand Stockpile site after the sand 

has been removed (after 7 years). 

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

construction right-of-way and TEWAs would impact approximately 123.2 acres of palustrine 

emergent wetlands, 77.6 acres of estuary wetlands, , 48.2 acres of riverine wetlands, 4.2 acres of 

palustrine forested wetlands, 2.1 acres of palustrine aquatic bed intermittently exposed/excavated 

wetlands, 1.4 acres of palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetlands, and 0.4 acre of palustrine 

scrub-shrub wetlands. 

At MP 68.68, within the site of the Clarks Branch Meter Station, 0.1 acre of emergent wetland 

would be permanently filled. Following construction, vegetation maintenance within the 

permanent operational right-of-way would convert forested or scrub-shrub wetlands to a 

different wetland type resulting in a different wetland function. Permanent wetland vegetation 
4.13-22 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

conversion would occur in approximately 1.1 acres of palustrine forested wetlands and 0.1 acre 

of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. The total permanent wetland vegetation type conversion 

would be approximately 1.2 acres; therefore, the total permanent impacts to wetlands resulting 

from permanent fill (0.1 acre) and permanent type conversion (1.2 acres) would be 1.3 acres, or 

0.5 percent of the total wetland disturbances. 

Pacific Connector has identified proposed compensatory mitigation for the 0.1 acre of permanent 

wetland impacts associated with fill at two wetlands. Pacific Connector proposes to provide 

compensatory mitigation by acquiring credits in a mitigation bank (i.e., Cow Hollow) or by 

applying other COE- and ODSL-approved compensatory mitigation methodologies. Pacific 

Connector also proposes to acquire credits in the Cow Hollow Mitigation Bank to compensate 

for permanent conversion of 1.2 acres of forested and scrub-shrub wetland to emergent wetland. 

With implementation of the proposed mitigation, wetland impacts for the Project would be 

minor, and would not be expected to contribute to cumulative impacts to wetlands within the 

affected watersheds. 

4.13.2.4 Vegetation and Timber 

Past land uses within watersheds affected by the proposed Project facilities have had negative 

effects on vegetation. In most watersheds, past forest harvest, mining, and livestock grazing 

have led to extensive land clearing or vegetation alteration. Noxious weeds have proliferated in 

some watersheds. Tree diseases have become established in some watersheds as well. 

Alterations to fire regimes due to human activities (both fire suppression and ignitions) have 

resulting in alterations to plant communities 

Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would impact approximately 117.2 acres of 

vegetation, of which about 114.2 acres would be permanently impacted. Of these 114.2 acres of 

permanent impacts, approximately 61.5 acres would occur to dune forest, 16.7 acres herbaceous 

vegetation, and 36.0 acres disturbed habitat. In addition, dredged material disposal at the Port 

Commercial Sand Stockpile site would impact an additional 7.2 acres of dune forest and 60.7 

acres of herbaceous vegetation. Mitigation for the loss of vegetation would be accomplished 

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

replacement ratios acceptable to ODFW and USFS in terms of quantity and quality. 

Long-term effects from construction of the pipeline would occur on approximately 683.8 acres of 

late successional old-growth forests, 642.5 acres of mid-seral forests, 711.7 acres of regenerating 

young forests, and 4.9 acres of riparian forest. A total of 848.9 acres of vegetation (forested and 

non-forested) would be periodically mowed and maintained in a shrub or herbaceous state within 

the permanent easement (a 30-foot maintenance corridor). This removal would contribute to the 

cumulative effects to vegetation by past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions by land management 

agencies and public activities on private lands. Construction and operation of the Pacific 

Connector pipeline would have a cumulative impact on the removal of trees that may contribute 

to snag and down wood habitat in the future. Table 4.13.1-2 shows that Project-related impacts 

range from less than 0.01 percent to just over 1 percent of the affected watersheds; therefore, we 

would not expect project impacts due to vegetation and timber disturbance to be cumulatively 

significant. Further, the proposed mitigation measures would minimize the cumulative impacts 

to vegetation to the extent possible. 
4.13-23 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Proposed mitigations on NFS lands that would reduce impacts to vegetation and timber include: 

• Stand density management by precommercial thinning and fuels reduction which benefits 

vegetation and timber by reducing the risk of stand replacing fire and accelerating the 

growth of large trees. 

• Integrated stand density and fuels management in fuel break which would benefit 

vegetation and timber by reducing the risk of stand replacing fire, accelerating the growth 

of large trees; and 

• Snag and coarse wood replacement in and adjacent to the Right of Way which would 

benefit vegetation and timber by restoring these constituent elements of forest 

ecosystems. 

To avoid a cumulative impact to the introduction or spreading of invasive species, Jordan Cove 

would follow the recommendations outlined in Oregon Aquatic Species Management Plan, the 

Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan, and BLM’s multi state environmental impacts statement, 

Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program, and its supplements, in addition to the 

mitigation measures described within section 4.4.2. Pacific Connector would develop and 

implement a Noxious Weed Control Plan during pipeline construction and operation activities. 

Altogether, cumulative effects to vegetation and timber would occur, but with the 

implementation of the Jordan Cove’s and Pacific Connector’s proposed mitigation, and the 

allowance of the majority of the construction work area for the pipeline to revegetate to preconstruction conditions, as well as mitigation measures proposed by each applicant to offset 

unavoidable impacts, the contribution of this Project to cumulative vegetation and timber 

impacts would be small. 

4.13.2.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Wildlife 

Past land uses within watersheds affected by the proposed Project facilities have affected 

wildlife. The impact is dependent on the activity and species. In the Project area, past forest 

harvests, mining, and livestock grazing have led to extensive land clearing with concomitant 

habitat alteration, elimination, or degradation. Such impacts to wildlife is a likely consequence 

of most human-related land uses and would include impact by the proposed LNG terminal and 

pipeline discussed further below and in section 4.5. Section 4.6 addresses federally listed species 

and other special status species. 

Any increase in local traffic volume due to Project construction and operation has the potential to 

contribute to cumulative direct impacts to wildlife 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). 

Additional indirect effects to wildlife habitat by future infestations of noxious weeds and forest 

disease could potentially result from pipeline construction. Noxious weeds often out-compete 

native vegetation. They displace native species by spreading rapidly and utilizing resources 
4.13-24 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

(nutrients, water, sunlight) that can eventually lead to a weed-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. Measures to prevent noxious 

weed infestations are discussed in Section 4.4 and would be further detailed in a Noxious Weed 

Control Plan as part of the ECRP that would be developed prior to construction based on 

consultations with the ODA, BLM and the USFS. 

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. 

The BLM and USFS have identified past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

have occurred or will occur within the watersheds that also would be affected by the pipeline. 

Those activities have affected and will continue to affect wildlife in many ways. Silvicultural 

actions, such as density management projects, are expected to improve dispersal and latesuccessional habitat conditions in these areas. Furthermore, treatments, such as density 

management or hardwood conversion to restore large conifers to Riparian Reserves, would also 

improve habitat conditions in the long term and would function to minimize potential cumulative 

watershed habitat impacts. 

Construction of Pacific Connector pipeline would require removal of wildlife habitats of the 

types and amounts estimated in section 4.5.3, including the creation of an estimated 76.4 miles of 

edge through contiguous forest and woodland vegetation types. This estimate does not include 

removal of trees in clearcut or regenerating forest or woodland, nor does it include both sides of 

the proposed construction 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 is 

linear, the created patch associated with the new edge would be narrow and elongated unlike 

edges created by forest practices (Forman and Godron 1986). Habitat fragmentation has already 

occurred to some extent in many areas of the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline as a result 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, except in LSRs where fragmentation would slowly decrease as interior stand conditions 

expand. That removal would add to the effects to wildlife and habitats by past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable actions by land management agencies and public activities on private lands. 
4.13-25 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Proposed mitigations on NFS lands that would benefit wildlife include: 

• Precommercial thinning and stand density management which benefit wildlife by 

accelerating the development of interior stand conditions; 

• Creating snags and restoring coarse wood adjacent to the right of way which benefit 

wildlife by providing habitat; 

• Closing roads which benefit wildlife by reducing harassment by motorized vehicles; 

• Restoring riparian vegetation which benefits wildlife by providing specialized riparian 

habitats; and 

• Reallocating approximately 1000 acres from the Matrix Land allocation to the LSR land 

allocation which would benefit species dependent on Late Successional or old growth 

habitats. 

Project construction and related habitat alteration would contribute to cumulative impacts to 

important wildlife habitats such as late seral forest and snags and down wood. Following 

construction of the LNG terminal and pipeline, habitat and ecosystem function would be restored 

in place, where possible, and where not possible, mitigation in various forms would occur. 

Permanent impacts on aquatic and terrestrial resources would be mitigated by restoring habitat 

with similar ecological function. As part of their mitigation plans, Jordan Cove and Pacific 

Connector propose to preserve or restore habitat in Coos Bay and along the pipeline route. The 

proposed mitigation measures would minimize the cumulative impacts to wildlife that could 

result from the Project construction and operation (as detailed in sections 4.5 and 4.6), 

minimizing the Project contribution to cumulative effects. Consequently, we identify a 

cumulative impact to wildlife, including special status species, but the magnitude of impact 

would be minimal considering Project design measures and expected mitigation measures.

Aquatic Resources 

Much of the impact to coldwater anadromous and resident fisheries by past land uses has 

resulted from alterations of riparian habitats by logging, road building, agriculture, or other 

developments such as residences and utility corridors. Potential cumulative impacts to marine 

aquatic species include the effects of ship spills and /or release of LNG at sea. Releases of diesel 

fuel and/or gasoline are possible in the foreseeable future. Though not known, it appears that the 

background rate of spills off the Oregon coast (incidence of spills in proportion to total vessel 

operation) by fishing vessels, recreation vessels, and other vessel types is generally low and 

expected to continue at low frequencies in the foreseeable future. 

The foreseeable cumulative effect of 80 LNG carriers per year with anticipated dry bulk vessel 

traffic in 2011 (forecasted to be about 11 vessels based on current declining trends) would be less 

than effects based on past or present levels of vessel traffic calls to the Port of Coos Bay. 

Consequently, cumulative effects to listed turtles and marine aquatic species would likely be less 

than the estimate of direct and indirect effects discussed in the section 4.5. 

The primary cumulative impact associated with dredging for the slip and access channel 

construction is turbidity; however, turbidity impacts would be of a short duration and would not 

be expected to overlap spatially with the other projects identified in table 4.13.1-1. That is, the 

turbidity plumes associated with dredging would not likely be additive. Consequently, turbidity 

impacts are cumulative only in the sense that a single body of water would incur these impacts. 
4.13-26 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Given the volume and dynamic nature of Coos Bay, we would not expect water quality impacts 

to be cumulatively significant. 

Past land uses within watersheds crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeline have had negative 

effects on fisheries resources and aquatic habitats. Many in-stream habitats have been degraded 

by loss of gravel and cobble substrates, loss and degradation of pools, depletion of LWD in 

streams, and loss of potential LWD recruitment. Salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing 

habitats have been adversely affected as a consequence. 

In watersheds that have been analyzed by the BLM and/or USFS, as required by the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy, road densities in most watersheds exceed 4 miles of road per square mile. 

Road construction within Riparian Reserves has been extensive. Changes in forest stand 

structure and road densities have led to discharge and sedimentation directly into stream 

networks and have directly affected peak flows. Rain-on-snow events within transient snow 

zones (elevations between 2,000 and 5,000 feet) have led to extreme runoff and flooding, which 

has further damaged aquatic habitats. 

The watershed conditions from the past actions are expected to improve over the long term 

because of current management direction and practices outlined in the current land and resource 

management plans, standards and guidelines, and BMPs that apply to all management actions on 

federal lands. Forest practices on private timber lands are subject to ODF regulations designed 

to protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitats. Further, watershed associations have been 

formed throughout the Project area to accomplish watershed restoration activities to achieve 

long-term sustainable watershed health. Therefore, it is expected that the reasonably foreseeable 

silvicultural actions or management treatments that may occur within the watersheds crossed by 

the Pacific Connector pipeline would not cause measurable cumulative effects to aquatic species 

or habitats. 

About 406 acres of riparian habitat would be directly affected by all construction related 

activities (table 4.5.2.3-5). About 389 acres within the riparian zone of all lands would be 

affected by major clearing activities (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 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. Likewise, removal of approximately 18 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 4.5.2.3-4). 

Proposed mitigations on NFS lands that benefit aquatic species include: 

• Closing roads which benefits aquatic species by reducing sediment and improving 

aquatic connectivity, 

• Constructing fences to keep cattle of riparian areas in Spencer Creek 
4.13-27 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

• Installation of stream simulator culverts in the East Fork of Cow Creek which benefits 

aquatic species by restoring connectivity. 

Table 4.13.2-1 shows that Project-related impacts range from less than 0.01 percent to just over 1 

percent of the affected watersheds. Therefore, we would not expect measurable cumulative 

impacts to aquatic resources. 

4.13.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

A BA is currently being prepared for the Project for ongoing consultations with the NMFS and 

USFWS. Threatened and endangered species, and anticipated impacts to these species that may 

result from the Project, are discussed in section 4.6. Table 4.6.1-1 lists 29 federally listed species 

that may occur within the Project area. Of these, 8 species are likely to be adversely affected, 

including MAMU, NSO, two stocks of coho salmon, Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker, 

Applegate’s milk-vetch, Gentner’s fritillary, and Kincaid’s lupine and are discussed further 

below. The ESA consultation process completely considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable impacts to listed species. The BA contains a determination of effect for each listed 

species present in the Project area that considers cumulative impacts on a species by species 

basis. A detailed assessment of impacts, including cumulative impacts, for all threatened or 

endangered species is provided in the BA developed by FERC for this Project. 

Marbled Murrelet 

Noise disturbance associated with timber removal, construction, and operation and maintenance 

of the Pacific Connector pipeline; diminished reproductive success and survival (if behavioral 

response to construction makes them more vulnerable to injury); and removal of nest trees or 

potential nest trees during the nesting season (April 1 through September 15) resulting from this 

Project would contribute cumulatively to the effects of other projects if they similarly impacted 

the species. 

Removal of suitable nesting habitat by harvest of old-growth timber has been cited as the 

primary reason for the decline of MAMUs (FWS 1992a). Construction of the proposed pipeline 

would remove approximately 97.4 acres of potentially suitable habitat within the proposed 

project, including 61.8 acres in nine occupied, 18 presumed occupied, and five unlikely to be 

occupied stands (table 4.6.1.2-3). Approximately 25.0 acres would be permanently lost for the 

life of the pipeline within the 30-foot pipeline corridor that would be maintained free of 

vegetation greater than 6 feet in height (table 4.6.1.2-4). Removal of 97.4 acres of suitable or 

potentially suitable habitat represents approximately 0.7 percent of the 14,261 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat in the analysis area (see table 4.6.1.2-5). Further impacts could occur 

anywhere direct or indirect impacts are anticipated (see section 4.6 for a detailed discussion). 

This includes the loss of nesting habitat, increased predation due to increased corvid densities 

along the maintained 30-foot utility corridor, fragmentation of occupied stands, removal of 

suitable habitat, and noise associated with timber clearing, construction, and operation of the 

proposed Pacific Connector pipeline. Table 4.6.1.2-5 summarizes the amount of suitable or 

potentially suitable MAMU habitat affected by the proposed Project within the terrestrial nesting 

analysis area pre- and post-action. 

The potential contribution by the proposed pipeline to cumulative effects of timber harvest 

within suitable or potentially suitable habitat is quite small, as the proposed pipeline would 
4.13-28 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

remove 0.7 percent of potentially suitable habitat in the analysis area. Consequently, we identify 

a cumulative impact to MAMU, but the magnitude of impact would be minimal considering 

Project design measures, mitigation measures proposed to offset impact on LSR, and the fact that 

future timber harvest on federally managed lands would be required to comply with the ESA.

Northern Spotted Owl 

Potential effects to the NSO may include noise, human-related disturbances, smoke from 

prescribed burnings, habitat loss, and indirect effects such as increase predation and competition, 

and effects to prey species. Habitat loss and modification, whether to nesting, roosting or 

foraging habitats, due to forest clear-cutting has been the most significant factor causing declines 

of the NSO (FWS 1992b). Habitat losses and habitat fragmentation have direct impacts that can 

affect survival and reproduction of NSOs. In total, the pipeline project would remove 

approximately 732 acres of suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat during construction 

(table 4.6.1.2-11), 190 acres of which would be permanently lost to the pipeline corridor that 

would be maintained in an herbaceous/shrub state not to exceed 6 feet in height postconstruction. Indirect effects of construction (extending 300 feet from new edges) would include 

5,729 acres of interior forest (table 4.6.1.2-13). Disturbance may attract other predators, thus 

increasing competition for the NSO. Approximately 88 percent of suitable nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat removed by the proposed project occurs within known or predicted NSO home 

ranges. 

Activities that disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within designated CHUs might 

adversely modify the owl’s critical habitat. These activities may include actions that would 

reduce the canopy closure of a timber stand, reduce the average dbh of trees in the stand, 

appreciably modify the multi-layered stand structure, reduce the availability of nesting structures 

and sites, reduce the suitability of the landscape to provide for safe movement, or reduce the 

abundance or availability of prey species (FWS 1992b). 

Proposed mitigations on NFS lands that would benefit NSO include: 

• Reallocation of approximately 1000 acres from the Matrix land allocation to the LSR 

land allocation which would benefit NSO by increasing the land base on NFS lands 

managed for NSO habitat; 

• Closing roads which would benefit NSO by accelerating the development of interior 

stand habitat; 

• Stand density and fuels management which would benefit NSO by accelerating the 

development of large trees and late successional stand conditions, and reduce the risk of 

stand replacing fire which destroys NSO habitat. The 10 year monitoring report for the 

Northwest Forest Plan showed that most of the NSO habitat lost since the inception of the 

NFWP had been lost to stand replacing fire; and 

• Replacing coarse down wood which would benefit NSO by restoring a constituent 

element of habitat. 

The direct and indirect effects summarized here (see section 4.6 for a detailed discussion) would 

contribute to the effects of the past that brought the NSO to its current status. While no present 

or reasonably foreseeable actions have been identified that would cumulatively impact NSO, the 

Project would cause impacts that would not otherwise occur. Consequently, we identify a 
4.13-29 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

cumulative impact to NSO, but the magnitude of impact would be minimal considering Project 

design measures, mitigation measures proposed to offset unavoidable impacts to LSR, and the 

fact that future timber harvest on federally managed lands would be required to comply with the 

ESA.

Coho Salmon (Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast ESU) 

Cumulative effects to SO/NCC and Oregon Coast coho salmon would be generated by timber 

harvesting on non-federal lands within the same freshwater waterbodies (from the point of 

crossing down to the furthest extent of project effects on water quality) and their associated 

riparian zones. While the ODF Administrative Rules provide some protection to fish-bearing 

streams state and private land, the narrower riparian zones described in the Rules are likely to 

provide less protective functions due to forest harvest practices on non-federal lands than harvest 

on federal lands. Actual effects to coho salmon from future harvest are assumed to be the same 

or similar as those that have occurred in the past. 

For SO/NCC coho salmon, non-federal lands comprise approximately 48,865 acres or about 44 

percent of the total action area (111,106 acres for all 4 watersheds combined in the action area) 

within the Pacific Connector pipeline action area that coincides with the four fifth-field 

watershed where SO/NCC coho salmon occur. Maintaining forested areas along streams (trees 

in the riparian area) are particularly critical in preserving important stream habitat qualities for 

coho salmon. Of the 48,865 acres of private and state lands within the action area, an estimated 

6,952 acres (14.2 percent) are forested with trees 80 years old and older (Late Succession or oldgrowth forests), which supply some of the best stream side conditions for coho salmon; an 

estimated 1,191 acres of which are riparian forest. A “worst-case” possibility would be that all 

late-successional or old-growth forests on non-federal lands within the pipeline action area 

would be harvested during the foreseeable future, resulting in the removal of 6,952 acres of 80-

year-old or older forested non-federal land. For comparison, the proposed action would remove 

about 24 acres of late-successional or old-growth forests on non-federal lands within the four 

fifth-field watersheds that coincide with the SO/NCC ESU, of which about 4.17 acres would be 

riparian forest. 

Based on ODF Administrative Rules, some but not all of those estimated 1,191 acres of latesuccessional or old-growth riparian forests on non-federal lands are likely to be harvested in the 

foreseeable future. The proposed action would contribute to removing only 4.17 acres of 

riparian forests within the four fifth field watersheds on non-federal lands, believed to be a very 

small contribution to overall cumulative effects to OC/NCC coho salmon. 

Similarly, for Oregon Coast coho salmon, non-federal lands comprise approximately 204,087 

acres or about 71 percent of the total area (287,867 acres) within the Pacific Connector pipeline 

action area that coincides with the 11 fifth-field watersheds where Oregon Coast coho occur. Of 

the 204,087 acres of private and state lands within the action area, an estimated 43,305 acres 

(21.2 percent) are forested Late Succession or old-growth forests; an estimated 1,191 acres of 

which are riparian forest. A “worst-case” possibility would be that all late-successional or oldgrowth forests on non-federal lands within the pipeline action area would be harvested during the 

foreseeable future, resulting in the removal of about 43,305 acres of 80-year-old or older forested 

non-federal land. For comparison, the proposed action would remove about 219 acres of late-
4.13-30 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

successional or old-growth forests on non-federal lands within the 10 fifth-field watersheds that 

coincide with the SO/NCC ESU, of which about 8.5 acres would be riparian forests. 

Based on ODF Administrative Rules, some but not all of an estimated 1,680 acres of latesuccessional or old-growth riparian forests on non-federal lands are likely to be harvested in the 

foreseeable future. The proposed action would contribute to removing only 8.50 acres of these 

riparian forests within the ten fifth-field watershed action area on non-federal lands, believed to 

be a very small contribution to overall cumulative effects to Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Lost River and Shortnose Suckers 

The Project may affect Lost River and Shortnose suckers because there is a possibility that Lost 

they could occur within the Lost River when it would be crossed by the Pacific Connector 

pipeline and incidental take of a Lost River or shortnose sucker is possible during fish salvage. 

However, the proposed action would not have adverse effects on proposed critical habitat or 

impair the suitability of seasonally or permanently occupied habitat; or impair or degrade 

unoccupied habitat necessary for the survival of Lost River or Shortnose suckers locally. 

Within the project area, 100 percent of all lands are non-federal within the Klamath River-John 

C. Boyle Reservoir watershed, 99 percent are non-federal lands within the Lake Ewauna-Upper 

Klamath River watershed, and 94 percent are non-federal lands within the Lower Lost River 

fifth-field watershed. Degradation of water quality due to livestock grazing, agriculture, and 

timber harvest has resulted in severe pollution in Upper Klamath Lake. That in turn has lead to 

algal blooms with increased mortality of suckers when oxygen depletions occur due to 

eutrophication particularly during summers when high temperatures combined with nutrient 

loading from pumping diked wetlands and runoff from farms. Past actions that have lead to 

increased mortality have been due to private enterprise on private lands. Cumulative impact to 

Lost River suckers and Shortnose suckers would include those same or similar actions which are 

reasonably foreseeable during the next 3 years. Consequently, we identify a cumulative impact 

to Lost River and Shortnose suckers, but the magnitude of impact would be minimal considering 

Project design measures, expected mitigation measures, and the fact timber harvest on federally 

managed lands would be required to comply with the ESA.

Applegate’s milk-vetch, Gentner’s fritillary, and Kincaid’s lupine 

Listed plant species, including Applegate’s milk-vetch, Gentner’s fritillary, and Kincaid’s lupine, 

do not have federal protection in Oregon on private lands except in instances where a federal 

permit is required or a federal action occurs. Outside of the surveyed area for the Pacific 

Connector pipeline, it is unknown where listed plants occur on private lands throughout the 

botanical analysis area. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if there are reasonably 

foreseeable actions that might occur on private lands, which could impact listed plants. Given 

the lack of protections under ESA and Oregon statutes, all federally listed plants on private lands 

must be considered at risk of adverse effects, wherever they may occur. However, the Pacific 

Connector pipeline would mitigate for any project impacts to listed plants.
4.13-31 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

4.13.2.7 Land, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Land Use 

Past land use activities within the watersheds that would be affected by the Project have altered 

or converted land uses in the Project area. For example, extensive land development activities 

including industrial and residential development along with agricultural, mining, past forest 

clearing, road building, and livestock grazing have converted forest and rangelands to other land 

uses. Construction of the Project would have cumulative effects where the Project occurs with 

the other identified reasonably foreseeable projects in the watershed. The disturbance would be 

made in addition to the cumulative effects to land uses by past and ongoing actions by land 

management agencies and public activities on private lands. Table 4.13.1-1 provides a list of all 

other identified projects that may reasonably occur. Implementation of the other silvicultural 

actions identified in the watersheds would not be considered a cumulative impact to land use 

because they are forest land use projects and their implementation would not convert or alter the 

designated future use of these areas. To minimize impacts to forest land uses from the Pacific 

Connector pipeline and associated facilities, all disturbed forest areas would be reforested, except 

for the 30-foot pipeline operational right-of-way, according to BLM and USFS requirements on 

federal lands and ODF requirements on private lands. 

While installation of new pipelines in an existing corridor would incrementally reduce the area 

available for certain future developments, use of established utility corridors concentrates 

cumulative land use impacts. The pipeline would be co-located with an estimated 90.70 miles of 

road, powerline, or pipeline rights-of-way. We identify a cumulative impact to land use, but the 

magnitude of impact would be minimal considering Project design measures, including 

revegetation of forests and co-locating of the pipeline where feasible. 

Recreation 

Recreation use occurs throughout the watersheds that would be affected by the Project at all 

times of the year and is primarily focused along roads. Therefore, cumulative impacts from 

activities (traffic, noise, disturbance, etc.) would result where the proposed Project activities and 

other actions, which have been identified by the agencies, occur within the same watershed and 

at the same time. 

With the exception of the Coos Bay estuary, no focused recreation or special interest areas on 

non-federal lands would be crossed or directly affected by the Pacific Connector pipeline. 

Impacts to recreation activities would most likely occur temporarily during pipeline construction 

from increased traffic on local roadways because most recreational activities (walking/hiking, 

bicycling, driving for pleasure on highways, including driving OHVs) may use the same travel 

routes as the pipeline construction traffic. Because the proposed pipeline schedule does not 

include winter construction (except for specific areas within the Klamath Basin to minimize 

impacts to agricultural areas), cumulative impacts to snowmobile use or other winter recreational 

activities are not expected. 

During pipeline operations, the cleared pipeline right-of-way could be utilized by recreational 

users, including hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers, especially where the corridor crosses 

existing roads and is easily visible and accessible. Although motorized travel would be 

discouraged by debris barricades, other users may access the corridor and utilize it to connect 
4.13-32 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

with other roads and trails. This use would probably be more local in nature, by those who live 

nearby and are familiar with the existing road and trail network. In the higher elevations during 

the winter months, the pipeline corridor may be used by cross country skiers and possibly 

snowmobilers, depending on the effectiveness of the debris barricades. Therefore, cumulative 

impacts resulting from these types of access and use may result where other actions provide 

similar access in the same areas. 

Marine Traffic 

The Port of Coos Bay includes six marine terminals with seven deep-draft berths and a variety of 

barge facilities. Existing commercial traffic along the Coos Bay navigation channel to and from 

these facilities includes large cargo ships primarily exporting wood chips. Commercial deep 

draft cargo traffic has declined from about 300 ships per year 20 years ago to less than 50 today, 

and the Port expects it to remain at this level (ECONorthwest 2006). In 2002, there were 58 calls 

by dry bulk vessels but only 37 calls in 2006. Based on declining dry bulk vessel calls, a 

regression analysis was used to forecast the number of when the LNG terminal would come 

online (presumed to be 2011 for this model). The model forecasted about 11 dry bulk vessels per 

year in 2011 if current declining trends continued. 

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

There are a total of 537 slips available within the inner and outer basins of the Charleston 

Marina. Of these, 278 slips can accommodate trollers and trawlers larger than 24 feet in length 

(Dyer Partnership 2007). The OSMB (2005) counted 30,996 recreational boat trips in Coos Bay 

in 2004, with 88 percent of those trips related to fishing. Jordan Cove stated that up to 80 LNG 

carriers per year could call at its LNG terminal. 

Boats using the waterway may be delayed up to 30 minutes waiting for the passage of an LNG 

carrier. Boats in Charleston Marina ready to head out to sea may have to wait about 20 minutes 

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

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

waterway could potentially impact recreational and other boating activity during about 1.3 

percent of annual daylight hours (ECONorthwest 2006). Delays related to LNG carrier traffic 

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

during the current passage of a deep draft cargo vessel. Therefore, we do not consider the 

impacts to be cumulatively significant. 

Visual Resources 

An LNG carrier would cross through the viewshed along the waterway in a few minutes, similar 

to other large cargo ships that frequent the bay for the purpose of loading and hauling wood 

products. The additional 80 LNG vessels crossing the waterway over a few minutes each would 

result in minor cumulative impacts to visual resources. 

Visual impacts of the LNG facility would be minor because views would be screened by 

landscape, topography, and distance. Facility color and form is anticipated to blend in with the 

surrounding dunes and industrial setting. An earthen berm enclosing the LNG onshore facilities 

would provide an additional visual barrier between the bay and the terminal. Thus, the LNG 

terminal would result in minor cumulative impacts to visual resources. 
4.13-33 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

No long-term visual impacts would result from construction and operation of the pipeline in 

agricultural areas. In the mountainous terrain of the Coastal Range, many of the existing 

landscapes that would be traversed by the pipeline are already heavily impacted by existing 

timber harvests, including many large clearcuts. Existing scenic integrity in these areas is low, 

and the presence of the pipeline would not create visual contrasts in these settings. Impacts on 

visual resources due to the pipeline operation and maintenance would be short-term, based on the 

cleared and graded right-of-way through existing clearcuts and along existing transmission line 

rights-of-way. 

From much of the Pacific Connector pipeline viewshed, it is anticipated that views of the 

pipeline facilities would be partially or fully screened by existing trees, landforms, or intervening 

development. The majority of the proposed pipeline route across federal lands where visual 

management standards have been established are already modified by past forest resource 

practices (logging) projects. Potential cumulative impacts to these sensitive visual areas would be 

minimized by the pipeline’s perpendicular alignment to the sensitive visual crossings areas (i.e., 

State Highway 42, Big Elk Road, Pacific Crest Trail, Dead Indian Highway, State Highway 62, 

and U.S. Highway 97). The perpendicular crossings of the roads and trail would help minimize the 

visual effects of the pipeline corridor because, in most cases, traveling observers would be exposed 

to the right-of-way for only a short length of time as they traveled past it. To further minimize 

potential visual effects, the construction right-of-way would be reduced in width to 75 feet in some 

areas and any required TEWAs would be set back from these road crossings to minimize clearing 

and associated impacts where feasible (i.e., Big Elk Road, Pacific Crest Trail, and Dead Indian 

Highway). HDDs have been included in the pipeline design at the crossings of the scenic byways 

(i.e., State Highway 62 and U.S. Highway 97) that parallel the Rogue and Klamath Rivers, and 

would avoid or significantly minimize the construction disturbance at or adjacent to these 

crossings. These crossings would also be located in areas of low to moderate visual sensitivity 

because of existing rural, industrial, or agricultural development. The crossing point of State 

Highway 42 was also selected because it is located in previously disturbed areas associated with 

highway right-of-way work areas. 

In these areas of sensitive viewsheds, Pacific Connector sought a placement for the corridor that 

would cause the least potential impact and contrast to the existing landscape. Also, Pacific 

Connector’s Aesthetics Management Plan for Federal Lands would detail specific mitigation 

measures to minimize the visual impact where the pipeline would be located near the Clover 

Creek Road, and where the pipeline crosses the PCT.

Proposed mitigations on NFS lands would reduce visual impacts by:

• Restoring native vegetation and manipulating rocks and stumps to restore a more natural 

look at selected visually sensitive locations; 

• Thinning stands adjacent to the Clover Creek road which benefits visual resources by 

softening the corridor appearance of the right of way; 

• Angling the crossing at the PCT which benefits visual resources by reducing the line of 

site when you cross the pipeline right of way on the PCT; and 

• Grading and contouring slopes in visually sensitive areas which benefits the visual 

resource by restoring the natural contour of the land. 
4.13-34 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

Project contributions to cumulative visual impacts would be generally minor, have been 

minimized by design measures where possible, and are temporary in many cases. Impacts would 

be minimized on Federal Lands by implementation of the Pacific Connector’s Aesthetic 

Management Plan. While there would be a very small contribution to cumulative visual impacts, 

we do not consider the impacts resulting from this project to be cumulatively significant. 

4.13.2.8 Socioeconomics 

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities could cumulatively impact 

socioeconomic conditions in the Project area. Employment, housing, infrastructure, and public 

services could experience both beneficial and detrimental impacts. These include, but are not 

limited to, developments at the Port owned and operated Charleston Marina, the Charleston 

Marina RV Park, and Charleston Shipyard. As a component of the Port’s economic 

development, the focus of the Charleston Marina Master Plan is to develop commercial fishing 

and seafood processing, recreational fishing and boating, tourism, and growth in the retail and 

commercial sectors, along with any other, similar economic developments in the region that may 

occur and, if they did, could contribute to the region’s population growth and associated impacts. 

It is expected that the workforces for the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector facilities would 

overlap. The workforces for these activities may place demands on local infrastructure (i.e., 

temporary housing, other services) because a number of the skilled workforce may temporarily 

relocate to the Project area. Although the workforces of the other forest practices projects 

identified by the BLM and USFS within the watersheds crossed by the pipeline may overlap for 

a period of several weeks, cumulative impacts associated with these workforce overlaps are not 

expected. Cumulative impacts from the forest practice projects are not expected to place 

demands on local infrastructures because the workforces for these projects are expected to come 

from the local communities. Additionally, increased population impacts as a result of the 

pipeline would be temporary and dispersed due to the linear characteristic of the pipeline. 

The potential for the maximum cumulative workforce is expected to occur in Coos County where 

the LNG terminal and the Coos Bay segment of the pipeline would be constructed. This Project 

area would have the highest demand on local infrastructures. This area is also a seasonal 

recreational and tourism destination because of the opportunities to fish, boat, operate OHVs, as 

well as take part in other coastal activities. The Project area is also served by U.S. Highway 101, 

which is the only coastal travel artery along the Oregon Coast; therefore, demand on local 

infrastructures is expected to occur during the summer months. Although these conditions may 

create a short-term demand on temporary housing for non-local workers, this potential impact is 

expected to be insignificant. 

Beneficial cumulative effects of the Project include increased job opportunities through 

employment of construction contractors, revenue from purchases of local materials, and 

increased expenditures in the local communities. No significant cumulative long-term impacts to 

employment and demands on local services are expected. 

The majority of the pipeline work areas are rural, with access from state highways, I-5, and 

various county roads. These roads, as well as other local and forest roads, would be used to 

move construction equipment, materials, and personnel to the construction right-of-way from the 

various contractor and pipe storage yards, as well as from the residential centers in the four 

counties where the pipeline construction personnel would reside. Potential traffic impacts of the 
4.13-35 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

pipeline could potentially result in short-term, cumulative impacts on the transportation network 

where multiple projects are being constructed simultaneously. 

Cumulative traffic impacts could be expected in Coos County where construction traffic for the 

LNG terminal, access channel and slip, and pipeline activities occur on the North Spit. Access to 

the North Spit construction sites is provided by U.S. Highway 101 and by the Trans-Pacific 

Parkway. Cumulative traffic impacts from the Project is expected to be minor and short term. 

Traffic for construction of the pipeline component of the Project in the vicinity of the North Spit 

for installation of the pipeline across the Coos Bay estuary would primarily occur between 

October and mid-February, outside the summer months. Furthermore, traffic impacts would be 

mitigated by implementing a worker transportation program (i.e., busing multiple workers to the 

LNG construction site). Jordan Cove has conducted a traffic survey that provided various 

recommendations to ensure that the roads and intersections in the LNG terminal and slip site 

areas remain at an acceptable level. Jordan Cove would review these recommendations with 

ODOT prior to construction. 

Cumulative traffic impacts from construction of the Project along with traffic associated with the 

other projects that have been identified in the watersheds crossed by the pipeline are expected to 

be short term and localized, such as to specific forest roads that these projects may utilize. The 

traffic associated with these other, primarily silvicultural, actions are expected to be minor and 

short term because of their small workforce requirements. Typically these projects only require 

a few round trips per day over several weeks or months to complete. However, where timber 

haul routes for these projects overlap with proposed access routes for the pipeline, cumulative 

traffic impacts may occur and cause delays or other traffic inconveniences. 

Pacific Connector would minimize cumulative traffic impacts by requiring contractors to bus 

laborers, operators, and other non-supervisory personnel to specific job sites along the right-ofway. Traffic control plans would also be developed, where necessary, for specific locations 

along the pipeline through consultation with ODOT to ensure public safety. 

There would be both negative (such as short term traffic increases) and positive (such as 

increased employment opportunities) contributions from this project to cumulative social and 

economic conditions. Overall, we do not consider the impacts to be cumulatively significant. 

4.13.2.9 Cultural Resources 

Past disturbances to cultural resources sites in the Project area have been related to legal 

collecting; accidental disturbance; intentional destruction or vandalism; and construction and 

maintenance operations associated with existing infrastructure (roads, railroads, and transmission 

lines). The currently proposed projects listed in table 4.13.1-1 that are defined as federal actions 

would include mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize additional direct impacts on 

cultural resources. Where direct impacts on significant cultural resources are unavoidable, 

mitigation (e.g., recovery and curation of materials) would occur before construction. Nonfederal actions would need to comply with any mitigation measures required by the state. 

Increased access by rights-of-way and service roads would increase the potential for trespass or 

vandalism at previously inaccessible sites. The proposed Project would only incrementally add 

to the effects of the other projects and result in less than significant cumulative impacts on 

cultural resources in the area. 
4.13-36 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

4.13.2.10Air Quality 

LNG carriers are mobile sources that would transit the Pacific Ocean. Emissions from the 

marine vessel traffic would be periodic and transient, and they are not expected to result in 

significant long-term air quality impacts, although there could be short-term localized impacts. 

LNG carriers transporting the LNG are typically oil-fired or dual-fueled. Estimated emissions 

from LNG carriers and escort tugs are summarized in table 4.11.1.1-3. Table 4.11.1.1-4 contains 

estimated greenhouse gas emissions from LNG carriers and tugs. 

As described in Section 4.11, it is estimated that annual LNG vessel traffic (including tugboats) 

would produce 5.3 tons of PM10, 104.6 tons of SO2, 156.4 tons of NOx, 17.6 tons of CO, and 

<6.3 tons of VOCs. Similarly, annual greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be <14,532 

tons of CO2, <2.0 tons of CH4, and <0.1 tons of N2O. These emissions would cumulatively 

impact the air quality with other emission sources in the area, including other large vessel traffic 

that is estimated to be about 50 ships per year, but the impact would be temporary and localized. 

All four counties are currently designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS, with 

the exception that the 24-hour PM2.5 designations are relative to the standard of 65 μg/m3 that 

existed prior to December 2006. Designations with respect to the 35 μg/m3 standard are due to 

be finalized in December 2008; however, based on 2003 to 2005 air quality data, EPA has 

predicted that Coos County, Douglas County, and Jackson County will remain “attainment” or 

“unclassifiable” with regard to the new standard. Klamath County data from 2003 to 2005 do 

not meet the new 35 μg/m3 standard. The Medford urban growth boundary/Air Quality 

Management Area and Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) were previously 

designated as nonattainment with respect to CO and PM10, and are therefore considered 

“maintenance” areas. However, the Pacific Connector pipeline would not infringe on either of 

these maintenance areas, as the pipeline would pass north of the Medford maintenance areas and 

south of the Klamath Falls UGB. 

Cumulative fugitive dust (particulate) increases may occur where construction of the Pacific 

Connector pipeline would occur with other hauling activities associated with silvicultural actions 

that are identified in table 4.13.1-1 where these projects are using the same access road systems 

at the same time. Cumulative effects may occur in 2010 and 2011 when the pipeline 

construction is scheduled. Construction activities could overlap with other silvicultural projects’ 

hauling requirements. However, most of the reasonably foreseeable projects listed for the 

various watersheds would be completed prior to the Pacific Connector work commencing. It is 

expected that cumulative impacts would be brief and would be mitigated by compliance with 

land managers’ requirements for dust control on roads and excavated surfaces. 

The Pacific Connector component of the Project would include a new emissions source, a natural 

gas turbine at the Butte Falls Compressor Station. As a consequence, the Pacific Connector 

pipeline would directly contribute to hydrocarbon emissions from this facility; however, the 

emissions would be permitted under the CAA through ODEQ and would not exceed air quality 

standards to minimize potential cumulative impacts to the airsheds. 

It is recognized that greenhouse gases (i.e., CO2) are also emitted from the combustion of the 

delivered natural gas by end users served by the pipeline. However, these emissions should not 

be associated with this Project, because fuel supply is generally demand-driven rather than 
4.13-37 4.13 – Cumulative Effects 

supply-driven. Regardless of whether the JCEP & PCGP Project is constructed, those end users 

still have a need for fuel, and would need to either rely on the importation of natural gas from 

another source or on a fuel such as propane or oil, which generates even more greenhouse gas 

emissions (per unit of energy supplied) than natural gas. 

There would be cumulative contributions to air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, 

however fixed sources would be permitted under the CAA and would not exceed air quality 

standards. Consequently, the contribution cumulative air quality effects from this project would 

be small. 

4.13.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions 

We conclude that construction of the projects listed in table 4.13.1-1 and elsewhere in this 

section, especially if they are constructed on an overlapping timeline with the proposed JCE & 

PCGP Project, have the potential to contribute cumulative impacts on the Project area. Each of 

the projects considered would result in temporary and minor effects during construction, but each 

project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality, forest and marine 

resources, and wildlife. Additionally, significant impacts on sensitive resources resulting from 

these projects would be mitigated, as appropriate, and mitigation generally leads to the avoidance 

or minimization of cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would occur as a result of this Project to eight federally listed threatened and 

endangered species that are likely to be adversely affected, including MAMU, NSO, two stocks 

of coho salmon, Lost River and shortnose suckers, Applegate’s milk-vetch, Gentner’s fritillary, 

and Kincaid’s lupine. 

We recognize that unanticipated accidents during construction or operation could result in 

potential undefined impacts. However, a meaningful evaluation of those potential impacts is 

impossible, as quantification of potential impacts would be speculative at best. Accordingly, we 

consider project monitoring and mitigation programs to be critical in addressing unanticipated 

impacts, should they occur. With the Project’s proposed construction and operation methods, 

and strict adherence to our recommendations for additional mitigation made in this EIS, federal 

and state regulations, and permitting requirements, impacts associated with the proposed Project 

would be minimized, and would not constitute a significant impact in combination with other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects.