BLM LIBRARY
Department of the Interior
au of Land Management
Coos Bay District
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend, OR 97459
November 2002
Coos County Natural Gas
Pipeline
Final Environmental Impact
Statement
Cooperating Agency
,,-^ ^ PO Box 2946
us Army Corps ^ ,, . ^
of Engineers* Portland, Oregon 97208
Project Proponent
Coos County Board of Commissioners
250 N. Baxter
Coquille, Oregon
"'-'OFLAmM'^^^^^
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources.
This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting
our fish and wildlife; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life
through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral
resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all
our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian
reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S.
administration.
BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+ 1 792
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available
for public review at the Coos Bay District Office, 1 300 Airport Lane, North Bend,
during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish
to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent
allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Ib.^^^5k^3
Abstract
-TV
Abstract
^
i^
Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
Final Environmental Impact Statement
1 . Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (Lead
Agency) and Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers (Cooperating Agency)
2. Draft ( )
Final (X)
3. Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
4. Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the effects of constructing a pro-
posed natural gas pipeline approximately 60 miles in length from near Roseburg, Oregon, to Coos Bay, Ore-
gon. The proposed action includes crossing approximately 3.0 miles of federal land administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This document analyzes the proposed action as compared to two alter-
natives, including no action. The proposed action includes the construction, operation and maintenance of a
12-inch diameter natural gas pipeline within existing rights-of-way (ROW) designated for road or utility cor-
ridors. Suitable habitat for three federally protected species (the marbled murrelet, the northern spotted owl
and the bald eagle) is adjacent to the proposed action corridor. The proposed action would cross 188
streams, I wetland and is adjacent to approximately 2 miles of tloodplain. This document discusses Direct,
Indirect and Cumulative effects, including socio-economic impacts, and addresses agency and public con-
cerns.
5. Difference between the Final and Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Comments were taken both
orally and in writing for a period of 60 days on the draft environmental impact statement released in January
2002. Substantive comments were responded to both in a question and answer format, and/or by making
changes, additions or corrections in the text of the FEIS.
Note: The BLM will issue a Record of Decision addressing whether or not to grant a ROW permit crossing
federal lands 30 days after the Notice of Availability for this FEIS appears in the Federal Register
6. For Further Information contact:
Bob Gunther, Project Coordinator
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend, OR 97459
Telephone: (541) 751-4295, Fax: (541)751-4303
E-mail: Bob Gunther@or.blm.gov
For technical information contained in the EIS contact:
Melanie Little, Biologist
Biological Information Specialists, Inc.
RO. Box 27
Camas Valley, OR 97416
Telephone: (541) 445-2008
o^^
Abstract
Summary
Summary
Summary of Changes between Draft and Final EIS
Based on public comments received on the Draft EIS, numerous corrections and clarifications were made to the Final
EIS. Specific changes are identified at the beginning of each chapter. The following list summarizes the key
changes.
• Clarification of the "No Action" alternative is summarized in this section.
• Additional information regarding air quality, including emissions fuel combustion was added to Chapter 4.
• Additional information regarding fire safety was added to Chapter 4.
• Appendix E, formerly the Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment, has been replaced with an Aquatic Biological
Assessment due to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on December 14, 2001 reinstating pro-
tections under the federal Endangered Species Act for Oregon Coho salmon.
• A revised Appendix H: Erosion Control Plan (ECP) has replaced the former ECP providing additional Project
Design Criteria.
• A revised Appendix J: Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance has replaced the former
Appendix J.
• Maps in Appendix C were replaced with 10 black and white sheets delineating BLM lands adjacent to the pro-
posed action.
• Letters received during the 6()-day comment period and responses to these letters have been added to this doc-
ument as Appendix G-1 and G-2.
The Coos County Board of Commissioners is proposing to construct, operate and maintain a natural gas pipeline
between Roseburg and Coos Bay, Oregon. This pipeline would begin at an existing natural gas pipeline a few miles
south of Roseburg and terminate in the city of Coos Bay where a distribution facility would be built. This pipeline
would be approximately 60 miles long and have a capacity of 70 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. The entire
pipeline would be located within existing road and utility ROW. Approximately 3.0 miles of the pipeline would
cross lands within utility ROW managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Coos County contracted three independent consulting corporations (Pipeline Solutions, Inc., Industrial Gas Service,
Inc.) as professional advisors and Biological Information Specialists, Inc. for preparation of this FEIS.
To gain easements on public and privately owned lands, the Coos County Board of Commissioners filed an applica-
tion with the BLM for a perpetual and renewable ROW in May 2000, and filed an application with Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) for consent to construct portions of the natural gas line within BPA utility corridors in August
2000.
Coos County submitted an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for permission to construct the
pipeline across streams and wetlands in November 2000.
Agency Roles and Decisions to Be Made
Numerous agencies were involved in the preparation, consultation and permitting decisions for this project, as shown
in Table S-1.
The BLM is the Lead Agency. The Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, is mandated to process Mineral Leas-
ing Act (MLA) applications across federal lands. Assuming the Record of Decision (ROD) selects the proposed
action for construction of the pipeline, BLM will then issue authorization (ROW grant) under the MLA for use of
federal lands.
ni
Summary
Table S-1. Overview of Permit, Approval and Consultation Requirements for the Proposed
Action
Agency
Permit/Authority
Federal Government
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
Record of Decision (ROD)
Minerals Leasing Act: Tide 1, Section 28 (c)(2) of the Mineral Leas-
ing Act of 1920, as amended, November 16, 1973 authorizes the Sec-
retary of the Interior to grant or renew ROW or permits and to enter
into agreements with other land-managing federal agencies for the
processing of applications for pipelines to transport oil natural gas,
synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or refined products produced there-
from.
ROW Grant Minerals Leasing Act
Notice to Proceed
Consultation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE)
Cooperating Agency
Section 404 Clean Water Act
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)
Consultation and Concurrence
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildhfe Service
(USFWS)
Consultation and Concurrence
Section 7 Endangered Species Act
Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA)
ROW and consent to build sections of a natural gas pipeline within
BPA utility corridors
All Land Owners Along the Pipeline ROW
Pacific Power and Light (PP&L)
ROW and consent to build sections of a natural gas pipeline within
PP&L utility corridors
Private land owners
ROW ownership agreements
IV
Summary
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to construct a 12 inch natural gas transmission pipeline from near Roseburg to
Coos County. Natural gas transported by the pipeline would provide an alternative source of energy for existing or
potential residential, commercial or industrial customers within the Coos County service area.
The total length of the pipeline is about 60 miles. Approximately 28 miles of smaller pipeline laterals would eventu-
ally be constructed to serve the Coos County cities of Coquille, Myrtle Point and possibly Bandon. This EIS pro-
vides the analysis necessary for BLM to make a decision on granting a discretionary right-of-way permit for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline on approximately three miles of BLM-administered land.
Coos County has never had direct access to natural gas as an energy source, but has relied on petroleum products and
propane, electricity, or wood for energy sources. In 1999, Coos County leaders recognized the necessity for natural
gas as critical to the community's economic survival. Government and civic leaders supported a public awareness
campaign which resulted in a grant from the State of Oregon to publicly fund a gas pipeline. Ballot Measure #6-63,
authorizing additional taxpayer funds for construction of a natural gas pipeline, was passed by a double majority of
Coos County voters in November 1999.
Alternatives Analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Proposed Action: Natural Gas Pipeline
The proposed action responds to the above-stated Purpose and Need by transporting natural gas from Roseburg, Ore-
gon, to Coos Bay, Oregon, at a lower cost than other alternatives.
The proposed natural gas pipeline would originate at an existing Williams Gas pipeline just south of Roseburg.
extend southwest for approximately 60 miles where it would terminate at a distribution facility that would be built in
Coos Bay. The proposed action would include construction of pipeline laterals supplying natural gas the communi-
ties of Coquille. Myrtle Point and possibly Bandon. The routes of these laterals are not yet finalized. Approximately
3.0 miles of the preferred pipeline route would cross BLM-managed lands within BPA utility ROW. The remainder
of the pipeline would be located within the ROW of the Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBW Road), other public roads and
utility ROW crossing privately owned properties. The pipeline would cross 188 streams and I wetland.
The pipeline would be a 12-inch diameter pipe, operating at a pressure from 500 to 800 pounds per square inch (psi).
With the exception of line markers, test stations, bridge crossings and valve settings, the pipeline would be buried for
its entire length.
No Action
For the purposes of this EIS the "No Action Alternative" is defined as the BLM would not grant Coos County a dis-
cretionary Right-of-Way permit for construction, operation, and maintenance of the natural gas pipeline on lands
administered by the BLM. Affects addressed in the ELS associated with the No Action Alternative assume that the
present conditions remain as they currently exist, that is, the pipeline would not be constructed.
However, if the Proposed Action as described in the EIS is denied, Coos County will proceed with plans to construct,
operate, and maintain the natural gas pipeline within public roads and private easements included in the Proposed
Action, avoiding crossing Federal land as necessary. Obtaining a right-of-way permit for crossing federal lands
would not be necessary. Segments C, E, and G of the described Proposed Action would be built, mostly in the CBW
Road. Approximately 86 percent of the proposed route would be built in the location described in the EIS Proposed
Action. This re-route would result in the construction of approximately 4.0 additional miles of pipeline and cost an
estimated $2.3 million dollars more than the proposed action.
The Hwy 42 Alternative
This alternative would deliver natural gas from near Roseburg to Coos Bay by constructing a pipeline under or beside
the road bed of Oregon Hwy 42 for approximately 83 miles. This route would cross sensitive wildlife areas and be
located within difficult construction zones for approximately 7 miles. Construction would be more difficult due to
the existing fiber optic cables buried on each side of the road. Construction along Hwy 42 would result in consider-
able traffic delays for an extended period of time.
t>ummary
This route would cross 209 streams and 9 wetlands. A route summary of environmental and economic impacts is
given in Table S-2.
Table S-2. Impacts and Route Summary Including No Action
Alternative
Proposed Action
Hwy42
No Action
Total length (miles)
59.1
82.7
63.1
Total stream crossings
188
209
188
Total wetlands crossed
2
9
2
Federally listed species
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Survey and Manage species
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Estimated Costs
$34 million
$48 million
$36.3 million
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Alternatives to the proposed action that were determined not to meet the need included alternative sources of natural
gas; Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Pacific Gas Transmission (PGT) and an alterna-
tive route following Hwy 38 or direct route. All of these alternatives were rejected because they were not economi-
cally feasible.
Potential Impacts
Five categories were used to evaluate potential impacts to the natural and built environments: negative impact, no
negative impact, no anticipated impact, no effect and beneficial impact. For the resources discussed in this EIS,
potential impacts from construction and operation are estimated to be "negligible short-term" to "no effect."
VI
List of Acronyms Used Within this Document
List of Acronyms Used Within this Document
ACEC - Area of Critical Environmental Concern
ACS - Aquatic Conservation Strategy
AD - Anno Domini
AMA - Adaptive Management Area
API - American petroleum Institute
BA - Biological Assessment
BIS - Biological Information Specialists
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
BMP - Best Management Practice
BP - Before Present
BPA - Bonneville Power Administration
CBW Road-Coos Bay Wagon Road
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality
CHU - Critical Habitat Unit
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
cfs - cubic feet per second
CNG - Compressed Natural Gas
COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CR - County Road
CSZ - Cascadia Subduction Zone
CWTD - Columbian White-Tailed Deer
CZMA - Coastal Zone Management Act
DLCD - Department of Land Conservation and Development
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DOT - Department of Transportation
DSL - Department of State Lands (Oregon)
EA - Environmental Assessment
EGA - Equivalent Clearcut Area
ECP - Erosion Control Plan
ECR - Environmental Compliance Representative
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ERMA - Extensive Recreation Management Area
ESA - Endangered Species Act (1973)
FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act
vii
List of Acronyms Used Within this Document
FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact
FSEIS - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
GIS - Geographical Information System
GLO - General Land Office
GWV - Gross Weight Vehicle
ha - hectares
HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code
IDT - Inter-disciplinary Team
IMPLAN - Impact Analysis for Planning
km - kilometer
kV - kilovolt
Kw - Kilowatt
LCDC - Land Conservation and Development Commission
LNG - Liquefied Natural Gas
LRMP BO - Land Resource Management Plan Biological Opinion
LSR - Late Successional Reserve
LSOG - Late Successional-Old-Growth
LWD - Large Woody Debris
mi - miles
MAOP - Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MMCFD - Million Cubic Feet Per Day
MOP - Maximum Operating Pressure
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
NRHP - National Register of Historic Places
NFP - Northwest Forest Plan
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
O&C - Oregon and California (land designation)
O&M - Operation and Maintenance
ODF - Oregon Department of Forestry
ODFW - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODOT - Oregon Department of Transportation
OHV - Off-highway Vehicles
OMP - Operation and Maintenance Plan
ONHP - Oregon Natural Heritage Program
OPUC - Oregon Public Utilities Commission
OCMP - Oregon Coastal Management Plan
OSHA - Office of Safety and Health Administration
vni
List of Acronyms Used Within this Document
PDC - Project Design Criteria
PE - Polyethylene
POC - Port-Orford-cedar
pH - Potential of Hydrogen
PP&L - Pacific Power and Light
psi - pounds per square inch
psig - pounds per square inch gauge
PUE - Public Utility Easement
RCYBP - Radiocarbon Years Before Present
RMP - Resource Management Plan
ROD - Record of Decision
ROW - Right-of-Way
SC - Species of Concern
SCADA - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDP - Site Discovery Probes
SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office
SMYS - Standard Maximum Yield Strength
SWOCC - Southwest Oregon - Coos County
T&E - Threatened and Endangered
TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load
T##S, R##W, Sec. ## - Township ## South, Range ## West, Section ##
USDI - United States Department of Interior
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS - United States Geological Service
VRM - Visual Resource Management
WA - Watershed Analysis
WAU - Watershed Analysis Unit
IX
List of Acronyms Used Within this Document
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
Purpose and Need 1
Summary of Scoping and significant issues of the FEIS 1
Conformance with BLM Resource Management Plan EIS 2
Authorizing Actions and Relationship to Statutes and Regulations 2
Interrelationship with Other Projects 2
Interdependencies 3
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Description of Proposed Action 5
Location of the Proposed Action 5
Description of the Proposed Action Corridor 7
Pipeline Laterals 8
Lateral Routes 8
Proposed Action - Utility Corridors and the CBW Road 11
No Action Alternative 11
Hwy 42 Alternative (the South Route) 12
Alternatives Considered But Rejected 13
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Introduction 15
General Setting of the Proposed Action 15
Environment 16
Air Quality 16
Geology 16
Natural Resources 16
Cultural Resources (Including Native American Religious Concerns) 16
Soils 16
Proposed Action Vegetation 17
Forest Types 17
Vegetation of the Hwy 42 Alternative Route 17
Farmlands, Prime and Unique 17
Floodplain 17
Water Quality, Quantity and Domestic Use 18
Waters Along the Hwy 42 Alternative 19
XI
Table of Contents
Wild and Scenic Rivers 19
Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas 19
Wildlife 19
Federally Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species 19
BLM Special Status Species 21
Survey and Manage Species •' 23
General Wildlife Groups 24
Human Environment 25
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 25
Public Health and Safety 26
Environmental Justice 26
Socio-economics in Coos County 26
Socio-economics within the Proposed Action 26
Waste - Solid or Hazardous 27
Land Uses 28
Transportation 29
Utility Corridors 32
Encumbrances 33
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction 35
Proposed Action Effects Summation 36
Environment 37
Air Quality 38
Natural Resources 39
Cultural Resources (Including Native American Religious Concerns) 39
Soils 39
Vegetation 40
Floodplains 42
Wild and Scenic Rivers 43
Wildlife 43
Aquatic Ecosystem 48
Human Environment 49
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 62
Socio-economics 62
Environmental Justice 72
Public Health and Safety 72
Waste - Solid or Hazardous 73
Xll
Table of Contents
Land Uses 75
Transportation 76
Utility Corridors 78
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Consistency with other Agency Plans and Programs 8 1
List of Contributors 82
Organizations Consulted 83
Distribution List and Document Availability on the Internet 86
List of Appendices
Appendix A Geotechnical Engineering Report
Introduction A-3
List of References _ A-28
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Introduction B-2
References Cited B-20
Appendix C Sheets 1-10
Appendix D Agency Management Plans for Resources Adjacent to the Proposed Action
Visual Resource Management D-2
Riparian Reserve and Aquatic Conservation Strategy Management D-2
Watershed Management Plans D-3
Appendix E Aquatic Biological Assessment
Introduction E-2
Dichotomous Key for Section 7 Determination of Effects E- 36
List of References E-37
Appendix El Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Appendix F U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
Appendix G Questions and Concerns from the Public
Questions G-2
Comments G-12
xiii
Table of Contents
Appendix Gl Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Appendix G2 Responses to Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Comment Period
Appendix H Erosion Control Plan
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Active Stream Crossing Project Design Criteria (PDC)
H-2
H-3
Appendix I
Watersheds and Streams
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance Plan
Construction Methods and Operations
Directional Drilling and Reaming Procedures
Operation Description
Maintenance Description
J-2
J-7
J-13
J-13
Appendix K Survey and Manage Species
Appendix Kl Special Status Species
Appendix L
Glossary of Terms
Appendix M List of References
Appendix N Consistency Determination
xiv
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Action Segment Description 7
Table 2: Action Alternatives Route Summary 10
Table 3: Route Summary for Proposed action 1 1
Table 4: Route Summary for Alternative 3 (along Hwy 42) 12
Table 5: Special Status Fish Species in Streams Near the Proposed Action 23
Table 6: Portions of the CBW Road Affected 30
Table 7: Other Roads Affected by Pipeline 32
Table 8: Definition of Key, Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 35
Table 9: Metal Emissions from Fuel Combustion 38
Table 10: Airborne Emissions from Fuel Combustion 38
Table 11: Acreage of soil area impacted by watershed in the proposed action 40
Table 12: Noxious Weeds in Utility Corridor 41
Table 13: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Lower South Umpqua
Watershed (5th field HUC) 5 1
Table 14: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Ollala Creek/Lookingglass
Creek Watershed (5th field HUC) 52
Table 15: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Ollala Creek/Lookingglass
Creek Watershed (5th field HUC) 53
Table 16: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the East Fork Coquille
Watershed (5th field HUC) 54
Table 17: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the East Fork Coquille
Watershed (5th field HUC) 55
Table 18: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the North Fork Coquille
River Watershed (5th field HUC) 56
Table 19: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the North Fork Coquille
River Watershed (5th field HUC) 57
Table 20: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Middle Main Coquille
River Watershed (5th field HUC) 58
Table 21: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Lower
Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed (5th field HUC) 59
Table 22: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Lower
Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed (5th field HUC) 60
Table 23: Pipeline Construction Spending for the $48 Million Scenario 64
Table 24: Pipeline Construction Spending for the $34 Million Scenario 64
XV
List of Tables
Table 25: Direct Impact of $48 Million in Pipeline Construction on Coos County in Year 2000
Dollars and Person-Years of Employment 65
Table 26: Direct, Indirect, Induced and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County From
$48 Million in Pipeline Construction Spending in Year 2000 Dollars and Person- Years
of Employment 66
Table 27: Direct Impact of $34 Million in Pipeline Construction on Coos County in Year 2000
Dollars and Person- Years of Employment 66
Table 28: Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County From $34 Million
in Pipeline Construction Spending 66
Table 29: Annual Spending on Pipeline Operations (in 2000 dollars) 67
Table 30: Annual Direct Impact of Pipeline Operations Spending on Coos County in Year 2000 Dollars
and Person-Years of Employment 68
Table 31: Annual Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County Because of
Pipeline Operations Spending in Year 2000 Dollars and Person-Years of Employment 68
Table 32: Comparative Population Growth Rates 1980-2000 70
Table 33: Propane and Heating Oil Dealers 71
Table 34: Statistics Involving Natural Gas Pipelines in Oregon and Washington (1984-2000) 75
Table 35: Impacts Summary 78
Table 36: Technical Consultation 83
Table 37: Pipeline Meetings 84
Table A-1: Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline A- 18
Table E-1: Proposed Action Route Summary E-3
Table E-2: Matrix of Factors and Indicators (All WAs & NMFS, 1998) E-7
Table E-3: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (E. Fork Coquille) E-1 3
Table E-4: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (Lower Coos) E-1 6
Table E-5: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (N. Fork Coquille) E-20
Table E-6: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (Lower South Umpqua) E-24
Table E-7: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (Middle Main Coquille) E-29
Table E-8: Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators (OUala-Lookingglass) E-34
Table H-1: Fish-bearing Streams Identified for Avoiding Ground Disturbance within them H-2
Table H-2: Specified ODOT Seed Mixture for Coast Range H-14
Table I-l: Stream and Wetland Crossings within the Proposed Project Corridor I-l
Table K-1: Survey and Manage Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants K-1
Table Kl-1: Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants Kl-1
Table Kl-2: Special Status Fish Kl-4
Table Kl-3: Special Status Invertebrates Kl-4
Table Kl-4: Special Status Wildlife Kl-5
xvi
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure A-1: West-east geologic cross-section along Oregon Hwy A-5
Figure A-2: View of BPA powerline on steep hillside A- 1 1
Figure A-3: Rise of BPA powerline, up steep 20 percent slope A- 1 2
Figure A-4: View along Brewster Canyon at Mile 2 1 on CBW Road A- 1 3
Figure A-5: View along Brewster Canyon at Mile 26 on CBW Road A- 14
Figure B-1: Location of the Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline B-3
Figure B-2: Survey status and location of recommended SDP, Coos Bay to Catching Creek B-1 4
Figure B-3: Survey status and location of recommended SDP, Isthmus Slough to Sitkum B-1 5
Figure B-4: Survey status, location of identified cultural materials, and location of recommended SDP,
Sitkum to Floumoy Valley B-1 6
Figure B-6: Site Map B-1 9
Figure H-1: Stream Crossing: Trenching across a flowing stream H-7
Figure J-1: Directional-Drill Crossing: Pilot Hole J-7
Figure J-2: Reaming Process J-7
Figure J-3: Pull Back J-7
Figure J-4: Typical Block Valve Setting J- 1 0
xvu
List of Maps
List of Maps
Map 1 - Alternative Routes
Map 2 - Preferred Alternative and Laterals
Sheets 1-10 - BLM managed lands adjacent to the proposed action.
xvni
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
The following changes were made in Chapter 1 between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minor
corrections, explanations and edits are not included in this list.
• The former Purpose and Need section has been replaced with a more detailed description.
Background
On May 17, 2000, Coos County, Oregon (hereafter referenced as "the County"), acting by and through its Board of
Commissioners, filed application OR55754 with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a perpetual or
renewable (with the longest allowable initial term) ROW to construct, operate and maintain a 12-inch diameter natu-
ral gas transportation pipeline across BLM-managed lands. Portions of the proposed action will be located within 3
miles of BLM ROW designated for roads or utility corridors.
Application is made to establish the pipeline in accordance with: 1 ) The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Section 28, as
amended (30 USC 185); and 2) regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 2800.
In August, 2000, the County filed application (Form BPA F4300.03e) with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
for consent to build sections of its natural gas pipeline within BPA utility corridors.
On November 10, 2000, the County filed application to the COE. a cooperating federal agency, for authorization to
construct the proposed pipeline across streams and wetlands along the proposed action. The COE has assigned
application No. 2000-00544 to the project.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed action is to construct a 12 inch natural gas transmission pipeline from near Roseburg to
Coos County. Natural gas transported by the pipeline would provide an alternative source of energy for existing or
potential residential, commercial or industrial customers within the Coos County service area. This EIS provides the
analysis necessary for BLM to make a decision on granting a discretionary right-of-way permit for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the pipeline on approximately three miles of BLM-administered land.
The total length of the pipeline is about 60 miles. Approximately 28 miles of smaller pipeline laterals would
eventually be constructed to serve the Coos County cities of Coquille, Myrtle Point and possibly Bandon. Gas
distribution systems would be built in each city, most likely by Northwest Natural Gas (hereafter referred to as
NW Natural). The laterals and distribution lines would be located entirely on private properties.
Coos County has never had direct access to natural gas as an energy source, but has relied on petroleum products and
propane, electricity, or wood for energy sources. Utility gas is available in every state, including Alaska and Hawaii.
More than half of all homes in the United States are heated with natural gas. Natural gas accounts for about one-
quarter of all energy needs in the country. Natural gas is more efficient and less expensive than electricity, heating
oil or propane, and much cleaner than wood fuel. Natural gas service is nearly as common to US towns and cities as
are electricity, community water and sewer, and telephone services.
Of the 17 Western states, natural gas is available in approximately 950 of 1,060 counties, with about 99 percent of the
population of the West. With a population of about 63,000 (Census 2000), Coos County is the largest county in the
Western United States that does not have natural gas.
In 1999, Coos County leaders recognized the necessity for natural gas as critical to the community's economic survival.
Government and civic leaders, local industries and support businesses all supported a public awareness campaign,
which resulted in a grant from the State of Oregon to publicly fund a gas pipeline. Ballot Measure #6-63, authorizing
additional taxpayer funds for construction of a natural gas pipeline, was passed by a double majority of Coos County
voters in November 1999.
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
Summary of scoping and significant issues of the EIS
Scoping is required for preparation of an EIS. Its use with the proposed action was a help in determining some
potential effects to assess. The formal scoping notice for preparation of the EIS was published in the Federal
Register on March 29, 2001 . A public scoping meeting was held in Coos Bay on April 4, and at the McKinley
Grange on April 18, 2001. The formal scoping period closed on April 30, 2001. A total of 40 letters were received
during the scoping period.
The proposed action is a result of numerous feasibility studies conducted over the course of approximately 35 years.
Participants in the EIS analysis used these studies, along with additional recent studies, for the basis of information
included in this EIS.
The following issues arose from the Inter-disciplinary Team (IDT) scoping process:
• Regulations affecting the proposed action;
• Impacts (effects) - (1) Impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats and water quality; (2) Impacts on air pollution
and soil productivity; (3) Impacts on plants and terrestrial species and habitats, which includes Port-
Orford-cedar, Noxious Weeds, Special Status Species, Survey & Manage Species, T&E Species, as well as
related Critical Habitat Units (CHUs); (4) Cultural resource-site protection (including Native American Reli-
gious Concerns); and (5) Economic impacts;
• Under private or public (Federal, State or local) jurisdiction or ownership;
• Direct, Indirect and Cumulative effects: short and long term effects of the proposed action and its ancillary
facilities;
• Agency concerns (Federal, State or local agency analysis of impacts);
• Public concerns: All public comments, questions and concerns are listed in Appendices G-G2.
This FEIS addresses the proposed action's real or potential impacts to environmental resource components. Impacts
are presented for affected land ownership. The impact analysis defines the interaction of the component(s) of the
proposed action with its surrounding environment, including affected environments extending beyond the project
construction boundary (the ROW easement).
Conformance with BLM Resource Management Plan EIS
Both the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM District Resource Management Plans (herein referred to as 'RMP'), specifi-
cally encourage use of existing ROW, such as the BPA corridor utilized in the proposed action. Both RMPs suggest
that the location of new ROW are placed in these existing utility corridors. Placement of a pipeline in the CBW
Road, the BPA utility corridor and the Pacific Power & Light (owned by Pacificorp, herein referred to as PP&L) util-
ity corridor would be consistent with the RMP guidelines and recommendations.
Authorizing Actions and Relationship to Statutes and Regulations
The proposed action would comply with the following:
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act C'FLPMA'') of 1976 (90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.);
• Revested Oregon and California (O&C) Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of
1937 (50 Stat. 874, U.S.C. 1 181a., et seq.);
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
• Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations 49 CFR, parts 190-199;
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Water Quality guidelines;
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regulations (relating to Oregon Highways);
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 1996). Guidelines for protecting sites;
• Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) 1994;
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973;
• Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996;
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
• Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 402);
• Section 404, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Interrelationship with Other Projects
Anticipated Future Gas Pipeline Projects
Anticipated Interrelationships with future projects would likely (not automatically) take place after approval of the
proposed action.
Additional (smaller) pipelines would likely be installed to the communities of North Bend, Coquille, Myrtle Point,
Empire, Charleston and possibly Bandon if this conniiunity grants a franchise to NW Natural. NW Natural also
plans to extend the pipeline to the North Spit of Coos Bay within three to four years of completion of the proposed
action. These future projects would be planned based on market needs within the area they would serve, which
would include determination of pipeline size. Funding for these projects, except in the case of Bandon, will be pro-
vided by NW Natural. Bandon would have the option to build their own distribution system, including a pipeline
extending from the proposed action or its lateral pipelines, if they decide to have natural gas supplied to their commu-
nity.
Although the final locations of the laterals are not known, it is anticipated that 28 miles of pipeline laterals would
likely be constructed to Coquille, Myrtle Point and Bandon. Impacts associated with construction of the laterals are
anticipated to be similar to. but of lower magnitude than, the main pipeline because the laterals would cross fewer
streams and would not be adjacent to late-successional habitats. No Federal land would be impacted.
New Industrial Gas Users
This natural gas pipeline project was proposed by Coos County and funded by county and state taxpayers for eco-
nomic development. The proposed action would result in the availability of natural gas to most commercial and
industrial areas of Coos County. It is hoped that the availability of natural gas will attract new manufacturing and
commercial facilities to Coos (Tounty. It is also likely that existing industrial users of oil, wood and other fuels would
convert to natural gas.
Natural gas is often an important factor in site selection, but other critical factors include transportation facilities
(access to Interstate highways, rail, ports and airports), location relative to raw materials and markets, available work
force, local wages, educational resources, quality of life and other factors. Natural gas availability alone, however,
would not cause new manufacturing facilities to be built. Because no industrial commitments have yet occurred, it is
not possible to quantify the potential environmental impacts of unknown future facilities and their potential locations.
Future new facilities utilizing natural gas will be required to undergo their own environmental impacts analyses,
within the required permitting processes for new construction.
Interdependencies
Interdependencies are projects that would likely occur upon approval of the proposed action. That is, approval of the
proposed action would likely "trigger" the interdependent action.
Natural Gas Distribution System
The proposed action 12-inch mainline would end at Ocean Boulevard by the old water plant in Coos Bay. The city
gate station would include a meter, a piping manifold to send gas in different directions, and possibly pressure regu-
lators to reduce pressure. NW Natural will build a gas distribution system. The design of the system will not be
finalized until more marketing studies are finished to identify size and type of gas loads.
Location and construction of the distribution lines to natural gas end customers would be funded by NW Natural.
Distribution lines are not expected to cross any federally managed lands. Impacts associated with the lateral lines
and distribution system would be subject to regulation by the Oregon Public Utility Commission ("OPUC").
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The following changes were made in Chapter 2 between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minor
corrections, explanations and edits are not included in this list.
• Additional information has been added to the description of the Proposed Action which specifies locations of
delivery stations in Douglas County.
Description of Proposed Action
Natural gas is available near Roseburg from Williams Gas Pipeline - West, formerly Northwest Pipeline Company.
The Williams pipeline system transports gas from producing wells in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. and
Canada. The natural gas produced from the wells is stripped of corrosive elements, excess water and heavier hydro-
carbons before entering the pipeline system. The natural gas is delivered via pipelines from these wells to Portland
and the Willamette Valley. The Williams Grants Pass lateral extends south of Eugene, generally along Interstate-5,
to Grants Pass.
In the Roseburg area, Williams has a single lO-inch steel pipeline operating at 500 to 800 pounds per square-inch
(psi). The proposed action would be a 12-inch steel pipeline connecting to the existing 10-inch pipeline a few miles
south of Roseburg.
The pipeline would be buried for its entire length. Its only above-ground components would be line markers, test sta-
tions, several bridge crossings and valve settings. It would be built and hydrostatically tested to 1,500 psi which
allows a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 1 ,000 psi. It would operate at the same pressure as the
Williams pipeline, which is normally 500 to 800 psi.
As noted in Chapter 1, approximately 3 miles of the preferred pipeline route would cross BLM-managed lands within
the BPA power line ROW. The remainder of the pipeline would be located within the ROW of the CBW Road and
other public roads, or within PP&L and BPA ROW crossing privately owned properties.
The pipeline would terminate at Ocean Boulevard in Coos Bay where a NW Natural distribution system would be
built. NW Natural has been granted the "exclusive territory" rights for gas distribution in Coos County, excluding
the city of Bandon.
In Douglas County, natural gas would be made available to a delivery station in the town of Lookingglass where
exclusive rights are held by Avista Utilities Corporation (hereafter referred to Avista). The delivery station would be
relatively small, not requiring a city gate station, and would be located near the Lookingglass school.
The straight-line distance from the Williams connection location (just south of Roseburg) to Ocean Boulevard is
about 44 miles, whereas, the proposed action traverses approximately 60 miles. The proposed action within existing
road and utility corridors is the shortest practical route from source to destination.
The permanent easement on BLM-managed lands would total approximately 14 acres. Additional temporary utility
corridor construction ROW width (as necessary) is also requested. The additional utility corridor construction area
of approximately 7 acres would also be completely inside the BPA utility corridor and returned to BLM control after
completion of construction and site restoration.
Several delivery stations would deliver gas to end users at various locations in Coos County and Douglas County.
None of these delivery stations would be located on BLM-managed lands. For safety reasons, the proposed action
includes 5 block valves (see Appendix J), placed at intervals along the pipeline corridor. Placement of the valves is
based upon pipeline safety regulations and operational factors, such as local distribution and lateral pipeline place-
ment. None of these block valves would be installed on BLM-managed lands.
Location of the Proposed Action
The corridor for the proposed action would traverse the Coast Range in southern Oregon from the western region of
Douglas County Township 27 South, Range 6 West, Section 33 (T27S, R6W, Sec. 33) to the western region of Coos
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
County (T25S, R13W, Sec. 27). The terrain varies from gentle to very steep as the corridor follows 230 kilovolt (kV)
transmission lines operated by BPA and PP&L, the CBW Road, and BPA and PP&L 1 15 kV transmission lines and
roads into Coos Bay. (Refer to Map 1).
The proposed action would connect to the Williams Gas Pipeline near Happy Valley, approximately 4 miles south-
west of 1-5 freeway exit 124 (Harvard Avenue) in Roseburg. The pipeline route continues - as described below -
until it connects to its delivery facility at Ocean Boulevard.
The following is a sequential list (east to west) of section locations which contain a portion of the proposed action:
Douglas County
T27S. R6W, Sections 33, 32 and 31;
T27S, R7W, Sections 36, 35, 34, 33, 32 and 31;
T271/2S,R7W, Section 6;
T28S, R7W, Section 6;
T28S, R7 1/2W, Section 6;
T28S, R8W, Sections 1,2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 7.
Coos County
T28S, R9W, Sections 12, 13, 14, 11, 10, 9, 8 and 7;
T28S. RlOW, Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 5 and 6;
T28S.R11W, Sections 12, 11, 10, 3 and 4;
T27S, Rl IW, Sections 33, 32, 29, 30 and 19;
T27S, R12W, Sections 24, 23, 14, 15, 16, 9, 10 and 4;
T26S, R12W, Section 33, 32, 29, 30 and 19;
T26S, R13W. Sections 25, 24, 23, 14, 15, 10 and 3;
T25S, R13W, Sections 34 and 27.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Description of the Proposed Action Corridor
The proposed action corridor is delineated into Segments A through K (Table 1). These segments aid discussion of
the proposed action by breaking it into manageable portions.
Table 1 :
Proposed Action Segment Description
Segment
Begins
Ends
Distance in Miles
A
Williams Delivery Station,
approximately 4 miles south-
west of Roseburg, OR.
(T27S, R6W, Sec.33)
BPA Reston Substation
(T27S, R7W, Sec.31)
8.1
B
BPA Reston Substation
(T27S, R7W, Sec.3l)
Tenmile Block Valve
CBW Road Mile Point 1.7
(T28S, R8W, Sec.l6)
5.7
C
Tenmile Block Valve
(T28S, R8W, Sec.l6)
Douglas-Coos County Line
Douglas County Mile Point 6.0
(T28S, R9W, Sec.l2)
2.8
D
County Line
Coos County Mile Point 36.3
(T28S, R9W, Sec.l2)
Lone Pine Lane
CBW Road Mile Point 17.5
(T28S, RIIW, Sec.lO)
18.3
E
Lone Pine Lane
(T28S, RIIW, Sec.lO)
Cherry Creek
CBW Road Mile Point 17.9
(T28S. RIIW, Sec.4)
1.6
F
Cherry Creek
(T28S, RllW, Sec.4)
McKinley. OR
CBW Road Mile Point 17.1
(T27S, RIIW. Sec.32)
0.9
G
McKinley, OR
(T27S. RIIW, Sec.32)
Fairview, OR
CBW Road Mile Point 12.5
(T27S,RI2W, Sec.24)
3.6
H
Fairview, OR
(T27S, R12W. Sec.24)
Sumner Lane at PP&L
CBW Road Mile Point 2.7
(T26S, R12W, Sec.30)
9.9
I
Sumner Lane
(T26S, R12W, Sec.30)
U.S. 101
CBW Road Mile Point 0.0
(T26S,R13W, Sec.23)
2.4
J
U.S. 101
(T26S, RI3W, Sec.23)
Red Dike Road CR 1 83
(T26S,R13W, Sec.lO)
2.7
K
Red Dike Road
(T26S,R13W, Sec.lO)
Coos Bay, OR
Off Ocean Blvd.
(T25S, 13W, Sec.27)
3.1
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Pipeline Laterals
The Coos County 12-inch mainline would extend to the edge of the city of Coos Bay. The Coos County project
would also include smaller pipeline laterals to serve Coquille, Myrtle Point and possibly Bandon.
These lateral pipelines would be smaller in diameter than the 12-inch mainline. The projected demand in the smaller
towns could be served with 6-inch and 4-inch pipelines. The laterals would be built with welded and coated steel
pipe, to the same 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) MAOP and Department of Transportation (DOT) standards as
the mainline. The laterals would be operated at the same pressure as the mainline. The same Project Design Criteria
(PDCs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) described for the mainline will be implemented for these laterals.
The routes of these lateral pipelines are not yet finalized. The pipelines would generally follow existing road, power
and other ROW. There is no route being considered that would impact BLM or other Federal lands (refer to Map 2 of
the Draft EIS).
Lateral Routes
The lateral pipeline route would likely follow a BPA utility ROW to Bandon, and a former railroad ROW to Coquille
and Myrtle Point.
Fairview to Hwy 42
Present plans would have the lateral begin at the Fairview block valve (Segment G). The lateral pipeline would
likely leave the site of the block valve along a former railroad grade and follow Fairview Road (County Road [CR] 9
from Coquille) for approximately 1.6 miles.
At about 1 .6 miles from the Fairview block valve, the lateral route would likely follow the BPA Fairview-Rogue 230
kV powerline utility corridor. This route heads southwest over the ridge at Rink Peak at 1,070 feet above sea level.
The BPA corridor descends into the Coquille River valley, crossing Hwy 42 at Mile Marker (MM) 14.4. The pipe-
line lateral would be bored-under Hwy 42 and would follow a former Southern Pacific Railroad ROW adjacent to the
highway corridor. Near the BPA crossing of the railroad grade, a block valve would be at the end of this 7.5-mile lat-
eral segment. This segment would cross Lee Valley Road (CR 2B) and Hwy 42, Steele Creek, Blair Creek, Lost
Creek and Aiken Creek in the Coquille watershed. This segment would be built of 6-inch or 8-inch diameter pipe.
Coquille Lateral
This lateral would likely start at the Hwy 42 block valve and travel north, following a former railroad ROW. The
railroad from Coos Bay to Coquille still has limited traffic, but is currently under abandonment discussion. The lat-
eral route would be in or beside the railroad grade, subject to agreement with the railroad. If such an agreement is not
made, the pipeline would be installed on highway ROW or on private land between the two corridors. The Coquille
Lateral would then follow rail or road corridors to the south edge of Coquille. This segment would be built of 4-inch
diameter pipe and approximately 2 miles long.
Myrtle Point Lateral
This lateral would likely start at the Hwy 42 block valve and travel south along a former railroad ROW. The antici-
pated route would be in the railroad ROW. Hwy 42 or on private land. The Myrtle Point Lateral would end at the
north edge of Myrtle Point near Hwy 42. This segment would cross 4 county roads. The North Fork of the Coquille
River would be directionally-drilled. This segment would be built of 4-inch diameter pipe and approximately 6 miles
long.
Bandon Lateral
This lateral would likely start at the Hwy 42 block valve and travel west, following the BPA ROW to the east edge of
Bandon. The pipeline would be directionally-drilled under the Coquille River near river mile 27. This route would
follow BPA Rogue 230 kV line to Fat Elk Road. Near Rollan Creek, the BPA Rogue corridor converges with the
BPA Number 1 Fairview-Bandon 1 15 kV line. The lateral would then follow a county road for a short distance. At
Lampa Creek, the pipeline would follow county and/or forest roads for easier negotiation of creek crossings and ele-
vation changes.
This segment would cross 8 county roads. The Coquille River would be directionally-drilled. The anticipated route
would cross approximately 12 named streams, and numerous unnamed perennial and intermittent streams. The seg-
ment would be built of 4-inch diameter pipe and approximately 12 miles long.
■>^y'i;r^fi''i':''[-H''ih
' ^■■■•■■t^.a' ■■■':■■
:;^_.ii,^B^<V.
.i^^ldl^^''''^
' ■ „-^ '--Bs?^#?; '■"■V iii
^^* ^^- lit
:ia. T ?y^:
■4^-'-
Jfe
OREGON
Map 1 : Preferred Alternatives and Laterals
LEGEND
^^^■■" Laterals
O Block Valves
^^^■■" Power Line
wa^^mmt Wagon Road
Proposed Pipeline
I C I Pipeline Segment
1 : 220,b00
0 12 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau ot Land Management
COOS BAY DISTRICT
Coos Bay Resource Area
2002
No warranty is made by Ihe Bureau ot Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness ot Uiese data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled Irom various sources. This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards: This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated wthou! notification.
COOS COUNTY NATURAL
GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
T^^
MH©iRiver
K'.i-^!I:fcw^Sag"^
OREGON
LEGEND
""^ Preferred Alternative
^^^ Highway 42 Alternative
O Block Valve
Q I Pipeline Segment
. ^ . . Watershed Boundary
1 : 236,000
0 12 3
MILES
10 1 2 I 3 4
KILOMETERS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
COOS BAY DISTRICT
Coos Bay Resource Area
2002
Map 2: Alternate Routes
No warranty is made by the Bureau ol Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliabjiity, of compleleness ol these data for individual or agdregale use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sjufces. This
inlormatjon may not meet National Map Accuracy Standard! This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated v^oul notrtication.
COOS COUNTY NATURAL
GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Schedule, Sizing and Route Selection Factors
The Coos County 12-inch mainUne is scheduled for completion into Coos Bay by the end of 2002. The smaller pipe-
line laterals are anticipated to be finished by the end of 2003. There are several factors, including the size of lateral
pipelines and selection of the lateral routes, which are not yet confirmed.
Gas distribution to Bandon is an unknown factor. NW Natural has been authorized by the OPUC to serve all parts of
Coos County with natural gas, except within the city limits of Bandon. Bandon has not yet decided whether to build
its own gas distribution system, allow NW Natural a franchise, or prohibit natural gas and protect its existing electric
power. Banddn may also wish to install or contract for a natural gas-fired generator to provide electricity. These
unknown factors could result in: 1 ) a 4-inch lateral constructed as envisioned now; 2) a larger lateral for greater
power generation; 3) no lateral if gas distribution is not permitted; or 4) a re-route of the pipeline to accommodate a
generator adjacent to the Bandon area.
The Beaver Hill area presents another unknown factor. Coos County operates a solid waste disposal plant near Bea-
ver Hill in Section 24-T27S-R14W near U.S. 101 between Coos Bay and Bandon. This site is close to a PP&L utility
corridor, has suitable zoning and could be a potential power generation site. Pipeline access to Beaver Hill would be
feasible from Fairview via Coquille or along U.S. 101 from Coos City.
No proposals have been made to Coos County. None of the likely routes to Coquille, Myrtle Point, Bandon or Bea-
ver Hill involve BLM-managed lands. At this point in the planning process for these laterals, it is premature to for-
mulate a detailed assessment on any of the possible lateral routes. Without BLM involvement, the COE would
become the lead Federal agency for any lateral projects, and all environmental regulations would be adhered to.
NW Natural Gas Facilities (Coos County)
NW Natural plans to install three types of gas mains:
Welded steel main lines capable of intermediate to mainline pressure (up to 1,000 psi);
Polyethylene (PE) main lines at 60 psi or less (4-inch to 8-inch diameter);
PE pipes down side streets at 60 psi or less (2-inch diameter).
NW Natural plans to extend service to industrial users on the North Spit. This service would likely be an 8-inch to
12-inch diameter welded steel pipeline. Tentative plans for this line would follow Ocean Boulevard and Newmark
Avenue to Empire, serving as the primary source for the Coos Bay to North Bend distribution system.
The North Spit extension would be built within 4 years of completion of the proposed action. The extension would
be directionally-drilled under Coos Bay, and placed within the Trans Pacific Parkway ROW to Weyerhaeuser.
Directionally-drilling under Coos Bay would require a permit from the COE. This extension will be subject to NEPA
when plans are finalized. The bay crossing has been discussed as a joint venture with the local water board to
upgrade water service on the North Spit.
While the main lines can be used to directly serve larger users, most customers would be serviced by a 2-inch PE
main line connecting in their street or alley where a plastic tapping tee is fused onto the main line and a 1-inch diam-
eter PE service pipe is run through the yard to a meter at a house or building. Each customer would have a separate
service line and meter.
Utility distribution mains are installed in public streets, utility easements and other existing ROW. Mains must be
installed with 18 to 36 inches of cover in public conidois depending on pressure rating and location. Construction of
mains would be entirely in existing streets, alleys and public utility easements (PUE). Crossings of streams and wet-
lands usually occur in the roadway or on bridges with no impact to the off-road areas. NW Natural is certified by the
OPUC to install gas distribution systems and serve all pails of Coos County with natural gas, except within the city
limits of Bandon.
Avista Natural Gas Facilities (Douglas County)
Avista currently supplies natural gas to many communities in Douglas County, including the city of Roseburg.
Installation of a small delivery station in the town of Lookingglass would allow Avista to extend services to consum-
ers in the Lookingglass area. This service would likely be a 2-inch diameter welded steel pipeline.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Pipeline Construction Alternatives Summarj'
Table 2:
Action Alternatives Route Summary
Description
Proposed
Alt. 42
Total length (miles)
59.1
82.7
Total Number of Streams Crossed
188
209
Total Number of Large Streams Crossed (streams 30+ feet summer wet-
ted width)
2
18
Total Number of Medium Streams Crossed (streams 15 to 30 feet summer
wetted width)
6
12
Total Number of Small Streams Crossed (streams less than 15 feet sum-
mer wetted width)
180
179
Total Number of Wetlands
2
9
Adjacent Floodplain (miles)
2.2
15.3
Pipeline placement, except for certain bridges, would be entirely underground within existing roads and utility (pow-
erline) corridors. Along the utility ROW. the pipeline would be placed near the edge away from adjacent trees. The
CBW Road would receive full-width repaying where the pipeline is installed under the present asphalt road surface.
In addition, the gravel-surfaced road sections will be paved after construction of the pipeline. This includes 10.6
miles of Sitkum Lane east of Sitkum to the county line and 4.5 miles of Sumner Lane north of Fairview.
The proposed action is adjacent to some areas designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat Units (CHUs). The pro-
posed action also includes some difficult construction areas, including naiTow canyon road beds and steep slopes
along the utility corridors. The proposed action contains 188 stream crossings and 1 wetland crossing. Of the
streams crossed, 180 are small streams (less than 0.2 cubic feet per second [cfs] of summer waterflow). The total
length of 100-year floodplains adjacent to the proposed action is 2.2 miles. The CBW Road and utility corridors
ROW would return to their current condition within 1 or 2 years.
Construction equipment would include bulldozers, backhoes, side-booms and other standard equipment typically
used for pipeline construction. For the CBW Road segments, construction equipment would also include the typical
road paving equipment necessary for full-width asphalt paving.
Operation and maintenance of the pipeline would be in accordance with all Federal, State and local regulations. (See
Appendix J for Construction, Operation and Maintenance). Delivery of natural gas to the franchise holder (NW Nat-
ural) would generate revenue for the County, which would be applied toward the County's expenses to operate the
pipeline. NW Natural anticipates to initially deliver 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year to customers in Coos
County. The maximum potential throughput of the Coos Pipeline would be 25 billion cubic feet per year.
10
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Proposed Action - Utility Corridors and the CBW Road
This alternative builds a pipeline along or near the CBW Road, as described in Table 3 below.
Table 3:
Route Summary for Proposed Action
Segment
Description
ROW Type
Distance
A
Williams to Reston Substation
PP&L
8.1 miles
B
Reston to Tenmile
BPA
5.7 miles
C
Tenmile to County Line
BPA
2.8 miles
D
County Line to Lone Pine Lane
CBW Road
18.3 miles
E
Lone Pine Lane to Cherry Creek
BPA
1.6 miles
F
Cherry Creek to McKinley
CBW Road
0.9 mile
G
McKinley to Fairview
BPA
3.6 miles
H
Fairview to Sumner Lane
CBW Road
9.9 miles
I
Sumner Lane to U.S. Highway 101
CBW Road
2.4 miles
J
U.S. Highway 101 to Libby
BPA
2.7 miles
K
Libby to Coos Bay
BPA
3.1 miles
Total Length
59.1 miles
No Action Alternative
For the purposes of this EIS, the "No Action Alternative" is defined as the result if the BLM would not grant Coos
County a discretionary ROW permit for a natural gas pipeline on lands administered by BLM. Effects addressed in
this FEIS associated with the No Action Alternative assume that the result would be the present condition: the pro-
posed natural gas pipeline is not constructed.
However, "No Action" by BLM will not necessarily result in the prevention of a new pipeline. If the Proposed
Action is denied or unduly delayed, Coos County may very likely pr-oceed on constructing the pipeline entir-ely
within public roads and private easements included in the Preferred Route, avoiding Federal land administered by
BLM.
This re-routing is not assessed as a unique or separate alternative, because the environmental impacts are nearly iden-
tical to those of the preferred alternative.
Approximately 86% of the proposed route (Segments A-B-D-F-H-I-J-K) would be built as described. Segments C-
E-G of the proposed project would be built primarily in the CBW Road, rather than within nearby powerline coni-
dors crossing Federal land as descr-ibed in the Proposed Action. Detailed descriptions of these segments are given in
Appendix I.
If BLM lands are not affected by the proposed action, the county would seek a permit from the COE, which would
then be the lead Federal agency, to cross waterways within the corridor. The number and general location of streams
and wetlands crossed would be virtually identical. Of the 1 88 streams and adjacent wetlands inventoried for the pro-
posed action, there are only 4 small, intermittent drainage channels actually located on BLM land. The no action
alternative would result in one of those channels being crossed on the CBW Road. Three of the BLM channels
would be avoided entir-ely.
11
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The hydrologic change of avoiding BLM land is two additional culvert crossings and two short bores or bridge cross-
ings of the upper East Fork. No other perennial stream would be affected by this change.
Impacts to terrestrial habitats resulting in the re-routing of the proposed action off BLM-managed lands to the CBW
Road would not be significantly different.
However, this minor re-route would require approximately 4 miles of additional construction and approximately $2.3
million additional county spenditure.
For the purposes of this document, "No Action" means no "federal discretionary action" to grant a ROW across BLM
land, and is assessed as such.
Hwy 42 (the South Route)
The Hwy 42 alternative (Table 4) would supply Coos Bay, North Bend and possibly other small communities within
Coos and Douglas Counties with natural gas.
Pipeline placement would be underground, under or beside the road beds. No trees would be removed, since the
pipeline would be located within the highway ROW.
Table 4:
Route Summary for Alternative 3 (along Hwy 42)
Segment
Description
ROW Type
Distance
L
Winston to Tenmile
ODOT
12.9 miles
M
Tenmile to Camas Valley
ODOT
7.5 miles
N
Camas Valley to County Line
ODOT
10.5 miles
0
County Line to Powers Rd. Jet.
ODOT
24.0 miles
P
Powers Rd. Jet. to Myrtle Point
ODOT
2.0 miles
Q
Myrtle Point to Hwy 101 Jet.
ODOT
20.0 mile
R
Hwy 101 Jet. to Coos City
ODOT
0.2 miles
S
Coos City to Ocean Boulevard
BPA
5.6 miles
Total Length
82.7 miles
Relatively few private landowners would experience impact from construction activity. Construction equipment
would be bulldozers, backhoes, side-mount cranes, etc., typically used for pipeline construction. Smaller equipment
would be required in some portions, where the allowable working space is tighter.
This pipeline route would enter sensitive wildlife areas and difficult construction zones (including bedrock road
beds) for a distance of about 7 miles. The difficulty would be further increased due to the fiber optic cables buried
along either side of the road. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats would experience short-term disturbance, because not
all negative effects can be minimized or avoided completely. This route would encounter 209 stream crossings and 9
wetlands. It is unlikely that visual impacts would remain after construction.
Traffic disruption would be considerable. Traffic volume along this alternative is high, as it is a major truck route to
the population centers of Coos and Curry Counties. It is also a major tourist route to the Coastal region. For a period
of 6 months or more, traffic would be delayed. (Refer to Map 1 ).
12
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Pipeline capacity and throughput would be nearly identical to the proposed action. Pipeline operation and mainte-
nance plans are expected to be similar to the description given in Appendix J.
Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Alternative Routes Rejected Without Intensive Studies
Straight-line route - The shortest route to the Coos County natural gas delivery point (just south of Coos Bay), would
be a straight-line traverse from Roseburg. However, a straight-line alternative would encounter very steep topogra-
phy containing critical habitats for federally protected and special status species. Significant impacts to the environ-
ment would likely be unavoidable, because no road or utility corridors exist along this straight-line route. This
option was rejected after considering costs and environmental impacts.
Hwy 38 route - This route would connect with the Williams pipeline near the Hwy 38 / 1-5 junction near Curtin, OR.
This alternative is on the upstream side of the Winchester, OR, natural gas compressor station. This route would
require a new compressor station and would be approximately 20 miles longer than the proposed action. This route
was not considered economically feasible.
Alternative Sources of Natural Gas
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) - Natural gas can be stored and shipped via truck in high-pressure gas transport cyl-
inders. The retail cost of CNG is substantially higher than the retail cost of propane and therefore is not economically
feasible for the Coos County.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) - Natural gas can be liquefied at cryogenic temperature (-250 degrees F). Transport
and storage are both expensive and technically challenging. Due to specialized facilities and associated costs, this
method has been limited to non-industrial uses. LNG can be shipped in ocean-going tankers and barges. The nearest
LNG sources are at gas production facilities in Alaska, Australia, Indonesia and the Mideast. This alternative would
require a new docking facility that may require dredging of Coos Bay. The estimated cost of facilities are more than
twice the cost of Coos County's portion of the estimated cost for the proposed action. LNG costs to the consumer
would likely exceed the cost of most fuels presently being utilized in Coos County. NW Natural has LNG facilities
in two Oregon locations and has studied LNG for various unserved communities. NW Natural owns the distribution
rights for natural gas in Coos County and has determined that LNG is not economically feasible for Coos Bay.
Alternate Pipeline - Pacific Gas Transmission (PGT) operates an interstate pipeline system from Canada to Califor-
nia. The mainline runs through Bend and Klamath Falls, OR. The nearest pipeline connections would likely be at
the Diamond Lake Junction northeast of Crater Lake, or at Medford, OR. A pipeline connecting to PGT would be
approximately 100 miles longer than the proposed action.
13
Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
14
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
The loUowing changes were made in Chapter 3 between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minor
corrections, explanations and edits arc not included in this list.
• Additional information regarding Port-Orford-cedar surveys conducted by the BLM within the proposed action
corridor arc given in the Natural Resources section.
• Additional information regarding dt)cumcnted locations of various fish, bird and mammal species according to
the Coos Bay district BLM database are given in the Natural Resources section.
Introduction
This chapter presents the baseline environment in and around the corridor of the proposed action. Where appropri-
ate, this chapter also includes baseline information of the southern route (Hwy 42).
General Setting of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is contained within utility corridor ROW or road ROW (principally the CBW Road) over its
entire course.
The CBW Road was established in 1872. This road is currently maintained by Coos and Douglas Counties, with
each county maintaining the segment of road within its respective jurisdiction.
The utility corridor ROW include BPA and PP&L facilities. The BPA ROW was established in the mid-195()'s.
Immediately prior to the time of its construction, the timber was removed from the 150-foot wide utility corridor.
Construction of the BPA utility corridor included access roads and towers supporting the power lines. The PP&L
ROW was established in 1969 in Douglas County. Its construction is similar to that of the BPA ROW.
The proposed action crosses both private and public lands. Each parcel of land is managed by its respective land-
owner or the landowner's designated land management entity.
The public lands include BLM-managed lands and county parks. BLM lands are managed in accordance with their
District Resource Management Plans and the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Public lands in Douglas County are pri-
marily managed by the Roseburg District BLM office. BLM lands in Coos County are managed by the Coos Bay
District BLM office. The county parks are managed by their respective County Parks Departments.
The private lands are owned by timber companies, large and small business enterprises, electric power transmission
facilities, small woodlot owners, ranchers and homeowners. Prior to entering the Coos Bay area, the proposed action
would pass through or near the small communities of Lookingglass, Sitkum, Dora, Fairview, Sumner and old Coos
City.
Native American Lands
None
Physical Description of the Area, Including Visual Resources
Numerous valleys and drainages dissect the proposed action within the Coast Range, with several steep canyons
(including Brewster Canyon). The CBW Road conidor crosses farms, residential areas, rivers, streams and forests.
The Coos Bay District RMP Record of Decision, page 41, discusses Visual Resource Management (VRM) for the
District. VRM Class II and Class III areas are described as follows: Representative Class II areas include lands
along Hwy 101 and the Coquille Valley. Lands adjacent to most county roads in rural residential areas (such as along
15
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
the CBW road) are primarily Class III. Lands along Hwy 42 are managed as VRM Class III. The majority of forest
lands in the District are managed as VRM Class IV.
The CBW Road is adjacent to some BLM-managed lands classified as Visual Resource Management Class IV areas.
This classification could change to VRM Class III if the CBW Road is designated as a scenic byway. None of the
BLM-managed lands bordering the proposed action are VRM Class III viewsheds. See Appendix D for VRM
descriptions.
Although they are not BLM-managed lands, the following areas adjacent to the proposed action are classified as
VRM Class III viewsheds: 1) Iverson Memorial Park, 2) Dave Busenbark County Park, 3) Judge Hamilton County
Park, 4) Dora, 5) Frona County Park, and 6) the region east of the North Fork Coquille River as viewed from Fair-
view.
General Setting of the Hwy 42 Alternate Route
The Hwy 42 alternative route has a general setting similar to those noted for the proposed action. This route is
mostly within VRM Class IV viewsheds. Traffic on this route is considerably heavier than on the CBW Road. This
highway is an important commercial and tourist travel corridor.
This alternative is a total of 82.7 miles in length. It would border approximately 2 miles of VRM Class III
viewsheds, affecting approximately 340 rural residences and 15.7 miles of urban area.
Environment
Air Quality
The proposed action includes no special airshed management policies. However, Roseburg has been identified as a
designated area under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. This plan controls the timing for agriculture and timber
lands that are burned as part of normal land-management practices.
The air quality of the proposed action corridor is typical of the rural air quality in southwest Oregon. Although no
data is available regarding the current levels of noxious gases, they are assumed to be at very low levels due to the
absence of heavy traffic and heavy industrial development.
Airborne particulates are at low levels in the proposed action corridor. Minor and temporary increases in dust partic-
ulate levels occur occasionally due to farming and logging operations in the area. A minor amount of smoke is com-
mon during cool weather periods near residences using wood-burning appliances.
Geology
Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix A for this information.
Natural Resources
Cultural Resources (Including Native American Religious Concerns)
Refer to the Cultural Resources Report in Appendix B for the proposed action information. The Hwy 42 alternative
contains no known cultural resources, as all construction would occur on highway road fill.
Soils
Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix A for this information.
16
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Proposed Action Vegetation
Roadside vegetation along the CBW Road ROW otlen lacks trees due to the county road maintenance practices for
maintaining traffic safety. The vegetation is primarily grasses and small trees.
Vegetation within the utility corridors of the proposed action is typical of the area's vegetation, except it lacks trees
due to vegetative management practices. The utility corridors support colonies of noxious weed species (from con-
stant disturbance) that are annually targeted for control or removal by BPA and PP&L maintenance crews.
Current vegetation patterns along the proposed action are a result of past anthropogenic management from timber
harvesting, farming and human settlements.
Happy Valley contains open oak woodlands and farmland. Vegetation from Lookingglass to Reston is primarily pas-
ture grasses and agricultural crops with interspersed oak woodlands. Small to medium parcels of agricultural land
are located near Sitkum, Dora, McKinley, Fairview and old Coos City. In total, agricultural lands border approxi-
mately 10 miles of the proposed action coiridor. Less than 1 percent of the landscape adjacent to the proposed action
corridor is residential. The remaining vegetated lands bordering the proposed action corridor are coniferous forest.
Forest-types are as follows: 1 .4 miles of young forest (0- 1 5 years old); 38.2 miles of second-growth forest (16-79
years old); and 9.1 miles of mature forest (80-i- years old).
Forest Types
The forest types along the proposed action coiridor are classified under three categories:
Young Forest: Young forests are areas cleared with stands established within the past 15 years. Stand structure is
simple with hand-planted and naturally seeded coniferous trees 3 to 25 feet tall and are interspersed with naturally
established hardwoods and shrubs. Disturbed soils and residual forest materials from logging are common. Hard-
wood release treatments and animal damage control measures are commonly used to accelerate development of
young conifer.
Second-growth Forest: Dominated by Douglas-fir, these stands are generally between 16 to 80 years old and range
from 25 to 150 feet tall. Younger stands contain high stem densities, while older stands have experienced natural
thinning and selection influences from wind-throw, insect or disease infestation and competition for sunlight. Open-
ings appear in the canopy where these influences have caused tree mortalities. Silvicultural prescriptions often
include tree thinning operations within these stands to reduce stem density.
Mature (Late Serai) Coniferous Forest: Dominated by Douglas-fir, these stands are older than 80 years. Trees
range from 80 to over 200 feet tall. Old-growth stands (2()0-i- years) typically have multi-layered canopies and low
stem density.
No Port-Orford-cedar were found during a survey conducted by the BLM along the proposed action corridor.
Vegetation of the Hwy 42 Alternative Route
Vegetation within the Hwy 42 route is similar in nature to the vegetation within the CBW Road ROW, except the
safety margin (removed trees for improved visibility) is often wider.
This route borders 29.0 miles of second-growth forest land and 4.5 miles of mature forest land. In addition, it borders
28.3 miles of agricultural lands.
Farmlands, Prime and Unique
None of the farms along the proposed action or Hwy 42 alternate route have been designated as Prime or Unique
Farmland.
17
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Floodplain
The proposed action is adjacent to 2.2 miles of 100-year tloodplain located along the CBW Road near Sumner.
The Hwy 42 route borders 15.3 miles of 100-year floodplain from near Myrtle Point to the coast.
Water Quality, Quantity and Domestic Use
Domestic-use (Proposed Action): Pipeline construction will disturb the top 5 feet of the soil, with 65% of the distur-
bance occurring within road fill of 5 to 10 feet deep. Domestic-use water wells nearest the proposed action generally
exceed 50 feet depth. No registered domestic-users of water exists in streams along the proposed action.
Domestic-use (Hwy 42 Route): Pipeline construction would be limited to disturbance within road fill areas.
Water Quality (Both): Water quality environmental baselines may be affected from pipeline construction that
crosses streams ( 188 stream crossings for the proposed action and 209 stream crossings for the Hwy 42 route). See
discussion below of waters along the routes; Appendix E. which contains specific water quality baseline conditions
by watershed; and Appendix I, which contains a list of streams that would be crossed by the proposed action.
Water Quantity (Both): Water quantity will not be impacted by either action alternative, as any active streams
crossed during pipeline construction will have water piped around the construction area back into its natural stream
channel.
Waters Along the Proposed Action
Appendix I contains a listing of intermittent and perennial flowing waters within the proposed action comdor. The
corridor crosses 188 natural waterways (streams, tributaries or natural drainage channels). Of these waterways, 2 are
large streams (greater than 30 feet wide) and 6 of them are medium streams ( 1 5 feet to 30 feet wide). Isthmus Slough
is an estuary with a width of approximately 400 feet at the crossing point.
During periods of extended rainfall, the streams in the coast range reach their high water mark. During this time, the
floodplains (referenced in "Floodplain" above) become inundated with water. During the proposed pipeline's con-
struction season (June 1 to November 1), these floodplains would lack standing water.
The proposed action crosses two wetlands on private land near Coos Bay, OR. Refer to "Wetlands" (below) for fur-
ther detail.
Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as:
"... areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions." (33 [CFR] 328.3, 40 [CFR] 230.3)
Wetlands Identified Along the Proposed Action
Wetland delineation efforts were conducted during field surveys within the proposed action corridor. A series of
small seasonal "potholes" were identified as wetlands near the town of Fairview. If pipeline construction occurs at
this location during the season when these wetlands are dry, they will be conventionally trenched. If pipeline con-
struction occurs at this location during the season when these wetlands are wet, they will be directionally drilled to
avoid any potential negative impacts.
The majority of tidal wetlands along the Isthmus Slough will be avoided by the proposed action. The slough channel,
Hwy 101 and the adjacent railroad grade would be directionally-drilled to avoid any potential negative impacts. The
drill entry point (west side) is approximately 20 feet above sea level, therefore well-drained. The drill exit (east side)
is adjacent the slough in the bottomlands, therefore poorly drained. A wetland survey conducted along this portion of
the proposed action corridor indicated that the majority of the vegetation adjacent to the slough bottoms is not associ-
ated with jurisdictional wetlands. However a small seasonal wetland was delineated during this survey just east of
the drill exit point. If pipeline construction occurs at this location during the season when the slough bottoms are dry,
they will be conventionally trenched. If pipeline construction occurs at this location during the season when the bot-
toms are wet, they will be directionally drilled to avoid any potential negative impacts.
18
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Waters along Hwy 42 Alternative Route
The surface waters crossed by the alternate route are similar to that of the proposed action. The Hwy 42 route would
cross a total ol" 209 streams, 1 8 of which are large streams and 1 2 of which are medium-sized streams.
Wetlands Idcntitled Alon^ the Hwy 42 Alternative Route
Wetlands along the alternative route were typically associated with streams or rivers flowing parallel to the course of
the roadway.
The Hwy 42 alternative route has the potential to affect 9 wetlands.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
No federally designated "Wild and Scenic Rivers" are within 10 miles of the proposed or alternate routes.
Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas
No federally designated Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area are within 5 miles of the proposed or alternate routes.
Wildlife
The proposed action corridors lack snags and trees or other suitable breeding, feeding and sheltering habitats for fed-
erally listed, proposed, candidate or survey and manage species. No breeding or sheltering habitats for special status
species occurs in the proposed action corridor. However, the proposed action utility corridor may contain foraging
habitat for a few special status bats and birds. The Hwy 42 corridor contains no habitat for terrestrial species. In gen-
eral, roadways and utility corridors have been cleared of trees and brush wherever they grow within the Hwy 42 and
proposed action corridors. There is one location in the proposed action where 25-year old trees on private ownership
will be removed during pipeline construction (approximately ().2-acre total). Overall, the action alternatives (includ-
ing the proposed action) contain either no wildlife habitat (CBW Road, Hwy 101 and Hwy 42) or no suitable nesting/
roosting habitat for wildlife species (utility corridors).
No part of the construction area within the proposed action corridor is managed under special habitat requirements.
However, BLM-managed lands adjacent to the proposed action conidor are managed for requirements related to spe-
cial status, threatened and endangered species, as well as overall protection of ecosystem functions. Some of these
lands are designated for special management as prescribed in the NFP Record of Decision. In the vicinity of both
action alternatives, Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) and Riparian Reserves are included. The proposed action cor-
ridor bisects LSR #261 and three CHUs: One spotted owl CHU (OR-60) and two marbled murrelet CHUs (OR-06-b
and OR-06-d), which are delineated on maps in Appendix C of the Draft EIS.
Federally Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species
Species listed as "endangered" under the ESA are those which are in danger of extinction in all or a portion of their
range. Species listed as "threatened" are under threat of endangerment. Six listed species potentially exist near the
proposed alternatives.
(Because of the sensitivity of nest site data, the exact location of nests is only provided on a need-to-know basis and
is therefore not included).
Northern Spotted Owl {Strix occidentalis)
The northern spotted owl is a federally listed threatened species. Suitable habitat is adjacent to both action alterna-
tive routes. Approximately 30 percent of the proposed action is within 0.25-mile of suitable northern spotted owl
habitat. Approximately 20 percent of the Hwy 42 alternative is within 0.25-mile of suitable northern spotted owl hab-
itat. This habitat generally consists of late-successional forest, but mature stands with closed canopy and diverse
structure are also considered suitable.
The suitable habitat within 1 .5 miles of the proposed action has been surveyed for northern spotted owls. The Pacific
Northwest Research Station, Ecosystem Processes Research Program, has conducted 1 3 years of northern spotted
19
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
owl research on the BLM-managed lands, and the BLM funded a 5-year Pacific Southwest Research Station demog-
raphy study. The only suitable habitat within 0.25-mile of Hwy 42 or proposed action corridors is on federal land.
Within the general study area there is a 1,01 1 km" (approximately 400 mi^) density study area where intensive spot-
ted owl survey and monitoring is conducted (Forsman and Anthony, 1999).
The key issue related to northern spotted owls and the proposed action is possible nest site disturbance. The USFWS
considers nest sites disturbed when activities causing moderate noise above ambient levels occur (such as pipeline
construction) within 0.25-mile of the nest site (except for blasting, which may disturb northern spotted owls up to a
distance of 1 .0 mile). Some segments of all the action alternatives are near suitable habitat. The most recent docu-
mentation (surveys through 2001) of northern spotted owl sites show that one pair is within 0.25-mile of the pro-
posed action.
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
The marbled murrelet is a federally listed threatened species. Suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat, as defined
by the USFWS marbled murrelet survey protocol, is present within 0.25-mile of both action alternative routes. Hab-
itat was confirmed using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) stand age-class data, aerial photographs and field
observation. Biologists on the ground further refined and delineated suitable habitat into areas needing protocol sur-
veys. In general, forest stands within 50 miles of the coast with nesting platforms (usually 80-i- year-old trees) are
considered suitable habitat. Approximately 30 percent of the proposed action is within 0.25-mile of suitable marbled
murrelet habitat. Approximately 20 percent of the Hwy 42 alternative is within 0.25-mile of suitable marbled murre-
let habitat.
Studies in 1992 and 1997 found marbled murrelet abundance to be low in southwestern Oregon. Of 889 intensive 2-
hour surveys, only 17 resulted in marbled murrelet detections, and only three stands overall were considered occu-
pied based on these surveys (USDA/USDI, 1998).
Unsurveyed suitable habitat and nest site disturbance from construction activities is the primary management con-
cern in the proposed action.
Marbled murrelets may be disturbed up to 0.25-mile from pipeline construction activities (except for blasting, which
may disturb marbled murrelets up to 1.0 mile).
Surveys conducted on the Coos Bay BLM District indicate there are two occupied stands within 0.25 mile of the pro-
posed action corridor.
Designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet
Critical habitats have been designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in Oregon. The USFWS
has designated CHUs for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet on some BLM lands adjacent to all the action
alternatives. CHUs are protected under the ESA and cannot be adversely modified unless impacts can be completely
mitigated (see maps showing critical habitats in Appendix C of the Draft EIS). The determination of impact avoid-
ance, minimization and mitigation for these critical habitats is conducted through the ESA and not NEPA. However,
to meet the disclosure requirements for NEPA, Chapter 4 identifies the types of impacts that may occur and makes
reasonable predictions as to the likelihood that impacts can be effectively avoided, minimized or mitigated.
It is also important to distinguish between designated CHUs (regulatory definition) and currently suitable habitat,
which is a biological definition. CHUs are lands specifically designated by the USFWS to protect a listed species,
whereas, suitable habitats are areas that provide shelter, breeding sites, foraging habitat or other elements necessary
for a species' life-cycle. Because CHUs are regulatory and suitable habitat is biological, not all suitable habitat for
marbled murrelets or northern spotted owls are designated critical habitat; and conversely, not all designated critical
habitat is suitable habitat.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Currently, the bald eagle is a federally listed threatened species. Key habitats include wintering areas, nest areas,
roost sites and foraging areas, such as waterfowl concentration areas and areas of abundant fish availability.
The Umpqua River is an area of high eagle concentration (Kritz pers. com.). There are 6 documented occurrences of
bald eagle nests within 1 .0 mile of this river. No occupied bald eagle nests are within 1.0 mile of the proposed action
or Hwy 42 corridors.
20
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Columbian White tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)
This federally listed endangered species utilizes the lowlands of the interior valley, with preference for oak wood-
lands and meadows with niilrilious forage. The geographic range for the Roseburg population of Columbian While-
tailed deer (CWTD) is confined to Douglas County, Oregon. It was defined as follows in the 1983 CWTD Recovery
Plan:
"From Oldham Creek 3 miles northeast of Oakland, south to Cow Creek, 3 miles southwest of Riddle.
Morgan Creek. I.I miles north of its intersection with the South Umpqua River, is the southeastern-most
extent of its known range, whereas the northwest boundary extends to the town of Umpqua. The eastern
boundary is Fall Creek, 0. 3-mile south to Little River; the western boundary is Hawkins Lake. Since 1983,
the population range has expanded 5 to 10 miles in all directions, with more dispersal occurring along ripar-
ian corridors." (Peterson. USFWS, pers. com.).
CWTD are likely to occur around the easternmost portion of the project area where habitat is suitable. This species is
documented to exist in Cottage Grove. Callahan, Garden Valley, Nonpareil, Oak Creek Valley and Winchester
United States Geological Service (USGS) quadrangles. Since the last recovery plan revision in 1983, the population
has increased from 2,000-2,500 to 5,000-7,000 individuals, and approximately 4,000 ha (10,000 acres) of habitat has
been secured (Peterson, USFWS, pers. com.). The USFWS published a "Proposed Rule to Delist the Columbian
White-Tailed Deer" on May 11, 1999 (Federal Register Notice 64FR25263). The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) has delisted the CWTD from its previous threatened status to its current vulnerable state status.
Disturbance from construction activities is the only management concern in the Hwy 42 alternative and proposed
action. There are no disturbance-related management requirements for CWTD.
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)
The brown pelican is a federally listed endangered species. They are documented in areas mapped on the Lakeside
USGS quadrangle. Although the brown pelican may forage in and around the coastal bays during the summer, they
rarely come inland. They are considered unlikely breeders north of California. No known breeding sites are within
20 miles of either the Hwy 42 alternative or proposed action.
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)
The nearest documented nesting area for this threatened species is the North Spit of Coos Bay (BLM 1994a) on the
sandy beaches and dunes of the immediate coast.
BLM Special Status Species
Terrestrial Wildlife
The BLM Special Status Terrestrial Wildlife Species list for the project area is in Appendix Kl No suitable nesting
or roosting habitats occur within the action alternatives. Field surveys found no special status wildlife occurring
within the proposed action's construction corridor. The primary issue related to special status wildlife and the pro-
posed action is disturbance (noise). The T&E species disturbance issue is addressed under the Federally Listed, Pro-
posed or Candidate Species sections in Chapters 3 & 4. No other special status species in the Hwy 42 or proposed
action vicinity have disturbance-related management requirements.
Special Status Birds
No special status bird species' roosts or nests are known to occur within or adjacent to the Hwy 42 or proposed action
corridors. There is no breeding and sheltering habitat available in either action alternatives' corridors. It is possible
that peregrine falcons and northern goshawks may move through and forage in the proposed action powerline corri-
dor intermittently throughout the year, because both the Hwy 42 alternative and proposed action occurs within the
range of these species. However, these two species have never been documented in the BPA or PP&L powerline cor-
ridors. No other special status birds are known to exist in or adjacent to either action alternative areas.
Special Status Mammals
21
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Bats - Bat species occurring in this area are found using various habitats that provide shelter and adequate tempera-
tures for thermal regulation, including caves, mines, man-made structures and trees with cavities and/or exfoliating
bark. Suitable bat roosts are typically found in higher densities in older forests, because they tend to contain larger
trees and snags. In general, bats utilize forest openings and water bodies for navigation and foraging. No suitable
hibernacula exists within the Hwy 42 or proposed action corridors.
Fisher - Although in the range of fisher (Maser 1 998), no confirmed sightings of fisher have occurred within the
Hwy 42 or proposed action project areas. Neither action alternative contains any suitable habitat for fisher, nor is it
likely individuals exist adjacent to the Hwy 42 or proposed action corridors.
Disturbance from construction during foraging activity is the primary management concern for special status mam-
mals and the proposed action. There are no disturbance-related management requirements for foraging special status
mammals.
Special Status Amphibians
Although considered possible on both BLM Districts, no documented sightings of special status amphibians have
occurred near the Hwy 42 or proposed action project areas. Neither action alternative contains suitable habitat for
special status amphibians.
Special Status Reptiles
Neither action alternative contains suitable habitat for any special status reptiles, except the western pond turtle. One
documented sighting occurs within 2 miles of the proposed action corridor. The Isthmus Slough tidal marsh area and
the private wetland near Coos Bay are the two places containing potential western pond turtle habitat within the pro-
posed action. The Hwy 42 alternative crosses 9 wetlands containing potential western pond turtle habitat. No west-
ern pond turtles are known to occur in any of these potential habitat areas. All areas for both action alternatives
containing potential western pond turtle habitat would be directionally-drilled to avoid aquatic system impacts, thus
avoiding any potential impacts to western pond turtles.
Plants (including lichens, bryophytes and fungi)
The BLM Special Status Vegetation Species lists for the project area is in Appendix Kl The primary issue related to
special status vegetation and the proposed action is destruction or physical injury to individuals from soil disturbance
during construction. Field surveys found no special status vegetation occurring within the Hwy 42 alternative or pro-
posed action construction corridors. Vegetal species have no noise disturbance-related management requirements.
Invertebrates
The BLM Special Status Invertebrates Species list for the project area is in Appendix Kl. The primary issue related
to special status invertebrates and the proposed action is destruction or physical injury to individuals from soil distur-
bance during construction. Field surveys found no special status invertebrates habitats occurring within the Hwy 42
or proposed action construction corridors. Invertebrates have no noise disturbance-related management requirement.
Fish
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all anadromous fish species was considered as part of the Aquatic Biological
Assessment (Appendix E).
Under section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Federal agencies which authorize, fund or undertake any action
which may adversely affect any EFH are required to consult with the NMFS in order to receive recommendations on
measures necessary to conserve and enhance EFH.
The NMFS is required to provide EFH conservation recommendations to the BLM for actions that adversely affect
EFH. Since the impacts of the proposed actions are likely to be insignificant or negligible, no EFH conservation rec-
ommendations are proposed for these projects. The BLM must reinitiate consultation with NMFS if the action is sub-
stantially revised in a manner that may adversely affect EFH or if new information becomes available that affects the
basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR Section 600.920 [k].)
22
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Table 5:
Special Status fish species in streams near the proposed action
Fish
Status
Related Streams
Oregon Coast Coho
Salmon
Federally Threat-
ened Species
Cherry Creek, Middle Creek, E. Fork Coquille River, N. Fork
Coquille River, Evans Creek, Hantz Creek, Steel Creek, Catching
Creek. Bill's Creek, China Creek, Rock Creek, Morgan Creek and
others
Oregon Coast
Steelhead
Federal Candidate
Species
Tenmile Creek. Cherry Creek, Middle Creek, E. Fork Coquille River,
N. Fork Coquille River, Evans Creek, Hantz Creek, Steel Creek,
Catching Creek
Oregon Coast
Chinook Salmon
BLM Special Status
Species
E. Fork Coquille River, Steel Creek, Isthmus Slough, N. Fork
Coquille, Middle Creek and Cherry Creek
Oregon Coast
Cutthroat Trout
Federal Candidate
Species
Cherry Creek, Middle Creek, E. Fork Coquille River, N. Fork
Coquille River, Evans Creek, Hantz Creek, Steel Creek, Catching
Creek, Bill's Creek, China Creek, Rock Creek, Morgan Creek and
others
Survey and Manage Species
Survey and Manage Species surveys are normally done when: (1) A project has the potential of being a ground-dis-
turbing activity which may alter vegetation or other habitat elements on federally managed lands; (2) the project is
within the suspected range covered by the protocol; and (3) the project must occur within suitable habitat for the spe-
cies.
The BLM Districts' Survey and Manage Species list for their administration areas are in Appendix K Field surveys
revealed no suitable Survey and Manage habitats on BLM-administered lands within the proposed action and Hwy
42 construction corridors. Field surveys for Survey and Manage Species/Habitats were conducted in autumn of
2000. The primary issue related to Survey and Manage Species and the proposed action is disturbance (noise). Sur-
vey and Manage species do not have disturbance-related management requirements.
Red Tree Vole
The red tree vole (Pheudconiys hm{>icaiidus) is a Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage species, generally found
more abundant in late-successional coniferous forests containing Douglas-fir. Field surveys found no individuals or
suitable habitat within the proposed action or Hwy 42 corridors. However, noise disturbance during construction
activities in the proposed corridor do have the potential to temporarily disturb individuals in adjacent suitable habitat.
Once pipeline construction is complete, disturbance will be minimal. No mitigation for noise disturbance is needed
for Survey and Manage species.
Survey and Manage Mollusks
The Amendment to the Survey and Manage Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guide-
lines (USDA 2001 ) gives the interagency standards and guidelines for identifying species to be protected through
survey and management strategies. Among those listed are terrestrial and aquatic mollusks that occur within the
range of the northern spotted owl. Survey protocols were also established.
Field surveys found no Survey and Manage mollusks habitats within the proposed action alternatives.
Survey and Manage Amphibians
23
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Only one amphibian species, the Del Norte salamander, has potential for living within any of the proposed corridors.
The nearest known Del Norte salamander site is approximately 25 miles south of the Hwy 42 alternative and pro-
posed action areas.
Field surveys revealed no findings of individuals or potential habitat for the proposed alternatives. Del Norte sala-
mander suitable habitat is rocky outcrops and talus within forested areas, especially older and wetter stands.
Survey and Manage Bryophytes, Lichens, Fungi and Vascular Plants
Field surveys revealed no findings of habitats for the proposed action alternatives.
General Wildlife Groups
Complete lists of general wildlife occurring on the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM Districts can be found in their
respective Resource Management Plans published for each district.
Raptors
Raptors include hawks, falcons, owls, eagles and vultures. Although incomplete, the current BLM database does not
indicate any known nest sites occuring within 0.25-mile of the proposed action corridor, other than the one spotted
owl nest site (previously discussed under federally-listed species).
Daytime foraging activities from some of these species may be within the 0.25-mile radius of construction. Distur-
bance from construction activities is the primary management concern for the proposed action. There are no distur-
bance-related management requirements for unlisted species of foraging raptors.
Cavity-Nesting Birds
Cavity-nesting birds generally nest inside tree cavities and rock crevices. Examples include woodpeckers, American
kestral, western bluebird. Pacific-slope flycatcher and northern pygmy-owl. These species typically require larger-
diameter trees (greater than 10 inches). Suitable trees are typically dead or dying and tend to occur more frequently
in older forests. However, residual snags from logging or fire can provide suitable habitat in younger age-classes.
Some species, such as the western blue bird and northern pygmy owl, prefer early-seral stands that have natural or
disturbance-related openings containing suitable cavity-producing snags. The utility corridors and roadways that
will be used for pipeline construction contain no cavity-related suitable habitat. The utility corridors, however, may
provide foraging opportunities for some cavity-nesting species.
Other Birds
A variety of other migratory and resident birds exist within the project area. A variety of song-birds and waterfowl
typically migrate from southern latitudes to breed in southwest Oregon.
Resident birds (juncos, chickadees, crows, ravens, etc.) may have seasonal movements, but tend to stay within their
home-range vicinity all year. Game birds, such as quail, grouse and wild turkey, are also resident birds. Some of
these species spend at least part of their life-cycle in ground-disturbed habitat, such as foraging within powerline util-
ity corridors and agricultural lands.
Deer and Elk
Deer and elk occur throughout the project area. They provide recreational opportunities for people (i.e., hunting and
wildlife observation) and are important prey species for black bears and cougars. Individuals are often seen feeding
in forest clearings and wet meadows. Both species may use utility corridors and agricultural lands for feeding and
travel/migration.
Carnivorous/Omnivorous Mammals
The project area may support populations of coyote, red fox, common gray fox, black bear, ringtail, raccoon, porcu-
pine, opossum, river otter, bobcat and cougar. The cougar and black bear are game animals in Oregon, providing rec-
reational opportunities (hunting) within the project area. Carnivorous/Omnivorous mammals may use utility
corridors and roadways for travel/migration.
24
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Small Mammals
Several species of small nxlents such as shrews, rats, mice, squirrels and voles may be present within the powerline
utility corridor. These species tend to prefer the early-successional habitats common in utility corridors and agricul-
tural lands, although a few species such as the flying squirrel and white-footed vole prefer developed forests. This
type of habitat is adjacent to both action alternatives.
Burrowing Mammals
Burrowing mammals such as the mole, rabbit, mountain beaver, ground squirrel and pocket gopher are known to
occur throughout both of the proposed alternatives. Some of these mammals may be locally abundant and provide an
important food source to predators. Because burrowing animals usually require deep, loose soil, areas containing
deeper soils are the most suitable habitat for them.
Reptiles
Various non-sensitive reptiles (such as turtles, lizards and snakes) have habitat ranges within the project vicinity.
Most reptiles with populations in Oregon are likely to occur in developed forests or drier environments east of the
coastal mountains.
Invertebrates
Various species such as mollusks and insects are found in the project vicinity. Insects are an important source of
food for some species of birds, fish and reptiles.
Amphibians
Both action alternatives include a number of stream crossings that include trenching dry and flowing streams as part
of pipeline construction. These stream crossings would include some potential habitat for amphibians during por-
tions of their life-history cycle.
Various non-sensitive amphibian species (for example, frogs and salamanders) may be found intermittently in the
project vicinity. These are a food source for mammals, fish, birds and reptiles. Amphibians use habitat features such
as large down woody material, talus slopes, creeks, seeps and ponds.
Fish
The fish resources in the proposed action corridor include resident, anadromous and fluvial species. Three streams
(Tenmile, Morgan and Rock Creek) to be trenched using "Bag and Flume" along the pipeline route contain enough
summer waterflow (>0. 1 cfs) to contain fish during active construction. Eighteen other small drainages with very
low summer wateiHow (<0.06 cfs) will be trenched in the utility corridor portions of the pipeline construction. There
is no realistic potential for fish to be in the upper reaches of these 18 small streams in the area of active construction
during the summer, as their flows during that time are too small for sustaining fish. The primary issue related to fish
and Hwy 42 alternative/proposed action is short-term increases in stream sediment and turbidity from construction
soil disturbance. This issue is directly addressed in Appendix E. Although no critical habitat streams exist in or near
the proposed action corridors. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for fish species was considered as part of the EIS Aquatic
Ecosystem Assessment (Appendix E-1).
Human Environment
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
Part of the North Spit of Coos Bay (sand dunes area) has been designated as an ACEC. NW Natural plans to build a
distribution system to commercial manufacturing facilities already operating on the North Spit would avoid this area
completely and stay within areas zoned for manufacturing or public roads. This distribution system would be con-
structed under both action alternatives.
25
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Public Health and Safety
The primary issue of safety for the proposed action/Hwy 42 alternative is traffic on roads where pipeline construction
is occurring. Accidents are possible if pedestrians or vehicles fail to heed signs and flaggers controlling traffic flow
or enter active construction areas without permission. After construction is completed, the primary issue for public
safety and pipeline operation would be damage from someone digging without permission with heavy equipment
(such as a backhoe) or unauthorized use of explosives in the near vicinity of the pipeline.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 requires each federal agency to identify and address any disproportion-
ately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority
populations, Native American groups and on low income populations.
There is no indication that households along either the Proposed Action or alternative Hwy 42 route are composed of
a mix of minority or Native American residents which differs from elsewhere in Coos County. Therefore, analysis
focused on whether a disproportionately high percentage of low income households are found along either route.
This was accomplished by comparison of household income information from several geographic areas of Coos
County, by reference to Census Tracts and Blocks within Census Tract. Year 2000 Census data concerning house-
hold income is not yet available, so 1990 Census data was used.
No minority or disadvantaged communities are adjacent to the proposed action or Hwy 42 alternative routes.
Socio-economics in Coos County
The economic simulation model. Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), used by ECONorthwest shows natural
gas has the potential to stimulate the manufacturing sector of the local economy. The study is based upon a planning
framework called IMPLAN (developed by the U.S. Forest Service), using local and national data to produce esti-
mates of economic impact. Similar analysis of communities such as Newport, Corvallis, Albany and Grants Pass
would re-affirm the significant favorable economic impacts from the introduction of natural gas to a local economy.
Socio-economics within the Proposed Action
The proposed action is adjacent to the following business entities: Lookingglass Store, Northwest Hardwoods,
Southport Lumber Co., Coos Country Club, Dora Store, Four Corners Grocery and the Sumner Store.
The proposed action corridor is also adjacent to 37 rural residences. Less than 2 percent of the corridor's urban set-
tings are outside of the Coos Bay area. These urban settings are small components of the overall Coos County econ-
omy.
The Hwy 42 route would affect the communities of Winston, Brockway, Tenmile, Camas Valley, Remote, Bridge,
Myrtle Point, and Coquille.
Regional Assessment of the Natural Gas Market
According to the ECONorthwest report, the competitive advantage of natural gas over other energy sources in gen-
eral for Oregon is evident: "60 percent of Oregon's urban area homes use natural gas, while about 40 percent of the
homes in outlying areas use natural gas" (ECONorthwest 2000). Such statistics indicate a wide-spread consumer
acceptance of natural gas.
Coos County General Economic Data
Coos County 2000 Census reports it has 62,779 residents. Its economy centers around forest products and the deep-
water ocean Port of Coos Bay, but the economy continues its long struggle which began in the early 1980's, when
timber production diminished significantly following the impacts of several forestry-related environmental issues
26
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
(Helvoigt, 2000). According to the Oregon Employment Department, the current (November, 2001 ) unemployment
rate in the County is approximately 6.7 percent, as compared to Oregon's average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent.
For further comparison, the November, 2000. national average unemployment rate was 4 percent, according to the
Wall Street Journal. Historical data indicates the County's unemployment statistics are approximately double those
of the national average (Coos/Curry /Douglas, 2000).
As shown in the Coos County Budget, the County's current tax structure includes real estate taxes, timber taxes and
county fees. The County receives gross tax receipts for the general fund in the amount of approximately $2.96 mil-
lion per year. Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to the County is approximately $6,7.'S2 per year. Additional general fund
revenue comes to the County from O&C lands timber revenues and from federal lands timber revenues (from the sale
of timber on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands); in 1991, these amounted to 19 percent and 22 percent (respec-
tively) of the County's total annual budget (Maxwell et al., 1999).
Total personal income of the County is approximately $1.1 billion, which is an average annual per capita personal
income of $19,494; this is approximately 82 percent of the Oreuon average annual per capita personal income (Coos/
Curry/Douglas, 2000).
Energy Market Competition in Coos County
Much of this information regarding energy market competition is derived from the most recent ECONorthwest report
submitted for the proposed action.
Much of the electrical energy supplied to Coos Bay comes from PP&L. This employer (and its employees) would
receive no significant adverse effects from the proposed action. Natural gas can only supplement (not replace) the
use of electricity, and the equipment supplying the electricity would require the same amount of maintenance,
regardless of the presence of a natural gas supply.
The Coos County economy currently supports propane and heating oil distributors. These supply approximately 20
percent of the heating energy needs of the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend. Small businesses transport propane
and heating oil to rural residences as well as in-town businesses and residences. Businesses based outside of the
County operate wholesale fuel oil and propane supply companies. Conglomerated, the nine businesses delivering
fuel oil or propane to County residents and businesses (listed below) employ a total of 69 persons (ECONorthwest
2000).
The following propane dealers operate within the County: All Star Gas (North Bend), Ferrellgas (Coos Bay) and
Ron's Oil Co. (Coquille).
The following heating oil dealers operate within the County: Bassett-Hyland Energy Co. (Coos Bay), Davis Oil Inc.
(North Bend), Graham Oil Co. (North Bend), Tyree Oil Inc. (Coos Bay), Goddard Energy Co. (Bandon) and Hodge
Distributor, Inc. (Myrtle Point).
Currently. Oregon supports an average of 1.147 residents per fuel oil or propane distributor employee. This ratio is
higher than the ratio for Coos County (847 residents per distributor), due to the widespread availability of natural gas
across most of Oregon (ECONorthwest 2000).
Waste - Solid or Hazardous
No waste sites, lagoons, landfills, transfer stations or water treatment plants exist in or near the proposed action cor-
ridor. Illegal dumping of refuse occurs intermittently on public lands. Sewage disposal ponds are located approxi-
mately 0.5-mile west of the proposed action corridor at Libby, and the Roseburg city dump is approximately 2 miles
northeast of the Williams Gas Pipeline.
No waste sites or refuse dumping sites exist in or near the alternative route. The Myrtle Point waste water treatment
plant is located approximately 1 mile from the Hwy 42 corridor, and the Coquille waste water treatment plant is
approximately 0.1 -mile from the Hwy 42 alternative route.
27
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Land Uses
Forestry
The general region of the proposed action is typical in its forest products history. Since the 1 850s, timber was milled
into lumber or it was used as whole logs to be sold on the market. Today, forest lands are still an important source of
logs for lumber, paper and plywood mills near Roseburg, Myrtle Point, Coquille and Coos Bay. The production of
timber is expected to continue as an important local economic resource.
The local forests are also an important source of firewood for residences. Many rural homes are heated with wood-
burning facilities (fireplaces and wood heating units). The BLM may allow wood cutting on BLM-managed lands
adjacent to the proposed action corridor. The proposed action corridor includes access routes used by individuals
harvesting firewood or other special forest product items within the surrounding areas.
Livestock Grazing
Farmers and ranchers in the area between Lookingglass and Coos Bay raise domestic livestock, which are the typical
varieties suited to Western Oregon.
Recreation along the Proposed Action
BLM-Managed Lands
The CBW Road traverses through scattered sections of BLM public lands in the Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts.
BLM public lands in the Roseburg District are part of the South River Extensive Recreation Management Area
(ERMA). Public lands in the Coos Bay District are within both the Myrtlewood and the Umpqua ERMAs. Recre-
ation uses within these ERMAs are generally characterized by dispersed types of activities that require little or no
management as well as small developed recreation sites with limited facilities that support recreation uses.
The Coos Bay District RMP proposes that the CBW Road be designated as a backcountry byway. While some pre-
liminary work was done on a backcountry byway proposal several years ago, work to complete the designation pro-
cess has not been finished to date.
According to the Coos Bay District RMP (USDI 1995a), the County's BLM-managed lands are characterized as
"Roaded Natural" areas. The proposed action corridor includes no BLM-managed camping or picnicking facilities.
County Parks
The parks listed below include facilities for picnicking and hiking, as well as protecting the environment and increas-
ing the safety of facility-users. In some cases, facilities are designed and constructed to accommodate camping by
conventional motorized use (car and tent, camper, truck and trailer, and motor home).
Dave Busenbark County Park (Douglas County), located at T28S, R9W, Section 16.
Severt Iverson Memorial County Park (Douglas County), located at T28S, R9W, Section 16.
Judge Hamilton County Park (Coos County), located east of Sitkum at T28S, R9W, Section 7.
Frona County Paik (Coos County), located west of Dora at T28S, Rl 1 W, Section 1 1 .
Judge Hamilton County Park is undeveloped and remains in a natural state. Frona County Park has basic facilities
including toilets, picnic tables and primitive camp sites with fire rings. Both parks are Congressional withdrawals
(1926) of BLM public lands for the purpose of reserving these lands in Coos County as public parks and campsites,
for recreational purposes, and to preserve the rare groves of Myrtle trees.
Boat Ramps
Gold Brick Boat Ramp at Dora
Frona Boat Ramp at Frona County Park
28
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Recreation along the Alternative Route
Hwy 42 is an important access route for recreation users. This route includes several small campgrounds and picnic
areas adjacent to the highway, which are used by tourists traveling to and from the coastal recreational areas. This
highway is also an important access route for those travelling to secondary roads.
The Coos Bay District RMP (USDI 1995a) indicates this route is used for recreation year-round. Bear Creek is a
public camping area adjacent to Hwy 42, receiving thousands of visitors each year.
Transportation
Roads affected by the Proposed Action
CBW Road
The proposed action affects approximately 1 mile of the CBW Road in Douglas County and approximately 32 miles
of the CBW Road in Coos County. The length of road between Lookingglass and U.S. Hwy 101 is approximately 54
miles. A lO-mile portion of the CBW Road, between Dora and Fairview. receives a significant amount of traffic
related to administrative, commercial and residential purposes. The Four Corners Grocery is located along this
affected portion of the road.
Two dairies are located in the general region of the proposed action. The proposed action corridor is not adjacent to
these dairies; however, each dairy relies on milk-transport tank trucks that use the CBW Road for milk shipments.
The 0.8 mile portion of the CBW Road (west end which joins to U.S. Hwy 101 ) receives high usage for access to
Northwest Hardwoods, Southport Forest Products and Coos Country Club.
The 10.6-mile gravelled portion of the CBW Road between the County line and Sitkum (T28S, RlOW, Sec. 10) is
one of the least travelled portions of the CBW Road. The CBW Road is rarely used as a transit route from Roseburg
to Coos Bay, due to the many sharp curves and gravel surface east of Sitkum.
The paved portions of the CBW Road provide access to residences, timber lands and farms. Commercial traffic on
this road is mostly logging trucks and equipment and dairy tank trucks. This road is a primary access route for forest
fire protection efforts, land management and law enforcement. Reston Road, Myrtle Pt.-Sitkum Road and the
Coquille-Fairview Road provide access from Hwy 42 to the CBW Road.
In total, approximately 33 miles of the CBW Road would be affected by the proposed pipeline project (Table 6). In
some cases, the proposed pipeline crosses the road; in the remainder of the affected portions of the road, it would be
buried beneath the roadway.
29
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Table 6:
Portions of CBW Road affected
Mile marker
Description of area
Road
affected
(miles-
gravel)
Road affected
(miles-paved)
6.4
CR 5, cross near Lookingglass in north edge of PP&L
X
7.5 to 8.6
CR 5, lay in road, cross Morgan Creek
1.1
1.0 to 1.7
CR 112, lay in road, cross Tenmile Creek
0.7
2.3
CR 1 12, cross in north edge of BPA
X
36.3 to 25.7
CR IG, lay in gravel road through Brewster Canyon
10.6
25.7 to 17.5
CR IC and ID, in pavement through Sitkum and Dora
8.2
17.1 to 17.9
CR 60B, lay in road, cross Middle Creek
0.8
13.7
CR 60B, cross south of Fairview in north edge of BPA
X
12.75 to 12.5
CR 60B, lay in road through Fairview
0.3
12to4.1
CR 59, lay in road from north Fairview to Sumner
4.4
3.5
4.1 to 2.2
CR 57, lay in road from Sumner to PP&L
1.9
1.7 to 0.4
CR 57, lay in road from top of hill to Coos City
1.3
15 miles
17.7 miles
Sitkum Lane (Formally Myrtle Point - Sitkum Road)
The proposed action corridor includes approximately 0.4-mile of the Myrtle Point-Sitkum Road. The portion of
affected road is between the BPA utility ROW and its intersection with the CBW Road (Table 7).
Fairview Road (formerly Coquille-Fairview Road)
The proposed action conidor includes approximately 0. 1 -mile of the Coquille-Fairview Road. The portion of
affected road is between the PP&L utility ROW and the Four Corners intersection where it crosses the CBW Road.
U.S. Hwy 101
U.S. Hwy 101 is an important commercial truck route along the coast. At the crossing location within the proposed
action corridor, trucks are destined for Coos Bay. North Bend, Bandon, Langlois, Port-Orford, Coquille, Myrtle Point
and small communities or farms in the surrounding areas. It is also a major commuting route for many residents in
the area. The proposed action crosses Hwy 101 once. It will be directionally-drilled to avoid impacts. At the cross-
ing, U.S. Hwy 101 is a four-lane highway with a median strip.
30
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Table 7:
Other Public Roads Affected by Pipeline
Segment
Description of area
Road
affected
(miles-
j^ravei)
Road
affected
(miles-
paved )
A
Lookingglass Road CR 47, cross just south of Looking-
glass with PP&L
X
A
Dairy Farm Road CR 108, cross 1.5 miles west of Look-
ingglass with PP&L
X
E
Sitkum Lane CR IC, lay in road west of CR 6()B for 2200
feet
0.4
F
McKinley Lane CR 13, cross at CBW Road near Cherry
Creek
X
H
Fairview Road CR 9, cross just south of Fairview
X
I
U.S. 101, cross at MM 243.4 near Coos City and Sumner
Bridge
X
J
North Meadow Drive (not dedicated), cross gravel road
X
J
Red Dike Road CR 183, cross to Fruitdale Drive
X
K
Fruitdale Drive CR 185, lay in road for 100 feet
0
K
Cooley Drive, lay in road for 1800 feet, mostly gravel
0.3
K
Libby Lane CR 184. lay in road for 1200 feet
0.2
K
Lapping Road, lay in gravel road for 100 feet
X
K
2 1 St Street, lay in gravel road for 2200 feet
0.4
K
Idaho Drive, lay in gravel road for 2200 feet
0.4
K
California Drive, cross in steep dirt portion
X
K
Anderson Avenue, cross in east side of PP&L
X
1.1 miles
0.6 mile
Roads affected by the Alternate Hwy 42 Route
Oregon Hwy 42
Oregon Highway 42 is an important commercial truck route connecting the 1-5 freeway and the inland communities
to the coastal communities. Truck traffic along this route is destined for Coos Bay. North Bend. Bandon. Langlois or
Port-Orford. Coquille and Myrtle Point. This highway is also a commuting and access route for residents of the
coast. During the summer months, it is a major tourist route. Many portions of this route include three or four lanes
of traffic. Extra lanes are supplied to traffic climbing uphill grades in several locations. The portions of the highway
31
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
from Myrtle Point to Coquille, and the last seven miles (approximately) as the highway approaches U.S. Hwy 101,
are four lanes of traffic with no median strip.
U.S. Hwy 101
The Hwy 42 Alternative includes portions of U.S. Hwy 101 within the proposed route. The Hwy 42 route includes a
segment approximately 0.8-mile in length, from its intersection with Hwy 42, to the BPA utility corridor very close
to the CBW Road end point. This portion of the highway includes intersections with two secondary roads leading
westward.
Utility Corridors
Power Lines
The proposed action corridor begins within the PP&L power line utility corridor. It continues within this corridor
until it reaches the Flournoy Valley substation. For nearly half the distance from Flournoy Valley to Fairview, the
proposed action corridor is adjacent to or within the BPA 230 kV power line utility corridor. For approximately 0.2-
mile near Coos City, the pipeline is within the PP&L 230 kV power line utility coiridor, which traverses the region
parallel to the BPA utility corridor along its northward edge. A short segment of the proposed action follows a
recently abandoned BPA utility corridor to the west of U.S. Hwy 101 . In total, approximately 23 miles of the pro-
posed action corridor follows power line utility corridors.
Substations
The proposed action corridor lies adjacent to several power line substation properties. These include: Co-op substa-
tion in Lookingglass Valley, the BPA Reston substation in Flournoy Valley and the Fairview substation.
Power Line Utility Corridor Access Roads
Utility crews access the power lines: 1 ) by working from the CBW Road or from some other county road, wherever
the lines cross over the road; or 2) by working from access roads connecting to the CBW Road and other public
roads.
Graveled access roads into utility corridors are constructed and maintained by the utility company. Some of these
roads would be used for access to the proposed action corridor, both during pipeline construction and during mainte-
nance procedures of the pipeline during its operation.
PP&L and BPA Access (Douglas County)
Access roads are spaced at approximately half-mile increments along the CBW Road between Lookingglass and
Tenmile Creek. From there to the county line, four BPA access roads connect to the CBW Road.
BPA Access (Fairview-Reston circuit)
Access roads for this portion of the corridor are located as follows:
• Two access roads in T28S, Rl IW, Sec. 3.
• One access road in T28S, Rl 1 W, Sec. 4.
• Extensive road access in T27S, Rl IW, Sections 32 and 30.
• Four access roads in T27S, R12W, Sec. 24.
PP&L Access (Fairview-Isthmus circuit):
Access road to Segment H (along the PP&L utility corridor) is located as follows:
• One access road in T26S, R12W, Sec. 30.
32
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
BPA Access (part of the Fairview-Reedsport circuit)
Access roads to Segment J (the region west of U.S. Hwy 101 ) were established for BPA access. Their use for power
hne maintenance is no longer needed, since the power line was recently relocated. The access roads into this corridor
are as follows:
• One access road coming from U.S. 101 in T26S, R12W, Sec. 23.
• One access road in T26S, R12W, Sec. 15 (again coming from U.S. 101 ).
• One access road in T26S, RI2W, Sec. 10, coming from Shinglehouse Slough Road.
• One access road in T26S, R12W, Sec. 10, coming from North Meadow Drive.
Fiber Optic Line
Buried fiber optic line currently exists at the edge of the CBW Road and Hwy 42 over their entire lengths. This util-
ity is buried approximately 2 feet deep at or near the edge of the roadways, and is marked with plastic markers at 1/
l()th-mile increments. Pipeline construction on or just outside the centerline of the CBW Road would not affect the
fiber optic line. At its option, Coos County may decide to install a fiber optic carrier pipe in the pipeline ditch. The
carrier pipe is typically 1.25 or 2-inch polyethylene pipe similar to gas pipe. It would be installed above the pipeline
while the ditch is backfilled, with no extra excavation or site preparation required.
Encumbrances
Several timber companies have access road ROW across BLM lands. These are for gaining access to timber tracts
adjacent to or near the BLM tract.
The Coos Curry Electric Cooperative also has a power line ROW in T27S, RI2W, Sec. 5.
The County is seeking permission from private land owners in the proposed action corridor to install the proposed
natural gas pipeline within the already-established utility corridor crossing their land. Each land parcel requires a
separate easement from the underlying owner. Most land under the utility corridors is owned by individuals, forest
companies and BLM. The BPA also owns a few short segments.
33
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
34
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The following changes were made in Chapter 4 between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minor
corrections, explanations and edits are not included in this list.
• Atltlitional Project Design Criteria for the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet in the Environmental Conse-
quences and Comparison of Alteratives sections.
• Additional information regarding air quality, including emissions fuel combustion is given in the Environmen-
tal Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives sections.
• A new section titled "Pipeline Safety and Fire Data" has been added to the Public Health and Safety section of
this chapter
Introduction
This chapter describes aspects of the environment likely to be directly affected by the proposed action. Also
described are anticipated direct and indirect effects from the proposed action under the alternatives, and the potential
cumulative impacts, which form the scientific and analytical basis for the Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives.
Because the proposed action and alternatives analyzed are relatively precise in scope, the effects analysis also mirrors
this precision, thus avoiding unfocused and speculative assessments. The impacts on Threatened and Endangered
(T&E) species are described and submitted for informal consultation with the USFWS.
Key, Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Table 8: Definition of Key, Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Definition of Impacts Used in This Assessment
Key Effects: Elements identified from project assessment and public comments/scoping that would likely impact
the human or natural environment if the proposed action is implemented.
Direct Effects: Those foreseeable impacts that will directly result from implementation of the proposed action.
Indirect Effects: Those foreseeable impacts that are likely to indirectly occur as a result of proposed action
implementation.
Cumulative Effects: Those additive impacts from the incremental effects of a proposed action when placed in
context with other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions (CEQ regulation, 40 CFR 1508.7).
The analysis for this EIS assesses all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts for all affected lands within the scope of
the proposed action, regardless of ownership. For virtually all of the terrestrial species addressed here, the interac-
tions between the indirect effects (noise disturbance) on federally managed lands and non-federal lands where con-
struction-induced ground disturbance occurs, are expected to be very limited, because few species' breeding and
sheltering habitats occur in roads and powerline corridors. However, the aquatic ecosystem does contain some inter-
actions between the direct effects (sediment and turbidity), ground-disturbing activities and potential impacts
between federal and non-federal lands. The Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment (Appendix E) addresses these potential
impacts in detail.
Categories of Key Effects: ( 1 ) Impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats and water quality; (2) Impacts on air pollu-
tion and soil productivity; (3) Impacts on terrestrial species and habitats, which includes Port-Orford-cedar, Noxious
35
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Weeds, Special Status Species, Survey & Manage Species, T&E Species, as well as related CHUs; (4) Cultural
resource-site protection (including Native American Religious Concerns); and (5) Economic impacts.
Proposed Action Effects Summation
The EPA recently published a final regulation for the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. There are water bodies within the NFP area that have been identified as not meeting
applicable water quality standards. The federal land-managing agencies have developed an Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS) protocol to bring the water bodies into compliance with applicable standards. Watershed analysis
recommendations, if followed, can maintain or improve protection of aquatic and riparian habitats in the short-term,
while promoting long-term recovery goals. The proposed actions of the preferred alternative are consistent with
watershed analysis recommendations (See Appendix E).
The individual species direct, indirect and cumulative effects analyses for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish
and vegetation (including bryophytes, fungi and lichens) addresses potential adverse impacts associated with the pro-
posed action on both federal and non-federal lands. Because the proposed actions are limited to pre-disturbed non-
habitat areas (roadways and powerlines) and use BMPs and PDCs throughout the proposed action for all affected
watersheds (i.e., span six 5th fields), the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are so small as to be negligible at the
5th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). These six affected watersheds are listed and analyzed in Appendix E. The
proposed action would provide both short and long-term beneficial impacts to the affected watersheds as well.
Approximately 15 miles of gravel road would be paved, promoting long-term restoration to the sediment and turbid-
ity baselines in 4 watersheds (Appendix E). Three culverts presently blocking fish passage in the East Fork Coquille
Watershed would be replaced, providing upstream and downstream passage to anadromous fish and other aquatic
wildlife, promoting immediate restoration benefits to the physical barrier baseline in the watershed.
Air quality may suffer some short-term direct localized (7th field) impacts wherever pipeline construction has heavy
equipment operating. The Roseburg RMP/EIS (USDI 1995a) found that effects of dust from road use by heavy
equipment were both localized and transitory. The long-term direct and cumulative effect of the proposed action is a
reduction in sulfurous emissions from fossil and wood fuels utilized by industries and private residences within Coos
County as users switch to natural gas from alternate fuels.
Negligible impacts to soil productivity from ground disturbance are anticipated at the watershed (5th field) scale.
Most of the construction (approximately 65%) would likely occur within road fill on the CBW Road or other roads.
The rest of the ground disturbance would be limited to powerline utility corridors, where normal maintenance regu-
larly removes (disturbs) vegetation with mechanical and chemical applications. In the pipeline trench areas where
soil is removed and backfilled after pipe placement, soil productivity in the utility corridors will likely be reduced
permanently from compaction. In roadways, soil productivity should remain unchanged.
Cultural resource sites (including Native American Religious Concerns) have been surveyed for and identified. In
construction areas where the potential for these sites exists, a certified archaeologist and tribal member will both be
onsite to monitor this resource. No impacts are anticipated, because all cultural resources and Native American
resource sites will be identified and avoided (See Appendix B).
The short-term and long-term direct, indirect and cumulative economic benefits of the proposed action are the pri-
mary reasons Coos County seeks to construct a natural gas pipeline.
For the details of these assessments, refer to the specific effects analysis sections later in this chapter.
Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Implementation
Late-Successional Reserve Assessments are required before implementing actions in LSRs. Late-Successional
Reserve Assessments have been developed for the BLM-Coos Bay District's LSR #261 containing CHU OR60
(northern spotted owl), and CHUs OR06-B and OR-06-D (marbled murrelet). Because of implemented PDCs,
impacts to these listed species and their designated habitats are avoided. None of the proposed actions will affect or
degrade any late-successional habitats in these CHUs/LSRs, nor will they slow habitat development in these CHUs/
LSRs.
Watershed analysis is required in Key Watersheds and Riparian Reserves prior to determining how proposed man-
agement actions meet the ACS for maintaining or promoting long-term recovery. Watershed analysis was conducted
36
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
within the scope of the proposed action area. All proposed management actions in the proposed action meet the ACS
(Appendix E), and would not retard attainment of ACS objectives.
Environment
Air Quality
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct and Cumulative Effects
Because natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, it can help improve the quality of air, especially when used in
place of other, more polluting energy sources. Natural gas combustion results in virtually no atmospheric emissions
of sulfur dioxide or small particulate matter, and far lower emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive hydrocarbons,
nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide than combustion of other fossil fuels.
Natural gas is more environmentally attractive than other fossil fuels because it is composed chiefly of methane - a
molecule made up of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. When methane is burned completely, the principal
products of combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor.
In comparison, fuel oils, cunently one of the primary energy sources used by industries in Coos County, have much
more complicated molecular structures. They include a higher ratio of carbon, as well as various sulfur and nitrogen
compounds; therefore do not burn as cleanly. Industrial fuel oil combustion also produces ash particles, which do not
burn at all; however, they can be carried into the atmosphere. The largest heat users burn the cheapest fuel oil, #6
bunker fuel, a thick asphalt-like compound which must be heated to flow, and which is high in sulfur and other con-
taminants, including heavy metals.
Because natural gas burns cleanly, its use can be an effective means of reducing pollution. The combustion of natu-
ral gas produces virtually no sulfur dioxide and very little nitrogen oxide. Natural gas emits, on average, 0.00006
pounds of sulfur oxides per therm of fuel burned. (A therm is 1 00,000 BTU, or about 0.7 gallons of fuel oil.) In con-
trast, a typical bunker fuel emits up to 0.2 pounds of sulfur oxides per therm, which is approximately 3500 times
higher than gas (www.epa.gov//ttn/chief/ap42).
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require plants to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons
annually, and their nitrogen oxide emissions by 2 million tons annually. The following tables show the reduced
emissions caused by converting a typical plant from #6 bunker fuel to natural gas. In the NW Natural system, an
average-size industrial plant uses about 2 million therms of gas per year.
These benefits also extend to smaller residential and commercial customers converting to natural gas. Most users
now heat with electricity, fuel oil, propane and wood. An average home would use about 800 therms per year of nat-
ural gas. Accompanying tables compare emissions from natural gas relative to fuels burned onsite. Natural gas
results in lower emissions of particulates (soot), nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOx and SOx), carbon dioxide and
organic compounds. Approximately half of the electricity in the region is generated from fossil fuels, at an overall 30
percent thermal efficiency. Thus a therm of natural gas consumed onsite in Coos Bay will offset the consumption of
1.6 therms of oil, gas or coal in an offsite electric generating plant. Emissions are reduced proportionally.
Natural gas should make an immediate improvement in the existing and future air quality within Coos County.
37
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 9:
Metal Emissions from Fuel Combustion (lbs/thermal unit)
Element
#6 Bunker Fuel
Natural Gas'
Average Industry Yearly Reduction"
Arsenic
0.000009
<0.000001
18
Barium
0.000017
<0.000001
34
Beryllium
<0.000001
<0.000001
N/A
Cadmium
0.000003
<0.000001
5
Chromium
0.000006
<0.000001
11
Cobalt
0.000040
<0.000001
80
Copper
0.000012
<0.000001
23
Manganese
0.000020
<0.000001
40
Mercury
0.000001
<0.000001
2
Molybdenum
0.000005
<0.000001
10
Nickel
0.000563
<0.000001
1.127
Selenium
0.000005
<0.000001
9
Vanadium
0.000212
<0.000001
424
Zinc
0.000194
0.000003
382
Table 10:
Airborne Emissions from Fuel Combustion (lbs/thermal unit)
Element
#6 Bunker Fuel
Natural Gas
Average Industry Yearly Reduction"
Carbon Dioxide
16.2667
0.0082
(9,804)
Carbon Monoxide
0.0033
0.0001
409,749
Sulfur Oxides
0.2049
0.0186
25,412
Nitrous Oxides
0.0313
0.0002
28,427
Filterable Particulate Matter
0.0144
0.0011
(450)
Total Organic Compounds
0.0009
0.0002
882
Methane
0.0007
<0.000001
N/A
Benzene
<0.00000l
0.000007
29
Formaldehyde
0.000022
<0.000001
2
Napthalene
0.000001
<0.000001
8
Toluene
0.000004
0.0082
(9,804)
Annual use for average industrial customer on NW Natural system in Oregon.
^Figures are calculated per Emission Factors from EPA manual AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" AP-42, Fifth
Edition, Volume 1 Chapter 1, Tables 1.3-1 and 1.4-1, et seq. {www.epa.gov//ttn/chief/ap42)
38
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Natural Resources
Cultural Resources (luciuding Native American Religious Concerns)
Background
See Appendix B for background information regarding this resource. Recommendations given in Appendix B will
be followed prior to and during construction.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
No Action Alternative
No impacts.
Proposed Action
• Direct Impacts: Onsite monitoring by qualified archaeologists and designated tribal representatives will be
present to monitor during construction, areas that historical records and field tests have identified as having
potential cultural resources (see maps in Appendix B). All identified resource areas would be avoided (go
around or directionally-drill underneath the area) by construction activities for the proposed action. Therefore,
there are no anticipated potential direct impacts from pipeline construction. After construction, paving of
approximately 15 miles of gravel road on the CBW Road will occur. If this is the case, a formal Determination
of Eligibility document will be prepared for the CBW Road and submitted to the State Historic Preservation
Office for evaluation prior to paving. If the CBW Road is determined to be eligible for the National Register
for Historic Places, then a Determination of Effect would be prepared for the proposed alterations (paving) to
the gravel portions of the CBW Road.
• Indirect Impacts: None
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Hwy 42 Alternative
• Direct Impacts: No anticipated impacts, as all construction would occur on paved roads.
• Indirect Impacts: None
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Soils
Refer to Appendix A for background information on soils.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
No Action Alternative
No impacts.
39
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
• Direct Impacts: The proposed action alternatives require placement of a pipeline in existing road grades and/or
utility corridors. Any potential short-term risk of soil loss has been minimized or eliminated by the Erosion
Control Plan (Appendix H) and the PDCs for culvert placement to be so small, as to be unmeasurable (i.e., neg-
ligible) at the watershed level of assessment (5th field HUC). In areas where ground-disturbing activities
occurs outside of roadways, the proposed action may negatively impact soil productivity due to compaction and
backfilling with soils containing less organics than the material removed for pipe placement. The total acres of
potentially reduced soil productivity under the proposed action is approximately 56 acres (Table 11).
Table 11: Acreage of soil area impacted by watershed in the proposed action.
Watershed
Total Acres Impacted
Percent of Total Impact
Lower South Umpqua
5.6
10
Ollala-Lookingglass
25.3
45
East Fork Coquille
5.5
10
Lower Coos-Coos Bay
6.6
12
North Fork Coquille River
13.0
23
Middle Main Fork Coquille
0.0
0
Totals
56.0
100
The proposed action's watersheds listed in Appendix E are approximately 55,000 to over 100,000 acres in size.
The few acres of potentially reduced soil productivity in each basin is so small that it would be unmeasurable (i.e.,
negligible). The Middle Main Fork Coquille Watershed has no construction area outside of roadways, therefore,
there is no anticipated impact to its watershed soil productivity.
• Indirect Impacts: Potential changes in soil bulk density and drainage on the approximately 56 acres of
impacted construction area.
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Hwy 42 Alternative
• Direct Impacts: No anticipated impacts, as all construction would occur on paved roads.
• Indirect Impacts: None
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Vegetation
Background
One of the goals of the management guidelines in the Roseburg RMP (USDI 1995a), Integrated Weed Control EA
(USDI 1995b) and Coos Bay BLM RMP (USDI 1994) concerning noxious weeds, was to prevent the spread or infes-
tation on BLM-managed lands. For Port-Orford-cedar (POC), a primary management objective is to limit the spread
of the root pathogen Phytophthora lateralis (PI), which causes rapid mortality to POC.
Because the proposed action requires ground-disturbance in existing utility corridors, some preventative PDCs will
be implemented to avoid further spread of noxious weeds and PI within the powerline ROWs.
40
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Vegetation, Including T&E, Survey and Manage, Special Status, and Noxious Weeds
The proposed action corridor was surveyed in autumn of 2{)()() and spring/summer of 2001 for T&R, Special vStatus,
Survey and Manage and noxious weed species. There is considerable man-made disturbance already occurring
within it. The CBW Road sits on an average of five feet of fill dirt. In the powerline ROW, sub-climax vegetation
predominates. All trees have been removed except in one draw on private property, where they will not interfere
with powerlines. The powerline is serviced by access roads which are maintained by periodic bulldozing. In addi-
tion, there are dirt roads leading to the electrical towers leaving areas of exposed soil. Invasive weeds (including
noxious weeds) are prevalent throughout this utility corridor. Because of the continuous intensive vegetation
removal required by the County, BPA/PP&L management plans, little change in the sub-climax/disturbed vegetal
regime is anticipated. Botanical field surveys found no presence of Threatened & Endangered, Special Status or Sur-
vey and Manage habitats or species (including bryophytes, lichens and fungi) in the pipeline construction corridor.
Some noxious weeds, however, were found (Table 12).
Table 12: Noxious Weeds in Utility Corridor
Common
Scientific
Bull thistle
Cirsium vulgare
Canada thistle
Circium arvense
Gorse
Ulex europaeus
Himalayan blackberry
Rubis discolor
Scotch broom
Cytisus scoparius
St. Johns Wort
Hypericum perforatum
Tansey ragwort
Senecio jacobaea
Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, St. Johns Wort and Bull thistle occur throughout the utility corridor, varying in
abundance from dense to scattered. Gorse was found on private land adjacent to BLM (T28S, Rl I W Sect. 10, NW 1/
4 NE 1/4). Tansy ragwort and Canada thistle occur in an adjacent riparian area on Reston Ridge.
The nearest plant of concern was the federally endangered Western lily (Lilium occidentale) located along the coastal
strand which extends 4 miles inland near Bandon. Site surveys made for Oregon Natural Heritage tracking species in
the vicinity of the proposed action corridor, listed only Cusick's Checker Mallow {Sidalcea cusickii), which was
found in the Umpqua and Coquille Valleys in moist habitat.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
No Action Alternative
• Direct Impacts: This alternative would have no direct impacts on the plant community in the proposed action
area. No ground disturbance would occur under this alternative.
• Indirect Impacts: This alternative would have no indirect effects on the plant community in the proposed
action area. No ground disturbance would occur under this alternative.
• Cumulative Impacts: This alternative would have no cumulative effects on the plant community in the pro-
posed action area. No ground disturbance would occur under this alternative.
41
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
• Direct Impacts: Because field surveys found no T&E, Special Status or Survey and Manage species (includ-
ing bryophytes, lichens and fungi) or habitats in the proposed action area, the project would have no direct
impact to these species.
• Bare soil would be temporarily exposed to possible invasion of noxious weeds. After ground disturbing activi-
ties, the bare soil areas on BLM property will be seeded and mulched with approved BLM-seed mixtures to
enhance propagation of desirable plant species and minimize potential for weed encroachment. Private land
areas would receive the same post-construction treatment, except that a state-approved seed mix for the Oregon
Coast Range (Appendix H) will be used on those ownerships. There would be no impact to POC since none
exist in the proposed action corridor. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, construction areas with noxious
weeds that have not been sprayed as part of the County's CBW Road or BPA/PP&L corridor maintenance
plans, will be treated mechanically. Post-construction treatment (mechanical or herbicides) of disturbed areas
for noxious weeds will occur the following year in areas where noxious weeds have invaded disturbed ground
from pipeline construction.
• Because of the treatments for noxious weeds and the ongoing disturbance in the CBW Road and utility corri-
dors, no measurable direct impacts from noxious weeds is anticipated from the proposed action
• Temporary removal of grasses, weeds and small shrubs would occur in the proposed action from ground-dis-
turbing activities. Until the vegetation regrows, the seeded plants will temporarily replace the sub-climax
grasses, weeds and small shrubs now present in the 56 acres to be disturbed within the utility corridors.
• Indirect Impacts: Indirect effects would include the potential for long-term increased spread of noxious
weeds in the project area which may displace native plant species habitats. There would be no indirect effects
for T&E, Special Status or Survey and Manage species (including bryophytes, lichens and fungi), since none
exist in the proposed action area.
• Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative effects would include the potential increase of noxious weeds in the
powerline utility conidor area. There would be a temporary reduction in the amount of vegetation which pro-
tects the soil in the existing powerline ROW, thus increasing the risk of weed invasion. There would be no
cumulative impacts for T&E, Special Status or Survey and Manage species (including bryophytes, lichens and
fungi), since none exist within the proposed action area.
Hwy 42 Alternative
• Direct Impacts: This alternative would have no anticipated direct impact on the plant communities, including
POC in the proposed action area, as ground disturbance would be limited to roadways.
• Indirect Impacts: This alternative would have no indirect effect on the plant communities in the proposed
action area, as no ground disturbance outside of roadways were anticipated.
• Cumulative Impacts: This alternative would have no cumulative effect on the plant community in the pro-
posed action area.
Floodplains
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
No Action Alternative
No impact.
Action Alternatives
Both corridors are adjacent to 100-year floodplains. Each corridor's adjacent area (2.2 miles for proposed action and
15.3 miles for Hwy 42 alternative) to the floodplain are on roadways that sit well above the floodplain on 5-10 feet of
road fill. No anticipated impacts.
42
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Wiid and Scenic Rivers
All Alternatives
No Wild and Scenic Rivers exist in any alternative. No effect.
Wildlife
Federally Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species
This section discusses the potential effects to species hsted as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing,
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. It only discusses in detail those listed terrestrial species that
have the potential to be affected by the proposed actions. Other listed, candidate and proposed species will not be
affected by the proposed actions. Also see Appendix F for the USFWS Letter of Concurrence.
Northern Spotted Owl
Background
The management and recovery of northern spotted owls is an important consideration and received extensive atten-
tion to the Northwest Forest Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) (USDA, USDI
1994a, pp. 3&4; 21 1 through 245 and Appendices G, Jl, J3). Late-Successional Reserve Assessments have been
developed for the BLM-Coos Bay District's LSR #261 containing CHU 0R6() (northern spotted owl), and CHUs
OR06-B and OR-06-D (marbled murrelet). Because of implemented PDCs, impacts to these designated species and
habitats are avoided. None of the proposed actions will affect or degrade any late-successional habitats in these
CHUs/LSRs, nor will they slow habitat development in these CHUs/LSRs.
Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl are found in the Sta-
tus Reviews produced by the USFWS (USDI 1987, 1990a); the 1989 Status Review Supplement (USDI 1989); the
Interagency Scientific Report (Thomas et al. 1990); and the final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened spe-
cies (USDI 1990b). There are approximately 5,608 pairs of northern spotted owls and resident singles (activity cen-
ters) and approximately 8. 1 million acres of suitable habitat currently estimated across the range of the species
(Holzman, USFWS, pers. comm. 1995). Recent demographic studies (Burnham et al. 1994) indicate that the popula-
tion is declining. While such a decline is expected to continue as spotted owl sites with severely degraded habitat
conditions become inactive, implementation of the NFP is expected to abate the decline by protecting all spotted owl
sites within LSRs. The NFP will provide for the conservation of the species by allowing non-suitable, but capable
habitat to regenerate within the LSRs to allow the population to increase and stabilize across its range. Preliminary
results from a more recent (December 1998) meta-analysis of available demographic data for the period 1985-1998,
though, found no evidence of a decline in reproduction or in the overall annual survival probability during the period
of study (Forsman and Anthony 1999).
The 1990 Spotted Owl Status Review Committee stated that population size is primarily a function of the amount and
distribution of available habitat (USDI 1990a). In developing a conservation strategy for late-successional and old-
growth forest-associated species, the Depai"tments of Interior and Agriculture developed a network of late-succes-
sional and old-growth habitat i^eserves across the Pacific Northwest. This network of Late-Successional Reserves is
designed to conserve forest species closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forest habitat where
habitat conditions are relatively intact and also provide for the regeneration of late-successional forest habitat where
habitat is extremely limited and the reliant plant and wildlife populations are low.
On the Coos Bay District BLM. the early nesting season is considered March 1 through June 30. The intent in select-
ing 30 June is to insure that nearly all young northern spotted owls will have left the nest tree and be somewhat
mobile by this date. We reviewed over 700 nesting status records for 1990-1994 on the District; 0. 1 percent of the
records indicated young owls were still in the nest tree by June 30 suggesting that this date is reasonable.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct and Cumulative Effects
43
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
All Alternatives
None of the alternatives have direct or cumulative impacts on the northern spotted owl, because they do not remove
or degrade any suitable habitat for this species.
Indirect Effects
All Alternatives
The potential indirect impacts due to disturbance from equipment noise are avoided in the PDCs (listed below),
which provide both seasonal and daily timing restrictions that would eliminate most, if not all, potential short-term
(1-7 days) adverse indirect effects.
Habitat or Individuals
A. No habitat would be removed from proposed actions.
Disturbance
A. Work activities such as trenching, pipe-laying and re-paving, would not take place within 0.25-mile of any nest site
or activity center of known pairs and resident singles between March 1st and June 30th.
B. This PDC may be waived in a particular year by the USFWS, if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted
according to the USFWS-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that northern spotted owls are non-nesting or that no
young-of-the-year are present. Waivers are only valid until March 1st of the following year. Previously known
sites and activity centers are assumed occupied unless surveys indicate otherwise.
C. No helicopter activities will occur during construction.
D. Blasting would not occur within 1 mile of suitable habitat March 1st to June 30th.
E. Blasting would not occur within 1 mile of known nest sites March 1st to September 30th.
F. A wildlife Biologist will monitor the above measures on-site.
Marbled Murrelet
Background
The management and recovery of marbled murrelets is an important consideration and received extensive attention to
the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a, pp. 3&4; 245 through 249, and Appendices G and J2).
Late-Successional Reserve Assessments have been developed for the BLM-Coos Bay District's LSR #261 containing
CHU OR60 (northern spotted owl), and CHUs OR06-B and OR-06-D (marbled murrelet). Because of implemented
PDCs, direct and cumulative impacts to these designated species and habitats are avoided. None of the proposed
actions will affect or degrade any late-successional habitats in these CHUs/LSRs, nor will they slow habitat develop-
ment in these CHUs/LSRs.
An account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the marbled murrelet is found in Marshall
1988, USDI 1992b, USDI 1996, USDI 1994, USDA USDI 1994b, and USDI 1997. The U.S. Forest Service has pub-
lished the Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet, an up-to-date and comprehensive summary of the sta-
tus of the species, which was peer reviewed by representatives of numerous wildlife and ecological societies (Ralph
et al. 1995). This document makes several key points regarding the status of the marbled murrelet. Population trends
are clearly downward. Ralph et al. (1995) and USDI (1997) suggested possible reasons for the decline include the
species' dependence on older forests for nesting (forests which are now scarce and highly fragmented); its low repro-
ductive rate; and adult mortality due to predation, capture in gill nets, and encounters with oil spills. The amount and
distribution of the remaining suitable habitat is considered to be the most important determinant of the long-term
population trend and further loss may severely hamper the stabilization and recovery of the species.
44
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Most population estimates for marbled murrelets have been conducted using at-sea surveys and are subject to many
sources of error, such as the methods of counting flying birds, environmental conditions, and observer abihty (Ralph
et al. 1995). These sources of error may also change with the season and location of the surveys.
Population estimates for the marbleti nuirrelct in Oregon vary substantially. For example, Varoujean and WilliarTis
(I99.S) used aerial surveys conducted along tiic entire Oregon Coast in August and September 1993 to estimate that
6,600 marbled murrelets occur in Oregon. In a different study. Strong et al. (1995) used boat surveys to estimate that
15-20,000 marbled murrelets occur in Oregon; they caution that large numbers of non-breeding adults and low num-
bers of fledglings on the water may be due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat.
Population estimates for Washington and California are less variable. Spiech and Wahl (1995) concluded that mar-
bled murrelet populations in Puget Sound are lower now than they were at the beginning of this century, and total
estimates for Washington are about 5,500 marbled murrelets (Ralph et al. 1995). Ralph and Miller ( 1995) estimated
the California population to be approximately 6,500 birds.
Beissinger (1995) constructed a demographic model of the marbled murrelet and concluded that the population may
be declining at rates of 4-6 percent per year; but this estimate is limited by the possibility that the age-ratio data used
in the model are retlective of a relatively temporary decline due to unusual ocean conditions (Ralph et al. 1995).
Ralph et al. (1995) summarized some of the reasons for population estimate variability among researchers, including
differences in methodology, assumptions, spatial coverage, and survey and model errors. Nevertheless, both Ralph
et al. (1995) and USDI (1997) have concluded that the listed population appears to be in a long-term downward
trend.
There are approximately 979 known marbled munelet occupied sites within Washington, Oregon, and California
(Holzman, USFWS, pers. comm. 1995). Total number of suitable habitat acres in these three states is unknown.
Ralph et al. (1995) estimated there are 2,561,500 acres of suitable habitat for the marbled murrelet on Federal lands
in the listed range of this species.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives
None of then alternatives have direct or cumulative impacts on the marbled murrelet, because they do not remove or
degrade any suitable habitat for this species.
Indirect Effects
All Alternatives
The potential indirect impacts due to disturbance from equipment noise are addressed in the PDCs (listed below),
which provide both seasonal and daily timing restrictions that would eliminate most, if not all, potential short-term
(1-7 days) adverse indirect effects.
Disturbance
A. Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for less than 1 week" and related activities
occurring within 0.25-mile of unsurveyed suitable habitat, shall be no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and no
later than 2 hours before sunset from April 1st to September 15th.
B. Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for less than 1 week" and related activities
occuning within 0.25-mile of occupied habitat, shall be seasonally restricted from April 1st to August 5th.
C. Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for less than 1 week" and related activities
occurring within 0.25-mile of occupied habitat, shall be no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and no later than 2
hours before sunset from August 6th to September 15th.
45
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
D. No blasting will occur within 1 mile of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat April 1st to September 15th.
E. No helicopter activities will occur during construction.
F. A wildlife Biologist will monitor the above measures on-site.
Bald Eagle
Background
Breeding and wintering populations of the bald eagle occur throughout Southwest Oregon. Recovery efforts for Bald
Eagles have allowed populations to increase to the extent that the species is now proposed for delisting in the lower
48 states (USFWS 1999).
The population in Oregon is listed as threatened. Its present status is a result of past and present destruction of habi-
tat, a declining food base, environmental contaminants, disturbance, electrocution, and illegal harassment including,
but not limited to shooting, and poisoning. CuiTcntly the primary threats to bald eagles are habitat degradation and,
in some areas, environmental contaminants.
In the Pacific Northwest, bald eagles typically nest in multi-layered, coniferous stands with old-growth trees located
within a mile of large bodies of water (USDI 1986). Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical
for maintaining bald eagle populations. The Pacific Northwest is a key area for wintering bald eagles and supports
over 25 percent of the wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states (USDI 1986). Wintering sites are typically in the
vicinity of concentrated food sources such as anadromous fish runs, and high concentrations of waterfowl or mam-
malian carrion.
A number of habitat features are desirable. Eagles need perch trees for hunting and resting. These trees typically
provide an unobstructed view of the surrounding area and are usually near nests or feeding areas such as large rivers.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives
None of the alternatives would have direct or cumulative effects on bald eagles or bald eagle habitat management
because no suitable habitat would be removed.
Indirect Effects
All Alternatives
The potential indirect impacts due to disturbance of resident bald eagle nests along these corridors from equipment
noise are addressed in the PDCs (listed below), which provide both seasonal and daily timing restrictions that would
eliminate most, if not all, potential adverse effects.
Disturbance
A. Work activities that cause disturbance would not take place within 1312 feet of active nests and roosts, or within
2625 feet line-of-sight from nests and roosts during periods of eagle use unless field surveys demonstrate that the
nest or roosts are not being used during the normal season of use. For nests, the period of eagle use is January 1st
to August 3 1 St (or two weeks post-fledging). For roosts, the period of eagle use is November 15th to March
15th.
B. No helicopter activities will occur during construction.
46
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
BLM Special Status Species
Background
Accordinj: to the definition in the BLM 6840 pohcy. a special status designation includes species that could easily
become endangered or extinct in state. They are either restricted in range or have natural or human-caused threats to
survival. Special Status species are not listed, proposed or candidate species, but are eligible for federal or state list-
ing or candidate status. B\M Special Status Species are designated by the BLM State Director. BLM 6840 policy
requires that any BLM action will not contribute to the need to list any of these species. (A list of these species is
found in Appendix K 1 .) Noise disturbance is assessed out to 0. 25-mile from all construction-related activities.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives
Both action alternatives would have no direct or cumulative effect on Special Status Species. No individuals or suit-
able habitat would be removed due to the proposed or Hwy 42 alternative actions.
Indirect Effects
All Alternatives
Vertebrates spending part of their life-history cycle adjacent to the proposed action corridor during active construc-
tion may be disturbed by short-term (1-7 days) ambient noise from heavy equipment used to lay pipe. There are no
management requirements or PDCs for any special status species. Although no documented locations of special sta-
tus vertebrates are known adjacent to the pipeline corridor, some minor disturbance potential is assumed, because
adjacent suitable habitat has not been surveyed for special status species.
Some special status bats and birds that use the utility corridors for diurnal and nocturnal foraging, may be disturbed
away from those areas where construction is active, to alternate foraging areas further from construction noise. The
number of special status species individuals utilizing the powerline conidor for foraging has not been documented,
and is unknown. Because construction is short-term ( 1-7 days) with moderate noise above ambient background lev-
els, any indirect impacts to special status species from indirect noise effects would be negligible.
Survey and Manage Species
Survey and Manage species represent flora and fauna in the NFP area that are believed to be locally rare, with a lim-
ited habitat range requiring late-successional forests; some are endemic to western forests in southwestern Oregon.
See Appendix K for list of these species. Noise disturbance is assessed out to 0.25-mile from all construction-related
activities.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
All Alternatives
• Direct Impacts: The proposed action would have no direct effects on Survey and Manage Species habitats or
individuals.
• Indirect Impacts: Except for the possibility of noise disturbance affecting individual red tree voles in adjacent
suitable habitat areas, the proposed action would have no other anticipated indirect impacts on Survey and
Manage Species in the proposed action areas, as no ground-disturbing activities occur within their habitats.
The number of red tree vole individuals utilizing habitat adjacent to the pipeline corridor for breeding, feeding
47
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
and sheltering has not been documented and is unknown. Because construction is short-term (1-7 days) with
moderate noise above ambient background levels during the daytime only, any indirect impacts to nocturnal red
tree voles from indirect noise effects would be negligible.
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Other Wildlife
Noise disturbance is assessed out to 0.25-mile from all construction-related activities.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
No Action Alternative
No anticipated Direct, Indirect or Cumulative Impacts.
Proposed Action
• Direct Impacts: Birds that utilize small shrubs as part of their life-history cycle may temporarily lose some
potential shrub habitat in the utility corridor in areas of ground disturbance from construction. Approximately
0.2-acre of conifer plantation trees on private land would be removed in the utility corridor (under the power-
lines that span two hillsides). Although these trees are immature (25 years old) and densely packed (300 trees
per acre), they do offer perches for flycatchers and other avian insect foragers that may use the powerline/utility
corridor for feeding. Habitat loss from tree and shrub removal would be long-term impacts.
• Indirect Impacts: Short-term (1-7 days) noise disturbance from heavy equipment in the proposed action corri-
dor during the active construction period may briefly impact individual diurnal mammals, herptofauna and
birds that utilize powerline corridors or adjacent habitats for travel or foraging. Nocturnal use of the powerline
ROWs (by owls, bats, etc.) would remain relatively unchanged and undisturbed, as no nighttime construction
activity is anticipated.
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Hwy 42 Alternative
• Direct Impacts: None are anticipated, as no individuals or habitat would be removed.
• Indirect Impacts: Noise disturbance from heavy equipment in the Hwy 42 corridor during the active construc-
tion period may briefly impact individual mammals, herptofauna, and birds that utilize habitats adjacent to the
highway. However, construction noise should not be measurably greater (i.e., negligible) than normal levels
caused by highway traffic and should not add any measurable impacts.
• Cumulative Impacts: None
Aquatic Ecosystem
Background
The ACS is a habitat-based approach for restoration and maintenance of watersheds and the aquatic ecosystems con-
tained within them on federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 1994a and USDA, USDI 1994b). When assessing dis-
cretionary federal actions (as in this document), analyses must include effects on the non-federal lands contained in
the proposed actions. This is exactly what occurred. In fact, the emphasis of this document's assessment is on non-
federal lands in the proposed action, because BLM-managed lands represent only 3.5 percent of the proposed action
corridor. The foundation principle for maintaining and restoring aquatic habitats within the NFP area was avoidance
48
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
of species-specific strategies in the ACS objectives. The NFP Record of Decision emphasized this foundation strat-
egy by stating:
"Any species-specific strategy aimed at defining explicit standards f)r habitat elements would he insufficient
for protecting even the targeted species. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy must strive to maintain and
restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-
dependent species and resources and restore currently degraded habitats. " (USDA, USDI 1994b, p. B-9)
The components of the proposed action aquatic management plan (watershed analysis and watershed protection/res-
toration), provide the fundamental building blocks for protecting aquatic and riparian-dependent flora and fauna.
Coupled with watershed analysis (Appendix E), other elements of the aquatic management plan (Appendix H) within
the proposed action are designed to protect in the short-term and enhance in the long-term, water quality and aquatic/
riparian habitats for those aquatic/riparian-dependent species throughout all federal and non-federal landholdings
within the scope of the proposed action. The Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts' Watershed Analyses (containing the
Hwy 42 and the proposed action's affected areas) give watershed baseline conditions that are used to assess impacts
of the proposed actions on the aquatic ecosystem.
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Following the ACS provides significant protection for aquatic and riparian-dependent flora and fauna, regardless of
the alternative selected. All of the alternatives in this EIS are consistent with the ACS objectives (Appendix E), and
the action alternatives contain specific measures to minimize risk to aquatic and riparian-dependent flora and fauna.
No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, there would be no impacts (including no potential beneficial impacts).
Hwy 42 Alternative
The Hwy 42 action alternative would contain the same protective measures for building a natural gas pipeline as the
proposed action, which successfully minimizes potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The differences
occur mainly in corridor length (the proposed action is the shortest) and in the number of streams/wetlands crossed
(the proposed action has the least). (See Action Alternatives Route Summary Table 2, Chapter 2) Also, the Hwy 42
alternate route lacks the beneficial mitigation measures (adding cross-drains and paving) contained in the proposed
action for enhancing the sedimentation and turbidity baseline habitat elements.
HABITAT ELEMENT IMPACT
Sedimentation Insignificant
Turbidity Insignificant
Improvement in the physical barrier baseline would be achieved by replacing at least 2 deteriorating culverts that
presently block fish passage.
Proposed Action
After assessing potential impacts in all six watershed analyses, the proposed action effects on baseline conditions of
two habitat elements were identified for their potential insignificant impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. These two ele-
ments are sedimentation and turbidity. (Appendix E contains the specific assessments by watershed for each habitat
element identified in their pertinent watershed analysis area.) The protective measures (Appendix H) contained in
the proposed action's overall ECP, are specifically designed to avoid most adverse impacts to the two habitat ele-
ments (sedimentation and turbidity) identified as potentially impacted by pipeline construction. Furthermore, spe-
cific mitigation has been identified to restore the sedimentation, turbidity and physical barrier (fish passage)
baselines. That is, the proposed action is designed to avoid adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem while providing
substantive beneficial impacts.
49
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
HABITAT ELEMENT IMPACT
Sedimentation Insignificant
Turbidity Insignificant
Improvement in the sedimentation and turbidity baselines would be achieved through paving approximately 15 miles
of the CBW Road that is presently a gravel-dirt surface. This paving would be spread across 4 watersheds: East Fork
Coquille - 10.3 miles. Middle Main Coquille - 1.9 miles, North Fork Coquille - 1.0 mile and Lower Coos/Coos Bay -
1 .9 miles. Gravel-dirt roads have been identified as the major source of sediment and turbidity, and paving of
approximately 15 miles would provide long-term benefits to these watersheds.
Improvement in the physical barrier baseline would be achieved by replacing 3 deteriorating culverts that presently
block anadromous fish passage within the East Fork Coquille Watershed.
50
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Lower South Umpqua Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of 8 intermittent streams within the I.ower South Umpqua Watershed would be affected by the proposed
aetii)n (Table 1 }). All oi' the construction (trenching) in this watershed would occur when these streams are dry
within the utility ROWs.
Table 13: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Lower South
Umpqua Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag &
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
5
0
0
0
0
15 - 30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
hitermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
3
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
8
0
0
0
0
51
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Olalla Creek/Lookingglass Creek Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of four streams within the Olalla Creek/Lookingglass Creek Watershed would be affected by the proposed
action in the CBW Road. Two crossings occur within the roadbed of existing public roads, and two perennial streams
would be crossed using the bag and flume method (Table 14).
Table 14: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Olalla Creek/
Lookingglass Creek Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
« 2% rise)
0- 15
0
1
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0-15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
1
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
1
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
1
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
2
0
0
2
52
Chapter 4 Environnnental Consequences
Summary of the Olalla Creek/Lookingglass Creek Watershed Utility Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of thirty-nine streams within the Olalla Creck/Lookingglass Creek watershed would be crossed within exist-
ing utility corridors (Table 1 5) Thirty-one streams would crossed by the dry trench method, and eight streams would
be crossed by the bag and flume method.
Table 15: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Olalla Creek/
Lookingglass Creek Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
3
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
2
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
3
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
6
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
2
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
23
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
31
8
0
0
0
53
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the East Fork Coquille Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of 58 streams along the CBW Road in the East Fork Coquille Watershed would be affected by the proposed
action (Table 16). Fifty-four crossings would occur above the streams within the roadbed of existing public roads;
three crossings would be hung on bridges; and one crossing would be directionally-drilled below the stream.
Table 16: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the East Fork Coquille
Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
1
3
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
1
0
5
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
14
15-30
0
0
0
2
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gende
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
3
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
3
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
26
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
1
3
54
54
Chapter 4 Environnnental Consequences
Summary of the East Fork Coquille Watershed Utility Corridor Stream Crossings
Only three streams would be crossed by the proposed action within the East Fork Coquille Watershed within utility
ROW (Table 17). Two iiUermitlent streams would be crossed by the dry trench method and one small perennial
stream wouki be crossed by the bag and flume method.
Table 17: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the East Fork Coquille
Watershed (5th Held HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(>4%rise)
0- 15
0
1
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
« 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(>4%rise)
0- 15
2
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
2
1
0
0
0
55
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the North Fork Coquille Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of seven streams within the CBW Road in the North Fork Coquille Watershed would be affected by the pro-
posed action. Six crossings occur within the roadbed of existing public roads (Table 18).
Table 18: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the North Fork Coquille
Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
1
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2-4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
1
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
5
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
1
0
6
56
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the North Fork Coquille Watershed Utility Corridor Stream Crossings
Eight stream crossings ant! one wetland would occur within the utility ROW (Table 19). One stream would be
crossed by the dry trench method; six streams would be crossed by the bag and flume method; two stream crossings
and (Mie wetland would be directionally-drilled.
Table 19: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the North Fork
Coquille Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Cross
Culvert (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
« 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
1
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0 - 15
0
1
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
4
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
1
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
1
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
()
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
1
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1
5
3
0
0
57
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Middle Main Coquille Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of 17 streams within the Middle Main Coquille Watershed would be affected by the proposed action. All of
these crossings would occur above the stream within the roadbed of existing public road ROW (Table 20).
Table 20: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Middle Main
Coquille Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Above
Stream (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
11
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2-4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
6
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2-4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
17
58
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed Road Corridor Stream Crossings
A total of 2^) streams within the CBW Roail in the Lower Coos River/I -owcr Coos Bay Watershed would be affected
by the proposeil action. Crossings occur within the roadbed of existing public roads (Table 21 ).
Table 21: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Road Corridor within the Lower Coos River/
Coos Bav Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Above
Stream (in
road till)
Gentle Peren-
nial
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
1
0
15
1 5 - 30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
2
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
10
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
1
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
0
0
0
1
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
1
0
29
59
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed Utility Corridor Stream Crossings
Thirteen crossings, including one wetland within the Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed would occur on exist-
ing utility ROW (Table 22). Six streams would be crossed using the dry trench method; two streams would be
crossed using the bag and flume method; and five crossings would be directionally-drilled below the stream.
Table 22: Stream Description and Crossing Type on Utility Corridor within the Lower Coos River/
Coos Bay Watershed (5th field HUC)
Slope
Stream
Width
(feet)
Dry
Streams
Bag&
Flume
Directionally
Drilled
Hang on
Bridge
Above
Stream (in
road fill)
Gentle Peren-
nial
« 2% rise)
0- 15
0
0
* 2
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
1
0
0
Moderate
Perennial
(2-4% rise)
0- 15
0
1
1
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Perennial
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
0
1
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Gentle
Intermittent
(< 2% rise)
0- 15
2
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Intermittent
(2 - 4% rise)
0- 15
1
0
0
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
Steep
Intermittent
(> 4% rise)
0- 15
3
0
1
0
0
15-30
0
0
0
0
0
>30
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
6
2
5
0
0
* These crossings would occur approximately 200 feet outside of the existing utility corridor and would include 1
small wetland.
60
Chapter 4 tnvironmentai uonsequences
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Laterals to Coquillc, Myrtle Point and possibly Bandon, OR, would be conslrueted in the future. These proposed lat-
erals would start near the Fairview block-valve, and likely be placed within the roads or utility corridors to those cit-
ies from the CBW Road. Decisions relating to timing and placement of the laterals have not been finalized.
Although construction and placement are not finalized, the anticipated design would still follow the PDCs and BMPs
contained in the construction plans for the proposed action. The amount of disturbance from in-stream work and cul-
vert placement would be determined by whether the laterals are placed in utility corridors or on road fill. The pro-
posed laterals would be approximately 28 miles in total length. The present plans include construction and
placement of 6-inch and 4-inch pipe. The amount of ground disturbance would be less than the mainline (proposed
action), because smaller construction equipment and less ground area would be necessary.
NW Natural has announced plans to extend service to existing industrial users on the North Spit of Coos Bay. An 8
to 12-inch pipe would be placed under the road from Ocean Boulevard to Newmark Avenue to Empire. From there,
the extension would be directionally-drilled under Coos Bay to a paved road on the North Spit. This distribution
pipeline would likely be built concurrently with the Coos County Pipeline. Impacts to aquatic habitats will be
avoided, as construction will be limited to paved areas in Coos Bay, and directionally-drilled under the bay itself.
Portions of the North Spit are designated as an ACEC. All construction plans identified by NW Natural keep the
North Spit Extension on utility corridors or road ROW, thus avoiding all potential impacts to the ACEC area.
Summary of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for the Alternatives
Both the Hwy 42 and proposed action alternatives include measures to minimize the risk of potential short-term sed-
imentation from construction, which can affect water quality and water-dependent flora and fauna at the site scale.
Short-term potential sedimentation impacts have been anticipated, and adequate PDCs and BMPs are utilized to min-
imize these potential impacts (i.e., make negligible). None of the alternatives would affect the analysis or planned
outcomes as developed in the NFP Final SEIS and as implemented through its Record of Decision (USDA, USDA
1994b). See Appendix E for all watershed baselines and the specific rationale behind the effects determinations. See
Appendix H and the ODOT Erosion Control and Sediment Manual for specific aquatic system protection measures
for the proposed action.
Direct Effects
1. No Action: Alternative: No negative or beneficial impacts anticipated.
2. Proposed Action: Negligible impacts from pipeline construction in each watershed (5th field HUC) may occur.
Normal background sedimentation and turbidity present in the watersheds will receive no measurable impacts at the
5th field level. At the 7th field HUC (sub-subwatershed level), small, localized and transitory increases to sedimen-
tation and turbidity will likely occur during active trenching of small perennial streams, and during the first signifi-
cant autumn precipitation event. These impacts would likely be small and insignificant. Beneficial impacts from
placement of new stream and cross-drain culverts and paving approximately 15 miles of gravel-dirt road (on the
CBW Road), will likely improve watershed baseline conditions in the long-term for sedimentation and turbidity, with
immediate improvement in the baseline for physical barriers (fish passage).
3. Hwy 42 Alternative: Negligible negative impacts from pipeline construction in each watershed (5th field HUC)
may occur. Normal background sedimentation and turbidity present in the watersheds will receive no measurable
impacts at the 5th field level. At the 7th field HUC (sub-subwatershed level), small, localized and transitory
increases to sedimentation and turbidity will likely occur during active trenching of live streams, and during the first
significant autumn precipitation event.
Indirect Effects
1. No Action Alternative: None.
2. Proposed Action: Negligible impacts to sedimentation and turbidity baselines and beneficial impacts to physical
barrier baseline.
61
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
3. Hwy 42 Alternative: Negligible impacts to sedimentation and turbidity baselines and beneficial impacts to physi-
cal banrier baseline.
Cumulative Effects
1. No Action Alternative: No foreseeable incremental effects.
2. Proposed Action: Beneficial incremental effects anticipated for the aquatic ecosystem from reduced sedimenta-
tion from the CBW Road and improved access to habitat for fish.
3. Hwy 42 Alternative: Beneficial incremental effects anticipated for habitat access for fish.
There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Coos Bay Estuary due to the implementation of PDCs. Currently,
there are no known new industries entering Coos Bay following construction of the proposed natural gas pipeline,
however it is likely. Any potential impacts would be addressed by such industries.
Human Environment
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
The North Spit of Coos Bay contains the only ACEC near the action alternatives. Both the Hwy 42 alternative and
the proposed action would trigger NW Natural to develop a distribution system to the manufacturing facilities pres-
ently located on the North Spit. NW Natural's distribution system would be built under paved roads within Coos Bay
and the North Spit. To access the North Spit manufacturing area, NW Natural would cross under the bay using the
directionally-drill method (shown in Appendix J).
Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
None of the alternatives would affect the North Spit ACEC, as that area would be avoided. No impacts.
Socio-Economic
Background
In February 1999, ECONorthwest published a study forecasting the economic impacts of a new pipeline. This study
also measured the impacts of the distribution system, the long-term benefits to manufacturing employment, and the
effects the distribution system would have on government revenues. The report was prepared for Northwest Natural
and distributed to the public. The 1999 study itself was a revision of an earlier report by ECONorthwest completed
in 1997 for Northwest Natural Gas and Carbon Energy International. It discussed the impacts of a natural gas distri-
bution system confined to the County's two largest cities - North Bend and Coos Bay.
Both the 1997 and the 1999 studies relied on rough cost estimates for the pipeline. The route, timing, and dimensions
of the pipeline had not been determined at the time the impact studies were completed.
In this report, cost estimates provided by Coos County are used. As such, it is ECONorthwest's understanding that
the pipeline construction cost estimates are more precise than those used in the 1999 and 1997 studies. Two scenar-
ios suggested that the pipeline would cost approximately $34 million (proposed action) or $48 million (Hwy 42 alter-
native) depending on which route is chosen. Furthermore, these cost estimates reflected dollar values for the 2000
fiscal year.
62
onapier ^4 tnvironmeruai ouribequenueb
This report shows the results of a model estimating the economic impacts on Coos County from the construction and
operation of a natmal yas pipeline. The economic impact model reports values in year 2()()() dollars. IMPLAN
expresses employment in teinis of person-years of employment. A person-year equals enough hours of work to keep
one person fully employed for one year. In actuality, two or more people may share those hours. An employment
impact is a mixture of new jobs, some additional part time work and added hours of work for people who are already
employed.
Environiiieiilal Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives
No Action Alternative
The anticipated beneficial impacts from the proposed action would not occur.
Action Alternatives
There are three kinds of economic impacts. They are direct, indirect, and induced. A direct impact occurs when a
person who builds or operates a pipeline: I) Buys local goods and services and 2) hires local labor. The money they
use to do this is a direct impact. Their spending, in turn, causes indirect impacts because those who supply goods and
services to the gas pipeline will make some purchases in Coos County. Total employment and income in the County
goes up. That puts more purchasing power in the hands of Coos County citizens. They then will increase their local
spending and savings. This causes an additional stimulus to the County's economy called an induced (i.e., cumula-
tive) impact. Money spent locally by pipeline workers is included as an induced impact.
The economic modeling framework which best captures these direct, indirect, and induced effects is called Input-
Output Modeling. Input-Output Models are mathematical representations of the economy which incorporate how
different parts (or sectors) of the economy are linked. With an Input-Output Model, one can trace the effects of a
change in one sector through the rest of the economy.
Because Input-Output Models generally are not available for state and regional economies, special techniques have
been developed to estimate the necessary relationships using national data and county-level measures of economic
activity. This planning framework is called IMPLAN (for IMpact Analysis for PLANing). ECONorthwest used the
most current version, IMPLAN Professional 2.0, to estimate the impacts of the natural gas pipeline on Coos County.
IMPLAN was developed by the Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Land Management of the US Department of the Interior to assist
federal agencies in their land and resource management planning.
Pipeline Construction
ECONorthwest built an Input-Output Model for Coos County to estimate the economic impacts of the construction
and operation of the natural gas pipeline on the County. This model was used to estimate economic impacts under
two scenarios of construction costs. They are: 1 ) A $48 million proposal, which would follow, in part, a railroad
ROW; and 2) a more direct path, which would result in a lower construction cost of $34 million.
Construction Cost Estimates
ECONorthwest estimated the cost breakdown of the pipeline construction along three major categories: Materials,
labor and contractors, and ROW. In addition, those expenditures were divided according to where those dollars
would likely be spent. Table 23 shows the construction spending estimates for a $48 million construction cost pipe-
line project.
63
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 23: Pipeline Construction Spending for the $48 Million Scenario
(in 2000 Dollars)
Materials
Labor and
Contractors
ROW
Total
Coos County
$1,436,000
$14,361,200
$9,800
$15,807,000
Elsewhere
5,744,500
26,328,800
119,700
32,193,000
Total
$7,180,500
$40,690,000
$129,500
$48,000,000
Table 24 provides the estimate for the direct pipeline route. Under this scenario the cost of building the pipeline is
expected to total $34 million (proposed action estimate is closest to this).
Table 24: Pipeline Construction Spending for the $34 Million Scenario
(in 2000 Dollars)
Materials
Labor and
Contractors
ROW
Total
Coos County
$1,017,200
$10,172,500
$6,900
$11,196,600
Elsewhere
4,069,000
18,649,600
84,800
22,803,400
Total
$5,086,200
$28,822,100
$91,700
$34,000,000
The pipeline construction project would have the greatest effect on the local economy if all of the expenditures were
made in Coos County. However, Coos County lacks some of the resources needed for the specialized undertaking of
constructing a natural gas pipeline. Consequently, a significant portion of the expenditures will go to contractors,
labor, and manufacturers based outside of Coos County.
Parts of the project that use general skills will likely rely on local workers. Local contractors, for example, may per-
form the construction, restoration, and replanting of the pipeline ROW. Specialized work unique to pipeline con-
struction will use non-local labor. However, this also can have a positive impact on the local economy.
Consumption spending by these workers, many of whom will come from out-of-state, will benefit the Coos County
economy. These non-local workers can be expected to spend a significant fraction of their pay (including their p^r
diems) on consumption items within the Coos County, in addition to special lodging, food and drink, and other ser-
vices associated with their temporary residence.
As shown in Table 23 and Table 24, ECONorthwest isolated spending that will occur wholly outside the County, and
accordingly, they assumed this spending would generate no impacts on Coos County. For example, the purchases of
pipe manufactured in California, or accounting services in Portland, OR, are not included in the estimate of direct
spending, as these expenditures affect activity outside Coos County.
Economic Impact of the $48 Million Construction Scenario
The direct impacts of a $48 million natural gas pipeline construction project are shown in Table 25. These are
divided into five categories, and these categories are used throughout this report.
64
uhapter 4 Lnviron mental uonsequences
Table 25: Direct Impact of $48 Million in Pipeline Construction on Coos County in Year
2000 Dollars and Person-Years of Employment
Direct Impact
Output
$15,184,300
Employees' Income
$2,300,800
Proprietor's Income
$387,300
Other Income
$1,574,100
Employment
114.3
The first category, output, is the value of increased business activity in Coos County due to the construction. The
IMPLAN model calculated that the construction of a $48 million pipeline would directly contribute nearly $15.2 mil-
lion to the Coos County economy.
The next three categories measure the gains in local incomes. They are employees income, income going to propri-
etors (such as an independent construction contractor), and other property-type income such as rents received on
properties, royalties from contracts, and corporate profits. ECONorthwest forecasts that the $48 million project will
have the direct impact of adding $4,262,200 in income to Coos County.
The last impact category on Table 25 is employment. The construction project is projected to support directly over
114 person-years of employment for county residents.
Table 26 shows the total impact of the $48 million project on Coos County. Even though most of the materials and
workforce necessary to complete the project will originate from outside the county, the project will still have an
impressive positive impact on the economy. It will boost output in Coos County by $18,679,600 and support the
equivalent of over 162 jobs for local residents.
Economic Impact of the $34 Million Construction Scenario
Table 27 shows the direct impacts of a $34 million natural gas pipeline construction project. The project would con-
tribute nearly $10.8 million directly to the Coos County economy and over $3,019,000 in higher incomes to its resi-
dents. The project would be able to support the equivalent of over 80 full-time jobs for local workers.
65
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 26: Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County from $48
Million in Pipeline Construction Spending in Year 2000 Dollars and Person-Years of Employment
Impact
Output
Employee's
Income
Proprietor's
Income
Other
Income
Jobs
Average
Annual
Wage
Direct
$15,184,300
$2,300,800
$387,300
$1,574,100
114.3
$23,500
Indirect
$1,602,600
$424,200
$119,900
$272,300
20.5
$26,600
Induced
$1,892,700
$565,900
$104,000
$397,100
28.2
$23,700
Total
$18,679,600
$3,290,900
$611,200
$2,243,500
162.9
$23,900
Table 27: Direct Impact of $34 Million in Pipeline Construction on Coos County in Year
2000 Dollars and Person-Years of Employment
Direct Impact
Output
$10,755,500
Employees' Income
$1,629,700
Proprietor's Income
$274,300
Other Income
$1,115,000
Employment
80.9
Table 28: Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County from $34
Million in Pipeline Construction Spending
Impact
Output
Employee's
Income
Proprietor's
Income
Other
Income
Jobs
Average
Annual
Wage
Direct
$10,755,500
$1,029,700
$274,300
$1,115,000
80.9
$23,500
Indirect
$1,135,200
$300,500
$84,900
$192,900
14.5
$26,600
Induced
$1,340,700
$400,800
$73,700
$281,300
20.0
$23,700
Total
$13,231,400
$2,331,000
$432,900
$1,589,200
115.4
$23,900
66
uhapter 4 hnvironmental uonsequences
Pipeline Operations
ECONorthwesl used the IMPLAN model to estimate the annual economic impact on Coos County attributable to
pipeline operating expenses. The expenses include the costs of on-site monitoring, inspection, maintenance, and
repairs of the pipeline. Costs related to the distribution of gas, that is the delivery of natural gas from the pipeline to
individual customers, are considered local utility functions and are not included in this analysis.
A) ()pcriitiiij» Cost Estimate
The annual operating costs for modern natural gas transmission pipelines of the length and capacity needed
for Coos County are low relative to the amounts of money needed for their construction. Unlike the con-
struction phase, however, the economic impact of operating the pipeline will be a reoccurring benefit. Such
benefits will continue for the life of the pipeline. A well maintained natural gas transmission pipeline could
theoretically last indefinitely.
ECONorthwest estimates that the Coos County pipeline will require six. predominantly full-time equivalent
workers. Employees of natural gas transmission pipeline systems are generally highly skilled and well com-
pensated. The labor cost estimate, which appears in Table 29. is based on the Oregon statewide average for
workers in the gas transmission industry. Most of their work must be done on-site; thus, approximately 75
percent of the spending on labor will accrue to Coos County. ECONorthwest estimates annual expenses for
equipment and materials are expected to total $60,000. with 20 percent coming from within the county.
However, actual annual expenses are expected to be $20,000 (pers. com. Coos County Commissioners).
Table 29: Annual Spending on Pipeline Operations (in 2000 Dollars)
Equipment &
Materials
Labor & Contractors
Total
Coos County
$12,000
$371,254
$383,254
Elsewhere
48.000
123,751
171,751
Total
$60,000
$495,005
$555,005
Annual spending for pipeline operations will total $550,005 a year. ECONorthwest anticipates $383,254 of
the total will be spent within Coos County each year. Initially the number of operating personnel required
for the pipeline will be half the projected work force that ECONorthwest has estimated. Therefore, the
annual spending will more likely be $250,000 in the first few years of operation, rather than $555,005 as
indicated in Table 29. For the purpose of this EIS. the projected annual spending in Coos County as the
result of pipeline operations would more likely be $170,000 in the early years, rather than $383,254.
B) Economic Impact of the Pipeline Operations
The economic impacts from operating a well-run and properly maintained natural gas pipeline are relatively
modest. Pipelines normally do not require extensive equipment replacements, nor further construction work.
ECONorthwest estimated, through its use of a Coos County IMPLAN model, that $378,100 in direct eco-
nomic output for the local economy would result every year that the pipeline operates. Table 30 is a list of
the annual direct impacts. Much of it will be in the form of compensation for the estimated six employees
who will be needed in Coos County to operate the pipeline.
As indicated above, the initial number of personnel required to operate the pipeline would be approximately
one half of the projected work force that ECONorthwest indicated. Therefore, the annual spending would be
approximately $236,800 in the first few years rather than the amount given in Table 30.
67
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 30: Annual Direct Impact of Pipeline Operations Spending on Coos County in
Year 2000 Dollars and Person-Years of Employment
Direct Impact
Output
$378,100
Employees' Income
$372,200
Proprietor's Income
$9,600
Other Income
$40,200
Employment
6.0
The indirect and induced impacts from the pipelines operation will be largely due to the personal spending of
the pipeline employees. In total, these "downstream" impacts will contribute $87,000 to total output, and
that would be sufficient to support less than two more jobs in the County. Aggregate income in Coos County
will be $468,800 higher every year throughout the operating life of the pipeline.
Table 31: Annual Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impacts on Coos County
Because of Pipeline Operations Spending In Year 2000 Dollars and Person- Years of
Employment
Impact
Output
Employee's
Income
Proprietor's
Income
Other
Income
Jobs
Average
Annual
Wage
Direct
$378,100
$372,200
59,600
$40,200
6.0
$63,100
Indirect
$39,800
$10,500
$3,000
$6,800
0.5
$26,800
Induced
$47,200
$14,100
$2,500
$9,900
0.7
$23,600
Total
$465,100
$396,800
$15,100
$56,900
7.2
$56,800
C) Economic Impacts of the Distribution System
Ultimately, most of the benefits to Coos County that will arise because of the pipeline's construction will
come about from the operations of a distribution system (Table 31). A distribution system takes gas from the
pipeline and delivers it to industrial, commercial, and residential consumers. An economic impact analysis
of a distribution system is outside the scope of work for this report. Nonetheless, it is necessary to address
the economic impacts such a system would have on the Coos County area, as distribution is an essential ele-
ment in the overall plan to build a pipeline. This EIS does not speculate on the number or type of industries
that might locate in Coos County because of the availability of natural gas. Northwest Natural has not
included in their market forecast the number or type of industries, or volume usage that may be required by
industries that may locate in Coos County in the future.
D) Static and Dynamic Efficiency Effects
A distribution system will stimulate the economy over the long run through what economist call static and
dynamic efficiency effects.
68
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Static efficiency occurs when a development (in this case distributing a low cost fuel to Coos County con-
sumers) reduces the costs of living and doing business. By simply spending less money on their utility bills,
local people and businesses will have more money to spend on other goods and services. The savings cre-
ated by the introduction of natural gas will give residents, schools, businesses and others more disposable
income. They will spend much of that extra income locally, stimulating the economy.
Lacking natural gas, the Coos Bay area currently depends on electricity, heating oil, propane, and wood for
its fuel needs. In many circumstances, natural gas is more efficient and less expensive than electric, oil, or
propane. For example, about half of all the households in the county use electric heating. A typical single
family home would save $410 in annual utility bills by switching from electric to natural gas heat. The com-
petitive advantage of natural gas is evident in Oregon communities where it is available. In urban areas
about 60 percent of the homes use natural gas while in outlying areas about 40 percent utilize it.
Residents, commercial businesses and small industrial businesses in the Coos Bay area will save increasing
amounts of money each year as the distribution system is built out and as new consumers convert to natural
gas. ECONorthwest estimates that by the tenth year, consumers will save over $6.7 million a year. The
static efficiency effect of these savings is sufficient to support nearly 50 jobs and nearly $1 .9 million in addi-
tional personal, business, and other income within Coos County.
Dynamic efficiency effects are caused by a change that allows the local economy to expand in ways that
would otherwise be impossible or unlikely without the change. Economists often use the term "production
possibilities frontier" to describe the limits of what can be done given what is available locally.
For example, the introduction of natural gas may make it possible, or at minimum more practical, to build a
metal fabricating plant or ammonia fertilizer factory in Coos County. However, Northwest Natural has not
assumed that any such industries will locate in Coos County in making economic projections to justify the
construction of its planned distribution system. Nor does this EIS make any speculative projections concern-
ing the type, or types of industry that might locate in the county. New businesses, who otherwise would
avoid Coos County because of the lack of natural gas. would now consider locating there. Existing busi-
nesses that currently depend on expensive propane fuel may be able to compete more effectively once they
can switch to lower cost natural gas. This would allow them to expand their sales and payrolls. These are
examples of dynamic efficiency. The frontier of what businesses can do in Coos County expands.
Forecasting the dynamic efficiency effect is problematic. While the economic development impact of natu-
ral gas would be great, determining the timing and extent of the impact is extremely difficult. ECONorth-
west previously estimated that dynamic efficiencies would lead to over 1,500 new manufacturing jobs after
ten years. This was based on a comparison between parts of Oregon with natural gas and those without.
There is a strong relationship between the availability of natural gas and manufacturing employment. In
turn, manufacturing jobs stimulate employment in other local economic sectors. Through the use of the
IMPLAN model, ECONorthwest estimates that because of the dynamic efficiency effect, total employment
in the Coos Bay area would be over 2,900 jobs higher ten years after natural gas is introduced.
It is instructive to compare the Coos Bay area with Newport, Oregon-a coastal city that shares many of the
same characteristics as Coos Bay, except that it has natural gas. Table 32 shows the population growth rates
from 1980 to 2000 for the Zip codes comprising the Coos Bay and Newport areas. While the Coos Bay area
population has experienced decline or little growth, Newport and its neighboring community of Toledo have
seen substantial population gains. The availability of natural gas was one of the reasons for this difference,
although other factors also played major roles.
69
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 32: Comparative Population Growth Rates 1980 - 2000
Zip Code
City Name
1980
Population
2000
Population
Percent
Change
Coos Bay Area:
97411
Bandon
6.275
6,329
0.9%
97420
Coos Bay
24.476
23.679
-3.3%
97423
Coquille
8.061
7,443
-7.7%
97458
Myrtle Point
5,845
5,506
-5.8%
97459
North Bend
16.021
15,489
-3.3%
Coos Bay Area Total
60,678
58,446
-3.7%
Newport Area:
97365
Newport
8,624
10.956
27.0%
97391
Toledo
5,969
6.286
5.3%
Newport Area Total
14.593
17.242
18.2%
E) Adversely Affected Businesses
While Coos County businesses and consumers will benefit from the availability of natural gas, there is one
segment of the local economy that will sustain setbacks large enough to have a notable effect on employ-
ment. That segment consists of propane and heating oil distributors. They will likely experience declining
market shares and will reduce their employee counts as a result.
Consumers who now use propane for heating, drying, fireplaces, and cooking, in most cases will be able to
readily switch to natural gas. Pricing and convenience advantages give natural gas a strong competitive
advantage over propane. Heating oil, too, will lose customers to natural gas. However, the rate of substitu-
tion will be much slower because conversion costs are high and price advantages are less.
Other sectors that compete with natural gas will be adversely affected; however, the impact on employment
will be far less consequential. There will be negative up and down stream effects caused by revenue and
employment losses by propane and heating oil distributors. There will be revenue losses for businesses that
transport and wholesale propane, heating oil and residual fuel oil. If any such business is heavily dependent
on these fuels and local workers, the revenue loss could lead to job losses. Electricity demand will be
affected as natural gas gradually replaces electric based heating, cooking and clothes drying. Natural gas.
though, can only supplement and not replace electricity. Thus, its impact on electric utility employment will
be negligible.
ECONorthwest expects that local propane and heating oil distributors will sustain the only marked reduction
in employment over the long run. Table 33 is a list of the distributors who will be affected by the new natu-
ral gas distribution system. The list is from the American Business Directory database for the year 2000.
The directory assigns an employment range for each listing. ECONorthwest averaged these ranges and
arrived at an estimate that the nine propane and heating oil distributors employ 69 individuals.
70
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table }i?>: Propane and Heating Oil Distributors
Company
Address
City
Fuel
All Star Gas Inc.
425 Virginia Ave
North Bend
Propane
Bassett-Hyland Energy Co
425 W Lockhart Ave
Coos Bay
Heating Oil
Davis Oil Inc.
280 Newmark St.
North Bend
Heating Oil
Fenellgas
1165Newmark Ave#D
Coos Bay
Propane
Goddard Energy Co
2nd & Elmira
Bandon
Heating Oil
Graham Oil Co
1765 Sheridan Ave
North Bend
Heating Oil
Rons Oil Co
580 N Central St.
Coquille
Propane
Tyree Oil Inc.
2395 N Bay shore Dr.
Coos Bay
Heating Oil
Hodge Distributing Inc.
1893RoseburgRd.
Myrtle Point
Heating Oil
According to the 2000 Census data, Coos County has a population of 62,779. There are approximately 850 residents
for each of the 69 propane and heating oil distributor employees. In the state of Oregon, using Claritas and American
Business Directory data, ECONorthwest determined that the ratio is approximately 1,150 residents per distributor
employee. The statewide ratio is higher because natural gas is widely available and distribution systems have been
long in-place throughout most of Oregon. Therefore, propane and heating oil distributors need a higher population
base to draw upon so that they may generate enough sales to support an employee.
ECONorthwest estimates that if the Coos County area were to mirror the highly competitive market characteristic of
the rest of the state, it too would be able to only support one propane and heating oil distributor employee for every
1,150 residents. Given that statewide ratio and applying it to an approximate population base of 60,000, ECONorth-
west estimates that the affected area would be able to sustain 5 1 propane and heating oil distributor employees over
the long run. Thus, there is a projected eventual loss of 1 8 jobs in this sector.
Summary of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Economic Effects for Action Alternatives
Construction of a natural gas pipeline will have a simulative impact on the Coos County economy of between $13.2
and $18.7 million depending on the route taken. The construction project will support the equivalent of 1 15 to 163
full-time jobs for local residents. From then on, pipeline operations spending will have an annual economic impact
of $465,100 to Coos County. This is sufficient to sustain over seven full-time jobs with an average wage rate of
$56,800.
The pipeline will deliver natural gas to a distribution system that will supply gas to homes and businesses. The eco-
nomic impact of the distribution system will be great.
Clearly the area to be served with natural gas from the pipeline would be better off over the long run with natural gas
than without. No one could easily argue that other areas of Oregon with natural gas and similar populations, such as
Grants Pass, Albany, or Corvallis, would be better off without natural gas. If gas were taken away from those cities,
one would expect businesses to move, factories to close, and jobs to be lost. Conversely, one can expect the major
economic benefits over time once natural gas becomes available to Coos County.
ECONorthwest believes that there will be static efficiency benefits to the local economy that will steadily grow as
natural gas consumption increases. These will be partly offset by losses in businesses that will find it difficult to
compete against natural gas. The net impact, however, will be positive because consumers will enjoy much greater
benefits in the form of lower energy costs. They will spend much of their savings locally.
71
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Long-term, one expects to see dynamic efficiency effects that will lead to substantial increases in manufacturing
employment. This will then stimulate employment in other sectors of the local economy. Predicting the net impact
is difficult and requires some level of speculation. However, within ten years employment could increase by over
2,900 in the region because of the availability of natural gas.
Environmental Justice
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
Household Income (Variable 80) in Census Database C90STF3 A was examined for each of ten geographic areas
within Coos County, and cumulative frequency plots were constructed for the 25 income levels as compared to other
portions of mid-Coquille basin, and just slightly lower than average income levels as compared to other geographic
areas within Coos County.
Pipeline construction activities will have a similar affect upon all households residing in the vicinity of the construc-
tion zone. As documented elsewhere, construction activities may result in inconvenient travel delays or equipment
noise. However, this analysis shows that low income populations will not be disproportionately affected because of
the route choice. Therefore, Environmental Justice concerns will not be created by pipeline construction activities.
No minority or disadvantaged groups or communities are within or adjacent to the proposed action or Hwy 42 Alter-
native. No impact.
Public Health and Safety
Direct Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
Proposed Action
Approximately 40 miles of pipeline construction would occur in roadways, creating short-term (1-7 days) delays for
traffic. If individual vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc. fail to yield to flaggers and other warning signs, and enter
active construction areas without supervision, injury potential from heavy equipment or falling into the pipeline ditch
would exist. Spill containment kits on site of active construction will be required.
Hwy 42 Alternative
Approximately 80 miles of pipeline construction would occur in roadways, creating long-term (6 months) delays for
traffic. If individual vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc. fail to yield to flaggers and other warning signs, and enter
active construction areas without supervision, injury potential from heavy equipment or falling into the pipeline ditch
would exist. Spill containment kits on site of active construction will be required.
Indirect Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
Action Alternatives
Illegal use of explosives within or digging-up of soil containing the operational natural gas pipeline with heavy
equipment such as a backhoe, could lead to physical injury to the participants in these activities.
72
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
None
Waste (Solid or Hazardous)
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
Action Alternatives
No hazardous waste would be created by either action alternative. Each contractor will prepare and implement as
necessary Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasure Plans (40 C.F.R. 1 12) for applicable equipment and their
supplies. All solid waste from construction and/or construction crews will be removed offsite for disposal. Copies of
the above will be maintained and made available on request by the pipeline construction contractor. Spill contain-
ment kits will be kept on site. No anticipated impacts.
Pipeline Safety and Fire Data
The US Department of Transportation, Research and Special Projects Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety is the
Federal agency with jurisdiction over natural gas transmission pipelines, including the proposed Coos Pipeline. The
gas pipeline safety regulations (49 CRF Part 192) were made effective for all gas transmission pipelines constructed
after 1970. The OPUC has inspection and enforcement jurisdiction over the proposed action through US DOT.
Pipeline safety statistics have been recorded since 1984 and are publicly available through various sources. Separate
statistics are maintained for gas transmission pipelines, for gas distribution systems, and for liquid pipelines.
Gas distribution systems are generally small diameter (2- to 4-inch) and low pressure (under 60 psi), and serve more
than 50 percent of all homes and virtually 100 percent of major urban industries in the US.
Gas transmission lines also carry natural gas, are generally in more rural areas, are usually much larger in diameter
(up to 42 inches) and are operated at much higher pressures (typically 500 to 1000 psi). There are gas transmission
lines in every state of the US except Hawaii, as well as approximately 90 percent of the counties in the continental
US.
The hazardous liquids transported by DOT pipelines can be crude oil, refined gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, fertilizer,
propane or butane, petrochemicals like butylene. carbon dioxide, and others. Liquid pipelines are operated at higher
pressures (typically 1800 psi) and if spilled result in a much different environmental and safety hazard than natural
gas.
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Statistics
The Gas Research Institute commissioned a pipeline safety study in 2000 by Allegro Energy Group. The study ana-
lyzed DOT incident reports for gas transmission pipelines from 1985 through 1998. A reportable incident is defined
as any pipeline release or failure which cause a human death or injury requiring hospitalization, or $50,000 in dam-
age, including lost gas. This analysis reported the following for onshore gas transmission pipelines:
• 1 incident per year for every 6,300 miles of pipeline
• 1 fatality per year for every 200,000 miles of pipeline
As a response to an inquiry from BPA, Coos Pipeline advisors analyzed statistics for 8, 10 and 12-inch DOT pipe-
lines. These sizes are the most common for regional supply and comprise approximately 27 percent of the 296,000
miles of U.S. gas transmission pipelines. Analyses conducted between 1984 and 2000 report the following:
• 82 reportable pipeline incidents
73
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
• 23 injuries, 2 deaths
• Average damage $106,000 for all reported incidents
Pipelines built after 1970 under DOT regulations represent approximately half of the total pipelines in this 16 year
analysis, yet comprise proportionally fewer incidents:
• 17 percent of all incidents
• 10 injuries, no deaths
• $50,000 average damage
Note: 58 percent of these incidents were caused by external damage.
Pipelines in the Northwest
DOT statistics from 1984 to 2000 reported 12 incidents involving natural gas transmission pipelines in Oregon and
Washington. No injuries or deaths were reported.
Of the 12 reportable incidents (Table 34), 10 involved pipelines built before DOT regulations. Six incidents were
attributed to defective older pipe; there were no corrosion failures. The possibility of technology-related failures
such as corrosion and construction defects have been virtually non existent since 1970. Other failures are attributed
to third party damage (excavators), which account for nearly 70 percent of all incidents analyzed in this study.
Approximately 88 percent of all incidents occurred in unpopulated areas where the majority of pipelines are located.
The route for the proposed action is presently classified as 97 percent in unpopulated areas. The portion of the pro-
posed action corridor along the CBW Road is sparsely populated and is at less risk of excavation than the Hwy 42
Route that would pass through many urban areas.
Fire Risk and Fire Suppression
Of the 12 pipeline incidents in Oregon and Washington since 1984, there was minimal or no fire spread to adjacent
forest. Total acreage burned was estimated by pipeline safety officials to be approximately 5 acres.
Based on pipeline statistics in Oregon and Washington, the operation of a gas pipeline in Coos County would not
measurably add to the existing risk of forest fire or the present cost of fire suppression.
74
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 34: DOT Statistics Involving Natural Gas Pipelines in Oregon and Washington (1984-
2000)
Pipeline
Date of
Incident
Cause of Incident
Pipeline
Diameter
(inches)
Date of
Pipeline
Construction
Cascade Natural Gas
10/86
Third party damage
8
1957
Williams NWPL
10/88
Third party damage
8
1957
Williams NWPL
05/90
Pipeline defect
4
1956
Williams NWPL
04/91
Third party damage
22
1956
Pacific Gas
04/94
Pipeline defect
42
1992
Williams NWPL
03/95
Earth movement
26
1956
Williams NWPL
02/97
Earth movement
26
1956
Williams NWPL
02/97
Earth movement
26
1956
Williams NWPL
01/98
Pipeline defect
10
1963
Pacific Gas
07/98
Pipeline defect
36
1970
Williams NWPL
01/99
Pipeline defect
22
1956
Williams NWPL
02/99
Earth movement
26
1956
Land Uses
Forestry
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
No impact.
Livestock Grazing
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
No impact.
75
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Recreation
Direct and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
No anticipated impacts.
Indirect Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
Proposed Action
No anticipated impacts.
Hwy 42 Alternative
Long-tenn (6 months) delays of traffic may influence recreationists' activities and other optional travel to other areas
within driving distance containing similar recreational opportunities.
Transportation
Direct Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
Proposed Action
Approximately 40 miles of pipeline construction would occur in roadways, creating short-term (1-7 days) delays for
local traffic in those construction areas. Approximately 40 houses are adjacent to the portions of the CBW Road in
the proposed action. Some residents may also experience the temporary inconvenience of traffic interference,
including reduced speeds and stopped traffic in construction zones, due to pipeline installation and repaving activi-
ties.
Hwy 42 Alternative
Approximately 80 miles of pipeline construction would occur in roadways, creating long-term (6 months) delays in a
number of locations simultaneously for a State and U.S. highways with high traffic volumes. The urban areas of
Coquille and Myrtle Point, as well as approximately 200 houses in rural areas, boarder this route. Since Hwy 42 is a
major access route, highway upgrades (including relocation, widening and straightening) are very likely. The risk of
contractor-induced damage to the pipeline, as well as pipeline relocation, is also a possibility.
Indirect Effects
No Action Alternative
No anticipated impacts.
76
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
No anticipated impacts.
Hwy 42 Alternative
Long-term (6 months) delays of traffic may influence tourist activity and other optional travel to the Coos Bay -
North Bend area for travelers whose only realistic travel option is the Hwy 42 corridor.
Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
No anticipated impacts.
Utility Corridors
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
All Alternatives, including No Action
Current utility corridor management, management plans, activities and uses would continue unchanged. No impact.
As required by Executive Order 13212, BLM has determined the proposed action and alternatives considered for this
project will have a positive effect for natural gas energy transmission and no adverse impacts on energy resources
such as exploration and development of oil and gas, or geothermal. or production from wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
biomass energy resources. Location of the natural gas pipeline as proposed within the existing electronic transmis-
sion ROW will not have a negative effect on transmission of electricity to the southern Oregon coast.
77
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Impacts Summary Table
Table 35: Impacts Summary
No Action Alternatives
Proposed Action
Hwy 42 Alternative
Aquatic
Ecosystems
No negative impacts.
No beneficial impacts to sedi-
mentation, turbidity or physical
baniers (fish passage).
Negligible short-term
impacts to sedimentation and
turbidity baselines.
Beneficial long-term impacts
to sedimentation and turbid-
ity baselines. Immediate
beneficial impacts to physi-
cal barriers (fish passage).
Negligible short-term
impacts to sedimentation and
turbidity baselines.
Immediate beneficial
impacts to physical barriers
(fish passage).
Air Quality
No negative impacts.
No beneficial impacts from
reduced fossil fuel pollution.
Negligible transitory, local-
ized, short-term impacts in
construction areas.
Beneficial long-term impacts
from reduced fossil fuel
pollution.
Negligible transitory, local-
ized, short-term impacts in
construction areas.
Beneficial long-term impacts
from reduced fossil fuel
pollution.
Soil
Productivity
No negative impacts.
Approximately 56 acres of
reduced soil productivity.
No negative impacts.
T&E Plants
No Effect.
No Effect.
No Effect.
Special Status
Species
No Effect.
Short-term disturbance of
individuals that utilize pow-
erline corridor or adjacent
habitats.
Short-term disturbance of
individuals that utilize
adjacent habitats.
Survey &
Manage Species
No anticipated impacts.
Short-term disturbance to
red tree vole individuals that
utilize adjacent habitats.
Short-term disturbance to
red tree vole individuals that
utilize adjacent habitats.
Other Wildlife
No anticipated impacts.
Short-term disturbance of
individuals that utilize pow-
erline corridor or adjacent
habitats.
Short-term indirect effects
(disturbance) of individuals
that utilize adjacent habitats.
Direct effects on utility cor-
ridor species' habitats,
(shrubs, weeds and grasses
utilized by birds and rodents)
T&E Species:
Spotted Owl
No Effect.
Disturbance impacts avoided
from timing restrictions.
Disturbance impacts avoided
from timing restrictions.
78
uhapter 4 bnvironmental uonsequences
Table 35: Impacts Summary
No Action Alternatives
Proposed Action
Hwy 42 Alternative
Marbled
Murrelet
No Effect.
Disturbance impacts avoided
from timing restrictions.
Disturbance impacts avoided
from timing restrictions.
Bald Eagle,
Columbian
White-tailed
deer, Western
Snowy Plover,
Brown Pelican
No Effect.
No Effect.
No Effect.
Floodplains
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
Waste (Solid or
Hazardous)
No impact.
No anticipated impacts.
No anticipated impacts.
Traffic Safety
No impact.
Short-term (1-7 days)
impacts in low-traffic CBW
Road.
Long-term (6 months)
impacts in high-traffic Hwy
42.
Traffic Delays
No impact.
Short-term (1-7 days)
impacts in low-traffic CBW
Road.
Long-term (6 months)
impacts in high-traffic Hwy
42.
Financial Costs
No impact.
Approximately $34 million.
Approximately $48 million.
Economic
Benefits
Loss of direct, indirect and
induced short and long-term
beneficial impacts.
Long-term increase in commer-
cial and residential fuel costs.
No increase in property tax
assessments to fund pipeline
construction bond.
Approximately $13 million
direct, indirect and induced
benefit from short-term
investment (pipeline con-
struction).
Long-term increase in jobs
available in Coos County
after pipeline construction.
Long-term reduction in com-
mercial and residential fuel
costs.
Property tax increase averag-
ing $ 1 9 per county resident.
Approximately $18 million
direct, indirect and induced
benefit from short-term
investment (pipeline con-
struction).
Long-term increase in Jobs
available in Coos County
after pipeline construction.
Long-term reduction in com-
mercial and residential fuel
costs.
Property tax increase averag-
ing $62 per county resident.
79
najjici -t ti ivinjiMiieiiidi our ibequerices
80
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
The following changes were made in Chapter 5 between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minor
corrections, explanations and edits are not included in this list.
• An additional section titled "Consistency with Other Agency Plans and Programs" has been added to this
chapter.
Introduction
This chapter describes aspects of consultation and coordination, including information regarding persons, agencies
and methods involved with scoping, consultation and research for compilation of this EIS.
Initial scoping of this project was administered by the BLM management team following the County Commis-
sioner's initial meeting with BLM on April 28, 2000. The scoping identified environmental issues and alternatives
appropriate for inclusion in this Environmental Impact Statement. All concerns received from the various meetings
(listed below) were evaluated. This resulted in the list of specific impact topics for detailed analysis in this EIS.
Public scoping was accomplished by inviting the public to the various meetings listed below. The public comments
or questions were taken into consideration for the EIS assessment. The general issues received from the public were
concerning socio-economic impacts of the proposed action, fish and wildlife concerns, and future impacts of the pro-
posed action in regard to potential industrial growth within the County. Public comments and questions are pre-
sented in Appendix G, G 1 - and G-2 No comments received by the public varied from issues already identified in the
initial scoping process with the BLM management team and Coos County. All public concerns regarding potential
human/environment impacts are addressed in this EIS.
Consistency with Other Agency Plans and Programs
General
BLM requires that projects be "consistent with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans and the policies
and procedures contained therein of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes, so long as
the guidance and projects are also consistent with the puiposes, policies and programs of federal laws and regulations
applicable to public lands...". Consistency is construed as the absence of conflict. Based on BLM's knowledge of
the plans of such other agencies, the proposed project has been compared to the following agencies' plans for consis-
tency, and BLM has reached the conclusions stated.
The Coos Bay District of BLM received an application from Coos County to construct, operate, and maintain a natu-
ral gas pipeline from near Lookingglass in Douglas County to the Coos Bay area. The total length of the project is
approximately 60 miles with approximately 3.0 miles located on lands administered by the BLM. Under the pro-
posed action, the BLM would grant Coos County a ROW permit for construction of the pipeline on BLM adminis-
tered lands. Additionally, COE and the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) would issue permits for crossing
streams under their jurisdiction. Numerous other permits would be required of a variety of agencies to permit the
construction and operation of the natural gas pipeline project. As the project proponent, Coos county, has the respon-
sibility to obtain all local, state, and federal permits. Coos County prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for
the BLM analyzing the effects of construction of the pipeline on the entire 60 miles covered by the proposed action.
The draft EIS has been available for public review and comment. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) indicated satisfaction with the analysis conducted. The Department of Land Conservation and Develop-
ment (DCLD) indicated the need to prepare a consistency determination. No other state agencies provided comments
on the Draft EIS. The requested consistency determination is included as Appendix N.
81
oMci|jit!i D ouiibuiidiiuii cinu ouuruiriauoD
List of Contributors
Albert Getting
Cultural Resources
Education: Ph.D Anthropology, University of Oregon
M.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University
B.A. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
Experience: 25 years
Robert Whelan
Socio-Economics
Education: B.S. Geology, Adelphi University
M.S. Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania State University
Post Graduate Courses, Economics, Columbia University
Experience: 22 years
Dave Leonard
Geotech and Soils
Education: B.S. Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University
M.B.A. Business Administration, University of Illinois
Experience: 29 years
Brian Cox
Plants, Fish, Wildlife and NEPA
Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Montana
M.S. Range Ecology, Texas A&M University
Experience: 13 years
Melanie Little
Fish, Wildlife and NEPA
Education: B.S. Wildlife and Fishery Science, University of Tennessee
Experience: 10 years
82
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Ted Schattenkerk
Botany
Education: B.S. Range Science, Oregon State University
Experience: 30 years
Steve Shute
Pipeline Construction, Public Scoping
Education: B.S. Electrical Engineering, Kansas State University
Experience: 25 years
Steve Oxford
Pipeline Construction, Public Scoping
Education: B.S. Petroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University
Experience: 22 years
Technical matters related to this EIS (construction requirements, for example) were resolved with the help of special-
ists and consultants as listed in Table 36.
Table 36:
Technical Consultations
Consultant
Contribution Role
Industrial Gas Services, Inc.
Pipeline Solutions, Inc.
Project advisors; technical, permitting and construction
requirements
ECONorthwest
Economic analysis
Dave Leonard
Geotechnical report
Heritage Research Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources study of the proposed action
Biological Information Specialists,
Inc.
EIS document and BAs
Organizations Consulted
BLM-Roseburg
BLM-Coos Bay
Coos County Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service
Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua
Coquille Indian Tribe
83
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Confederated Tribe of the Coos
Army Corps of Engineers
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Bonneville Power Administration
NW Natural Gas
PacifiCorp (Pacific Power & Light)
Oregon National Historic Preservation Administration
Table 37: Pipeline Meetings
Date
Meeting
January?, 1999
Work session - Natural Gas Pipeline - Commissioners' Courtroom, Coquille Courthouse
January 25, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
February 22, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
March 29, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
April 21, 1999
Economic Forum on Natural Gas
April 26, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
May 19, 1999
Work session - Natural Gas Pipeline - Commissioners' Courtroom, Coquille Courthouse
June 2, 1999
Work session - Tim Bishop Re: Pipeline Project - Commissioners' Courtroom, Coquille Court-
house
June 21, 1999
Review of RFQ's - Commissioners' Courtroom, Coquille Courthouse
June 28, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
July 13, 1999
Radio Interviews KWRO
July 26, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
July 26, 1999
Democratic Central Committee
July 28, 1999
Work session - Timing Issues Re Bond Measure for November Ballot - Commissioners' Court-
room, Coquille Courthouse
July 29, 1999
Rental Owners Association
August 19, 1999
Board of Realtors
September 1, 1999
Hearing - Bond Measure - Coquille Annex Planning Conference Room
October 1, 1999
McKinley Grange
Octobers, 1999
Bay Broadcasdng
Octobers, 1999
Rotary - Natural Gas
October 12, 1999
Rotary - Natural Gas
October 13, 1999
FONSI Rally - North Bend Community Center
84
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Table 37: Pipeline Meetings
Date
Meeting
November 4, 1999
Economic Development — SWOCC
November 17, 1999
Economic Development Forum
November 22, 1999
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee
Decembers, 1999
Hearing - Supplemental Budget (To include bond funds and give authority to spend funds received
for pipeline)
March 8, 2000
Commissioners interview Project Advisors, Courthouse.
April 12,2000
Work session with Industrial Gas Solutions, Inc. and Pipeline Solutions, Inc.
April 12,2000
OPUC hearing on NW Natural case - Coquille community center
April 28, 2000
* BLM staff meeting - North Bend BLM office
May 17,2000
Open House - Pipeline - Coquille Annex Conference Room
Public meeting on pipeline. Courthouse basement.
June 7, 2000
*Fed / State agency meeting, Coquille "War Room"
July 12,2000
Pipeline Town Hall Meeting - Courthouse Conference Room
August 23, 2000
Pipeline Meeting - Courthouse Conference Room
October 3, 2000
OPUC staff meeting - Salem OPUC offices
October 23, 2000
* BLM Specialists Management Team - BLM offices. North Bend
November 29, 2000
Pipeline Update Meeting - Coos Bay Council Chambers
December 14, 2000
Work session - EA Public Comment Period - Commissioners' Courtroom, Courthouse, Coquille
January 30, 2001
* Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
April 4, 2001
Public Scoping meeting for EIS - Coos Bay Library
April 10,2001
Public Scoping meeting for EIS - Courthouse Conference Room
April 18,2001
Public Scoping meeting for EIS - McKinley Grange
September 6, 2001
Lookingglass School meeting
October 18, 2001
Lookingglass School meeting
November 7, 2001
BLM public meeting on Draft EIS - North Bend Library
February 19,2002
BLM public meeting on Draft EIS - Coos Bay Library
February 19, 2002
Coos County Commission meeting
February 20, 2002
Coquille Rotary Club meeting
March 28, 2002
BLM open house on EIS public comment
March 28. 2002
Coos County Planning and Zoning public hearings
85
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Table 37: Pipeline Meetings
Date
Meeting
April 4, 2002
Douglas County Planning and Zoning public hearing
April 7, 2002
Senator Wyden town meeting in Coos Bay
May 2, 2002
Coos County Planning and Zoning public hearing
May 7, 2002
Natural gas safety conference in Coquille
* Unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk, the meetings listed in Table 37 were open for public attendance.
Distribution List and Document Availability on the Internet
This Final Environmental Impact Statement is being sent to the following individuals, groups, and organizations.
In addition, the Final EIS will be available on the internet at: the BLM web site (www.or.blm.gov/coosbay). and the
Coos County web site (http://www.co.coos.or.us).
Elected Officials
Honorable Gordon Smith
Honorable Ron Wyden
Honorable Peter DeFazio
Governor's Office
Coos County Board of Commissioners
Douglas County Board of Commissioners
Curry County Board of Commissioners
Federal Agencies
USDI- Natural Resources Library
Director USDI BLM
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mineral Management Service
National Park Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Compliance
Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
Department of Energy
Bureau of Reclamation
86
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
U.S. Government Printing Office
USDI-BLM Library
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
NW Power Planning Council
USDI-BLM OregonAVashington State Director
Army Corps of Engineers
Bonneville Power Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Reg. Environ. Officer, Office of the Secretary, DOI
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Eugene District BLM
BLM Coos Bay District
BLM Roseburg District
BLM Medford District
American Indian Tribes and Nations
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
Coquille Indian Tribe
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians
State, County and Local Governments
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Oregon Dept of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries
Oregon Water Resources Department
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Oregon Department of Economic Development
Oregon Department of Energy
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Division of State Lands
Historic Preservation Office
Parks and Recreation Department
Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Development
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
City of Coos Bay
City of North Bend
Bandon Public Library
87
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Coos Bay Public Library
Coos County Library Service District - Extended Services Office
Coquille Public Library
Dora Public Library
Douglas County Library System
Flora M. Laird Memorial Library
Lakeside Public Library
Hazel M. Lewis Library
North Bend Public Library
Southwestern Oregon Community College Library
Businesses, Organizations and Individuals
Association of O&C Counties
Association of Oregon Counties
Bay Area Chamber of Commerce
B. L S. Inc.
Douglas Timber Operators
Fairview RFPD
Industrial Gas Services Inc.
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildland Center
Native Plant Society of Oregon
Northwest Natural Gas
Oregon Natural Resources Council
PacifiCorp
Pinnacle Engineering
Pipeline Solutions Inc.
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.
Christina Alexander
Hilary and Brad Baker
Lester Barkley
George Barton
Jaye Bell
Joe T Briscoe
Jim Brown
Will Bunnell
Stephen Brown
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Jody and Michelle Clawson
Robert and Carol Doty
Dana Gabb
James Gomez
Hal K. Graham
Bob Gunther
Ronnie Heme
Jolly Hibbits
David Hopkins
Laura Hughes
George and Eulia Johnson
Bonnie Joyce
Kate Kenyon
Mrs. F. L. Kolby
Lynne Leisy
Les Lemke. The Watch Report
Steve and Wesa Liles
Cliff McClelland
Jim Metcalf
Gary Montesano
Bill and Pam Nelson
Bill Poppe
Mrs. Ruth Randall
Jason Reed
Richard D. Robertson
Debra Roth
Peter Ryan
Ron Sadler
Don Schoonmaker
Monica Schreiber
Pat & John Simpson
John and Jennifer Shank
Roberta Stewart
Eric Stone
John and Peggy Swindle
Leo Taconi
Larry D. Tams
Bill and Pat Titus
89
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Charlie Vincent
Keith E. Vrell
Edward Werner
Ronald S. Yockim
90
List of Appendices:
List of Appendices:
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Appendix B. Cultural Resources
Appendix C. Sheets 1-10
Appendix D. Agency Management Plans for Resources Adjacent to the proposed action conidor
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Appendix 01 . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment
Period
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Appendix J. Construction. Operation and Maintenance Plan
Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species
Appendix K 1 . Special Status Species
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Appendix M. List of References
Appendix N. Consistency Determination
91
List of Appendices:
92
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
The following changes were made in Appendix A between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Minor corrections, explanations and edits are not included in this list.
• Maps of the proposed action have been removed from this document. Please refer to the Draft EIS.
Site Reconnaissance and Construction Recommendations
for the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
Project
Prepared by:
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
3329 NE Stephens St.
Roseburg, OR 97470
Project #20517.2
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
. .^j^i'V,;''^''^;/.%Z7;naTTSi?!!Z;
GICOTECIINICAL ENGLNEERIINC REPORT
Rouk RcconnjiiitManceand Construction Rccomnicndatbn!! forth* Ccws
Count}^ Nntural Gsis Pipeline Troject
FOR;
DATt:
Coos Coyniy L^oiml wf (.OEnnussiocwreH C«iuillc, <>«
NoveiriherK!, iUUl
TABLE OF CONTENTS f^^=^T4
INTROm.TTTON
OsjetlivK 2
Scape nflrvemptica E)DPlfli£..1.2.-.?|.:£-^ :
1'ROJE.CT LWATIO^ A^D DE^SCRIITION ., ,... „ 5
She [r-c.r.ii'iTi iird De-.'i;;rip:icin J
L>c»;riF-:ioji of PropMcd Pipclir.c , „• „. ... , ?
CiEOHWir SfriTiKft and natutRj^l hazards 4
GciKfaJ .Asa GmIocj- • .. .. .■ .. . .. .. ... ., „ „ *
figure !. ''A'tftilKiul iii;i:xig,iu L'raMi M»:LiLfi hIuii;^ Un:))Mii H^li>v>LV 42 "^
Rurfcial Soi'.r; S
PaK:itial XBHi/aJ Hazards 5
OBSERVATIOWS A.ND RECOMMENDATIONS S
R:iL;e r!.e:::;rTmiK^ur.« Oh»sT%Blions K
PsBCTrinl Ccos^trucricii Prsblcrij , ,. .„„....,.. II
Figure 1. V JEW oinP-\ (xiv^er .ir< .;in <l«p liillijdif 12
Figure 3 Ris; of B?A pcvjr line '.jp steep> I'O per .z^nf, ^Icpe .• \1
t'i^un- -1. Vii-w a-oiij. Br-jivitvT ■l.-diivoj atCtiV/K iriili 2] L3
figure i. Viesv a.an;j Dr«wil<<r C;inya-i alCUWR rriilp 32 13
D-jstusjijan a:"?D:Eni.ial Cie::lo|f>;- llaiarj!. L'1
MMIUAIION , „ tS
RECOMMIiMDAllO.NSFORFllTlM \^'OKK L5
REPORT LIMITATIONS 15
■J AliLlf- 1 , 5Mr^e> of Fci.mdjlion Soil anc Rock, C^c« Cs^rj- NatninBl 088 Pipslaie Pnys^t , t ?
l.IflTOFRFTRRrNCRS 34
APPENDIX A - TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS OF PROPOSED ALIC NMENT 26
APPENDIX U-SLREACE GEOLOGY MAI'S 3&
A-2
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Introduction
Objective
The Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline ("the pipeline") is proposed for construction between Roseburg and Coos
Bay, Oregon, along the route depicted in Appendix A. The route will utilize the ROW of the CBW Road and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line and will pass through or near the communities of Lookingglass,
Reston, Sitkum, Dora, McKinley, Fairview and Sumner, ending near Coos Bay.
Engineering design and construction of the pipeline will be directly affected by:
• geologic features,
• the type and thickness of soil deposits,
• depth to rock.
• gradient of soil and rock slopes within the construction limits,
• width of working space available,
• watercourses and stream crossings,
• natural and man-made obstacles.
This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering reconnaissance survey of the proposed route. The
observations and opinions presented herein are focused on constructability of the pipeline from a surface soils, i.e.,
geotechnical engineering, standpoint.
The original report was prepared by S. Joseph Spigolon, Ph. D., RE. for the Coos County Board of Commissioners
and Biological Information Specialists, Inc. Subsequent to preparation of the draft report and while agency review
was being conducted. Dr. Spigolon succumbed to a sudden illness. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. was (hen engaged to
review Dr. Spigolon's report and agency review comments and to issue a final report, including responses to agency
comments.
Also while agency review was being conducted, portions of the route alignment were changed from that evaluated by
Dr. Spigolon. Accordingly, geotechnical review and opinion of the revised route is also contained herein. The scope
of services performed by Pinnacle for the route change were identical to those conducted for the original report.
Data presented in Dr. Spigolon's report [21 ] have been reviewed to the extent practical and. where appropriate, relied
upon in this revised report.
Scope of Investigation
The level of investigation for this study was limited to reviewing appropriate geotechnical and geological literature
and conducting a site observation and reconnaissance of the proposed pipeline route. The literature review searched
for relevant information about project soils and surficial nick contained in published and unpublished geological and
Soil Survey documents. Reconnaissance of the entire proposed pipeline route was conducted to observe soil and
rock outcrops, morphology, limitations to construction access, and evidence of existing or potential natural hazards.
A- 3
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project Location and Description
Site Location and Description
The proposed natural gas pipeline will start at the Williams Gas Pipeline metering facility southwest of Roseburg and
end near Coos Bay. At Coos Bay, the pipeline will connect with proposed Northwest Natural Gas (NW Natural) dis-
tribution facilities to service the surrounding communities and possibly the industrial properties on the North Spit.
All of the fifty nine mile route is to be located within existing ROW of either the CBW Road and other public roads
or within existing power line corridors. The pipeline route (maps) is depicted fully in Appendix C to this EIS.
Virtually the entire length of the proposed pipeline route is within the Coast Range, a long nanow band of moder-
ately high mountains that ends in coastal headlands at Coos Bay. The Coast Range in Oregon extends from the
Columbia River to the Middle Fork of the Coquille River at the southern limits of Coos County [1] ' . The Coast
Range is about fifty miles wide at the project location and the terrain, consisting of steep hills and sharp crests, ranges
in height from sea level to crests at about 3.000 feet above sea level.
The Coast Range is mainly formed of weakly consolidated sandstone and siltstone and is easily weathered and
eroded. The major streams in the area west of the Coast Range, including the East Fork of the Coquille River, flow
westward toward the ocean or, in the Coos Bay area, north toward the bay. East of the Coast Range, the major
streams flow easterly to the South Umpqua River, then north and west toward the ocean at Reedsport. The terrain is
formed of a succession of ridges and small valleys. The heavily dissected erosion gullies are typically oriented north-
south. Many of the valleys have differences in elevation along the BPA power line route of 1,000 feet or more
between ridge crest and valley bottom.
In the eastern 75 percent of Coos County and the western part of Douglas County, the soils along the proposed pipe-
line route are mostly well drained and loamy or clayey and are well suited to timber production [2] except in Brew-
ster Canyon. Some of the land adjoining the route has been clear-cut by timbering operations. The ROW of both the
CBW Road and the BPA power line have been cleared as a result of prior construction activity.
Description of Proposed Pipeline
The main line of the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline will consist of a 12.75-inch outside diameter, 0.25 inch wall
thickness, welded steel pipe having a minimum yield strength of 2,039 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The
maximum allowable operating pressure will be 1,000 psig. The pipe will be coated and packaged magnesium anodes
will be attached at approximate 1,000 feet intervals to limit corrosion. Where the pipeline is constructed within the
power line corridor, additional measures may be taken to mitigate potential hazards due to induced current.
A number of block valves will be included in the project. Mitigation of potential geologic and geotechnical impacts
along the route will be accomplished by installation of an assortment of additional automatic and/or remote control
valves at strategic locations to be selected during final design. Automatic or remote control valve locations will be
selected during final design. Preliminary locations are recommended in subsequent sections of this report.
Pipeline construction will best be accomplished using a working space of 25 to 30 feet, which may require a total
width of up to 60 feet in steep side slope areas. Where sufficient width is not available, short sections of the project
may be constructed in a more restricted width.
The pipe will be installed with 36 inches of cover where practical. In areas with less than 3 feet depth to consolidated
rock, a minimum of 18 inches of cover is allowed. The existing ROW will be restored to current or better condition
as construction is completed.
Geologic Setting and Natural Hazards
The following discussion of surface geology and natural hazards near or affecting the project route is based on pub-
lished and unpublished information from the following sources:
• various bulletins and geologic maps published by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,
• reference texts discussing the geology of the project route.
A-4
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
• unpublished air photos and pedologic soil descriptions from the Douglas County Area Office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Roseburg,
• the Soil Survey of Coos County [2] published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and
• various documents published by the USGS. including the Geologic Map and Database of the Roseburg Quad-
rangle.
General Area Geology
The bedrock forming the Coast Range consists of materials that were deposited in the ocean and later uplifted by tec-
tonic action. Layers of basalt were deposited under water by volcanic activity and subsequently covered by sand and
silt sediments eroded from the Klamath Mountains. Much later, after the sand and silt became sandstone and silt-
stone, the mass of rock was raised and crumpled into folds by the slow landward movement of the Pacific Ocean
floor [3]. The present day outcrops of the rock show a sequence of north-south exposures consisting of a few rela-
tively narrow bands of basalt interspersed with large, wide expanses of the sandstone and siltstone of several forma-
tions. The soils resulting from weathering of the underlying bedrock reflect the mineralogy of the parent rock. A
west-east cross section of the route along U. S. Highway 42 [3, p. 106), south of and roughly parallel to the CBW
Road, is shown in Figure 1 as an illustration of the typical geologic section along the pipeline route.
^ii'ididDno an: &halB
tardetong
iind enae
Figure A-1. West-east geologic cross-section along Oregon Highway 42, south of and parallel to the CBW Road, showing
compression and tilting of strata.
The folding of the rocks illustrated in Figure A-1 resulted in a series of lineaments or fault lines, more or less oriented
perpendicular to the direction of push [4, 5|. These are ancient lines of movement and are not active fault lines.
Starting at the eastern end of the project, the bedrock underlying much of the city of Roseburg, and extending west-
ward to the west slope of the hills immediately east of Lookingglass, is a layer of basalt. This is the Roseburg Forma-
tion, the basal member of the Umpqua Formation [6].
As the route enters Lookingglass Valley, the underlying bedrock is a rhythmically bedded sandstone and siltstone of
the Lookingglass Formation. Near the western edge of the Lookingglass Valley, the pipeline route crosses the inac-
tive Reston-Bonanza Fault. Between Lookingglass and Reston the terrain is underlain by the mudstone, siltstone, and
fine grained sandstone of the Flournoy Formation.
West of Reston the route enters the outcropping of the Tyee Formation, an arkosic sandstone with siltstone interbeds.
Arkosic sandstone is described in the geologic literature [7] as a light pink sandstone predominantly of feldspar and
A- 5
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
quartz, coarse grained, porous and easily eroded. Brewster Valley and the surrounding heavily eroded ridge and val-
ley terrain are underlain by the Tyee Formation.
West of Dora the route enters a short north-south outcrop of the Lookingglass Formation, as described above [6].
Northwest of Dora, the area encompassing the communities of McKinley and Fairview is underlain by the Roseburg
Formation. In this area, the bedrock is a rhythmically bedded sandstone and siltstone with localized, thin interbeds of
basalt.
At the western end of the proposed pipeline, between Fairview and Coos Bay, the route is underlain by the sandstone
and interbedded siltstone of the Coaledo Formation.
Surface geology along the route is depicted with maps at the end of this report.
Surficial Soils
Construction of the pipeline will be affected by the properties and thickness of surface and near-surface soils and the
depth from the ground surface to underlying rock. Generally, the surface soils were derived from mechanical and
chemical weathering of the underlying parent rock. Most of the soils within project limits are residual in nature,
although significant expanses of transported soils, i.e., colluvial and alluvial material exist, especially in the western
section.
Research during preparation of this report depended heavily on the soil profile descriptions contained in the soil sur-
vey documents of the Douglas County [11] and Coos County Soil Conservation Service [2] offices. Field work con-
ducted for those studies was generally limited to a determination of the soil profile to a depth of five to six feet, the
depth appropriate for this project.
Within the project limits, residual soils are typically a minimum of two to three feet thick. The underlying layer of
weathered rock typically ranges from a few feet to tens of feet. Excavation within the weathered layer can be accom-
plished normally by use of a high energy track excavator. Along steeper slopes, the thickness of residual soils is typ-
ically less.
POTENTIAL NATURAL HAZARDS
Natural site hazards are naturally occurring conditions that may impact the completed project. Credible natural haz-
ards include, in varying degrees of probability;
• flooding, either tidal or surface streams,
• erosion,
• mass soil movement, either creep or landslides,
• seismic activity, i.e., earthquakes, liquefaction and tsunamis,
• general land subsidence.
Of these potential natural hazards, only stream flooding, erosion, mass soil movement and seismic activity are con-
sidered credible potential natural hazards for the project.
Stream Flooding
Except in the alluvial floodplains around the several communities along the route and in Brewster Canyon, the pro-
posed pipeline route is within the BPA power line ROW in the hillsides, well above stream levels, and stream flood-
ing is not a credible hazard. Stream tlooding in the alluvial floodplains and in Brewster Canyon, however, is likely to
occur during the design life of the project, but would only be significant to the extent that it affected integrity or oper-
ability of the completed pipeline.
A-6
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Integrity of the pipeline would not be affected by inundation, as the pipeline will be buried, air-tight, and under inter-
nal pressure. Further;
• there is no record of past flooding of rivers and major streams to a degree that would compromise integrity of
the proposed pipeline.
• the CBW Road in Brewster Canyon, along the East Fork of the Coquille River, is rarely flooded above roadway
level.
Operability of the pipeline, specifically certain of the valves, could be affected by flooding. Potential impacts to oper-
ability can be mitigated by location of critical valves above flood elevations or by incorporating design features that
would allow valve operation regardless of tlood conditions.
Erosion
Since the proposed gas pipeline is anticipated to be bored beneath major stream crossings, damaging erosion will be
effectively mitigated by vertical separation. Minor erosion is possible at crossings of intermittent streams, but dam-
age to the pipeline from such erosion is not credible.
Mass Soil Movement
Slopes are susceptible to mass movement any lime the weight of the soil mass acting along the slope travel angle
exceeds the soil shear strength available to resist the inovement. Slope movement can occur even at a very gradual
slope gradient. Naturally occurring landslides, those not caused by the action of man such as loading of the top of the
slope or removal of soil at the bottom, invariably result from a decrease in shear strength of the soil mass due to
increased water content or by an increase in effective weight of the soil mass, such as would occur during a seismic
event. Damage from mass soil inovement is directly related to Landslide Velocity Class and volume of mobilized
mass. Landslide Velocity Class ranges from unnoticeable (creep) to sudden.
• Soil Creep. Soil creep is a very slow downhill movement of soil that is typically a continuous movement
which proceeds at an average rate of less than a foot per decade [20]. It occurs more commonly in deep deposits
of high plasticity soils on moderate slopes. Shrinkage cracks may form in the soil during the dry season,
becoming partially filled with drier soil particles. During the following wet season, moisture content of the
clayey soil increases, usually more at the surface than below. The moisture increase decreases the shear
strength to a nearly critical state where shear failure is imminent and a slight movement can occur, greater at
the surface than at depth. This combination of effects usually leads to very slow downhill movement. Over a
period of many years, the movement can become noticeable and significant damage can occur. Severity of
damage experienced is directly dependent upon Landslide Velocity Class [20]. Soil creep is not considered a
credible hazard, as the probable rate of movement would allow many years for mitigation to be accomplished.
• Sudden Movement. Sudden moveinent of soil masses ranging in size from small to medium are likely to
occur at several locations within the project limits during its design life. Locations of most concern are
described in subsequent sections of this report, as are recommended initigation measures.
Earthquake
Earthquakes are the result of a sudden differential displacement of a portion of the earth along a fault plane. The
movement releases elastic energy that causes violent shaking of the earth's surface in both the horizontal and vertical
directions. Such shaking can induce mass soil movement. As noted above, the historical record of earthquakes in
Oregon only extends back to 1 833 1 1 5].
Earthquakes in Oregon originate from one of three different source areas [13, 14, 22]:
• Crustal earthquakes, that occur along relatively short and shallow faults that exist within the upper 6 to 12
miles of the surface. These are faults, such as those illustrated in Figure A- 1, that are sometimes, but not
always, visible at the surface and, therefore, may not create horizontal displacements at the ground surface.
The resulting earthquake can reach a magnitude as large as 6.5 to 7. The March 1993 Scotts Mills earthquake,
magnitude 5.6, and the September 1993 Klamath Falls main shocks, magnitude 5.9 and 6.0, were crustal earth-
A-7
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
quakes.
Intraplate earthquakes occur within the remains of the ocean tloor, the San Juan de Fuca Plate, that has been
subducted under the North American Plate. These are deep movements, occurring at depths of 25 to 37
miles below the ground surface, that can reach a magnitude as large as 7 to 7.5. The Puget Sound earth-
quakes of 1949 and 1965 were intraplate earthquakes.
• Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) slippage. Great subduction zone earthquakes occur around the world when
tectonic plates collide. The dipping interface between the two plates is the origin of some of the most powerful
earthquakes ever recorded, often having magnitudes of 8 to 9 [22]. In the northwest, the Cascadia Subduction
Zone has been recognized for many years, but no earthquakes have occurred during our 200 year recorded his-
tory. In the CSZ, the San Juan de Fuca Plate is slowly moving under the North American Plate along a line
about 40 to 50 miles offshore extending from British Columbia to northern California. Sliding friction between
the two plates is believed to be causing the edge of the North American Plate, in the region of the coastal area
of the Coast Range, to bow upward. Periodically, the friction is believed to be overcome along a section of the
CSZ, allowing that portion to drop a short distance and cause violent shaking.
Although no CSZ earthquakes have occuiTed in the past 200 years, there is widespread evidence that very
large earthquakes have occurred repeatedly in the past, most recendy about 300 years ago. The best avail-
able evidence indicates that CSZ earthquakes occur on average about every 500 to 540 years, with an interval
between individual events ranging from 100 - 300 years to about 1,000 years.
Discussion. Crustal earthquakes of low magnitude are common in northern and eastern Oregon, but not in the
Coos-Douglas County area. Jacobson [16] plotted the Oregon earthquake database record on a map of Oregon and
showed that there have been no earthquakes recorded within 50 miles of the proposed pipeline route except for a
magnitude 3.0 quake in central Douglas County. Geologic evidence of fault movement has been summarized in the
map by Madin and Mabey [17]. They showed that there has been no known fault movement within the past
1.600,000 years along the route of the proposed pipeline. There are, however, a few faults that have moved within
the past 10,000 years south of Coos Bay.
The major earthquake concern along the southern Oregon region is the potential for a CSZ displacement and the
damage that would result. Geologic evidence of such events [18] indicates that at least five such earthquakes have
occurred within the past 300 to 3.500 years, each occurring along a limited. 150 to 300 miles, length of the coast in
the region between Vancouver, B.C. and northern California. It is estimated that the most recent event occurred about
300 years ago.
Estimates of coastal subsidence [ 1 8] for a subduction zone event are on the order of a maximum of 1 .5 to 3 feet. This
will create a ground acceleration of about 0.4 g (gravity) along the coast at Coos Bay [19] if that part of the coast is
included in the CSZ slippage zone. The acceleration rate is attenuated by distance from the slippage so that acceler-
ation of the bedrock at Roseburg would be reduced to about 0.2 g from the same event. A similar attenuation will
occur at Coos Bay if the slippage occurs at some distance north or south along the length of the subduction zone.
The most severe damage due to earthquakes is commonly localized and generally caused by one or more of the fol-
lowing;
• Amplification of ground shaking by a soft soil column.
• Liquefaction of water-saturated sand, silt or gravel, creating areas of "quicksand".
• Landslides triggered by shaking, even on relatively gentle slopes.
• Amplification is not deemed a credible risk, as;
• The depth of soft soil and properties conducive to amplification do not generally exist along the alignment.
• Damage from amplification is most critical to above ground structures, where the fundamental site period and
first period of vibration of the stmcture are similar.
Liquefaction can occur in deep, saturated deposits of loose, clean sand, gravel or silt if shaking causes the grain struc-
ture of the soil to lose inter-particle friction and collapse, i.e., a temporary loss of shear strength. When liquefied, the
soil deposit behaves like a viscous liquid. Since deposits subject to liquefaction are not likely to exist along the pro-
posed pipeline route, liquefaction is not considered a credible risk to the project.
Landslides triggered by shaking, although low probability, are deemed the most likely seismically induced hazard
that could affect the project. Mitigation measures for seismically induced landslides are identical to those recom-
mended for landslides induced by increased moisture and are described in subsequent sections of this report.
A-8
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Observations and Recommendations
Route Reconnaissance Observations
Six visual reconnaissance trips [21] along the proposed route of pipeline were made for this report, four by vehicle
on the CBW RoadCBW Road and one each by helicopter and airplane along the BPA power line route. The objec-
tive of each reconnaissance trip was to observe soil and rock outcrops, slopes, width available for construction, and to
discover evidence of existing or potential natural hazards. In addition, several segments of the BPA right of way,
where potentially significant problem areas were noted by aerial or photo reconnaissance, were observed on foot.
A tabulated summary of the near-surface soils along the route is contained in Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil
and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline, included subsequently in this report. The information and observa-
tions contained in Table I were derived from a combination of;
• field and office interpretations of geologic features along the route,
• field and office interpretations of the Douglas County and Coos County Soil Survey data cited above and
• field observations made during the six reconnaissance trips.
The proposed route of the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline, consists of six distinct sections:
a) from the connection to the Williams pipeline south of Roseburg to about the Coos County line, west of Reston,
it will follow the Pacificorp/ BPA ROW.
b) at the Coos/Douglas County line, the pipeline will follow the ROW of the CBW Road through Brewster Can-
yon to three miles west of Dora.
c) from three miles west of Dora to the Lone Pine Bridge, it will follow the BPA right of way.
d) from the Lone Pine Bridge to McKinley, it will follow the CBW Road.
e) from McKinley to Fairview it will first follow the power line right of way. then from Fairview to the Coos City
Bridge, it will follow the CBW Road.
f) the final segment will rejoin the BPA ROW and continue to the end of the pipeline near Coos Bay.
Physical conditions along the pipeline route are generally described as;
1 . Section from Williams Pipeline to Lookingglass. This five mile section of the project passes through a hill of
basalt with an overlying layer of high plasticity clay soil. Slopes along the roadway and the Pacificorp power line are
typically less than 10 percent, although a short section of between 20 and 40 percent slope exist as the route descends
into the Lookingglass Valley.
The soil is estimated to be over five feet thick along the power line. There are two rock quarries at ground level near
the alignment, indicating a possible thin soil overburden at isolated locations. The soil in Lookingglass Valley is
quaternary alluvium, typically firm, with depth to rock greater than five feet.
Between the Williams sub-station and Lookingglass, the pipeline will cross a small remnant of an ancient landslide
and a localized seepage area along the east slope of Powderhouse Canyon. Neither of these features are likely to
impact project integrity or constructability.
2. Section from Lookinggla.ss to Reston. At the Lookingglass Valley, bedrock is sandstone and siltstone of the
Flournoy Formation and the residual soils are sandy clay and silty clay of low plasticity. Because of low resistance to
erosion, the rocks in this region and the remainder of the route are at an increased slope gradient and the valleys are
deeper. Both the CBW Road and the power line sometimes follow hillsides. Slopes along the paved roadway and the
BPA power line are typically less than 10 percent, although short sections exist where the slope is between 20 and 45
A- 9
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
percent. Soil thickness over rock is generally greater than five feet along both the CBW Road and power line routes.
The roadway is a full two lanes wide in this section of the project.
West of Lookingglass, as the pipeline joins the road, a hummocky area was noted on the south side of the road. At
Reston, a short stretch of recent slumps were noted. Neither of these features are likely to impact project integrity or
constructability, however, the slumps should be further investigated during final design and mitigated convention-
ally.
3. Section from Reston to Sitkum. West of Reston the CBW Road enters hillier terrain, the most rugged along the
proposed route. Bedrock is soft sandstone and siltstone of the Tyee Formation and is heavily eroded. Residual soils
over the rock are either sandy or silty clay of low to moderate plasticity. Depth of soil along the steep hillside route
of the BPA power line is generally more than five feet.
Hillside slopes along the power line are typically greater than 20 percent and reach as much as 33 percent. Short
stretches exist that are steeper. Ridges can be as much as 1 ,000 and more feet apart with 1 ,000 feet of elevation
change from ridge top to valley bottom.
The power line route crosses a small slump and a large hummocky area before descending to join the CBW Road. At
the junction of the power line right of way and the CBW Road, the alignment passes longitudinally through an
ancient landslide. None of these features are likely to affect project integrity or constructability, although landslide
mitigation measures discussed more fully herein should be incorporated.
The CBW Road enters Brewster Canyon near the Coos County line. Between the Coos County line and Sitkum. the
Brewster Valley route of the CBW Road is in a deep valley created by the East Fork of the Coquille River. The road-
way is unpaved and is at the bottom of a series of steep, nearly vertical, rock cliffs. The width of the roadway varies
from one lane to barely two lanes and the width from cliff face to river drop-off is occasionally less than 30 feet. The
road generally follows very close to the river which is typically at some depth below roadway level. The river bottom
is exposed and appears to be unweathered rock. The depth of soil along the roadway is unknown but is probably less
than five feet except, perhaps, at the edge away from the cliff face. The roadway generally is at a gentle grade and
crosses the Coquille River twice over bridges. Sitkum is at the entrance to the Brummit Creek valley.
Except for short sections where competent rock may be within three feet of surface, there are no features of geotech-
nical concern in the CBW Road segment.
4. Section from Sitkum to Dora. This section of the CBW Road also follows Brewster Canyon and the Tyee Forma-
tion, but is slightly less rugged. Roadway widths continue to be narrow and rock cliffs still form one side of the
unpaved roadway. Soil depth along the roadway is still probably less than five feet. Slopes along the BPA power line
remain steep, often reaching 26 percent to 28 percent, with long distances between ridge lines. Depth to fractured
sandstone in the hillside soils is occasionally less than five feet.
A geologic map [5] of the area indicates that there are small sections, each between 100 and 3,000 feet long, along
either the CBW Road or the East Fork of the Coquille River, that consist of landslide deposits of geologically recent
(Holocene and Pleistocene epochs, i.e., within the past 1,600,000 years) age. These deposits are described as "frag-
ments of bedrock mixed with gravel, sand, silt or clay." Observations of these "landslide" areas concluded that they
are mainly characterized by more gentle slopes than the surrounding hills and large, over 15 feet wide, boulders scat-
tered about. This is typical of the debris at the lower part of a slide in the soft sandstone and siltstone bedrock. The
slides are ancient, as demonstrated by formation of the Coquille River floodplain at several areas at the bases of the
slides and weathering of the exposed surface of the boulders. These slides appear to be stable and are not likely to
impact project integrity or constructability.
5. Section from Dora to McKinley and Fairview. At Dora the CBW Road and the BPA power line leave the valley of
the East Fork of the Coquille River and Brewster Canyon and turn northwest. Bedrock is the Roseburg Formation
consisting of sandstone and siltstone with localized, thin interbeds of basalt. The residual soils are a sandy or silty
clay of low to moderate plasticity. Soil depths appear to be greater than five feet. The terrain is less rugged than along
the Brewster Canyon segment, although hillside slopes along the BPA power line route can reach as much as 15 per-
cent to 20 percent. The roadway becomes two-lane and paved at McKinley and remains paved to just beyond Fair-
view.
A-10
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
One mile west of Dora, an ancient landslide similar to that described above is located north of the CBW Road. A
recent rockfall was noted clear of the route, south of the CBW Road about 1 . 1 miles northwest of McKinley. Neither
of these features are likely to impact project integrity or constructability.
6. Section from Fairview to Sumner. At Fairview. the pipeline continues along the CBW Road, which is unpaved for
several miles but is at least two lanes wide. The terrain continues to be more gentle than that to the east, with hillside
slopes ranging from 5 percent to 1 2 percent. Short sections of steeper topography exist. Soil depths are expected to
be greater than five feet.
There are no features of geotechnical concern which would impact project constructability or integrity in this seg-
ment.
7. Section from Sumner to near Coos Bay. After passing South Slough Road, the BPA power line and the proposed
pipeline route leave the CBW Road and continue along the Coos-Sumner Road, finally reaching and crossing Isth-
mus Slough and U. S. Highway 101 . West of the highway the BPA power line turns north to the end of the proposed
pipeline near Coos Bay. Bedrock is Coaledo Formation sandstone and siltstone and continues to be less rugged, with
much more gentle slopes.
There are no features of geotechnical concern which would impact project constructability or integrity in this seg-
ment, although the horizontal bore beneath Isthmus Slough will require typical scrutiny during final design.
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS
There are no particularly unusual or difficult construction problems anticipated for the proposed pipeline project.
Soils over most of the route will be deep enough and firm enough to stand open without bracing the three to four foot
deep trench necessary for construction and will not be below the groundwater level, except at isolated locations.
Where the pipeline is located within the roadway, short sections may be encountered where depth to competent rock
is less than five feet. We anticipate, however, that most of these areas can be excavated to a satisfactory depth using
a high energy track hoe.
Final design is expected to be typical for the size, type and location of the proposed project. Of normal concern are;
1. Sideslope Construction. Along several locations, the BPA power line was constructed on relatively steep side-
slopes, illustrated by Figure A-2. Since pipeline construction equipment will require a reasonably level working
space of 25 to 30 feet wide, as much as 60 feet in width will be required to allow excavation and leveling of the work
area. Except for minor impacts on schedule, this feature does not present unusual complexity.
2. Steepness of Slopes. The heavily eroded ridge and valley ground surface along the route from Reston to Dora has
resulted in very steep slopes with large elevation differences between the ridge top and valley bottom. Steep slopes
reaching, and occasionally exceeding, 20 percent grade exist along the sections of the pipeline originally proposed to
be placed in the BPA power line ROW. This is illustrated in Figure A-3.
A- 11
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Figure A-2. View of BPA powerline on steep hillside at Mile 10 on CBW Road.
A-12
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Figure A-3. Rise of BPA powerline up steep 20 percent slope at Mile 13 on CBW Road
A- 13
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Figure A-4. View along Brewster Canyon at Mile 21 on CBW Road. Left side of road leads down at steep angle to the
East Fork of the Coquille River
A-14
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Figure A-5: View Along Brewster Canyon on CBW Road.
Shallow Depth to Rock. At a few locations along the CBW Road, especially in Brewster Canyon, the depth to rock
along the centerline of the roadway may require isolated use of air tools to achieve the desired three feet of cover.
Sections of the CBW Road that may have rock very close to the roadway surface are illustrated in Figure 3 and 4 and
are more fully delineated in Table A-1. Since depth of competent rock has not been verified by field test, inferred
instead from the appearance of rock along the side of the road at roadway level and from the probable method of con-
struction used during the 1870's, locations determined to be especially problematic or to pose unacceptable budgetary
uncertainty should be explored using an auger drill during design.
Considering the recent experience gained during construction of a separate underground utility project, for which a
trencher was used with little difficulty to excavate a three to four feet deep trench, we anticipate that rock excavation
requirements will not be unusually difficult.
A- 15
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
4. Rock in Coquille River. At two locations in Brewster Canyon, the CB W Road crosses the East Fork of the Coquille
River. At both locations the exposed river bottom is composed of apparently unweathered sandstone-siltstone bed-
rock. We recommend that these two crossings be accomplished by either direct excavation and burial or by suspend-
ing the pipeline from the two existing bridge structures, since directional drilling will be very difficult.
Discussion of Potential Geologic Hazards
The steel, continuously welded and buried pipeline is similar to a long elastic string and can sustain some general lat-
eral and/or vertical movement or direct tension. The potential causes of rupture of the pipeline along the proposed
route are either shearing movement of the supporting soil, in which there is an abrupt lateral and/or vertical displace-
ment of soil and pipeline, or a tensile failure resulting from the pipeline being "stretched" as it resists a sliding soil
mass. Shear or tensile forces are most likely to result from landsliding.
Seismic Activity
Earthquake shaking of the ground causes general ground movement but does not normally cause surface shearing
movements. The principal source of earthquake induced shear displacement at the surface is landsliding, which can
be triggered by a seismic acceleration of the soil mass.
The probability of an earthquake-induced landslide resulting in shearing of the pipeline is dependent on earthquake
recurrence interval. As noted in preceding sections of this report, the principal seismic concern is a CSZ event origi-
nating along a line about 40 to 50 miles off the coast of Oregon, resulting in lateral accelerations between 0.2 and 0.4
g. Although the probability of a CSZ event occurring during the design life of the project is highly speculative, if one
does occur, it is more probable than not that landslides will result. Accordingly, mitigation of potential landslide
impacts should be incorporated into the design.
Moisture Induced Landsliding
Moisture induced landsliding is deemed no more likely along the proposed route than in any other route that would
logically serve the project. Considering the high ductility of the pipe material and the considerable tensile strength of
the completed pipeline, along with the probable size of conceivable instabilities, we believe that landslide induced
failure of the pipeline is of low probability.
Although landslide induced failure of the pipeline is of low probability, several past instabilities were noted during
project reconnaissance, as more fully described in the preceding Route Reconnaissance Observations. Mitigation
measures are recommended subsequently herein.
The effect of recent timbering clear cuts on the inducement or probability of landsliding along the route cannot be
assessed adequately with the limited information available for this study. Generally, however, we anticipate that tim-
ber activities will have no impact on stability of the pipeline.
Erosion
The potential for erosion exists along the pipeline alignment at virtually any of the stream crossings. Considering the
very short sections of pipe at most crossings, along with the pipe's ductility, few of the crossings should require spe-
cial attention during design. At most locations, if permit conditions allow, we recommend that the pipeline should be
buried beneath the stream bottom using conventional excavation instead of boring.
Several of the crossings under more substantial streams should be bored. Preliminarily, the recommended boring
locations include;
• Brummit Creek
• Cherry Creek
• Middle Creek
• North Fork of the Coquille
• Isthmus Slough
• Blossom Gulch Creek
A-16
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
MITIGATION
The proposed project is of average or less complexity. There is little risk of impact to constructability or integrity
due to geotechnical considerations. Seismically induced impacts are of low probability. To the extent that short term
pipeline integrity is compromised by any of the hazards noted herein, however, mitigation is recommended. All
potential impacts, regardless of probability or source can best be mitigated by installation of automatic or remotely
controlled valves at strategic locations.
Although the final location, type and special features, if any, of the valves are best addressed during final design, we
recommend that automatic or remote control valves be considered at the following locations;
• Williams sub-station connection
• east side of Douglas County Road 52
• Reston
• Dora
• Isthmus Slough at Ross Slough Road
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
As a result of this reconnaissance level study, we are satisfied that no additional geotechnical work is necessary for
the current phase. During final design, a number of other efforts, including site specific geotechnical exploration,
will be beneficial.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
Exclusivity of Report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Coos County Board of Commis-
sioners and Coquille, Oregon, and/or their designees for specific application to the proposed Coos Bay Natural Gas
Pipeline, Coos-Douglas Counties, Oregon. No other use is authorized without the written permission of Pinnacle
Engineering, Inc., Roseburg, Oregon.
Report Limited to Scopes of Service. The observations and conclusions described in this report are based solely on
the scope of service described in and implemented pursuant to the Agreement of August 27, 2000, between Biologi-
cal Information Specialists, Camas Valley, Oregon, and Dr. S. Joseph Spigolon, PE. as supplemented by contract
dated October 17. 2001, between Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. and Coos County, Oregon. Neither Spigolon nor Pinna-
cle have performed any observation, investigation, study or testing that is not specifically listed in the scope of ser-
vice and, therefore, shall not be liable for failing to discover any condition whose discovery required the performance
of services not authorized by the Agreement.
Conceptual-level Study. The visual reconnaissance and evaluative approaches used in this limited, preliminary
study are believed to be consistent with those normally used in geotechnical engineering practice for preparation of
environmental documents. The scope of our effort was intentionally less than that required for design purposes, but
is deemed are sufficient for developing preliminary design guidelines. When design concepts have been better
defined, soil/rock sampling and testing, and additional evaluation should be considered for use in final design.
A- 17
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
0.0
0.0
William's North-
west Pipeline; start
of Coos County
pipeline. Enter Sec-
tion 28.
Dark brown clay; high plastic-
ity; residuum derived from
basalt bedrock; depth to rock <
5 ft. No evidence of soil creep -
trees are vertical. Road is
paved in Douglas County.
Pacificorp transmission line.
Same as CBW Road; average 10
percent slopes.
1.2
Powderhouse Can-
yon.
Same as above.
Same as above; slopes about 6
percent.
1.9
Basalt rock quarry.
Rock at or very near road sur-
face. Slopes about 6 percent.
1.7
Tributary of
Marsters Creek.
Black clay; alluvium from weath-
ered basalt; high plasticity; depth
>5ft.
3.0
2.8
Slope down to enter
Lookingglass Val-
ley.
Gray brown gravelly silty clay;
moderate plasticity; alluvium
from sandstone; flat; depth > 5
ft.
Same as CBW Road; slopes aver-
age 1 0 percent.
3.2
3.1
Tributary of Look-
ingglass Creek; in
valley.
Brown sandy clay; moderate to
high plasticity; mixed allu-
vium; flat; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; flat grade;
depth > 5 ft.
3.6
Tributary of Look-
ingglass Creek; in
valley.
Brown clay; moderate plastic-
ity; alluvium; flat; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; flat grade;
depth > 5 ft.
4.5
3.9
Downtown Look-
ingglass; intersec-
tion of Lookingglass
Road and CBW
Road; CBW Road
turns west; enter
Sec. 35.
Brown clay; moderate to high
plasticity; mixed alluvium;
flat; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; flat grade;
depth > 5 ft.
4.6 to
5.1
4.0 to 4.5
Three tributaries of
Lookingglass Creek;
valley.
Brown clay; moderate to high
plasticity; mixed alluvium;
flat; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; flat grade;
depth > 5 ft.
(Sheet 1 of 10)
A-18
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
5.9
5.4
Power line crosses
road; substation.
Brown silty clay; moderate to
high plasticity; colluvium; road
in hillside several feet above
floodplain level; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; on hillside
above roadway; depth > 5 ft.
7.2
6.6
Power line goes up
and down hills.
Minor gullies.
Brown silty clay; moderate to
high plasticity; colluvium; road
starts vertical curves; several
rock outcrops at side of road;
depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road. On hillside
above roadway; depth > 5 ft.
8.2
7.5
Cross Rock Creek.
Gravelly sand; alluvium; non-
plastic; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road.
8.3
7.6
Power line crosses
road.
Brown gravelly silty clay;
residuum from siltstone; mod-
erate plasticity; no rocks show-
ing in road cuts; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road.
8.6
Tributary of Rock
Creek.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum
from siltstone; hillside;
moderate plasticity; depth to
rock = 5 ft.
8.7
8.0
Reston substation;
start BPA power
lines.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum
from siltstone; hillside;
moderate plasticity; depth to
rock 5 ft.
Brown gravelly sand; alluvium of
Flournoy Valley; non-plastic;
depth > 5 ft.
8.8
Tributary of Rock
Creek.
Dk. brown clay; alluvium; high
plasticity; depth > 5 ft.
10.2
Rock Creek.
Gravelly sandy clay; colluvium
from sandstone; none to low
plasticity; depth > 5 ft.
Ridge and steep valley terrain; 1 2
percent slope.
10.1
Rock Creek.
Sandstone showing in steep
road cut on south side of CBW
Road.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum from
siltstone; hillside; moderate plas-
ticity; depth to rock = 5 ft.
12.
11.1
Hillside; downgrade
toward Reston.
Sandstone-siltstone rock in
road cuts on side of roadway.
Hillsides reach 10 percent grade.
(Sheet 2 of 10)
A- 19
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
12.8
12.0
Intersection with
Reston Road. Sub-
station.
Sandy clay; alluvium; depth >
5 ft.; hills; no rock.
Power line close to road; gentle.
13.8
12.8
Power line crosses
road. Tenmile Creek
crossing.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum
from siltstone; hillside; moder-
ate plasticity; depth to rock = 5
ft.
Same as CBW Road; 8 percent
grade.
13.2
Tributary of Ten-
mile Creek.
Pass Iverson County Park;
curvy road.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum from
siltstone; hillside; moderate plas-
ticity; depth to rock = 5 ft.
15.0
13.8
Power line crosses
road. Roadway very
curvy.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum
from siltstone; hillside; moder-
ate plasticity; depth to rock = 5
ft.
Same as CBW Road.
15.1
13.9
Steep hill.
Same as above; road grade
reaches 15 percent.
Same as CBW Road; slopes reach
18 percent to 20 percent.
17.5 &
17.9
Cross East Fork of
Coquille River.
Brown sandy clay; low plastic-
ity; colluvium and residuum
over sandstone; depth > 5 ft.
Gravelly sandy clay; colluvium
from sandstone; depth = 3 - 4 ft.
over fractured sandstone; slopes
of 10 percent to 22 percent.
18.1
15.3
Tributary of
Coquille River.
Brown sandy clay; low plastic-
ity; colluvium and residuum
over sandstone; depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; slopes range
14 percent to 18 percent.
19.0
16.3
Coos County Line;
road is no longer
paved. Enter Brew-
ster Canyon.
Same as above; steep canyon
wall on north side; depth to
rock is shallow.
Same as CBW Road; slopes range
from 27 percent to 32 percent in
crossing East Fork of Coquille
River.
19.5
16.6
Cross Knapper
Creek.
Soil in roadway unknown; nar-
row roadway - about 1 5 - 20 ft.
wide; steep side wall; exposed
rock to road bed; depth to rock
is very shallow; East Fork of
Coquille River on south side.
Brown sandy clay; low plasticity;
colluvium and residuum over
sandstone; depth > 5 ft.
20.1
Milepost 35
Same as above
Same as above
(Sheet 3 of 10)
A-20
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
21.1
17.7
Power line crosses
road
Same as above; small slide in
road south toward river; sand-
stone in the vertical, north-side
wall.
Sandy clay; colluvium and resid-
uum from sandstone; low plastic-
ity; soil depth = 3 to 6 ft.
22.4
18.8
Cross small stream
Same as above, except no
slide; about 30 ft. above river
and steep slope to river.
Same as above.
23.0
19.5
Milepost 32.
Bridge; cross East
Fork of Coquille
River.
Sandstone-siltstone rock
exposed in river bottom, and
river banks; no soil.
Same as above.
23.5
Lost Creek enters
river from the north.
Soil in roadway unknown; nar-
row roadway - about 1 5 - 20 ft.
wide; steep side wall; exposed
rock to road bed; depth to rock
is very shallow; East Fork of
Coquille River on north side.
Same as above; slopes reach 27
percent to 33 percent.
24.3
20.1 &20.3
Tributary to
Coquille River.
Same as above.
Same as above; rock depth is < 3
ft.
25.2
Dead Horse Creek
enters river from
north.
Same as above.
Same as above.
25.5
20.9 & 21.4
Tributary to
Coquille River.
Same as above.
Same as above.
25.7
Bridge; cross East
Fork of Coquille
River.
Same as above. River on south
side of road.
Same as above.
26.7
Hamilton County
Park
Same as above.
Same as above. Rock depth var-
ies.
27.5
22.8
Cross Camas Creek;
roadway paved.
Enter broad valley. Road on
hillside; sandy clay and fine
sand; alluvium; low plasticity;
depth > 5 ft.
Same as above.
(Sheet 4 of 10)
A- 21
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
23.3
Enter Brewster Val-
ley.
Same as above.
Enter broad valley. Sandy clay
and fine sand; alluvium; low plas-
ticity; depth > 5 ft.
29.4
Cross Brummit
Creek. Enter Sit-
kum.
Sandy clay and fine sand; allu-
vium; low plasticity; depth > 5
ft.; road at base of hill, 10 ft.
above plain.
Same as above.
25.4
Cross Coquille
River.
Brown silty clay; hillside;
residuum from siltstone; depth
to rock varies from 4 ft. and
more.
Same as above.
31.5
26.1
Road re-enters
Brewster Canyon.
Same as above; one lane road;
hillside; depth > 5 ft.
Same as above.
32.9
27.6
Milepost 22.
Gravelly sandy clay; colluvium
derived from sandstone; rock
in road cut at road level; depth
to rock about 3 ft. in hillside.
Same as CBW Road.
34.1
28.5
Tributary of
Coquille River.
Soil in roadway unknown; nar-
row roadway - about 1 5 - 20 ft.
wide; steep side wall; exposed
rock to road bed; depth to rock
is very shallow. East Fork of
Coquille River on south side.
Brown silty clay; residuum and
colluvium derived from sand-
stone; slopes reach 26 percent to
28 percent; soil depth > 5 ft.
34.9
30.2
Enter broad Flood-
plains at Dora.
Brown fine sandy clay; mixed
alluvium; soil depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road.
37.2
32.3
Pass Frona County
Park; Power line
cross road.
Brown silty clay; hillside;
residuum from siltstone; depth
to rock > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road; slopes reach
15 percent to 20.
39.2
33.1
Road crosses Cheiry
Creek and Cherry
Creek Road; power
line crosses upper
reach of E. F.
Coquille River.
Brown silty clay; mixed allu-
vium; soil depth > 5 ft.
Brown gravelly sandy clay; resid-
uum from sandstone; depth to
fractured rock < 5 ft.
(Sheet 5 of 10)
A-22
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
40.2
34.1
Power line crosses
road.
Brown silty clay; mixed allu-
vium; soil depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road. Power line
in hillside; sandy clay from sand-
stone; low plasticity; depth > 5 ft.
41.5
35.0
Power line crosses
road; road crosses
Middle Creek.
Brown silty clay; mixed allu-
vium; soil depth > 5 ft.
Same as CBW Road. Power line
starts up steep hill with 1 5 percent
to 19 percent slope.
41.5 to
44.3
35.0 to 37.5
Hilly terrain.
Brown silty clay; hillside;
residuum from siltstone; depth
to rock > 5 ft. Slopes reach 8
percent to 10 percent.
Same as CBW Road. Slopes
reach 1 5 percent to 20 percent.
44.3
37.5
Power line crosses
road. Steep hill
down to Bolton Prai-
rie.
Dk. red silty clay; residuum
from siltstone; hillside; moder-
ate plasticity (PI = 20-30);
depth to rock = 5 ft. Slope
about 1 1 percent.
Same as CBW Road. Slope about
1 1 percent.
45.4
38.0
Cross bridge; North
Fork of Coquille
River.
Brown silty clay; mixed allu-
vium; low plasticity; depth > 5
ft.
Same as CBW Road.
45.7
38.3
Cross Fairview
Road; enter Fair-
view; power line
crosses road.
Same as above.
Same as above.
46.0
Rejoin CBW Road,
parallel Evans Creek
on right.
Dark brown silty clay; mixed,
alluvium; low plasticity;
organic; slopes 3 percent;
depth to rock. 5 ft.
46.1
Continue northwest-
erly parallel Evans
Creek.
Dark gray silty clay; mixed
alluvium; moderate plasticity;
slopes < 8 percent; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
46.4
Continue parallel to
Evans Creek.
Dark brown silty clay; mixed
alluvium; low plasticity;
organic; slopes < 3 percent;
depth to rock > 5 ft.; some
areas more organic.
(Sheet 6 of 10)
A- 23
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
46.5
Begin parallel to.
Steinman Creek
Dark gray silty clay; mixed
alluvium; moderate plasticity;
slopes < 8 percent; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
46.6
Continue parallel to
Steinman Creek.
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; mixed colluvium; slopes
3 to 30 percent; generally non-
plastic; depth to rock > 5 ft.
47.0
Continue parallel to
Steinman Creek.
Dark gray silty clay; mixed
alluvium; moderate plasticity;
slopes < 8 percent; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
47.5
Pass confluence of
West fork of Stein-
man Creek parallel
W. fork.
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; mixed colluvium; slopes
3 to 30 percent; generally non-
plastic; depth to rock > 5 ft.
48.1
Leave West fork of
Steinman Creek,
begin climbing to
north.
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; occasional mixed allu-
vium; slopes 3 to 30 percent
(occasional 30 to 50 percent);
generally non-plastic; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
48.4
Continue
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; mixed colluvium, becom-
ing dark red clay; moderately
plastic; depth to rock > 5 ft.
48.5
Continue
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; mixed colluvium; slopes
3 to 30 percent; generally non-
plastic; depth to rock > 5 ft.
48.8 to
49.0
Continue
Reddish brown organic silty
clay; mixed colluvium, becom-
ing dark red clay; moderately
plastic; depth to rock > 5 ft.
Occasional rock < 5 ft.
(Sheet 7 of 10)
A-24
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
49.0 to
50.3
Parallel Wilson
Creek. Joins from S.
side of road.
Gray brown sandy clay; heavy
organic, well drained; non-
plastic; slopes 30 to 60 per-
cent; depth to rock > 5 ft.
50.7
Pass Panther Creek
and Caldwell Creek.
Dark gray brown silty clay;
heavy organic; alluvial; non-
plastic; slopes < 3 percent;
depth to rock > 5 ft.
50.9
Dark brown silty clay; heavy
organic content; low plastic-
ity; slopes 3 to 7 percent; depth
to rock > 5 ft.
51.3
Dark gray brown silty clay;
heavy organic; alluvial; non-
plastic; slopes < 3 percent;
depth to rock > 5 ft. occasional
clayey silt; organic; low plas-
ticity; occasional depth to rock
<5ft.
51.4
Enter Sumner.
Dark brown to yellowish
brown organic silty clay over-
lying sandy gravel; non-plas-
tic; slopes < 8 percent; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
51.5 to
516
Cross Catching
Creek.
Dark gray brown silty clay;
heavy organic; alluvial; non-
plastic; slopes < 3 percent;
depth to rock > 5 ft. with occa-
sional silty loam; non-plastic;
depth to rock > 5 ft.
52.1
Cross Slough Road
Intersection.
Dark grayish brown silty clay;
heavy organic; low plasticity;
slopes < 3 percent; depth to
rock > 5 ft.
(Sheet 8 of 10)
A- 25
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
52.3
Head of Wilson
Creek.
Dark reddish brown silty clay;
heavy organic; non-plastic;
slopes 50 to 75 percent; depth
to rock > 5 ft.
52.4
Dark reddish brown silty clay
overflying occasional shallow
weathered bedrock (< 5 ft.);
low plasticity; slopes 30 to 50
percent.
52.6
Dark reddish brown silty clay;
heavy organic; non-plastic;
slopes 50 to 75 percent; depth
to rock > 5 ft.
52.7
Dark reddish brown silt; heavy
organics; generally low plastic-
ity; slopes 12 to 30 percent;
depth to weathered rock = 5 ft.
52.7
Cross Cardwell
Creek; CBW Road
pavement starts.
Same as above.
Same as CBW Road.
53.5
Sumner.
Brown silty clay; mixed allu-
vium; soil depth > 5 ft.
55.2
46.3
Power line crosses
road.
Brown silty clay; residuum
from sandstone; low plasticity;
slopes range 5 percent to 12
percent.
Same as CBW Road.
56.7
47.8
Cross Ross Slough
Road.
Same as above.
Same as above.
57.7
48.1
Cross Isthmus
Slough.
Gravelly sandy clay; alluvium;
depth > 5 ft.
Same as at left.
57.8
48.2
Cross Hwy 101.
Same as above.
Same as at left.
(Sheet 9 of 10)
A-26
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table A-1. Survey of Foundation Soil and Rock, Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
CBW
Road
miles
Power line
miles
(approx.)
Route Features
CBW Road Soils/Rock and
Comments
BPA Power line Soils/Rock
and Comments
49.5
Cross Shinglehouse.
Slough.
Brown silty clay; residuum from
sandstone; low plasticity; slopes <
5 percent.
60.1
Reach Coos Bay
area. End of Coos
COunty Natural Gas
Pipehne.
Same as above until reach
Coos Bay area; then enter
sandy clay alluvium of Coal-
bank Slough.
(Sheet 10 of 10)
A- 27
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
LIST OF REFERENCES
1 . Orr, E. L. and Orr, W. N. ( 1 999). Geology of Oregon, Fifth Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque,
Iowa.
2. Haagen, J. T. (1989). Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation Service (renamed Natural
Resources Conservation Service), Portland, Oregon.
3. Alt, D. D. and Hyndman, D. W. (1978). Roadside Geology of Oregon, Mountain Press Publishing Co., Mis-
soula, Montana.
4. Black, G. L. (1990). "Geologic Map of the Reston Quadrangle, Douglas County, Oregon," Geological Map
Series GMS-68, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
5 . Wiley, T. J. (1995). "Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the Dora and Sitkum Quadrangles. Coos County, Ore-
gon," Geological Map Series GMS-98, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
6. Baldwin, E.M. and Beaulieu, J. D. (1973). "Geology and Mineral Resources of Coos County, Oregon," Bulletin
80, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Portland.
7. Goodman, R. E. (1993). Engineering Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
8. Spigolon, S. J. (1993). "Geotechnical Site Investigation Strategy for Dredging Projects," Report 2 of "Geotech-
nical Factors in the Dredgeability of Sediments." Contract Report DRP-93-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper-
iment Station, Vicksburg, MS, October.
9. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
10. Sowers, G F. (1979). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations.- Geotechnical Engineering, Fourth edition.
Macmillan Publishing, New York.
11. Douglas County Area Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Unpublished soil survey data
sheets, Roseburg, Oregon.
12. Deere, D. U. and Patton, F. D. (1971). "Slope Stability in Residual Soils." Fourth Panamerican Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
13. Madin, I. P. and Mabey, M. A. (1996). "Earthquake Hazard Maps for Oregon," Geological Map Series GMS-
100, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources. Portland.
14. Building Codes Structures Board, State of Oregon. (1998). "Seismic Zonation for the Oregon Coast." Final
Report to the State of Oregon Building Codes Structures Board, Salem, Oregon. February 12.
A-28
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
15. Johnson. A.G., Scoficld. D.H., and Madin, I. P. (1994). "Earthquake Database for Oregon, 1833 through Octo-
ber 25, 1993." Open File Report OF^R 94-04, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland.
16. Jacobson, R. S. (1986). "Map of Oregon Seismicity, 1841-1986," Geological Map Series GMS-49, Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
17. Madin. I. P. and Mabey. M. A. (1996). "Earthquake Hazard Maps for Oregon," Geological Map Series GMS-
100, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
18. Peterson. C. D., Barnett, E. T., Briggs, G. C., Carver, G. A.,. Clague, J. J., and Darienzo, M. E. (1997). "Esti-
mates of Coastal Subsidence from Great Earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, Vancouver Island. B.C..
Washington, Oregon, and Northernmost California," Open File Report 0-97-5, Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Resources, Portland.
19. Wang, Y. (1998). "Earthquake Damage and Loss Estimate for Oregon," Open File Report 0-98-3, Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
20. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. (1996). "Landslides - Investigation and Mitigation."
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
21. Spigolon, S. Joseph, Ph D., Route Reconnaissance and Construction Recommendations for the Coos County
Natural Gas Pipeline Project Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon, February, 2001.
22. Madin, I. P. and Wang, Z. (1999. "Relative Earthquake Hazard Maps for selected urban areas in western Ore-
gon," Geological Map Series IMS- 9, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Portland.
Numbers in brackets [ ] refer to documents included in the List of References at the end of this report
A- 29
Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report
A-30
Appendix B. Cultural Resources
Appendix B. Cultural Resources
No significant changes were made to this Appendix.
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR A PROPOSED NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE BETWEEN COOS BAY AND ROSEBURG, COOS AND DOUGLAS
COUNTIES, OREGON
Prepared for:
B.I.S., Inc.
Camas Valley, Oregon
Prepared by:
Albert C. Getting
Heritage Research Associates, Inc.
1997 Garden Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97403
October 1,2001
Heritage Research Associates Report No. 239
B-
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Appendix B Cultural Resources
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR A PROPOSED NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE BETWEEN COOS BAY AND ROSEBURG, COOS AND DOUGLAS
COUNTIES, OREGON
Introduction
A cultural resources surface inventory survey has been conducted by Heritage Research Associates, Inc. for portions
of an underground natural gas pipeline route in western Oregon from Coos Bay, Coos County, to Happy Valley near
Roseburg, Douglas County. This project was conducted under contract to B.I.S., Inc. For the most part, the proposed
route follows existing transmission lines or roads. Portions of the route have been previously surveyed for cultural
resources; these were not re-examined for this project.
From the western end in Coos Bay (Table B- 1 ), the proposed route first follows a new ROW corridor in the hills
above the city of Coos Bay. then follows a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission line to Isthmus
Slough. The proposed route then alternates between the CBW Road and a BPA transmission line ROW to cross the
mountainous Coast Range. Near Reston, on the east edge of the mountains, the route returns to the BPA transmission
line ROW and continues through the southern portion of Floumoy Valley, across Lookingglass Valley, and across
the northern margin of Happy Valley to the eastern terminus at an existing natural gas pipeline near the South
Umpqua River. The overall route is approximately 60 miles. The route portions surveyed for the current project
included the new ROW section at the western end of the route, transmission line sections southeast of Cherry Creek
and between McKinley and Fairview, and all of the transmission line route from the eastern terminus to the CBW
Road west of Reston. All of the CBW Road sections of the proposed route were surveyed for cultural resources in
1999 (Oetting 1999), and the transmission line from the Coos City Bridge to the Libby district in Coos Bay was also
surveyed in 1999 (Boersema and Minor 1999). These sections were not re-surveyed.
A background literature search conducted at the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office revealed nine previously
recorded prehistoric archaeological sites located within two miles of the proposed route, and that one of these prehis-
toric sites is within the proposed route. Several historic buildings and properties border the route, but none will be
affected by the construction or operation of the gas pipeline. With permission of landowners or the appropriate fed-
eral agencies, those portions of the proposed route not previously surveyed were inspected by one or two archaeolo-
gists in January and August, 2001. The previously recorded site within the proposed route was relocated in the field,
and one new prehistoric site was found and recorded. One isolated find location was also identified. Several other
areas along the proposed route were considered to have a high probability for containing prehistoric or historic cul-
tural materials, although no surface artifacts were identified during the survey.
It is recommended that the two prehistoric archaeological sites in the proposed route (35D0819 and 35D0879) be
avoided by the pipeline construction. If avoidance is not feasible, it is recommended subsurface site evaluation test
excavations be undertaken to determine the significance of these two sites in terms of eligibility to the National Reg-
ister of Historic Places. It is also recommended subsurface site discovery probes be excavated in eight specific areas
along the route, seven where the route crosses streams or rivers, and at one location where an isolated surface artifact
was observed. It is recommended a qualified archaeologist monitor the pipeline construction activities in areas along
the route where archaeological sites are likely to occur, to be determined when the site discovery probes are com-
pleted. Finally, if future realignments of the route include segments that have not been examined for cultural
resources, it is recommended such route segments be inspected in a manner consistent with the present project.
This survey was conducted through B.I.S., Inc. The field survey was directed by Robert Musil with the assistance of
Richard Bland, Julie Ricks, and Laura White. This report has been prepared by Albert Oetting. Brian Cox, B.I.S.,
Inc., contributed pertinent maps and other data for the successful completion of this project.
B-2
Appendix B Cultural Resources
u^'
S'^ cS^V"" I •'^" ■^'j^
Km^
\
^^ - '^('"T"'*^iJ^^-
'^
!llit«fl
>■ JJU—. .
J.
^.t^-)
'- -eft- *'»... ii> ..'.«i-rJfl. , SSlJ?.---*- I-VV
''*/ r I '■ I *
W-I"'
f^^'^^-^^^
Pipeliise Route
■ Area Surveyed This Project
= Area Previously Surveyed
■r ■.-■-S^;
Figure B-1: Location of the Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline
B-3
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Project Location and Setting
The planned route for the underground natural gas pipeline generally follows segments of BPA transmission lines
and portions of the CBW Road through the central areas of Coos and Douglas counties in western Oregon (Figure B-
1, see also Figures B-2 through B-5). Along the transmission lines, the gas pipeline ROW will be beneath the power
lines or within the existing ROW corridor. The pipeline will be buried in the roadbed or along the road shoulder in
the sections on the CBW Road. Underground fiber optic and other utility lines are already present along portions of
this proposed route.
The proposed natural gas pipeline route mns between a western terminus in the city of Coos Bay to an existing natu-
ral gas pipeline in Happy Valley, just southwest of the city of Roseburg. The west end of the pipeline is the only por-
tion of the route that does not parallel existing transmission lines or a road. From the west end of the pipeline near
Ocean Blvd. in Coos Bay, the route proceeds for 1.7 miles southeast, south, and southwest to a ridge above the
Englewood section of Coos Bay, where it joins a BPA transmission line ROW. The proposed route then runs south
and southeast for 4.5 miles to Isthmus Slough, crossing the slough just north of the Coos City Bridge and intersecting
with the CBW Road just east of the bridge. The westernmost route section, before joining the transmission line, was
surveyed for this project. The BPA transmission line has been previously surveyed for cultural resources (Boersema
and Minor 1999).
The proposed pipeline route then follows sections of the CBW Road and another BPA transmission line through the
mountains of the Coast Range by way of Brewster Canyon on the East Fork Coquille River, and then it descends into
the Umpqua River basin in Flournoy Valley southwest of Roseburg. From just east of the Coos City Bridge, where
the transmission line intersects the CBW Road, the proposed route will follow the road east into the Coast Range
uplands for about 1 1 .7 miles to the community of Fairview on the North Fork Coquille River. This CBW Road sec-
tion has been previously surveyed (Oetting 1999) and was not re-inspected.
The proposed route follows the CBW road southeast from Fairview for about 0.4 miles, to where a BPA transmission
line crosses the road. At this point, the proposed route joins the transmission line ROW for 3. 1 miles southeast to
McKinley. At McKinley the proposed route shifts back to the CBW Road for about 1 mile, then back to the trans-
mission line for about 1 .2 miles over the mountainous divide between Cherry Creek and the East Fork Coquille
River, rejoining the CBW Road on the north edge of the river valley. The proposed gas pipeline route then parallels
the CBW Road for about 20 miles, up Brewster Canyon and through the communities of Dora and Sitkum. This por-
tion of the CBW Road has already been surveyed for cultural resources (Oetting 1999) and was not re-examined.
The two segments along the transmission line were surveyed during the present project.
The proposed route along the CBW Road intersects the transmission line about 9.7 miles east of Sitkum, just west of
the crest of the Coast Range mountains. At this point, the proposed route shifts back to the transmission line ROW
and follows it east for about 16.4 miles to the eastern end of the route. The transmission line and proposed route first
crosses the divide, then turns northeast toward the south end of Flournoy Valley. The proposed route and transmis-
sion line then turns to the east along the south base of White Tail Ridge and crosses Lookingglass Valley south of the
community of Lookingglass. Still following the transmission line, the route ascends the ridge dividing Lookingglass
and Happy valleys and crosses the lower slope of the hills on the north side of Happy Valley to the eastern terminus
at an existing natural gas pipeline.
Overall, this linear route is approximately 60 miles long, but about 37.6 miles have been surveyed in the recent past
(Boersema and Minor 1999; Oetting 1999). Therefore, the portion of the route surveyed during the current project
was about 22.4 miles in length. The surveyed route segments pass through portions of seven townships. These town-
ships and sections containing portions of the route surveyed during the current project include:
T27S, R6W (sections 31, 32, 33)
T27S, R7W (sections 31, 32, 33, 34. 35, 36)
T27S, RllW (sections 19, 29, 30, 32, 33)
T27S,R12W (section 24)
T28S, R7W (section 6)
T28S, R8W (sections 1, 2, 7, 1 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
T28S, RllW (sections 3, 4, 10)
The proposed natural gas pipeline route passes through two prominent physiographic areas of southwest Oregon-the
Coast Range and the Umpqua River basin. High precipitation and incisive water erosion have carved the Coast
Range foothills and mountains into a rugged terrain of steep and densely forested slopes, deep narrow river and
B-4
Appendix B Cultural Resources
stream canyons, and long sinuous ridgetops that insulate the interior basins from the Pacific Ocean (Orr et al. 1992;
Welcher and Greenspan 1992). The Umpqua River basin is comprised of large and small tributary stream valleys
separated from one another by rolling hills and ridges. The North and vSouth Umpqua rivers have their headwaters in
the Western Cascades Mountains and have created valleys with fertile bottomlands above and below their conllu-
ence. The lower Umpqua River cuts through the Coast Range and drains into the Pacific Ocean.
The Coast Range has a mild, marine-inlluenced climate with high precipitation during the winter and moderate year-
round temperatures. This north-south mountain range catches the moisture coming from the Pacific Ocean and cre-
ates a rain shadow effect for the eastern slopes of this range and the drainages of the neighboring Umpqua River
basin. Precipitation ranges from 60 to 90 inches along the coast to as much as 200 inches along the crest of the Coast
Range, but declines to only 20-40 inches in the eastern foothills and valleys (Loy et al. 1976). The Umpqua River
basin has a relatively mild climate characterized by wet cool winters and warm dry summers.
The mild, wet climate of the Coast Range fosters extensive and dense stands of the Pacific Northwest temperate
coniferous forests. The northwest end of the proposed pipeline route is in the Sitka Spruce (Piceo sitchensis) forest
zone of these widespread western forests (Franklin and C)yrness 1973). while the route crossing the Coast Range
mountains is within the western hemlock-Douglas-fir (Tsiiga hetewphylla) vegetation zone. The principal overstory
species of the Picea sitchensis zone are Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas-
fir {Pseiidotsuga menziesii), and grand fir [Abies grandis), while the Tsuga heterophylla zone is dominated by Dou-
glas-fir and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), with a variety of other conifers and deciduous trees such as big-
leaf maple (Acer nuicrophytlum) and alder (Alnus rubra). A dense understory of many different trees, shrubs, ferns,
grasses, and forbs generally covers the floor of these forest zones.
The warmer and drier climates of the interior valleys of the Umpqua drainage support distinctive vegetation commu-
nities. Prior to agriculture and fire suppression by Euro-American emigrants in the nineteenth century, these inland
valleys were predominantly open prairie grasslands. These grassy prairies were created and maintained through fires
regularly set by Native Americans to promote the growth and harvest of certain plants, especially seed-bearing spe-
cies, and to control the movement and concentration of game animals for more productive hunting. Scattered oaks
dotted these prairies, creating oak savannahs, and oak-conifer woodlands covered the hills bordering the valleys. Riv-
ers and streams were bordered with riparian gallery forests.
These native grasslands were extensively disturbed and altered by Euro-American introduction of agriculture and
livestock grazing, but they were probably similar to the bunchgrass-needlegrass communities found in the interior
valleys of California and can be generally divided into moist or dry habitats (Franklin and Dyrness 1973; Habeck
1961). These habitats supported a variety of forbs and seed-bearing grasses (e.g., danthonia [Danthonia californica],
sunflower [Eriophyllum lanatuni], fescue \Festuca spp.]. strawberry [Fragaria spp.|, needlegrass \Stipa spp.|). and
the moist areas also supported marsh and wet meadow species such as camas (Camassia quamash) and sedges
(Carex spp., Eleocharis spp.). The oak woodlands and savannahs of the valley floors were predominantly Oregon
white oak (Quercus garryana) with some California black oak (Quercus kellogii). The oak-conifer woodlands of the
foothills included elements of the upland conifer forests such as Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western red cedar, along
with the oaks and other deciduous species. The bottomland gallery forests consisted of Oregon white ash (Fraxinus
oregana), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, and a variety of understory species.
These upland and lowland environmental settings supported a variety of fauna (Bailey 1936). Black-tailed and white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus columhianus columhianus, O. virginianus leucurus) frequented lowland valleys as well as
upland settings, along with Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), black bear (Euarctos aniericanus altifron-
talis), and many smaller species of mammals. Waterfowl and terrestrial birds, both residential and migratory, were
common in valley streams and wetlands. The Umpqua River and its tributaries provide spawning grounds for many
anadromous salmonids, including coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisiitch), fall and spring chinook salmon (Oncorhyn-
chus tshawytscha), winter and summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus gairdneri), and sea-run cutthroat trout (Oncorhyn-
chus clarki) (Greenspan 1992). The Umpqua basin also supports substantial resident fish populations.
B-5
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Cultural Setting
Productive archaeological research has been conducted for several years by projects in the Umpqua River basin and
on the Oregon coastal margin, through federally-mandated projects to identify and protect significant cultural proper-
ties and through research projects sponsored by regional universities. Cultural chronologies and models of settle-
ment-subsistence adaptations have been developed for these regions. However, very little is known about the
prehistory of the Coast Range. Very few sites have been found in the many archaeological surveys conducted on fed-
eral land in these rugged mountains and while some sites are known in the canyon bottoms, very few have been
investigated since they are in private ownership. The archaeological background presented below blends data from
overviews and research for the Oregon coast (Minor 1998; Moss and Erlandson 1998), the Umpqua River basin
(Minor and Beckham 1992; O'Neill 1989), and the Coast Range (Toepel and Oetting 1992 [see also Aikens 1993]).
The proposed natural gas pipeline route crosses several discrete physiographic areas, which were home to several dif-
ferent Native American groups when European and American trappers and explorers first entered western Oregon.
The Coos Indians resided in the vicinity of Coos Bay, the Upper Coquille Indians lived along the Coquille River,
including the East Fork Coquille River which the pipeline route follows into the Coast Range. The Upper Umpqua
Indians occupied the lowland areas of the upper and middle Umpqua River basin. In general, these groups followed
similar seasonal rounds that incorporated lowland winter villages, with shifts to smaller, more mobile task groups in
the warmer months that moved about to obtain food resources, visit with relatives and acquaintances, and trade with
other groups. The following brief sketches of Native American lifeways, focusing on settlement, subsistence, and
group mobility, are abstracted from Beckham (1992), Miller and Seaburg (1990), Toepel and Beckham (1981, 1992),
Toepel (1987), and Zenk (1976, 1990).
Histories detailing Euro- American settlement and development of the region are available for the counties crossed by
the route (Beckham 1986; Peterson and Powers 1952) and for some of the federal lands bordering the route (Minor
and Beckham 1992). More complete discussions of regional archaeology, ethnography, and history may be found in
the sources mentioned above.
Archaeology
Models of settlement-subsistence and cultural chronologies have been developed for the Oregon coast (Minor 1998;
Moss and Erlandson 1998) and for the Umpqua River basin (O'Neill 1989; Minor and Beckham 1992). These chro-
nologies are general, using relatively broad time periods and outlining basic settlement-subsistence adaptations.
Temporal periods have been defined using radiocarbon ages obtained from specific sites, combined with typological
cross-dating of projectile points from a wider range of sites. The age spans are based on uncorrected radiocarbon
years before present (RCYBP). The age spans for various projectile point styles have been developed using data from
throughout western Oregon.
Proposed settlement and subsistence models for each region and period are based on data excavated at a small num-
ber of sites, analogies to ethnographic groups in the region, and parallels seen with prehistoric periods elsewhere in
Oregon and western North America. Finally, nearly all of the sites currently recorded west of the Coast Range are
right along the coast or in the coastal river valleys. Very few sites are known for the forested areas inland from the
coast or in the rugged Coast Range uplands. Therefore, the coastal chronology focuses on evidence from coastal sites
and the development of coastal settlement-subsistence adaptations, while the interior chronology relies on material
from valley settings and the Western Cascade Mountains in discussing settlement and subsistence strategies.
Oregon Coast
Paleo-Indian: Isolated finds of fluted points in western Oregon attest to the presence of people in the Pacific North-
west prior to 10,000 BP, but none have been identified along the modern coastline. It is likely that artifacts and other
evidence of early occupation have been drowned by rising sea levels during the last 10,000 years (Minor 1998).
Early Archaic: At present, the earliest evidence for occupation of the Oregon coast occurs in the Early Archaic
period (10,000-5,500 BP [Before Present]). Radiocarbon ages of 6,500 RCYBP to 9,000 RCYBP have been obtained
at three sites on the central and southern coast, and similarities in point types and artifact assemblages suggest that
several other sites have Early Archaic occupations (Minor 1998). However, the lifeways of these early groups are
unclear. Many of the Early Archaic sites lack associated shell middens, leading some researchers to suggest that
these earliest inhabitants pursued a "pre-marine" or "pre-littoral" subsistence strategy using terrestrial resources (e.g.,
Lyman 1991 ). However, early radiocarbon ages are associated with marine vertebrate faunal species or shellfish at
B-6
Appendix B Cultural Resources
the Tahkenitch Landing site and the Indian Sands site. These suggest some use of marine resources during this
period, but it is perhaps too early to clearly characterize Early Archaic adaptive strategies (Lyman 1997; Minor 1997;
Moss and Erlandson 1998).
Middle Archaic: Marine-oriented subsistence strategies were clearly in use during the Middle Archaic period
(5,5()()-3,()()() BP). Numerous sites along the Oregon coast have large shell middens which have yielded Middle
Archaic radiocarbon ages and artifacts (Minor 1998). Several of the larger sites are thought to have been villages
(Minor 1991 ). Faunal material indicate Middle Archaic groups were using a variety of intertidal shellfish, coastal
birds, and mammals (terrestrial and marine). Off-shore fishing may also be indicated by fish remains at the Tahken-
itch Landing site. Sites are located on coastal headlands and bluffs, as well as on estuaries and rivers near the coast.
Late Archaic: Economies focused on intensive use of marine resources were present throughout the southern North-
west Coast region by the Late Archaic (3,000-1,500 BP) (Minor 1998). Sites generally contain substantial middens
with many varieties of shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals. Some changes in settlement patterning are apparent, as
Late Archaic sites often do not have preceding Middle Archaic occupations, and many continued to be inhabited into
more recent periods (Minor 1991 ). A number of these sites are large and appear to have been villages. The earliest
evidence on the Oregon coast for the rectangular plank houses and bone/antler artwork typical of Northwest Coast
late prehistoric and ethnographic societies is found during this period at the Palmrose site on the north coast. These
changes may reflect the origins and early development of the complex societies of the succeeding Formative Period
and the ethnographic groups of the Oregon coast.
Formative: The Formative Period ( 1,500-200 BP) encompassed the full emergence of ethnographic Northwest
Coast culture patterns along the Oregon coast (Minor 1998). These cultural patterns are characterized by large vil-
lages containing plank houses, ranked societies, and distinctive modes of artistic elaboration. Formative period sites
often have underlying Late Archaic components and are found all along the Oregon coast. The final 200 years of this
period is subdivided as the Protohistoric era (Minor 1998), when non-native artifacts entered sites along the northern
Oregon coast. These artifacts, such as beeswax and East Asian ceramics, probably came from shipwrecks of one or
more Spanish Manila galleons between about Anno Domini (AD) 1550 and 1650. The epidemic diseases that accom-
panied Europeans to North America apparently resulted in a rapid decline in the coastal Formative population and
had a disastrous impact on their cultural and economic lifeways. The complexity of these late prehistoric societies is
not clearly reflected in the limited ethnographic data available from surviving coastal groups.
Interior Southwest Oregon
Paleo-Indian: The presence of a Paleo-lndian period, dating prior to 10,000 BP, is based on the isolated occurrence
of fluted points in the region. Solitary ITuted points have been found in the Eugene and Cottage Grove areas of the
southern Willamette Valley (Allely 1975; Connolly 1994; Minor 1985) and along the North Umpqua River and
lower Cascade Mountains in the Umpqua River basin (O'Neill 1989; Ozbun and Fagan 1996). No sites dating to this
period are known for the region. These artifacts are thought to be equivalent in age with the well-dated 1 1,500 BP to
10,000 BP tluted point complexes in the Great Plains and Southwest. Whether these fluted points are indicative of a
local lifeway of nomadic big game hunting, as suggested elsewhere in North America, remains to be determined.
Early Archaic: This period, 10,000 to 6,000 BP, is viewed as a time of adaptation to the developing Holocene envi-
ronment of western Oregon (Minor and Toepel 1 98 1 ). The leaf-shaped "Cascade" projectile point is diagnostic of
this period. These points were common in the early levels of Cascadia Cave in the Western Cascade mountains above
the central Willamette Valley, and are found in the lower levels of sites elsewhere in Oregon. A variety of plant and
animal resources were exploited during this period, but primary emphasis seems to have been on hunting.
The earliest radiocarbon-dated evidence for occupation in the Umpqua region comes from pre-Mazama components
at the Dry Creek Site (O'Neill 1992) in the North Umpqua River basin and the Tiller Site (Bevill et al. 1994) in the
South Umpqua drainage, as well as post-Mazama levels at the Narrows site on the North Umpqua (O'Neill 1989).
The pre-Mazama occupations range in age between 7,130 and 6,500 RCYBP, while the post-Mazama component is
6,270 RCYBP. Undated pre-Mazama occupations have also been identified at Susan Creek Campground (Musil
1994) and the Medicine Creek Site (Snyder 1981 ). These pre-Mazama occupations are characterized by the presence
of broad-stemmed and foliate points, and the use of andesite for the manufacture of large bifaces.
Middle Archaic: Middle Archaic period sites, dating to between 6,000 and 2,000 BP, are found throughout western
Oregon (Minor and Toepel 1981). The number of sites and their diverse settings in the Umpqua basin suggest that
populations were growing and that a wide range of resources was being used. Ground stone tools are common in sites
of this period and the frequency of bowl mortars, hopper mortar bases, and pestles attests to the increased importance
B-7
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Fishing for anadromous and resident species was probably a primary activity pursued from spring through fall. Large
mammals such as deer, elk, and bear were plentiful in the region and were important resources (O'Neill 1989). Moun-
tain upland areas were visited during the summer, and probably early fall, to acquire a variety of vegetal resources,
such as berries, seeds, and nuts, and to hunt terrestrial game.
History
European and American trappers and traders began exploring the valleys and mountains of western Oregon in the
early nineteenth century AD, trapping in the Willamette Valley in and after 1812, and crossing into the Umpqua
basin between 1819 and 1821 (Beckham 1986). In 1826-1827. Alexander McLeod led a party of Hudson's Bay Com-
pany trappers and botanist David Douglas on an expedition that included the Willamette Valley, the lower Umpqua
River drainage to the coast, and a return through the Coast Range on the North Fork Coquille River and through the
middle Umpqua River basin back to the Willamette Valley (Davies and Johnson 1961 ; Peterson and Powers 1952).
This party probably followed existing Indian trails for much of their journey. Trappers continued to work this region,
and from 1 836 to 1 854, Fort Umpqua trading station was maintained by Hudson's Bay Company.
Overland exploration, travel, and then trade in the 1830s and 1840s linked the trading posts of Oregon with the towns
of California via the Oregon-California Trail, again probably following older Indian routes through the Umpqua and
Willamette valleys. By the 1840s, the moderate climate and rich soil of the Willamette Valley was well known, and
emigrants from the United States began arriving over the Oregon Trail. In 1846, a party led by Jesse and Lindsey
Applegate passed through the Umpqua region in an effort to establish a new emigrant trail into the Willamette Val-
ley, which became known as the Southern Emigrant Route, or Applegate Trail (Beckham 1986). At the same time,
these explorers saw the potential for settlement and agriculture in the Umpqua River basin. Within a few years, set-
tlers began staking lands in the northern stream valleys of the Umpqua basin. With passage of the Donation Land
Claim Act in 1850 and with the increasing density of settlement in the Willamette Valley, more emigrants began
moving to the Umpqua River basin, and some homesteaded the fertile river valleys of the coastal rivers. The discov-
ery of gold in California, and then in southwest Oregon, provided markets for western Oregon agriculture and timber,
as well as bringing prospectors and other speculators to the region in search of mineral wealth.
Tensions between the native population and these emigrants boiled over into hostilities in southwest Oregon in 1855
and 1856. A treaty was signed, but not ratified, and most of the native peoples of southwest Oregon were removed to
reservations in the central or northern Coast Range by 1860. Since then, the Indians of the region have struggled to
regain recognition and their rights as Native American groups. The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
regained federal recognition in 1982. Most Coosans and Siuslawans joined together to form the Confederated Tribes
of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, which regained federal recognition in 1984. The Coquille Tribe, rec-
ognized in 1989, consists of Miluk Coos and Upper Coquille Athapaskan people.
Euro- American population and economic growth continued slowly through the latter half of the nineteenth century
and into the twentieth century. The Oregon and California Railroad connected Roseburg to Portland in 1872. Finan-
cial troubles stopped the railroad at this point, but this proved to be a boon for Roseburg as it became the transporta-
tion hub for commerce throughout interior southwest Oregon. Construction of a military wagon road connecting
Coos Bay with Roseburg began in 1870, and the CBW Road was open to traffic in 1 872, providing Roseburg with a
transportation link to the Pacific coast, and providing Coos Bay with a connection to the interior valleys.
Economic development in the river valleys and larger coastal estuaries has focused on agriculture and stock raising,
while the dense forests and rugged terrain of the Coast Range and Western Cascades mountains fostered industrial
enterprises such as logging and mining. Logging became a cornerstone of western Oregon industry in the twentieth
century, but the economic importance of the timber industry has recently declined with dwindling forest reserves and
increasing environmental concerns and regulations.
Previous Cultural Resources Research In The Project Vicinity
The archaeological site files and maps maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Salem, Ore-
gon, were consulted to locate previously recorded sites in or near the project area, as well as previous investigations
that have been conducted in the vicinity. In addition, the district archaeologists for the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM
districts were consulted to obtain information for the project vicinity. Finally, the Coquille Tribe provided informa-
tion on areas where archaeological cultural materials have been reported in the past.
B- 10
Appendix B Cultural Resources
The proposed underground natural gas pipeline route is approximately 60 miles long and crosses a total of 12 town-
ships between its endpcMUts near Coos Bay and Roseburg. Due to its length, the route passes near several archaeolog-
ical sites, historic properties, and areas of previous cultural resources investigations, yet because of its narrow width,
the present project actually crosses very few of these recorded sites or previous projects. Overall, nine prehistoric
archaeological sites recorded at the SHPO are within two miles of the proposed route. Of this total, one (35D0819) is
crossed by the proposed pipeline route, one is mapped adjacent to but not within the route near Fairview, four others
are within two miles in the North Fork Coquille River valley near Fairview, one is in the hills east of the Coast Range
near Reston, and two are within two miles near the eastern end of the route in Happy Valley.
The probable locations of seven unrecorded archaeological sites on the East Fork Coquille River near Dora and Sit-
kum have been plotted on the Coos Bay BLM District cultural resources maps. These correspond closely with areas
of concern noted by the Coquille Tribe. None of these appear to be intersected by the proposed route (along the CBW
Road in this area), but all are located within one mile of this road.
Portions of the proposed pipeline route parallel the historic CBW Road. A historical study of this road has recently
been conducted (Beckham 1997). The road, completed in 1 872, was dirt for much of its length, but about 20 miles on
the western end was planked. The route probably followed older Indian trails. Use of the road declined over the
years, as a competing road through Camas Valley (now State Highway 42) and other routes were developed and
improved. The road was little used in the 1920s and 1930s. With the rise of truck transportation for logging in the late
1930s and after World War II, industrial use of the road increased. Comparison of the route shown on the General
Land Office township cadastral plats with the current road indicates that the route has changed somewhat, probably
reconstructed over the years to accommodate the logging traffic. Sections of the road are paved, with the remaining
portions being graded and graveled. The study concluded that the CBW Road retained much of its historical land-
scape but that the associated historic properties generally had poor integrity and that the road was an "equivocal can-
didate for nomination to the National Register" (Beckham 1997:76). Furthermore, while improvements to road
condition and safety would make this historical landscape more accessible, they might also compromise the historical
character of the road. The CBW Road has not been formally evaluated for National Register eligibility by the Ore-
gon SHPO.
Given the age of this road, it is not surprising that several historic properties (50 years old or older) are found along
the route. One property, the Abernethy House in the community of Dora, is currently listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. However, no historic structures or districts are within the ROW that will be affected by construc-
tion associated with the proposed pipeline route.
Several cultural resources investigations on file at the SHPO have been conducted within 2 miles of the proposed
route. Most have been surveys associated with federal timber sales on the eastern slopes of the Coast Range above
the proposed route. Three studies have included portions of the proposed pipeline route, including the CBW Road
historical study discussed above. A survey of a BPA transmission line in the Coos Bay area included a segment of the
currently proposed route (Boersema and Minor 1999). No cultural resources were found along the route, although
site discovery probes were recommended at the Isthmus Slough crossing if ground disturbing construction was
undertaken in this area. As mentioned in discussions above, portions of the current route along the CBW Road were
included in a survey for a fiber optic line that also included the CBW Road (Oetting 1999). The archaeological site
(35D0819) that is within the current project route was recorded during this survey. This site was avoided during the
fiberoptic line construction by boring beneath the site. Several sections along the CBW Road were monitored during
this construction, but no cultural resources were encountered (Oetting 2000).
General Land Office (GLO) survey plats for the 12 townships crossed by the proposed pipeline route were also
examined. The cadastral plats for townships in the Coos Bay and Roseburg areas were surveyed in the 1850s. while
those crossing the Coast Range were platted in the 1 870s. In general, a few cultural features such as houses and land
claims were found near the current proposed route near Roseburg-two houses and Donation Land Claims in Looking-
glass Valley and one Donation Land Claim with a house in Happy Valley. The CBW Road is depicted on the appro-
priate Coast Range township plats, and a few houses are identified, but none of the towns along this road had been
developed when the plats were surveyed in the mid- 1870s.
Inventory Methods
An intensive pedestrian survey was undertaken to determine if surface evidence of prehistoric or historic sites or arti-
facts was present along the portions of the proposed pipeline route where landowner permission had been obtained
B- 11
Appendix B Cultural Resources
and that had not been previously surveyed. Four segments of the proposed route were surveyed during the current
study, one in the hills above Coos Bay and three within BPA transmission line ROWs.
The proposed route segment in Coos Bay generally followed the route of one lane dirt roads up the ridges on either
side of Blossom Gulch. These ridges have been logged in the past and are now covered with second growth shrubs,
small trees, and brush. The route across Blossom Gulch passes through densley vegetated wet bottomland. The veg-
etation in this segment limited ground visibility and made walking through the area extrememly difficult. In addi-
tion, the wet bottomland ground made the Blossom Gulch area impassable. Survey along this route corridor
therefore, was limited to the existing dirt roads and their shoulders. Two archaeologists surveyed this segment, either
as a team on either side of the road, or independently surveying along one side of the road in one direction and return-
ing on the opposite side of the road.
The other surveyed sections were within BPA transmission line ROWs. These surveyed segments included 3. 1 miles
between Fairview and McKinley, 1.2 miles between Cherry Creek (southeast of McKinley) and the East Fork
Coquille River valley (west of Dora), and 16.4 miles from the CBW Road at the Douglas County line to the eastern
terminus of the pipeline route. In each segment, the transmission line corridor was inspected by two archaeologists,
one walking beneath each of the overhead transmission line arms, or by one archaeologist walking one direction
under one line arm and returning under the other line arm. If a service road was present within the corridor, at least
one archaeologist inspected the road, since it generally provided the greatest mineral soil visibility. Although large
trees have been removed from the transmission line corridor, much of the ROW corridor is covered with grass and
understory brush. In some areas, trees and brush have been cut but not removed, making passage difficult and further
limiting ground surface visibility. Ground surface visibility was generally limited by thick surface vegetation along
most of the surveyed route. The routes of each surveyor varied to maximize surface visibility within the transmission
line corridor.
Both prehistoric and historic artifacts were searched for during the field inventory. "Historic" items were defined, in
accordance with National Register eligibility criteria, as artifacts or features that were at least 50 years old. In addi-
tion, the field crew noted landforms, such as stream terraces, where archaeological sites were likely to occur and
where site discovery probes should be recommended.
When cultural materials were located, the surveyor halted and examined the find locale to determine if the specimen
was isolated or could be identified as part of a larger population of artifacts-a site. The location was flagged in the
field and was returned to by the entire field crew to examine the area more closely and, if necessary, record the site.
Archaeological sites were designated pragmatically, using several criteria. These criteria include the number and
kind of cultural items observed, the site setting, and the conditions of observation. In general, locations with 10 or
more artifacts found within a 10 m diameter area were recorded as sites. In areas where specific landforms created
discrete surfaces (such as small benches), the presence of 10 or more items on that surface would be sufficient for
designation as a site. Finds of cultural materials which were not classified as sites were also noted and mapped as iso-
lated finds. All prehistoric and demonstrably historic materials encountered within the project limits during the sur-
vey were documented. The location of each archaeological site and isolated find was placed on the appropriate USGS
7.5' topographic maps.
Locations determined to be archaeological sites were recorded in the field and these data were subsequently trans-
ferred to SHPO Site Record forms. At each site, physical setting, primary vegetation, water source, site size, artifact
density and diversity, occurrence of cultural features, and relationships to other sites were examined and recorded.
The types of artifacts observed and counts or estimates of their frequency were recorded, along with brief descrip-
tions of the exposed cultural materials. No artifacts were collected during this survey. Photographs were taken at
each site to illustrate the site area and local environmental setting.
Inventory Results
The transmission line segments were surveyed in January, 2001, and the westernmost segment above Coos Bay was
surveyed in August, 2001. The pedestrian survey of each section was accomplished by a field crew of one or two
archaeologists, examining the transmission line corridor as described above. Survey conditions and ground surface
visibility varied along the route due to terrain and surface vegetation.
The proposed route in the hills above Coos Bay crossed steep ridge slopes and wet bottomland. Survey was limited
to the mineral soil visible in the existing dirt roads and road shoulders, as ground visibility away from these areas was
less than 10 percent. No cultural materials, prehistoric or historic, were found in this segment. Given the difficult
topography of this proposed route segment, the probability for cultural resource sites here is low.
B- 12
Appendix B Cultural Resources
The two short transmission line segments on the west side of the Coast Range also erossed steep, hilly terrain and
contained dense vegetation. Ciround surface visibility was no more than 10 percent, with mineral soil visible only in
the transmission line service road. No cultural resources were noted in these sections, but two streamside areas likely
to contain archaeological sites were noted. One location is along the banks of the North Fork Coquille River just
southeast of Fairview (T27S, R 1 2W, section 24). The other high probability area is along the banks of Cherry Creek,
about one mile southeast of McKinley (T28S, Rl IW, section 4).
The long eastern transmission line survey segment. 16.4 miles between the Douglas County line and the eastern ter-
minus of the proposed pipeline, contained varied terrain and vegetation. The Coast Range divide was very steep, with
dense vegetation. North of Reston, the route crosses rolling hills and side slopes, then descends into Flournoy Valley.
The route then turns east, skirts the base of White Tail Ridge and crosses Lookingglass Valley. The transmission line
then crosses a steep ridge dividing Lookingglass Valley from Happy Valley and then crosses the side slopes on the
northern edge of Happy Valley to the east end of the proposed route. The valleys were pasturelands covered with
grass. The side slopes contained mixtures of grasslands and woodlands. The steeper terrain was forested. Ground vis-
ibility was again about 10-15 percent, with the mineral ground surface generally visible only in disturbed areas such
as dirt roads, road shoulders, rodent burrow backdirt, and other animal disturbances.
One previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (35D0819) was observed along this segment, and one new
prehistoric site (BIS-1 ) and one isolated prehistoric artifact (35D0879) were also discovered and recorded on this
segment of the proposed pipeline route. Several areas with a high probability for archaeological sites were also noted.
ISO-1: The isolated find is a chert biface tip fragment found in the disturbed soil of a road cut near a creek just north-
west of Reston (T28S, R8W, section 15). The area was carefully searched for additional artifacts, but no other items
were located. This area is near a creek, an area with a high likelihood to contain archaeological sites.
Site 35D0819: This site was recorded in 1999 (Oetting 1999). It is a thin lithic scatter of chert flakes on a low rise
between Rock Creek and an unnamed stream at the southwest end of Flournoy Valley (T27vS, R7W, section 32). The
transmission line passes over this rise, paralleling the CBW Road which bisects the rise. Twenty chert flakes were
found in the cutbanks and drainage ditches bordering the road when the site was first recorded, 19 on the west side of
the road nearest the transmission line. No tools or other artifacts were observed in the site area. The flakes occur for
about 100 m (330 feet) along the road. This site area should be avoided by construction activities by altering the pipe-
line route or construction methods. If the site cannot be avoided, site evaluation test excavations should be con-
ducted, to determine whether the site is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.
Site 35D0879 (BIS-1): This small lithic scatter site was found during the current survey. It is about 1 mile west of
the eastern end of the proposed pipeline route, on the top and east flank of a flat-topped knoll overlooking a small
creek (T27S, R6W. section 33). Ten chert flakes, two basalt flakes, and one chert biface tip fragment were found in a
10x25 m area. All of the artifacts were found in a road cut. Several of the flakes and the biface fragment were found
down the eastern slope. They may have been pushed down this slope by road construction or by natural erosion. This
site area should be avoided by construction activities by altering the pipeline route or construction methods. If the site
cannot be avoided, site evaluation test excavations should be conducted, to determine whether the site is eligible to
the National Register of Historic Places.
High Probability Areas: Several areas likely to contain archaeological sites were noted, but visibility was poor and
no cultural materials were observed during the survey. Site discovery probe excavations should be conducted in these
areas to better determine whether archaeological sites are present. These areas include an elevated bench above a
creek northeast of Reston (T28S, R8W, section 1 1 ), stream banks near the head of Flournoy Valley (T27S, R7W,
section 31 ), the valley floor just southwest of site 35D0819 (T27S, R7W, section 32), and two canyon bottom creek
banks-in Powderhouse Canyon and in the next drainage to the west of Powerhouse Canyon (both in T27S, R6W, sec-
tion 32).
B- 13
Appendix B Cultural Resources
■ f/w Tf^-inj Ff!'
Pipeline Route
= Aiea Surveyed This PiojecC
mmm^^ = Afea PfeviijUbly SyrMcrye '
Figure B-2: Survey status and location of recommended site discovery probes (SDP), Coos Bay to Catching Creek
B- 14
Appendix B Cultural Resources
>" T^m- f \-r _ \ - itrt^ I 1 1
/■"■
Figure B-3: Survey status an location of recommended site discovery probes (SDP), Isthmus Slough to Sitkum
B- 15
Appendix B Cultural Resources
2 / f /
CO i / ^
Oa£: 1
^ S li
,
to CO Q
'•^' CO
;^ ■
>
CO'" f ^
/ ii--
00
-•^-A
> 1'
ir
J "CI
o:) Q.
■ li
Figure B-4: Survey status, location of identified cultural materials, and location of recommended site discovery probes
(SDP), Sitkum to Flournoy Valley
B- 16
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Summary And Recommendations
A review of background literature and other data found that 16 prehistoric sites have been recorded within 2 miles of
the proposed underground natural gas pipeline route, and that one of these recorded prehistoric sites is within the pro-
posed route where it passes through the head of Flournoy Valley, northeast of Reston. This total includes nine sites
recorded at the Oregon SHPO and seven unrecorded prehistoric sites near the CBW Road mapped by the Coos Bay
ELM District. Some historic structures are present near the CBW Road and the route passes by several Donation
Land Claims in Lookingglass and Happy valleys, but no known historic structures are located in areas that will be
affected by the proposed pipeline route.
The proposed pipeline route is approximately 60 miles long, but about 37.6 miles were recently surveyed for cultural
resources (Boersema and Minor 1999; Getting 1999) and were not re-examined during this project. The portions of
the route surveyed for the current project were about 22.4 miles in length. A systematic pedestrian survey was under-
taken to determine if surface evidence of prehistoric or historic sites or artifacts was present along these portions of
the proposed pipeline route. One route segment was 1 .7 miles long in the hills above Coos Bay. The other three seg-
ments were within BPA transmission line ROWs, including 3.1 miles between Fairview and McKinley, 1.2 miles
between Cherry Creek southeast of McKinley and the East Fork Coquille River valley west of Dora, and 16.4 miles
from the CBW Road at the Douglas County line to the eastern terminus of the pipeline route.
The archaeologists relocated the one previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (35D0819) that was within
the proposed route, and identified one new prehistoric site (35D0879) and one isolated prehistoric artifact (ISO-1 ).
Several areas with a high probability for archaeological sites were also noted. These locations are shown on the
appropriate maps in Figures B-2 through B-5.
The proposed route passes near the reported locations of several archaeological sites near Dora and Sitkum on the
CBW Road, but this portion of the route had already been surveyed and no cultural materials were noted within the
road conidor in these areas during that survey (Oetting 1999). The CBW Road is a historic road, but its significance
and National Register eligibility have not been formally evaluated by the Oregon SHPO. The physical elements of
the road (road grade, road bed, surfacing, etc.) have been maintained, repaired, rebuilt, and realigned as needed in the
past, but altering current road conditions could affect the historic character of the road. The natural gas pipeline route
should not affect this historic transportation route if the road is returned to current conditions after pipeline construc-
tion.
Recommendations
The two prehistoric archaeological sites identified along the project route have not been evaluated to determine
whether they are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These are lithic scatter sites
35D0819 and 35D0879, respectively located in T27S, R7W, section 32, and T27S, R6W, section 33. If feasible, it is
recommended that these site areas be avoided by any project-related construction activity. If these sites cannot be
avoided, it is recommended that subsurface site evaluation test excavations be undertaken to determine the signifi-
cance of these two sites in terms of eligibility to the NRHP.
The pipeline crosses many landforms, especially stream banks, that are likely locations to find archaeological sites.
However, vegetation in many of these areas limited surface visibility. It is recommended that subsurface site discov-
ery probes be excavated in eight specific areas along the route where the route crosses streams or rivers, and at the
location of ISO-1, an isolated flaked stone tool found on the surface. It may be prudent to monitor pipeline construc-
tion activities in some of the high probability areas. Site discovery probes should be excavated at the following loca-
tions (from west to east along the route):
1 . the banks of the North Fork Coquille River just southeast of Fairview in T27S, R 1 2W, section 24;
2. the banks of Cherry Creek, about 1 mile southeast of McKinley, in T28S, R 1 1 W, section 4;
3. at the location of ISO- 1 , a chert biface tip, found in the disturbed soil of a road cut near a creek just northwest of
Reston in T28S, R8W, section 15;
4. an elevated bench above a creek northeast of Reston in T28S, R8W, section 1 1 ;
5. stream banks near the head of Flournoy Valley in T27S, R7W, section 3 1 ;
6. the Flournoy Valley floor in the transmission line corridor just southwest of site 35D0819 T27S, R7W, section 32;
7. the creek banks in the canyon bottom directly west of Powderhouse Canyon, in T27S, R6W, section 32; and
8. the creek banks in the bottom of Powderhouse Canyon, also in T27S. R6W, section 32.
B- 17
Appendix B Cultural Resources
The CBW Road has been recognized as a historic transportation route, but it has not been formally evaluated for sig-
nificance by the Oregon SHPO. The pipeline is to be buried beneath the road or road shoulder along several portions
of the road. Modifications to the road may affect the historic character of this transportation route,. Therefore, it is
recommended that any alteration to the existing road surface/shoulders in the planned route be avoided, by returning
these sections to their existing conditions after pipeline construction.
If modifications (such as paving graveled sections to help protect the pipeline) are required, formal review and eval-
uation by the SHPO will be necessary prior to construction. If this is the case, it is recommended that a formal Deter-
mination of Eligibility (DOE) document be prepared for the road and submitted to the SHPO for evaluation. If the
road is determined eligible for the NRHP, then a Determination of Effect (Section 106 Finding of Effect) must be
prepared for the proposed alterations.
To briefly summarize, recommendations are as follows:
a) Known archaeological sites should be avoided during pipeline construction.
b) If known sites cannot be avoided, they should be tested to determine the extent and nature of the cultural depos-
its within the project ROW.
c) Site discovery probes should be excavated at eight specific locations delineated above where archaeological
sites are especially likely to occur. If sites are discovered, the above recommendations apply.
d) If the pipeline route is re-aligned to include alignments that have not been examined for cultural resources, it is
recommended that these routes be inspected in a manner consistent with the investigations conducted for the
current project. In addition, portions of the route not yet surveyed pending owner permission should also be
examined for cultural resources.
e) A qualified archaeologist should be present to monitor pipeline construction activities in the vicinity of defined
sites and areas with a high probability for archaeological sites. These monitoring areas will be specifically
defined upon the completion of the site discovery probes recommended above. The tribes and agencies should
be consulted in the development and implementation of the monitoring plan.
f) The portions of the CBW Road affected by pipeline construction should be returned to the same conditions
existing before construction.
g) If portions of the CBW Road must be altered, it is recommended that a formal Determination of Eligibility
(DOE) document be prepared and submitted for SHPO evaluation. If determined eligible, a Determination of
Effect (Section 106 Finding of Effect) will be needed for the proposed changes to the road.
There is always the possibility that buried or obscured prehistoric or historic cultural resources may be present along
the chosen natural gas pipeline route. Archaeological sites and, in particular, Indian burials are protected under Ore-
gon state law (ORS 97.745 and 358.920) and by Federal regulations where federal lands, funds, or permits are
involved (e.g., 36 CFR part 800). Disturbance of graves is specifically prohibited, even through accidental discovery.
If cultural resources are inadvertently encountered during the course of construction along the route, earth-disturbing
activities in the vicinity of the find should be suspended immediately, in accordance with applicable laws, and a qual-
ified archaeologist should be called in to evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action.
B- 18
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Figure B-5: Site Map
B- 19
Appendix B Cultural Resources
REFERENCES CITED
Aikens, C. Melvin. 1993. The Archaeology of Oregon. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Oregon State Office, Portland.
Allely, Steven. 1975. A Clovis Point from the Mohawk River Valley, Western Oregon. In Archaeological Studies in
the Willamette Valley, Oregon, edited by C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 549-552. University of Oregon Anthropological
Papers 8.
Bailey, Vernon. 1936. The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. North American Fauna No. 55, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Beckham, Stephen Dou'. 1986. Land of the Umpqua: A History of Douglas County, Oregon. Douglas County Com-
missioners, Roseburg.
1992. Native Peoples. In Cultural Resource Overview of the Umpqua National Forest, Southwestern Ore-
gon, by Stephen Dow Beckham and Rick Minor, pp. 101-124. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 125.
1997. CBW Road: Historical Investigations and Identification of Interpretive Options. Report to the USDI
Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts.
Bevill, Russell, Michael S. Kelly, and Elena Nilsson. 1994. Archaeological Data Recovery at 35D037, A Pre-
Mazania Site on the South Umpqua River Douglas County, Southwest Oregon. Report of Mountain Anthropological
Research to the Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, Oregon.
Boersema, Jana, and Rick Minor. 1999. Cultural Resources Survey for the Reedsport-Fairview Transmission
Project, Coos County, Oregon. Report by Heritage Research Associates, Inc. to Bonneville Power Administration.
HRA Letter Report 99-5.
Connolly. Thomas J. 1994. Paleo Point Occurrences in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. In Contributions to the
Archaeology of Oregon J 989-] 994. edited by Paul W. Baxter, pp. 81-88. Association of Oregon Archaeologists,
Occasional Papers No. 5.
Davies, K. G., and A. M. Johnson. 1961 . Peter Skene Ogden's Snake Country Journal, 1826-27. The Hudson's Bay
Record Society, London.
Franklin, Jeny F, and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Paper PNW-8.
Greenspan, Ruth L. 1992. Fish, Mammal, and Bird Resources in the Oregon Coast Range. In An Inventory Strategy
Plan for BLM Lands in the Oregon Coast Range, by Kathryn A. Toepel and Albert C. Getting, pp. 37-65. Report by
Heritage Research Associates. Inc., Eugene, to USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland.
Heritage Research Associates Report No. 135.
Habeck, James R. 1961. The Original Vegetation of the Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon. Northwest Science
35(2):65-77.
Loy, William G, Stuart Allan, Clyde P. Patton, and Robert D. Plank. 1976. Atlas of Oregon. University of Oregon
Books, Eugene.
Lyman, R. Lee. 1991. Prehistory of the Oregon Coast. Academic Press, San Diego.
1997. Assessing a Reassessment of Early "Pre-Littoral" Radiocarbon Dates from the Oregon Coast. Jour-
nal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(2):260-269.
Miller, Jay, and William R. Seaburg. 1990. Athapaskans of Southwestern Oregon. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 580-588. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Minor, Rick. 1985. Paleo-Indians in Western Oregon: A Description of Two Fluted Projectile Points. Northwest
Anthropological Research Notes 19(l):33-40.
. 1987. Archaeology of the South Umpqua Falls Rockshelters, Douglas County, Oregon. Report to Umpqua
National Forest, Roseburg. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 64.
B-20
Appendix B Cultural Resources
. 1991 . Yaqiiina Head: A Middle Archaic Settlement on the North-Central Oregon Coast. USDI Bureau of
Land Management. Cultural Resources Series No. 6. Oregon State Office, Portland.
1997. Pre-Littoral or Early Archaic? Conceptualizing Early Adaptations on the Southern Northwest Coast.
Jounud of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(2):269-280.
1998. Southern Northwest Coast. In Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America, An Encyclopedia, edited
by Guy Gibbon, pp. 791-793. Garland Publishing, inc.. New York and London.
Minor, Rick and Stephan Dow Beckham. 1992. Cultural Resource Overview of the Umpqua National Forest,
Southwestern Oregon. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 125.
Minor, Rick and Thomas J. Connolly. 1987. Archaeological Testing at Times Square Rockshelter, Douglas County,
Oregon. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 55.
Minor, Rick, and Kathryn A. Toepel. 198 1 . Archaeological Overview. In Prehistory and History ofBLM Lands in
West-Central Oregon: A Cultural Resource Overview, by Stephen D. Beckham, Rick Minor, and Kathryn A. Toepel,
pp.1 17-183. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 25.
Moss. Madonna L., and Jon M. Erlandson. 1998. Early Holocene Adaptations on the Southern Northwest Coast.
Journal (f California and Great Basin Anthropology 2()( 1 ): 13-25.
Musil. Robert R. 1994. The Archaeology of Susan Creek Campground, Douglas County, Oregon. Report to Bureau
of Land Management, Roseburg District, Roseburg. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 162.
O'Neill, Brian L. 1989. Archaeological Investigations at the Narrows and Martin Creek Sites, Douglas County,
Oregon. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 4.
. 1991 . Evaluation of Six Archaeological Sites Along the North Umpqua Highway, Douglas County: Steam-
boat Creek to Boulder Flat Section. OSMA Report 91-1. Oregon State Museum of Anthropology, University of Ore-
gon, Eugene.
1992. Pre-Mazama Occupation of the Dry Creek Site (35DO401 ). Southwest Oregon. Paper presented at
the 45th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Burnaby. British Columbia.
Getting, Albert C. 1999. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic
Cable Installation Project, Bandon Cable Landing to Jasper Regeneration Station: Coos Bay Wagon Road to Jasper
Regeneration Station Section, Coos, Douglas, and Lane Counties, Oregon. Report to Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc., Sacramento, CA, for Williams Communications Inc., Tulsa, OK. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 222.
2000. Cultural Resources Monitoring for Segments of the Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic
Installation Project, Bandon Cable Landing to Jasper Regeneration Station, Coos, Douglas, and Lane County, Ore-
gon. Report to Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, for Williams Communications Inc., Tulsa, OK.
Heritage Research Associates Letter Report 00-6.
Orr, Elizabeth L., William N. Orr, and Ewart M. Baldwin. 1992. Geology of Oregon. Fourth Edition. Kendall Hunt
Publishing. Dubuque.
Ozbun, Terry L., and John L. Fagan. 1996. Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of the Seneca Clovis Site
(35D0634). Archaeological Investigations Northwest Report No. 102.
Peterson, Emil R., and Alfred Powers. 1952. A Century of Coos and Curry. Binfords and Mort Publishing, Pordand.
Snyder, Sandra L. 1981. Medicine Creek: Pre- and Post-Mazama Occupation in the Cascades. Tebiwa, Miscella-
neous Papers in Regional Anthropology No. 23.
Spencer, Lee. 1989. Times Square Rockshelter. 35D02I2: A Stratified Dry Rockshelter in the Western Cascades,
Douglas County, Oregon. Lee Spencer Archeology Paper 1989-4.
Tasa, Guy L. 1992. Human Cremation from the Island Campground Site (34D0422), Douglas County, Oregon.
OSMA Report 92-1 . Oregon State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Toepel. Kathryn A. 1987. Ethnographic Background. In Cultural Resource Overview of the Willamette National
Forest: A 10-Year Update, by Rick Minor, pp. 7-3 1 . Heritage Research Associates Report No. 60. Report to Wil-
lamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon.
B-21
Appendix B Cultural Resources
Toepel, Kathi-yn A., and Stephen D. Beckham. 198 1 . Ethnographic Overview. In Prehistory and History ofBLM
Lands in West-Central Oregon: A Cultural Resource Overview, by Stephen D. Beckham, Rick Minor, and Kathryn
A. Toepel, pp.41-1 14. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 25.
. 1992. Ethnography, Prehistory, and History of the Coast Range. In An Inventory Strategy Plan for BLM
Lands in the Oregon Coast Range, by Kathryn A. Toepel and Albert C. Oetting, pp. 67-78. Report by Heritage
Research Associates, Inc., Eugene, to USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland. Heritage
Research Associates Report No. 135.
Toepel, Kathryn A., and Albert C. Oetting. 1992. An Inventoiy Strategy Plan for BLM Lands in the Oregon Coast
Range. Report by Heritage Research Associates, Inc., Eugene, to USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State
Office, Portland. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 135.
Welcher, Karin, and Ruth L. Greenspan. 1 992. Physical Environment. In An Inventory Strategy Plan for BLM Lands
in the Oregon Coast Range, by Kathryn A. Toepel and Albert C. Oetting, pp. 5-17. Report by Heritage Research
Associates, Inc., Eugene, to USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland. Heritage Research
Associates Report No. 135.
Zenk, Henry B. 1976. Contributions to Tualatin Ethnography: Subsistence and Ethnobiology. Unpublished Master's
thesis. Department of Anthropology, Portland State University.
1990. Siuslawans and Coosans. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast,
edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 572-579. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
B-22
Appendix C. Sheets 1-10
Appendix C. Sheets 1-10
The following changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement were made in Appendix C:
• Ten black and white sheets delineating BLM managed lands adjacent to the proposed action have replaced
sheets I - 10 as they appeared in Appendix C of the Draft EIS. Refer to the Appendix C of the Draft EIS for
maps 6-12 found in Appendix C of the Draft EIS.
C- 1
Appendix C. Sheets 1-10
C-2
.•-.">'^-'-'-:~i5 i /
'f/f^;;^^^
Coos County Natural Gas
Pipeline Project
Proposed Pipeline
Block Valves
Watercourse Crossings
^ BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
Coos County Natural Gas
Pipeline Project
Proposed Pipeline
Block Valves
;'i|iy; Watercourse Crossings
Ml ••. f-^
o
?- -*#^
BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
USGS Quad(s): Mount Gurney, Reston
E
sheet 3 of 10
lii||:feS:;if ^^^^^:t^^: :
^■^(■Be-feffl:
:v,m
„55..^54
nr:?
,y 61 U^^
58 ^r
m i.^" -1^^ g^NAPPER CREEK
•fr- .
Q
;;Mi2S
, *l .■'^;r*-',-"-j?-'', , .
•Hi
)Si
'"'ii'l i>'/ '} U
• h t 'J :<>/\i I ''.
"^
_)*••*•
52
.%v. K ■
l:i±
'^4
0.5
1:24,000
0
^:^kA:^^i^MMilM^^M^W;M:ilmM
■>:•>'/;■ .' I -/'lie
s'^E NMILE CREEK
.aSOtt^
-'lepi'
^^m^m^6/\^.
48
;s(j \
1
1 Miles
0.5
1:24,000
0
1
I Miles
:^.r■x:~'^~/■^"^^':■^^■.-^■;':::s■■/^J,■:n■.•.^
IIP
^
-,'V--.'.-;J^-
mB
10^
icf
^^
' ^''
^■i4^-'V/'p,^w'
•ti^ -101 - - i.^2l>£^:i.:d i___, JZ
' "*<( , CHINA CREEK -■Wc.S^'r^^- ■ •'.■■ h
I A ■"■■'■■I ' r
\
Coos County Natural Gas ^i^-S?^^^^' " -
Pipeline Project ^^\^^^^^^^ ■ ;
i!: "■ ' '-
'■) Vi'': V
v?^/*"
r "^^ ~ ^^g^pff i r ('li|?|
■ ■' '';'^"ji';(l''
I
I Proposed Pipeline
^ Block Valves
ks Watercourse Crossings
$
\x BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
'>;
II,
\> USGS Quad(s): Dora, Sitkum
\ t 97' ■ -.,:>:■ 'I -';:: 95 ■ 'i^^
:_ ^, : BREWSTER :
u
sheets of 10
M#
:^£:.'-!lL:^'I:::-^.:£..............i^
r ;(-,B|uiv ^/liT Creek .*"*:
0.5
1:24,000
0
I Miles
s Proposed Pipeline
Block Valves
Watercourse Crossings
BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
USGS Quad(s): McKinley, Dora
0.5
J:24,000
dmmt€llM
liles
^C^'fe.;
f
145
1 *<-«*,-■ 141
#
5^^;
'mS^
W
.iwli, 1) I'H
j r
'.,,1
J' <
-,L^'i^ ■- ' W— ■
r^r
Coos County Natural Gas
I Pipeline Project
130
U9.
C^^'^s....
i
I
i
ffiff*
U
mi^'
Proposed Pipeline
~l. Block Valves
: ' Watercourse Crossings
^ BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
USGS Quab
®
ip(s): Coquille, Coos Bay
Daniels Creek, McKinley
127
■,.16
-, o ;■■'■-
\ 126
'^^l
.■<,.,,,.,..,..tujC-„
'r^.. -■,--7 %.,. '/'^^O
i'V-vf:.
7^ \124
>l
) r:^
^^S^.
^'
(IS: , ,
!),■/>■
i-
V
V
sheet 7 of 10 i
■■v;;;!*
,'-:;#'"^
\?
o#,.-'
•••.•-»
2^v.:-Hn^
WETLANDp^22-^='^" J i
^, I ..,• ' /I;
V*»'r"';'--i<:k/7(^^,j|si,.'-
I
BPA'Farvi^W-{ ubstation
r;;i2i.'.jr^-j^
\iif-.>^Mv^^^^
:-"^:<-
NORTH FORK
COQUILLE V
>, 'IMS- ///
0.5
1:24,000
H h
1
I Miles
y
<<{:<u-w-
^^»te^
-i-'^eurrt^
' "■ iBridge '
^•7
./^
I",
^"
167
'.\l70 .^
168 V.i;66
165
Coos County Natural Gas
Pipeline Project
Proposed Pipeline ^'
Block Valves
Watercourse Crossings (i)
BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline H
"-^f^^
'^^^i>^
:A/^
USGS Q
uad(s):
Coos
Bay
><it^7;
-~
f-f'
J|lr> . ■ ■
*
- .^•^
--f •
o^
J^i--'?;^-
•'■- ^ /-.-'I
tl
sheet 8 of 1 0 " Pt'F^^/i^'/ it J.
i .'1^
W'
-f-
,^145
144n
0.5
1:24,000
0
] Miles
V3
'i •
-■^■^■^■' i — .;i:'S4;;,;<:^.. M' i^ f i|y;|"- ,
>.'-:,-<
C'
>N-V
'..■■v-*b-..
Coos County Natural Gas
Pipeline Project
Proposed Pipeline
Block Valves
Watercourse Crossings
BLM Lands Adjacent To Pipeline
USGS Quacl(s): Coos Bay, Charleston,
Empire, North Bend
l( ■•^'\
i.y
sheet
I -^^.^^-^ -'--.i^^^iV^ -vAl ' / V-..v7f:|,f^i.-^?>•^-'
' ^
<v
■■^^r:-^
siviipii^%i
C/m
;^i
•• Plant T
. I
.1
^■ ./ -3BL0sa6lVr GULC^ =188 „ jJUTi 1 WSt^ V «
- ■-^-^■■'■■"-^;.---^--x
^ J ;«'■^,^4,^t-
1 ^Htfl*
■^ -"l-^r^ ■'
- _ i -■ ■'.;-' ' v-^,^,.:;,-.
r4 5.. » ^.
; ;, White.
I ■■_ vPoirtV
43Ar-
I Si3h>^e Dispose!
( ■ i
1^^
^wk ■
0.5
1:24,000
0
Appendix D.
Appendix D.
No signilicaiU changes have been made to this appendix.
Agency Management Plans for Resources Adjacent to
the Proposed Action
Prepared By:
Brian T. Cox
Biological Information Specialists, Inc.
P.O. Box 27
Camas Valley, OR 97416
October 1,2001
D-1
Appendix D. Agency Management Plans for Resources Adjacent to the Proposed Action
Appendix D. Agency Management Plans for
Resources Adjacent to the Proposed Action
The BLM Northwest Forest Plan includes management classifications and criteria for a wide variety of aspects
throughout the forest ecosystem. Below is a listing of such classifications and criteria pertinent to the proposed
action.
Visual Resource Management
The visual resource management (VRM) classes and objectives for BLM lands within the proposed action corridor
are as follows:
Class I - Objective of this class is to provide for natural ecological changes in VRM I areas. Some
very limited management activities may occur in these areas. The level of change to the charac-
teristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. Changes should repeat the
basic elements of form. line, color, texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of
the characteristic landscape.
Class II - Objective of this class is to manage lands for low levels of change to the characteristic
landscape. Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual
observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found
in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
Class III - Objective of this class is to provide for management activities for moderate levels of
change to the characteristic landscape. Management activities may attract attention but should
not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form,
line, color, texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic land-
scape.
Class IV - Objective of this class is to provide for management activities which may dominate the
view and be the major focus of the viewer's attention. Every attempt should be made to minimize
the impact of these activities through careful pipeline location, minimum disturbance and repeti-
tion of the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture.
Descriptions of other VRM classes and objectives are in the Coos Bay BLM District RMP EIS (1995).
Riparian Reserve and Aquatic Conservation Strategy Management
Overall objective: Restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds.
Other objectives:
a. Provide a scientific basis for protecting aquatic ecosystem using Riparian Reserve Scenarios and
Watershed Analysis.
b. Enable planning for sustainable resource management (watershed restoration).
c. Conserve at-risk species through Key Watershed Management and through Riparian Reserve Man-
agement.
D-2
Appendix u. Agency Management Plans tor Hesources Adjacent to tne proposed Action
Watershed Management Plans
Conduct Watershed Analysis lo mccl ACS objectives.
Identify Key Watersheds needing restoration efforts which provide the requisites of at-risk species.
BLM Land-Use Allocations
The land-use allocation areas listed below are located adjacent to or near the alternative routes (including the pro-
posed action). For lurther information about these, refer to the Coos Bay or Roseburg RMPs.
Late-Succession Forest Reserve (LSR)
The proposed action corridor is adjacent to approximately 4.5 miles of LSR. The Hwy 42 alternative is adjacent to
approximately 3 miles of LSR.
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
Part of the North Spit of Coos Bay is designated as an ACEC. Depending on where NW Natural decides to extend its
distribution network in Coos Bay, it may cross under a portion of the North Spit ACEC. However, all ground distur-
bance in the North Spit would occur in road or utility ROW.
The proposed action and Hwy 42 alternative would not cross any ACEC on other designated special areas.
Research Natural Areas
No Research Natural Areas exist within or near the proposed action corridor. The Cherry Creek Research Natural
Area is located just over 3 miles north of Dora and the CBW Road. This area is set aside for protection of its special
status plant and animal habitats, and recreational development is precluded from this area.
Coquille Forest Special Management Areas
None of the alternative routes (including the proposed action) enter the Coquille Forests.
Native American Religious Concerns
No known Native American religious sites exist within or adjacent to the proposed action con'idor or the other alter-
native routes. Also see Appendix B.
D-3 -
Appendix D. Agency Management Plans for Resources Adjacent to the Proposed Action
D-4
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
The rollowing changes between the Dralt and Final Environmental Impact Statement were made in Appendix E.
• Appendix E. formerly the Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment, has been replaced with an Aquatic Biological
Asscssnient duo to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Decemhcr 14, 2001 , reinstating protec-
tions under the federal Endangered Species Act for central Oregon Coho salmon.
• Appendix A to this Biological Assessment is Appendix J of the Final Coos County Pipeline EIS.
• Appendix B to this Biological Assessment is Appendix H ol the Final Coos County Pipeline EIS.
Prepared By:
Brian Cox
and
Melanie Little
Biological Information Specialists, Inc.
P.O. Box 27
Camas Valley, OR 97416
October 1.2001
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
I. INTRODUCTION
This Biological Assessment (BA) addresses the impacts of the proposed 59.1 -mile new 12-inch natural gas steel
pipeline, which will connect the Williams Gas Pipeline near Happy Valley, approximately 4 miles southwest of 1-5
freeway exit 124. See the Coos County Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement published January 2002.
This document assesses the effects of the proposed action on the threatened Oregon Coast ESU coho salmon (Onco-
rhynchus kisutch). as well as Oregon coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the Oregon Coast ESU coastal cut-
throat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). which have candidate status.
The purpose of this proposed action is to gain a permanent easement to cross approximately 3 miles of federally man-
aged lands. If an easement is not granted, a "No Action", for the purposes of this project, is defined as no federal dis-
cretionary action, but would result in the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would not cross federally
managed lands. Refer to the Coos County Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement published January 2002
for preferred alternatives.
II. INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS
The proposed action is to grant a perpetual Right-of-Way (ROW) to Coos County to access federal lands to facilitate
the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Roseburg to Coos Bay Oregon. This B A documents the effects of the
proposed activities to threatened and candidate fish species by the Coos Bay District and Roseburg District of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This document covers these actions for the duration of the project, unless new
information, change in project design or anticipated effects warrants re-initiation of consultation.
Approximately 56 miles of private lands, including 184 stream crossings, would be affected by the proposed action
(Table 2). All stream crossings affected by the proposed action occurring on the Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBW
Road) are not evaluated as federally managed, as they occur on Coos County maintained properties. Project Design
Criteria (PDC) would be implemented on both federal and private lands; therefore, effects to both federally managed
lands and private lands are evaluated equally in this document.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Natural gas is available near Roseburg from Williams Gas Pipeline - West, formerly Northwest Pipeline Company.
The Williams pipeline system transports gas from producing wells in the Rocky Mountain regions of the U.S. and
Canada. The natural gas produced from the wells is stripped of corrosive elements, excess water and heavier hydro-
carbons before entering the pipeline system. The natural gas is delivered via pipeline from these wells to Portland
and the Willamette Valley. The Williams Grants Pass lateral extends south of Eugene, generally along Interstate-5,
to Grants Pass.
In the Roseburg area. Williams maintains a single 10-inch steel pipeline operating at 500 to 800 pounds per square-
inch (psi). The proposed action would be construction of a 12-inch steel pipeline connecting to the existing 10-inch
pipeline a few miles south of Roseburg.
The pipeline would be buried for its entire length. Its only aboveground components would be line markers, test sta-
tions, several bridge crossings and valve settings. It would be built and hydrostatically tested to 1,500 psi. which
allows a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 1,000 psi. It would operate at the same pressure as the
Williams pipeline, which is normally 500 to 800 psi.
Approximately 3 miles, including 4 unnamed intermittent streams, of the proposed action would occur on Bureau of
Land Management (BLM)-managed lands within the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line ROW.
The remainder of the pipeline would be located within the ROWs of the CBW Road and other public roads, or within
PacifiCorp, hereafter referred to as Pacific Power and Light (PP&L) and BPA ROWs crossing privately owned land.
E-2
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
The pipeline would terminate at Ocean Boulevard in Coos Bay where a North West Natural Gas (hereafter referred to
as NW Natural) distribution system would be built. NW Natural has been granted "exclusive territory" rights for gas
distribution in Coos County, excluding the City of Bantlon.
The straight-lino distance iVoni the Williams connection location (just south of Roscburg) to Ocean Boulevard is
approximately 44 miles, whereas the jiroposed action traverses approximately 60 miles. 'Ihe proposed action within
existing road and utility corridt)rs is the shortest practical route from source to destination.
The permanent easement on BLM-managed lands would total approximately 14 acres. Additional temporary utility
ci)rridor construction ROW width (as necessary) is also requested, fhc additional utility corridor construction area
(approximately 7 acres) would also be entirely within the BF'A utility corridor and returned to BLM control after
completion of construction anti site restoration.
Several delixery stations would deliver gas to end users at various locations in Coos and Douglas Counties. No
delivery stations would be located on BLM-managed lands. For safety reasons, the proposed action includes 5 block
valves (Figure J-4 in Appendix A) placed at intervals along the pipeline corridor. Placement of the valves is based
upon pipeline safety regulations and operational factors such as local distribution and lateral pipeline placement. No
block valves would be installed (M1 BLM-managed lands.
Because no industrial commitments have yet occurred, it is not possible to quantify potential environmental impacts
of unknown facilities and their potential locations.
IV. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Potential impacts and route description of the proposed action are given in Table E-1
Table E-1. Proposed Action Route Summary
Description
Private Ownership
Federally Managed
Total length (miles)
56
3
Total number of streams crossed
184
4
Large streams (30 + feet summer wetted width)
2
0
Medium streams (15-30 feet summer wetted width)
6
0
Small streams (less than 15 feet summer wetted width)
176
4
Total number of wetlands
1
0
Adjacent floodplains (miles)
2.2
0
Location of Proposed Action
The corridor for the proposed action would traverse the Coast Range in Southern Oregon from the western region of
Douglas County Township 27 South, Range 6 West. Section 33 (T27S. R6W, Sec. 33) to the western region of Coos
County (T25S. R I3W, Sec. 27). The terrain varies from gentle to very steep as the corridor follows 230 kilovolt
(kV) transmission lines operated by BPA and PP&L. the CBW Road, and BPA and PP&L 1 15 kV transmission lines
and roads into Coos Bay.
The proposed action would connect to the Williams Gas Pipeline near Happy Valley, approximately 4 miles south-
west of 1-5 freeway exit 124 (Harvard Avenue) in Roseburg. The pipeline route would continue - as described below
- to its delivery facility at Ocean Boulevard. Refer to sheets 1 through 10 in Appendix C of the FEIS.
The following is a sequential list (east to west) of section locations that contain a portion of the proposed action:
E-3
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Douglas County:
T27S, R6W, Sections 33, 32, and 31
T27S, R7W, Sections 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, and 31
T28S, R7W, Section 6
T28S, R7 1/2W, Section 6
T28S. R8W, Sections 15, 17, and 7.
T28S, R8W. Sections 1, 2, 1 1, 14, 15, 16, 17. 18 and 7.
Sections in Douglas County affecting BLM managed lands:
T28S, R8W, Sections 15,17, and 7.
Coos County:
T28S, R9W, Sections 12, 13, 14, 1 1, 10, 9, 8 and 7
T28S, RlOW, Sections 12, 1 1, 10. 9, 8, 5 and 6
T28S,R11W, Sections 12, 11, 10, 3, and 4
T27S, Rl 1 W, Sections 33, 32, 29, 30 and 19
T27S, R12W, Sections 24, 23, 14, 15, 16, 9, 10 and 4
T26S, R12W, Sections 30, 32, 33, 29 and 19 -
T26S, R13W, Sections 24, 25, 23, 14. 15. 10 and 3
T25S. R13W. Sections 27 and 34
Sections in Coos County affecting BLM managed lands:
T28S, R9W. Sections 12
T28S,R11W, Sections 3
T27S,R11W. Sections 29 19
Construction Methods and Operations
Refer to Appendix B: Design. Construction. Operation & Maintenance Plan (A revised version of Appendix J from
Coos County Pipeline Draft EIS Published January 2002).
Project Design Criteria
None of the proposed action will negatively affect habitat in the short-term or long-term for anadromous fish
(Appendix A).
• All aquatic construction operations involving trenching through streams or directional drilling will be con-
ducted during the in stream work period (July 1 through September 15).
• Apply an additional lift of rock to the area of road that can influence the stream if rill erosion is evident in the
road tread near live stream crossings.
• Deteriorating stream and cross-drain culverts will be replaced during construction.
• Contain any offsite movement of sediment from the road or ditchflow near streams with silt fence or sediment
entrapping bales/blankets. The control measures will allow for the free passage of water without detention or
plugging. These control structures and applications will receive frequent maintenance, and will be removed 30
days after completion of that pipeline construction segment.
• The gravel portions of the CBW Road (approximately 15 miles) will be paved after pipeline construction. If
paving does not occur prior to the first wet season, storm-proofing measures will be implemented (Appendix
A).
E-4
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
• All streams with active water flow will be directionally drilled or trenched above on CBW Road roadway fill or
using the bag and flume method.
• All construction operations with potential delivery mechanisms to stream or riparian areas will utilize sediment
barriers.
• Coos County has appointed an Environmental Compliance Representative to monitor the above measures on
silo (Appendix A).
• Management of potential contaminants, such as fuel, is described in Appendix B.
V. EVALUATION OF CONSISTANCY WITH WATERSHED ANALYSIS (WA) PIPE-
LINE CONSTRUCTION TREATMENTS
After pipeline construction is finished, there are no plans for management actions other than normal pipeline moni-
toring and maintenance.
Road Treatments
Roads can affect the quality of the ecosystem at both localized and landscape levels. Roads allow increased human
disturbance, which may disrupt local ecosystem function on a temporal basis. Roads reduce the area for vegetation
growth at an approximate rate of Ave acres per road-mile. Hydrologic function, landslide rates, sedimentation and
pollution from dumping or spills are all potential local and landscape effects of roads. Roads may increase/decrease
the utility of interior habitats for certain wildlife species. Roads may create movement barriers for certain species.
Extensive riparian road networks may encroach on streams, extend channels, re-route sediment and disconnect
streams from floodplains. All of the Watershed Analyses recommended that no new road construction occur within
interior habitats or on erosive/unstable soils.
No new road treatments are planned for the proposed action. Only existing road networks will be used in the pro-
posed action. Graveled portions of the CBW Road will be paved after pipeline construction to reduce sediment pro-
duction. Deteriorating stream and cross-drain culverts will be replaced. Extra cross-drain culverts will be added to
reduce ditchline sediment production. These treatments are consistent with the WA recommendations.
Riparian Reserve Reduction
The proposed action contains no Riparian Reserve reductions or treatments. There are no proposed federal forest-
stand treatments in this project. These treatments are consistent with the WA recommendations.
Transient Snow Zone
The pipeline corridor does not occur within a transient snow zone, and no impacts to overstory forest vegetation
occur from the proposed action or its interrelated actions. These treatments are consistent with the WA recommenda-
tions.
E-5
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
VI. EVALUATION Of CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL MARINE FISHERY SER-
VICE'S (NMFS) MARCH 18, 1997 LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN- LEVEL
BIOLOGICAL OPINION (LRMP BO):
Conservation Recommendations
Four of the WAs included assessments of the aquatic ecosystem, which addressed salmonid conservation as a main
issue. This meets LRMP BO Conservation Recommendation 3. The East Fork Coquille and North Fork Coquille
Watershed Analyses included recommendations for restoration projects, including projects that promote long-term
recovery. This is consistent with LRMP BO Conservation Recommendations 5 and 6. As part of the watershed anal-
ysis. Transportation Management Plans were completed. This meets Conservation Recommendation 1 1. No other
Conservation Recommendations specifically apply to this proposed action. Effects analyzed for the proposed action,
including intenelated and interdependent effects, were determined using the same criteria for private lands as were
for federal lands.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
During the WA process, the interdisciplinary team used applicable criteria in the Northwest Forest Plan ROD to
ensure that proposed actions are fully consistent with applicable standards and guidelines and ACS objectives. This
is consistent with Reasonable and Prudent Measure I. The NMFS is currently reviewing the proposed actions. This
is consistent with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2. Based on the ACS Evaluation, proposed actions would not
detract from long-term ecosystem recovery. This is consistent with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 4. All related
roadwork on both federal and private lands would be completed during the dry season utilizing Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and PDCs to minimize construction impacts (See Appendix A). This is consistent with Reasonable
and Prudent Measures 5 and 6. No other Conservation Recommendations specifically apply to this proposed action.
Terms and Conditions
No other terms and conditions specifically apply to this proposed action.
LRMP BO Consistency
LRMP BO consistency is determined at the 5th field HUC watershed level.
E-6
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Tabic E-2: Matrix of Factors and Indicators (all WAs & NMFS, 1998)
PAIHWAYS
INDICATORS
PROI'KRIA
FUN(TI()NIN(;(I'I )
AT RISK (All situations
not described as PF or
NPF)
NOTPROPKRI V
FIJNCTI()NIN(;(NPF)
Water Quality:
Maximum Temperature
<6()°F.
60-68"F
>68°F
Tiuhidity
Similar frequency and
duration relative to
unimpacted streams hi
basin.
Moderately higher fre-
quency and duration rela-
tive to unimpacted streams
in basin.
Higher frequency and dura-
tion relative to unimpacted
streams in basin.
Chemical Concentration/
Nutrients
No biological evidence
of contamination.
Obvious biological evidence
of contamination (e.g., flsh
kills, algal blooms, deformi-
ties)
Habitat Access:
Physical Barriers
No man-made barriers
in watershed that pre-
vent upstream and
downstream passage of
any age of salmonids.
Any man-made barriers in
watershed prevent upstream
or downstream passage of
any age of sahnonids
Habitat Elements;
Subslrate/Sedinicnl
50% of riffle habitat is
gravel dominated, with
very liltleembeddeness.
>5% of riffles are domi-
nated by flnes - or- In
low gradient riffle,
<10% of substrate is
sand or silt
Gravel and cobble is sub-
doininant. or if dominant,
embeddedness 20-30%
<20% of riffle habitat is
gravel dominated or gravel/
cobble with large degree of
embeddedness. >10% of rif-
fles are dominated by fines -
or - Low gradient riffle has
>25% sand or silt
Large Woody Debris
(LWD)
>.S0 Pieces/mile. >24"
diameter. >50" length.
Little or no evidence of
stream clean-out or
management related
debris flows.
30-80 pieces/mile. >24" in
diameter. >5()' length.
Some evidence of stream
clean-out and/or manage-
ment related debris flow
<30 pieces/mile, 24" in
diameter. >50' length. Evi-
dence of stream clean-out
and/or management related
debris flows is widespread.
Pool Area
Basaltic Headlands
>35%
Basaltic Headlands 20-
35%'
Basaltic Headlands <20%'
Rest of Province: >50%
Re.st of Province: 30-50%
Rest of Province: <30%
Pool Quality
> 20% pool habitat by
area is >1 meter deep.
10-20%' pool habitat by
area is >1 meter deep.
< 10% pool habitat by area is
>1 meter deep.
Pool Frequency
<8 channel widths
between pools.
8-19 channel widths
between pools.
>20 channel widths between
pools.
Off-Channel Habitat
Frequent backwaters w/
cover. & low-energy
channel areas (ponds,
oxbows ) are < 1 0% of
total area.
Less frequent backwaters
w/cover. & low-energy
channel areas (ponds,
oxbows) are 5-10% of
total area.
Infrequent backwaters w/
cover & low-energy channel
areas (ponds, oxbows) are
>I0% of total area.
E-7
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-2: Matrix of Factors and Indicators (all WAs & NMFS, 1998)
PATHWAYS
INDICATORS
PROPERLY
FUNCTIONING (PF)
AT RISK (All situations
not described as PF or
NPF)
NOT PROPERLY
FUNCTIONING (NPF)
Channel
Condition and
Dynamics:
Width/Depth Ratio and
channel type
W/D ratios and channel
types are well within
historic ranges and site
potential in watershed.
Rosgen Tvpe W/D
Ratio
A,E,G <12
B,C,F 12—30
D >40
W/D ratios an/or channel
types in portions of water-
shed are outside historic
ranges and/or site poten-
tials
W.D ratios and channel
types throughout the water-
shed are well outside of his-
toric ranges and/or site
potential
Stream bank Condition
Relatively stable banks,
few or no areas of addi-
tive erosion
Moderately stable banks,
few areas of additive ero-
sion
Highly unstable banks.
Many areas of exposed soil
and streambank cutting
Floodplain
Connectivity
Logjams and other fea-
tures create pools &
secondary channels,
which trap debris and
food and maintain a
high water table that
provides cooled late-
season flows. Flooplain
is well-vegetated
Logjams and other fea-
tures create some pools &
secondary channels,
which trap debris and food
and maintain enough
water table to provide
some cooled late-season
flows. Flooplain is mostly
well-vegetated.
Secondary channels lack-
ing. Unconstrained main
channel often downcut to
bedrock and relatively short,
lacking pools, meanders and
collections of food and
debris. Warm, low, late-sea-
son flows.
Flow/Hydrology
Change Peak/Base Flows
Timber harvest and
roading history is such
that little or no change
to the natural flow
regime has occurred.
Moderate amounts of tim-
ber harvest and roading
have likely altered the
flow regime to some
extent.
Relatively high levels of tim-
ber harvest and roading have
likely had a large effect on
the flow regime
Drainage Network
Zero or minimum
increase in drainage
network density due to
roads.
Moderate increases in
drainage network due to
roads
Significant increases in
drainage network density
due to roads
Watershed Condi-
tion:
Road Density and Loca-
tion/Drainage Network
Road density <2 miles
per square mile; with no
valley bottom roads. If
unstable areas exist, no
midslope roads.
Road density 2-3 miles per
square mile with few val-
ley bottom roads
Road density >3 miles per
mile, with valley bottom
roads
Disturbance History
< 5% EC A/decade
(entire watershed) with
no concentration of dis-
turbance in unstable or
potentially unstable
areas, and/or Riparian
Reserves; and for
NWFP area (except
AM As) >15% reten-
tion of LSOG in water-
shed
< 5% EC A/decade (entire
watershed but disturbance
concentration in unstable
or potentially unstable
areas, and/or Riparian
Reserves; and for NWFP
area (except AM As)
>15% retention of LSOG
in watershed
< 5% ECA/decade (entire
watershed) and disturbance
concentration in unstable or
potentially unstable areas,
and/or Riparian Reserves;
does not meet NWFP stan-
dard for LSOG in watershed
E-8
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-2: Matrix of Factors and Indicators (all WAs & NMFS, 1998)
PAIHWA\S
INDICATORS
I'KOPKRLY
FHN( TI()NIN(;(PI')
ATRISK(Allsi(ua(i<)iis
not described as PK or
NPI)
NOT PROPKRLY
FUNCTIONING (NPF)
Kipaiiaii Reserves
Terrestrial vegetation
ei)ndili()ns sliow that llie
watershed is relatively
intact.
Watershed is fragmented and
highly impacted.
Landslide Kates
Within 10-20% of his-
torie, natural rates.
Stream conditions not
evidently altered due to
management caused
landslides
Some subdrainages with
>20% of landslides related
land management activi-
ties. Some stream condi-
tions evidently altered by
management related land-
slides
Many subdrainages with
>25% of landslides related to
land management activities.
Stream conditions obviously
and/or dramatically altered
by management related land-
slides
Refugia
Habitat refugia exist
and are adequately buff-
ered. Existing refugia
are sufficient in size,
number, and connectiv-
ity to tnaintain viable
populations or subpopu-
lation
Habitat refugia exist, but
some are not adequately
buffered. Existing refugia
may be insufficient in
size, number, and connec-
tivity to maintain viable
sub-populations.
Adequate habitat refugia do
not exist to maintain viable
fish populations.
E-9
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
VII. RATIONALE USED IN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) ON
RELEVANT INDICATORS WITH RESPECT TO THE EAST FORK COQUILLE
WATERSHED
Note: Unless cited otherwise, the information source used for accessing the environmental baseline is contained in
the East Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (4/14/99). The size of the East Fork Coquille watershed is 130 mi~.
Water Quality
Temperature - The E. Fork Coquille River is included in the Oregon DEQ's 303(d) list of temperature-limited water
bodies from its mouth to the confluence of Lost Creek. Water temperature monitoring data for the E. Fork Coquille
(1994-1996) indicated 7-day average daily maximums of 73.6°F at the mouth to 64.4°F at RM 23.2; the standard
(64°F) was exceeded for up to 94 days per year. The watershed was therefore determined to be "Not Properly Func-
tioning" with respect to water temperature during the migrating and rearing period.
These proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and were determined to "Maintain" the tempera-
ture baseline.
Tiirbidity - Stream habitat inventory data from 1992-1997 documented greater than 17 percent fines in riffles
(spawning habitat) in 21 of 56 reaches surveyed in the E. Fork Coquille Sub-basin. BLM data collected during the
winter of 1995/96 indicated that, following storm events, turbidity levels at several sampling stations in the Lower E.
Fork Coquille River and adjacent tributaries consistently exceeded 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The
highest recorded turbidity was 164 NTU.
Turbidity in the 25-50 NTU range has been implicated in the reduction of growth in young coho salmon and steel-
head (Sigler et al. 1984). Berg and Northcote (1985) reported that feeding and territorial behavior of juvenile coho
salmon were disrupted by short-term exposures (2.5-4.5 days) to turbid water up to 60 NTUs. Furthermore, sudden,
dramatic increases in turbidity may result in elimination of benthic macro invertebrates, the primary food source of
stream salmonids (Waters 1972). Turbidity data collected on the E. Fork Coquille indicates that the stream regularly
produces levels of turbidity that are known to adversely affect fish behavior and growth, suggesting that the water-
shed is "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to turbidity.
In this watershed, the proposed action crosses 57 intermittent and small perennial streams when dry or during the low
flows of summer. Of these 57 streams, 55 would be crossed in road fill, bridges or directionally-drilled. Small
amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction prior to seeding and mulching of
ground-disturbed areas of the other 2 streams. However, project BMPs and PDCs will minimize sedimentation
potential to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required
throughout the construction project comdor to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to
streams exist. Larger streams will be directionally-drilled or attached to bridges, avoiding all construction-induced
turbidity at those crossings. PDCs include new stream culverts, new cross-drains in the CBW Road, and paving 10.3
miles of gravel road.
th
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementation of
PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Chemical Contaminants - The watershed analysis indicates that some pH-measurements collected exceeded the
DEQ pH-standard of 6.5-8.5. No assessments, measurements or duration criteria of "management-related inputs"
data were collected or analyzed. However, it does suggest meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning."
The proposed actions do not utilize chemicals in the construction process other than products for running the machin-
ery. This project was determined to "Maintain" the chemical contaminant baseline.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - BLM data and culvert inventories by the Coquille Watershed Association document several
instances of culverts that present barriers to fish passage at a range of flows, resulting in a "Not Properly Function-
ing" designation in this category.
E-10
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Three new fish friendly stream culverts (Knapper Creek and two unnamed perennial streams) will replace the deteri-
orating culverts where fish passage is blocked in the CBW Road. The effects would be insignificant at the site and at
tiio 5''^ field, (hcrefore determined lo "Maintain" die physical barrier baseline.
Habitat Klenients
Siibstratc/Sediinent - Data from 1992-1997 stream habitat inventories of tributaries to the E. Fork Coquille River
indicate that gravels/cobbles are the dominant substrates in approximately 60 percent of the streams surveyed,
limbeddedness was not directly measuretl during these surveys. However, silt, sand and organics in riffles substan-
tially exceeded the ODFW benchmark standard of 10 percent in over half of the surveyed reaches. (Refer to tables in
Appendix H in the E. Fork Coquille WA.) As a result, the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Function-
ing" with respect to substrate and sediments.
In this watershed, the proposed action crosses 57 intermittent and small perennial streams when dry or during the low
flows of summer. Of these 57 streams. 55 would be crossed in road fill, bridges or directionally-drilled. Small
amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction prior to seeding and mulching of
ground-disturbed areas of the other 2 streams. However, project BMPs, PDCs will minimize sedimentation potential
to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required throughout the
construction project corridor to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to streams exist.
Larger streams will be directionally-drilled or attached to bridges, avoiding all construction-induced turbidity at
those crossings. The proposed action would include new fish friendly stream culverts, new cross-drains in the CBW
Road, and paving 10.3 miles of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5^ field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the substrate/sediment baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Large Wood Debris (LWD) - According to Wolniakowski et. al. (1990) and Farnell (1979) splash dams and stream
cleaning occurred on the main stem of the E. Fork Coquille River and two major tributaries (Steel Creek and Elk
Creek). Stream habitat inventory data from 1992-1997 (Appendix H of the WA) clearly demonstrates poor LWD
loading and/or pool complexity in substantial portions of nearly every surveyed tributary. Furthermore, the main
stem of the E. Fork Coquille River below Brewster Gorge is practically devoid of any wood (personal observation).
This is probably due to salvage logging, stream cleaning and lack of recruitment from the riparian area. As a result,
the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to LWD. No tree removal occurs within
200 feet of any stream in this watershed. Proposed actions are limited to powerline utility coiridors and the CBW
Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for LWD.
Pool Character and Quality - According to 1992-1997 Stream Habitat Inventory data on E. Fork Coquille tributar-
ies, pool frequency (pools/mile) is below the benchmark set forth in the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators in 40 out
of the 56 surveyed reaches. However, the criteria for this benchmark were derived for the Upper Columbia River
Basin and may not readily apply to Southwest Oregon Coast Range streams. It should be noted that only 10 of the 56
surveyed reaches rated "poor" against the ODFW Habitat Benchmarks ( 1997) for pool area and/or pool frequency
(channel widths/pool). Stream habitat inventory data from the Oregon Coast Range was used in the formulation of
the ODFW Benchmark criteria.
The 1992-1997 Stream Habitat Inventory data also indicates that pools >l meter deep are uncommon on most sur-
veyed tributaries. Furthermore, over half of the stream reaches surveyed rated poorly with respect to pool habitat
complexity. The previously mentioned water temperature problems in the E. Fork Coquille River also compromise
the overall quality of the available pool habitat. Reduction of pool volume due to fine sediments has not been dem-
onstrated within the E. Fork Coquille sub-basin. The watershed was therefore determined to be "At Risk" with
respect to pool area and quality.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for pool character and quality.
Off-channel Habitat - Due to its proximity to roads and a history of stream cleaning and splash dams, any segments
of the E. Fork Coquille are severely downcut and isolated from the natural floodplain. As a result, few, if any, back-
waters pools, alcoves or other off-channel areas exist. Many of the tributaries are constrained by hill slopes and are
not likely to contain off-channel areas. Because of these conditions in the E. Fork Coquille River, the watershed is
determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to these criteria.
E- 11
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width-Depth Ratio - Current information on riffle width and depth is lacking for the main stem of the E. Fork
Coquille River, but has been collected for several tributaries in the basin. Reaches in Steel Creek have W/D ratios of
40.5 and 34.2; the Camas Creek W/D ratio is 26.0. Therefore, the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly
Functioning" with respect to this baseline.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Therefore, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for width-depth ratio.
Streambank Condition - Streambank condition is good for many of the tributaries of the E. Fork Coquille; however,
many areas along the E. Fork Coquille are highly unstable and actively eroding (pers. com. B. Hudson and M.
Kellett, Coos Bay BLM). The watershed was therefore determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to
streambank condition.
Proposed actions have adequate preventive measures (Appendix A) to maintain streambank integrity during and after
construction in the riparian areas of the two streams that would be trenched in this watershed. Thus, the proposed
actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - Due to its proximity to roads and a history of stream cleaning and splash dams, many seg-
ments of the E. Fork Coquille are severely downcut. Few, if any, aggregations of large wood remain to create large
pools, secondary channels and maintain a high water table. Where the river is unconstrained by hillslopes or ten-aces,
floodplain vegetation is primarily agricultural or residential. The watershed is therefore determined to be "Not Prop-
erly Functioning" with respect to floodplain connectivity.
There are no activities in the 100-year floodplain within this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Watershed Condition
Road Density & Location/Drainage Network - Road densities throughout the E. Fork Coquille Watershed are high
(average of 4.4 miles of road per square mile). Additionally, most of the wider valley bottoms contain roads and
many of the larger tributaries of the E. Fork Coquille River have roads along much of their length. The watershed is
therefore determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to this baseline. Proposed actions are limited to
powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for
road density and location/drainage network.
Disturbance History - The watershed contains greater than 15 percent Late Successional-Old-Growth (LSOG).
However, disturbance activities such as road building, stream cleaning and splash dams have been concentrated in
riparian areas. Furthermore, the high percentage of hardwoods in riparian areas documented in stream surveys along
several tributaries of the E. Fork Coquille River (W. Fork Brummet, Peevey. Camas, and Steel Cr.) show a high level
of disturbance. Lane ( 1 987) indicates a high rate of mass movements in some road and logged areas. Therefore, the
watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to disturbance history.
Proposed actions are limited to human-disturbed sites (utility corridors and roadways). Therefore, the proposed
actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for disturbance history.
Landslide Rates - In the Relations Between Geology and Mass Movement Features in a part of the East Fork
Coquille River Watershed, Southern Coast Range, Oregon, Lane (1987) indicates that a disproportionately high per-
centage (47 percent) of debris avalanches in the watershed are concentrated in road and logged areas which made up
only 1 3 percent of the landscape. As a result, the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" for
landslide rates. The proposed action does not include new road construction or tree removal, therefore was deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for landslide rates.
Riparian Reserves - Federal ownership in the E. Fork Coquille River watershed follows a "checkerboard" pattern
and, as a result, the riparian reserve system is highly fragmented. Additionally, high water temperatures in the E.
Fork Coquille River indicate that riparian zones throughout the watershed may not be providing adequate shade. The
watershed is therefore determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to riparian reserves. The proposed
actions will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
E-12
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-3. Checklist for Dociimentins Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators
Name and location: Coos Bay District BLM
Basin: 5th field: East Fork Coquille River
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions^
Properly
Functioning-'
At Risk-'
Not Properly
Functioning-'
Restore"
Maintain'*
Degrade'*
Water Oitalin-
Temperature
WA, MON
PJ
Turbidity
WA
PJ
Chemical Concentration/ Nutrients
PJ
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
WA
PJ
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment
WA
PJ
Large Wood
WA
PJ
Pool Area
WA
PI
Pool Quality
WA
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
WA
PJ
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
PJ. WA
PJ
Streambank Condition
PJ, WA
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
PJ, WA
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
PJ, WA
PJ
Human Disturbance History
PJ. WA
PJ
Landslide Rates
WA
PJ
Riparian Reserves
PJ, WA
PJ
Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings; MON-
Monitoring; WA- East Fork Coquille Watershed Analyses; SS- Stream Surveys; PJ- Professional Judgment.
Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
These three categories of function ("properly functioning", "at risk", "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" (Table E-2).
For the purposes of this checklist (Table E-3). "restore" means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly function-
ing", "not properly functioning" to "at risk" and "properly functioning" moving towards recovery. "Short-term" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intermittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e., hauling more than 10 loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e., days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occurring effects (i.e., new permanent road con.struction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e., months/years).
E- 13
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
VIII. RATIONALE USED IN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) ON
RELEVANT INDICATORS WITH RESPECT TO THE LOWER COOS RIVER/COOS
BAY WATERSHED
Note: BLM has not completed a watershed analysis for this 5th field watershed because of the minimal amount of
BLM-administered lands within the watershed. The BLM IDT lacks data on the habitat conditions across the water-
shed, and much of the evaluation of baseline conditions is based on their professional judgment and personal knowl-
edge of various fish-bearing streams across the watershed.
Water Quality
Temperature - An assessment by Oregon DEQ and the professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate
this watershed to be "At Risk" with respect to temperature.
The proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and were determined to "Maintain" the temperature
baseline.
Tiirbidity - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not Properly Func-
tioning" with respect to turbidity.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross 42 intermittent and small perennial streams (see Table 4). When
intermittent streams are dry and during perennial streams' summer low flows. Of these 42 streams, 29 will be
crossed in road fill and 2 would be directionally-drilled Of the 1 1 streams to be trenched, 7 would be dry during the
period of construction, and 4 would be trenched using the "bag and flume" method. Small amounts of increased tran-
sitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction prior to seeding and mulching of ground-disturbed areas.
However, the BMPs, PDCs and the ECP will minimize sedimentation potential to very low levels for a brief time
(Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required throughout the construction project corridor to
eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to streams exist. Larger streams will be direc-
tionally-drilled to avoid all construction-induced turbidity at those crossings. PDCs include new cross-drains in the
CBW Road, and paving 1.9 miles of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5^ field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementation of s
and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique
Chemical Contaminants and Nutrients - An assessment by Oregon DEQ and the professional judgment of BLM
fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to chemical contaminants
and nutrients. The proposed actions do not utilize chemicals in the construction process other than products for run-
ning the machinery. This project was determined to "Maintain" the chemical contaminant baseline.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Data provided from state field surveys show that more than 3 culverts block fish passage in this
watershed, meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to physical barriers. The proposed
actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain"
the baseline for physical barriers.
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "At Risk"
with respect to substrate and sediment factors.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross 42 intermittent and small perennial streams in the Lower Coos
River/Coos Bay Watershed, when intermittent streams are dry and during perennial streams' summer low flows. Of
these 42 streams, 29 will be crossed in road fill and 2 would be directionally-drilled. Of the 11 streams to be
trenched, 7 would be dry during the period of construction, and 4 would be trenched using the "bag and flume"
method. Small amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction prior to seeding and
mulching of ground-disturbed areas. However, the BMPs, PDCs and the ECP will minimize sedimentation potential
to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required throughout the
E-14
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
construction project corridor to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to streams exist.
Larger streams will be directionally-drilled to avoid all construction-induced turbidity at those crossings. PDCs
incUklo new cross-drains in the CBW Road, and paving 1.9 miles of gravel road.
The proposed actions were tleterniined to have insignificant elTeets at the site and at the 5' ^ field, therefore deter-
mined to maintain the substrate/sediment. The effects would be insignificant because ot the implementation of PDCs
and the EC? (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Lar^c Woody Debris (LWD) - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed
meets the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to LWD.
No tree removal occurs within the watershed. Proposed actions arc limited to powerline utility corridors and the
CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for LWD.
Pool Area/ Pool Quality - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not
F*roperly Functioning" with respect to percent pool area/quality. Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs
and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for pool character and
quality.
Off-Channel Habitat - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed meets the cri-
teria for "At Risk" with respect to off-channel habitat. Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the
CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Channel Condition and Dynamics
Widtli/Depth Ratio - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not
Properly Functioning" with respect to width/depth ratio. Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the
CBW Road. Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for width-depth ratio.
Streambank Condition - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed meets the
criteria for "At Risk" with respect to streambank condition. The Proposed actions have adequate ECP measures
(Appendix A) to maintain streambank integrity during and after construction. Thus, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed meets the
criteria for "At Risk" with respect to floodplain connectivity. Proposed actions are adjacent to 0.9-mile of floodplain
in the watershed. Activities in this area are limited to the CBW Road, which sits on 5 feet of fill. Hence, the pro-
posed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Watershed Condition
Road Density/Location - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not
Properly Functioning" with respect to road densities and location. Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs
and the CBW Road. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for road density and
location/drainage network.
Disturbance History - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed meets the cri-
teria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to disturbance history. Proposed actions are limited to human-dis-
turbed sites (utility corridors and roadways). Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the
baseline for disturbance history.
Landslide Rates - The professional judgment of BLM fish biologists indicate this watershed meets the criteria for
"At Risk" with respect to landslide rates. The proposed action does not include new road construction or tree
removal, therefore was determined to "Maintain" the baseline for landslide rates.
Riparian Reserves - The professional judgment of BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed meets the crite-
ria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to riparian reserves.
The proposed actions will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. Therefore, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
E- 15
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-4. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators.
Name and location: Coos Bay District - BLM
Basin: 5 field: Lower Coos River
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions^
Properly
Functioning^
At Risk^
Not
Properly
Functioning
3
Restore'*
Maintain'*
Degrade'*
Water Ouality
Temperature
PJ, DEQ
PJ
Turbidity
PJ
PJ
Chemical Concentration/ Nutrients
PJ, DEQ
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
DS
PJ
Habitat Elements
S ubs trate/S ed i ment
PJ
PJ
PJ
Large Wood
PJ
PJ
Pool Area (%)
PJ
PJ
Pool Quality
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
PJ
PJ
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
PJ
PJ
Streambank Condition
PJ
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
PJ
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
PJ
PJ
Human Disturbance History
PJ
PJ
Landslide Rates
PJ
PJ
Riparian Reserves
PJ
PJ
Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings: DEQ -
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; DS - Data from surveys, PJ- Professional Judgment.
Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
These three categories of function ("properly functioning", "at risk", "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" (Table E-2).
For the purposes of this checklist (Table E-4), "restore" means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly function-
ing", "not properly functioning" to "at risk" and "properly functioning" moving towards recovery. "Short-term" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intermittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e., hauling more than 10 loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e., days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occurring effects (i.e., new permanent road construction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e., months/years).
E-16
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
IX. Rationale Used in Completing the Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline
and the Kffects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators With Respect to the North Pork
Coquille Watershed
Note: Unless eited otherwise, the intorniatioii source used tor accessing the environmental baseline is contained in
the North Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis in preparation by the Coos Bay District Umpqua Resource Area (07/20/
2001 ). The watershed covers approximately 98,467 acres.
Water Quality
Temperature - The N. Fork Coquille River is included in the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list of temperature-limited water
bodies iVom its mouth to the confluence of Lost Creek. Water temperature monitoring data for the N. Fork Coquille
( 1986-1994) indicate 7-day average daily maximums of 69.9"F between the mouth to Middle Creek and Middle
Creek to Little N. Fork; the standard (64"F) was exceeded for up to 96 days per year. The watershed was therefore
determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to water temperature during the migrating/rearing period.
These proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and "Maintain" the temperature baseline.
T\irbidity - No direct quantitative analysis of turbidity occurred in the WA. However, page 30 of chapter 8 docu-
ments that the headwaters of Woodward Creek are down cutting through a clay deposit which enters into suspension
and imparts a milky turbidity to the creek. The watershed was therefore determined to be "Not Properly Function-
ing" with respect to water turbidity.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross 5 intermittent and 1 1 perennial streams when dry or during sum-
mer low flows. Of these 16 streams, 5 will be crossed in road fill and 4 would be directionally-drilled. Of the 7
streams to be trenched, 1 would be dry during the period of construction, and 6 would be trenched using the "bag and
flume" method. Small amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction, prior to
seeding and mulching of ground-disturbed areas. However, the BMPs, PDCs and ECP will minimize sedimentation
potential to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required
throughout the construction project corridor to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to
streams exist. Larger streams will be directionally-drilled to avoid all construction-induced turbidity at those cross-
ings. PDCs include new cross-drains in the CBW Road and paving 1.0 mile of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementation of
PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Chemical Contaminants - The Oregon DEQ identified the Coquille River as potentially water limited as early as
1973 and confirmed it as a "Waterbody of Concern" in the 1988 Water Quality Report. Furthermore, Table WQ-1 1
lists the N. Fork Coquille River from the Mouth to Middle Creek exceeding fecal coliform FWS standard values, thus
meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning."
The proposed actions do not utilize chemicals in the construction process other than products for running the machin-
ery. This project was determined to "Maintain" the chemical contaminant baseline. Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Page 5 in chapter 8 of the WA states, "...many culverts in the subwatershed partially or entirely
block fish and amphibian passage." Additionally, page 19 of chapter 8 discusses anadromous fish having been elim-
inated from some former suitable habitat by blockages created by impassable culverts in this watershed, thus meeting
the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to physical barriers.
The proposed actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for physical barriers.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Page 5 in chapter 8 of the WA states, "...many culverts in the subwatershed partially or entirely
block fish and amphibian passage." Additionally, page 19 of chapter 8 discusses anadromous fish having been elim-
inated from some former suitable habitat by blockages created by impassable culverts in this watershed, thus meeting
the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to physical barriers.
The proposed actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for physical barriers.
E- 17
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment - Page 17 in chapter 7 of the WA states that sediment from road failure was considered the
greatest water quality problem, and erosion of soils exposed by severe slash burning on steep slopes was often the
principle cause of surface erosion.
The watershed was therefore determined to be "At Risk" with respect to water substrate and sediment.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross 5 intennittent and 1 1 perennial streams when dry or during sum-
mer low tlows. Of these 16 streams, 5 will be crossed in road fill and 4 would be directionally-drilled. Of the 7
streams to be trenched, 1 would be dry during the period of construction, and 6 would be trenched using the "bag and
flume" method. Small amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction, prior to
seeding and mulching of ground-disturbed areas. However, the BMPs, PDCs and ECP will minimize sedimentation
potential to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required
throughout the construction project corridor to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to
streams exist. Larger streams will be directionally-drilled to avoid all construction-induced turbidity at those cross-
ings. PDCs include new cross-drains in the CBW Road and paving 1.0 mile of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5'*^ field, therefore deter-
mined to maintain the turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementation of PDCs
and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Large Wood Debris (LWD) - During the early 1900s, stream "improvements" including eliminating vegetation
along the river banks, blasting channel boulders and removing large woody debris and snags from the river channel
occuiTcd on the main stem of the N. Fork Coquille. Much of this "improvement and maintenance" was in association
with splash damming. Page 15 in chapter 8 of the WA reveals that stream cleaning was required on BLM timber
sales conducted from 1965 through 1991. Furthermore, stated on page 28 in chapter 8 of the WA, "While stream
cleaning and salvaging from streams and riparian areas has been stopped, the legacy of the cleaning process remains.
It will be many years before the in-stream habitat improvement options of the State water protection rules will be
applied to sections of the North Fork Coquille River, if they ever will be." As a result, the watershed was determined
to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to LWD.
No tree removal occurs within this watershed. Proposed actions are limited to powerline utility corridors and the
CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for LWD.
Pool Area ( % ) - Page 5 in chapter 8 of the WA reports only 2 pools with a maximum depth of >3 feet were docu-
mented along 2 miles of stream inventoried. The percent pool area was rated fair for the 4th order reaches, and poor
in 0.2-mile of 3rd-order channels. The watershed was therefore determined to be "At Risk" with respect to pool area.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for pool area.
Pool Quality - The professional judgment of a BLM fisheries biologists indicate this watershed to be "Not Properly
Functioning" with respect to percent pool area/quality.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for pool character and quality.
Off-channel Habitat - Due to its proximity to roads and a history of stream cleaning and splash dams, many seg-
ments of the N. Fork Coquille River are severely downcut and isolated from the natural floodplain. As a result, few,
if any, backwaters pools, alcoves or other off-channel areas exist.
Many of the tributaries are constrained by hillslopes and are not likely to contain off-channel areas. However,
because of the condition of the N. Fork Coquille River, the watershed is determined to be "At Risk" with respect to
these criteria.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width-Depth Ratio - Current information on riffle width and depth is lacking for the main stem of the N. Fork
Coquille River but has been summarized for the 1997 Middle Main Coquille-North Coquille Mouth-Catching Creek
Watershed Analysis. It is revealed on page 6 of chapter 9 of the WA that many channels have become wider with a
E-18
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
corresponding reduction in stream depth. Thus, this watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" due
to the degraded aquatic habitat causcti by past logging and past and current agricultural practices. Proposed actions
are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Thereiore. the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain"
the baseline for widlh-dcpth ratio.
Streambaiik Condition - Page 5 of chapter S discusses some of the primary reasons for the degraded conditions,
including stream-bank damage IVom livestock, down-cutting of streams due to the removal of stream-side vegetation
and ill-stream structure, as well as the confinement of stream channels. The watershed was therefore determined to
be "At Risk" with respect to streambank condition. The proposed actions have adequate measures (see attached
Appendix) to maintain streambank integrity during and after construction. Thus, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - Page 6 of chapter 5 states, "Large areas of floodplain have been cleared and drained for
dexelopment. The loss of vegetation maintained stream bank stability resulted in increased stream bank erosion.
The loss of wood recruitment to the channel, along with loss of stream bank vegetation, reduced channel roughness.
This in turn resulted in higher stream velocities that contribute to increased stream bank erosion, downcutting and the
loss and/or simplification of habitat, especially aquatic habitat that is critical during high flows. The watershed is
therefore determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to floodplain connectivity. In the floodplain area
of this watershed, the proposed action is limited to the CBW Road, which sits on 5 feet of fill. Hence, the proposed
actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Watershed Condition
Road Density - Table hitro-4, page 5 in chapter 1 of the WA, gives an estimate of total roads in the WA as 751.3
miles. Table Intro- 1, page 3 in chapter I, lists total area in the WA as 98,476 acres, which translates to 639 square
miles. These numbers can be expressed as 1 .2 miles of road per square mile within the WA. Although this is a rela-
tively low road density, the location of roads and effects to drainage network are discussed on page 5 in chapter 8 of
the WA, where it is stated, "Roads paralleling streams and crossing tributaries restrict interactions between the
aquatic and riparian areas" and further stated, "Road construction along streams has resulted in the establishment of
alders next to the stream channels, thus reducing the future recruitment of large, durable conifers." Thus, this water-
shed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to road density & location/drainage network.
Proposed actions are limited to existing powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Thus, the proposed actions were
determined to "Maintain" the baseline for road density.
Disturbance History - Page 5 in chapter 8 of the WA discusses the combined impacts of agricultural practices, past
timber practices and the associated land management activities. Some of the disturbance effects included harvesting
of large conifers next to streams, the removal of LWD through stream cleaning and salvage practices, poorly con-
structed culverts and poorly located and/or constructed roads. The watershed was therefore determined to be "At
Risk" with respect to disturbance history. Proposed actions are limited to human-disturbed sites (utility corridors and
roadways). Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for disturbance history.
Landslide Rates - Page 1 1 in the WA Erosion Process Appendix discusses landslides and debris avalanches and
states "In the Late 1950s through the mid-1970s, human-related soil/slope failures dominated as road construction
and clearcutting reached the middle and upper parts of the subwatershed. In this period, there were 106 human-
related landslides, 64 of which were directly related to road construction." As a result, the watershed was determined
to be "Not Properly Functioning" for landslide rates. The proposed action does not include new road construction or
tree removal, therefore was determined to "Maintain" the baseline for landslide rates.
Riparian Reserves - Chapter 5 of the WA discusses the current condition and pattern of vegetation within the water-
shed. Stated on page 3 in chapter 5. "Current vegetation patterns are a result of past management actions, harvest
practices and associated road building, land ownership, fires, human settlements, agriculture and farming. Early or
mid-seral stands occupy most of the private forest land in the watershed. Approximately 9,358 acres are agricultural
and rural residential lands." The watershed is therefore determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to
riparian reserves. The proposed actions in this watershed will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. There-
fore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
E- 19
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-5. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators.
Name and location: Coos Bay District - BLM
:th
Basin: 5'" field: North Fork Coquiile
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions^
Properly
Functioning^
At Risk^
Not
Properly
Functionin
g^
Restore'*
Maintain'*
Degrade'*
Water Quality
Temperature
DEQ
PJ
Turbidity
PJ.WA
PJ
Chemical Concentration/ Nutrients
DEQ
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
WA
PJ
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment
PJ, WA
PJ
Large Wood
WA
PJ
Pool Area
PJ.WA
PJ
Pool Quality
PJ
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
PJ.WA
PJ
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
PJ.WA
PJ
Streambank Condition
PJ.WA
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
PJ.WA
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
PJ.WA
PJ
Human Disturbance History
PJ,WA
PJ
Landslide Rates
PJ.WA
PJ
Riparian Reserves
PJ.WA
PJ
1. Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings: WA-
North Fork Coquiile Watershed Analyses. PJ- Professional Judgment.
2. Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
3. These three categories of function ("properly functioning", "at risk", "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" (Table E-2).
4. For the purposes of this checklist (Table E-5), "restore" means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly function-
ing", "not properly functioning" to "at risk" and "properly functioning" moving towards recovery. "Short-term" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intermittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e., hauling more than 10 loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e., days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occurring effects (i.e., new permanent road construction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e., months/years).
E-20
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
X. RATIONALE USED IN C0MPLP:TING THE CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) ON
RELEVANT INDICATORS WITH RP:SPECT TO THE LOWER SOUTH UMPQUA
WATERSHED
Note: Unless cited otherwise, the information source used for accessing the environmental baseline is contained in
the Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analysis prepared by the Roseburg District South River Resource Area (05/30/
2000). The WA covers approximately 110,419 acres.
Water Quality
Maximum Temperature - Table C-2. found in appendix C of the WA, rates the watershed as "Poor" (temperatures
> 70' F), thereby meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning."
These proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and were determined to "Maintain" the tempera-
ture baseline.
Sediment/Turbidity - No direct quantitative analysis of turbidity occurred in the WA. However, a definition is
given on page 82: "Turbidity is a function of suspended sediments and algal growth in a stream." Also stated in this
section, "Roads have the potential to affect the sediment regime. Erosional effects can occur when culverts become
plugged or cannot handle peak flows, diverting streams out of their original channel, flowing down the road and
entering another stream channel." Page 84 of the WA states "Many roads within the WAU have not been maintained
on a regular schedule. The lack of routine road maintenance may lead to increased sedimentation from the road sur-
faces, landslides from road failures, and an increased risk of culvert problems." Page 83 discusses the increased sed-
imentation to the WAU caused by human-related activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization and road construction).
Assessments, inferred from these data, suggest that sediment/turbidity in this watershed is of higher frequency and
duration relative to unimpacted streams in the basin. This meets the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with
respect to sediment and turbidity.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross 8 intermittent streams when dry. Small amounts of increased
transitory turbidity may occur during precipitation events after pipeline construction and prior to seeding and mulch-
ing of ground-disturbed areas.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the sediment/turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Fish migration barriers are considered a data gap for the Lower South Umpqua WA and were not
specifically quantified. However, high road densities (WA page 77, Table 25) and numerous stream crossings (WA
page 73), 57 percent of which are within 100 feet of a stream, indicate this watershed to be "At Risk" with respect to
physical barriers.
The proposed actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were
determined to "Maintain" the baseline for physical barriers.
Habitat Elements
Large Woody Debris (LWD) - Page 93 of the WA states, "Recent ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventory data indicates
well-distributed or frequently occurring LWD is lacking in the survey stream reaches." Large woody debris fre-
quency (Table C-3) in this watershed averages 35 pieces/mile, thus meeting the criteria for "At Risk."
No tree removal occurs within this watershed. Proposed actions are limited to powerline utility corridors. Hence, the
proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for LWD.
Substrate - Table C-2 (in Appendix C of the WA) lists the dominant substrate as gravel with a subdominant sub-
strate of cobble and embeddedness is rated as "Fair" (26-49 percent), meeting the criteria for "At Risk" with respect
to substrate.
E-21
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5"^ field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the substrate baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementation of
PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Pool Characteristics - Table C-2 in Appendix C of the WA rates percent pool area as "Fair" (16-29 percent) meeting
the criteria for "At Risk" (less than 30 percent pool habitat).
In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the powerline ROWs. Hence, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for pool characteristics.
Off-Channel Habitat - No data quantified this indicator in the WA. However, page 84 of the WA describes the
watershed as having less complex stream channels, degraded substrate and poor fish habitat in some areas of the
watershed. This is attributed to the removal of LWD from the stream channels (a key component for creating off-
channel habitat), cutting trees along many streams (off-channel shading) and road construction (primary constituent
for channelization) in and adjacent to riparian areas. Based on this impacts list of factors in the WA, it was deter-
mined to be "At Risk" with respect to off-channel habitat. In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the
powerline ROWs. therefore the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Channel Condition and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio - Although current width to depth ratios given in table C-2 of the WA are rated as "Good", page
85 discusses the significant changes in historical stream width occurring within the South Umpqua River Basin stat-
ing, "Thirteen of the 14 stream reaches located in areas where timber harvesting occurred were significantly wider
than in 1937." Also, lack of LWD within the basin projects poor recruitment for continuation of a high width/depth
ratio rating, creating conditions where the present rating of "Good" in table C-2 may not be sustained. Thus, with
respect to width/depth ratio, this watershed meets the criteria for "At Risk." In this watershed, the proposed actions
are limited to the powerline ROWs. Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for
width-depth ratio.
Streambank Condition - There is no direct mention of this indicator in the WA. However, inferences from the WA
can be made. Page 70 states, "Many low gradient stream channels in the watershed have been eroded down to bed-
rock, probably due to increased peak flows as a result of timber harvesting, road construction, channel downcutting
due to over grazing on streambanks, and the lack of LWD due to stream cleaning practices." This indicates consis-
tent levels of human disturbance both historically and ongoing, leaving some of the streams within the watershed
with unstable banks. Thus, based on inferences from the data, streambank condition meets the criteria for "At Risk."
The proposed action has adequate measures (Appendix A) to maintain streambank integrity during and after con-
struction. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - No direct mention of this indicator occurred in the WA. However, page 83 of the WA
discusses the negative impacts to streams and stream flow due to removing water for irrigation and riparian vegeta-
tion. Some areas of wetlands and floodplains within the watershed are blocked by human development (such as
roads and agricultural development) during summer low flows, which reduce linkages and degrade the wetland/ripar-
ian vegetation ecological functions. Also, there is a high density of roads and stream crossings throughout the basin.
Inferences from these factors indicate floodplain connectivity to be "At Risk."
There are no activities in the 100-year floodplain within this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base Flow - Page 79 of the WA discusses drainages in the watershed with high road densities, high
stream crossing densities, previously harvested and/or in the transient snow zone areas as being susceptible to
increased peak flows. Additionally, it is stated on page 79, "The majority of roads within the watershed were con-
structed with ditches and/or insloped road surfaces designed to carry water off of the road surface. Once the water is
in the ditch, much of it may reach the stream faster than in an unroaded area. In fact, some ditchlines effectively
function as stream channels extending the actual length of flowing streams during rain storms. Increased drainage
density due to road construction may increase peak flows and mean annual floods." Based on these observations, it
was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to peak/base tlow.
The proposed actions contain no new road construction or timber harvest within the basin; therefore, it was deter-
mined to "Maintain" the change in peak/base flow.
E-22
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Drainage Network - High road densities (WA, Table 23) and the resulting increase in drainage density (discussed on
page 79 of the WA) indicate this watershed meets the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to drainage
network. In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the powcrlinc ROWs. Therefore, the proposed
actions will "Maintain" the baseline with respect to drainage network.
Watershed Condition
Road Density/I.ocation - Road densities in the Lower South Umpqua WAU average 5.66 miles/mi^ (Table 23, WA)
meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning." In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the power-
line ROWs. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for road density and location/
drainage network.
Disturbance History - Pages 10-13 of the WA list past and current human land uses in the Lower South Umpqua
River watershed as agriculture/grazing, timber harvesting, collection of special forest products and recreation
(including ATV and motorcycle use). Additionally, the WA states, "The city of Roseburg is located in the WAU and
provides food, gas, and other essentials for tourists, commercial travelers and local residents. Roseburg is the center
of commerce for the local area."
High levels of human activity in conjunction with the high road densities in this watershed meet the criteria for "Not
Properly Functioning" with respect to disturbance history. In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the
powerline ROWs (human-disturbed sites). Therefore, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the base-
line for disturbance history.
Riparian Reserves - Table 9 in the WA lists the current riparian reserve age class distribution for this watershed,
demonstrating approximately 34 percent (less than the 60 percent criteria) of the forested areas are in late serai suc-
cessional stages. This meets the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to riparian reserves.
The proposed actions will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. Therefore, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
Landslide Rates - Page 84 of the WA discusses the increased risk of landslides and road failures due to timber har-
vesting and improper maintenance of existing roads. Therefore, with respect to landslide rates, this watershed meets
the criteria for "At Risk."
The proposed action does not include new road construction or tree removal, therefore was determined to "Maintain"
the baseline for landslide rates.
Refugia - Channelization from high road densities, lack of LWD recruitment and poor off-channel habitat conditions
throughout the basin and sub-basin are direct indicators of available refugia within the watershed. From these assess-
ments, it was inferred to meet the criteria for "At Risk." In this watershed, the proposed actions are limited to the
powerline ROWs. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for refugia.
E-23
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-6. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators.
Name and location: Roseburg District South River Resource Area - BLM
:th
Basin: 5 field: Lower South Umpqua
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions^
Properly
Functioning^
At Risk-'
Not Properly
Functioning^
Restore'*
Maintain'*
Degrade'*
Water Quality
Temperature
WA
PJ
Turbidity
WA, PJ
PJ
Chemical Concentration/
Nutrients
WA, PJ
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
WA
PJ
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment
WA
PJ
Large Wood
WA
PJ
Pool Area
WA,PJ
PJ
Pool Quality
WA, PJ
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
WA, PJ
PJ
Channel Condition &
Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
WA
PJ
Streambank Condition
WA, PJ
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
WA
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
WA
PJ
Human Disturbance History
WA
PJ
Landslide Rates
WA
PJ
Riparian Reserves
WA
PJ
1 . Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings: WA-
Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analyses, PJ- Professional Judgment.
2. Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
3. These three categories of function ("properly functioning", "at risk", "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" (Table E-2).
4. For the purposes of this checklist (Table E-6), "restore" means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly function-
ing", "not properly functioning" to "at risk" and "properly functioning" moving towards recovery. "Short-term" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intemiittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e., hauling more than 10 loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e., days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occurring effects (i.e., new permanent road construction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e., months/years).
E-24
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
XI. RATIONALE USED IN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) ON
RELEVANT INDICATORS WITH RESPECT TO THE MIDDLE MAIN COQUILLE
WATERSHED
Note: Unless cited otherwise, the information source used lor accessing the environmental baseline is contained in
the Middle Main Coquille Watershed Analysis prepared by the Umpqua Resource Area, Coos Bay District Bureau of
Land Management (09/30/1997). The WA includes 3 subwatersheds: North Coquille Mouth, Middle Main Coquille
and Catching Creek. North Coquille Mouth Subwatershed is part of the North Fork Coquille 5th field watershed.
Middle Main Coquille and Catching Creek Subwatersheds together make up the Middle Main Coquille 5th field
watershed. The watershed covers approximately 55,728 acres.
Water Quality
Temperature - The Little North Fork Coquille and Catching Creek are listed on Oregon's 303 (d) list as water qual-
ity limited due to temperature and the South, North and Middle Forks, as well as the main stem of the Coquille River,
are also warmer than optimum (WA, page 19). John's Creek, however, is considered to be properly functioning
(WA, table FISH-3). There is little other mention of water temperature in the watershed analysis and no mention of
7-day maximum averages. Riparian vegetation on BLM land is said to be in good condition (WA, page 25) and
riparian vegetation is said to be partially responsible for the lack of change from historic conditions of type A and B
channels (WA, page 18). It appears that upper reaches of the watershed are receiving adequate shading. Lower por-
tions of the watershed that have been converted to farmland and grazing do not have intact riparian corridors (WA,
page 18), therefore, any heating of the water due to lack of shading would likely be occurring in the lower portions of
the watershed. Based on these data and observations, it was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with
respect to temperature.
These proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and were determined to "Maintain" the tempera-
ture baseline.
l\irbidity - Roughly 12 percent of the watershed is located on soils that generally yield silt and clay sediments (WA,
pg. 5), which tend to remain suspended longer (WA, pg. 10), whereas larger particles, such as sand and gravel, tend
to settle out of the water column sooner. Because of this assessment, it was determined to be "At Risk" with regards
to turbidity.
In this watershed, the proposed action would cross over top 17 intermittent and small perennial streams on road fill
when streams are dry or during summer low flows. Small amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during
pipeline construction, prior to repaving of the CBW Road. However, the ECP measures will minimize sedimentation
potential to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers are required throughout the construc-
tion project corridor, eliminating continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to streams exist. In this
watershed, no vegetation removal will occur as construction is limited to the CBW Road. PDCs include new cross-
drains in the CBW Road and paving 1 .9 miles of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the sediment/turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients - In the 1986 Water Quality Report the Oregon DEQ listed the Coquille River
as a "Waterbody of Concern." In 1991. it specifically identified wastewater treatment plants in Myrtle Point and
Coquille for producing nutrient and coliform bacteria and toxic substances as areas of concern for the Coquille River.
However, no record of fish kills or other biological evidence of serious or chronic contamination exist. Therefore,
with respect to chemical contamination/nutrients, it was determined to be "At Risk."
The proposed actions do not utilize chemicals in the construction process other than products for running the machin-
ery. This project was determined to "Maintain" the chemical contaminant baseline.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - On pages 21 to 26 of the WA, culverts acting as artificial barriers to salmonid passage are dis-
cussed. This meets the criteria to be classified as "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to physical barriers.
E-25
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
The proposed actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the basehne for physical barriers.
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment - The only analysis area for which substrate was sampled (as percent gravel in the riffles) is
John's Creek, which was rated as "Good" with regard to gravel and "Fair" with regard to silt/sand/organics (WA,
Table FISH-1). Pages 18 & 19 of the WA state, "However, the substrate composition... [sic] has changed in
response to man's activities..." and, "Many larger channels have scoured to bedrock or migrated laterally, and have
difficulty retaining substrate. The systems that could retain substrate may have difficulty recruiting it because
streamside and mid-slope roads function as terraces that trap material that would otherwise proceed downhill to the
channel." Based on these references, it was inferred to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to substrate/sedi-
ment.
The proposed actions contain no new road construction. Sediment barriers will be placed along the entire pipeline
corridor in areas where delivery mechanisms to streams exist, as well as all stream crossings. In this watershed, the
pipeline would cross in road fill 6 intermittent and 1 1 small perennial streams, when dry or during summer low
flows. Small amounts of transitory sediment may enter the streams after construction during the first precipitation
prior to repaving. Sediment barriers are required throughout the construction project corridor to eliminate sedimenta-
tion impacts. In this watershed, no vegetation removal will occur as construction is limited to the CBW Road. PDCs
include paving 1.9 miles of gravel road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the sediment/turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Large Woody Debris (LWD) - The only place where the WA specifically addresses large woody debris in terms of
pieces/mile is table FISH-1 which only covers John's Creek. The table lists the number as 20 pieces/mile and classi-
fies it as "Fair." Table FISH- 3, however, gives large woody debris as "Unknown" for John's Creek and "Not Prop-
erly Functioning" for Wimer Creek.
Pages 1 8 and 20 of the WA indicate that much large woody debris has been removed from the channels, and page 20
also indicates that future recruitment of large woody debris will be limited (at least in the near-term) by historical
management actions in the basin. Based on this information, the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly
Functioning" in relation to LWD.
No vegetation removal would occur in this watershed from the pipeline project, as the proposed actions are limited to
the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for LWD.
Pool Area (%) - Pool area is listed as 17 percent (average) for John's Creek in table FISH-1 of the WA and is consid-
ered "Not Properly Functioning" in table FISH-3. The other indication of pool area for the watershed is the state-
ment, "...beaver populations are probably much lower currently than historically, and that beaver dams have
decreased proportionately" (WA, pages 24 & 25). Pool area would be expected to be less in upper reaches of a
watershed (such as John's Creek) where the slopes are steeper than lower down in the watershed. Based on these
observations and current trends, it was given a rating of "At Risk" with respect to pool area.
In this watershed, proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for pool area.
Pool Quality - Table FISH-3 in the WA rates pool quality as "Not Properly Functioning" for John's Creek and
Wimer Creek; while, table FISH-1 rates it as "Good" for John's Creek. It is assumed that as stream order increases,
pool depth will increase as well. Based on these inferences and the decrease in beaver activity in the watershed,
which can be a prime source of deep, high quality pools (WA, pages 24 & 25), the watershed appears to be "At Risk"
with regard to pool quality.
Proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road in this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for pool quality.
Channel Condition and Dynamics
Off-Channel Habitat - Off-channel habitat is considered to be "At Risk" in both John's Creek and Wimer Creek (see
table FISH-3). Throughout the rest of the WA, the only mention is on page 18 where it states, "The floodplains have
been cleared and drained for development resulting in the loss or simplification of habitat; especially, aquatic habitat
E-26
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
that is critical during high flows." Based on these references, it was determined that the watershed is "At Risk" with
respect to off-channel habitat.
Proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road in (his watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Width/Depth Ratio - Page 23 (^f the WA states concerning John's Creek, "The width/depth ratio of riffles was fair
for all stream roaches." Increased erosion and sedimentation resulting from logging, road building, and agricultural
activities (WA, page 5), have altered the substrate composition of the watershed (WA, page 18). Increased sedimen-
tation also directly acts to increase width/depth ratios. The watershed, therefore, was rated "At Risk" regarding
width/depth ratios.
Proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road in this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for width/depth ratios.
Streambank Condition - Page 17 of the WA states, "Most of the assessment area has a dendritic drainage pattern
and is steep, water-cut, deeply dissected, and forested." This portion would be classified under the Rosgen Stream
Types as A and B type channels which are relatively stable. Page 18 indicates that C type channels in the watershed
have decreased bank stability due to human manipulations. Because of anticipated ongoing human impacts, it was
determined to be "At Risk" with respect to streambank condition.
Proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road in this watershed. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - Floodplain connectivity is discussed on page 18 of the WA; it states, "Removal of vege-
tation, ditching and draining, and construction of tlood control structures has... [sic]... significantly altered the chan-
nels and their interaction with the floodplain." Also, "The floodplains have been cleared and drained for
development." Table FISH-3 assesses John's Creek and Wimer Creek as both being "At Risk" regarding floodplain
connectivity. However, most of the floodplain occurs lower down in the drainage system, where heavy disconnect-
ing of floodplains from road construction exists. Therefore, with respect to floodplain connectivity, the watershed
was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning."
There are no activities in the lOO-year floodplain within this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Watershed Conditions
Road Density & Location/Drainage Network - While there is insufficient data to estimate road densities in non-
BLM land in the watershed (WA, page 2), it is listed for John's Creek and Wimer Creek both as being "Not Properly
Functioning" (table FISH-3). Page 49 of the WA gives the road density on BLM administered lands as 3.92 miles
per square mile (table EROD-3 gives the road density for BLM administered lands as 3.82 miles per square mile),
and page 23 indicates that some roads were constructed along streams. Map EROD-6 shows many intersections of
roads and streams. Combined, these indicate that the watershed is "Not Properly Functioning" with regard to road
density and kication/drainage network.
Proposed actions are limited to the CBW Road in this watershed. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to
"Maintain" the baseline for road density location network.
Disturbance History - Page 23 of the WA says. "The combined impacts of agricultural practices, past timber harvest
practices, and the associated land management activities have degraded stream habitat conditions in the Area (water-
shed)." Table Veg-3 (WA, page 14) indicates that although a high percentage of BLM-managed land is currently in
mid- to late-seral stages; it is a small percentage of the entire land base. WA pages 40 & 41 highlight historic splash
damming in the watershed causing bank erosion and stream scouring. These references illustrate that the watershed
is "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to disturbance history.
Proposed actions are limited to human-disturbed sites (CBW Road). Therefore, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for disturbance history.
Landslide Rates - Page 6 of the WA indicates that of the 182 known slides in the watershed. 63 percent were associ-
ated with recent timber-yarding; while. 16 percent were associated with roads. These data meet the criteria for "Not
Properly Functioning" with regard to landslide rates. The proposed action does not include new road construction or
tree removal, therefore was determined to "Maintain" the baseline for landslide rates.
E-27
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Riparian Reserves - Page 25 of the WA states that riparian buffers on BLM-managed lands are intact and that future
recruitment of large wood "appears to be good." For the watershed as a whole, however, page 18 indicates that C
type channels have had considerable disturbance of stream-side vegetation, and page 23 indicates that considerable
areas on private land do not have the potential to provide large wood to the streams. Because of the riparian manage-
ment on private land in the basin, the watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to
Riparian Reserves.
The proposed actions will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. Therefore, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
E-28
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-7. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators.
Name and location: Coos Bay District - BLM
:th
Basin: 5" field: Middle Main Coquille
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions^
Properly
Functioning-^
At Risk^
Not Properly
Functioning-^
Restore''
Maintain''
Degrade
Water Quality
Temperature
WA, PJ
PJ
Turbidity
WA, PJ
PJ
Chemical Concentration/ Nutrients
WA
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
WA
PJ
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment
WA,PJ
PJ
Large Wood
WA, PJ
PJ
Pool Area
WA
PJ
Pool Quality
WA. PJ
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
WA
PJ
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
WA, PJ
PJ
Streambank Condition
WA
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
WA
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
WA
PJ
Human Disturbance History
WA, PJ
PJ
Landslide Rates
WA, PJ
PJ
Riparian Reserves
WA
PJ
1. Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings: WA- Mid-
dle Main Coquille North Coquille Mouth Catching Creek Watershed Analyses, PJ- Professional Judgment.
2. Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
3. These three categories of function ("properly functioning"", "at risk", "not properly functioning'") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators'" (Table E-2).
4. For the purposes of this checklist (Table E-7), "restore"' means to change the function of an "at risk"" indicator to "properly function-
ing"", "not properly functioning"" to "at risk"" and "properly functioning"" moving towards recovery. "Short-term"" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intermittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e., hauling more than 10 loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e.. days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occurring effects (i.e., new permanent road constioiction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e., months/years).
E-29
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
XII. RATIONALE USED IN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) ON
RELEVANT INDICATORS WITH RESPECT TO THE OLALLA - LOOKINGGLASS
WATERSHED
Note: Unless documented otherwise, the information source used for accessing the environmental baseline is con-
tained in the Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed Analysis prepared by the Roseburg District South River Resource Area
(04/02/1998). The watershed covers approximately 103,109 acres.
Water Quality
Temperature - Pages 72 and 73 from Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed Analysis (WA) indicate that the 7-day maxi-
mum water temperature of Olalla Creek exceeds 68° F, thus meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning" with
respect to temperature.
These proposed actions contain no riparian overstory tree removal and were determined to "Maintain" the tempera-
ture baseline.
Turbidity - Pages 7 1 and 75 of the WA report that problems with turbidity were identified by DEQ on Thompson
Creek within the Olalla-Lookingglass WAU. A weighted average of "Fair" was derived from ODFW habitat surveys
(table C-6 in WA) of percent area covered in silt/sand in the watershed. From this data, it was inferred to be "At
Risk" with respect to turbidity.
The proposed action would cross 48 intermittent and small perennial streams in this watershed when dry or during
summer low flows. Of these 48 stream crossings, 30 would be trenched dry during summer construction and 8 would
be in road fill. Ten small (less than 0.1 cfs) perennial streams would be trenched using the "bag and flume" method
during low flows. Small amounts of increased transitory turbidity may occur during pipeline construction prior to
seeding and mulching of ground-disturbed areas. However, the BMPs, PDCs and ECP minimize sedimentation
potential to very low levels for a brief time (Appendix A). Sediment barriers and site revegetation are required
throughout the construction project coiridor, to eliminate continuous turbidity impacts where delivery mechanisms to
streams exist. PDCs include new cross-drains in the CBW Road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5 field, therefore deter-
mined to "Maintain" the sediment/turbidity baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Contaminants and Nutrients - Pages 72 and 75 state that one pH measurement collected in 1996 was 8.0, which
was within the standards set by DEQ of 6.5-8.5. No assessments, measurements or duration criteria of management-
related inputs data were collected or analyzed. Table C-6 rated organics as fair for the watershed. However, due to
continued impacts from human development (residences, agriculture, logging, etc.), there is potential for future
increases in contaminants. Because of this potential increase, it was determined to be "At Risk" with respect to con-
taminants and nutrients.
The proposed actions do not utilize chemicals in the construction process other than products for running the machin-
ery. This project was determined to "Maintain" the chemical contaminant baseline.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Pages 63 - 68 and Appendix C of the WA discuss the high road densities (greater than 3 miles of
road per square mile of area) and their impacts within the Olalla-Lookingglass watershed. There are roughly 2
stream crossings per stream mile within the watershed. Some culverts in the watershed likely inhibit fish passage
during high or low flows. Based on these data, it was determined to be "At Risk" with respect to physical barriers.
The proposed actions contain no new permanent in-stream structures. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for physical barriers.
Habitat Elements
Substrate/Sediment - Pages 63 - 68 and Appendix C of the WA discuss the impacts of high road densities (>3 mi/
mi2 area) and their ability to increase sedimentation. Although road-related surface erosion was not quantified for
this WA, pages 71 & 75 indicate that problems with sedimentation were specifically identified by DEQ within the
E-30
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Olalla-Lookingglass watershed. Table C-6 gives embcddedness as 26 - 49 percent with cobble as the dominant sub-
strate. This indicates that the watershed is "At Risk" with respect to substrate/sediment.
The proposed action would cross 48 intermittent and small perennial streams in this watershed when dry or during
summer low Hows. Of these 48 stream crossings, 30 would be trenched dry during summer construction and 8 would
be in road till. Ten small perennial streams would be trenched using the "bag and Hume" method during low flows.
PDCs include new cross-drains in the CBW Road.
The proposed actions were determined to have insignificant effects at the site and at the 5"' field, therefore deter-
mined to "'Maintain" the substrate/sediment baseline. The effects would be insignificant because of the implementa-
tion of PDCs and the ECP (Appendix A), specifically the bag and flume technique.
Large Woody Debris (LWD) - Pages 68 and 69 state that LWD is lacking in many stream channels within the
watershed because of previous stream cleaning practices. However, aquatic inventory data in Appendix C of the WA
reports an average of 220.2 pieces of LWD per mile of stream, which is well above the criteria of greater than 80
pieces required for a "Properly Functioning" classification.
No tree removal occurs within this watershed from the proposed action. Proposed actions are limited to powerline
utility corridors and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for
LWD.
Pool Area and Pool Quality -Table C-6 gives a weighted average of "Fair" (16-29 percent) for the watershed as a
whole with respect to pool area. According to the WA, this corresponds with the NMFS designation of "At Risk."
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for pool quality.
Off-Channel Habitat - No quantification of this indicator occurred in the WA. However, due to its high density of
roads and a history of stream cleaning, severe downcutting has occurred, thus isolating the natural tloodplain. From
this, it was inferred to be "Not Properly Functioning" with respect to off-channel habitat.
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for off-channel habitat.
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio - Page 69 and table C-6 in Appendix C from the WA indicate that the width/depth ratio exceeds
12, thus meeting the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning."
Proposed actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Hence, the proposed actions were determined
to "Maintain" the baseline for width/depth ratio.
Streambank Condition - Page 68 from the WA discusses field surveys which found that stream channels are down-
cutting and causing accelerated bank erosion. It was inferred from these observations that streambank condition
could meet the criteria for "Not Properly Functioning."
The proposed actions have adequate measures (Appendix A) to maintain streambank integrity during and after
construction. Thus, the proposed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for streambank condition.
Floodplain Connectivity - This indicator was indirectly assessed as overall hydrologic flows through out the water-
shed (WA, pages 59-68). Page 58 states that, "...increased drainage densities, due to road construction, may increase
peak flows and mean annual floods." Based on these comments in the context of high road densities prevalent within
the watershed, it was determined to be "At Risk" with respect to tloodplain connectivity.
There are no activities in the 100-year floodplain within this watershed. Hence, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseline for floodplain connectivity.
Watershed Condition
Road Density and Location/Drainage Network - Appendix C, page 63, as well as pages 66-68 from the WA, indi-
cate that the road density/drainage network exceeds 3 road miles per square mile with an average of 4.49 miles of
road per square mile. Also, many of the wider valley bottoms contain roads and many of the larger tributaries within
the watershed have roads along much of their length. The watershed was determined to be "Not Properly Function-
ing" with respect to road density and location/drainage network.
E-31
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Proposed project actions are limited to powerline ROWs and the CBW Road. Thus, the proposed actions were deter-
mined to "Maintain" the baseUne for road density location network.
Disturbance History - Pages 15-29 of the WA discuss the disturbance history of the watershed. Vegetation data
from 1936, when compared with vegetation data from 1997, reveals a shift in the watershed to a higher proportion of
early serai vegetation. Therefore, stem exclusion conditions are over-represented within the landscape, fragmenting
the forest matrix with early serai patches (age 0-30). Also, the proportion of the landscape classified as nonforested
has grown significantly, because of urban and agricultural land uses, each of which display a high intensity distur-
bance regime. Historically, natural disturbances such as slides, fire, storm events, etc., played a significant role in
defining the landscape of the watershed (WA pages 15-29). However, landscape changes from 1936-1997 were pri-
marily attributed to human-induced influences. Based on this information, it was determined to be "Not Properly
Functioning" with respect to disturbance history.
Proposed project actions are limited to human-disturbed sites (utility corridors and roadways). Therefore, the pro-
posed actions were determined to "Maintain" the baseline for disturbance history.
Landslide Rates - Page 53 of the WA indicates that landslide rates can be increased by human activity, such as road
building. There was no quantified measure of landslide rates in the WA. However, since human impacts (such as
road densities) throughout the Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed are high, it seems likely that landslide rates are above
historical levels. Based on these inferences, the watershed was determined to be "At Risk" with respect to landslide
rates.
The proposed action does not include new road construction or tree removal, therefore was determined to "Maintain"
the baseline for landslide rates.
Riparian Reserves - Riparian reserves within the Olalla-Lookingglass basin are highly impacted and fragmented
from human activities as a result of the "checkerboard" federal ownership pattern that exists within the watershed.
Table C-2 shows that the Lookingglass Creek subwatershed is less than 70 percent intact. This meets the criteria for
"Not Properly Functioning" with respect to Riparian Reserves.
The proposed project actions will not impact any overstory riparian vegetation. Therefore, the proposed actions were
determined to "Maintain" the baseline for Riparian Reserves.
E-32
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Stream Crossings with Potential for Listed Fisli Presence at Pipeline Crossing Sites:
Morgan Creek, Rock Creek, and Tenmile Creek
These three streams are located (on private ground) in the Umpqua River basin. South Umpqua River subbasin, Ola-
lla-Lookingglass 5 field watershed. Each of the streams supports populations of coho salmon. The Coos Bay
Wagon Road crosses each of these streams utilizing short-span bridges. Based upon the small size of the streams
(<I0' active channel width), bridge locations, and other complexities associated with pipeline boring technologies, it
was determined that these crossings would not utilize boring techniques, or be hung on the bridges with exposed
pipe. At these locations, the proposal is to cross each respective stream in the vicinity of the Coos Bay Wagon Road
bridges by utilizing pipeline trenching equipment.
Juvenile OC coho salmon rear in freshwater (typically in their natal stream) for about a year before outmigrating to
the Pacific Ocean, and could be in the vicinity of the project sites if water quality and temperatures are suitable. The
in-stream and riparian habitat conditions adjacent to the pipeline crossing areas are moderately degraded. These con-
ditions are primarily a result of land management practices (agricultural clearing, riparian grazing, and riparian tim-
ber harvest).
At each of the specific pipeline crossing sites, in-stream habitat consists of shallow riffles, separated by small pools.
Stream gradients range from a low of approximately 2% on Morgan Creek, to a high of roughly 6% on upper Ten-
mile Creek. During periods of low summer flow,
surface flow virtually disappears in riffle areas of these streams, with only residual pools containing water throughout
the summer. Riparian vegetation in these areas consists of sparse alder, willow, pasture grasses, and scattered coni-
fers. The South Fork of the Umpqua River, including Ollala-Lookingglass Creek, is currently listed on the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303(d) list for water temperature, habitat, and low stream flows. Stream
temperatures and flow conditions in the vicinity of the proposed crossings may reach levels that prevent salmonids
from inhabiting these areas. Salmonids would most likely be found outside of these areas, in deeper, cooler pools.
Based on information gathered and interpreted by BIS staff, the proposed pipeline crossings discussed above are not
likely to adversely affect OC coho salmon because: (1) Migration timing of OC coho salmon adults and smolts is
such that none are likely to be present within the project areas during the proposed work period; (2) rearing juvenile
(fry) OC coho salmon may be present if stream temperatures are suitable, but they would likely inhabit pools
upstream or downstream of the proposed riffle crossing areas; (3) appropriate sediment control measures (bag and
flume stream crossing techniques - refer to Erosion Control Plan) would maintain in-stream habitat indicators in the
short-term, and minimize or eliminate turbidity effects on juvenile OC coho in the vicinity of the project areas; (4)
riffle areas where pipeline trenching and construction activities would take place are likely to be dry during the
period of pipeline construction; (5) vegetative disturbance would be minimal in riparian areas, so riparian habitat
conditions would be maintained; and (6) effects to the stream channel (habitat alteration, etc.) would be negligible
since use of equipment within the stream channel would be limited to riffle areas, and the stream bed would be
restored to its original contour following trenching activities.
The scale of the action at the sites, timing and time needed to accomplish the trenching (approximately 2 hours per
site) would result in insignificant effects to listed OC coho salmon. Thus, there is less than a negligible likelihood of
adverse effects or incidental take of OC coho salmon occurring due to this project.
E-33
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Table E-8. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on
Relevant Indicators.
Name and location; Roseburg District South River Resource Area - BLM
Basin: 5 field: Olalla-Lookingglass
Pathways
Indicators
Environmental Baseline
Effects of the Actions-
Properly
Functioning
At Risk'^
Not Properly
Functioning'^
Restore'*
Maintain'*
Degrade"*
Water Oiialit\-
Temperature
WA
PJ
Turbidity
WA. PJ
PJ
Chemical Concentration/ Nutrients
DEQ
PJ
Access
Physical Barriers
WA. PJ
PJ
Hcibitcit Elements
Substrate/Sediment
WA
PJ
Large Wood
WA
PJ
Pool Area
WA
PJ
Pool Quality
WA. PJ
PJ
Off-Channel Habitat
WA
PJ
Channel Condition & Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
WA.PJ
PJ
Streambank Condition
WA. PJ
PJ
Floodplain Connectivity
WA
PJ
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location
WA.PJ
PJ
Human Disturbance History
WA, PJ
PJ
Landslide Rates
WA
PJ
Riparian Reserves
WA
PJ
Environmental Baseline conditions are derived from BLM stream survey data and synthesis of watershed analysis findings: WA-
Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analyses, PJ- Professional Judgment, and DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Effects of the Actions are derived from this Biological Assessment and description of proposed project actions.
These three categories of function ("properly functioning", "at risk", "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the
"Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" (Table E-2).
For the purposes of this checklist (Table E- 8), "restore" means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly function-
ing", "not properly functioning" to "at risk" and "properly functioning" moving towards recovery. "Short-term" effects, for the pur-
poses of this checklist, are defined as: intermittent or inconsistently occurring effects (i.e.. hauling more than \() loads per day during
heavy-rain events) that are brief in duration (i.e., days). "Long-term" effects, for the purposes of this checklist, are defined as consis-
tently occuning effects (i.e.. new permanent road construction) that are lengthy in duration (i.e.. months/years).
E-34
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
XIII. DICHOTOMQUS KEY FOR SECTION 7 DETI:R1V1INATT0N OF EFFECTS
Name and location of action: Coos County Pipeline, route location list is on page 1 of this
document, and maps are provided as attachments.
Name of species: Coho salmon and Oregon Coast Stcelhead
1. Are there any proposed/listed anadromous salmonids and/or proposed designated critical
habitat in the watershed, or downstream from the watershed?
NO No effect
YES May affect, go to 2
2. Will the proposed actions have any affect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat?
NO No effect
YES Go to 3
3. Do the proposed actions have the potential to hinder attainment of relevant properly
functioning indicators (from checklist)?
NO Go to 4
YES Likely to adversely affect
4. Does the proposed action(s) have the potential to result in "take" of proposed/listed
anadromous salmonids, or destruction/adverse modification of proposed/designated critical
habitat?
A. There is a negligible probability Not likely to adversely affect
B. There is more than a negligible probability Likely to adversely affect
E-35
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
LIST OF REFERENCES
Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. September 30, 1999. East Fork Coquille River Watershed Analy-
sis. North Bend, Oregon.
Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. July 20, 2001. North Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis. North
Bend, Oregon.
Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. September 30, 1997. Middle Main Coquille Watershed Analysis.
North Bend, Oregon.
Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. January, 2002. Coos County Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Stream Work to Protect Fish
and Wildlife Resources.
Oregon Department of Transportation. December, 1999. Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.
Porior, Don. January, 2000. Designing For Stream Simulation At Road Crossings.
Roseburg District, Bureau of Land Management. April 2, 1998. Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed Analysis. Rose-
burg, Oregon.
Roseburg District, Bureau of Land Management. May 30, 2000. Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analysis. Rose-
burg, Oregon.
USDA and USDI. 1994. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-
Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl ROD.
USDA and USDI. 2001. Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey
and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Manage-
ment On Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W.R. Meehan, editor, pages 297-323.
USDA Forest Service and US Department of Transportation. November 1990. Fish Passage Through Culverts.
67pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1973. Protecting Fish Habitat During Forest Road Development.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1986. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Record of Decision
(ROD). Portland, Oregon.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program
Record of Decision (ROD). Portland ,Oregon.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan. Coos Bay
Oregon and Roseburg, Oregon
E-36
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Appendix A:
Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
Plan
(Note: this is a revised version of Appendix J from Coos County Pipe-
line EIS Published January 2002)
E-37
Appendix E. Aquatic Biological Assessment
Appendix B:
Erosion Control Plan
(Note: this is a revised version of Appendix H from Coos County Pipe-
line EIS Published January 2002)
E-38
Appendix El. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Appendix El. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
There have been no signiricanl changes to this appendix.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT for the COOS COUNTY NATU-
RAL GAS PIPLINE, COOS BAY DISTRICT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE-
MENT, COOS COUNTY, OREGON
Prepared By: Brian Cox
Biological Information Specialists, Inc.
P.O. Box 27
Camas Valley, OR 97416
October 1,2001
E-1- 1
Appendix E1. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Coos County proposes to construct a natural gas pipeline from Roseburg, Oregon, to Coos Bay, Oregon. This pipe-
line is approximately 60 miles in length and crosses approximately 3 miles of land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Coos Bay District.
PURPOSE
An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment is required to ensure BLM actions and/or proposed actions on BLM
lands are compliant with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. EFH is defined as
those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.
BACKGROUND
The act was originally passed in 1976 and provided the NMFS legislative authority for fisheries regulation in the
United States offshore areas. The 1996 amendments to the Act require the identification of EFH for federally man-
aged fish species and implementation of measures to conserve and enhance this habitat as described in federal fishery
management plans. Essential Fish Habitat designated by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council includes fresh-
water habitats in BLM administered lands in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
The Act requires all federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all new federal
actions that have been determined to adversely affect EFH.
Consultation is not required for existing actions, nor for actions determined not likely to adversely affect EFH.
POLICY/ACTION
L For any project within designated EFH areas, the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analy-
sis must assess potential effects to EFH, and the results of that analysis must be documented in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
II. If the EFH effects analysis supports a conclusion that EFH will not be adversely affected, no EFH consultation
with NMFS is required.
III. If the EFH analysis results in a conclusion that adverse effects to EFH may result from the action, EFH consulta-
tion with NMFS is required.
CONCLUSIONS
The Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment (Appendix E of this EIS) evaluates impacts of the proposed action as compared
to baseline conditions for each watershed occurring within the proposed action area with respect to "Matrix of Fac-
tors and Indicators" (NMFS 1998). NMFS has determined this assessment to be adequate for assessing EFH (Frank
Bird pers. com.). Potential impacts from both the Hwy 42 alternative and proposed action were determined to "Not
Adversely Effect" with respect to EFH.
E-1-2
Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endan-
gered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
The following changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement were made in Appendix F.
• The USFWS Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence was not available prior to the publica-
tion of the Draft EIS. This has now been received and inserted into this appendix..
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Roseburg Field Office
2900 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, Oregon 97470
541/957-3474 FAX: 541/957-3475
Reply to: 8330.2764 (02)
File name: BLM-CoosCo. Pipeline February 12, 2002
TS#: 02-635
Memorandum
To: Sue E. Richardson, District Manager, Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management
From:Craig A. Tuss, Field Supervisor, Roseburg Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Subject: Request for Section 7 Consultation and written concurrence on effects determinations for the Coos Country
Natural Gas Pipeline in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon (#1-15-02-1-276).
This responds to your January 18, 2002 request for written concurrence with your determination of effects for the
subject project. Consultation was initiated on January 18, 2002 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received your written request. This consultation is being conducted pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 153 et seq.), as amended. This consultation is based on information provided to the Service in
Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
conversations between our staffs, in your written correspondence, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the
Biological Assessment prepared by your consultant, Brian Cox, of BIS, P.O. Box 27, Camas Valley, OR, which was
received with. your consultation request letter. At issue in this consultation are the impacts of the subject project on
the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (spotted owl) and marbled mun-elet {Brachyramphus mannora-
tus) (marbled murrelet).
You requested written concurrence with your determination that the proposed project "may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect" spotted owls or marbled murrelets, "and there is "no affect" on their critical habitats". You also
determined that the project would have no affect on the bald eagle {Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The EIS stated that
field surveys found no listed, proposed, or candidate plant species within the proposed action area. Therefore, the
extent of the impacts are limited to possible disturbance to spotted owls and marbled murrelets from human activity
and noise produced by the associated construction equipment during the construction of the pipeline.
Because the proposed action is not anticipated to affect these species or their habitats, the following will not be
addressed further in this consultation: spotted owl critical habitat, marbled murrelet critical habitat, and bald eagle.
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Any potential impacts to listed anadromous fish species should be addressed in a sepa-
rate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
According to infomiation provided to the Service, the proposed 59.1 mile long 12 inch steel pipeline will be buried
underground and the only above ground components will be plastic line markers, test stations and various valve fea-
tures. The requested permanent right-of-way width is 40 feet (20 feet either side of the pipeline). The easement on
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands would total approximately 13 acres. Additional construction width would
range from 10 to 40 feet, depending on slope and soil conditions. This additional area for construction would involve
a possible 7 acres which would be restored and returned to BLM control after pipeline construction and site restora-
tion. All wedand areas and stream crossing impacts will be avoided by directional drilling.
The proposed route is within existing right-of-ways of the Bonneville Power Administration and the CBW Road, and
would bisect two spotted owl Critical habitat Units and one murrelet critical habitat unit. Because the proposed route
is within existing right-of-ways of the Bonneville Power Administration and the CBW Road, the construction activi-
ties will not remove or degrade suitable habitat.
In general, construction activities in the project area with the potential to disturb spotted owls and marbled murrelets
would not occur during their critical breeding season of March 1st to June 30th (owls) and April 1st to August 5th
(murrelets) . These restrictions would be imposed within their species-specific disturbance, areas of 0.25 mile (See
attached project design criteria). Blasting would not be done within one mile of occupied spotted owl nest sites from
March V to September 30 Ih. suitable habitat March L to June 30", or marbled murrelet occupied or unsurveyed suit-
able habitat from April 1st to September 15th. No new roads will be constructed and no helicopter activities will
occur.
The construction of the pipeline may affect spotted owls and marbled murrelets, because of short-duration (<10 days)
moderate noise above normal ambient levels. Project design criteria have been designed to minimize potential distur-
bance effects detrimental to any listed species by providing daily and seasonal timing restrictions within established
buffer zones that should eliminate all adverse affects (See attached). Therefore, the Service concurs with your deter-
mination that the project, "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the spotted owl or marbled murrelet.
This concludes informal consultation on the proposed Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Project. If any changes to
the proposed project occur or new information becomes available, reinitiation of consultation may be required. If you
have any questions, please contact David Peterson at 541/957-3471 or myself.
Attachment ( 1 )
cc: (with attachment )Lee Folliard, OFWO, Portland. OR
Office Files, OFWO, Portland, OR
Ken Phippen, NMFS, Roseburg, OR
F-2
Appendix F. U.S. Fi.sh and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE COOS COUNTY PIPELINE
III. PROTECT DESIGN CRITERIA
Project Design Criteria (PDCs) are mitigation measures applied to project activities to minimize potential detrimental
effects to proposed or listed species. Some PDCs apply to all species, but most apply to specific species. Habitat
removal and/or degradation and disturbance are considered for this proposed project. In general, project areas with
the potential to disturb spotted owls, marbled murrelets and bald eagles would not occur during their critical breeding
season if their actions would occur within their species-specific disturbance-buffer.
"Habitat or Individuals" PDCs apply in situations where currently suitable habitat will be affected or where individ-
ual animals could be directly or indirectly affected (e.g. actually harms or kills).
"Disturbance" PDCs apply to projects that do not affect currently suitable habitat, but where animals near suitable
habitat could be disturbed.
1. Bald Eagle
Habitat or Individuals
(I) No suitable habitat trees will be cut.
Disturbance
(I) Work activities that cause disturbance would not take place within 1312 feet (400m) of active nests and roosts, or
within 2625 feet (800ni) line-of-sight from nests and roosts during periods of eagle use unless field surveys demon-
strate that the nest or roosts are not being used during the normal season of use. For nests, the period of eagle use is
January 1st to August 31st (or two weeks postfledging). For roosts, the period of eagle use is November 15th to
March 15th.
(II) No helicopter activities will occur.
2. Northern Spotted Owl
Habitat and Individuals
(I) No suitable habitat will be removed.
Disturbance
(I) Work activities such as trenching, road reco-siruction and repaving, etc. will not take place within l/4mile of any
nest site or activity center of known pairs and resident singles between March V and June 301h.
(II) The boundary of the 1/4 mile "disturbance-free" area may be modified on a site-specific basis due to topographic
breaks or other localized factors.
(III) This PDC may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to
the Service-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no young-of-the-year are
F- 3
Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Letter of Concurrence
present. Waivers are only valid until March I" of the following year. Previously known sites and activity centers are
assumed occupied unless surveys indicate otherwise.
(IV) No helicopter activities will occur.
(V) Blasting would not occur within one (1 ) mile of suitable habitat March 1st, to June 30th.
(VI) Blasting would not occur within one (1) mile of known nest sites March 1st to September 30th unless the Ser-
vice's protocol surveys indicate: 1) owls are not present; 2) owls present are not nesting, or 3) the young-of-the year
have dispersed.
3. Marbled Murrelet
Habitat or Individuals
(I) No suitable habitat will be removed.
Disturbance
(I) Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for <1 week" and related activities 'occurring
within 1/4 mile of unsurveyed suitable habitat, shall be no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and no later than 2 hours
before sunset from April 1st to August 5th.
(II) Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for <1 week" and related activities occur-
ring within 'Mmile of occupied habitat, shall be seasonally restricted from April 1st to August 5th.
(III) Daily timing of the project's "Moderately above ambient noise levels for <1 week" and related activities occur-
ring within '/4 mile of occupied habitat, shall be no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and no later than 2 hours before
sunset from August 6h to September 15th.
(IV) No blasting will occur within one mile of occupied habitat or within one mile of unsurveyed suitable habitat
April 1st to September 15th.
(V) No helicopter activities will occur.
F-4
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Answer:
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
No siiznil'icanl chaimcs have been made to this section.
The questions and comments listed below are derived from the many questions and comments sent from
the public as a result of the public meetings and publications made available to the public. In many
instances, the questions and comments of various individuals addressed the same issue. These questions or
comments were addressed with a single question or comment. Some of the questions were received while
an Environmental Assessment (EA) was being worked on and some were received during the public com-
ment period (and later) for this EIS. Thus, there are references to both an EA and EIS within this Appen-
dix.
As much as possible, the questions and comments (within their respective sections) are arranged keeping
similar topics together.
Questions from the Public
1. Question:
Why is the pipeline route changed from the route proposed in the referendum (Hwy 42) submitted to the vot-
ers in November of 1999?
The Highway 42 route was chosen by the County's bond issue consultant RMI Navigant. who also assessed
the CBW Road. Navigant said the choice between the two routes was difficult but they narrowly preferred
the Highway 42 route because of their belief environmental permitting would be easier — such is probably
not the case. Relative to the original Highway 42 route, the now-preferred CBW Road is about 25 miles
shorter, about $20 million less expensive to construct, and the pipeline will be much less susceptible to third-
party dig-in damage. The currently proposed route impacts far fewer streams and wetlands, and will not dis-
rupt traffic on Highway 42 for thousands of travelers per day during construction. Additionally, worker
safety will be greater on the CBW Road versus working on the Highway 42 route
2. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 2.
Given the current BPA moratorium on installation of pipelines in their ROW, what are the risks of having a
natural gas pipeline in the vicinity of a power line ROW? Why are the risks not significant? Is it wise to use
utility corridors for the pipeline conidor?
Answer:
The primary perceived risk of locating a gas pipeline near a power line is related to a gas explosion or fire
which could possibly damage a tower or a conductor. Such events could also cause a forest fire, which could
spread and cause damage to the electrical system. Natural gas pipeline incident statistics indicate that the
risk for significant damage to occur to the BPA electrical system is very small. In fact, there has never been
a report of such an incident in the history of gas pipeline safety regulation by the US DOT since 1970.
Because the risk is insignificant compared with reduced impact on environment and population, most Fed-
eral, state and local government agencies prefer to have gas pipelines located in existing utility corridors,
such as the prefened CBW Road/BPA/PP&L route.
3. Question:
Is it true the pipeline will be installed under an elementaiy school and within its playground located within
the eastern end of the corridor? If so, what direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are involved at this location?
G- 1
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Answer:
Answer:
The pipeline will not be installed under a school, nor will it be installed closer than 50 feet to any occupied
building. The preferred route follows a PP&L power corridor which passes about 300 feet south of the
Lookingglass School in Douglas County. Even a catastrophic failure of the pipeline could not be expected to
damage the school at that distance.
4. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 4.
Is the Environmental Assessment study assessing the impacts on county and private lands (including
infringement of rights held by private land owners) located along the proposed pipeline corridor?
Answer:
The environmental study must, by law, assess the impacts of the proposed pipeline on all lands, regardless of
ownership. The entire 60-mile route is reviewed, even though the current proposal will only impact approx-
imately 3 miles of BLM land.
5. Question:
Will this pipeline cause future problems if roads in which it is constructed are closed, restored or recon-
toured?
There is almost no chance of any road along the preferred route being closed. If the road is closed, the pipe-
line will not be impacted. If restored or recontoured, the location of the pipeline will be considered when the
work is done.
6. Question:
What rural fire protection access is available along the pipeline route (in the event of an pipeline accident
causing a fire)?
Answer:
Rural Fire Departments are located at Lookingglass, Dora, and Fairview. Fire equipment is also located at
Winston and Roseburg in Douglas County, and Coquille, Myrtle Point, Millington and Coos Bay in Coos
County. Federal regulations (49CFR 192.615) provide that local emergency response personnel be informed
about the pipeline location and operations and be involved in the development of emergency response plans
for the pipeline.
7. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 7.
In the event of a gas line explosion or a leakage causing stream pollution, will the county have insurance cov-
erage for such an event? Could you please explain the likely process for cleaning up surface or ground water
polluted from a natural gas leakage? What consideration will be given to fish kill and fish or marine habitat
destruction? Will such an event be a taxpayer liability?
Answer:
Natural gas is composed of inert components and consequently does not pollute or dissolve into water. Nat-
ural gas is 35% lighter than air. Any gas leak from the pipeline would pass through the soil or groundwater
and then dissipate into the air. There is usually no effect of a gas leak on habitat, fish or wildlife. A cata-
strophic failure of this 12-inch pipeline at its usual operating pressure may cause surface damage within
about 50 feet of the rupture. The gas escaping from a pipeline rupture could explode or otherwise burn if a
source of ignition is contacted by the gas; therefore, a larger area could be affected by a fire. Once the gas
flow is shut off, there would be no residue left from the gas. In comparison, a petroleum liquids pipeline rup-
ture would spill products that could leave behind residual product that would require a "clean-up"" operation
even after the pipeline had been shut off. With regards to taxpayer liability, Coos County will carry general
liability insurance to cover potential losses and to limit taxpayer liability.
G-2
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
8. Question:
Given the tact construction activities are noisy, are tiie sensitive raptors, protected under the Endangered
Species Act, given full consideration in the Environmental Assessment regarding their need for quiet nesting
habitat (Spring survey requirements, for example)?
Answer:
Any effects of construction, including noise and dust, will be of a short duration. For a typical quarter mile
section of pipe, the entire construction sequence will likely be started and finished within a week. Coos
County has agreed to abide by any time-of-day and timc-of-year restrictions on work for raptors and other
species. All sensitive and T&E sites have been identified through surveys, and these are directly addressed in
the Terrestrial Biological Assessment (for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence) and the
Environmental Assessment.
9. Question:
What are the cuirent decisions and contingencies of the communities of Coquille, Myrtle Point, Bandon and
North Bend regarding their commitment to hook up secondary (feeder) pipelines to the porposed pipeline?
Answer:
Refer to the answer given for Question 10 for information regarding North Bend hookups. Coquille and
Myrtle Point are included in the NW Natural exclusive territory. NW Natural has agreed to terms with Coos
County that will require NW Natural to perform market surveys in each community and to construct a sub-
stantial distribution system in each town within 3 years of Coos County starting construction of the pipeline.
Bandon distributes electricity within its incorporated area, and they have asked to be removed from NW Nat-
ural's expanded territory application with OPUC. Bandon will be asked to decide who (if any entity) will
distribute gas in Bandon, before their pipeline lateral is built from Coquille.
10. Question:
Exactly where (street location) are the "city gates" for the pipeline's natural gas deliveries to the cities of
Coos Bay, North Bend, Coquille, and Myrtle Point?
Answer:
The exact location of "gate stations" will depend on the availability of a small parcel (about 50 feet square)
of land. A gate station is currently planned near Ocean Blvd. in the Coos Bay / North Bend area on Water
Board property. The Coquille and Myrtle Point gate stations would be along Highway 42 or existing railroad
grade corridors.
11. Question:
Is Bandon planning to hook up to the proposed pipeline?
Answer:
There are no definitive plans for Bandon, until it decides its fate (refer to the answer given for Question 9).
12. Question:
Will all the pipeline laterals (to areas other than Coos Bay) be in place when taxpayers begin paying down
the bond for the pipeline's costs?
Answer:
Yes. The laterals are included in the current project plan and cost estimates, and will be built soon after the
mainline construction begins.
13. Question:
Will the lateral pipelines to these "gates" impact more BLM lands?
G- 3
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Answer:
The laterals will not be located on BLM or other Federal land.
14. Question: The questions of several individuals are addressed together in Question 14.
Given the fact (the policy decision) the proposed natural gas pipeline is supposed to attract heavy industry to
the County, due to the newly available supply of "cheaper energy" (natural gas), how are the following ques-
tions answered:
a. What is driving this desire for attracting heavy industry as opposed to being content with attracting
industries whose needs are met with the fiber-optic line recently established?
Answer:
Natural gas will benefit ALL energy users in the service area, from existing industries to schools, hospitals
and public buildings, restaurants and other businesses, and individual homes. Any business - "heavy" or
"light" - will benefit if energy costs are lower.
b. What are the motives of the major participants promoting this policy?
Answer:
Coos County government and community leaders wish to stabilize the local economy by making the area
more attractive to new and established commerce through lower energy costs.
c. Are land use planning considerations (state regulations) being utilized to determine industrial siting?
Answer:
Coos County is required to follow all land use regulations.
d. Will the U.S.A. trend toward more tourism and less manufacturing cause this policy to fail simply
because it is based on a false premise for promoting economic development?
Answer:
Without regard to the "U.S.A. trend toward to more tourism and less manufacturing", "manufacturing" is not
the only type of economic development that could possibly be attracted to Coos County as a result of the nat-
ural gas pipeline project.
e. Does the Environmental Assessment assess heavy industry's impacts (direct, indirect, and cumula-
tive effects) to the estuary, to the waters of Coos Bay, and to the waters of the oceanline?
Answer:
No. The Environmental Assessment must consider impacts enabled by the pipeline construction, but it does
not address speculative issues such as the impact of any or all of the thousands of possible industrial pro-
cesses which use natural gas. Once a specific project is proposed, the impact of that project would be
addressed in a separate document.
f. Does the Environmental Assessment assess industry-caused impacts to the visual, sound and air
quality of the region surrounding the industrial park (the aiiport area, and the North Spit)?
G-4
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Answer:
No. It is not possible to know what future industries, if any, will loeate in the area. It is aceurale to slate that
any use of natural gas will reduce air pollution from existing processes and energy uses.
g. Does the Environmental Assessment assess the impact to the County if retirees move out of the
County to get away from the heavy industry?
Answer:
No. It is not possible to state whether a possible future industry would change the quality of life in Coos
County, as this is speculative. If a new industry or business is recruited for Coos County, the environmental
impacts (if any) will have to be weighed against the economic impacts (if any) of the quality and quantity of
jobs brought in.
h. Does the Environmental Assessment assess the impact of new heavy industry on the fishing and
tourism industry already established in the County?
Answer:
No, that would be a speculative assessment.
i. Does the Environmental Assessment assess the potential for increases in the already-high risk and
high incidence of lung cancer, bronchial asthma and other respiratory problems known to exist in the
County?
Answer:
Yes. Since most existing energy needs other than from electricity are supplied through fuel oil, bunker fuel
and wood waste, the use of cleaner-burning natural gas is expected to improve air quality.
15. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 15.
Are the road systems and the railroad system leading to the potential industrial sites (the North Spit and the
aiiport areas) adequate for the required shipments of raw materials and finished products.
Answer:
This issue is not pertinent to this Environmental Assessment.
16. Question:
What will be done with the industrial waste produced by the heavy industry this pipeline is supposed to
attract? What level of toxic wastes from these newly introduced industries (utilizing natural gas) will be
allowed to flow into the waters, the air or the soils? Will the release of such toxic wastes cause a transition
from "acceptable" to "significant and unacceptable" levels of change in the ecosystems of the bay (including
its estuaries) and the population (people and wildlife)?
Answer:
These issues are not addressed in the Environmental Assessment, since they are not pertinent to the proposed
action, which is construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline. The question issues regarding toxic
wastes would be addressed through the pennitting process when a specific project is proposed.
G- 5
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
17. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 17.
Since the private sector found this pipeline project to be economically infeasible, and since the County failed
to properly manage the land fill/incinerator facility (referring to the recent embezzlement case), what makes
the County beheve it will succeed in proper management of the proposed pipehne operation (which should
include economic success)?
Answer:
No private company would bear the risk of the pipeline investment without a guaranteed market. The Coos
County project cannot be slowly developed - it is 50 miles of pipe to the first customer of any size. Most
pipeline and utility companies, such as Williams and NW Natural, have dozens of projects which can earn
their expected rates of return, so there is no reason for them to take much risk. The State of Oregon granted
the project $24 million to aid in economic development. With that grant covering most of the risk, the
project is feasible. The County plans to contract operations and maintenance of the pipeline to experienced
pipeline operators. Additionally, the County will have contracts with shippers that will ensure recovery of
operating expenses.
18. Question:
Do we really want the County owning another utility (the gas pipeline)? Is not this a trend toward more
Socialism? Do the principles of Socialism really work?
Answer:
Without speculating on the "principles of Socialism", the concept of publicly owned utilities is very well
proven. Most cities and towns own and operate their own water and sewer systems. Much of the country's
electricity distribution is done by not-for-profit public agencies such as City of Bandon, Coos-Curry Electric
and the Bonneville Power Administration. Also, the "utility" function will be served by NW Natural, not
Coos County. Coos County will not be directly involved with the distribution of natural gas to the public,
but rather only the transportation of natural gas to NW Natural.
19. Question:
Is there really enough evidence to support a likely improvement to the economic status of Coos County once
the proposed pipeline is established?
Answer:
There are dozens of pipeline extensions around the U.S. with which to compare the Coos County pipeline. In
each case, natural gas captures a significant portion of the heating load within the first few years. Refer to the
economic analysis in this Environmental Assessment for quantitative evidence supporting economic
improvements to the County from the pipeline. (Note: The economic analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of
the EIS).
20. Question: The questions of several individuals are addressed together in Question 20.
Does the Environmental Assessment include an assessment for each of the tax implications listed
below?
a. The tax burden to the County residents will be increased, due to the passage of ballot measure # 6-63
(Nov. 1999). Indirect tax increases may result, due to the need for road improvements to accommo-
date the needs of heavy industry, which might be attracted to the County.
Answer:
The EA is not required to review a ballot measure already voted upon. The County residents voted in a 1999
double majority (i.e., more than half the registered voters voted, and a majority of those voting approved the
measure) to authorize up to $27 million in county bonds to fund the balance of the pipeline project. Roads
and road improvements are paid for with gas tax monies only.
G-6
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns fronn the Public
The tax burden could shift if new large employers - coming to invest in the "Enterprise Zone" of the
Coos Bay/North Bend area - are given 15 years of exemption from real estate taxes, plus a 62% pay-
roll tax credit.
Answer: This issue is not pertinent to the EA.
The impact of the tax burden (imposed from passage of the bond initiative approved for the pipeline
project) as it relates to the scenario which lacks major industrial commitments to purchase natural
gas.
Answer:
The county has committed that the pipeline will not be built unless the annual operating expenses will be
covered by gas transporters. NW Natural has agreed to this concept. Thus, the lack of a major industrial
commitment will not affect the County's coverage of operation and maintenance costs (O&M costs), nor will
it change the cost of the project or repayment of county bonds.
d. Changes to real estate values (especially to properties of the North Spit, where heavy industry is
expected to locate its facilities).
Answer:
This issue is highly speculative, and it is not part of the EA.
21. Question:
Does the proposed action have potential of causing deregulation of electrical utilities in the state of Oregon?
Answer:
No.
22. Question: The questions of several individuals are addressed together in Question 22.
Does the Environmental Assessment address the economic concerns listed below?
a. Changes to current market conditions — due to supply and demand — can and do occur; is the pro-
posed action economically viable when such conditions change (including the pricing of natural gas,
the pricing of alternate forms of energy, and the pricing of manufacturing raw materials which new
industries attracted to Coos County might depend upon)?
Answer:
We do not expect the economics of the pipeline project to change over time. Please review the economic
assessment in this EA (Chapter 4 of the EIS). Wholesale prices of energy media (natural gas, propane, fuel
oil, electricity, bunker fuel, coal, wood waste) fluctuate widely. The major energy media are traded on the
commodity markets, but the prices of each of the media are related closely to one another (i.e., pricing of
propane relates to pricing of natural gas and oil, and pricing of electricity relates to pricing of coal and natu-
ral gas), and they are loosely related to all of the others. In the last three decades, those price relationships
have been out of synchronization only briefly. There is no fundamental reason or mechanism which should
change the relationship between natural gas and its alternate fonns of industrial energy. Raw materials
prices are largely connected to energy prices. Therefore, the component costs of manufacturing and com-
merce rise and fall together (in general).
b. The proposed action could have adverse impact to existing businesses in Coos County.
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
Answer:
The EA includes an updated economic analysis done by ECO Northwest, which published earlier studies for
use in the bond election (see Chapter 4 of the EIS). This analysis lists several propane and fuel oil businesses
which may be adversely affected by natural gas availability. There are no other entities which are expected
to be significantly and negatively impacted by this project.
c. The gas distribution company's actions could adversely affect future pipeline operations. (Lack of
commitment, for example, to invest sufficient funds for marketing and delivering the natural gas to a
suitable customer base within the County).
Answer:
NW Natural has agreed to a contractual commitment to a significant construction and marketing effort which
will result in widespread availability and use of natural gas.
23. Question:
What arrangements will ensure the pipeline's self-sufficiency (i.e., operating costs and contingency funds
will be paid on an on-going basis)?
Answer:
Refer to the answer given for Question 20c.
24. Question: The questions of two individuals are addressed together in Question 24.
The proposed action needs "firm capacity demands" (For example, potential customers giving Letter of
Intent to purchase natural gas, or the natural gas distribution company obligates itself to purchase the amount
of gas required to make the County's costs for operating the pipeline economically viable) to assure its suc-
cess over the first 5 years of its operation. Are such assurances being given?
Answer:
As long as the O&M costs are a contractual obligation paid by shippers (see 20c. 22c and 23 above), the
County does not need "firm capacity demands" in order to pay operating and maintenance costs.
25. Question:
Will NW Natural pay the cost to extend the pipeline across the bay to the "North Spit"?
Answer:
Yes - NW Natural or some entity other than Coos County will pay for the cost of the connection to the North
Spit.
26. Question:
What "surcharges" could be applied (by Northwest Natural Gas) to the gas users? Under what conditions
would these surcharges be applied?
Answer:
There is cunently no plan by NW Natural to charge a "surcharge" to Coos County natural gas customers.
27. Question:
Why was the MOU between the County and BLM not available to the public until four months after it was created?
Answer:
The MOU is a public document, which has been discussed for months. It has been available upon request
G-8
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
since its execution last summer.
28. Question:
Where is the County's "Plan of Development" for the proposed action?
Answer:
There is no section tilled "Plan of Development" in the EIS, hut wording equivalent to that required by a
"Plan of Development" is included in EIS; incorporating descriptions of the project, the project route, and
the construction processes required to complete the project.
29. Question:
Are the BPA studies (tor the Draft EIS for the 500 kilowatt fKw] transmission line project) truly qualified as
a source of data for the Environmental Assessment of the proposed corridor, since this Draft EIS never
received public review?
Answer:
The BPA process gathered a lot of pertinent information on the exact route now deemed the preferred route.
The information also received public review through public meetings, although the EIS was never finalized.
The Project Advisors and B.I.S., Inc. have added much pertinent information to the BPA efforts. All of the
old and new data will be analyzed and available for review.
30. Question:
What assurances (documentation) can the following entities give to show an unbiased approach to the EIS
(no financial interest will accrue to them upon acceptance of this project, and they have no other interest
driving them toward causing the acceptance outcome of this project)?
a). Coos Bay BLM District
b). Pipeline Solutions Inc.
c). Industrial Gas Services, Inc.
d). BIS, Inc.
e). Coos County Commissioners
Answer:
A statement of financial disclosure was submitted to the BLM for the Project Advisors (Pipeline Solutions,
Inc., and Industrial Gas Services, Inc.) and for the environmental contractor, BIS, Inc. The Coos County
Commissioners represent Coos County and, although Coos County will economically benefit from the pro-
posed action, the Coos County Commissioners, as publicly elected officials, are prohibited by state law from
personally receiving economic benefit from the proposed pipeline project. The Coos Bay BLM District is
the agency overseeing development of the EA (and subsequent EIS) and thus can have no financial interest
or benefit accruing from approval of the proposed pipeline project.
31. Question:
Answer:
There have been indications that the proposed route will cross some Indian campgrounds and burial grounds.
Have the affected tribes been consulted?
The pipeline ROW were puiposely chosen to avoid known Indian archaeological sites. The Indian tribes in
Coos County have been consulted throughout the entire permitting process and will identify any areas of
concern. Additionally, representatives from the Indian tribes will be on site or readily available during con-
struction to help identify any archaeological sites located during construction.
G- 9
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
32. Question:
Will the EIS determine the effects to the environment if the pipeline were subject to rain storms causing nor-
mal and abnormal landslides in the notoriously unstable Coastal Mountain range? The 100 year flood event
must be considered.
Answer:
The pipeline ROW were purposely chosen to avoid potential slide areas. Geotechnical concerns, including
the possible impact of a "100 year flood event", have been addressed in the geotechnical report.
33. Question:
I am confused about the relationship of the different players, specifically: BLM, the County, Project Advi-
sors, Pipeline Solutions, Inc., Industrial Gas Services, Inc., and Biological Information Specialists. The
Information for Environmental Assessment states that the "Project Advisors cannot prepare the EA." But the
project advisors and the regional firm selected to prepare the EIS, BIS, have the same e-mail address. Is it
true that the consultants. Industrial Gas Services and Pipeline Solutions have no financial or other interest in
the outcome of the Environmental Analysis? Did they also sign a Statement of Financial Interest as required
by 40 CFR 1506.5 (c)?
Answer:
Steve Shute is principal of Pipeline Solutions, Inc., and Steve and Bob Oxford are Vice President and Presi-
dent, respectively, of Industrial Gas Services, Inc. Both companies are jointly under contract with Coos
County as Project Advisors.
Neither company has a financial ownership interest in the pipeline project nor has the BLM required either
company to file a Statement of Financial Interest. In order to address the concern presented above, both
companies have signed a Statement of Financial Interest and that Statement is on file with the BLM. Biolog-
ical Information Specialists, Inc. (BIS) is a contractor hired by the County to perform the environmental
work required by the BLM's MOU and revised MOU. As a contractor performing environmental services,
BIS has signed and filed a Statement of Financial Interest with the BLM. Brian Cox is the principal contact
with BIS for the EIS work.
The "coosproj" e-mail address was set up as a convenient site to use when collecting comments during the
EA process. All comments received at the coosproj address were also forwarded to the BLM and to BIS.
Occasionally, a Project Advisor responded directly to comments received at the coosproj e-mail address but
those comments were also forwarded to others involved in the project.
34. Question:
Will the Environmental Assessment be released by the BLM for public review?
Answer:
The EA was never completed and is not considered a final document by the BLM. Because the EA was not
completed, it will not be released to the public. An EIS is being prepared and will be available to the public
for review and coimnents.
35. Question:
I have concerns regarding the fact that the Environmental Assessment study plans to utilize studies done by
BPA for the Transmission Line EIS but which have not even been published in draft form for public perusal.
I question the use of such studies in a process which has the potential for bypassing public input.
Answer:
Questions about an EA are moot because the Coos Bay BLM has decided to abandon work on an EA and to
begin work on an Environmental Impact Statement. The ternis under which that work will be performed
were clearly stated to the public and are addressed in the BLM's revised Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Coos County. Terms and conditions under which Coos County may construct a pipeline in the
BPA corridor are still under negotiation.
G-10
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
36. Question:
When the leak or explosion occurs deep in the back country, will we have insurance to cover such a disaster, and will
this infringe on private properly owners as well?
Answer:
Coos County will carry general liability insurance to cover damage incurred to property owned by others in
the event of a pipeline leak or explosion.
37. Question:
Since the taxpayers bond is only to take the pipeline to the gates of the cities, is everyone in agreement that
NW Natural will pay the cost to cross the bay and not the taxpayers?
Answer:
We do not know if "everyone is in agreement" but NW Natural has agreed with Coos County that NW Natu-
ral rather than Coos County will construct a pipeline across Coos Bay to the North Spit. Coos County pipe-
line construction funds will not be used to construct the Coos Bay pipeline crossing.
Comments from the Public
1. Comment: The following comment is a compilation of the sentiments of several individuals.
WE DON'T NEED THE PIPELINE! The rationale supporting heavy industrial development, which the
pipeline is supposed to attract, does not address the needs of the public. The chief asset to coastal southern
Oregon - a high quality of life - will be threatened by the pollution of heavy industry. There are many con-
cerned citizens who did not want the pipeline bond; the measure passed by a margin of 300-(- votes - this is a
small margin.
Response:
The EA does not address speculative issues or voting margins.
2. Comment:
We strongly support construction of the pipeline. Please do all you can to further this project.
Response:
Thank you for your positive support.
3. Comment:
I favor getting natural gas to Coos County, but I have concerns about the project's appearance of economic
irrationality.
Response:
Please see the economic assessment in this EA (Chapter 4 of the EIS).
4. Comment:
The County officials have listed the following industries as "desirable heavy industry" for the County: Steel
mills, and manufacturers of plastics, glass, and gypsum. It appears they will welcome any heavy industry.
These heavy industries are also heavy polluters. There is no evidence the regulatory agencies (EPA and
DEQ) will provide the County any locally tailored protection against these toxins.
Response:
The EA does not address speculative issues. It is unknown which industries may or may not attempt to
develop facilities in the future.
G- 11
Appendix G. Questions and Concerns from the Public
5. Comment:
The availability of natural gas in Coos County will not, in and of itself, attract industry to the area.
Response:
Please see the economic assessment in this EA This question has been addressed in numerous public meet-
ings and it has been publicly stated that the availability of natural gas, in and of itself, is not the sole factor
that any new business ("industry") would use to determine whether or not to choose a site in Coos County.
6. Comment: The following comment is a compilation of the sentiments of several individuals.
We feel the process currently underway - Environmental Assessment of the pipeline project - is flawed. The
public deserves ample opportunity to provide input after the release of the Environmental Assessment.
When the Environmental Assessment explores the possible direct and indirect environmental and socio-eco-
nomic effects of enabling establishment of heavy industry on the North Spit and near the airport, the need for
a full Environmental Impact Study (an EIS) will be evident.
Response:
Please see the economic assessment in this EA (Chapter 4 of the EIS) and the response to Comment #4.
Additionally, the BLM and Coos County have decided to prepare an EIS in consideration of these comments.
The public will have the opportunity to review and comment on the EIS.
7. Comment:
This gas line is a very bad thing. It destroys the CBW Road, and it causes grave damage to the creatures
inhabiting the proposed pipeline corridor.
Response:
Virtually no damage to the CBW Road or creatures in the corridor is anticipated. Any effects will be so
insignificant as to be unmeasurable (i.e., negligible).
8. Comment:
The way natural gas prices are soaring, no one will be able to afford hooking up to the gas.
Response:
All forms of energy presently used in Coos County have suffered significant price increases during the past
year.
9. Comment:
I would like to see this issue resubmitted to the voters of Coos County. The County Commissioners failed to
properly inform the voters of all the pertinent factors prior to the original vote.
Response:
EAs do not assess public votes.
10. Comment:
We should ask for the help of Representative Peter DeFazio. He should oversee this Environmental Assess-
ment process.
Response:
He is welcome to comment on this EA, as are all citizens.
11. Comment:
My family and I strongly support construction of the natural gas pipeline. The few noisy people... want noth-
ing that will cost any taxes regardless of the long-term benefits of any project. They do not represent the
majority of us in Coos County. Please do all you can to further this project.
Response:
Thank you for your support.
G-12
Appendix (il. I^cllcrs Received During l^rall Hnvir()iinienl;il Impact Statement Comment Period
Appendix Gl, Letters Received During Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
The following Appendices have been added lo tliis document.
• Appendix G-l: Letters Received During the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period.
• Appendix G-2: Responses to Letters Received During the Draft LnvironiTiental Impact vStatement Comment
Period.
G-l- 1
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
G-1-2
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
regon
Jammry 29. 2002
Bob GunthcT, Pix>jccl <'<x>rdinator
Coos County Natural (ia.^ Pipeline DtIS
Bureau of Land Management
1 300 Airport Lane
North Bend, OR 97459
Department of Fish and Wildlife
CharlMton Di»lrlcr Office
63538 Boat B»nn Drive
PO Bon 5430
Charlcsron. OR 97420
'h v!> (541)888-5515
FAX (541) 888-6860
m
Dear Mr Gunther
I have jiisl atmpleled n
following a>nimcnts:
V of the C«w County Natural Cios Pipeline DEIS and offer the
The Oregon Dcp( Fish & Wildlife supports the selection of the Proposed AKemative
(CBW Road), as opposed lo the Highway 42 Alternative Route Tlic Pniposed
AHcmalivc minimiyrs Impacts to fish and wildlife resources by reducing the number of
stream crossings, wetland crossings, and pipeline constructmn within floodplain
Pages 10-11 It LS difficult at this lime to comment on impacts from coiLStruction of the
anticipated Lateral Routes and the Coos Bay-North Spit crossing, since these projects are
not cvBhialed in the DEIS Perennial and intermittent stream crossings of the Lateral
Roules will require as much diligence in planning and design as was expended for the
currcni DEIS
Page 13; Paving of the gravel sections east of Sitkum and north of Fairview has the
potential to improve water quality aixl thus fish/wildlife habitat in the North and Easi Fork
Coquillc subbasins In domg so, however. considerBiK>n must he made for drainage
ditches, culverts, alteration of runoff pattern, and increased difTicuhy of future culvert
replacements I would encourage your coordination with (.oos County Highway Dept
and with the Coos and Coquille watershed associations to identify and possibly correct
deficient culverts arxl drainage problems prior to pavmg
Tabic 5, Page 25 Oregon Coast cutthrT>aJ trout are widespread in the Coquille Basui
They have the potential to be encountered al nearly every (ish-beanng stream to be
crossed by the pipeline a)rndor Otherwise, I believe you have fairly captxired the ma^r
streams of concern for ooho, steclhcad. and chinook
5 Page 27; Insects are also an important s
e of food for fish, amphibians, and mammals.
Page !10--Affectcd Environmcnl-~RecrcaIion just a hcads-up that anglers and other
fish/wildlife-onented recrealtonisls use the proposed route A salmon fishery occurs in
Isthmas Sk)ugh in the fell (heaviest in September and (Xtobcr). and consmiction
scheduling should avoid the slough crossing at this time of year
CAS PIPFXINE DEIS COMMENTS— Page Z-^aBoary 29. 2002
7 Page 38 I concur with the "Proposed Actwn Effects Summation" On « larger scale (5*
HCCI impacts will be minimal Sitc-spccJfic (7* HIJC and higher) impacts to fish and
wildlife will occur, but shouki be relatively short-term and minor At a few specific sites,
the pn>jcct has the potential to cause k)ng-term improvement in habitat quality aixl access
(tish passage).
8 Appendix A-7: the geolechnicai report irKlicales some potential for mass soil movement
during the life of the project. This risk may actually be irK,TCascd by construction of the
pipeline via disturbance of presently stabilized soils A commitment to periodic iaspcction
of «>il erosion and maintenance of dJsnipted sites shoukl be established through the EIS
process
9 Appendix H-2 and H-3: The second BMP "bullet" ts good. The trapped sediments shoukl
be collected, disposed of in an upland site, and seeded or otherwise stabilized
10 AppeiKlix H-4: During the "Bag and Flume" installation, contractors must ensure that no
fish become trapped m de-walcred scclioas of the stream. Upon installation of the
upstream sandbag dam, personnel must inspect pooled water hek^w the dam for trapped
fish Such fish shoukl he captured and released in the watered section below the ffumc
oulfell
1 1 Ajipcndix H-6 good point on wct/grccn cement. ar*d asphalt Keep in mind that for "Bag
and Flume" sites, the area will riot be dc-watered for 21 days, so use of cement is not
feasible Heavy equipment leak inspections shoukl be frequent. Storage and transfer of
fuels shoukl he situated well away from a waterway or ditch, and spill containment
devices shoukl be immediately on "ready" when liiel or hibricanls are present
12 Appendix J-2 Inwater blasting permits arc required by ODFW The rules for issuarKe of
inwaler blasting permits include a period of public notification, so application must he
made well in advaiKe
13 Appendix J-5 (Pipeline bedding) where backfill will be imported road base, and excess
native soil will be hauled, the County shoukl have this upland disposal site arranged m
advarKC, and such disposed soils shoukl be seeded for stabilization until needed in other
road operations
M Appendix J-ll (Pipeline patrols): such patrob shoukl be made more frequently than
annual in the first two years, since soils will be disturbed in the pipeline constructioa At
least one of the patn)ls shoukl be dorw after winter-spring heavy runoff (i.e mid- to late
May) to check for soil eroston and earth movement.
15 AppendixKl-VII While-tailed deer?
U.S. Department of the Inleri
Bureau of Land Managemer
Coos Bay District OfTice
Oregon
GAS PIPELINE DEIS COMMENTS— Page .W^anuary 29, 2002
Tliank you for the opporturuty to comment on the DEIS for the Natural Oas PipelirK Project
Please note that I did not reviewlhe portions of the DEIS pertaining to the IJmpqua Basin.
This area is within the administrative jurisdictions of Dave Loomis (District Fish Biologist)
aixl Terry Fanell (Wildlife Biobgist) out of Roseburg, You may receive additwnal comments
from these ODFW biotogists
Sincerely,
i/kM^
Mike Gray
District Fish Biotogist
Umpqua Watershed Distrxit. Charlestoi
: Steve Denney. ODFW SWRegion/Roscburg
Dave McAllister. ODFW Habitat Division^Q
Dave Ixjomis, ODFW SW Regron^Roscburg
Terry Farrell, ODFW SW Region/Roscburg
John Toman, ODFW Charleston
Leave comments al the registration table or mail them to; Bureau of Land Management; Coos Bay District
Office. 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459, Attn Project Manager. Bob Gunther
Please Read Carefully
Comments, including names and street addresKS of rcspundcnu will be available for public review at the Coos Bay District OfTice
during regular business hours (7 45 am to 4 30 p m ) Monday through Friday, exc«pi holidays Individual respondents may request
confidentiality If vou wjsh to withliojdygurnannf or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Informatioi
Aci. vou muii iialc this prominently at the bejiinnmg of voui coinmcnts Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law
All submissions from organizations or bustnestcs. and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizalions or busincssu. will be made available for public inspection in their enlirefy
Namc/Organiza(ion: £^
Address: ys^^/
Say, <^^
Zip Codi
Tekphoi
e number: C^^/) ^'f-^S'P^
A'ould you like to be included on the project mailing list? Yes j(' No
[Comments:
Signature:
OptD KouK MtHloj for lb( Coo» Couoty N.loril Cii Plp*llo« Ftbruin^ 19. 1001
■e: y^.'^jJstj^^ . ^^^T^d^^^Lj.
G-1- 3
Appendix G 1 . Letters Received Dunng Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Penod
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Maoagenienl
Coos Bay District Office
OregOD
U.S. Departmeol of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay District Office
Oregon
Leave comments at the registration table or mail them to: Bureau of Land Management; Coos Bay District
Office, 1 300 Airport Lane. North Bend, Oregon 97459. Atln. Project Manager; Bob Gunther.
Leave comments at the registration table or mail them to: Bureau of Land Management; Coos E
Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459. Attn. Project Manager, Bob Gunther
Please Read Carefully
Comments, mcluding names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the Coos Bay District Office
dunng regular business hours (745 a.m. to 430 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays Individual respondents may request
eonfidenliality If you wish to withhold vout name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Aci,^ou.musi siaie this prominenily ai the beginninE of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law
All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identil^ing themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety
Name/Organization: '"^TjpVii
Address: ,„ . _
e-mail address:
Would you like to be included on the project r
ling list? Yes
Zip Code:
Telepbone e
- ati'i-'is^iN
Please Read Carefully
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the Coos Bay District Office
dunng regular busuiess hours (7 45 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) Monday through Fnday, except holidays Individual respondents may request
confidentiality If vou wish lo withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Infomiatioi
Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your cotnments. Such requests will be honored lo the extent allowed by law.
All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identilying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or busmesses, wiH be made available for public inspection in their entirety
Name/Organization: '///j^ C. . /-^-<^K-f^-:^
Address: f^'^ C^i^^t, ^^^.^t^,^Lk=-t. i.-'V ,
City: r:^<^^ ^f^, .^'^.. Zip Code: ^/^^^
e-mail address: i.<^/,£:^6^^.^^:i^^^ ^^^ Telcpho
Would you like to be included on the project mailing list? Yes K No
ber: -^^^ ^/^^
"Se^ /^rr'^c^^^^'f /^.^^^^ (^^/2^^'^5;
fA>^ -y^TX'
Signature:
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 1/12
PipeLine Questions
WIlL & CONNIE BUNNELL
9681 1 COOS SUMNER UN.
COOS BAY, on 97420
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 2/12
5 Cost Considerations
1 Comparable Installations
• What other rural roads in Oregon have pipeline
installed in like manner to this proposal?
• When were these installations made?
2 Residential Involvement
How many residences are located within 30 to 50 feet
of the proposed route?
How many residences are located within 51 to 100
feet of the proposed route?
How many residences are located within 101 to 200
feet of the proposed route?
located within 201 to 500
feet of the proposed rout
case of a major le
rgency personnel r
What is the estimated damage perimeter
manor pipeline gas leak and fire?
• How is this project to be funded?
• What is the cost differential between the original
route and the proposed route?
• If there is to be money saved by adopting this
proposed route, how much money is involved?
• What are you going to do with this money?
• What happened to the plan to sell to the public S20
million worth of bonds on this project?
6 Pipeline Ownership and Liability
Who is to own the pipeline?
Who is to be liable in case of damage attributable
to pipeline installation?
Who is to be liable in case of damage attributable
to pipeline operation?
Who is to be liable
to pipeline mainter
se of damage attributable
7 Installation Information
3 Notification to Property Owners
• Has every property owner along this new route been
notified that you are planning to lay this pipeline
through or adjacent to his property?
4 Residential Insurance
• What effect will installation of the pipeline have
Where in the Coos Bay Wagon Road right-of-way will
the line be located?
How deep will the line be buried?
What thermal expansion (feet/mile, for example) is
What expansion due to operating pressure (feet/mile,
for example) will the pipeline undergo?
G-1-4
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 3/12
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 4/12
• What provisions are to be made to control or
compensate forces caused by expansion and
contraction?
• How is the pipeline to be shaped to conform to the
road, cold bent, cut/welded, flexed?
• What effect does expansion and contraction have on
these shapes and construction methods?
• How will movement or drift of the line due to
expansion and contraction be controlled?
8 Installation Impacts on Road and Residential Access
• Will the road be resurfaced after the pipeline is
laid?
• How extensive will the road resurfacing be?
• How much of existing gravel surface will be paved as
part of this project?
• Will any part of the existing CBWR be improved prior
to pipeline installation?
• Wil 1 the road be widened at any place?
• Will the road be straightened (vertical, horizontal)
at any place?
• Are road resurfacing costs to be charged to the
pipeline project or the county?
• Who will do the work (county, contractor)?
9 Installation Schedule and Access Questions
• When is the project start date, and end date?
• What is the installation schedule, per segment of
Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR)?
• What Is the schedule for residential access blockage
during installation?
• What is the schedule for access restrictions to
businesses, farms, and logging operations, during
installation?
• What is the schedule for route blockage along CBWR
during installation?
• What provision will be made for school bus access
along CBWR during Installation?
• What provision will be made for emergency services
(fire, ambulance, law enforcement) to all areas
along CBWR during Installation?
• What provision will be made for Sumner Rural Fire
Department to draft fire protection water from their
designated areas on Wilson Creek?
10 Safety ValvesA^ents
• Where are cutoff safety valves located?
• How are cutoff safety valves operated?
• From what locations are cutoff safety valves
operated?
• Where is power to operate safety valves obtained?
• Are backups for this safety valve power to be
provided?
• How are signals to safety valves to be conveyed or
routed?
• What procedures are to be followed upon loss of
safety valve signal capability?
• Are safety vents Co be provided?
• Where are the safety vents to be located?
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 6/12
11 Pipeline Capacity
How many standard cubic feet of gas are contained in
the line between safety valves?
In case of a major leak, how long will it take to
bleed the gas constrained between safety valves to
atmospheric pressure?
12 Landslides and Erosion
What procedures are to be followed in case of
landslides?
What provision is made for road erosion?
Will a pipeline representative or overseer be
present when road repairs due to landslides or
erosion are being performed?
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 6/12
• How will the pipe line be protected in the vicinity
of these faults?
• What provisions are to be built in to protect homes
and other property in the vicinity of fault lines in
case of earthquake?
16 Emergency and Fire Safety
How will pipeline operations respond to emergencies
along the pipeline, such as wild land fires, MVA,
storm damage and others?
Where are pipeline emergency crews located? Are
they on duty 24/7?
How will fire fighter crews be trained how to deal
with emergencies in proximity to this line?
Who will be responsible for fire ground Incident
Command?
How will the pipeline be protected from lightening
strikes? Lightening can strike the ground,
traveling great distances along buried conductors.
14 Geological Questions
• What geologic faults are crossed by thi s proposed
What is the fault movement history?
Which of these faults is in the vicinity of existing
residences or improvements along the CBWR?
15 Earthquakes
Who is responsible for controlling fires related to
the pipeline?
What is the role to be played by Rural Fire
Protection District in fires potentially involving
the pipeline?
17 Motor Vehicle Accidents
• What procedures are to be followed by pipeline
project operations when there are vehicle accidents
on this road?
• What procedures are to be followed if a log truck in
a MVA or other vehicle in an accident catches fire?
• What procedures are to be followed by local
emergency services personnel in these cases?
What IS the probable movement of faults near the
pipeline in case of earthquake?
G-1- 5
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 7/12
18 Road Traffic
• What studies have been made of the impact of
constant traffic of heavy log trucks ( 80, 000 lbs.
GVW) and equipment transporters (105,000 lbs. GVW)
traveling over a hilly, winding, gravel road with a
high-pressure gas pipeline buried in that road?
19 Road Maintenance
• What procedures are to be followed when road
maintenance is required?
• How are road crews to be trained to work on this
road?
• What procedures are to be followed when road
improvements are desired? Especially if dangerous
curves, humps/dips, or blind intersections are to be
improved?
• Will future road maintenance costs be charged to the
pipeline or the county?
• How IS financial responsibility to be decided?
20 Property Protection
• How" are adjacent property owners to have their
property protected in case of evacuation, due to
landslides, fires, accidents, earthquakes?
• Will shelter be provided in case of evacuation?
• How will fanri animals be cared for in case the
owners are evacuated?
• Who IS to be financially liable for losses incurred
due to evacuations?
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 8/12
21 Pipeline Operation
• What is the operating pressure of the line?
• Does the line emit a noise as the gas flows through
it?
• Where are the operations crews located?
• How will pipeline crews know there is a problem on
the line?
• What procedures do they follow when problems are
detected?
• What procedures do they follow when problems are
reported?
• Are they on duty 24/7?
22 Gas Leaks
• How are gas leaks detected?
• What procedures are followed if a leak is detected?
• Does the leaking gas ever travel underground?
• Can leaking gas appear in an adjacent residence or
building?
• Does this gas have an odor?
• What procedures are followed if there is a leak in
the vicinity of a residence?
• What procedures are followed if the house is
unoccupied at the time?
23 Inspection and Testing
My deed to the property states that I own all the
property over which the road passes. There is no
mention in the deed whatsoever of a county road
easement .
How is the pipe to be inspected?
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 9/12
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 10/12
How often do inspection crew
line?
to visit the
• How long do they stay?
• What procedures do they follow?
• How often will line pressure testing be done?
• What other tests are performed?
• When are tests performed?
• How will you inspect for corrosion?
24 Pipe Line Maintenance
• What are the criteria for deciding if this project
is a "taking"?
Is this proposed
CBWR a "taking"
ill you compute change in property values along
route?
How will you compensate adjacent landowners for loss
in property values brought on by this line?
26 Signatures
We, the undersigned, request answers to the above
How often will pipeline maintenance be required?
What procedures will be used?
Where are maintenance crews located? Are they on
duty 24/7?
How IS the pipe coated or covered to protect it?
How long will this protection last?
How will the protective coating be inspected?
How will the protection be repaired or replaced?
How will corrosion be guarded against?
25 Legal Questions
What statements in the road easement give the county
the right to place a HPGL in the road?
G-1-6
Appendix G 1 . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 11/12
02/19/02 Pipeline Questions 12/12
Kate Kcnyon
52075 Big Creek Rd
Myrtle Point OR 97458
Bob Gunlher. Projeci Coordinator
1300 Airpon Lane -
North Bend OR 97459
February 21. 2002
Dear Mr Gunther.
After reading the draft EIS. I had a few questions Ihal I would like to have addressed
Where will the money come from to pay ihe increase in insurance premiums for the Coos
Ceunty liability insurance?
What were the costs of the studies for each route, and who was paid to do those studies?
How much did the County pay BLM for the EIS?
The City of Fonland requires that each home have an automatic safety shut-off valve
installed Why'' Wilt the gas provider (NWN) be requited to provide automatic safety
shut-off valves to the residents whose homes will have access to natural gas? Why or
why not?
Kate Kenyon y
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF
1^ COOS. LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW INDIANS
f • TRIBAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES
■^ 1245 Fuhon Ave • Cooi Bay. OK <I7420
'-'"*t%v>x>^* Telephone (541)888-9577 . 1 ^a8^28(W)726 . Fjx (541)868-8858
February 20. 2002
Bob Gunther. Project Coordinator
Coos Bay Distnct BLM Project Coord
nOO Airport Lane
North Bend. OR 97459
Dear Mr Gunther:
Thank you for \W opportunity to respond to the Draf^ Environmental Impact Statement
for the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline,
The information put forward indicates that a low impact to cultural resources is likely
because the proposed route largely follows existing road nghl-of-way Because this is an
area of shared resources with the Coquille's we would ask for joint monitonng when
earth moving activities are occurring m those fragile areas.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Hovind
Cultural/Historical Coordinator
Cc: Isaiah Ursprung, Natural Resources
Don Ivy, Director. Cultural Resources
Coquille Nation
G-1
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
JOE T. BRISCOE
POST OFFICE BOX 1163
BANDON. OREGON 974 1 1
TELEPHONE 541.347. 7232
E-mail JhrLscoeiq icoosnet. com
February 22. 2002
Mr Bob Gunther. Project Coordinator
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay District Office
1 300 Airport Lane
North Bend, Oregon 97459
Re Natural Gas Pipeline EnvironmenUl Impact Statement
Dear Mr Gunther
After reviewing the issue regarding the routing and the vanous impacts of the proposed route for
the natural gas pipeline from approximately Drain. Oregon to Coos Bay, Oregon and other pourts,
1 am completely in favor of the project and its proposed route
Yours very truly.
JoeT Bnscoe
Main Office
Western Field Office Eastern Field Office Southern Field Office
Eugene, OR 97440
Bend. OR 97701
(V) S41.3e; 2616
(R 541 iSS 3370
il^onic org
February 25. 2002
Sue Richardson, District Manager
Coos Bay Distnct Bureau of Land Management
1 300 Airport Rd
North Bend OR 97459
Subject: ONRC comments on the naturaJ gas pipeline
Dear ELM:
Please accept the following comments from Oregon Natural Resources
Council Fund (ONRC) concerning the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated December 2001
I . The no action alternative (described on page vi) involves building 63
miles of pipeline at a cost of S36 3 million. This is not "no action."
2- The DEIS is unclear whether the purpose of the natural gas is for
residential use or industrial use. Will there be local distribution
networks constructed? What are the impacts'' If you build it. will dirty
heavy industry come to the North Spit? What are the impacts
3. The DEIS discussion of scoping is inadequate. How was public input
considered during scoping? How were the issues arrived at? Why was mas;
soil risks and fire nsks lo the CHU not considered important enough to
be discussed at length'' All the scoping input seems to be summed up and
dismissed in an appendix and the DEIS itself is just a product of the
"experts" who we are just supposed to trust
4. The 188 stream crossings are a concern for sediment production and
delivery. You simply can't get a 12 inch pipe tinder a stream (or buned
in fill over a stream) without some serious earth moving-
5 The DEIS contains only a very generalized descnption of mass soil
movement nsks (page A-7)
6. Many of the streams crossings are in the road fill above the stream
in very steep terrain that is susceptible to debns torrents Road fill
can simply be wiped out and with it the high pressure gas pipeline. The
DEIS does not disclose the consequences of this
£ Council • Aggrt
i Defenders of Oregon's Wildlands, Wildlife & Watt
7. Tlie DEIS does not adequately explain whether the route considered,
follows, or avoids roads that vnW later need to be closed to conform to
BLM road management requirements or road density limitations imposed by
e concerns such as salmon conservation.
and resource protection requi
should be followed.
18, The BLM/County failed to seek out or allow public input dunng the
scoping process.
8 The DEIS should disclose how many intermittent or other streams will
be directionally drilled vs trenched.
9 Page A- 16 concludes thai the risks of pipeline failure due to mass
soil movement are small, but the geotech rcpiorl admits that it is only a
conceptual report and the report simply guesses without any analytical
basis the probable sizes of slides
10 The geolech report also admits that they lacked information to
analyze the nsk that landslides induced by upslope clearcutting or
other forest management that mighl cause a pipeline failure This is
unacceptable NEPA analysis
1 1 The aquatic analysis is based on only one (watershed) scale of
analysis when the Northwest Forest Plan requires that all scales be
considered See the 9th Circuit opinion in PCFFA v. NMFS
^^
Doug Hciken
Acting Conservation Director
ONRC Fund
12 The DEIS fails to disclose if Port Orford Cedar root dis(
be spread lo new areas not currently infected-
ught
13. The EIS must address the indirect effects of the proposed action.
including stimulation of other economic activity thai is clearly
contemplated by this proposal These other economic activilies can have
negative impacts on land use. water resources, wildlife, quality of
life, etc. The DEIS does not disclose the effects of future developments
such as the laterals, future industrial development of the North Spit,
etc.
14, Please explain the nsks of having a natural gas pipeline in the
vicinity of a powerline right-of-way Does this proposed route have
clearance from the holders of the electncity rights of way?
15 Will this pipeline be inst If there is a gas leak could it cause a
large fire in the spotted owl critical habitat unit'' The DEIS fails to
disclose this very significanl risk
16 A thorough economic analysis of alternative fuels and alternative
energy processes must also be included
17, All Northwest Forest Plan requirements, including wildlife survey
G-1-
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft [■nviroiimcntal Impact Statement Comment Period
."; >!,',? rr-T r.rrirt
pi.miifily intended to justify end ptoirtote a decision already made father than objectively a
RON SADLER
r.i !
^ ;a ii5
POBok4U
North Bend. Oregon 97459
Phone 759-4790
RonmligwQrldnel w net
Bob Gunihef. Proiect Coordin«ior
Bureau of l-and ManAgcmem
1 ]00 Airport Lsne
North Bend. OR 97459
March 1. 2003
SUBJECT Commenli on Drift ES -Coo» County Naluril Gm Pipeline
In Jummtry. I feel the Dmft ES is growly deficient and that it docs not meet the letter antt inlent f)f NEPA
and applicable regulationi and guidelines Specifically, even though NHPA clearly requires a disaissior) of
the indirect effecti of a proposal and iheir significance (CEQ 1 502 16b. CI-Q 1 508 8b). the I>rafl as written
dismisses ihe concept of indiieci environmental effects in a few short sentences, and makes no attempt at
analysis whatsoever In a similar manner, rw attempt is made lo address cumulative cnvironmcnial impacts
(CEQ 1 508 7) that may he associated with Ihe proposed action Because of these omissions. Ihe doaimeni
fails 10 provide evidence that ihe necessary environmental analyses have been made (CEQ 1500 2b) and
calls to question whether subsequent decisions will be based on a fiill understanding of the environmental
consequences (CI"0 1500 Ic)
It appears questionable thai ihe BLM interacted properiy wiih the County early on lo insure full integraiion
of the NEPA process The BLM had ihe responsibility lo identify the types of information required (CEQ
1501 2dl)as well as the level of detail required to insure that environmental effects and values could be
propefly compared to economic and technical considerations (CEQ 1 501 2b)
Addiiionaliy. the lone of ihe document as wniten is one of justification of a pre-conceived action rather
than objective analysii in direct violation of CEQ 1 502 2g
n the Drift ES are as follows
BLM covei letter. In' page. M para "For oommems lo be most helpful, they should relate lo specific
concern or conflicts that arc within the legal responsibilities of the BLM" This is a strange staiemem,
given the fact that CEQ Regs requires ihai an ES analyze allcrnalivcs outside the jurisdiction or
capability of an agency if it is reasonable to do so In fact, ihe instant ES does exactly that This
Statement could greatly limit ihe scope and depth of public comments, and should be removed
Coos County cover letter, l' page, l' para The statement that the ES has "minimized impaas to
people and habitat" and has reduced the estimated cost of ihe pipeline is wrong and completely oui of
place within the context of a draft ES Ii puts in question the irue level of understanding thai ihe Board
of Commissioners has of the entire ES process, and lends credence to the idea that ihis document is
Page V, "Ne«J for Action" As written, this paragraph completely miisM the point Thisieciion
should outline the current socio-economic conditions in Ihe Coos Bay area that indicate a need for
enhanced economic and industrial development
Pagev. "Purpose of the Proposed Action" The natural gas pipeline is clearly a project designed to
foster and facilitate industrial development in the Coos Bay area Of this, there can be little doubt
Pre-election publicity made the point thai '" businesses have actually decided not to locate here,
simply because we don't have natural gas We know that access to natural gas will help create
thousands of jobs ll will atiracl new businesses " [Pipeline Committee, 1999| This section should
be rewritten lo lefteci this reality The purpose of the proposed action most assuiedly is not to "gain a
perpetual or renewable right-of-way easement
Page V, "No Action" This seciion is confusing in the extreme The first paragraph correctly describes
Ihe No Action scenario - ihe pipeline would noi be built, present condilions remain status quo The
second paragraph suddenly jumps all the way lo the decision process as il relates lo the Proposed
Action It slates ihat if ihc Proposed Action is not selected for implcmCTrtation. the county will go
ahead and build on a slightly different route that bypasses federal land If this is true, why hasn"l this
option been included as another alternative in the ES. as it should be' As written, this section comes
across as trying to send a signal to potential ES reviewers - "if you come down loo hard on the
environmental impacts, we'll juji go ahead and build around the federal lands" That may be within
the County's jurisdiction to do, but such nuances arc mappropnate in a Bl.M document
Page VI. Table S-2 the "No Action" column is wrong It shows numbers for the County's "dodge (he
federal land" option It should be revised lo reflect the correct No Action onentaiion, i e , the pipeline
is not constructed
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
7 Page 3. "Purpose and Need" Comments Hi and M above also apply here This section al
"The need of(sic) the proposed action isiomeei expeciations of the Coos Cour
e "6-63 ) The circular logic here IS difficult lo grasp Obviously, there was a sc
c conditions that prompted Coos County lo propose building the pipeline as a mo
fostering economic developmeni Measure tf6-6J was simply the means to fund Ihe pipeli
What IS needed here is a brief synopsis of Ihe rationale for proposing the pipeli
first place As written, this section is m direct violation of CEQ 1502 13
Page 5. New Industrial Gas Users ' This section correctly suies that ii is hoped "(he availability of
natural gas will attraa new manufacturing and commercial facilities to Coos County" But then it goes
on to squelch anv sort of meaningful aruilysis by staling "it is not possible to quantify ihe potcmial
enviitinmemal impacti of unknown future facilities and iheir potential locations" This illustrates the
senous pro-development bias and unbalanced analytical methods Ihat permeate the entire ES
It IS disingenuous to dismiss any sort of portrayal of environmental impacts because of "unknown
future facilities" while ei ihe same lime using these same 'unknown future facilities" lo generate
glowing reports of the economic benefits they will bring to ihc area See, for example "The economic
development impact of nanjral gas would be grcal "(Page 71.7* para) " total employment in the
Coos Bay area would be over 2 900 jobs higher len years after natural gas is introduced" (ibid)
"Flowever, wilhm ten years employment could increase by over 2.900 in the region because of the
availability of natural gas" (Page 74, l" para ) Obviously, the speculative nature of future industrial
development a.s an indirect efTea ofihe pipeline did not doer the assigning of economic benefits A
valid ES analysis demands that the potential environmental impacts associated with the assumed
economic benefits be portrayed The very heart of Ihe NEPA process re<]uires Ihat environmental
effects be handled with an adequate level of detail so Ihat they can be compared lo economic and
icchnical considerations (CEQ 1501 2b)
h appears that the nature of future indusirial developments thai may be triggered by the pipeline are
not as "unknown" as the draft ES would have us believe The ES itself stales that "natural gas may
make it possible, or at minimum more praaical. to build a meial fsbncating plant or ammonia fenilizci
factory in Coos County" (Page 71,6* para ) Further, the website mamlamed by Coos County
displaying questions and answers regarding the pipeline lists a gypsum manufacturer, two slccl mills, t
secondare wood products plant, and a glass manufacturer as examples of industries who might have
located here is natural gas was available (www.cocw?Qt uJ^gasg&a.him)
Nor should identifying it
Port of Coos Bay mainia
all available induslnal la
"potential locations " of future induslnal development be a problem The
s an inventory of industrial sites in Cooi County, and it shows that virtually
ts are adjacent to or closely associated with the Coos Bay estuary
Thus, there can be no excuse for not portraying the environmental impacts of future mdustnal
development with the same degree of precision as the economic impacts
This section of the ES should be rewritten to embrace a balanced analysis of both Ihe environmental
c impacts of fiilure industrial development as an indirect effect of pipeline construction
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
' This contains ihe confusing discussion of the County's fallback
lol granted See discussion under Comment VS and H6 above
Page 14, "No Action Altemaliv
position if ihc BLM easement n
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
10 Page 17, "General Setting of the Proposed Action" This should be rewritten to include a general
description of the area where most of the indirect and cumulative impacts of the pipeline will take
place - namely, the Coos Bay Estuary
1 1 Page 1 8, "Air Qualily" The statemeni "no data is available regarding the current levels of noxious
gases " IS simply not true It reflects the pervasive bias throughout the document against identifying
and analyzing indirect and cumulative cfFccis Al a minimum, this section should be rewriiien lo
include Ihe most currcni data from EPA's Tokics Release Inventory, as well as the emissions of record
from Ihe Beaver Hill municipal waste incineratoi
12 Page 20, "Walcr Quality" It is astounding that a discussion of water quality as a function of Ihe
existing environment docs noi even acknowledge the existence of the Coos Bay estuary This should
be rewntten to include data from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, as well as summarizing existing
reports regarding water quality m the Coos Bay estuary
13 Page 28, "Public Health" How is il possible to discuss public health, as a function of the present
situation, and not mention the fact that Coos County has Ihe highest cancer rate among all mid-siied to
large Oregon Counties? (Oregon State Cancer Registry. 1996-1999)
14 Page 29. "Coos County General Economic Data' The staiemem "umber production diminished
significantly following the impacts of several foresiry-relaied environmcnial issues" perpetuates an
incorrect myth In reality, several studies forecasted a downturn in limber produaion and limber
related portions of the economy before Ihe sported owl and other issues came into play The reasons
were harvesting on private lands far in excess of sunainable levels, the export of raw logs for
processing outside of the limber producing regions, and. changes in technology which reduced
manpower needs pet unit outpui This should be rewnncn
Page 30' "Recreation" This should be rcwntien lo include a description of ihe significant rccrea
use currently being made of the Coos Bay estuary
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
It) Page 39' '"Air Quality"' This section welt iltuslrales the inadequacy of the Draft ES We are told that
the only indirect effea of building the pipeline is that "beneficial and measurable reductions in sulfiir
emissions may occur Thus, we are being told ihai, even ihougji mdustnal development great
enough to provide 2900 new jobs will occur, ihese new industncs will apparently all be zero-emission
facilities and wilt have no impact whaisoevcr on existing an quality Unless the laws of physics have
be«n repealed, ihis is simply not possible This should be rewritten lo include a valid analysis, and the
section covenng cumulative impacts should be developed
1 7 Page 65, "Aquatic Ecosystem - Indirect and Cumulative Effects" This section does not even mention
ihe existence of the Coos Bay estuary, yet that body of water is the one most directly effected by ihe
induslnal development expected lo he Inggeted by ihe pipeline This should be rewntten lo include a
discussion of ihe indirect and cumulative effects of new industrial developmeni on the estuary
18 Page 71. "Static and Dynamic Efficiency EfTeds" This lells the reader that a family home in Coos
County would save '"S410 in annual utility bills by switching from elecinc to natural gas heat*" This
does not appear to include the cost of conversion which is significant in Coos County because most
homes are not equipped wiih ducted heating systems I suggest a valid economic analysis of the true
cost of conversion be included
19 Page 73, "Summary of Direct. Indirect and Cumulative Economic Effects" No mention is made of the
significant role thai transfer payments, specifically the income of retirees, play in ihe local economy
The lolal economic impact of a single retiree household has been valued as equivalent lo 2 lo 3 7
factory jobs If industrial developmeni cuts off the inflow of new retirees and/or results in an
outmigration of retirees, the impacts could be signiricani This possibility should be identified and
discussed
20 Page 74, " Public Health and Safely '" This section should address, given the existing level of air and
water pollution and ihe high cancer rale, the range of possibly delrimental effects that addinonal inputs
of pollutanis from new mdusines attracted by iheavailability of natural gas may have
I believe thai an adequate discussion of Ihc indirect and cumulative effects, specifically relating to ihe
enabling and fostcnng of industrial development in the vicinity of the Coos Bay estuary by ihe pipeling.
would be one of the mosi important pans of a viable ES The Draft ES ireaisthem as non-existent or
insignificant In reality, they meei several of the CEQ cniena for significance
The Coos Bay cstuannc ecosystem is a unique and imponani area II has been compromised to some
degree by past actions, and receives inputs of loxic pollutants on a continuing basis presently The efTects
of adding significant new pollutants are highly uncertain and involve the unique nsk of pushing the
ecosystem loihe threshold of calaslrophic collapse, thus meeting the criterion ai CEQ 1508 27b5
Publishing an ES with ihe limned analysis depicted in the Draft may establish a precedent whereby future
federal actions (for example" the federal permits ihai will be required lo extend the pipeline across ihe bay
G-1- 9
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
to the North Spit) will also find it unncMssary to diicuss indirect and cumulanvc effcas The existence of
■his possibility meets the tcs of significance at CEQ 1 508 27b6
The pipeline has been described m the Draft ES as one of a number of actions that will be needed to
enhance the economy of the Coos Bay area ll can be inferTcd. pven the lack of any attempt to depict or
analyze aimulative effects, the BLM considers them insignificant However. CEQ 1508 27b7 states that
significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impaa on the environment
and. fijrther. thai significance cannot be avoided by breaking down a project into small component paru
^^FrOMMENDATlQN 1 feel that the Draft ES is so inadcouate as 10 preclude meaniOBfiil W^'YJ'S, Wd I
flsk that Ihe BLM prepare and circulate a revised draft, as per CEO 1 50J.9a. which properly handle? the
IfKJireci and cumulative effecls of the gas pipeline as outlmcd above.
1 must point out thai the incompleteness or unavailability of portions of the relevant data pertaining to the
Coos Bay ecosystem is not an excuse in cases such as this The fact thai data are incompleie and
unavajlable, in fact, tnggers other specific requu-ements thai must be included m an ES (CEQ 1 502 22)
?.0. Bo>; 206
Li^.keslde, OR 97^A9
2/££/02
'O^SI
2600 Draft EIS
CooB Countj Natural Gas
Pipeline
Fob GuTitucr, project Coordinator
ELK
1500 Airport lane
Horth Bend, OR 97''t59
Coicir.ent8 on Draft EIS:
Given the events of 9/i 1 , whet v,ould be the lupact on a EPA
tower(s) and lines In the event cf -. ..l-ell"e break with
subsequent explosion and fire? In cace of such a scenerlo, I
believe the follov/lne queetlonp to be i:eriEane:
ctlon of pipeline
o detect the break
of this ir.aenituce
a. If «uch break occurree at 2 an In
east of Falrvlev, how long would It take
and shut the ^as off?
b. What would be the Impact of an explosion
on the structural integrity of the tower(s)?
c. What would be the ex. ected temperatures of the flaies at
£rounc level? At line level? how lone would the towers withstand
these terreratures . How long would the overhead lines withstand
these temperatures? Is It reasonable to assume that the tower
and lines would survive the Initial explosion?
d^ In tj-e event of a tower collapse or transmission line fail-
ure,'what would be the consecuencee to the electrical service
to the South Coast?
e. Are there any historical exaciplee of a gae pipeline
explosion In-a high volta£;e trsnsEiisKlon rl£ht-of -way? If so,
what happened?
f. If there '- no sclentieic evloence to predict the Inpact
of a disasterous break accoirpanled by an explosion and flr-e, ^
wouldn't it be both rea'^ons.ble and ^rudent to carry out sooie ;
tests before builclnt a pipeline In a hl^h voltage trans-
mission rlJ,t-of-v.ay?
The Draft EIS in at least two places (pafe li, and Appendix K 3)
refers to haoflng a £as line from brld£eB, Wouldn't this make
a line vulnerable to either deliberative destructive acts or
thoughtless nandslisiL? Aeain, how lon^- would one expect "it toi
be turned off? V;hat would be the effects of a gas-fed fire on
the typical brldee In the area?
What will be the dlaiteter of the main transrr.lsslon line? The
Draft EIS say? 12 Inch, the NVV Natural Gas brief, filed with the
?UC, states 10 Inch,
has the transaission line extending
P.O. Box 206
EIS Comcent r
The Draft EIS, ra,
to the edee of Coos Bay. Early discussions placed the Coos
teritlnus as belnf ^oicewhat south of Coos Bay, As I recall,
the Mllln£ton area was the cost coruionly mentioned site.
Now, however, the pipeline will run though Cooe Bay for
several iciles to a spot near the CE/nE Water Board Office.
What envlorniijental, geographlc-1 or regulatory factors
dictated such a change? What is the additional cost to the
payer?
As a result of shifting the terminus point, will
excluded froc t^e service? Specifically Bunker Hill
or the East Side areas?
ny
n; 10
OREGON INTERNATIONAL
Port of Coos Bay _.
March 6. 2002
U S Bureau of Land Management - Coos Bay District
Environmental Impact Statement - Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline , . . . >
Project Coordinator, Bob Gunther " ' ' " ' '
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend. OR 97459
Statement For The Record In Support of the
Proposed Action Alternative - Coos Bay Wagon Road Route
The Board of Commissioners of the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay supports the construction
of a natural gas pipeline from a location southwest of Roseburg, Oregon, to the Coos Bay/North Bend
area in Coos County, utilizing Ihe Proposed Action Alternative - Coos Bay Wagon Road Route
In reviewing the material supplied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). it is evident this
route will
produce the least short-term impact on various ecosystems (habitat and wildlife) delineated
through the EIS.
prevent unnecessary disruption of traffic flow on a major state highway (Oregon 42),
minimize ihe total amount of public funds required for constnjction, and consequently the
future rate of pipeline-related property lax increases for Coos County residents, and
allow for long-term economic benefit and prospenty for 3 distressed region of Oregon
We strongly urge adoption of the Proposed Action Allemalive through approval of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement by all cooperating federal and stale agencies and all interested
entities representing the pnvate sector The availability of natural gas as an energy source for
industnal. commercial and residential uses will have significant positive impacts on the future viability
of the Coos County region of Oregon's south coast
Sincerely.
Mike Waldrop, Present
Board of Commissioners
Board of Commissioners - Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
Mike Waldrop, President, Gary Gregor, Ph D , Vice President;
Ingvar Doessing, Secretary. Cheryl L Scott, Treasurer,
Jon A. Barton. Commissioner
Coos County Board of Commissioners
Coos County Pipeline Project Office
Northwest Natural Gas
City of Coos Bay
City of North Bend
125 Cential Ave., Suile 300 / PO. Box 1215 / Coos Bay, Oregon 97420-0311 / Phone M1-2W-767S / Fox 541-269-1475
Tokyo Jopan Seoul Korea Tonpel. Taiwan ROC
Phone 81 35275-9321 Phone 82 2 753-1349 1439 Phone 886 2 723-2310 2311
Fax 61 3S 275-9325 Fax 82 2 753-5154 Fctx 886 2 723-2312
Stale of Oiegor.
Repiesenlaliuf
Omce;
G-1- 10
Appendix G 1 . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
March 1 3. 2002
Bob Gunthcr
Project Coordinalor
Coos Bay District. BLM
1 300 Airport l^ane
North Bend. OR 97459
Mr. Gunther:
The following rcprescnis my review and comments on the Hrafl HIS for The Coos
County Natural Gas Pipeline Please include my views as part of the public input
Chapter 2 Alternatives:
CONCERN
Three alterruilivcs are listed, but the second paragraph under NO ACTION on pages v.
and the discussion on page 14 seem to conlain an additional allcmativc- Should it also be
listed?
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
CONCERNS:
On page VI the summary identifies five categories of potential impacts on the natural and
buill environment used in this El S. evaluation Then it describes the results using a
different category that was not on the ILst. "negligible short-term" That is al best
confusing and possibly misleading
The only impacts listed are restricted to the coaflruction and operation of the pipeline
No mention is made of impacts, direct, indirect and cumulative, on the Coos Bay Estuary
which will harbor the industries brought in by the existence of the pipeline Those same
industnes arc the very purpose for the pipeline The impacts of those industries have to he
addressed for the Draft EIS to be relevant
-No mention ls found in the EIS of the potential industrial emissions impacting air
and water quality, public health or recreational fishing, crabbing and claming,
•There is no mention of potential impacts on existing commercial fishcnes thai arc
dependent on natural biological productivity of the Coos Bay Estuary
-There is no consideration of impacts on local transportation, housing, industrial
water supply and related services I find these omissions to be major
shortcomings of the document
The EIS. with a voice of authority, gives quantitative direct, indirect and cumulative
economic affects of the pipeline ui terms of jobs, dollars and annual dollar impact on the
bay area on page73 Yet the Draft EIS on page 5 states that, "It is not possible to quantify
the potential cnvironmentaJ in^acts of unknown future facilities and Iheir potential
locations." This statement is unfounded
- The Coos Bay Area has already identified and /nncd Induilrial sites based on
prior planning That is where fiiture industries will locate, Those known areas
should be mapped and included in the HIS Most of them front the csluay.
■The compilers of the EIS could have applied the same strategies used on p«ge 73
10 quantify data on current emissioai by existing metal fabrication aixl ammonia
fertilizer plants which arc identified on page 71 as possible future indiLstries.
Existing plants could have been selected from various locations in the U.S. They
could then identify the types and amounts of air and water borne chemicals,
particulates, and thermal emissions related to those plants for examples of what to
expect This comparilivc data would be at least as accurate, from a scientific
viewpoint, as the projected job and economic numbers found on page 73 and
elsewhere, and as the information comparing population growth as a fiinction of
available natural gas found on pages 71-72
The Draft EIS does not cite easily available, and reasonably recent, data on any of the
following:
a) existing economic impacts of commercial crab, salmon, clam, and oyster
harvest in the Coos Bay Estuary.
b) existing economic impacts of sports crabbing, claming, and fishing in the
estuary
c) Environmental Protection Agency listing of major environmental problems in
ihe Coos Bay Estuary, i c.: toxic chemicals, high rates of juvenile salmon
mortality, high bacteria loading, degraded commercial shellfish beds
d) Coos County air quality with pollutants listed by weight
e) Coos Bay Estuary water quality listing existing heavy metals and other toxics
by weight,
f) Studies mapping TBT concentrations in the estuary.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative
CONCERNS:
See concerns listed above
In summary, the Draft EIS on the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline does not seem to
consider or identify the major impacts on the Coos Bay Estuary that will dcnvc directly,
indirectly and cumulatively from the pipeline project We are already paying for mistakes
of the past. l"hc potential for degradation of the hay requires that those conditioas be
identified and quantified to protect against future loses This deficiency needs to he
addressed
Respectfiilly submitted.
Bill Poppe
94550 Angler Lane
North Bend, OR 97459
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PORTLAND DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOK 29*6
PORTLAND, OREGON 67108- 2»4e
March 15.2002
Operations Division
Regulatory Branch
Corps No 2000-00544
Ms. Sue E Richardson
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay Distnct Manager
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend. Oregon 97459-2000
Dear Ms. Richardson:
The following comments are being provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
in response to the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
dated December 2001
{Table S- 1 ) The Corps authority is under Section 1 0 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Watci Act H approved, the Corps will issue a permit under these
statutory authorities
In the abstract and the proposed action description, it stales that the pipeline would cross I %i
streams and nne wetland It is recommended rewording the statements as follows, "the pipeline
would cross 1 88 streams and/or wetlands" A stream could have wetlands adjacent to it or wilhir
the stream's corridor
Chapter I (Authonzing Actions and Relationship to Statues and Regulations). We
recommend rewording the phrase. "The proposed action is in conformance..." to say, "The
proposed action would comply with, "
Chapter 2 (Alternatives Including Proposed Action) No comment
Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), Table 5 The Oregon Coast Coho Salmon has been
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act We recommend that an additional
appendix be added for National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Consultation on
the coho salmon Since the Oregon Coast Stcelhead is a candidate species, conferencing is not
required; however, il would be prudent to include the stcelhead in the request for endangered
species consultation letter
Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences), Tables 1 3 Oirough 22 A review of these tables
indicates that there are 188 pipe crossings, of which 1 12 of them arc above stream, within road
crossings Just a point of information, if a pipe crossing is embedded within a roadway and
above the elevation of a culvert where the stream passes, a separate permit is not required for the
pipe crossing because there would be no additional fill in a water of the United States.
Chapter 5 (Consultation and Coordination) No comment
Appendix "C", Maps We recommend adding a map of the prefened pipeline route that
shows the 1 88 pipeline crossings of streams and/or wetlands The map should indicate Uie
crossing sites by numbenng them from I to 1 88 In addition, it is recommended that the map m
Appendix C showing the location of the block valves along the pipeline route be amended to
reflect the crossings Although a number of the 188 crossings may not require Department of the
Army authorization from the Corps, we recommend that all 1 88 crossings be reflected.
We recommend that the cut and fill volumes for each of the 1 88 crossings are reflected
This could be prepared as a table
Thank your for the opportunity to provide comment on Ihe Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, If additional information or clarification is required, please contact Ron Marg at the
letterhead address or telephone (503) 526-4390.
Lawrence C Evans
Chief. Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished,
Coos Bay Field Office (Urbanek)
Oregon Division of Slate Lands (Lobdell)
G-1 - II
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
• -i P"; R"": T,*"'"" WILL C. BUNNELL
95811 COOS SUMNER LANE
?r!^? ir.rj I "i ,:, f^: jgos bay, orbgon 97420
541 269 2138
, - -^ :■-,. wilcbnll@att.net
Bob Gunther, Project Coordinato
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay District
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend, Oregon 97459-2000
Bunnell 1/15
March 16, 2002
Reference
Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Refer to: 2800 of Dec 7, 2001
Comments on Referenced Document
in this letter is in addition to a 12-page set
about the proposed pipeline that I submitted
Summaiy:
1. The Draft EIS does not convey enough information to alio
an informed j udgement to be made among the proposed
alternatives. An economic and environmental baseline,
consisting of no pipeline installation, should be
included-
Bunnell 2/15
5. The Draft EIS makes no mention of industrial production
potential of up to (the cited) 24 billion cubic feet of
natural gas per annum. For example, how many tons of
steel, tons of fertilizer, or kilowatt-hours of
electrical energy per annum, or what by-product
production (type and quantity) might be produced. No
references from potential industries are cited. No
experts from these industries were consulted. Other than
a passing reference of up to 2900 jobs in ten years, no
analysis of the economic impact of this production
potential is presented.
6. The Draft EIS does not adequately present project
organization and assignment of responsibilities for the
major phases of the project : evaluation, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance. These factors
will be critically important as they invoke environmental
issues, and they will involve health and public safety,
as well.
7. The Draft EIS does not adequately address how project
supervision and technical responsibility during project
detailed design, design review, and plan approval will be
handled.
8 . The Draft EIS does not adequately describe how oversight
supervision and control of construction will be
maintained, nor how final acceptance/rejection criteria
and final authority will be handled.
2 . The Draft EIS does not adequately describe, nor does it
adequately analyze, the benefits and detriments of
alternate pipeline routing. It does not analyze the
varied geologic formations the pipeline will encounter o
alternate routes.
3. The Draft EIS does not adequately establish a well-
reasoned and properly weighted set of selection criteria
nor were such criteria used in evaluating the proposed
pipeline alternatives .
4 . The Draft EIS does not adequately address many critical
issues, among them economic factors, environmental
impact, health and public safety, during construction,
operation, and repair or maintenance of the proposed
pipeline alternatives.
9. The Draft EIS does not adequately discuss the roles to be
played by Douglas County and Coos County governments as
regards cost of construction, operation and maintenance .
10. The Draft EIS does not adequately discuss financial
liability during pipeline construction, operation, and
repair or maintenance.
11. The Draft EIS does not adequately present project cost
breakdowns and budget allocations for each implementation
phase, for each alternative considered. Contract
vehicles ( fixed price, time and materials, incentive fee,
etc.) and contract award practices are not described in
any way, yet they can have profound impact on project
costs . No mention is made of a subcontracting plan, nor
of subcontract administration. No mention is made of
construction reserves or the cost of construction delays.
No mention is made of funds to be retained for use in
carrying operational costs until enough paying natural
gas customers can be hooked up to make the pipeline
economically viable. Nor does the EIS give any time
frame when breakeven operation of the pipeline can be
expected to occur, nor whether any or all laterals must
be connected to make the project viable. No schedule is
given for installing gas distribution systems within the
planned customer area. Although it is planned that
start-up operational costs for the first year will be
carried by the gas supplier (NW Natural Gas) breakeven
may occur much later than that. Note also that the gas
customers eventually will have to pay all these costs,
however well hidden they may be. The EIS should show in
detail what these costs can be expected to be.
12. The Draft EIS does not adequately address questions of
operation and safety for each pipeline routing
alternative during periods of weather disturbance, in
which access roads may be closed and power and telephone
service may be lost due to wind-toppled trees. Floods
and landslides can be expected to differentially affect
alternate routes as well, but the EIS does not address
these issues.
13. The Draft EIS significantly lacks adequate discussion
of operation and safety for each pipeline routing
alternative during and following earthquakes .
14. There is a significant lack of quantified data m the
Draft EIS. Few of the quantities that do appear are
adequately justified or traced to their origins.
Moreover, measurement data are not presented in standard
format (mean, standard deviation, and number in sample) .
Nor are estimated data presented with calculations and
estimation bases, nor are data ranges or upper and lower
bounds presented. No graphs are presented showing how
data change over time, with their upper and lower bounds
if estimated, or with measurement deviations if the data
are historical.
15. Data obtained by aid of computers do not show
sufficient relevant factors about computer programs used,
to permit independent evaluation. The EIS should show
factors used, including well-reasoned data and parameters
as entered, methods of program calculation and logic,
collection and formatting of results.
16. I realize that in many areas, useable data are
currently unavailable. But this circumstance makes it
imperative that relentless effort be expended to develop
and present credible data. I suggest that rewrites of
this document should vigorously supply properly
presented, quantified data, complete with histories,
calculations, and justifications for the numbers cited.
Specific comments:
1. p. v: "Need for Action" Although a reference,
ECONorthwest, and a related computer program, are cited,
the structure of the savings of 56. 7 million should be
spelled out in detail, at least in an appendix. The EIS
should show the savings by year, by industry, by consumer
type. The savings should also show costs to taxpayers,
(individual and industrial) of construction, operation,
and maintenance of the pipeline. The savings should also
reflect total cost to the consumer of conversion from
existing energy sources to natural gas.
2. p. v: The "No Act
Alternati
", as described in the
EIS, is merely an alternative pipeline routing, and
should be addressed as such. In contrast, the "No Action
Alternative" should address the consequences of not
installing the pipeline at all; this should be done in
quantitative economic and environmental terms, over a
suitable time period, say ten years. This will form a
baseline by which to judge the pipeline project.
3. p. vi: Table S-2 : It appears that "Estimated Costs" in
this table reflects immediate cost of pipeline
construction only. If this is the case, additional
entries should be made (with full justification in an
appendix) to reflect estimated costs of operation and
maintenance of each alternative (including "No Action",
see above) over periods of, say, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years,
with time cost of money factored in. Finance
amortization (bond pay out and retirement) should be
included, and the numbers should be worked through to
show as a bottom line the actual annual tax cost to
representative Coos County tax payers will be over these
time periods. The "No Action" column should be
completely reworked as described in comment 2 above.
G-1-12
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Bunnell 5/15
Bunnell 6/15
4. p. 3: Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed
action is to install and operate a natural gas pipeline,
laterals, and related terminal equipment, is it not? The
purpose of the EIS, on the other hand, is to present the
environmental and economic implications and trade-offs of
various alternative approaches to achieve that end.
Thus, the EIS should contain sufficient information to
permit each alternative to be compared with each other
alternative and with the baseline alternative of not
installing a pipeline at all. This definitely means that
the environmental and economic impact of operating each
pipeline alternative must be fully considered.
5. The only need shown in the EIS for this pipeline is
economic. The EIS seems to take the position that
operation of this pipeline will reduce environmental
pollutants in the Coos Bay area, but if pollutant
reduction is to be taken as a "need", then that position,
and the means by which pipeline operation can serve that
need, should be completely justified in the EIS, in fully
researched, credible, engineering detail.
6. p. A: Statutes and Regulations: Are all relevant
legislative acts and government regulations cited? For
example, how is "Pipeline Safety and Community Protection
Act of 2000" to be addressed?
7. p. 4: Anticipated Future GasPipeline Projects: Future
costs, environment
contemplated latei
industries in the
These items have r
EIS.
al,
al pipelines to other communities and
area should likewise be addressed.
3t been adequately covered in the Draft
e.E^
Nev
Industrial Gas Users:
industr
commitments have been made..." The EIS should addres
reference here, and spell out later in the document,
standards for allowable industrial environmental
pollution. This should include allowable pollutant
emission standards, calibrated to the Coos Bay and o
industrial environments Ifor which see the baseline
environment) for a suitable selection of typical hea
industries, say, steel fabrication mills, fertilizer
plants, and other such, known to impose severe pollu
loading on the environment.
9. The EIS should address the indirect and cumulative
effects of industrial pollutants from these classes of
industry on the Coos Bay estuary and other areas to be
served by lateral pipelines.
10. p. 7: Alternatives Including Proposed Action: "...gas
is stripped of corrosive elements, excess water, heavier
hydrocarbons..." What standards have been established for
allowable quantities of these materials?
11. How are quality control measures imple
these standards are met?
nted to
ndards are
12. What measures are to be taken if the
not met?
13. How will Internal corrosion of the pipe resulting from
these materials be (a)detected, (bjmeasured, and
(c) repaired? How often will these be done?
14. How will collection of these materials in low points
of the pipeline be controlled?
15 . p. 7 : "... its only above-ground components are line
markers, test stations, bridge crossings and valve
settings..." are not stress loops to be provided?
16. How will movement of the pipeline be controlled; for
example, in the deep wet clay forming the roadbed of CBWR
in Sumner Valley?
17. p. 7: "... the proposed action... is the shortest
practical route ..." Is the proposed route indeed the
shortest? From examination of the maps included in the
EIS, we conclude that Segment H could be shortened by
about 1.5 miles, by routing the pipeline via PP4L right
of way instead of CBWR. Even if this route is more
difficult of traverse, it should be fully analyzed and
costed as an alternative.
16. For that matter, is "shortest" to be the sole criteria
for route selection? The Draft EIS appears to completely
ignore health and public safety factors in assessment of
routes. For example, by choosing to route the pipeline
in the CBWR through Sumner, the pipeline is made to pass
close by approximately 21 residencies, some in the
vicinity of known geologic faults.
Bunnell 8/15
19. I suggest that the planners consider in detail a
number of route and installation alternatives. The impact
of this pipeline will be felt with ever increasing power
for years into the future, when many factors, population,
economic, and environmental , can be expected to assume
changing importance. The fact that many of these factors
are currently unknown makes the need for this type of
forward thinking and planning even more compelling.
28. Assume that there is a pipeline rupture and fire, for
example, in front of Sumner Store. What will be the
duties of the local volunteer fire department personnel
(Sumner RFPD) ? Who will operate the block valves in
Fairview and Isthmus Slough (both outside Sumner RFPD
boundaries) ?
29. If the block valves are to be operated remotely by
signal lines, where is the control center to be located?
20. For one alternate routing example, the main pipeline
could be routed from Fairview to Coquille, where a large
potential customer is currently located. Coquille could
then serve as one hub of gas distribution in Coos County,
with another hub being located in Coos Bay. In this
example, the pipeline could be routed from Coquille to
Coos Bay along Highway 42, or the existing railroad right
of way, with minimal impact. A lateral could be extended
to the Beaver Hill waste treatment facility, along
Highway 101, or as another alternate route, from North
Bank Road, taking the Beaver Hill road from there to
Highway 101, and from Beaver Hill, the lateral could be
extended to Bandon along Highway 101.
21. p. 7: "...the proposed action includes 5 block
valves..." What is the amount {in standard cubic feet) of
gas in the proposed pipeline between the Fairview block
valve and the Isthmus Slough block valve?
30. If there is to be a control center, how does the
control center monitor the pipeline? Who will operate
it? How do emergency personnel communicate with the
control center? What communication backups are to be
provided?
31. Where will the block valve signal lines and
communication lines be located?
32. If overhead, what happens when windstorms push trees
S. If buried, what happens when an earthquake not only
ruptures the pipeline in several places, but also break
the signal and communication lines?
these block valves to
1? How often?
22. In case of pipeline rupture (various kinds) how long
will it take to bleed this gas to atmospheric pressure,
after the block valves are closed?
23. How are the block valves to be operated?
24. What automatic safety features are to be provided?
25. Will local volunteer fire protection personnel and
other local emergency personnel be trained to operate
these valves?
26. In case they ar
who is to be
the liability burden?
27. Will local volunteer fire protection personnel be
expected to establish valve watch duty hours? Will they
be paid?
35. For that matter, questions about pipeline leaks and
their potential impact on health, public safety, and the
natural environment are not adequately addressed in the
EIS. We were told at an information briefing at Coos Bay
Library on 19 February, that pipeline personnel plan to
walk or drive slowly along the pipeline every year, or
"...more often, if needed..." looking for discolored
vegetation, ground disturbance, odor of gas, etc., to
detect leaks. Since, in the currently "preferred
alternative," the road will be paved, with the pipeline
buried beneath the pavement, these disturbances
presumably will be found along the shoulders of the road,
or perhaps detected as odors rising in adjacent buildings
or residencies. When leaks are found, "...they fix
them..." This obviously means they have to dig down to
the pipe, in the middle of the road, shore the trench,
where it may be 5 or more feet deep in saturated wet
clay, find by some means the actual leak(s), and "fix
G-1- 13
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Bunnell 9/15
Bunnell 10/15
it (them)" by some undescribed means, possibly
depressurizing the pipeline. This will be a very
interesting exercise after even a minor earthquake in our
area has produced possibly several dozen breaks or leaks
of various sizes. In this connection, a lead pipeline
consulting engineer stated in the cited meeting, "...in
case of an earthquake, the pipeline will break in only
one place..." Perhaps a geologic/engineering analysis and
plan can be included in the EIS that will show those of
us outside the gas pipeline industry how this result is
to be achieved.
5. p. 11 Schedule, Sizing and Route Selection Factors:
"...scheduled for completion into Coos Bay by the end of
2002..." The EIS should furnish this schedule, showing
start and end dates for each construction phase, for each
segment of each alternative route.
7. The schedules governing road blockages should include
provisions to insure that emergency services {fire,
medical, law enforcement) can be furnished at all times
to all residencies and other areas for each alternate
construction route.
8. p. 11 : In reference to a potential lateral to the
Bandon area, several alternative usage profiles in the
Bandon area are mentioned in the EIS. Each of these
alternatives (including the "No Action" or baseline
alternative) should be adequately explored as to cost,
environmental impact, direct, indirect, and cumulative,
and economic consequences, for individuals and
businesses .
9. p. 11: In reference to a potential lateral to the
Beaver Hill site, in its role as a waste disposal
facility, and in its potential role as a power generatior
site, full development of the environmental impact,
direct, indirect, and cumulative should be shown, as wel]
as cost, cost recovery, and economic impact .
L . p. 13: Proposed Action Utility Corridors and CBW Road:
"...the gravel-surfaced road sections will be paved after
construction of the pipeline..." What is the reason for
this paving?
i. Is the pipeline project funding the paving?
nsible for maintenance funding of
i. What entity is
the paving?
I. What entity is responsible for funding maintenance of
the road and paving when pipeline maintenance or
emergency repair activities disrupt it? These questions
apply to both Douglas and Coos counties.
). Do the existing gravel-surfaced sections meet state
and other relevant criteria as to contour, grade, load-
bearing capacity, width, shoulder, guard rail, signage,
and other such requirements for paved roads?
j. What changes (i.e.: which curves, grades, etc., at
what mileposts) must be made before paving? What other
existing road contours (paved and unpaved) will be
changed or improved prior to installation of the
pipeline?
'. If no changes
justification f]
doing so?
re to be made, then what is the
n a public safety standpoint for
). The EIS should explain in detail what additional
procedures (and their costs) would be imposed on road
improvement efforts by the existence of the pipeline i
increments, arising as a result of having to work
the pipeline, factored into future pipeline costs?
will pay these costs?
). None of these laterals and consequent natural gas
related usage would be possible without the construction
and operation of the main pipeline, and so are a direct
consequence of the pipeline, and should be adequately
addressed in the EIS.
). p. 13: "...NW Natural anticipates to initially deli
2 billion cubic feet..." How many businesses and
households must be converted to natural gas achieve tt
number?
L. The EIS should provide estimated conversion costs
(plans, permits, material, labor, inspections.
Bunnell 11/15
nell 12/15
maintenance) of conversion of various ty
systems and businesses in the planned di
of ho
ibutio
!. The EIS should show the results of surveys conducted
to determine how many homeowners and businesses in the
planned delivery area are actually willing to convert to
natural gas, and their time frame for doing so.
i. 2-: 13: "...the maximum potential ... is 26 billion cubic
feet per year..." From EIS Appendix J, it appears that
this number was obtained by calculating the maximum flow
in the 12-inch pipeline, at maximum pressure. How much
lateral pipe flow does this include?
1. How many steel mills, fertilizer plants, power
generation plants of what size, etc., will this 25-
billion cf/yr flow sustain?
J. Even more importantly, what is the economic and
environmental impact on each region of this potential
industrial population?
56. p. 15: Highway A2 {c
ed) :
able
ffic disruption
nore. . .traffic
uld be
would be delayed..." the EIS should show, segment by
segment, pipeline construction schedules and traffic
routing for the Highway 42 pipeline alternative.
57. p. 15: Alternatives considered but rejected:
"...straight-line option was rejected. ..after considering
costs..." The EIS should show the relevant cost and
environmental impact analysis for this alternative.
58. p. 18: Air Quality: "...no data is available regarding
the current levels of noxious gases..." "...airborne
particulates are at low levels .- .minor and temporary
increases in dust particulate levels. -.a minor amount of
smoke is common..." The EIS should quantify all these
data. These data should be available in current federal
(EPA) and Oregon (DEQ) reports. If relevant data do not
exist, the ELM should take positive steps to measure
these data and establish baselines. These data should be
included in the region environmental baseline. They will
most certainly interact with the environmental indirect
and cumulative aspects of this pipeline.
?. p. 13?: Water Quality: conspicuous by its absence. I
assume that this omission is simply an egregious
oversight, and that a full discussion of water quality,
as impacted -- not ]ust by construction -- but most
importantly by operation of this pipeline and its
consequent industries, on rivers, lakes, streams,
wetlands, floodplains, bays, estuaries, sloughs, and
inlets, and all aquatic life therein, and all
recreational aspects thereof, in all affected regions,
from Bandon to North Spit to Roseburg, will be included
m the next revision.
D. p. 28: Public Health and Safety: "... accidents are
possible. . -if pedestrians or vehicles fail to
heed. . .flaggers. . ." Indeed. I would suggest that this
paragraph be rewritten in its entirety.
26: So
with the Proposed Acti
"...the proposed action. ..is adjacent to. .. business
entities. . .is also adjacent to 37 rural residencies.
Alternate routes should be detailed that
adjacencies .
id thes
28: Regional Assess
of the Natural Gas Market:
"...60 percent of Oregon's urban area homes use natural
gas, ...-10 percent in outlying areas use natural gas..."
The EIS should make clear the limits of distribution of
natural gas into the Coos County non-urban areas. Will
natural gas for home heating be available in the Sumner
or Fairview areas, for example?
3. p. 31: CBW Road: Several segments of CBWR are listed
in general terms as to type and amount of traffic. The
EIS should show what the traffic load actually is on each
of the road segments; that is, how many units per day of
each type of vehicle, segregated by weight: e.g. cars,
trucks and trailers less than 10,000 lbs., delivery
trucks 10,000 to 40,000 lbs., log trucks 80,000 and up,
equipment trucks 105,000 lbs. and up. The EIS should
also show how often each segment is used for emergency
services (fire and ambulance). The expected interaction
of this traffic with the proposed CBWR pipeline route
should be shown in detail, with relevant historical data
from comparable installations, together with complete
soil engineering analyses of the CBWR roadbeds. Note
that the clay roadbeds of parts of CBWR, especially in
Sumner Valley but also elsewhere, are subject to complete
G-1-14
Appendix G I . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Bunnell 13/15
Bunnell 14/15
watsr saturation Cor much of the year. In this
circumstance, the material has little load bearing
capacity. In addition, it may be subject to profound
liquefaction in case of earthquake. All of these
factors, affecting health and public safety should be
addressed in detail.
64. p. 35: Fiber Optic Line: "...pipeline
construction. . .would not affect the fiber optic line..."
Actually, the fiber optic line crosses under the CBWR
from side to side in a number of places. The EIS should
describe how the pipeline is to pass through these fiber-
optic crossovers, and especially who is to be responsible
for any costs involved in disruption of the fiber-optic
line.
65. p. 36: Proposed Action Effects Summation: " . . .the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are so small as
to be negligible..." On p. 13, this EIS states that up to
25 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas is to be
brought to the Coos Bay region, there to be burned or
converted to other substances, in a variety of heavy
industrial contexts. These industrial activities will
most certainly have long-term environmental consequences.
They will heavily impact every aspect of life and nature
on this coast. This part of this chapter should be
completely rewritten, to provide a realistic, quantified,
time-based summary of the analysis of these effects.
66.
p. 36: Proposed Action Summati
)n :
direct and cumulative effect
reduction in sulfurous emissions from fossil
fuels utilized by industries and private resi
users switch to natural gas..." Quantitative
these effects should be shown. While it is (
subject, the EIS should also show the amount
pollutants (including sulfurous emissions) tc
a result of pipeline-related industrial actii
. . . the long-ter
oposed action i
be added as
ity.
7. p. 36; Proposed Action Summation: " . . ■ the short-term
and long-term direct, indirect, and cumulative economic
benefits of the proposed action are the primary reasons
Coos County seeks to construct a natural gas pipeline..."
Indeed. And this EIS should show in quantitative terms
how these benefits would be traded off against
environmental and economic costs. As it stands, the EIS
fails to do this.
68. p. 67 - 71: Tables 23_throuqh 31: It is encouraging
that thought was given to the immediate economic impact
of constructing and operating one alternative route of
the pipeline. But to be complete, similar analyses for
each alternate should be provided. These analyses should
be extended to show the long-term costs of maintaining
the pipeline in each of the alternative environments.
69. The EIS should present a comprehensive breakeven
analysis of the project. For each alternative route,
this should show how many conversions to natural gas of
each type must be made each year, and how much industrial
usage must be added each year, to achieve breakeven
status, and when that will occur, considering as well the
time value of all pipeline costs. All environmental
impacts resulting from these time-based conversions
should also be shown. The time-valued costs of
conversion to be borne by customers to achieve breakeven
for each alternative should also be shown.
70. In this connection, the analysis should include the
effects of projected natural gas cost variation,
particularly detailing the consequences of yearly natural
gas price increases of various percentages (best, most
likely, worst) . This analysis should extend over at
least a ten-year period.
71. p. 71: Static and Dynamic Efficiency Effects: "...a
typical single family home would save $410 in annual
utility bills by switching from electric to natural gas
heat..." For this number to have any real meaning, the
EIS should show the cost of actually switching from
electric (typically un-ducted) heat to gas heat,
including the cost of obtaining plans, permits, labor,
materials, and inspections. Maintenance costs of gas
heat should be included. Ranged estimates of natural gas
price escalation should be included. Finally, consumers'
indirect costs in the form of increased taxes needed to
retire the pipeline construction debt should also be
included.
'^2. p. 71: ". . .ECONorthwest estimates that by the tenth
year, consumers will save over S6.7 million per year..."
Using the S410 figure given above, this means about
16,341 homes in the service area have converted from
Bunnell 15/15
ic heat to
is number
The EIS should sho
sts.
3. p. 71 : "...ECONorthwest previously estimated ... 1500
new jobs after 10 years ... ECONorthwest estimates ... total
employment ... to be over 2900 jobs higher ten years after
natural gas is Introduced..." The EIS should detail what
the components of these numbers are. In particular,
reasons for the increase from 1500 to 2900 should be
shown . Upper and lower bounds of employment numbers,
depending on economic conditions and industrial
population (number and size of steel mills, fertilizer
plants, etc.) should be shown as a function of time.
These numbers may well be contained in the ECONorthwest
report or elsewhere; nevertheless, they should be shown
and developed as required here, in credible detail.
After all, this EIS paragraph contains the very heart,
the sole justification for construction of this pipeline.
These numbers should not be presented as if they were
mere idle speculation.
73: Summary of Di
Indir
and Cumulati
Economic Effects fo
Acti
Alte
Thi
addresses in a quan
immediate, construe
not summarize in a
or cumulative econo
It do
for any alternatives whatever;
2900 employment figure,
itative way only the direc
ion costs of the pipeline,
eaningful way any direct, indirect
ic effects for the project outyear
nly reite
ates
the
Klamath- Siskiyou Wildlands Center
POB I02 Ashland OR 97510 (541)488-5789 ioscph@kswiId.org
Bob Gunthcr
Project Coordinator
Coos Bay Distnct
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend, OR 97459
j/lj/oi
RE: Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Draft EIS
Greetings,
Thcst arc Kljmjth-SUkivou WJdIands Center's (KS Wild) and Umpqua
rr^ciV> •??'• "''';"' 'Comments on the C005 County NaturaJ Gas Draft EIS
IV ^ "" updated comments to those that you received in your office on
March 21, 2002 You can void those comments, as all issues raised therein are
included in these comments
Please consider these in the evaluation of the DEIS and the in the formation of you
final environmental analysis The proposed pipeline will cross approximately 60
miles of public and private lands in Coos and bouglas counties, 6regon Long term
pipelme wiU requite 40 feet of space to be kept clear of larger brash and treei
Access roads to the BPA corridor will be restore as needetffor pipeline constract.on
and access for opetations and maintenance
KS Wild and Umpqua Watersheds Inc support the use of natural gas and especially
the increased air ciualiry that would result in the Coos Bay area Oicreafter Bay Area)
from the proposed action However, we do have some concerns about the proposed
pipeline and associated development that would Idcely occur in the Bay Area ai a
result of this action
The DEIS is Inadequate
We want
proposed
Final EIS (EEIS) to explore 11
on would have on the human
ider each altetnat
comparative merits " 40 CFR
ough dct
; detail the impact that the
jnment NEPA requires an EIA t
il so "that reviewers may evaluate their
J2i4a>)
NEPA requires documenting Connected, Indirect and Cumulative effects.
The FEIS should determine the effects to the environment if the pipeline were
subiect to rainstorms causing normal and abnormal landslides in the notoriously
unstable Coastal Mountain range The 100-year flood event must be considered
Likewise, The Coast Range is naturally subject to stand replacing forest fites If
burning trees were to fall over the nghtof-way, ptotruding theitlimbs into the
ground, what would the effect on the pipeline be' Factors that can cause explosions
must be assessed in for a route that traverses under a road with heavy-log tuck traffic
G-1- 15
Appendix (J 1 . Letters Keceivea uuring urart environmental impact :iiaiemeni v^omment Kenod
Conversely, the potential for the pipeline to create a large wUdfire due to its inherent
qualities must be considered in the assessment.
Part of the pipeline is proposed to go under (or next to) the playground at the
Loolungglass Grade School The grade school is close to the Roseburg BLM land
the- right-of-way is plaruied for If Roseburg BLM nght-of-way, enabling the pipeUne
CO go in proximity to the school, this should be analyzed under cumulative effects of
the FEl5.
We are concerned that the DEIS did not discuss the potential for a gas leak. The
public should be informed about the likelihood of sucn an event, wim at least
anecdotal evidence of existing or past such pipeline in remote areas. Do these pipe
ever leak and what would be the worst case scenario if such events occur? This is an
important question the FEIS should consider in depth as many important resources
occur in the pro|ect area Mitigation measures to prevent such an unlikely event
should be proposed and evaluated.
If indeed there are specific business which have expressed interest in moving to the
Bay Area and other effected communities if natural gas were available, these
potential developments must be disclosed in the FElS. All actions foreseeable
cotmected to the proposed must be disclosed in the FEIS.
The BLM should completely document the Need for this project. If the need is to
attract business to the Bay Area, the cumulative effects analysis must assess the
impacts of this project. Tne Coos County website, for instance, gives examples of
inaustries that failed to locate in the area because "we don't have natural gas" as two
steel companies and a gypsum plant. If the act of BLM granting the nght-of-way will
result of heavy industry locating in the Bay Area, a cumulative impact analysis must
include an analysis o( the negative environmental impacts the nght-of-way would
enable. Indirect effects m us also be included in this analysis. These may include
growth inducing effects and changes in the pattern of land use and subsequent
environmental impacts.
Cost Considerations
We are opposed to taking short cuts if spending a little more money would afford
greater protection to natural resources or endanger human lives. The citizens of
Coos County generously voted in enough financial resources that short cuts do not
have to be taken- At the Public meeting on Nov 29. it was announced that the cost
estimate would be $30 million instead of $51 million originally projected There is no
reason for any cost cutting measures that would result in less environmental
protections.
Public Lands
The BLM should survey for Survey and Manage species. Adhere to the federal
Fish Habitat
We are very interested in the fish habitat improvement that is a part of this project.
We support the increased fish passage that would be attained as a part of the
proposed action. We are skeptical that no short term degradation to fish habitat
through sedimentation would occur. Is there a way that fish improvement projects
t forward without the proposed
Tient in more detail? New road c
tion^ Can you describe the fish habitat
istruction or reconstruction is regarded a
greatest negative watershed effect on salmonid habitats Increases in sedimentation
reduces pool volumes, and may additionally impact deep pools, which can serve as
temperature refugia for fish.
Waterways
The BLM must comply v
Clean Water Act.
e water quality standards promulgated under the
t exceed soil compaction Standards and GuideUnes. This project should not
__ _ _ . se soil erosion, particularly cntenne waterways. Past, present and future
activities are requirea to be considered when evaluating soil conditions.
Noxious Weeds
This project has the potential to senous
species. What is the likeLhood that the
the spread of noxious weeds' The BLM
3 prevent the spread of 1
*eeds into areas less mfested with these
nitigaiion measures would prevent of stop
nust disclose the consistent failure of its
weeds in the past.
Species Concerns
Please protect Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Species. Do no lead to a trend
to bst any species. Maintain viable populations of all native species and do not
degrade habitat for any Management Indicator or other target species.
Archeological Sites and Significant Native American Sites
Prevent any potential iinpact to any tradition Native American uses of the area and
any archeological sites. The proper procedure tor identifying cultural resources of
traditional value is located in on page i of the National register Bulletin #38.
Thank you for this oppo
project progresses.
and please keep us informed as this
Respectfully,
<i//^
Joseph Vaile
For KS Wild and
Francis Eathenngton
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.
886 Raven Lane
Roseburg, OR 97470
Subject:
FAIRVIEW RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
96775 Fairview Sumner Lane
Coquille, Oregon 97423
Phone (541) 396-3473
Fax (541) 396-6223
March 21. 2002
US Departmenl of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management ^.
Coos Bay distnci y^.
1300 Airpon Lane - ■
North Bend, Oregon 97459 ■ -
Virgil Williams, Chief ^
Fairview Rural Fire Protection District
96775 Fairview Sumner Lane
Coquille, Oregon 97423 ~*
There are several concerns thai Fairview R. F P D has that would inhibit
the fire departments ability lo provide fire and hfe safety for the citizens
thai live within the fire distnct.
Reference: Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact St.
A, Reference Map (Page 7 of 10) Indicates a block valve will be installed
in the 12" natural gas pipeline adjacent lo Fairview Road, Bonneville
Power Administration, and Pacific Power & Light Transmission line
c tossing -
1 In most cases with pipeline damage the inilial result in a
release of natural gas. The second event would be a massive
natural gas spill that would require the response of a hazardous
material team. Should natural gas find an ignition source a fireball
would erupt causing a structural or a wild land fire, and possibly
both.
2, The by-product of a natural gas fire is dense black smoke that
can easily reach 3000 feet. Flame impingement would be high
enough to reach the transmission hnes, and result in damage to
equipment and pose a senous safely concern for personnel.
3 Should such an incident occurthe travel of mutual aid
from Coquille would be limited because Fairview Road would
have to be shut down This not only would hamper tirefighling
activities, but also would disrupt one of the main evacuation
routes Water would have lo be transported from Steel Creek in
the winter months, and from Lee Valley in the summer on the
south side of the block valve location, and from Evans Creek lo the
north-
4. The time it lakes to get a pipeline operator to close the block
valve at the town of Dora would range from 30 minutes to over an
hour, Closing block valves is the safest, and most effective
method of extinguishing a pipeline fire With this type of incident
fire departments usually concentrate their activities to protecting
exposures, Tlie amount of water required for this action would be
approximately 2500 gallons per minute This fire flow is beyond
the capacity of the existing tire department equipment
B. Reference EIS Draft {Chaplcr 3, Page 28, Second Paragraph "PubUc
Health and Safety")
1. The last sentence in this paragraph reads " after construction is
completed, the primary issue for public safety and pipeline
operation would be damage from someone digging without
permission and heavy equipment (such as a backhoc) or
unauthorized use of explosives in the near vicinity of the
pipeline."
2. Reference EIS Draft (Page J-7, and Page J-8)
With the block valve foolpnnl surrounded with a chain link
fence with a locked gate, and depending on location, traffic
volume, the fence will be protected with concrete or pipe
barricades. Page J-8 indicated that the block valve controls
extend 5"8" above grade Will the fence, and barricades
prevent fuel trucks, log trucks, or a lowboy truck with a shovel
from damaging this block valve assembly?
3 In my opinion the block valve al Fairview needs to be relocated
away from the main route of travel, and at a distance that
would prevent flame and smoke impingement on the
Bonneville Sub Station. Pacific Power & Light, and Bonneville
Power Administration 230 and 11 5 KV transmission lines.
Sincerely,
Virgil Williams. Chief
Fairview R. F. P. D.
G-1- 16
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Enviroiiiiioiital Impact Statement Comment Period
fun l)ob(>uiither
Frojccl CoonJiiialor
Coos Bay District
H1.M
1300 Airpoit Ijute
North licnd
OR974W
3/220002
ffl! liA,; 22 o I? 52
Dcat Mr Cmnthcr
Re: Coos Cwiptv Om Pipeline. Draft EtivJromKnWl I
Firitly. thank you to Bl.M for initialing and pubUshing this document
Wc reqocul th.l our MinM and addrau are withheld from public review and
disclosure.
It is claimed thai the installation of this pipeline will provide approximately 2900 jobs for
the Coos Bay area Yet page 5 of Chapter 1 states that because no industnal
Kimmitments have yet occurred it us not posible to quanldy the potential environmental
impacts of unknown ftiture facilities and iheir potential locations'
If a specific number of jobs can be quantified then an assumption must have been made
about who potential employers arc. which means that the potential environmental impact
can be assessed
Even if it is not possible to quantily numbers of new jobs there are certain types of
industries to whom the availability of natural gas would be an attraction to locating in this
area s<i the type ofpolential enipkjyer can be identified and a best and worst case unpact
can still be assessed.
PS Chapter 1 stales that -ftiture new faciUlies utilizing natural gas wiU be required to
undergo then own environmental impacts analyses, wilhui the required permitting
processes for new construction,' Wc understand that this process LS myopic and only
looks at the particular facility under review and does not take into account the cumulative
impact of emissions from neighboring fecilitics
Availability of industnal mned land, trarciportation and communication systems strongly
indicates that any new industry would locale in and around Coos Bay Therefore the
statement thai potcmial locations of fijture facilities is unknown is unfounded
fao Bob (lunthcr
Project Coordinator
Coos Bay DistrKl
111 M
1 300 Airport Lane
North Bend
OR 97459
3/22«002
Coo! Bay and surrounding area has consWerable natural charm and resources, which ate
not yet fiilly capitali/ed upon in terms of attracting all types of tourists, and 'clean' and
more environmentally friendly industries such as aquaculturc. How will the introduction
of gas bunting industry affect this scenario?
We respectfully offer as our comment on this draft KIS that it does not address the
indirect and cumulative effect of Ihe lastallation of the gas pipeline on Coos bay and
surrounding area.
Sincerely
^
March 21. 2002
Mr Bob Gunthcr. Project Coordmato
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay Dislnct Office
1300 Airport Lane
Coos Bay. OR 97459
Dear Mr Gunthcr.
Department of Land Conservation and Development
- -- .. 635CapitolSt NE.SuilelSO
Salem. Oregon 97301-2540
Phone (503) 373-0050
*■ ■ ■■ "? ', '.' S'' Director's Fax (503) 378-551B
Mam FaK (503) 378-6033
Rural/Coastal F.i« (503) 378-5518
■ - * ■■ . -. TGM/Urban Fa» (503) 378-2687
Web Address http / /www led s,iale or us
'BsA
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
The Dcpartmcnl of Land Conservation and Dcvclopmcnl (DLCD) has reviewed Ihc draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project The Bureau of Land
Management (ELM) is the lead federal agency for the National Environmental Policy Act review
addressing consiruclion of a natural gas pipeline from southwest of Roscburg. Douglas County to
Coos Bay. Coos County The preferred route for the pipeline runs through Re^ton. Douglas
County and then roughly parallel to the Coos Bay Wagon Road lo Coos Bay, Coos County The
pipclme would be buncd within existing nghts-of-way of Pacific Corps. Bonneville Power
Administration, and the Wagon road The pipeline would deliver natural gas to distnbulion
facilities in Coos Bay and North Bend, with smaller l;itrra!s built to serve Coquille. Myrtle Point,
and perhaps Bandon
In a letter dated Apn! 27, 2001 . the Department provided detailed commcnis lo BLM in response
to the scoping notice for the proposed project Wc are resubmitting those comments as an
attachment to this letter since our review of the DEIS indicates thai those comments have largely
not been addressed As wc staled in our previous letter, the proposed federal action is subject to
Ihe coordination and consistency requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA. 16US.C, § 1451 - 1464) Yet. the DEIS docs not even list the federal CZMA as an
applicable law (sec Chapter I . p 4), While BLM may be intending to address coastal zone
consistency at the final EIS stage, we are surpnsed to find no discussion on this matter within ihc
DEIS
In closing, feel free lo contacl the Department should you have any questions about this letter,
the attached Apnl 27. 2001 letter, or the OCMP Information about Ihe OCMP can also be found
on-line at http://www,lcdslate-or us/coast/index. htm The pnmary coastal program contact for
this project continues to be Ms Chnsline Valentine of my staff, and she can be reached at 503-
Mr BobGunther.BLM
Coos County
Douglas County
City of North Bend
City of Coos Bay
Oily of Coquille
City of Myrtle Point
City of Bandon
DSL
ODFW-Portland
DEQ-Portland
Conf. Tnbes Coquille Indians
Conf Tnbes Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siusla'
Corps of Engineers
Bonneville Power Administration
Biological Information Specialists Inc
March 21. 2002
373-0050 X250 or by e-mail at chn
:valenline@stale.orus
Sincerely.
Nan Evans. Manager
Oregon Coastal Management Program
G-1 - 17
Appendix G 1 . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
regon
April 27, 2001
Ms. Sue E Richardson, Distnct Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Coos Bay Distnct Office
1300 Airport Lane
Coos Bay. OR 97459
Dear Ms Richardson,
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol 5( NE. Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
Phone (503) 373-0050
Director's fax (503) 378-5518
Main Fax (503) 378-6033
Rural/Coastal Fax (503) 378-5518
TGM /Urban Fax (503) 378-2687
Web Address: http://www led state or us
J2i
Subject: Scoping - Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has reviewed the March 29,
2001 scopmg letter and associated website materials describing the Bureau of Land
Management's (ELM) proposal to direct the preparation of an environmental impact stalcmenl
(EIS) addressing construction of a natural gas pipeline from southwest of Roseburg, Douglas
County to Coos Bay. Coos County. The E!S is required before BLM can issue a nght-of-way for
the project to cross federal lands A preferred route for the pipeline has already been identified
based on a 1999 feasibility study The proposed route would run through Reston, Douglas
County and then roughly parallel the Coos Bay Wagon Road to Coos Bay, Coos County The
pipeline would be buried within existing nghls-of-way of Pacific Corps. Bormeville Power
Administration, and the Wagon road The pipeline would deliver natural gas lo distribution
facilities in Coos Bay and North Bend, with smaller laterals built to serve Coquille, Myrtle Point.
and perhaps Bandon The location of the laterals has not yet beeo determined.
The above-descnbed federal proposal is subject to the coordination and consistency requirements
ofthe federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA. I6USC § 1451 - 1464) The project
area crosses through and terminates within Oregon's "coastal zone", designated under the
federally approved Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP), Construction of the pipeUne
is reasonably likely lo affect land and water uses and natural resources of Oregon's coastal zone
As such, the federal developmenl project and any associated facilities or actions must be
designed, planned, and implemented in a manner consistent with the OCMP DLCD. as the
slate's designated coastal zone management agency, will ultimately be responsible for concurring
that BLM's proposed action will be consistent with OCMP requirements
As part of federal evaluation process, BLM will need to prepare a coastal zone consistency
determination addressing how the proposed project, including associated facilities or actions,
would comply with OCMP requirements Your consistency determination will need to include a
brief statement indicating whether BLM believes the project complies with the OCMP and must
be supported by an evaluation ofthe proposed actions vs the relevant coastal program policies.
A detailed project description, information regarding any associated facilities and sufficient
information to explain coastal zone effects must also be provided in support of BLM's
detenm nation.
Ms. Sue E. Richardson, BLM
April 27, 2001
DLCD generally reviews projects requinng an EIS at the final EIS stage to ensure that a second
review to address project modifications is not necessary and to allow the consistency
determination and the stale's review to concentrate on a selected preferred alternative vs.
multiple alternatives We would hope to address all federal actions associated with the project
comprehensively but are not yet certain of whether BLM. as the lead agency, would be
addressing coastal zone requirements for other federal agencies We also ask BLM to explain
when and how local, state, and federal permit requirements will be addressed. For example, a
local project sponsor might be responsible for obtaining permits.
We anticipate that there will be considerable overlap in the issues that must be addressed in the
EIS and to support BLM's consistency determination BLM's preliminary list of topics to be
addressed includes socio-economic impacts, soil erosion, water quality, fish and wildlife,
uaditional tnbal uses of the area, archaeological sites, and noxious weeds We concur that these
topics need to be addressed in the EIS but also find that waterway resources and wetlands,
endangered and threatened species, and land use must be addressed in the EIS With those
inclusions, we believe the BLM list and coastal zone management list of topics that must be
addressed will be comparable
BLM can choose lo include the consistency delerminaUon as part ofthe project EIS or can
prepare a separate document with the EIS provided as supportmg information. While it is
BLM's responsibility to prepare the consistency determination, OCMP staff is available to
discuss any questions you may have about coastal zone management requirements. BLM will
need to specifically address project consistency wrh the following enforceable elements ofthe
OCMP
O The comprehensive land use plans and implemenliDg regulations of affected local
jurisdictioDs.
For this project. BLM will need to consider multiple local comprehensive plans and
implementing land use regulations since the project will occur in multiple counUes and cides.
BLM vflll need to coordinate with the Douglas County and Coos County planning departments to
determine how the county land use programs apply to the proposed actions. Since the project
will lerminatc in the City of Coos Bay and will also affect the Cities of North Bend, Coquille.
Myrtle Point, and Bandoo, BLM also would need to coordinate with the plannmg departments of
these communities.
BLM should identify all land use policies and standards applicable to the various alternatives -
and specific actions contemplated under those altcmaUves - which are descnbed in the EIS We
would expect the land use analysis to be most thorough for the preferred alternative but for land
use requirements lo be a consideraUon in all alternatives under review in the EIS For at least the
preferred alternative, any needed land use approvals should be identified, and the EIS should also
contain an analysis of how the applicable land use policies and standards will be meet, i e to the
extent practicable provide the justification for needed local decisions. This would also ideally
include justification for any needed local comprehensive plan amendments or goal exceptions.
Ms. Sue E. Richardson, BLM
-3-
Apni27. 2001
Ms Sue E Richardson. BLM
see below for more on this topic Allemalively, the more detailed analysis and justification
could ultimately be provided in a separate coastal zone consistency determination.
A goal "exception" is required when a proposed action is specifically not allowed by the
requirements of an applicable goal If the selected alternative would involve actions that do not
comply with the local land use program and the statewide planmng goals, then the EIS or
consistency determination must contain adequate information to support an exception. The
exceptions process and standards are descnbed at OAR 660 Division 004 At this time, we
cannot determine absolutely whether any goal exceptions might be required because information
is very limited, but we are available to work with the county and BLM with the goal of guiding
the various alternatives and actions to not trigger the need for goal exceptions
e The Statewide PlaDDiog Goab (OAR 660-15), as applicable.
The statewide plannmg goals are state regulations that are generally implcmcnlcd through the
applicable local comprehensive plan(s) and ordinances The goals and associated rules can be
accessed via DLCD's website |www led state or us ] Local plans are acknowledged by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission to meet the requirements of the goals However,
the goals apply directly in cases where an action is proposed thai is inconsistent with a local land
use program and a plan amendment or goal exception is pursued A goal provision may also
apply directly if the goal has been updated and the local land use program has not yet been
brought into compliance with the updated requirements Goal 19 for ocean resources is also
applied directly by state agencies vs local governments, but goal 19 does not apply lo this
project.
We recommend that BLM review the statewide planning goals as a way lo begin to understand
the types of policies and standards contained in local land use programs thai would likely be
applicable to a proposed project, Specifically, BLM should look at Goal 2 (Land Use Planning).
Goal 3 (Agncultural Lands). Goal 4 (Forest Lands). Goal 5 CNatural Resources, Sceruc and
Histonc Areas, and Open Spaces), Goal 6 (Air. Water and Land Resources Quality) Goal 7
(Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards). Goal 9 (Economic Development). Goal 1 1
(Public Facilities and Services). Goal 13 (Energy Conservation), Goal 16(Estuanne resources),
and Goal 1 7 (Coastal shorelands)
The staodards of selected stale e
air/waler quality standards, gem
vironmenlal laws (e.g. Removal/ Fill Law, slate
al fish and wildlife prolections. Beach Bill, etc.).
Numerous slate laws addressing the management of specific natural resources and land and
water uses of the coastal zone have been incorporated into the OCMP. Based on our knowledge
ofthe proposed project to date, we believe that the following laws incorporated mlo the OCMP
could be applicable lo the project In order lo fully deiermine how these laws might apply to the
project, BLM will need to identify project elements such as sueam crossings, well and/riparian
impacts, construction techniques including rehabilitation after pipeline installation, as well as
steps that will be taken to avoid and minimize resource impacts or compensate for unavoidable
impacts BLM also needs to consult with the stale agencies identified below to determine the
applicability of these authorities and how to demonstrate compliance wilh these laws:
State Authonties
Removal-Fill Law
State Submerged and Submersible Lands
General Protective Regulations
Air, Land & Water Quality
Slate Agency
Oregon Division of State Lands
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The above list is not intended to suggest thai BLM should not coordinate with other state
agencies, the above list is only intended to highlight the key statutory requirements that DLCD
would likely need to consider when ^evle\^^^s BLM's consistency determination. As pan ofthe
coastal zone review process, DLCD would consult with these slate agencies to determine
whether the proposed project would be in compliance with these state authonties.
In closing, feel free to contact the Department should you have any questions about this lener or
the OCMP The OCMP is descnbed at httpV/www.lcd.stale or us/coast/index htm Or you may
also contact Chnstine Valentine, coastal agency coordinator, al 503-373-0050 X250 or by e-mail
at chnstinevalentineiaistale.or.us for more information I ask that you also please address future
correspondence regarding the project to Ms. Valentine,
Sincerely,
Nan Evans, Inienm Manager
Oregon Coastal Management Program
cc. Coos County
Douglas County
City of North Bend
City of Coos Bay
City of Coquille
City of Myrtle Pomt
City of Bandon
DSL
ODFW-Portland
DEQ-Porlland
Conf Tnbes Coquille Indians
Conf Tribes Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw Indians
Corps of Engineers
G-1- li
Appendix (il. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AQENCV
REQION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
March 19.2002
-.^53
Rqily To
Aim Of ECO-088
Rcf 01 013 BLM
BobGuniher. Project Cnordinaior
Bureau of Land Managcncni
Coos Bay Distntl
1300 Airport Ijinc
Nofih BciiJ. Oicgon 97459
Dear Mr Gunther:
The Envimiimental Proicciion Agency has received the Draft Bnvironmcntal Intact
Sluieinent (EIS) for Uk proposed Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline (CEQ No 020024) for
review in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
EPA Region 10 has used a screening tool to conduct a limited review of the draft EIS
and, based upon the screen, we do not foresee haviQg any envin)nmental objections to the
proposed project Tliercfore. we wUl not he conducting a detailed review of the draft EIS
Sliould you have any questions, please contact Bill Ryan ot my slafT at (206) 553-8561
/^... u.L^ ^^■■■'- --- '-^^ 0^<,^^^^-r
/
/I \a^.^: flU^-^-
,/ t,^,....-.-y 6... /
0-.
c -Ck.V
C^-^^re€ 3<tK^^ ^ii<5T^ Cye Ayiye //-y. Cais Su.
'^■-e.*:'^^ <
^,^^ ^?^ J^A.^^
llff-r-^,^ ^8-1^ ^•.<. .,.-5^ ..u-u,£fi^^--r^ ^^««<;7C.t^ "'
doc
.I.^J-
u4 Af<? ^'^ /v"/6-s -
V^ iAC£^2,^
■4-A.i^uk
G-1 - 19
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
C7 claaX^^' '.-
-Pat & John TO 'BoDCuntner <Dob Qunther@orbim-gov>
Simpson* cc 'Bonsadier' <ronsac)@woridnetatt.net>, •BoDbiestewart*
< patjohns@uclnet. < seigstew@gte net > . ■Vickie Crowley
com> <vec@worldnetatt net>. 'Carol Doty
<cnrdotv@eartminl( net>
03/23/02 01 37 AM Subject Draft Eis comment
Steve i Wesa Liles
96955 Lone Pine Lane
Coqullle, Ore 97423
March 23, 2002
Bob Gunther.
The pipeline EIS musi have a map showing the BLM land being crossed by the pipeline
The draft proposal allows suppositions concerning numbers of jobs crealcd but does not allow suppositions abou
polluiion to the estuary and other silcs by large manufacturing plants that create those jobs This pollution will n
enhance oyster beds, fishmg or recreation in the river and estuaries. This pollution and undesirable traffic and
congestion will not increase our important economy of tourism or retirees Tourism and retirees demand a clean
Therefore, there should be an accounting in the draft for the e
tilings as oysters, fishir
■s being blocked by smoke stacks, etc
Our ridiculous striving for
jmic loss due to the increased pollution on such
: moving away, health impact due to contaminated
o clean places for people to go to for
for
Such shortsightedness.
e go around the BLM territory (which isnt evei
^t of the pipeline and solve NO real problems
1 do NOT want the pipelmc built. I resent the additional t;
1 would like ihc EIS to totally stop the pipelme
If It cannot, then 1 do NOT want the EIS lo simply make tl
shown in the draft), because that would add unnecessarily
created by the pipeline'
I had such hopes for an EIS 1 have since decided that it is a very expensive farce, at least the way I sec it bemg
implemented here' Let me quote from Ron Sadler's lener to the County Plannmg department
"The public commcnl period on the Draft EIS is open until March 25.2002 In spile of this fact, your March 8 mcm(
to the Planning Commission announces thai they will be discussing conditional use approval of "the only feasible
route" Is this not prima facie evidence that the choice of reasonable alternatives has. in fact, been limited? Could
any action be better designed to dbcourage and squelch the rational public discussion of other reasonable
alternatives thai the EIS process is designed to foster?
"Your action makes a mockery of the EIS process. It indicales thai a decision as lo "the only feasible route
already been made, and Coos County and the BLM view the EIS process as a pro forma exercise without ai
utility This is a direct insult to the citizens of Coos County, and a violation of federal regulations It adds
vulnerability of a process that is already on shaky ground legally "
PalSimpson 5'll-347-2597 patiohnsi5!ucinct com
435 Michigan NE
Bandon. OR 97411
Bureau of Land Hangement
1 300 Airport Lane
North Bend, Ore
These are our reasons for not excepting the Gas Pipe Line.
Onaopr property we hawe a total of 300 feet of BPA right
of was, you have not tried to survey the route where ?ou wish
to go, as we have a water supply In tihis right of way that will
be drained by the drilling under the river.
Other reasons are Envirnomental impact on the watershed
at the Bay.
Sothing was brought up about the envirnometall irapact in
the study.
Stesa, Liles
Wesa Lile
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE
PO Box 783 • .1050 Tremoni • Nonh Bend, OR 97459
Telephone 541-756-0904 • FAX 541.756-0847
March 23. 2002
Mr Bob Gunther, Project Coordinator
BLM Coos Bay Distnci
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend. OR 97459
Re: Coos County Nahjrai Gas Pipehne Draft EIS
Dear Mr Gunther
The CoquiUe Tnbe has reviewed the Coos County Nahiral Gas Pipeline Draft EIS
document and submits the following comments specific to archeological and cultural
resource c
Pipeline Laterals (p.lpj,
Although the possibilities of laterals lo the communities of Coquille, Myrtle Point, and
Bandon have not been "finalized," il is apparenl that they are intended. The EIS should
strongly emphasize the need for thorough cultural resource surveys along each of the
proposed lateral routes, particularly m the Fairview area (see comments concerning
Appendix B below)
Effected Environment; Cultural Resources- Direct Impacts (p. 40)
Project monilonng, as il is suggested, is insufficient I ) The term "tnbal members"
should be changed to "designated tnbal representatives of the effected federally
recognized tribes " 2) Language should be amended to include the possibility of
inadvertent discovery of archeological sites and/or isolates, and thai mitigation of such
discovenes should occur immediately and in consultation with the appropnate tnbal
representatives 3) Language should strongly emphasize that cultural resources surveys
were limited lo exposed surfaces only (see Appendix B-12); and that monitonng may be
required in areas of "potential" or "probability"- especially 1} those areas in the project
comdor that were not surveyed because trespass was nol granted, and 2) that were not
surveyed because brush and vegetation cover did not allow it.
Appendix B. Cultural Resources
The B.I S Report, prepared by Henlage Research Associates, does not address the need
for extensive pre-project probing and project monitonng in ihe Fairview area. Although
there is only one SHPO-recorded site, several decades of anecdotal reports from local
informants, coupled with the oral histones of the local tribes, suggest the very strong
potential for much of the Fairview valley lo be one very large and extensive archeological
site. The ELS report also does not address the pipeline laterals, and thus has tittle ment
in considcnng the scope or areas of focus for cultural resource surveys along any of those
proposed routes.
In closing, the comments here are intended only to address cultural resource concerns.
Other issues that the Coquille Tnbe might have as a government- or as a major
contnbutor to the Coos County economy- would best be represented by either the
Coquille Tribal Council or the CoquiUe Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO).
Thank you for the opportunity lo comment.
Sincerely, 1
Donald B. Ivy
Culniral Resources Program Coordir
C: Tribal Council
Culture Committee
Confederated Coos Tribes
20
Appendix ul. Letters Received During Uratt bnvironmental Impact Statement Comment Period
March 25. 2002
54(52(1 Grcgrr TrcrV M
Biindon.OR974ll
Ph: M7-4305
ivironniciilal inipucls as required
IJob (iuiitlKt. Project Coordinator
Bureau of Land ManagcrrKnt
1300 AiriH)il Uiic
North Bend. OR 97459
SUBJ: Conuncnlson Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Draft HIS
I make no pretense ot being an expert on LIS documents. However, even a cursory look al
this document reveals that BLM has produced a completely deficient study:
• CLQ 1 502 2g requires an ob;eciive analysis, rwi a justilicalion of the action already
decided upon.
• NEPA(CP.Q 1502 I6h and CFQ : 508 8b) requires a study of the indirect effects,
• I here l^ ih> ailcnipl made lo discuss t
inCEQ 1508 7.
p. 05 New Industrial Gas Users
"Because tto industrial commitments have yet occurred, it is not possible to quantdy the
potcniiat environmenlal impacts of unknown luture facilities and their potential locations "
Slill, in several areas (eg., pages 66. 67. 68 and M) lll.M lias iiu problem quaiililyiiig
pt>tential ccononuc impacts by these same non-exislent indu.slnal users
p IR AIROnAtlTV
The statement is made " no data is available regarding ihc turrenl levels of noxious gases, .
" Ihisislalse Data is available troni the LP A's 1 owes Release Inventory and I know ilial a
record of emission releases from the Beaver Hill murucipal wasis incinerator is a matter of
record. In addition, tl»e County lias recently approved tlie burauig ol tires al the Beaver 1 lill
facility; these projected releases should be factored into the other figures.
P- 34 VjiljtY Corridor?
I he Concern was raised in my previous conunenls about the siting ol a gas pipeline within or
adjacent lo ihe BPA power lines, in as much as BPA had declared a moralorium on that
practice because of safety c
in Ihc FIS
STIMMAWY
This document, page after page, addresses cumutalive environmental cfiects, ifal all, as "no
inipaci," "no anticipated impact." "none," "iKi forsccabic mcrcmcnUl cflccts," or as Itciiig too
speculative. Yet this study goes lo great lengths to include Ihe PCONorthweffl study lo
imprevs upon the reader the economic benefits ot lite pipeline while totally ignoring llie
statements on Page 3 of the Economic In^Mct Study.
" I he impacts forecast in lliis report depend on speculative assumptions about the future
provided lo ECONorthwest by Northwest Natural and Forefront Economics, RCONorthwest
iiiadc prcdiclioiLS about future market conditions. While we believe tliey are reasonable, llic
assumptions and predictions used in the economic impact analysis are rmnctheless
speculative." (my emphasis added)
I hank you for the opportunity lor ollcring these comments. Regardless of the threat made
under the No Action Altcmalive on page v of Ihe Summary, significant revisions mtwt be
nude to this document for it lo meet the requirements of NEPA,
Roberta Stewart
iu iiiiii.li ti.> or i\ iiau uctiaieu a iiiuriiinrium on inai
Unless I have missed it. this issue has not been addressed
March 22. 2002
Bill and Pam Nelson
58511 FairviewRd
CoquiileOr 97423
To Whom It May Concern
We don't know as much as we should concerning this pipeline thai is about to be
put in. but as a longtime resident of the I-'airview area we are a hrtle concerned about the
safety issues being raised from the fire departments stand point We are volunteer
firefighters as well as residents of the area and from what we can see from all the maps
and statistics on the issue we are ver>' concerned about being able to protect the citizens
of the area and possible escape routes if there were to be anv type of leak or fire
I ihmk ihal the layout needs to be rethought as lo where the block valves are
placed in relation to populated areas so that the residents of the areas arc better protected
Thank you for your lime and please consider all of the possibilities involved in
this project
I have deep concerns about the northwest natural gas line running through the lovm of
Fairview. OR
1 The placement ot a block valve on the edge of the mam road nearly vertical under
bonneville power mam transmission lines
This would entail a 12 inch pipe v^nth approximately 900 lbs pressure , as we are sitting
on an earthquake fault line and our insurance company assures us that rt is not an rf but
a when a sizeable quake will hit us A line break and explosion could create a hellish blow
torch, flames to 300 ft high and melting all transmission lines from the Fairview sub
station leading to all of southwest Oregon
2 Broken lines could block any escape route for people trapped . plus prevent any help
from reaching us from town
3 There are Indian grave sites & camping areas where the gas line is to cross the river,
and sites where they plan to put the block valve in. I cannot tolerate the desecration of my
ancestors to satisfy the ego of the Coos County Commissioners
4 I have noticed the agreement between Northwest Natural Gas and our county
commissioners states that coos county would be responsible for any breaks , explosions,
leaks caused by quake , slide, flood, or any other reason It seems to me a major disaster
could be avoided by simply relocating the pipeline and block valve
If left as planned on E I S i1 could turn out that Fairview and its people would be the
sacrificial lambs for our commissioner egotistical whim for glory IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!
sincerely.
Jim Melcatf
Sincerely
Bill and Pam Nels(
G-1- 21
Appendix Gl . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
YfU/iWi^^S'^ 3O02-
Hello .
I'm writing to express my concern on the proposed natural gas pipeline My
original understanding was it would be routed down highway 42 That would have made
the line easily accessible in an emergency .earthquake, fire, ect I have many doubts
about changing the route to the old wagon road but safety is by far the biggest issue My
questions regarding a break in the line , fire . explosion, natural disaster ,ect , have not
tieen addressed What is the environmental impact in these situations? I think since the
new route will take it through my front yard my questions deserve to be addressed
This purposed new route is not what I voted on I feel the coos county commissioners
have changed the original plan to suit their needs and wants without consulting the
taxpayers They have ignored the fairview residents concerns about safety and
enviromental issues
In conclusion I only have this to say ,1 will not allow this on my land nor will my
nieghbors-
Hello ,
•fiPtklL^
I'm writing this letter with concern as to the safety of my family and the other
residents of fairview -' ^
This letter pertains to the proposed pipeline project that vnill split down the middle of
Fairview, or Fairview Summner rd
I'm the owner of Double C Disk and U S A Jet Door co We are a lire recycling plant that
provides ground gear for trawl fisheries in the U S .Canada . Mexico , Russia , Japan
and Iceland Our business is located adjacent to the power substation in Fairview It is
my understanding that the proposed pipeline route will run between 30 ft up to 1,500 ft
from our mam building
I'm very concerned that the pipeline will be routed through our area Let me tell you a
Situation that occurred not long ago Being a 10 yr memtier of the Fairview Fire
Department I was involved in a rescue a few years ago when our dept was called out on
a man with senous health complications Heavy rams had caused landslides on Hungry
Mountain, flooding had closed Summner rd and Lee Valley All access to Fain/iew was
closed Coquille ambulance responded but could only travel as far as the top of Hungry
Mountain Our department had no choice but to carry this patient across a dangerous
slide to the wailing ambulance A complicated rescue due only to rainfall Now imagine
what it would be like in event of an earthquake out in our area How will aid reach our
residents ? What if its in the middle of summer with a fire or leaking gas line to boot?Who
will come to our aid then?
I feel our business, our lives, and our future are in jeopardy with the pipeline going
through the middle of our community The pipeline representatives that have visited our
small valley have not been honest or forth coming with answers to our concems
There has been no guarantee as to our safety with an open ground vaNe adjacent to
our property Who is responsible for the environmental impact statement? Disaster
preparedness 7 Safety of the residents ? Safety of my employees 7
Please respond to my letter and address my concerns I feel my families future is at
stake
Thank You.
Jody Clawson
Box ri/
K)o.-+k ^2>.a.^^dl, Or -n^sl
As e.-U--V-M -H^ a.ra.-f-l- £. I 5 c>oCu^r.ie^-V ^'M "o-ino,! y.ict
-)i5 o^\Ui" ■f-W pipeline oJiorN.^ -VW, Cjt»e, Bo,.v| Luai^on Rivicl, O.'S.
HC83 Box 4101
Coquille. Oregon 97423
541-396-4200
3/24/02
BLM
1300 Airport Lane
Noilh Bend, Oregon
Re Coos County Pipeline EIS
Dear Sue Richardson
My question to you. and lo the entire Bureau of Land Management, is this: Why on
eailh would you involve yourself and our lands in what promises lo be an ongoinj
boondoggle when Ihe county comniissioners have openly said on numerous
occasions in public meetings that if they had any trouble witli you then they'd
simply change the rouic^
I leconiinend that you find against going across BLM managed lands As noted in
(he HIS. the county bas at least two alternative routes that don't involve you Let
lliem use thein.
Ronnie Heme
G-1-22
Appendix CjI. I.cttcrs Kcccivcd niiring Draft hnvironmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Robert W. & Carol N. Doty
P. O. Box 5 1 1
Bandon, OR 97411
March 25. 2002
Bob Gunther, Project Coordinator
Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
Coos Bay District, BI.M
1 .<()0 Airport Une
North Bend. OR 97459
Dear Mr. Gunther:
T(xlay we are e-malling these comments to you. and will also have them
postmarked by S pm In order to comply with the close of the 00-day
comment period. Please place these comments In the record concerning
the Pipeline Environmental Impact Statement.
Our expertise Is In land use planning and Oregon's land use laws. The EIS
provides limited discussion to land uses (forestry. gra2lng. recreation, and
transportation) and the affects of the pipelines on land uses. We draw
your attention to the (bounty's adopted and state- acknowledged Coos Bay
Estuary Management Plan, and we were disappointed to see that no
mention has been made of this plan which Is part of the Coos County
Zoning and Land Development Ordinance. In fact, no consideration has
been given In Chapter i or Chapter 4 to the effects pipeline construction
and the hoped-for resulting Industrial development will have on the Coos
Bay Estuary. This was very disappointing when we consider that much of
the economic and environmental health of the county Is dependent upon
the health of the Estuary.
The county's Estuary Management Plan devotes 37b pages to the Uses.
Activities. Management Objectives, and land Development Standards to
be addres.sed In the Upper and lower Bays, the Isthmus Slough, the North
Spit and other portions of the Estuary which may be affected by land uses
and activities. The construction of a pipeline Is a land use. and
anticipated and potential development should also be a part of the
Environmental Impact Statement.
Both Chapters 3 and 4 require serious attention to the Estuary
Management Plan, and at a minimum, how negative Impacts will be
mitigated In order to comply with county and state law.
To be specific and to provide an example: p. 20 of the EIS lists the
Isthmus Slough as an estuary which will be crossed If the proposed plan Is
approved. Pages 129-liO, and pages .<54- 417 of the County's Estuary
Management Plan describe the uses, activities management objectives,
and special conditions which must be applied when the Slough Is affected.
In order for the county to construct the pipeline. It will be necessary for It
to make application for and prove that pipeline construction will comply
with those applicable portions of the Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan.
Any future use, activity or development In the Estuary must bear the
burden of proof that It compiles with the Plan.
While we are not fully knowledgeable about the routes being considered
for the pipeline, we believe each route plans to cross sloughs and bays
which must be addressed by the EIS In light of relevant portions of the
Eisiuary Management Plan. We request that this be done prior to
completion of the final draft.
Finally, two general concerns about the project
( 1) We live In an area, the City of Bandon. which may never receive
service through the proposed project. We believe we are helping to pay
for part of the construction through the state's $20 million contribution,
and that perhaps It Is not fair for us to bear additional costs. That has not
been addressed In the economic analysis portion of the EIS.
(2) The project appears to have been Ill-conceived In that decision makers
did not conduct a serious evaluation of how realistic the projections are
for Job creation in Coos County, yet the major reason given for building
the pipeline Is to provide an economic boost to the people of the county.
Robert W. Doty/
Carol N. Doty
Bob (iunther. Project Coordinator
Coos Bay District, BI M
1300 Airport lane jQ ,|
North Bend. OR 97J59 I^TPUc
-u>^
March 25.2002
yU421 Lampa Lane
Mvnie Point. OR
97458
,1 of Z/J&
Re Cominenl on Coos County Natural Gas Piiwlme Draft Fnvironmental Impact Statement
! When the hond vote wa.s put belore the (xrople otXoo^ County to finance the pipeline, the
Highway 42 altemalive was the most likely route tor laying the pipeline The route hemg given
lavor now. the Coos Ray Wagon Road along the Fast Fork Coquille River, travels through some
ot the largest remaining intact forest hahitat and related salmon spawning hahitat in the Coquille
Watershed, and m the stale ol Oregon I heheve tlie healthy ecosystem represented lieie is of the
utmost value to the present and lulure health and well-being ot all creatures, including humans,
of course I helieve that anv inconvenience to travelers or financial cost mentioned in the EIS as
reasons lor rejecting the Miway -l^ alternative ignores the value ot retaining healthy ecosystem,
and the wisdom upon which current watershed restoration and protection is tbunded "Protect
the best, restore the rest " For this reason, 1 reject the route now being given most lavor. the
Coos Bay Wagon Road
2 The EIS fails to give adequate consideration to the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of the
gas pipeline on the healthy functioning of" the natural environment ot the Coos Bay area Since
Coos County hears an extremely high cancer rate, there is rea-son to believe that pollution ot'the
air and water is of grave concern No baseline assessment ot the current health ot our natural
environment is referred to m this EIS. (such as might be found in the S;ale ot Oregon's
Environment published by the Oregon Progress Board) On page 18 in the EIS there is a
statement that "no data is available regarding the current levels ol noxious gases" This is false
(data on the air quality is available through the FPA ). and is an example of how the health ot the
environment is brushed aside and discounted Possible future impacts of the new industries the
pipeline is meant to attract to our area are not addressed, the reason given is that since the exact
industries are not now known, such consideration would be purely speculative Yet, when
predicting future economic benefit, the document is magically no longer uncenain. but very
specific in predicting 2,900 new jobs within ten years (page 71 ) 1 believe that the
environmental impact , which is the mandated purpose of this document under the National
Environmental Policy Act, is not adequately addressed An environmental impact statement is
NOT supposed lo he a justification tor a decision that has already been made, it is supposed to
be an honest evaluation of impacts, to the best of our present knowledge The EIS needs to be
rewritten with current data on the health of the waterways and airshed of the Coos Bay area, with
special attention to the spawning areas of the uplands, the Coos Bay. the wetlands, and the Coos
and Coquille estuanes. and some educated estimations as to the direct, indirect, and cumulative
et^ecls that the gas pipeline will have on our environment '^'1^ C~\
Yours. /De-T^.!.^^^ ^Aj>aL^
Bonnie Joyce r /
m
DHop3880@aol.ca
Q\n^l<Sl 09:31 AM
I TO BOD Cuntner@or bim gov
cc
Subject Fwd envlromental Impact statement
— Message from DHop2880@aoi.com on Tue. 26 Mar 2002 11:44:05 EST -
To: coosbayfoior bIm gov
Subject Fwd enviromental impact
— Message from DHop2a80(s>aol,com on Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01 56:50 EST -
To: BobGunther@or blm.gov
Subject enviromental impact
: statement
Mr. Gunther,
problem wa
marshlands
David Hopkins
583H Faitview Rd
Coquille, 0r.97fl23
S41-396-<UB
23
Appendix G 1 . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
oil Tfl- V503
Bob Gunther
BLM, Coos Bay District
1300 Airport Lane
North Bend, Or 97459
March 26, 2002
RE: Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr Gunther:
Following are comments on the Draft EIS for the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline
1 Lack of EIS for the laterals to Coquille. Myrtle Point, North Spit, and Bandon The
lateral to Bandon appears to be in doubt as to whether it will be constructed or not.
However, the draft EIS should, but does not, include the laterals to the other three
areas
2. Right of way issues Of the various public and pnvate property owners, including the
37 residents (page 28), how many have agreed to nght of way easements'' The
study does not address pipeline effects to the residential property owners or their
willingness to sign easement agreements I know one of the residential property
owners is concerned with their well water being adversely affected by the pipeline
constnjctton. and the value of their property being decreased due to the pipeline
nght of way easement.
3 The U, S Army Corps of Engineers is listed as a cooperating agency, but I did not
find their input anywhere, especially in regards to stream and wetland crossings
4. Appendix F, the tetter from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species
Consultation Letter of Concun-ence, could not be commented upon since It was not
received for publication Will the opportunity be given to comment on the EIS when
it includes this letter'^
5. Lack of substantiation Statements as to effect are given, more as an opinion than
fact, since there are no studies or substantive backing For example, plant and
animal {includes insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals) species are listed
and described as to their habitat and foraging From this descnption. which could
be denved from any encyclopedia or nature book, the study then draws the
conclusion that there will be no adverse effect dunno construction. This may well
be. but the study does not address long term or cumulative effects to the flora and
fauna of the area
6- Contradictory findings In Appendix A, the Geotechnical Engineenng Report
discusses erosion around stream crossings, and the preference for conventional
excavation to minimize long term erosion around smaller streams to bury the
pipeline below the stream bed. Boring, which has more soil erosion, is
recommended for the larger streams and Isthmus Slough. Pipeline construction,
with the type of equipment used, requires a working area of 30" to 60" along the
entire length of the pipeline (The 60' width requirement occurs in steep slope
areas ) This increases soil erosion There is also evidence of landslides and
geologic movement due to previous earthquakes (Cascadia fault line). Despite the
geologic report, the effects to streams from erosion were found to be negligible and
limited to the construction penod!
7 The study does not address the above ground features of the pipeline.
S Indirect and cumulative effects The draft EIS ignores the indirect and cumulative
effects by ignonng the heavy industry Coos Bay and North Bend hope to attract with
the natural gas pipeline A metal fabricating plant and ammonia fertilizer factory
IS mentioned on page 71 of the draft EIS. These two industries would have a
tremendous negative affect on the environment, directly and cumulatively.
particulary to the air and water Coos County has a higher incidence of cancer than
Multnomah County - the introduction of heavy industry would not improve this
statistic. This cumulative health and environmental cost should be included in the
natural gas pipeline EIS
As a property owner and a source of funding for the EIS and the natural gas pipeline. I
would prefer to get the most for my property tax dollars and not harm the environment and
the creatures in that environment, including myself
Sincerely,
^"(7
Lynne Leisy
88643 Weiss Estate Ln
Bandon. Or 97411
phone (541)347-2641
March 25. 2002
Peter Ryan aiKi Christina Alexander
500 Dean Mountain Rd,
North Bend, OR 97459
Response to the Coos County NatunU Gas Prpelme Draft Envrronmenlal Impact
Statement
Chapter 4. p,38. Proposed Action EITects Summation
Paragraph 6 sums « up ve^ neatly: -rhe shon-tem, and long-term direc^Wiree. and
cumltive economic benefits of the proposed action are the prmary re^ns Coos
cZ^ seeks to constnict a natural gas pipelme " It is abundantly clear (mm t^ EIS
DraTmedia accounts, and statements by public officials these "P<;''';f.^-»^ J,"^",,
come liom the heaw mduslnal manufaauiing that natural gas availability will ^naMe. »
"^ qu"e c r^m media accounts, public officials'statements and maners of public
r^i n this des^ economic activity wdl ^ steered to the ^o^-y urtan -ne-
area on the North Spit and the North Bend Airport lands managed by the Pod ot Coos
Bay
TT« Council on Environmental Quality guidelmes (CEQ 1 508,8) describe the -effects"
-rit?hetecTrt^t^i:^:i::x=='-f^^^
!S-«s of tli; pipeline construction itself. However the Draft completely falls apart when
it comes to the effects of activities the pipelme will enable.
The BLM seems to have taken the position that it is mipossible to arjalyze the ■^SMrve
^tsVhaT^h, accompany the "short-term, bng-tenn and '^^'"■^"^"'^J'^
3S a^ vitiL becauseVis not known which companies wiU actually l«:ate here.
ran 1 502 22 Ss very specific guidelines for areas of analysis where ttae ^
"mSmplete oV^v JabrmforLtion" The BLM seems to have ignored this section
entirely
There are many consultants and non-profits that could supply the ■■summa^ of credible
^ti^ evidence relevant to evaluatmg reasonably '"'^^^^f'^^^ll^,-
^ted by CEO1502.22b3, The cost ofthismformation would not be exorbitant
Perhaps a scientist u, the employ of the NatK-nal Association of Manufacturers might
r^'^S.^.::t most ,«,ple wouUl conci. t^t be^vy — ^^
rwras°;o^b^de"j,e«rh":jtre^.:ct:^h:r^^^
5=^-i:^c;i==^is={f:^S^
^e^ possible unpacts. And that reasonable person might also wonder how much
G-l -24
Appendix Gl. Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
ability oiir lamls and water have lo ahstirh these p<illutanli, CKQI S02b states "impacts
■ihall be iliscuvscd in pmpoTllon lo iheir signifiuincc" In nol (li<>ctL^sing what might be
grave cnvin>ntnemal, ccortcimic, and social effects of the enabled activities in the F,IS, is
Ibc BI.M saying ihc-sr p(>ssibilitic5 arc of no significance?
I'bctT IS compelling evidence thai negative economic impacts of (be very generous tax
breaks offered in l-nlcrprisc /x>ncs such as the North Spit/Airport lamls might ennle the
tax base and stram the budgets of our poor communities when industries arul their
workers place heavy demands on infrastructure and public services Ibis is rwt discussed.
There u no disctuston tn the I>rafl of whether new jobs crcatc<l by the cnahlod activities
would actually be filled by knal residents or cxpcnencrd workers from outside the area.
If local lc»der\ rcali7.e Ihcir dream of attracting manufacturing indastrics to the North Spit
and Airport UikIs in close physical visuaL and auditory proximity to rcsidcnlial areas and
tourist destinations there is a strong pt>ssibilily of serious negative impacts to quality of
life, health, real estate values artd to the viahdily of economic activities that rely on
"natural beauty" or esthetic values In short, the very perception of the greater Coos Bay
area could change from that of an attractive place to visit or live to one of an ugly
smokestack-industry town The C'BQI 502 mstructions regutrc this be discussed,
ShouW the MI M. in preparing its final version of the FIS. decide to comply with the CKQ
guidelines whikh regulnlc tIs work as a federal agency and require a theoretical
assessment of possible negative impacts of enabled activities, it cmild start by assessing
the possible impacts of any aivi all of the past tndustncs that have shown an interest in
this area were It to have natural gas The local leaders have made it clear these were
desirable candidates aj>d it is the best indication of what could be expected in (he future.
In the Pipeline Draft (IS ihc Rl M has rclunicd to the public a senoitsly flowed and
deficient document There is the appearance of a double standard in play XUc projections
of Coos County arxl I ("ONortbwcst thai the availability of natural gas will stimulate
heiKficial economic activity ( even though they can not say which industries will come )
are treated as acceptable ar»d reasonable The projections of the responding public that
such activrty might also have negative environmental, economic. ar>d social impacts arc
considered speculative and thus unacceptable smce it is not known which industries will
locate here
long-tenii benefits of any project Please do all you can to further this project " Again, the
commenting parties regard the BI.M as an agency lo advance Ihc project And lo this the
BLM again says 'TharA you for your support,"
One has to surmise that this is. indeed, how the BLM sees it role It Ls the only reasonable
. rife with serious omissions, misrepresentations, and
explanation for a draft LIS that is r
failures lo perform according to federal regulations.
^S^-^
^^^^-^^^H^ ^^^i^^^t^^tJ
Christina Alexander
In Appendix G, Questions and Cotw:ems fit>m the Pubhc, are BLM
comments which are most telling
to two
Comment 2 p GI4: "Wc strongly support construction of the pipeline Please do all you
can to fiirtber this pmjecl " The person registering the contment clearly regards the BLM
rok in the HIS as one lo further and enable, iwl objectively evaluate, the Pipeline project.
To which, the BLM says "Thank you for your support "
Comment 1 1 p CiI6: "My family and 1 strongly support construction of the natural gas
pipeline. The few noisy people. ..want nothing thai will cost any taxes regardless of the
James Gomez
160 North Folsom St
Coquille. OR 97423
Bob Gunlher
Project Coordinator
Coos Bay Distnct
Bureau of I^and Management
1 300 Airport Lane
North Bend. OR 97459
March as"" 2002
Re Comment in response to draft Environmenial Impact Stalement (LIS) for proposed
natural gas pipeline from Roseburg to Coos Bay, reference ff 2800
It is my understanding that while prepanng an LIS it is necessary lo address the
Direct, the Indirect as well as the Cumulative effects of the proposed project It is my
belief that these items were not sufficiently addressed in this draft EIS
Item Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action, Page 5, paragraph 2
• Points out the fact that a natural gas pipehne would not necessarily bnng
new manufactunng facilities lo the area, questioning the projects purpose
• It avoids the most pertinent issue of the whole project, that being the
impact of bnnging new industry lo the North Spit area and its effects on
the Bay as well as the Estuary and surrounding areas
• The potential effects on these areas cannot be separated from the direct
impact of the pipelines construction itself They would undoubtedly fall
under indirect as well as cumulative impact due to the pipelines
construction An EIS prepared without taking these issues Into
consideration is without merit and therefore invalid
Item Chapter 3. Affected Environment. Page 18. Air Quality, paragraph 2
Effects to final destination of pipeline not considered
• Coos Bay as well as the adjoimng estuary and surrounding land areas,
particularly those douoi wind of any new mdustnal facilities, would be
impacted both mduectly as well as cumulatively as a result of the
construction of the proposed pipeline
• Although It IS not possible to evaluate precise impacts for unknown future
industry, il is possible lo obtain current air quality levels for this finial
destination area and to prepare projected impact levels for potential new
industry to the area Without this frirther inquiry into impacts created by
the pipelines construction, the EIS is incomplete
Item Chapter 3. Affected Environment, Page 20. Water Quality
Effects to final destination of pipeline not considered
• Coos Bay and the adjoining estuary would be impacted both indirectly as
well as cumulatively as a result of the construction of the proposed
pipeline
• Although It is not possible to evaluate precise impacts for unknown future
industry, it is possible to obtain curreni waler quality levels for this final
destination area and lo prepare projected impact levels for potential new
industry to the area Without this fijrther inquiry into impacts created by
the pipelines construction, the EIS is incomplete
Page 28. Public Health and Safety
Effects to final destination of pipeline not considered
• Coos Bay as well as the adjoining estuary and surrounding land areas,
particularly those down unnd of any new industnaJ facilities, would be
impacted both indirectly as well as cumulatively as a result of the
construction of the proposed pipeline This matter has no other foreseeable
conclusion except that of becoming a threat to both pubhc health and
safety
• This issue has not been properly addressed With the inevitable increase in
levels of pollution created by proposed industnal activity in the tinial
destination area The end point habitat and its inhabitanl's ability lo absorb
these increased toxicity levels needs to be ascertained, pnor to any fiirther
consideration of a gas pipeline project, whose primary purpose is
industnal development in an area already at nsk
• Coos County has one of the highest cancer rates in the sate of Oregon We
need to examine why that is, before we undertake projects that will
knowingly increase probable polluting elements responsible for such
public health and safety issues
G-1 - 25
Appendix Gl . Letters Received During Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period
Pige 30, Land Uses. Recreation along the Proposed Action
Effects to finaJ destination of pipeline not considered
• Coos Bay as well as the adjoining estuary and surrounding land areas,
particularly those down wind of any new industrial facilities, would be
impacted both indirectly as well as cumulatively as a result of the
construction of the proposed pipeline
♦ Again the extent of any study concerning the construction of the proposed
gas pipeline cannot warrant validity without the inclusion of the results
that will be created at the finial destination area
In summary I would propose that an EIS that truly undertook the entire scope of
the effects associated with the proposed gas pipeline, (Direct, Indirect and
Cumulative) be required
G-1- 26
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Coininent Period
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During
Draft EIS Comment Period
The questions and comments in Appendix G of the Draft Fnvironmental Impact Statement (DRTS) were received by
Coos County from 1999 through 2001 during preparation for an Environmental Assessment and may reflect
responses from Coos County rather than the BLM.
Letters included in G- 1 were received during the formal public comment period for the DEIS and the responses from
the BLM reflect directly on the DEIS. The Project Advisors provided technical details for some responses.
1. Letter:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Response:
Thank you for your comments. They are incorporated into the final EIS. As stated in Appendix J of the
DEIS, the construction of the lateral pipelines will follow the same project design criteria (PDC) as the rest
of the pipeline project.
2. Letter:
Werner
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
3. Letter:
Roth
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
4. Letter:
Bunnell
Response:
Mr. Bunnell has raised questions in 25 separate categories. Answers to his questions in each category are as
follows:
L Comparable Installations: Much of the gas transmission pipeline from Klamath Falls to Medford was
installed in 1995 alongside rural roads. Gas and liquid transmission lines are more commonly installed under
roads in urban areas but in Coos County, there is already a fiber optic line installed alongside the road along
the proposed pipeline route so the pipeline must be installed in the roadway.
2. Residential Involvement: There are approximately 25 homes located within 50 feet of the pipeline route
and an additional 28 homes within 75 feet of the pipeline route. At least 25 of those homes are located in the
"Libby" area. The rest of the homes are scattered along the rest of the pipeline route.
In the case of a "major leak", such as a pipeline rupture, emergency response personnel will require people to
remain as far away as possible from the ruptured area to prevent loss of human life.
If a fire has resulted from a "major leak", then the heat resulting from that fire will determine for emergency
responders the safe distance. If a fire has not resulted, then a safe distance will be determined by emergency
responders and can range from 50 feet to several miles. The exact distance that people are kept from the leak
site will usually depend on the experience of the emergency responders.
It is impossible to determine the "estimate damage perimeter" without making several assumptions. Please
refer to the new Pipeline Safety and Fire Data secton under Public Health and Safety in Chapter 4.
3. Notification to Property Owners: As a required by the Coos County and Douglas County Conditional
Use Permit applications, property owners affected by the proposed pipeline route have been notified.
4. Residential Insurance: The Project Advisors are unaware of any effect, positive or negative, that the
G-2- I
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
pipeline installation will have on residential insurance rates.
5. Cost Considerations: The pipeline project is funded in part through Economic Development funds
granted to Coos County by the Oregon state legislature (approximately $24 million) and in part by money to
be raised by the sale of some sort of financial instrument by Coos County (up to $27 milUon). Coos County
residents approved the Coos County funds in a November 1999 double majority vote.
If Highway 42 is considered to be the "original route", then the currendy proposed route should cost approx-
imately $15 million less than the estimated $51 milhon for the Highway 42 route.
The money "saved" by choosing a route other than Highway 42 cannot really be called "savings" as nor-
mally defined because the money represents funds that were never actually raised or available for use. The
difference in costs represents money that Coos County will not have to raise, thereby "saving" Coos County
taxpayers the interest amount that would be paid on that additional money.
Any costs over the funds available from the state will have to be raised by Coos County, thus "nothing" hap-
pened to the plan to sell to the public "bonds" or some other sort of security.
6. Pipeline Ownership and Liability: Coos County will own the pipeline and maintain liability insurance
on the pipeline. The pipeline construction contractor and possibly others would likely be held liable in case
of property damage attributable to improper pipeline installation. Coos County and the pipeline operator will
likely be held responsible in case of damage attributable to pipeline operation or maintenance and Coos
County and the pipeline operator will carry liability insurance.
7. Installation Information: The pipeline will typically be installed somewhere in the uphill lane of the
CBW RoadCBW Road. The pipeline will be buried with at least three feet of cover where possible.
Thermal expansion is not a design consideration or concern with buried welded steel natural gas pipelines
because once buried, the pipe remains at a nearly constant temperature and does not expand or contract.
Where a "bend" is required, either a manufactured bend will be installed or the pipeline will likely be bent
using a bending machine specially designed for bending high strength steel pipe.
8. Installation Impacts on Road and Residential Access: The project includes paving the CBW Road
along the entire route of the pipeline installation. No horizontal or vertical road realignment, improvement
or widening is planned.
The current plan is for costs of road paving or re-paving to be borne by the pipeline project. The county
roads department will bid and manage the paving work.
9. Installation Schedule and Access Questions: Work will not start on the pipeline construction before the
middle of June, 2002. That date, and all other questions related to project construction schedules are depen-
dent on the issuance dates of several pending permits, including the BLM's Record of Decision on the Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement.
The County anticipates being able to provide at least a week notice to residents that may be affected by a
road closure. The intent is to leave at least one access route open at all times but that may not be possible at
all points on the Wagon Road.
The County plans to work with the Myrtle Point and Coquille school bus operations to schedule construction
activities in such a manner to minimize the impact on school bus routes.
The County will work with State, County and local emergency response personnel to provide access at all
times during construction.
The pipeline construction should have not affect on the ability of the Suinner Rural Fire Department to draft
water from Wilson Creek. As previously stated, the pipeline project personnel will be working with emer-
gency response personnel to provide access as required.
10. Safety ValvesA^ents: In general, "block valves" are planned for the Lookingglass, Ten Mile, Dora,
Fairview, and Isthmus Slough areas. As currently planned, the Lookingglass, and Fairview valves will have
automatic or remote control closure devices. The Ten Mile, Dora, and Isthmus Slough valves will be manu-
ally operated.
The valves with automatic or remote control closure devices will be operated primarily with natural gas from
the pipeline and nitrogen from external bottles as a backup source of gas pressure. The "computing" and
"communication" portion of the valve closure devices will be connected to external power for battery charg-
ing to allow actuation of the valve in case of power failure. The valve closure devices will be attached to a
telephone line but the closure device will capable of automatically closing the valve in case of telephone line
failure. Additionally, someone will be able to close a valve with "local" controls at the valve site.
G-2-2
Appendix G2. Responses lo l.oltcis Received Duiiiii; Dinfl FilS Coinnient I'eriod
Hacli block valve will be equipped with pressure blow down valves, which will not have automatic devices
attached. The blow downs will have to be nianually opened and will only be opened if necessary to vent
pressure IVoni a section of the pipeline for repair or possibly in case of an emergency.
11. Pipeline Capiicity: The block valves will be placed between 4 and 19 miles apart, if the pipeline is
pressuri/ed {o 600 pounds per square inch (psig), then between 600 thousand standard cubic feet and 3200
thousand standard cubic feet will be contained between the valves.
Depending on the distance between block valves, if the pipeline is completely severed, then the time to bleed
the pipeline to atmospheric pressure would range from 3 to 6 minutes after the block valves on either side of
the rupture were closed.
12. Ivandslides and Erosion: Please refer to Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Gcotcchnical Engineering Report. In general, a landslide that results in dirt being deposited on top of the
pipeline route will have no impact on the pipeline. A landslide that results in soil movement around the pipe-
line could result in a rupture. There is no record or collective memory of such an event disrupting the Wagon
Road in any section planned for pipeline construction.
Road erosion is mitigated by the installation of culverts. Additional culverts will be installed during the
pipeline construction as necessary. Paving the Wagon Road after construction will also help to reduce road
erosion in the future.
A representative of the pipeline operator should be present anytime digging is performed near the pipeline as
required by the Operations and Maintenance Plan.
13. Weather: Lightning will have no affect on the integrity of the pipeline. It is possible that a direct light-
ning strike could disable electronic equipment on the pipeline but that would be a temporary condition and
all mechanical equipment would continue to function properly.
14.-15. Geological Questions & Earthquakes: Please refer to Appendix A of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The pipeline construction will not cross any
active faults. The automatic or remote controlled block valves will help to minimize property damage that
might be caused if the pipeline were ruptured in the event of an earthquake.
16. Emergency and Fire Safety: The County and Project Advisors have stated that Pipeline emergency
response personnel will be available 24 hours each day and 7 days each week. The contract pipeline operator
will control the location of personnel but it is likely that those employees will operate out of the Coos Bay/
North Bend area. Those employees will not normally respond to fires or other emergencies unless those
emergencies directly affect the pipeline facilities.
Per USDOT regulations, area public emergency response personnel will be trained in issues related to the
properties of natural gas and the proper response to leaks or suspected leaks. "Fire fighting" is not normally
required because a fire issuing from a pipeline is not normally extinguished, but rather allowed to burn until
no further natural gas is available to support combustion.
The Project Advisors state that Incident Command is normally the function of the first emergency responder
on the scene. If the first emergency responder is a natural gas pipeline employee, then Incident Command is
turned over to the first public emergency response person at the incident.
The responsibility for controlling a fire that results from a pipeline incident will not change from the respon-
sibility present today. The Fire Department responding to forest fires or structure fires today will respond
after the pipeline is built.
17. Motor Vehicle Accidents: A vehicle accident on the road over the pipeline will not damage the pipe-
line unless the accident causes the pipeline to be physically exposed. If a vehicle hits an aboveground por-
tion of the pipeline, then an inspection will be performed to determine if the pipeline has been damaged and
if repairs are necessary.
18. Road Traffic: Calculations and experience with similar pipeline operations indicate that 80-105,000
gross vehicle weight (gvw) vehicles will have no impact on the pipeline where the pipeline is buried in the
roadway.
19. Road Maintenance: Normal road maintenance practices will not be affected by having a pipeline bur-
ied in the road. Culvert maintenance will require additional supervision by the pipeline operator and extra
heavy gas pipe will be installed in the roadway over all culverts.
The County has no plans to improve the Wagon Road but if improvements are planned in the future then the
present location of the pipeline will have to be considered when making those road improvements.
Future road maintenance costs will be borne by the County general budget, unless that road maintenance is
G-2- 3
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
caused by pipeline maintenance, in which case the pipehne operations budget will pay to repair the road.
20. Property Protection: The County will carry liability insurance to cover catastrophic losses due to an
incident on the pipeline system. Shelter, animal provisions, and property protection measures will be han-
dled in case of a pipeline incident in the same manner that the County would handle any other emergency.
21. Pipeline Operation: The pipeline operators will be on duty "24/7" (refer to Item #16). The pipeline
will normally operate at a maximum pressure of 600 psig. There will be no human detectable noise emitted
from the pipeline during normal operations, even at aboveground facilities. At an aboveground section of
pipeline, it may be possible to hear natural gas moving in the pipeline if one's ear were to be placed against
the pipeline.
Pipeline operators will become aware of a problem on the pipeline either because of remote instrumentation
or because of a "911" or other telephone call alerting the operators of a problem. The exact procedures that
the operators will follow will be part of an Operations and Maintenance Plan which will be made available to
emergency response organizations along the pipeline route.
22. Gas Leaks: Gas leaks are detected by odor, blowing sounds or debris along the pipeline route, or vege-
tation changes. Natural gas has no readily detectable odor so odorant, usually a mercaptan type that has a
"skunk" odor, is added to the natural gas so that natural gas is detectable at a level of 1% gas in air. The
lower explosive limit of natural gas in air is 3-5% gas in air.
Natural gas can travel through soils. Because natural gas is lighter than air, it tends to seek a path of escape
to the surface. If a leak is detected or suspected in the vicinity of a residence, then "bar-hole" tests are per-
formed in an attempt to isolate the location of the leak. If the residence is unoccupied at the time of a leak,
then local emergency response personnel may need to enter a home to remove any possible source of igni-
tion.
23. Inspection and Testing: The required inspection intervals are determined by regulations in 49CFR,
part 192. In general, all block valves will be inspected annually and all road, stream, and bridge crossings
will be inspected quarterly and atmospheric corrosion is inspected at least once every three years. Other
inspections are also required by 49CFR, part 192. More frequent intervals of inspection are likely but will be
determined between the County and the pipeline operator and will be detailed in an Operations and Mainte-
nance Plan.
A "line pressure test" is performed to 150% of MAOP during construction. The pipeline is checked annually
for leaks. There is no regulation or reason to require another subsequent pressure test of the system.
24. Pipe Line Maintenance: (For several of the questions, please refer to previous responses).
The underground portion of the pipeline will be coated with a protective coating that is expected to last for
the hfe of the pipeline, which is in excess of 100 years. Additionally, the pipeline will be "cathodically pro-
tected" with anodes that will prevent metal loss by corrosion.
The cathodic protection system will be inspected at least once per year for proper operation. Portions of the
cathodic protection system that are not operating properly at the time of inspection will be repaired or
replaced. The coating on the buried pipe will only be inspected if the pipeline is exposed at any time. The
surface facilities will be painted to protect them from corrosion.
25. Legal Questions: Legal questions of the sort raised by Mr. Bunnell should be referred to the County
Commissioners and/or County Legal Counsel.
Letter:
Kenyon
Response:
The amount of insurance money required as a result of the pipeline operations will be considered part of the
Operations and Maintenance budget and will be paid for by users of the pipeline.
The cost of the EIS studies is available from Coos County.
In response to the question concerning the use of excess flow valves, NW Natural provided the following
response: "Northwest's company policy requires the installation of excess flow valves on all new residential
service lines (and all residential service lines replaced by the company for any reason) providing natural gas
G-2-4
Appendix G2. Responses to IxMters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
service to single family residential dwellings, as specified by the federal pipeline safety code 40 CFR Part
192.383. The excess flow valve is installed near the main line, and is designed to provide an additional mar-
gin of safely by interrupting the flow of gas in the unlikely event the single family residential service line is
severely damaged anywhere between the main and the meter set. Northwest intends to apply the same
excess flow valve installation policy to all new single-family residential services installed in Coos County."
6. Letter:
Confederated Tribes
Response:
The BLM and County are committed to having a Tribal representative present or on-call during construction
operations. Please refer to page 1 8 of Appendix B.
7. Letter:
Briscoe
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
8. Letter:
ONRC
Response:
Thank you for your comments. In response to each comment raised by your letter:
L Please see the revised "no action" alternative in the Final EIS which describes in greater detail the actions
that Coos County might take if the BLM selects the no action alternative on the EIS.
2. On page 3 (Purpose and Need) and page 5 (New Industrial Gas Users) of the DEIS, it is stated clearly that
the purpose of constructing the pipeline is to encourage economic development in Coos County. A signifi-
cant benefit to Coos County citizens will be the availability of natural gas for residential and commercial use
(page 5 - Natural Gas Distribution System) and the potential conversion of existing industries that currently
burn other fuels. Any new industry that wants to site a facility on the North Spit or anywhere else in Coos
County will be required to apply for and abide by numerous permits, including those affecting air and water
quality.
3. As shown on page 84 of the DEIS, public scoping meetings were held on numerous occasions at various
locations. The risks of soil movement and damage to the pipeline were considered important and were
addressed in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The County carefully reviewed the credentials of the
experts that prepared the DEIS and supports their opinions.
4. Appendix H addresses methods that will be used to prevent soil erosion and thus sediment migration into
streams.
5. Mass soil movement risks are addressed on page A7 and on pages A 16 and A 17. Soil creep is unlikely to
cause damage to the pipeline. Massive soil movement may cause damage to the pipeline, though in analo-
gous soil movement cases in the Pacific Northwest, pipelines constructed using the latest construction tech-
niques have not failed or been damaged.
6. The Geotechnical Engineering Report review and discussions with Coos County Road Department per-
sonnel did not indicate that it was likely that a debris flow would cause Wagon Road fill to be completely
"wiped out". Even if a section of Wagon Road fill were to be wiped out by a debris flow, the impacted area
would be small and the pipeline can "free span" at least 30 feet of open area without harming the pipe. There
is no record or collective memory of such an event disrupting the Wagon Road in any section planned for
pipeline construction. Debris flow is most likely to occur near culverts, where the pipeline will be built with
extra heavy pipe. Please refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Report in Appendix A.
7. There are no anticipated plans associated with this project to close any BLM roads in the area through
which the pipeline crosses. Where the pipeline is installed in a power line corridor, existing power line
access roads will be used to access and maintain the pipeline. Those are private roads over which the BLM
has no jurisdiction.
G-2- 5
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
8. The Final EIS includes a table of streams and the method by which those streams will be crossed. (Refer
to Appendix I of the FEIS).
9. Mass soil movement, or a "landslide" onto the top of the pipeline will not damage the pipeUne. See the
response to questions #5 and #6 for additional information.
10. It is possible that upslope timber cutting operations could cause a landslide to occur. As previously dis-
cussed, a landslide that deposits dirt onto the top of the pipeline will not damage the pipeline.
11. Appendices E, and I include a stream-by stream analysis and the 5th field analysis.
12. Please see the PDCs in the final EIS for a discussion of the Port-Oiford-cedar.
13. The PDCs will have no direct effect on the Coos Bay estuary. NW Natural is responsible for designing
and constructing the gas distribution systems. The construction of those distribution systems will have to
follow PDCs dictated by the municipalities in which those distribution systems are installed. See statements
on Air Quality in Chapter 4. There is no new industrial development currently proposed for construction in
Coos County but at such time as any new industrial development is proposed, either on the North Spit or at
any other Coos County site, then that new development will have to be analyzed for impacts to Coos County
and possibly to the Coos Bay estuary.
14. Based on US DOT statistics for similar pipelines, the risks of the pipeline being installed in the power
line conidor appear to be minimal. This issue has been discussed in numerous public meetings. Coos
County will have clearance from BPA and PP&L to install and operate the pipeline in the power line corri-
dors. BPA is currently finalizing an agreement with Coos County.
15. In analogous Pacific Northwest pipeline incidents that resulted in fire, no more than two to three acres of
trees were damaged. These incidents involved pipelines twice the size of the Coos County pipeline. Thus,
the pipelines in the analogous incidents actually contained about 8 times as much natural gas capacity and
there were no automatic closure valves on those pipelines. Automatic valves are part of the PDC for the
Coos County pipeline, thus if a pipeline rupture occurred, the amount of gas that would escape should be
much less than in the analogous incidents.
16. An analysis of "alternate fuels" and "alternate energy processes" was not part of the DEIS scope and
those items were thus not studied. All data presented by ECONorthwest and NW Natural and the Project
Advisors (during public meetings) indicates that the pipeline would not be constructed if some alternate fuel
were cleaner burning or more economical to use than natural gas.
17. All Northwest Forest Plan requirements have been followed.
18. Please see answer #3 above. In addition to the referenced meetings, notices requesting scoping com-
ments and comments on the DEIS scoping were published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers.
9. Letter:
Sadler
Response:
Thank you for your comments. In response to specific areas of concern:
Introduction: The commenter is concerned that a particular statement would limit the scope of comments
received from the public. The volume and variety of comments received during the comment period would
seem to allay this concern.
The commenter has misread the statement letter by Coos County. Coos County correctly stated that the pipe-
hne route as detailed in the DEIS was selected to minimize impacts to people and habitat. One of the bene-
fits of the selected pipeline route will be a lower than expected cost to the Coos County taxpayers. Coos
County did not select the route merely on the basis of cost.
Summary: Need for Action: Please see the revised Need for Action statement.
Purpose of the Proposed Action: Please see the revised statement.
No Action: Please see the revised statement.
Purpose of and Need for Action: Please see the revised "Purpose of and Need for Action" statement in the
Final EIS. It is correct to state that the reason for building the pipeline is to encourage economic develop-
ment. It is speculative to state that any new industrial development must occur in order for the pipeline to be
built. In fact, NW Natural has stated in public meetings and documents that they do not need new industrial
development in order to justify constructing their distribution systems.
G-2-6
Appendix (j2. Responses lo LlMUts Received During Draft HIS Comment l\Tiod
It is false to assume that the only place that an industrial facility might be sited is somewhere on the Coos
Bay estuary. In fact, there arc numerous areas in Coos County that are zoned for industrial use, including
several Tribal owned parcels of property which are not located along Coos Bay. Also, the commenter
assumes that certain types of industrial facilities might be enabled by the pipeline project. Any new indus-
trial facility constructed in Coos County will have to be permitted under Federal, State, and local regulations.
Any industrial facilities mentioned in public meetings or public documents to date have been examples only
of industrial lacilities that might choose to consider locating in Coos County. There has been no evidence
that tiiosc industries would actually have chosen to locate in Coos County if naliual gas had been available.
There has been no public announcement of any industry that is currently planning to locate in Coos County.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action: Please see the revise No Action Alternative in the Final EIS.
Affected Environment: Coos County and BLM do not agree that most of the indirect and cumulative
impacts of the pipeline will take place in the Coos Bay Estuary.
Cunent emissions data from the Beaver Hill municipal waste incinerator is not relevant to the pipeline
project or the DEIS scope. Coos County air quality will not be harmed as a result of the pipeline project. In
fact there is qualitative evidence that Coos County air quality could be improved if existing users of fuel oil
and wood convert to natural gas. Please see other responses dealing with this issue and additions to Environ-
ment. Air Quality (Chapter 4).
Water quality of the Coos Bay estuary will not be negatively impacted by the pipeline project. In fact, as
previously stated, water quality could be improved if sulfur dioxide and heavy metal emissions from users of
fuel oil were reduced by conversion to natural gas.
The commenter implies that the Coos County cancer rate is somehow tied to the presence of past or present
industries in Coos County. There is no credible evidence to that effect. There are no air or water emissions
from a natural gas pipeline, which might affect a cancer rate.
Statements about the timber industry were considered when reviewing the DEIS for final revisions.
Various agencies have concluded that the pipeline project will not affect the Coos Bay estuary, thus recre-
ational use of the Coos Bay estuary will also not be affected.
Environmental Consequences: Please see previous discussions concerning air quality issues. Regarding
"2900 jobs, please read pages 65 and 66 of the DEIS. "Background", where ECONorthwest discusses the
statement about 2900 jobs. Additionally. ECONorthwest states that those jobs may not be present for at least
10 years after the pipeline is constructed. NW Natural does not rely upon this level of job growth in their
plans for distribution systems.
See previous discussions of the Coos Bay estuary issues.
Static & Dynamic Effects: An analysis of the economics of gas distribution systems and the costs of con-
versions is not part of the scope of the DEIS and is not relevant to Coos County's project. ECONorthwest
did not include the cost of conversion in their savings estimates.
Summary of ... Economic Effects: There is no evidence that suggests that inflow or outflow of retirees
would change if the pipeline were constructed. In fact. ECONorthwest states that the quality of life in a com-
munity for all residents improves when natural gas becomes available.
Public Health: Please see previous comments concerning the effect of the pipeline on cancer rates in Coos
County.
10. Letter:
Brown:
Response:
1. The automatic valve closures to be installed on the pipeline would detect a massive leak within a few min-
utes and then would close a valve. The pipeline pressure would then bleed to atmospheric pressure in 3-6
minutes.
2. The sudden combustion of natural gas following a massive pipeline rupture might directly damage a
power line transmission tower only if it was directly adjacent.
3. The most likely scenario for tower damage is for the pipeline to have a massive rupture, with resulting
fire, occurring directly underneath a power line and lasting for a sustained period. The power line might then
G-2- 7
Appendix u2. Responses to Letters Received Uunng Urart hlS Comment Period
part, with the result that the nearest towers could fail due to uneven strain on the tower structural members.
It is unlikely that the initial combustion alone would significantly damage a tower or the power lines.
4. BPA and the County are entering into an agreement whereby BPA would be paid to have extra equipment
on hand to mitigate the possible consequences of a pipeline incident that affects the electric transmission sys-
tem. BPA specified a 2-day limit for outage of electric service to the South Coast.
5. After preparing the DEIS, project consultants found evidence of only one incident where damage
occurred to a natural gas pipeline located near high voltage power lines. In 1999, a contractor dug into a 16"
Endevco natural gas pipeline, located virtually underneath TXU high voltage power lines in Texas. The
resulting fire from the natural gas leak caused conductors to fail, resulting in the collapse of seventeen tow-
ers. The Endevco pipeline was larger and the power line conductors were physically closer (15 to 30 feet
versus 50 feet or more for BPA conductors) to the pipeline than any of the BPA conductors will be to the
Coos County pipeline.
6. The project consultants are not aware of any "tests" that could be performed to provide the type of data
that Mr. Brown suggests gathering.
As Mr. Brown suggests, the pipeline will be vulnerable to deliberate destructive acts or thoughtless vandal-
ism at every place where the pipeline has aboveground facilities. The same hazards now exist for BPA tow-
ers, bridges and water facilities. The County has attempted to minimize the possibility of a major problem
occurring by specifying extra heavy pipe in all of the aboveground locations. While the County does not
believe that a gas fed fire at a bridge-crossing site will render a bridge unusable, it is possible that a bridge
could be damaged and require repair.
The main transmission pipeline from the Roseburg area to the Coos Bay/North Bend Water Board area will
be a 12.75" outside diameter pipeline, commonly referred to as a "12 inch" pipeline. The Northwest Natural
filing with the PUC specified "at least a 10-inch" pipeline.
The County has always maintained that the pipeline will be built to the "urban growth boundary" of each
city. The original study showed the Coos Bay delivery at Central Boulevard and US 101. Since that route
and terminus is impractical, the county selected a route through Libby to the Water Board property. Any
"cost difference" due to the substantial change in pipeline terminus was moot because the original Highway
42 route is impractical.
The decision to serve specific areas will be made by NW Natural. Public statements by NW Natural suggest
that the terminus of the pipeline on the Water Board site will facilitate more extensive natural gas service in
the Coos Bay/North Bend area than a terminus at a point further south.
11.
Letter:
Port of Coos Bay
Response:
Thank you for your
comments
12.
Letter:
Poppe
Response:
13. Letter:
G-2-8
Thank you for your comments. Responses to your comments are as follows:
1. No Action Alternative: Please see the revised No Action Alternative in the Final EIS.
2. As noted in other comment responses, nobody can accurately speculate on the location of or type of future
industrial facilities. These comments seem to speculate that the pipeline construction will somehow result in
an increase of pollutants in and around the Coos Bay area. The EIS does not speculate on that issue but states
that air quality is expected to improve as a direct result of the pipeline construction (see responses to Letter
#8 and others).
3. See also Appendix F for the USF&W letter of concurrence and responses to Letter #9.
COE
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
Response:
Recommendations are incorporated into the Final EIS.
14. Letter:
Bunnell
Response:
Mr. Bunnell has provided over 70 specific comments. Responses to those comments are as follows:
1. Need for Action & 2. No Action Alternative: Wording is revised in the Final EIS.
3. Table S-2: It would be impossible to calculate the "tax cost" to taxpayers without knowing the exact cost
of the project, the exact mechanism by which the County will finance their share of the project, and the exact
tax situation of each County taxpayer.
4. and 5. Purpose and Need: Wording is revised in the Final EIS.
6. Statutes and Regulations: Legislative acts, such as the "Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act
of 2000" have no impact on natural gas pipelines until regulations are promulgated by the U.S. Department
of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety. No such regulations related to the Pipeline Safety and Commu-
nity Protection Act of 2000 have been promulgated to date.
7. Anticipated Future Pipeline Projects: The estimated costs of pipeline laterals to Coquille, Myrtle
Point, and Bandon are included in the draft EIS. The same project design criteria (PDC) and best manage-
ment practices (BMP) will be used for the lateral construction. None of those laterals are expected to impact
BLM lands.
8. and 9. New Industrial Gas Users: The commenter has assumed that only "heavy industries" will be
potential users of natural gas. The EIS cannot address such speculation any more than this commenter or any
other commenter can definitively state that "steel mills and fertilizer plants" will be the only future users of
natural gas.
10.-14. Alternatives ...: Although there are "industry standards" for contaminants that may be allowed in
natural gas, in practice each pipeline sets their own specific standards. Those standards allow virtually unde-
tectable quantities of sulfides and carbon dioxide, which contribute to corrosion in the presence of water.
Natural gas in the Williams pipeline is monitored by chromatographs (gas component analyzers) for the
presence of contaminants. The pipeline would be shut down if necessary to rid the pipeline of the contami-
nants. Consequently, internal corrosion resulting from the presence of contaminants is not a problem for
existing Williams customers, and is not an issue for or a concern for the Coos County pipeline.
15.-16. See answers to Letter #4
17. Shortest Route: The proposed route is indeed not the shortest route, point to point. The shortest route
for the pipeline would traverse forested areas, requiring significant timber harvesting, and would traverse
areas where pipeline construction would be nearly impossible.
18. Criteria is Shortest?: The current proposed pipeline route is a combination of the best constructability,
least environmental impact, least impact on landowners, and construction cost factors possible.
19.-20. Routes: All of the route suggestions presented have been discussed in prior public meetings.
21.-32. Refer to answers to Letter #4 and Appendix J of the Final EIS
33. Eaithquake: The Geotechnical Engineering Report disputes the notion that earthquakes are frequent or
common. Nevertheless, in the event of an earthquake, there is no particular ground movement mechanism
that will cause the pipeline to rupture in more than one place, if it ruptures at all. A recent earthquake near
Tacoma affected much of the 1-5 corridor from Canada to Portland, but no pipelines were damaged.
34. Refer to answers to Letter #4 and Appendix J of the Final EIS.
35. Pipeline Repair: The EIS is not intended to be a treatise in pipeline operations, maintenance, and repair
procedures. The contract operator must formulate a detailed Operation & Maintenance Plan, including an
emergency procedures plan.
36. Construction Schedule: The pipeline construction schedule is not relevant to the EIS as long as various
"construction windows", as detailed in the EIS, are followed.
37. Road Blockages: See answers to Letter #4.
38.-40. Laterals: None of the requested items are part of the scoping for this EIS.
G-2- 9
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
41. Paving: Paving will improve the "quality of life" for users of the Wagon Road and inhabitants along the
Wagon Road. Additionally, paving will improve drainage and reduced erosion along the Wagon Road.
42.-44. Wagon Road: The pipeline project will provide funds for initial paving and repairs when pipeline
maintenance is perfomied. Coos County will provide maintenance once the pipeline is installed.
45. Existing Roads: The respective county roads departments are responsible for meeting existing stan-
dards on county roads.
46.-47. Road Improvements: Please see answers to Letter #4. Questions concerning Wagon Road safety
issues should be addressed to the Coos County Road Department.
48.-49. Wagon Road Maintenance: Very Utde additional Wagon Road maintenance cost will be incurred
in the future by Coos County as a result of the pipeline installation in the roadway.
50.-52. Distribution System Details: The gas distribution systems are the responsibility of NW Natural.
53. Pipeline Potential: The pipeline can flow 72 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) at typical Williams
inlet pressure. Few pipelines operate at full capacity every day. The potential flow through the laterals is
variable and based on the load on the main section of pipeline and whether any individual natural gas con-
sumer installed compression at their facility. The pipeline capacity is several times the existing industrial,
commercial and residential heat load in Coos County.
54. Industry Size: There are no active proposals for any industrial development in Coos County at this
time, including a possible "steel mill, fertilizer plant, or generation facility", therefore nobody can accurately
speculate on how many of any of those facilities the pipeline could support.
55. Any response is entirely speculative as to which industries might come, where they might be located,
and economic and environmental effects which might occur.
56. Highway 42: Highway 42 is not a viable alternative route.
57. Alternate Route: It is not in the scope of the EIS to review rejected routes.
58. Air Quality: See comments in the Final EIS.
59. Water Quality: Please see air quality comments in the Final EIS. Water quality is affected by air emis-
sions and any new industry must be permitted.
60. Public Health: Suggestions have been considered.
61. Socio-Economics: Alternate routes have been considered.
62. Regional Gas Usage: NW Natural will decide whether to distribute natural gas to Sumner and Fair-
view. Local residents can contact NW Natural and/or the Oregon Public Utilities Commission for answers to
questions regarding natural gas service in Coos County.
63. Wagon Road Issues: As stated in other responses, local traffic and emergency response traffic on the
Wagon Road may be interrupted during construction and that close coordination with emergency response
services and communication with residents will be necessary.
When unsuitable materials are removed from the pipeline installation ditch in the Wagon Road, clean dry
material will be installed in place of the unsuitable material removed from the ditch in order to achieve
desired compaction results. The Geotechnical Engineering Report did not reveal the existence of any soils
along the pipeline route that may be subject to liquefaction in case of an earthquake. Please refer to page A8.
64. Fiber Optic Cable: The pipeline construction contractor will be responsible for any damage caused to
the fiber optic cable if its operator has properly located the fiber optic cable. In general, the pipeline will be
placed underneath the fiber optic cable at places where it crosses the pipeline installation path.
65.-67. Proposed Action Summary: The EIS scope does not include speculation as to the effect of possi-
ble future industrial activity. Comments have been added to the EIS to deal with possible emissions reduc-
tions from existing industries.
68. Maintenance Costs: The BLM is not concerned with the maintenance costs of various alternative pipe-
line routes.
69. Breakeven Analysis: The economic aspects of the pipeline project have been discussed thoroughly in
numerous public meetings.
70. Natural Gas Prices: Such an analysis would have no relevance to the EIS, but if done, would show that
natural gas has historically had an economic advantage over all other competitive fuels except fuel oil.
71.-74: Economic Benefits: These suggestions have been considered.
G-2- 10
Appendix 02. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment F^'riod
15. Letter:
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center
Response:
Thank you for your comments. You have raised numerous issues, including the proximity of the pipeline to
the Lookinizglass Scliool. The pipchnc docs not cross Roscbiirg BLM lands hut will he installed on property
adjacent to the Lookingglass School. Coos County, the Winston-Dillard School District, and the Douglas
County Planning Commission have all discussed the safety issues and have agreed to several mitigation fea-
tures that should result in safe pipeline installation and operation. Burning trees or a tree limb from a fallen
tree protruding into the ground would not harm the pipeline. Please see responses to Letter #14 and informa-
tion provided in Appendix J. which also address fire and safety concerns.
1. Cost Considerations: No cost cutting measures have been taken at the expense of environmental issues.
hi fact. ODFW has written a letter in support of the proposed route over the original Highway 42. Most of
the cost "savings" have occurred as a result of construction cost differences.
2. Public Lands: Survey and Manage species surveys have been conducted.
3. Fish Habitat: There is no new road construction or re-construction planned for this project. Where pos-
sible, "fish friendly" culverts will be installed to replace existing culverts and Wagon Road paving after the
pipeline construction will lessen sedimentation in the streams and rivers in the future.
4. Waterways: Please see Chapter 4 of the EIS.
5. Soils: Please see Chapter 4 of the EIS.
6. Noxious Weeds: Please see Chapter 4 of the EIS.
7. Species Concerns: Please see Chapters 3-5 of the EIS.
8. Archaeological Sites and Significant Native American Sites: Please see Appendix B of the DEIS.
16. Letter:
Fairview Rural Fire Protection District
Response:
A.l. It is possible that if the pipeline is damaged, natural gas could be released and ignited. In general, a nat-
ural gas fire is not considered a situation requiring a hazardous material team response.
A.2. The letter describes the appearance of a liquid petroleum fire. Natural gas combustion does not pro-
duce any smoke, (see responses to Letters #4, #10, and #14).
A.3. It is possible that a pipeline iiipture could result in one or more area roads being closed for a short
period of time by emergency response personnel. Due to the installation of automatic or remote controlled
shut-off valves on the pipeline, the duration of time for gas escaping the pipeline should be less than 10 min-
utes, at which time, the only remaining fire to extinguish would be that resulting from a structure fire or grass
or forest fire.
A.4. Closing block valves is the safest and most effective method of extinguishing a pipeline fire. That is
why automatic or remote control valves are included as part of the design for the pipeline block valves.
B.l. US DOT statistics show that "third party damage" is the most likely manner in which a new pipeline
could be damaged after construction. That is why public education is mandated by the US DOT Office of
Pipeline Safety (49CFR, part 192.616).
B.2. Nobody can guarantee that any protective devices will prevent a block valve or any other pipeline facil-
ity from being damaged by all outside sources. Gas utility experience shows that "jersey barricades" and
bollards are a reasonably effective means of preventing pipeline facility damage from vehicles.
B.3. The comments have been considered. Block valves need to be located in a readily accessible location.
The site chosen for the Fairview block valve is the best location in the Fairview area, considering all aspects
of pipeline and lateral design and environmental and safety issues.
17. Letter:
Name Withheld by Request
Response:
G-2- 11
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
Please see responses to Letter 9 regarding the issue of "2900 jobs". As with others, this commenter has
assumed that "all industry is dirty" when in fact there are numerous industrial facilities, which could site in
Coos County without adding to existing pollution levels in Coos County. Also, as stated in other comment
responses, the EIS cannot assume or speculate as to the possible location of any new industry in Coos County
because numerous properties throughout the county are zoned for industrial use.
Coos County disagrees with this commenter's statement of "fact" and have no evidence to the effect that the
environmental assessment process involved with siting a new industry would be "myopic" and ignoring of
any cumulative emissions impact.
18. Letter:
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Developmen
Response:
Included in Chapter 4 and Appendix N of the Final EIS is a consistency statement, which addresses the Coos
and Douglas County Land Use plans and the Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan.
19. Letter:
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Response:
Please see response to Letter #18.
20. Letter:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
21. Letter:
Mason
Response:
This issue was adequately addressed in public meetings.
22. Letter:
Coquille Elders Aquaculture Board/Barton
Response:
1. The "economic impact analysis" of a "gas distribution system" was addressed on Page 70 of the DEIS.
2. Natural gas in the interstate pipeline system that will feed the Coos Bay pipeline contains virtually unmea-
surable amounts of sulfur components (see air quality statements in the Final EIS). The products of combus-
tion of the natural gas will be primarily water and carbon dioxide, with trace amounts of nitrous oxides and
unbumed hydrocarbons.
3. The Coos Bay estuary will not be directly affected by the pipeline project, as proposed. NW Natural is
responsible for planning the gas distribution systems, but the construction of those distribution systems will
have to follow PDCs dictated by the municipalities in which those distribution systems are installed. Air and
water quality in the area will be improved when residents, commercial facilities, and industries change to
natural gas fuel from burning fuel oil and wood. Please see the air quality section of the Final EIS.
23. Letter:
Simpson
Response:
G-2- 12
Appendix Ci2. Responses to Letters Received [during Draft EIS Comment Period
BLM lands will be delineated in the final EIS.
The draft EIS has adequately addressed economic issues.
The issue of pipeline construction, economics, and politics has been adequately addressed in public meetings
and in the DEIS.
The application from the pipeline project to the Coos County Planning Commission has no impact on the
BLM or the EIS process. The actions of the planning commission have no impact on any decision the BLM
will make.
On May 2, 2002, the Coos County Planning Commission denied the county's application for a Conditional
Use Permit to cross certain lands zoned for farm and forest use. This application included the f3LM seg-
ments in Coos County. The reason for denial was stated as the county's failure to prove that the pipeline
would not "Significantly increase the risk of fire, or the cost or danger of fire suppression".
The County has extensively researched the US DOT pipeline incident statistics for the entire country, for this
size and type of pipeline, and for Oregon and Washington incidents near forested lands. (See Appendix J of
the Final EIS for details.) There is very little statistical chance that this pipeline will ever suffer a serious
incident, and no precedent in Oregon or Washington that such an incident would cause a serious forest fire.
Coos County will appeal the action of the planning commission. The planning commission restricted the
submission of pipeline safety information before the May 2 meeting, and did not allow any interpretation of
or member questions about the data. The County believes it will prevail on this issue upon appeal, and does
not plan to change the route or the EIS because of this decision.
24. Letter:
Liles
Response:
Directionally drilling the pipeline under the river on this property will not drain a water supply. The drilling
fluid used during directional drilling contains additives that prevents fluid flow into or out of the drill hole.
Once the pipe is installed under the river, the drill hole will clo.se around the pipe and not allow fluid to flow
along the path of the pipe installation.
See also the air quality section of the Final EIS and previous letter responses.
25. Letter:
Coquille Indian Tribe
Response:
The same PDCs and BMPs will be used for the laterals as is used for the main pipeline construction. These
would include cultural surveys and project monitoring.
Revisions have been made to project monitoring language as suggested.
Refer to Appendix B of the draft EIS. All parties believe that joint monitoring will result in adequate identi-
fication and mitigation of archaeological and cultural sites that have not already been identified.
26. Letter:
Stewart
Response:
Please refer to previous responses regarding environmental assessments.
BPA has not formally announced nor rescinded their "moratorium" but Coos County and the BPA have
agreed on a method by which the pipeline can be installed in the BPA corridor where necessary. No formal
document has been issued by BPA to date.
27. Letter:
Nelson
Response:
G-2- 13
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
Thank you for your comments. Your concerns have been addressed in responses to other letters.
28. Letter:
Metcalf
Response:
The Geotechnical Engineering Report in Appendix A has adequately addressed the location of active faults.
Based on cultural review to date, the County is not aware of the Indian grave and camping sites mentioned in
this letter. Joint monitoring, by Indian tribal representatives and County inspectors is intended to insure that
no cultural resources are desecrated.
29. Letter:
Clawson
Response:
Thank you for your comments. Please see the responses to previous letters.
30. Letter:
Clawson
Response:
Thank you for your comments. Please see the responses to previous letters.
31. Letter:
Gaab
Response:
The application submitted to the Coos County Planning Commission has no relation to this Environmental
Impact Statement.
32. Letter:
Heme
Response:
The BLM is "involved" because a permit application was submitted to the Coos Bay BLM office and this
Environmental Impact Statement is a result of that permit application.
33. Letter:
Doty
Response:
Please refer to previous responses regarding environmental assessments. Please refer to Chapter 4 and
Appendix N of the Final EIS for consistency with state and local plans.
The issue of project economics and the participation in the pipeline project or lack thereof by Bandon has
been adequately addressed in numerous public meetings.
34. Letter:
Joyce
Response:
The issue of route selection has been adequately addressed in numerous public meetings and in the draft EIS.
Please refer to previous responses regarding environmental assessments. Refer to responses to Letter #9.
G-2 - 14
A|i|K'iuli\ (i2. Responses lo l.cltcrs Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
35. Letter:
Hopkins
Response:
Thank you for your comments. Please see the Final EIS concerning the Port-Orford-cedar.
36. Letter:
Schrieber
Response:
Thank you for your comments. Your issues have been raised and answered in numerous public meetings.
37. Letter:
Leisy
Response:
Thank you for your comments. In response to each of the items in your letter:
1. Construction of those laterals will be required to follow the same PDCs and BMPs as the main pipeline
construction.
2. ROW issues involve Civil Law legal determinations that are not relevant to the EIS.
3. COE input has been received throughout the DEIS process, even though PDC or other comments may not
be specifically attributed to the COE.
4. Please see Appendix F for the USFWS concurrence letter.
5. The conclusion of the biologists involved in the preparation of the DEIS was that there will be no long
term or cumulative effect to the flora and fauna in Coos County as a result of the pipeline construction and
subsequent operation of the pipeline.
6. The project consultants did not locate the contradictory findings that are referenced in this comment.
Directional drilling (sometimes also referred to as "boring") will virtually eliminate the possibility of erosion
around the pipeline stream crossing. The Geotechnical Engineering Report in Appendix A found no evi-
dence of active faults or active landslides. Appendix H, as revised for the Final EIS, has adequately
addressed PDCs and BMPs to be used to prevent soil erosion.
7. Aboveground pipeline facilities are mentioned and described in several places in the DEIS but specifi-
cally in Appendix J.
8. See air quality statements and responses to previous letters.
38. Letter:
Ryan
Response:
This commenter has assumed that negative effects will occur or be enabled as a result of the pipeline con-
struction. Certainly, Coos County has promoted the project as a means of increasing economic development.
Because there are no current economic development projects proposed, it is speculative and out of the scope
of the DEIS to assume that "heavy" or "polluting" industry will want to locate in Coos County merely as a
result of the presence of natural gas. In fact, NW Natural is constructing their distribution system using the
assumption that no new industry will come to Coos County. Please see also answer #8 to Letter #37.
It is also speculative and out of the scope of the DEIS to attempt to address the exact location of a future
industrial facility. There are numerous sites in Coos County, other than the North Spit, designated for indus-
trial use.
The County is unaware of any evidence that "tax breaks" in "Enterprise Zones" creates budget problems for
local governments and ECONorthwest did not identify any such problem.
The issue of whether new jobs would be filled by current residents or "experienced workers from outside the
G-2- 15
Appendix G2. Responses to Letters Received During Draft EIS Comment Period
area" should not be addressed by the EIS but rather by local governments when new projects are proposed.
As noted in the opening paragraph of this Appendix, some of the comments in the DEIS Appendix G were
those of Coos County and not necessarily of the BLM.
39. Letter:
Gomez
Response:
Thank you for your comments. In response to specific comments:
1. The "Purpose of and Need for Action" correctly states that there is no guarantee that if the pipeline is built
then any new economic development will occur.
2. It is speculative and not in the scope of the Final EIS to assume that any specific type of industrial facility
will be sited in Coos County. In fact, as stated in the EIS and in previous comment responses, the air quality
of Coos County should be improved by making natural gas available to Coos County residents and busi-
nesses.
3. The parties beheve that the Final EIS has adequately addressed cumulative and indirect effects to Coos
Bay and the Coos Bay estuary.
4. As previously stated, it is not in the scope of the DEIS to study the causes and incidences of cancer in
Coos County. It is entirely speculative to assume that the pipeline construction would have any effect on
cancer rates in Coos County.
G-2-16
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
The following changes between the Draft and linal Hnvironnicntal Impact Statement were made to Appendix H.
• A revised Appendix H: Erosion Control Plan has replaced the former Erosion Control Plan providing
additional Project Design Criteria.
Prepared by:
Bob Oxford
Industrial Gas Services, Inc.
3760 Vance St., Suite 200
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
H
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Table H-1: Fish-bearing Streams Identified for Avoiding Ground Disturbance within them
Stream
Description
East Fork Coquille River
East Fork Coquille Watershed
place on 2 bridges
Brummit Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
directional-drill
China Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
in road over culvert
Steel Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
place on bridge
Hantz Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
in road over culvert
Cherry Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
directional-drill
Middle Creek
East Fork Coquille Watershed
place on bridge
North Fork Coquille River
North Fork Coquille Watershed
directional-drill
Panther Creek
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
in road over culvert
Cardwell Creek
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
in road over culvert
Catching Creek
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
directional-drill
Isthmus Slough
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
directional-drill
Shinglehouse Slough
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
directional-drill
Coal Bank Slough
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
directional-drill
Blossom Gulch
Lower Coos River/Coos Bay Watershed
directional drill
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
BMPs are measures used during construction activities to minimize potential impacts to the aquatic environment to
the point where those impacts become neghgible. The BMPs for the proposed actions are as follows:
Prior to activities, apply an additional lift of rock to the area of road that can influence the stream if rill erosion is evi-
dent in the road tread near live stream crossings.
Contain any offsite movement of sediment from the road or ditchflow near streams using silt fence or sediment
entrapping blankets. Such control measures must allow for the free p>assage of water without detention or pluggmg.
These control structures and applications should receive frequent maintenance and will be removed upon completion
of that pipeline construction segment.
All construction operations will utilize sediment barriers along the CBW Road corridor where needed and within 100
feet of all streams when working in the utility coiridor.
All stream crossings, except Rock Creek, Morgan Creek and Tenmile Creek, and other streams with very low flow,
will be directionally-drilled, trenched in road fill or have the pipe placed on bridges to avoid sedimentation impacts.
H-2
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Environmental Compliance Representative
The County has appoiiitcti Paul ShUcr the Environmental Coniplianee Representative to administer the FtCR. He will
speeify erosion control plan controls and modifications, and perform environmental monitoring to ensure the BMPs
and PDCs of the ECP are being implemented and that water quality is being maintained.
Active Stream Crossing Project Design Criteria (PDC)
PDCs are preventive measures applied to project activities to minimi/e potential detrimental effects to proposed,
listed, or candidate species. For the purpose of this ECP, PDCs are in effect BMPs in order to meet the objectives of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Minimization and Avoidance
BMPs for surface and shoulder activity types will includeManagement of Oil, Grease, and Fuels:
• Fuel will not be used as a releasing or cleaning agent.
• A spill containment plan will be in place prior to the start of the project.
• No refueling is permitted within 25 ft. of stream crossings.
• The contractor shall have ample absorbent blankets and other clean-up materials on site in case of an accidental
spill.
• Using environmentally sensitive cleaning and releasing agents.
• Using heat sources to heat and clean tack nozzles during operations.
• Carrying adequate erosion control supplies and keep materials out of water bodies.
• Disposing of excess material at appropriate sites, depending upon material being disposed (Disposal would be
approved by ECR).
Timing
All stream channel crossing work shall take place during the "In-Water Work Period" of July 1 through September
15. Work outside of streams including excavating, trenching work, re-filling of trenches, clean-up and restoration
activities should be completed during the dry season (June-October). Any work undertaken outside of this period
will need more substantial ECP controls in order to retain soil material on site and not exceed the State water quality
standards.
Transportation Corridor
Excavated soil material should be placed on the outside of the roadway away from the ditch line. Soil material that is
stockpiled in this manner for more than 7 days should be covered with plastic sheeting. Silt fence, bio-filter bags or
sediment entrapping blankets should be used around all stream channels, springs, wetlands or roadside ditches where
disturbance soil material could be mobilized and enter a drainageway or wetland by rainwater. The onsite environ-
mental compliance representative could excuse some of these requirements if no precipitation is foreca.st for the next
seven days (suinmer conditions). If vegetation is removed from the road shoulders during clean-up of soil material,
these areas should be grass seeded, fertilized and mulched with certified weed free straw at the minimum application
rate of 2500 lbs. per acre.
The road disturbance areas will be storm proofed by compacting the ditch and road surfacing with crushed rock, such
that sediment will not enter ditchlines, catch basins or stream channels. New paving or repaving the Coos Bay
Wagon Road will not be completed the same season of disturbance. All disturbed areas will be grass seeded, fertil-
ized and mulched with certified weed free straw at the minimum application rate of 2500 lbs. per acre.
Grade control culverts, removed for pipeline installation, shall be replaced. Inlets and outlets, and a minimum of 50'
of ditch line that feeds the culvert should be open, not constricted and free draining.
H
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Soil Material Management on Steep Slopes
Excavated soil material and other disturbance will be managed on steep slopes (>30%) so that land resources will not
erode, causing rilling or gullying and/or enter a stream channel. Contour sediment fences will be used where needed.
Drivable waterbars or inverted waterbars (referred to as flavels) on the access roads may be needed and frequency
will be determined by the slope angle and soil properties. The intent of these controls is to curtail rilling and gullying
on the tread of these steep access roads. Soil material that is stockpiled for more than 7 days will be covered with
plastic sheeting. Benches developed for pipeline construction will be constructed with regard to natural contours.
All disturbed areas will be grass seeded, fertilized and mulched with certified weed free straw at the minimum appli-
cation rate of 2500 lbs. per acre.
Borrow/Stockpile Sites
All borrow or stockpile sites will be identified prior to the start of the project and cleared by the ECR. Borrow or
stockpile sties shall be placed outside of riparian areas as much as possible. Where appropriate, the sites will be
graded, seeded, fertilized and mulched at a minimum application rate of 2500 lbs. per acre with certified weed free
straw at the closure of the project.
Utility Stream Crossing
Definition; A strategy for crossing small waterways when in-stream utility construction is involved.
Purposes:
1) To prevent sediment from entering the stream from construction within approach areas.
2) To minimize the amount of disturbance within the stream and riparian area.
Conditions Where Practice Applies; Generally applicable to small perennial and intermittent streams with drainage
areas less than 1 30 hectares (ha), 320 equivalent acres. Methodology for crossing streams with larger drainage areas
or to avoid designated sensitive crossings, will be directional-drilled, hanging pipe on bridge or trenching above cul-
verts on CBW Road fill.
Planning Considerations; Directionally-drilling a pipe below the streambed, which would avoid disturbance within
the watercourse, is the preferred method if it is practical. However, in cases where it is impractical and where in-
stream work is unavoidable, consideration must be given to providing adequate mitigation of sediment loss while
minimizing the amount of encroachment and time spent working in the channel. There is some "give and take" as far
as the installation of controls.
Sometimes there is less damage to the environment created by providing substantial controls for the approach areas
and by refraining from installing extensive measures in the stream itself. However, if the installation of the pipeline
within the streambed and its banks will take an extended period of construction time (more than 10 hours), substan-
tial in-stream controls or stream diversion is necessary to prevent excessive sedimentation damage. For the action
alternatives, all stream-crossings that will not be directionally-drilled will take far less than the 72-hour recommenda-
tion for utihty line crossing using the "Bag and Flume" technique. The "Bag and Flume" method utilized in pipeline
construction will take approximately 6-8 hours per stream crossing. The following is the method the action alterna-
tives would use for dealing with utility stream crossings; these criteria allow for "work in the dry" conditions to pre-
vent sedimentation in flowing streams:
Crossing Streams
There are four types of stream crossings: 1.) Culvert in Road; 2.) Trench using the bag & flume method, 3.) Bridge;
and 4.) Directional Drill.
Stream Crossing Above A Culvert
The Coos Pipeline will be routed along county roads for approximately 33 miles. Those roads cross about 120 inven-
toried streams, most of which are very small ephemeral drainage channels, 1-3 ft in width and dry most of the year.
Approximately 105 of those channels cross the road through culverts, typically 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) cul-
verts about 30 ft long.
H-4
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
A few of the culverts have enough soil coverage to allow the pipeline to cross above the culvert. Bills Creek and
Hantz Creek are typical examples, where the culvert is 4 to 8 it below the road surface. This is the preferred method
of crossing with the least impact to the drainage channel. When the pipeline can cross above the culvert:
1 . Plan to finish a culvert crossing in one day. The culvert must be intact overnight, or when rain is forecast.
2. Excavate |")ipclinc ditch below the road surface, typically 30" wide and deep enough to allow 36" of cover above
the pipe.
3. Allow at least 12" clearance between the pipeline and the CMP. The pipeline and CMP must not touch.
4. If 36" of cover above the pipe to the road surface is not practical, then the pipe can be protected with low-
slrcngth concrete or other suitable protection. In no case shall the depth of cover be less than 24" to top of pipe.
Backfill and compact as necessary to road authority specifications.
Stream Crossing Under A Culvert
Most of the culverts have only 18-24" of soil coverage, which is not enough to allow the pipeline to cross above the
culvert. Many of these culverts are in poor condition and would have to be replaced in the next 10 years. When the
pipeline does not have clearance to cross above the culvert:
1 . Plan to finish a culvert crossing in one day. The culvert must be intact overnight, or when rain is forecast.
2. Excavate normal pipeline ditch to within 15 ft of the culvert. The normal trench is typically 30" wide and deep
enough to allow 36" of cover above the pipe.
3. Determine whether or not the culvert should be replaced. Factors include whether the culvert is under-sized (eg
less than 24"); bent, crushed or damaged, especially at the ends, and whether the steel pipe is starting to rust and
show through the galvanized zinc coating. The ECR will make the decision to replace. If so, the culvert should be
replaced with an appropriately sized culvert to match the estimated water flow, and approximately the same length as
the existing pipe (as approved by the ECR.)
4. Strip out the old culvert pipe and remove it. This will typically require an excavation 36" wide by the depth of
the existing pipe, across the full width of the road. If the existing culvert is adequate and will not be replaced, the
pipeline can be tunneled under the culvert.
5. Complete the pipeline ditch through the culvert area, deep enough to allow at least 12" clearance between the
pipeline and the CMP.
6. Install the pipeline in the ditch through the culvert area and shade the pipe, with a 12" clearance to the expected
finish grade of the culvert. The pipeline and CMP cannot touch.
7. Install the new culvert on the appropriate skew and grade. If necessary, run pipeline test wires to a test station at
the uphill side of the road for cathodic protection or line location. Backfill and compact as necessary to road author-
ity specifications.
8. It is desired that, if practical, any new culvert be installed on grade as "fish-friendly". In all such work around
culverts existing and new, it is critical that the footprint of the road not be changed. That is, the pipeline construction
and culvert replacement work must be done without adding fill to the creek bed.
9. Apply erosion control measures as necessary to the sides of the road and inlet / outlet of the culvert.
Trench Across Stream
If a stream is not flowing water and no immediate rain is forecast, no sediment control is required. If a low flowing
stream can be crossed in a manner such that turbidity is not increased for more than 2 hours, no sediment control is
required. Otherwise, controls will be put in place before construction begins. If there is no turbidity disturbance
downstream in 2 hours, then no bag and flume or any method of sediment control is required. The Environmental
Compliance Representative must approve any stream crossing where no sediment control is planned. For such
trenched stream crossings, the sides of the stream will be cut back and the stream channel widened to a 1 to 1 Vi
slope. After the trench is through the stream, rocks will be installed over the pipe trench if necessary to stabilize the
ditch. The stream sides will then be recontoured to original shape.
The stream will be restored within the active stream channel by using the size rock in the streambed that is the typical
stream armor layer. Banks above the active channel will be reshaped with like soil material and compacted to the
H- 5
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
original configuration. The cross section channel geometry will be similar to the preexisting condition. Bank stabili-
zation may include the use of soil material, rock or large wood or root wads. Where trees or vegetative root structure
is removed, tree plantings in the next dormant season may be appropriate.
Any fill or constructed benches within riparian areas or within 100 feet of a stream channel on steep slopes (>30%)
will be pulled back to a natural ground configuration.
If a stream crossing involves any amount of water and the crossing time will exceed 2 hours, the "bag and flume"
specification will apply. Controls including the rerouting of water will be in place prior to trenching activities.
Under DEQ's turbidity water quality guidance, adequate controls will be in place to meet the 401 certification
requirements.
• Filter cloth should be used in the construction of the utility crossing.
• If there are trapped fish, the fish should be removed and placed in another part of the stream (ODFW will be
contacted to remove fish.).
• Water diverting structures ("Bag and Flume") should be used at all trenching and/or construction road
approaches 30 meters (100 feet) on either side of the crossing.
For "Bag-and-FIume" Stream Trenching:
1. The drainage area should be no greater than 130 ha (320 acres).
2. Filter cloth should be used in the construction of the pipeline crossing.
3. If there are trapped fish the fish should be removed and placed in another part of the stream.
4. Water diverting structures should be used at all trenching and/or construction road approaches 30 meters (100
feet) on either side of the crossing.
"Bag and Flume" Construction Specifications: The bag & flume crossing method will be used when in-stream
construction will last more than 2 hours and less than 72 hours, and stream is narrow, making "directional-drilling"
construction impractical. This will be the method used to trench flowing streams (Figure H-1 ). If there are trapped
fish they should be removed and placed in another part of the stream. Diverted water will be put back into same
stream as close to the culvert as possible. The amount of stream to be dry will be the minimum necessary to perform
work.
The flume pipe crossing must be made operational prior to the start of construction in the stream. A large flexible
flume pipe of an adequate size to support normal water channel flow shall then be installed in the streambed across
the proposed action's trench centerline. Sandbags shall be placed close to each end of the flume pipe so as to dam off
the creek forcing the water to flow through the flume pipe (Figure H-1).
The entrapped water can then flow from the creek within the dammed-off area and in the trench centerline back into
the bypassed stream. The trench can then be dug adjacent to the flume pipe. The pipe sections will then be installed to
the proper depth. After pipeline sections are installed, the ditch will be back-filled and restabilization shall be carried
out. Turbid water in newly dug trenches will be pumped onto a vegetative floodplain or gentle hillslope, where it can
filter-out fine sediments naturally.
The stream will be restored within the active stream channel by using the size rock in the streambed that is the typical
stream armor layer. Banks above the active channel will be reshaped with like soil material and compacted to the
original configuration. The cross section channel geometry will be similar to the preexisting condition. Bank stabili-
zation may include the use of soil material, rock or large wood or root wads. Where trees or vegetative root structure
is removed, tree plantings in the next dormant season may be appropriate.
After completion of back-filling operation and restoration of stream/creek banks and leveling of streambed, the flume
pipe can be removed. The gravel can be removed or spread in the streambed depending on permit requirements. Sed-
iment control in approach areas shall not be removed until all construction is completed in the streani/creek crossing
area. All ground contours shall be returned to their original condition.
H-6
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Puinped or gl■a^^^,i• fee d discharge Ime x
utilise d during cul^■^l1 re iniT\''al and .^ ' ^
charmelrestoi-ation ' ^^
>^propriatBl>'<i3edFlexibl« Culviert(4"- 6")^ ^^ \^
Rjemove Existing CuVert
af te r di'vt rsion is oo mple fe d
SeduneiM Trap:
Place Sedirnats
ujietreainof darn
NOTE: INS T^iL;
RR.IOR TO MTY /
SOILDISTTJP.- ;
BAl-ICE
/
FI017/
Sedimat ■
Sbdimoit Control Structure
U S Dni UD3iLorUK 'bi^tai, Su oaj DrLmd N'mt^QDoa, Cmi 3crf bauio.
Figure H-1: Stream Crossing: Trenching across an active stream bed
Bridge Crossings
H- 7
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
The pipe will be hung by specially designed hangers along side and beneath a bridge at road crossings on fish habitat
streams to ensure uninterrupted upstream and downstream movement of all aquatic species. Water velocity is gener-
ally the most critical factor during the time of year that fish require access to spawning and rearing areas.
Directional Drilling
Directionally-drilling a pipe below the streambed, which would avoid disturbance within the watercourse, is the pre-
ferred method if it is practical. The drilling operations, including fluid pits, will be located well outside of riparian
areas. Fluid pits will be lined. Any residual material will be disposed of at an approved upland site. When drilling
operations are completed fluid pits will be filled in, recontoured, and revegetated. An illustration of the directional-
drilling method is given in Appendix J of the FEIS.
Maintenance
Care must be taken to inspect any stream crossing area at the end of each day to make sure that the construction mate-
rials are positioned securely. This will ensure that the work area stays dry and that no construction materials move
downstream. The ECR will inspect work periodically to ensure comphance with this ESCP and all local, state, and
federal laws.
Project Design Criteria for Culvert Installation and Removal
• The ODFW in-stream work period for the proposed action is shown below. Needs for working outside these
time periods would be approved only on a site specific basis with ODFW concurrence. These dates apply to
any intermittent or perennial channel showing annual scour, as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan:
Coquille River July 1 - September 15
Umpqua River July 1 - September 15
• Bridges, bottomless culverts and pipe arches in descending order of preference should be used at road crossing
on fish habitat to ensure uninterrupted upstream and downstream movement of all aquatic species. Water veloc-
ity is generally the most critical factor during the time of year that fish require access to spawning and rearing
areas. ECR will approve structure type and design specifications on a site specific basis.
• At all "Bag and Flume" stream crossings, the approach will be as near a right angle to the stream as possible to
minimize disturbance to streambanks and riparian habitat.
• Road crossings on all fish-bearing streams will be designed to maintain natural streambed substrate and site
gradient, while minimizing long-term maintenance needs.
• Width of a crossing structure should be at least as wide as the mean bankfull width at the crossing site; to be
measured by the ECR. A structure less than bankfull width will constrict high streamflow and increase water
velocity, resulting in sour at the outlet (perching), little to no deposition of streambed substrate in closed bottom
structure and possible velocity barrier to fish.
• Divert the streamflow around the work area in a manner (e.g., a pipe or lined ditch) that will minimize stream
sedimentation. Stream flow will be returned to channel at first available point on downstream end of work area
to minimize the length of dry channel. The diverted stream should not be returned to the channel through the
project area until all in-stream work has been completed.
• Reduce movement of sediment downstream from the project site with the use of straw bales, geotextile fabric or
coconut fiber logs/bales immediately downstream of the work area.
• Wet or green (wet: fresh enough to flow; green: hardened but less than 21 days old) cement and new or old
asphalt have acute and chronic adverse effects on aquatic life and should not be allowed to enter a stream. This
includes water used to clean tools. If the stream is de-watered before construction begins, aquatic species will
be unaffected.
• Maintain aquatic connectivity on non fish-bearing streams to ensure upstream and downstream movement of
other (non-fish) aquatic species.
• Bare soil areas will be mulched with hydro-seeding, weed-free straw, bark chips, etc. and native seed or other
H-8
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
approved seed mix prior to fall rain or when moisture conditions are appropriate to discourage invasion of nox-
ious plant species and to reduce soil erosion.
• Location of stockpile and borrow sites will be confined to dry areas so sediment will not enter aquatic
resources. ECR will pre-approve areas before they are used.
• The contractor(s) will be notified that they are responsible for meeting all state and federal requirements for
maintaining water quality. Standard contracts will include the following:
• llca\ y cijuipnicnt should be inspected and cleaned as necessary before moving onto the project site in order to
remove oil and grease, noxious weeds and excessive soil.
• Hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy mechanized equipment must be in proper working condition in order to
minimize leakage into streams
• Waste dioscl. oil. hydraulic lluid and other hazardous materials and contaminated soil near the stream will be
removed from the site and disposed of offsite and in accordance with DfiQ regulations. Areas that have been
saturated with toxic materials would be excavated to a depth of 12 inches beyond the contaminated material or
as required by DEQ.
• Equipment refueling would be conducted within a confined, secured area outside the stream channel (minimum
of 25' away) such that there is minimal chance that toxic materials could enter a stream.
• Use spill containment booms or kits as required by DEQ.
• Equipment containing toxic fluids should not be stored in a stream channel at anytime.
• Construct a control weir at a culvert outlet as insurance that water velocity through a new culvert will not cause
"perching": a control weir consists of burying 1-3 foot diameter rock at the culvert outlet across the stream
channel to control the stream grade. ECR will approve designs of such structures before they are installed as
well as construction of said structures.
Approved Materials for Use - ODOT Construction Manual
Biofilter Bags: Biofilter bags shall be 460 mm x 150 mm x 760 mm minimum bags made of 13 mm plastic mesh,
weighing approximately 20 kg, and filled with clean, 100 percent recycled wood-product waste.
Check Dams: Aggregate: Shall meet the requirements of 00330. 16 with a maximum diameter from 75 to 150 mm.
• Straw Bale: Standard rectangular bales shall meet the requirements of 00280. 10 (n)(6).
• Biofilter Bags: Shall meet the requirements of 00280. 10(a).
• Sand Bags: Shall meet the requirements of 00280.10(1).
Construction Entrances: Aggregate shall meet the requirements of 00330. 16 with a maximum diameter of 1 50 mm.
Subgrade geotextile shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide written "Level B" documen-
tation according to 02320.10(c).
Diversion Dike/Swale: Aggregate shall meet the requirements of 00330.16 with a maximum diameter of 25 mm to
100 mm.
Seeding shall meet the requirements of Section 01030 for Seeding (Temporary).
Temporary Drainage Curbs: Commercial Grade Concrete shall meet the requirements of 00480.11.
Dust Control: Non-toxic materials shall not have an adverse effect on soil structure or establishment and growth of
vegetation, and be approved by Coos County Highway Department Roadmaster and/or the ECR.
Flow Spreader: Shall meet the requirements of 00330. 16 with a maximum diameter of 150 mm. Inlet Protection
Inlet Protection
1. Geotextile for Sediment Fence, Supported: Shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide writ-
ten "Level B" documentation according to 02320.10(c).
2. Aggregate: Shall meet the requirements of 00330. 16 with a maximum diameter of 25mm to 100mm.
3. Biofilter Bags: Shall meet the requirements of 00280. 1 0(a).
H- 9
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
4. Stakes: Shall be as follows:
a) Supported Sediment Fence: Commercial grade metal posts weighing at least 2 kg/m.
b) Unsupported Sediment Fence: 38mm x 38mm x 1,200mm minimum wooden posts.
c) Bio-filter Bags: 25mm x 50mm x 450mm minimum wooden posts.
4. Wire Mesh: Shall be one millimeter gauge steel- wire mesh with 10mm x 10mm openings.
5. Concrete Masonry Unit: Shall be 200mm x 200mm x 400mm, 70kg concrete building blocks with two 140mm x
140mm openings and 25mm minimum outer wall thickness.
6. Sod: Grass sod shall be grown on agricultural land that is cultivated specifically for turf sod. Sod shall be free of
weeds, diseases, nematodes and insects. Sod shall be mature and not less than 10 months old. Sod shall be machine
cut to a uniform thickness of 16mm or more, excluding top growth and thatch. Broken pieces and torn or uneven ends
will not be accepted. Sod shall be planted within 36 hours of harvest.
7. Prefabricated Filter Insert: Shall be manufactured specifically for collecting sediment in drainage inlets. The insert
shall consist of a porous, geotextile material and include handles and/or fasteners sufficient to keep the insert from
falling into the inlet during maintenance and removal of the insert from the inlet (such as rebar, per 02510.0, sewn
into the fabric).
8. Matting: Materials tested by Texas DOT/TTI Hydraulics and Erosion Control Laboratory shall meet the performance
criteria for the following categories:
a) (Type A) - Slope protection mat for slopes 1 :3 or flatter - clay soils
b) (Type B) - Slope protection mat for slopes 1:3 or flatter - sandy soils
c) (Type C) - Slope protection mat for slopes steeper than 1:3 - clay soils
d) (Type D) - Slope protection mat for slopes steeper than 1:3 - sandy soils
e) (Type E) - Flexible channel liner for shear stress from 0-96 Pa.
f) (Type F) - Flexible channel liner for shear stress from 0-192 Pa.
g) (Type G) - Flexible channel liner for shear stress from 0-287 Pa.
h) (Type H) - Flexible channel liner for shear stress from 0-383 Pa.
i) Check Slot - Shall be as follows:
• Channel Application: Compacted class 25 riprap shall meet the requirements of Section 00390.
• Slope Application: Compacted native material.
j) Staples: Shall be heavy duty pins or U-shaped wires staples as follows:
• Staples: 2mm gage steel wires staples. 25mm "U" width with a length of 150 mm for cohesive soils and 200
mm minimum for non-cohesive soils.
• Pins: 4.75mm diameter steep pin with a 50mm diameter steel washer secured at the head of the pin. The length
shall be 450mm minimum. All mat blanket, staple and other materials shall meet or exceed the manufacturer's
specifications and recommendations. Provide the manufacturer's material and installation specifications to the
Agency prior to installation.
10. Temporary Mulching: Shall be free of noxious weed seeds, plants and other substances detrimental to plant life.
The kind of mulch material(s) acceptable for use will are shown belo
a) Hydromulching: Cellulose fiber shall be produced from a single, or combination of, virgin wood or straw, or
paper fiber product(s) approved by the Agency. Process the wood or straw mulch so that the fibers remain uni-
formly suspended under agitation in water. The processed mulch shall have the ability to cover and hold grass
seed in contact with soil and shall exhibit no growth or germination-inhibiting factors. The wood or straw fiber
shall have moisture-absorption and percolation properties to form a blotter-like ground cover. Ship wood or
straw cellulose fiber in packages of uniform mass (plus or minus 5 percent) and label with the manufacturer's
name and air-dry mass.
b) Straw: Straw mulch for non-hydroseeding applications shall be straw from bentgrass, bluegrass, fescue or
ryegrass singly or in combination. If no grass seed straw is available, straw from barley, oat, or wheat is
H- 10
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
allowed if approved by the Ayency. The straw shall not he moldy, caked, decayed or of otherwise low quality.
Submit veriiication Irom the supplier that the straw is free of noxious weeds. Acceptable documentation sub-
mitted shall show either ( I ) that the straw source is from an "Oregon Certified Seed" field, or (2) the seed lab
test results of the seed harvested from the straw meet minimum Oregon Certified Seed quality for weed seed
content. The minimum requirements of Oregon certified seed are as published in the current year's Oregon Cer-
tified Seed Handbook available from County Extension Offices or Oregon State University.
c) Tackifier: Shall be commercially available, containing no agents toxic to plant life. The tackifier shall be either
a liquid stabilizing emulsion or a dry powder tackifier complying with the following:
• Liquid Stabilizer Emulsion - Shall be a liquid polyvinyl acetate using emulsion resins and containing 60 percent
(plus or minus 1 percent) total solids by mass. When diluted with water, and upon drying, the emulsion shall
form a transparent, net-like film having a permeability that allows exchange of air and moisture and has an
effective life of one year or more.
• Dry Powder Tackifier - Shall consist of one or more active hydrocolloids from natural plant sources which will
hydrate in water and blend with other slurry materials. Upon application and drying it shall tack the slurry par-
ticles to the soil surface, and exhibit no growth or germination-inhibiting factors.
1 1 . Plastic Sheeting: Plastic slope protection, anchor system and erosion protection at the toe of the plastic with a
minimum thickness of 0.15 mm. The anchoring system shall have the following standards:
a) Anchoring weights30 kg minimum each, with non-puncture characteristics.
b) Tethers - Cords or ropes with adequate strength to support the anchoring weights on the slope.
c) Chain Link Fence - New or used material shall meet the requirements of 03010.20.
d) Stakes - Commercial grade metal posts shall weigh at least 2 kg/m.
e) Toe Protection - Class 25 rip rap shall meet the requirements of Section 00390.
12. Sandbags: 610 mm x 300 mm x 150 mm durable, weather-resistant, tightly woven bags sufficient to prohibit
leakage of filler material. Bags shall be filled with firmly packed sand filler material weighing at least 34 kg.
13. Temporary Scour Holes: Class 50 riprap shall meet the requirements of Section 00390.
14. Sediment Barriers include the following:
a) Bio-filter Bag - Shall meet the requirements of 00280. 1 0(a).
b) Brush Barrier - Shall consist of woody debris 150 mm in diameter maximum, or topsoil strippings. Sediment
Fence Geotextile shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide written "Level B" docu-
mentation according to 02320.10(c).
c) Filter Berm and Rock Filter - Aggregate shall; meet the requirements of 00330.16 with a maximum diameter of
25 mm to 100 mm. Subgrade Geotextile shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide
written "Level B" documentation according to 02320.10(c).
d) Sand Bags - Shall meet the requirements of 00280.10(1).
e) Stakes - Shall conform to the following:
• Biofilter Bags - 25 mm x 50 mm x 450 mm minimum wood posts
• Brush Barrier - 25 mm x 50 mm x 450 mm minimum wood posts.
• Straw Bales - 38 mm x 25 mm x 900 mm minimum wood posts.
• Wattle - 25 mm x 25 mm x 600 mm minimum wood posts.
f) Straw Bale - Shall be standard 20 kg to 30 kg rectangular bales that are wire-bound or string-tied. Straw mate-
rial shall be straw from bentgrass, bluegrass, fescue, or ryegrass singly or in combination. If no grass seed straw
is available, straw from barley, oat or wheat is allowed if approved by the Agency. The straw shall not be
moldy, caked, decayed or of otherwise low quality. Submit verification from the supplier that the straw is free
of noxious weeds. Acceptable documentation submitted shall show either (1) that the straw source is from an
"Oregon Certified Seed" field, or (2) the seed lab test results of the seed harvested from the straw meet mini-
mum, Oregon Certified Seed quality for weed seed content./ The minimum requirements of Oregon certified
seed are as published in the cunent year's Oregon Certified Seed Handbook available from County Extension
H- 11
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Offices or Oregon State University.
g) Wattle - Shall be manufactured from rice or coconut straw and shall be between 200 mm and 260 mm in diam-
eter. The straw shall not be moldy, caked, decayed or of otherwise low quality. Submit verification from the
supplier that the straw is free of noxious weeds. Acceptable documentation submitted shall show the seed lab
test results of the seed harvested from the straw meet minimum Oregon Certified Seed quality for weed seed
content. The minimum requirements of Oregon certified seed are as published in the current year's Oregon Cer-
tified Seed Handbook available from County Extension Offices or Oregon State University. The straw shall be
wrapped in a tubular plastic netting. The netting shall have a minimum strand thickness of 0.08 mm, a knot
thickness of 1.4 mm, and a weight of 32.6 grams per meter (plus or minus 10 percent) and shall be made from
85 percent high density polyethylene, 14 percent ethyl vinyl acetate and 1 percent color for UV inhibition.
15. Sediment fence specifications are as follows:
a) Geotextile - Shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide written "Level B" documenta-
tion according to 02320.10(c).
b) Posts - Shall conform to the following:
• Sediment Fence, Supported - Commercial grade metal posts weighing at least 2 kg/m.
• Sediment Fence, Unsupported - 38 mm x 38 mm x 1200 mm minimum wooden posts.
• Wire Mesh - 2 mm gauge steel-wire mesh with 51 mm x 51 mm openings. A perforated polymeric mesh of
equivalent grab tensile strength (3100 N), in accordance with ASTM D4632, may be substituted for the steel-
wire mesh.
16. Temporary Sediment Trap specifications are as follows:
a) Geotextile - Shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide written "Level B" documenta-
tion according to 02320.10(c).
b) Aggregate and Rock - Shall meet the requirements of 00330.16 with a maximum diameter varying from 19 to
38 nrun for aggregate and 75 to 150 mm for rock.
17. Temporary Slope Drains: Shall meet the requirements of Section 02410 for plastic pipe, or Section 02420 for
metal pipe. End sections, pipe stubs and elbow sections shall be from 150 to 30() mm in diameter. Refer to the plans
and special provisions for contributing area and diameter. If the contributing area is not established, use 300 nrun
diameter.
18. Slope Berm: Shall be common material used for embankment construction or aggregate. Aggregate Base mate-
rial shall meet the requirements of 00330.16 with a maximum diameter of 25 mm to 100 mm.
19. Tire Wash Facility specifications are as follows:
a) Aggregate: Aggregate Base material shall meet the requirements of Sections 00641 and 02630.
b) Reinforcing Steel: Reinforcing steel shall meet the requirements of 02510.10, with a minimum diameter of 22.2
mm.
c) Geotextile: Subgrade geotextile shall meet the requirements of Sections 00350 and 02320. Provide written
"Level B" documentation according to 02320.10(c).
Mulching Application Specifications
Straw Mulch
Apply on slopes 1 : 1.5 or flatter. Spread straw mulch by hand or blower. Place approximately 50 mm deep, in loose
condition, at a rate between 4.5 and 6.7 Mg/ha of dry mulch. Place straw mulch so that it is loose enough for sunlight
to penetrate and air to circulate, but dense enough to shade the ground, reduce water evaporation, and materially
reduce soil erosion. Anchor using hydraulically applied tackifier, crimping disc, or sheep's-foot roller approved by
the Agency or methods specified in the special provisions.
• Blower - Blower equipment shall use air pressure with an adjustable spout that uniformly applies dry mulch at
constantly measured rates. Apply the materials using a sweeping, horizontal motion of the nozzle.
H-12
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Hydromulch
Place waterborne cellulose fiber material using hydraulic equipment which continuously mixes and agitates the
slurry and applies the mixture uniformly through a pressure-spray system providing a continuous, noniluctuation
delivery. Distribution and discharge lines shall be large enough to prevent stoppage and be equipped with a set of
hydraulic discharge spray nozzles that will provide a uniform distribution of the slurry. Apply the materials using a
sweeping, horizontal motion of the nozzle. Hydraulically apply at the following spread rates:
• Slopes 1 : 1 .3 or Hatter - 2.7 Mg/ha based on dry fiber weight.
• Slopes steeper than 1 : 1 .5 - 3.4 Mg/ha cellulose fiber material that incudes a tackifier.
Tack - Hydraulically Applied
Hydromulch or straw mulch may be tackified using hydraulically applied liquid stabilizer emulsions or dry powder
tacking agents at the following rates of application:
1 . Liquid Stabilizer Emulsions - Apply at the following liters per hectare rates unless the manufacturer recommends
a greater rate of application
a) Long term control of exposed soil surfaces: 325 l/lia diluted at 20: 1 . For steep slopes with raveling small rocks:
435 1/ha diluted at 10:1.
b) Seeding, Fertilizing or Mulching: 270 1/ha diluted at 30: 1 .
c) Dust Control: 270 1/ha diluted with water at a ration of 30: 1.
2. Dry Powder Tackifier - Apply at the following kilograms per hectare rates unless the manufacturer recommends
a greater rate of application:
a) 1 :2 slopes and flatter: 67 kg/ha mixed with hydromulch fibers at the rate specified.
b) Slopes steeper than 1:2: 112 kg/ha mixed with hydromulch fibers at the rate specified.
c) Overspray for tacking pre-applied combinations of or singularly applied straw mulch, seed, or fertilizer: 90 kg/
ha with 880 kg of hydromulch fiber.
d) Dust control and short term stabilization of exposed soil surfaces: 157 kg/ha.
Tack - Mechanically Applied
1 . Straw Mulch may be mechanically tackified using a crimping disk or sheep's-foot roller.
a) Crimping Disc - A heavy disk with flat, scalloped discs approximately 6 mm thick, having dull edges and
spaced no more than 230 mm apart.
b) Sheep's-foot Roller - Modified sheep's-foot roller equipped with straight studs, made of approximately 20 mm
steel plate, placed approximately 200 mm apart and staggered. The studs shall not be less than 150 mm long nor
more than 150 mm wide and shall be rounded to prevent withdrawing the straw from the soil. The roller shall
be of such mass as to incorporate the straw sufficiently into the soil providing a uniform surface cover.
Plastic Sheeting
Place plastic sheeting on disturbed, temporary slopes where immediate protection is required and mulching or other
methods of soil stabilization are not feasible. Steep slopes include vertical excavations for retaining walls and other
temporary soil excavations and embankments related to structural work. Cover exposed soils and secure tightly in
place using an anchoring system consisting of sandbags, chain link fence, or other approved methods. The anchoring
system shall not puncture the plastic. Trench plastic at the top of slope and secure adequately to maintain cover dur-
ing reasonably expected conditions in the area. Direct water away from areas above the plastic to prevent erosion
from undermining the plastic. Control drainage from areas covered by the plastic sheeting so that the discharge
occurs onto the toe protection.
H- 13
Appendix H. Erosion Control Plan
Table H-2 Specified ODOT Seed Mixture for Coast Range
Botanical Name (Common Name)
Minimum *(PLS) per surface
hectare (kg/ha)
Agrostis tenuis (Colonial Bentgrass)
3
Festuca rubra (Creeping Red Fescue)
11
Festuca rura commutata (Chewings Fescue)
11
Lolium perenne (Perennial Ryegrass)
17
Trifolium repens Grassland Hiiia (New Zealand White Clover)
2
Total
44
PLS - Pure Live Seed
H- 14
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Appendix I.
Watersheds and Streams
The following changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement were made in Appendix
• Additional information, including crossing method was added to the tables in Appendix 1.
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
1
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
II
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
2
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
II
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
3
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
4
A
05-10
Powder-
house
Canyon
Drive
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
3
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
6
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
7
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
X
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
Lower S. Fork Umpqua
9
A
P
15-20
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
10
A
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
11
A
1
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
12
A
1
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
13
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
14
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
15
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollaki/Lookingglass
16
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
17
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
18
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
19
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
20
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
21
A
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
I- 1
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Metliod
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
22
A
I
00-05
Private
ditch
pavement
11
Ollala/Lookingglass
23
A
P
10-15
Morgan
Creek
Private
ditch
pavement
22
Ollala/Lookingglass
24
A
1
00-05
Private
ditch
pavement
Ollala/Lookingglass
25
A
I
00-05
Private
ditch
pavement
Ollala/Lookingglass
26
B
P
05-10
Private
ditch
pavement
Ollala/Lookingglass
27
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
28
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
29
B
P
00-05
Private
ditch
pavement
Ollala/Lookingglass
30
B
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
31
B
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
32
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
33
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
34
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
35
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
36
B
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
37
B
P
10-15
Rock Cr.
(south of
BPA
ROW)
Private
ditch
powerline
22
Ollala/Lookingglass
38
B
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
39
B
P
05-10
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
40
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
41
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
42
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
43
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
44
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
45
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
46
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
47
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
48
B
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
Ollala/Lookingglass
1-2
Appendix I. WatershecJs and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Kxisting
('orridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
49
B
P
05-10
Tenmile
Cr.
Private
ditch
pavement
22
Ollala/Lookingglass
50
B
I
00-05
BLM
ditch
powerline
11
Ollala/Lookingglass
51
C
I
00-05
BLM
ditch
powerline
11
Ollala/Lookingglass
52
C
I
00-05
BLM
ditch
powerline
II
E. Fork Coquille
53
D
P
10-15
Knapper
Cr,
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
54
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
55
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
56
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
57
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
58
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
59
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
60
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
61
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
62
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
63
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
64
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
65
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
66
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
67
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
6S
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
I- 3
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Widtli
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
linown)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
69
D
P
05-10
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
70
D
P
20-25
E. Fork
Coquille
County
bridge
gravel rd.
0
E. Fork Coquille
71
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
72
D
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
73
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
74
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
75
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
76
D
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
77
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
78
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
79
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
80
D
P
05-10
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
81
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
82
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
83
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
84
D
P
20-25
E. Fork
Coquille
County
bridge
gravel rd.
0
E. Fork Coquille
85
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
86
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
1-4
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
I'eremiial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
('n»,ssin}i
Method
Kxistinji
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
87
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
88
D
I
00-05
County
untlcr cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
89
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
90
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
91
D
P
05-10
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
92
D
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
93
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
E. Fork Coquille
94
D
P
15-20
Brummit
Cr.
County
drill
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
95
D
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
96
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
97
D
P
15-20
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
98
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
99
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
100
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
101
D
P
10-15
China Cr.
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
E. Fork Coquille
102
D
P
00-05
Bills Cr,
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
E. Fork Coquille
103
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
104
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
I- 5
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
105
D
1
00-05
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
106
D
P
00-05
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
E. Fork Coquille
107
D
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
108
D
P
10-15
Steel Cr.
County
bridge
pavement
0
E. Fork Coquille
109
D
P
10-15
Hantz Cr.
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
E. Fork Coquille
110
D
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
E. Fork Coquille
111
D
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
E. Fork Coquille
112
D
P
00-05
BLM
ditch
powerline
11
E. Fork Coquille
113
D
P
20-25
Cherry Cr.
Private
drill
powerhne
0
N. Fork Coquille
114
D
P
25-30
Middle
Cr.
CBW
Road
drill
powerline
0
N. Fork Coquille
115
D
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
N. Fork Coquille
116
E
1
00-05
Private
ditch
pavement
11
N. Fork Coquille
117
E
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
N. Fork Coquille
118
E
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
N. Fork Coquille
119
E
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
N. Fork Coquille
120
F
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
N. Fork Coquille
121
G
P
90
N. Fork of
Coquille
R.
Private
drill
powerline
0
N. Fork Coquille
122
G
Seasonal
Wetland
300
Fairview
wetland
Private
ditch
grass
111
N. Fork Coquille
123
G
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
N. Fork Coquille
124
G
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
N. Fork Coquille
125
G
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
N. Fork Coquille
126
G
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
N. Fork Coquille
1-6
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(il
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
127
G
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
N. Fork Coquille
128
H
00-05
Counly
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
N. Fork Coquille
129
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
130
H
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
131
H
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
132
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
133
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
134
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
135
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
136
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
137
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
138
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
139
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
140
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
141
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
142
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
143
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
144
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
I- 7
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
145
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Middle Main Coquille
146
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
147
H
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
148
H
1
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
149
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
gravel rd.
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
150
H
P
05-10
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
151
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
152
H
P
05-10
Panther
Cr.
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
153
H
P
05-10
Cardwell
Cr.
County
over cul-
vert
pavement
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
154
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
155
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
156
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
157
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
158
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
159
H
P
10-15
Catching
Cr.
County
drill
pavement
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
160
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
161
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
162
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streanns
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
St ITU 111
No.
Se};nieiit
Intermittent
IVienniiil
(l/I')
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing;
Metliod
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
163
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
164
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
165
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
166
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
167
H
I
00-05
County
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
168
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
169
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
170
H
I
00-05
County
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
171
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
172
H
I
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
173
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
174
H
P
00-05
County
under cul-
vert
pavement
23
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
175
H
Wetland
1000
isthmus
Slough
bottoms
Private
ditch
pasture
370
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
176
H
P
400
Isthmus
Slough
east end
Private
drill
pasture
40
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
177
1
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
17S
1
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
179
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
180
P
10-15
Shingle-
house
Slough
tributary
Private
drill
powerline
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
181
P
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
II
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
182
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
I- 9
Appendix I. Watersheds and Streams
Table I-l. Stream and Wetland Crossing Detail for the Proposed Action (Continued)
Stream
No.
Segment
Intermittent
Perennial
(I/P)
Width
(ft.)
Stream
Name
(if
known)
Land
Owner
Crossing
Method
Existing
Corridor
Cut&
Fill
(yd.)
Watershed
183
I
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
184
J
P
10-15
Coalbank
Slough
tributary
Private
drill
powerline
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
185
J
I
00-05
Coal-bank
Slough
tributary
Private
drill
powerline
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
186
K
I
00-05
County
over cul-
vert
powerline
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
187
K
1
00-05
Private
ditch
powerline
11
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
188
K
P
05-10
Blossom
Gulch &
wetlands
Private
drill
powerline
0
Lower Coos/Coos Bay
10
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance Plan
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation
and Maintenance Plan
The following changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement were made to Appendix J.
• A revised Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance has replaced the former
Appendix J.
Prepared by:
Steven Shute, PE
Pipeline Solutions, Inc.
RO. Box 1054
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
J- 1
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVIaintenance
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation
& Maintenance
Construction Methods and Operations
The design, construction, testing and operation of the pipehne are addressed in US DOT gas pipeline safety regula-
tions at 49 CFR Pail 192. Coos Pipeline will meet or exceed all relevant regulations applicable to gas transmission
pipelines. Coos County will contract with a qualified operator to operate and maintain the gas transmission system
under Part 192. The Contract operator will be required to formulate and follow a detailed Operation and Mainte-
nance Plan (O&M) for this system, including an Emergency Procedures Plan.
This section addresses some of the major issues of design, construction and operation of the 12-inch mainline. The
smaller laterals will be built and run to the same standards outlined here, in the operator's O&M and Emergency
plans, and in 49 CFR Part 192.
Project Design Criteria
The proposed natural gas pipeline would originate at an existing Williams Gas pipeline just south of Roseburg;
extend southwest for approximately 60 miles where it would terminate at a distribution facility that would be built in
Coos Bay. The line will take gas at Williams' operating pressure and deliver without pressure regulation to various
delivery points in Douglas and Coos counties. Williams' system in the Roseburg area is currently limited to maxi-
mum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 896 pounds per square inch (psi). However, other parts of its system
have been expanded and up-rated to 960 psi. The Coos Pipeline will be rated at 1000 pounds/square inch (psi) to
anticipate any system upgrades that Williams might make in the near future.
Pipe Design
Pipe design is covered in Part 192 Subpart C (starting at paragraph 192.101 ). Pipe strength specifications depend on
population density and MAOP. Most of the pipeline will be constructed of pipe with the following specifications:
• 12-3/4-inch outside diameter .250 inch wall API 5LX-52 carbon steel line pipe
• Specified Minimum Yield Strength: 2039 psi
• Typical Operating Pressure at Williams: 600 to 800 psi
• Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure: 1000 psi (Class 3)
• Minimum Test Pressure: 1500 psi (Class 3)
More than 90 percent of the route is very rural, with 10 or fewer buildings per mile for human occupancy specified at
192.5 as a Class 1 location. Some scattered portions of the route are in Class 2 locations near rural communities with
11 to 45 buildings per mile. Some of those areas such as Fairview and Libby could become Class 3 locations (46 or
more homes per mile). The pipeline passes within 100 yards of Lookingglass School and Coos Country Club, both
gathering places which could also be defined as Class 3, if occupied by at least 20 persons at least 5 days per week for
10 weeks per year. To avoid any confusion between class locations and different pipe specifications, the entire pipe-
line will be built and tested to Class 3 specifications
Extra Strengtli Pipe
In some areas where strength and reliability are especially critical, the pipeline will be built with heavier wall thick-
ness pipe. This extra-strength pipe can withstand higher test and operating pressures:
• 12-3/4-inch outside diameter .375-inch wall API 5LX-52 carbon steel line pipe
J-2
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
• Specified Minimum Yield Strength: 3059 psi
The communities of Loolcingglass, Dora, Fairview, Sumner, Coos City (country club area), Libby and the outskirts of
Coos Bay now have (or could eventually have) Class 3 areas. Heavier pipe will be used in these potential Class 3
areas and all bores and many stream, wetland and road crossings.
Test Design
Part 192 Subpart J specifies testing procedures. Part 192.619 requires the test pressure to be 150 percent of MAOP at
Class 3 locations. The minimum required test pressure at any point during the test will be 1500 psi, to assure that
every point along the system can be operated to 1000 psi MAOP.
Parts 192.503 and 505 address other test requirements. The test must maintain pressure for at least S hours. Natural
gas can be used as a test medium, but the maximum test pressure is insufficient for the desired MAOP in any class
location. Air or inert gas (usually nitrogen) also has a pressure limitation, but can be used to qualify the entire pipe-
line for 1000 psi MAOP in Class 2 areas.
There are two further limitations to nitrogen testing: any occupied building within 100 yards would have to be evac-
uated during the test; and existing or potential Class 3 areas would have to be separately hydrotested. Because of
these limitations most, of the pipeline will be tested with water (hydrotested) to allow unrestricted Class 3 operations.
Hydrotesting is a common practice with little risk, even with the high pressures that are routinely used. Clean water
is pumped into the pipeline at one end, usually pushing a foam plug or "pig" in front to eliminate air. When the pipe-
line is full, a high pressure pump is used to raise the internal pressure up to the design pressure. Since water is nearly
incompressible, this additional pressure takes very few gallons of water. Conversely, even a tiny leak in the pipe is
very evident, as the pressure recorder shows a definite drop.
Every point in a test section must experience the minimum required test pressure. Since water is a dense medium, the
ups-and-downs of the terrain translate into changes in pressure within the pipe, at about I psi per 2.4 feet of elevation
change. The Coos Pipeline starts at Williams at 600 ft elevation (or "MSL" for feet above mean sea level), rises to
approximately 3000 ft at Reston Ridge, and drops to near sea level near Coos Bay. The range in pressures will
exceed the limits of the 12-inch line pipe.
Because of that, the test sections must be carefully chosen to ensure the minimum test pressures at all high elevations
points, while not exceeding the Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) rating of the pipe at the lowest point.
The mainline will be tested in at least 4 sections. The lateral pipe has a wider pressure range and can be tested as one
section.
Testing and Inspection:
Weld testing and inspection: Each weld will be visually inspected by a certified welding inspector, and X-rayed to
detect invisible defects.
Hydrostatic leak test: Every joint of the pipe is hydrostatically tested (e.g.. pressure-tested with water at the factory)
to comply with the DOT and American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications. The finished pipeline would be
hydrostatically pressure tested to at least 1.500 psi, to detect leakage or failure. This is 150 percent of pipeline's
MAOP. Because of the elevation differences, testing must be done in sections to avoid exceeding the SMYS of the
pipe (2,039 psi).
Corrosion Protection
Part 192 Subpart I specifies that all new buried steel pipelines must be protected from corrosion. The pipeline must
be coated with a suitable protective and electrically insulating coating. Coos Pipeline will have a 3-layered epoxy
and polyethylene coating system. The welds are covered with a polyethylene heat-shrink sleeve, and the entire coat-
ing is electrically inspected for coating faults as it is lowered into the ditch. Select padding and rock shield will be
used to protect the coating from damage.
DOT also requires active corrosion prevention, provided with "cathodic protection" applied during construction or
soon after. A system of sacrificial anodes is connected to the pipeline. The anodes produce an electrical current
which flows through the earth and collects on the pipeline cathode. The anodes conode and the pipeline is protected
J- 3
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
as long as this current flows. Anodes can be made of magnesium, which produces a natural galvanic current when
coupled with steel, or graphite or steel anodes, through which current is driven from an external impressed current
source.
The effectiveness of the coating and cathodic protection is easily checked with a volt meter and electrode at least
once per year, per DOT. Cathodic test stations are installed about every mile. A wire is attached directly to the pipe
from the station, and is used to check the cathodic protection level, and to attach an electronic locator to find the pipe.
Block Valves
Block valve settings provide means of stopping flow through the pipeline, with blowdown valves to release gas pres-
sure if necessary. Part 192.179 specifies maximum distances between block valves. Coos Pipeline will have several
valves capable of automatic (self-closing) or remote (offsite human or computer) operation. Coos Pipeline will also
install check valves in one or more block valves, which allow flow in only one direction, and prevent backflow.
These types of valves can reduce the response and exposure time in the event of a line break.
The contract pipeline operator will have final authority over the selection and installation of these types of valves.
All valves are checked, lubricated and operated at least one per year, per DOT.
Other Pipeline Appurtenances
Other sections of Part 192 address design, construction and operation of other pipeline appurtenances. Line markers,
cathodic test stations, exposed sections, meters and regulators are some of the design features covered by Part 192.
I. General Methods
1. Safety
Fire hazard (in situ flammables and flammable materials) - During construction, the contractor will be required to
abide
by state fire regulations. Any flammable materials must be transported, contained, and used in accordance with
Office of
a) Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Any empty containers (if applicable) must be disposed of prop-
erly, in accordance with EPA requirements.
b) Toxic materials hazard - All toxic materials must be used in accordance with OSHA standards.
c) Explosive materials hazard - All explosives must be used in accordance with OSHA requirements.
d) Mechanical hazard: The construction contractor would be required to follow OSHA requirements for operation of all
equipment at the construction site.
e) Electrical Hazard: Within Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Pacific Power & Light (PP&L) rights-of-way, the
high voltage powerlines could induce a current in the pipeline, especially long welded sections exposed in or above the
trench. The construction contractor shall be required to have and follow a plan to continuously ground the pipe, such that
construction workers would be protected from electrical shock by these induced currents.
f) Susceptibihty of hazard to public - The public is susceptible to hazard under the following conditions:
• If the contractor fails to follow required safety procedures during public's presence at or near the construction
site;
• If the public enters the construction site without proper approval;
• If, during the public's presence at or near the construction site, an act of God occurs.
J-4
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
II. Access Road Construction Methods
No new roads would be built. BPA and PP&L currently maintain all cxisiting roads and access roads within the pro-
posed action corridor.
III. Pipeline Construction Methods
1. Work area:
Pipeline construction would require a working space, which varies from 20 to 60 feet wide. In the Coos Bay Wagon
Road (CBW Road), construction would take place entirely within the roadbed, which is about 20 feet wide. In a few
areas along the power corridor with steep side slopes, the disturbed area could be 60 feet wide. In most sections, the
area of disturbance would be 30 to 40 feet wide. Some grading would be required to install the pipe, but the grade
would be substantially restored to its original state before revegetation.
2. Assembly and Refueling Areas:
Assembly and refueling activities would be confined to designated roads.
3. Road Closures:
Roads would be closed only when construction is active and within the road right-of-way. No night construction is
expected, and crews normally work 6 days per week. Most paved road crossings would be bored-under, which
would require traffic control (flaggers) but no road closure. Work within the CBW Road would force road closure
during the ditch, lay and backfill stages. In the remote section east of Sitkum ( 10 miles), the CBW Road would be
closed during daytime working hours, and re-opened in the evenings and off-days. There may be some night closure
in the most difficult sections. In the canyon section from Sitkum to Dora (4 miles), the wider working space should
allow limited traffic flow during the day, such as on the hour. Most work along the CBW Road would require traffic
control for other operations, such as preparation and final cleanup.
4. Site preparation prescriptions:
In the powerline corridor, herbaceous vegetation within 20 feet of the trench is removed. The following types of sites
are expected to occur along the proposed pipeline route. Each type of construction has an estimated amount of time
to prepare the right-of-way and excavate the ditch. After the ditch is prepared, then stringing, welding, laying and
backfill can be done at up to one mile per day.
a) Level or gently sloping surfaces on clay or silty soils: Site preparation consists of clearing of brush and trees
mentioned above. Typical progress would be 4,000 to 10,000 linear feet per day.
b) Moderate to steep topography: Temporary grading would be required in topography too steep for safe oper-
ation of trenching and pipe laying equipment. The scope and nature of soil disturbance would be consistent
with that found in the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) (Appendix H in the FEIS). Progress along slopes is slower
than progress on soils of the same type on level or gentle slopes, depending upon the slope gradient, but would
typically range from 2,000 to 4,000 feet per day. The very steep approach to Reston Ridge would be slower.
c) Road bed site: Pipeline construction within or near the road bed (the width between the road shoulders)
requires traffic management (signs and flaggers), pavement cutting and pavement disposal. Typical progress is
1 ,000 to 2,000 linear feet per day.
d) Bedrock or rock face situations: Burial of the pipeline within rock sites requires extra work ripping, rock
sawing or trenching, or drilling and blasting. Rock sawing and trenching typically progress at 500 to 1,000 feet
per day. Drilling and blasting activities normally progress at 200 to 400 feet per day.
e) Talus sites: Digging within talus sites requires site preparation similar to that of steep slopes (temporary grad-
ing to enable safe equipment operations), with the additional requirement of constructing pre -engineered soil
retention structures (usually rock-filled cages) at the foot of the cut slope, which prevents soil movement above
the work area. There are no known talus sites along the corridor.
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
f) Along streams: Construction parallel to streams would be planned to avoid operation of equipment within
riparian zones. Procedures would follow the ECP (Appendix H in the FEIS), using sediment barriers to prevent
materials from entering the stream. The rate of progress depends upon soil conditions and topography; a typi-
cal maximum rate is 1 ,000 to 2.000 linear feet per day.
g) Stream crossings: Stream crossings would be accomplished using one of the following methods, depending
upon existing conditions.
• Large or particularly sensitive streams, estuaries and large wetlands would be crossed with directional-drilling
equipment. Site preparation is usually minimal - the entry and target locations are carefully chosen to be tlat
and open and the entry point would have a small excavation for the initial drill entry. Directional-drill activity
takes from 3 to 10 days, depending on length, rock strata, and complexity. See subsection 7a for details, as well
as Figures J-1 through J-3.
• Small streams with active flows would be crossed using a Bag-and-Flume method. The stream is dammed with
sandbags to temporarily contain stream flow and a flume directs flow around the construction area. After 'bag-
ging and fluming', the streambed is trenched using conventional excavators and rock removal techniques. The
stream banks may be cut back to soften the approach angle, then restored after construction to original grade.
Such a crossing would typically take less than a day (6-8 hours).
• Trenching across a dry stream bed or runoff channel does not require additional site preparation. Site prepa-
ration and pipeline crossing of an inactive small stream (intermittent) would take between one and two hours.
h) Wetland crossings: Wetland crossings would be directionally-drilled to avoid impacts (Figures J-1 through J-
3).
5. Installation:
The pipe would be installed to a minimum depth of 36 inches to top of pipe. In bedrock, installation would be a min-
imum of 24 inch depth to top of pipe. Bedrock is expected for 10-20 percent of the route between Reston and Dora.
Installation process: All equipment would be operated in accordance with OSHA and DEQ standards and guidelines.
This includes procedures for operating equipment in or near streams, wetlands, talus slopes, steep terrain, and
exposed bedrock sites. The following operations are included in the installation process:
a) Ditch digging
b) Pipe joint welding
c) Lay pipe and backfill ditch (replace and compact original soil)
d) Tie-ins (includes installation of block valves, road bores, and stream crossings)
e) Testing & Cleanup (hydrostatic testing, install line markers and cathodic test stations, painting and locking of
block valves)
6. Pipeline bedding:
Along most of the route, the native soil would be returned to the ditch and compacted around the pipe. In areas
where the backfill is too coarse or rocky and would damage the coating, then pipe padding material (such as sand or
volcanic ash) is imported to compact around the pipe, with native backfill above that. In the segment within the
CBW Road, most of the backfill would be imported road base. The excess native soil would be hauled and stored for
use by Coos County in its ongoing road department operations.
J-6
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
Directional-Drilling and Reaming Procedures
Figure J-1 Directional-Drill Crossing: Pilot Hole
Figure J-2: Reaming Process
Figure J-3: Pull-Back
J- 7
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVlaintenance
7. Pipeline installation procedures for sensitive or difficult sites:
a) Directional boring of stream and wetland crossings: Horizontal drilling beneath the stream bed requires drill-
ing at a shallow angle from one side of the stream, boring at a safe distance beneath the stream bed, and exiting
on the other side well away from the stream channel. A small "pilot" hole is drilled first, typically about 4 to 6
inches in diameter (Figure J-1). From the exit point, a larger reamer is pulled back through the pilot hole to
enlarge the bore. This process continues until the bore is 30 percent to 50 percent oversize, such as a 16-inch
bore for this 12-inch pipeline (see Figure J-2). The pipeline for the entire length of the bore is welded together
on the opposite side of the drilhng unit. After the joints are coated and pipe is pressure tested, it is pulled back
through the ground-bore in a continuous operation, (see Figure J-3).
b) Steep terrain and sharp turns require the pipe to be bent with specialized pipe bending equipment. After back-
fill, water bars and other erosion control measures will be applied in steep areas.
c) Narrow roadway requires use of smaller crews and equipment working more slowly due to the reduced width
of the working space.
d) Bedrock sometimes cannot be broken with a tractor-mounted excavator. Specialized techniques for rock
removal are used, depending on the hardness and fracturing of the rock layer. Rock trenchers have carbide
teeth and are effective on softer rock. Rock saws are also used to cut a well-defined trench wall. The hardest
rock requires drilling and blasting.
8. Grade restoration and site revegetation:
Each site would be restored to original grade; the surface would be reseeded to establish native plants in accordance
with the ECP in Appendix H of the FEIS.
9. Cleanup:
All litter and materials remaining after completion of construction would be removed from the site. Equipment
would be removed from the right-of-way as soon as possible, after completion of its assigned task.
Construction Related to Ancillary Facilities
The EIS describes in detail the construction of the 12 inch pipeline to Coos Bay, including the block valves, delivery
and city gate stations, and other appurtenances. Coos County also plans to build smaller pipeline laterals to Coquille,
Myrtle Point and Bandon. NW Natural and possibly the City of Bandon plan to build gas distribution networks in
those towns. The present plans for laterals and distribution networks are described in this document, and are subject
to change. Apart from these projects, there are no ancillary facilities planned.
The following assemblies are required in the proposed action:
a) Meter Station - required at the delivery points from Williams near Roseburg and to NW Natural in Coos Bay.
Each meter station would be fabricated offsite in a controlled welding facility. The station site would need to
be leveled, graveled and fenced. Construction of modest concrete supports will be required for the piping and
metering building. Site preparation, installation and testing take about two weeks for each station.
b) Block valve with blowdowns - required at 5 strategic locations along the route. Each block valve will require
about one day for site preparation, installation and testing.
Pipeline Joining system
The pipe sections would be welded together. A suitable protective coating would be applied over the welded joints to
prevent corrosion of the uncoated weld area.
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVIalntenance
Block valve assembly
This assembly is approximately 4 teet long (Figure J-4) and includes the following:
• Block valve: A 12-inch ball valve is welded directly inline with the buried pipeline. The stainless steel ball
rotates around a steel axle or "stem", which is turned by hand or (for valves 6-inch and larger) a series of gears.
On buried valves such as this, the stem is extended above ground in a pipe casing. These 12-inch valves would
be fitted with gear boxes and hand wheels for manual operation, or with pneumatic or gas-powered operators
for automatic or remote operation. The valve operator would be 30 to 48 inches above ground, and would be
about the same size as a five gallon bucket.
• Blowdown valves: A "blowdown" valve would be positioned vertically from the pipeline, one on each side of,
and about 2 feet away from, the block valve. Each valve consists of a 4-inch pipeline stem extending above
grade. Near its upper end is a valve and a heavy threaded cap (Refer to "Operation Description" or "Pipeline
Shutdown" for a description of the purpose for a blowdown valve.)
• Block valve protection: All valves will be locked with a key available only to pipeline operators. The entire
footprint will be surrounded with a chain link fence with locked gate. Depending on location and traffic vol-
ume, the fence and valve will be protected with concrete or pipe barricades.
Block valve Protection: The entire block valve footing (about 2 feet wide and 8 feet long) would be suitably pro-
tected from physical damage, vandalism and unauthorized operation.
Pipeline Supporting Materials: Native soil, or imported gravel and roadbase material.
Fuels: Diesel would be used for most of the large equipment in the construction project. Gasoline would be used in
transport vehicles.
Chemicals (coolant, lubricants, cleaning materials, etc.): as needed to support the construction machinery and
equipment.
Pipeline markers: DOT requires pipeline markers as needed to delineate the route. These are typically bright yel-
low composite plastic line markers showing location information (station number) and a warning, spaced at about 10
per mile, or more in difficult terrain or populated areas.
Cathodic test stations: Plastic support pipe with copper wire leads to the pipeline would be spaced at intervals of
approximately one mile, to provide for pipeline location and periodic cathodic protection testing.
Erosion control construction materials: See Appendix H of the FEIS.
J- 9
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance
Typical Block Valve Setting
«7
o
T=l.
^
-z linc-
3Jr
to
xia
"Hid
, GRADE
•^^
Figure J-4: Typical Block Valve Setting
J- 10
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVIaintenance
Equipment Required During Construction
Diesel iVcii:hl Iriick with flal-hccl Irailcr and low-boy trailer options, backhoe, bulldozer, side-boom pipe-layer, front-
end loader, air driven tools, inipaet wreneh, various hand tools and equipment necessary lor welding the pipeline seg-
ments together.
Hauling Schedule
The pipeline segments would arrive at either Roseburg or Coos Bay (depending upon shipping methods). Materials
delivery from a Roseburg or Coos Bay storage area would arrive on a just-in-time basis; these materials would then
be placed into their permanent configuration at the construction site within a few days of delivery. Deliveries of pipe
and materials would be expected to occur every day. One full truck load of pipe carries about 1 ,200 feet of pipe.
Therefore, deliveries should not exceed one to two trucks per day.
Construction Schedule
The entire construction sequence - clearing, trenching, pipe string and weld, laying in and backfill, cleanup and
mulching - would typically take place over just a few days for any particular 200 yard segment. Each of those steps
would take about 1 or 2 hours for a short segment, then the noise and dust from the next segment would be greatly
diminished and quickly return to normal. The steps are not usually consecutive, though, as the construction group or
"spread" literally spreads down the coiridor. A typical sequence could be: ground clearing in the morning, ditching
early afternoon, pipe stringing late in the day, weld and backfill next day, cleanup and mulch the third day.
The total length of time for completing of any local segment depends on the type of terrain and speed of travel. On
most of the segments along PP&L or BPA, the entire process would usually be finished over a span of 1 to 3 days.
Steeper sections and road sections could span 3 or 4 days, as digging and logistics are more difficult. The narrowest,
rockiest portions of the CBW Road could take up to 7 days from start to finish. There are just a few short sections
where this could be expected, in the canyons both directions from Sitkum.
The directional-drilling crews and tie-in crews are independent of the mainline spreads. The bores could be done
weeks or months ahead of the mainline (or vice versa), and then a separate tie-in crew would tie together the loose
ends, backfill and cleanup. For any particular short segment, however, the cumulative local impact will be much less
than 7 days.
Construction can be scheduled in accordance with specific time-of-day or time-of-year restrictions applicable to
wildlife or other concerns on public lands.
Labor Force
The construction contractor could employ up to 200 workers distributed among several separate construction groups
or "spreads" in the pipeline corridor. Spreads would merge or divide as needed. In the corridor portions character-
ized by open terrain, each spread could employ a large workforce (30 or more workers). When the terrain is narrow
canyons or steep slopes, the spread would likely be closer to a dozen workers. Additional crews - with just a few
workers each - would accomplish specialized aspects of the project, such as manage road traffic, boring and drilling,
tie-ins, hydrostatic testing, meter station and block valve construction, and erosion control/revegetation tasks.
All work would take place during daylight hours, which are adjustable to any justifiable need throughout the course
of the construction. The operations of the spreads would be managed by the construction contractor's supervisors.
Construction Inspectors
Full-time onsite inspectors will be hired by Coos County to observe different critical phases of construction. These
inspectors have authorization to change contractor procedures, to excavate work already buried, and to shut down
construction if needed, in the pursuit of a high-quality finished pipeline.
11
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVlaintenance
Welding inspectors and X-ray technicians are highly specialized pipeline industry workers, who are onsite to exam-
ine every finished weld joint. Ditch and backfill inspectors watch the trenching, pipe laying and covering/compac-
tion/cleanup process. This inspector will watch the electronic "jeeping" of the coating just before backfill.
Other inspectors watch road and stream crossings and tie-ins to pre-built sections, if separate from the main spread of
construction workers. A chief inspector watches over the whole process and assigns inspectors to tasks as needed.
In addition to the traditional pipeline inspectors, the Coos Pipeline will have other specialty inspectors. An archaeo-
logical consultant will look for disturbance of cultural resources. The ECR will watch for compliance with the ECP.
A wildlife biologist will look for disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Work within public road ROW may be
monitored by a road department inspector.
System Description
Pipeline
The pipeline's expected life span is unlimited. The system components are as follows:
• Delivery station from Williams Gas Pipeline near Roseburg.
• Pipeline (entirely buried except for bridge crossings).
• Block valves, including above-ground "blowdown" valves.
• Magnesium corrosion prevention anodes are buried below the pipe.
• Cathodic test stations are plastic above ground test stations with copper wire leads to a pipeline connection
below ground.
• Line markers (above-ground).
• End-point at City Gate Station at Ocean Boulevard.
A Delivery Station consists of:
• A steel pipe manifold and pigging facilities;
• Pressure regulators (if required);
• Electronic measuring instruments to relay critical parameter data (gas pressure, gas temperature, gas flow rate,
and alarms) to Williams' Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) facility in real-time sequence;
• A meter building (approximately 240 sq. ft.);
• A steel fence surrounding the plot.
City Gate Station
A city gate station is usually built at the edge of a city, to deliver gas from the high-pressure transmission pipeline to
a lower pressure local distribution system. In many ways, the city gate station is exactly analogous to an electrical
substation. A city gate station includes the following:
• Block Valve and Blowdown: A ball valve and single blowdown are the end of the transmission pipeline. The
block valve is the same size as the pipeline, and the blowdown is usually two or three pipe sizes smaller. The
block valve could be buried inhne or above-ground, and could be fitted with pneumatic or gas-powered opera-
tors for automatic or remote operation.
• Meter: A gas meter would be installed to measure the volume of gas flowing to the customer. Meters are usu-
ally fitted with electronic totalizing computers and SCADA equipment to relay flow and pressure information
to a remote monitoring center.
• Pressure Regulators: The city gate stations for the Coos Pipeline will not include pressure regulators. The dis-
tribution entity (Bandon or NW Natural to Coos Bay, Coquille and Myrtle Point) will install regulators as
needed to reduce the pressure to distribution pressure, which is typically 60 psi or less.
• Station Protection: All valves will be locked with a key available only to pipeline operators. The entire foot-
print will be surrounded with a chain link fence with locked gate. Depending on location and traffic volume,
J- 12
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & IVIaintenance
the fence and valve will be protected with concrete or pipe barricades.
Associated Facilities
The Coos County Pipeline would have no other facilities.
Operation Description
The pipeline would operate continuously. The County plans to contract the pipeline operation to an experienced
pipeline operator. A crew of trained operators employed by the pipeline operations contractor would operate and
maintain the pipeline in accordance with DOT requirements and a comprehensive O&M Plan tailored to this system.
The Oregon Public Utilities Commission would routinely inspect the pipeline operations.
Pipeline Capacity:
The 1 2-inch pipeline can transport natural gas at a flow rate of up to 70 million cubic feet per day, assuming a line
pressure of 800 psi. This capacity could be expanded 20 percent by boosting the pressure to 1,000 psi, with the addi-
tion of a compressor station near the Williams delivery connection in Douglas County. At the Williams' current
operating pressures, the Coos pipeline would operate with stresses around 30 to 40 percent of the SMYS of the pipe-
line steel. The addition of a compressor station is allowable and within the prescribed safety limits of the pipe, but
this added capacity is not likely to become necessary.
Pipeline Monitoring:
The contract pipeline operator will be required to monitor pressures and flow rates at critical points in the system.
For example, the Williams delivery station and the Coos Bay city gate are monitoring points. The operator must
monitor conditions full-time 24 hours/7 days, and must be equipped to immediately respond to and solve an abnor-
mal condition. Most candidates for contract operation have 24/7 call centers and control rooms for this purpose.
The operator will have final authority over the selection and installation of remote or automatic valves to be used to
isolate abnormal conditions.
Pipeline Shutdown:
Any or all block valves can be used to inteirupt the flow of the gas in the pipeline. If the pipeline needs to be emp-
tied, the natural gas is "bled oft^' by opening the "blow down" valve within the isolated segment of pipeline.
Maintenance Description
Access roads
All access roads would be maintained to the degree necessary to provide access for pipeline inspection and mainte-
nance. These roads are currently maintained by BPA and PP&L.
Vegetation Removal
Minimal vegetation removal would be required for pipeline maintenance because brush removal is periodically done
for powerline corridor maintenance.
Pipeline Patrols
DOT requires an annual inspection of the entire pipeline right-of-way for encroachments, unauthorized digging
activity, soil erosion, earth movement, drainage problems, and gas leaks.
J- 13
Appendix J Pipeline Design, Construction, Operation & iVIaintenance
Corrosion Control Survey
Cathodic test stations would be located along the pipeline at regular intervals up to a mile. Test stations allow a
direct connection for electronically locating the pipeline, and for checking the corrosion control system. A survey of
the level of cathodic protection is required once per calendar year under DOT Part 192 regulations.
Maintenance of Facilities
Apart from regular patrols, corrosion inspections and painting, the pipeline requires very little maintenance. Block
and blowdown valves must be cycled closed and open once per year and lubricated, if possible. Erosion (such as
sunken ditches) will be addressed as needed with water bars, mulching or other measures taken as necessary to stop
it. There is usually no reason to excavate a section of pipe after construction, except to expose a few feet for utility
crossings or to repair damage done by a third party excavator.
Abandonment Description
In the event the proposed pipeline is permanently abandoned, it would remain empty in its constructed configuration
with all valves in a closed position. If a portion of this abandoned pipeline were to obstruct future construction
projects, or otherwise interfere with the environment, the County would contract an operator to remove the portion(s)
causing the impact, and the resultant openings in the pipeline would be capped.
J- 14
Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species
Appendix K.
Survey and Manage Species
No signiricaiit changes have been made to Appendices K and K-l
Table K-l. Survey and Manage Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Species
Species
Fungi
Allnnrellus avcUaiieiis
Collybia racemosa
Albatrellus caeruleoporus
Cordyceps capitata
Al bat re I Ins ellisii
Cordyceps ophioglossoides
Albatrellus flettii
Cortinarius barlowensis
Arcangeliella camphorata
Cortinarius cyanites
Asterophopra lycoperdoides
Cortinarius depauperatus
Asterophora parasitica
Cortinarius olympianus
Baeospora myriadophylla
Corinarius tabularis
Balsamia nigrens
Cortinarius valgus
Boletus pidcherrimus
Craterellus tubaeformis
Bondarzewia mesenterica
Cudonia monticola
Cantharellus subalbidiis
Cyphillostereum laeve
Catasthelasma ventricosa
Dermocybe humboldtensis
Chalciporus piperatus
Destuntzia fusca
Chamonixia caespitosa
Destuntzia rubra
Chromosera cyanophylla
Endogone oregonensis
Chrysomphalina grossula
Fayodia bisphaerigera
Clavariadelphus ligula
Galerina atkinsoniana
Clavariadelphus occidentalis
Galerina cerina
Clavariadelphus sachalinensis
Galerina heterocystis
Clavariadelphus truncatus
Galerina sphagnicola
Clavulina castanopes v. lignocola
Galerina vittaeformis
K- 1
Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species
Table K-1. Survey and Manage Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants (Continued)
Species
Species
Clitocybe senilis
Gastroboletus turbinatus
Fungi (continued)
Gomphus bonarii
Phaeocollybia kauffmanii
Gyromitra esculenta
Phaeocollybia oregonensis
Gyromitra infula
Phaeocollybia picea
Gyromitra melaleucoide
Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva
Gyromitra montana
Phaeocollybia scatesiae
Helvella elastica
Phaeocollybia sipei
Helvella maculata
Phaeocollybia spadicea
Hydnum umbilicatum
Phellodon atratiis
Hydropus marginellus
Pholiota albivelata
Hygrophorus karstenii
Plectania melastoma
Hypomycs luteovirens
Podostroma alutaceum
Leucogaster citrinus
Pseudcdeuria quinaultiana
Leucogaster microsponis
Ramaria abientina
Macowanites chlorinosmus
Ramaria celerivirescens
Mycena quinaultensis
Ramaria concolorf. tsugina
Mycena tenax
Ramaria conjunctipes v. sparsiramosa
Mythicomyces corneipes
Ramaria coulterae
Neolentinus kauffmanii
Ramaria cyaneigranosa
Neournula pouchetii
Ramaria gelatiniaurantia
Otidea leporina
Ramaria rainierensis
Otidea onotica
Ramaria rubella v. blanda
Otidea smithii
Ramaria rubribrunnescens
Phaeocollybia attenuata
Ramaria rubrievcmescens
Phaeocollybia californica
Ramaria rubripermanens
Phaeocollybia dissUens
Ramaria stuntzii
Fungi (continued)
Lichens
K-2
Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species
Table K-1. Survey and Manage Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants (Continued)
Species
Species
Ramaria suecica
Bryoria subcana
Ramaria verlotensis
Bryoria tortuosa
Rickenella swartzU
Buellia oidalea
Russula mitstelina
Calicium abietinum
Sarcodon fuscoindicus
Calicium glaucellum
Sarcodon imbricatus
Calicium viride
Sarcosoma latahense
Cetrelia cetrarioides
Sarcosphaera coronaria
Chaenotheca chrysocephala
Sowerbyella rhenana
Chaenotheca ferruginea
Sparassis crispa
Chaenotheca furfuracea
Spathularia flavida
Chaenothecopsis pusilla
Stagnicola perplexa
Cladonia norvegica
Thaxterogaster pavelekii
Hypogymnia duplicata
Thaxtewgaster pingue
Lobaria Unit a
Tremiscus helvelloides
Nephroma bellum
Tuber asa
Pannaria saubinetii
Tuber pacificum
Peltigera pacifica
Bryophytes
Platismatia lacunosa
Buxbaumia viridis
PsuedocypheUaria rainierensis
Diplophyllum albicans
Ramalima pollinaria
Diplophyllum plicatum
Ramalina thrausta
Encalyptra brevicolla v. crumiana
Stenocybe clavata
Schistostega petmata
Usnea longissima
Tetraphis geniculata
Vascular Plants
Cypripedium fasciculatum
K- 3
Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species
K-4
Appendix K1. Special Status Species
Appendix Kl. Special Status Species
Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Table Kl-1. Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Species
- . —
Common Name
Fungi
1 Bridgeopoprus nohilissimus
Giant Polypore Fungus
Bryophytes
Andreaea schofieldiana
Moss
Calypogeia sphagnicola
Liverwort
Campylopus schm idii
Moss
Cephaloziella spin igera
Liverwort
Crumia latifoUa
Moss
Cryptoniitrium teneruin
Liverwort
Diplophyllum plicotum
Liverwort
Encalypta hrevicoUa var.criiniiana
Moss
Fimaria muhlenhergii
Moss
LimheUa fryei
Moss
Lophozici la.xa
Liverwort
Pholia sphagnicola
Moss
Polytrichum strictum
Moss
Pseudolenskeella serpentinensis
Moss
Tayloria serrata
Moss
Tripterocladium leucocladulum
Moss
Lichen
Bi-yoha pseudocapillaris
Lichen
Btyoria spiralifera
Lichen
Cladidiuni holanderi
Lichen
K-1- 1
Appendix K1 . Special Status Species
Table Kl-1. Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Species
Common Name
Erioderma sorediatum
Lichen
Hypogymnia pulverata
Lichen
Lichen (continued)
Hypogymnia subphysodes
Lichen
Leioderma sorediatum
Lichen
Nephroma occultum
Lichen
Pilophorus nigricaulis
Lichen
Sulcaria badia
Lichen
Teloschites flavicans
Lichen
Vascular Plants
Arctostaphylos hispidula
hairy manzanita
Artemisia pycnocephala
coastal sagewort
BensonieUa oregana
vensonia
Brodiaea terrestris
dwarf brodiaea
Cardamine nuttalii var gemmata
toothwort
Carex gigas
Siskiyou sedge
Carex macrocephala
bighead sedge
Cicendia quadrangularis
timwort
Cimicifuga elata
tall bugbane
Cochlearia officinalis
spoonwort
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris
Point Reye's
Vascular Plants (continued)
Cypripedium fasciculatum
clustered lady's-slipper
Ericameria arbortescens
golden fleece
Erigeron cerx'inus
Siskiyou daisy
Eriophorum chamissonis
russet cotton-grass
Erysimum menziesii ssp. concinnum
pacific wallflower
Frasera umpquaensis
Umpqua swertia
K-1 -2
Appendix K1. Special Status Species
Table Kl-1. Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Species
Common Name
Gentiana setigera
Waldo gentian
Gilia millefoUata
seaside gilia
Hydwcotyle verticil lata
whorled marsh-pennywort
iMsthenia macrantha ssp. prisca
large-flowered goldfields
lliatnna latibracteata
California globe-mallow
Lilium occidentale
western lily
Limonium califomicum
western marsh-rosemary
Lycopodiella inundata
bog club-moss
Microseris bigelovii
coast microseris
Monardella purpurea
Siskiyou monardella
Montia howellii
Howell's momtia
Vascular Plants (continued)
Oenothera wolfii
Wolf's evening-primrose
Ophioglossum pusillium
adder's-tongue
Pellaea andromedifolia
coffee fern
Phacelia argentea
silvery phacelia
Poa unilateralis
San Francisco bluegrass
Polystichum califomicum
California sword-fern
Rhynchospora capitellata
brownish beakrush
Romanzojfia thoinpsonii
Thompson's mistmaiden
Salix delnortensis
Del Norte willow
Scirpus subterminalis
water clubrush
Sedum laxum ssp. heckneri
Heckner's stonecrop
Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula
coast checker-bloom
Trillium angustipetalum
Siskiyou trillium
Triteleia hendersonii var leachae
Leach's brodiaea
Utricular ia gibba
humped bladderwort
K-1- 3
Appendix K1 . Special Status Species
Table Kl-1. Special Status Fungi, Lichens, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants
Species
Common Name
Utricularia minor
lesser bladderwort
Viola primulifolia ssp.occidentalis
western big violet
Special Status Fish
Table Kl-2. Special Status Fish
Species
Common Name
Oncorhynchiis keta
chum salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch
coho salmon
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.
steelhead trout
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus clarki clarki (Oregon Coast)
cutthroat trout
Table Kl-3. Special Status Invertebrates
Species
Common Name
Pisidium ultramontanum
montane peaclam
Hehninthoglypta hertleini
Oregon shoulderband (snail)
Lanx subrotundata
rotund lanx (snail)
Megomphix hemphilli
Oregon Megomphix (snail)
Monadenia fidelis beryllica
green sideband (snail)
Mondanenia fidelis celeuthia
travelling sideband (snail)
Pristiloma arcticum crateris
Crater Lake tightcoil (snail)
Prophysaon dubiuni
papillose tail-dropper
Bombus franklin i
Franklin's bumblebee
Icaricia Icarioides fenderi
Fender's blue butterfly
K-
Appendix K1 . Special Status Species
Table Kl-3. SpecinI Status Invertebrates
Species
Common Name
Incisalia polia obscura
obscure elfin
Plebejus saepiolus insulcums
insular blue butterfly
Polites marchm
Mardon skipper (butterfly)
Driloleirus ( megascolides) macelfreshi
Oregon giant earthworm
Table Kl-4. Special Status Wildlife
Species
Common Name
Birds
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Marbled Murrelet
Pelecanus occidentalis
Brown Pelican
Bnmto ccmcmdensis leucopareia
Aleutian Canada Goose
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
Accipiter gentilis
Northern Goshawk
Falco peregrinus anatum
American Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Arctic Peregrine Falcon
Speotyno cunicularia hypugaea
Burrowing Owl
Strix occidentalis caurina
Northern Spotted Owl
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Western Snowy Plover
Pooecetes gramineus ajfinis
Oregon Vesper Sparrow
Mammals
Corynorhinus touwnsendii
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat
Myotis thysanodes
Fringed myotis
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Silver-haired bat
Myotis ciliolabrum
Western small-footed bat
Myotis evotis
Long-eared myotis
Myotis volans
Western long-eared bat
K-1
Appendix K1. Special Status Species
Table Kl-4. Special Status Wildlife (Continued)
Species
Common Name
Martes pennati
Fisher
Amphibians
1 Amides flavipunctatus
Black Salamander
Reptiles
Chrysemys picta
Painted Turtle
Clemmys marmorata
Western Pond Turtle
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
K-1 -6
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Alluvium - A general term lor clay, sill, sand, gravel or similar unconsolidated material deposited by a stream or
other body of running water.
Auadronious Fish - FmsIi that arc born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, and return to
freshwater to reproduce. Salmon, steelhead, and shad are examples.
Anode - The electrode at which oxidation or corrosion occurs, (opposite of cathode)
Anthropogenic - Relating to or resulting from the influence humans have on the natural world.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - A designated area on public lands where special management
attention is required { 1 ) to protect and prevent ineparable damage to fish and wildlife, important historic, cultural, or
scenic values, or other natural systems or processes; or (2) to protect life and safety from natural hazards.
Arkosic - Sedimentary rock fornied by the cementation of sand-sized grains of feldspar and quartz.
Artifacts - Any product of human cultural activity; more specifically, any tools, artwork, or objects found in an
archaeological context.
Backfill - (noun) Material used to replace soil and earth removed during mining, (verb) To fill excavation ditch after
pipeline placement.
Basalt - Dark colored extrusive igneous rock composed chiefly of calcium plagioclase and pyroxene. Extrusive
equivalent of gabbro; underlies the ocean basins and comprises oceanic crust.
Bedrock 1) - Any solid rock exposed at the Earth's surface or overlain by unconsolidated material.
Bedrock 2) - The solid rock beneath a layer of soil, rock fragments, or gravel. Also called substratum.
Bentonite - Light-colored valuable clay that expands with the addition of water and is used as oil-well drilling mud
and as filler in the building, paper, soap, and pharmaceutical industries.
Berm - The space between the toe of a slope and excavation made for intercepting ditches or borrow.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - A practice or combination of practices that are determined to be the most
effective and practicable (including technological, economic and institutional considerations) means of point and
non-point pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals.
Block Valve - When closed, the valve can block gas flow in both directions.
Blowdown - The venting of pressure from a pipeline.
Bore - A generally horizontal opening produced underground primarily for the purpose of installing services.
Bryophytes - A nonflowering plant, often growing in damp places, that has separate gamete-bearing and spore-bear-
ing fomis.
Cathode - The temiinal of a semi conductor diode that is negative with respect to the other terminal when the diode
is biased in the forward direction.
Cathodic protection - A process by which the coiTosion of a metal pipeline is prevented by the use of an electrical
current through replaceable anodes.
City Gate - A city gate station is usually built at the edge of a city to deliver gas from the high-pressure transmission
pipeline to a lower pressure local distribution system. In many ways a city gate is analogous to an electrical substa-
tion.
Chert - A mainly opaque, fairly granular, silicate rock with a dull shiny luster and a great range of colors, used as
raw material for the manufacture of chipped stone artifacts.
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Climax Vegetation - The final vegetation community and highest ecological development of a plant community that
emerges after a series of successive vegetational stages. The climax community perpetuates itself indefinitely unless
disturbed by outside forces.
Colloids - Very small, finely divided solids (that do not dissolve) that remain dispersed in a liquid for a long time due
to their small size and electrical charge
Colluvium - Loose rock and soil at the base of a cliff or steep slope.
Consultation - Formal consultation is a process that occurs between the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service and a federal agency that commences with the federal agency's written request for consulta-
tion under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA regarding a federal action which may affect a listed species or its critical habi-
tat. It concludes with the issuance of the biological opinion under Section 7(b)(3) of the Act. Informal consultation
is an optional process that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the federal agency, or the designated non federal representative, prior to formal consultation, if required. If the list-
ing agency determines that there is no likely adverse affect to the listed species, it may concur with the action agency
that formal consultation is unnecessary.
Critical Habitat - Under the ESA, critical habitat is defined as (1) the specific areas within the geographic area occu-
pied by a federally listed species on which are found physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the
geographic area occupied by a listed species, when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation
of that species.
Cryogenic - Having or relating to extremely low temperatures.
Cumulative effects - Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of the action when
added to the past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non fed-
eral) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time.
Danger tree - Any tree (leaning or otherwise) considered as having potential to fall against the power lines.
Directional drilling - A steerable system for the installation of pipes, conduits and cables in a shallow arc using a
surface launched drilling rig.
Drilling fluid - a mixture of water and usually bentonite and/or polymer continuously pumped to the cutting head to
facilitate cutting, reduce required torque, facilitate the removal of cuttings, stabilize the borehole, cool the head and
lubricate the installation of the Product Pipe. In suitable soil conditions water alone may be used.
Easement - Anon-ownership interest in a land parcel that provides the interest-holder with rights to perform desig-
nated actions. It may also limit actions by a landowner.
Effects - Effects, impacts, and consequences, as used in this environmental impact statement, are synonymous.
Effects may be direct, indirect or cumulative.
Estuaries - The wide lower course of a river where the tide flows in, causing fresh and salt water to mix.
Extirpation - The elimination of a species from a particular area.
Fauna - The animal life of a region or geological period.
Fish-Bearing Streams - Any stream containing any species of fish for any period of time.
Flakes - Small pieces and chips of rock and stone that have come off a larger rock, as a result creating stone tools.
Floodplain - Level lowland bordering a stream or river onto which the flow spreads at flood stage.
Flora - The plant life of a region or geological period.
Flow Spreader - A device used to dissipate concentrated water flow into sheet flow.
Flume - (Flume Pipe) A pipe or lined channel used to divert water from a stream while construction activities occur
in the streambed.
Groundfish - A species or group of fish that spends most of its life on or near the sea floor.
L-2
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Hydrocarbons - An organic compound made up of the elements of carbon and hydrogen that exists as a gas or liquid
at ambient conditions.
Hydrocolloids - A substance that forms a gel when riiixed with water.
Hydroelectric - Generated by converting the pressure of falling or running water to electricity by means of a turbine
coupled to a generator.
Hydrostatic Test - A test of the strength and leak resistance of a vessel or pipe by internal pressurization with a test
liquid, such as water.
Indigenous - Originating in and typical of a geographic area.
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) - A group of individuals with varying areas of specialty assembled to solve a prob-
lem or perform a task.
Intermittent - Any non-permanent flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual
scour or deposition.
Knoll - A small rounded hill or mound.
Lateral - A service line that transports a product from individual buildings to a main pipeline.
Late-Succession Forest - Forest serai stages which include mature and old-growth age classes.
Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) - A forest in its mature and/or old-growth stages that has been reserved under
each option in this report.
Liquefaction -A change in the phase of a substance to the liquid state; usually, a change from the gaseous to the liq-
uid state, especially of a substance which is a gas at normal pressure and temperature.
Lithics - Artifacts or ecofacts made of stone or rock. Sometimes the term lithics refers to the raw materials used to
make stone tools.
Mains - Pipe used to deliver natural gas to an end user.
Mitigation - Modifications of actions that ( 1 ) avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2)
minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectify impacts by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preser-
vation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or (5) compensate for impacts by replacing or provid-
ing substitute resources or environments.
Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate if objective and anticipated or assumed results of a
management plan are being realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned.
Noxious Weed - According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629), a weed that causes disease on has other
adverse effects on humans and their environment and is therefore detrimental to public health and the agriculture and
commerce of the United States
Off-channel habitat - Channels or ponds in a floodplain, at least seasonally connected to the primary channel that
are in addition to and frequently parallel the primary flowing channel.
Old-growth forest - A forested stand usually at least 1 80-200 tears old with moderate to high canopy closure; a mul-
tilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees and high incidence of large trees.
Palustrine Emergent Wetland - Better known as marshes - are usually dominated by grass-like plants - such as cat-
tails, sedges or bulrush - which are rooted in bottom sediments, but "emerge" above the surface of the water.
Palustrine Forested Wetland - Forested system including any inland wetland which lacks flowing water and con-
tains ocean derived salts in concentrations of less than 0.05%.
Parent rock - The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic matter from which the
solum of soils is developed by pedogenic processes.
Pedological features - Recognizable units within a soil material which are distinguishable from the enclosing mate-
rial for any reason such as origin (deposition as an entity), differences in concentration of some fraction of the
plasma, or differences in arrangement of the constituents (fabric).
Pelagic - Of or in the open ocean or open water.
L- 3
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Perennial Stream - A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis.
Pig - A device inserted and forced through a pipeline to clean, dry, or measure characteristics of a pipeline.
Pilot hole - A hole excavated at the beginning of the directional drill crossing.
Piping Manifold - A configuration of pipes used to direct natural gas in different directions or through different
pieces of equipment.
Polyethylene (PE) - A ductile, durable, virtually inert thermoplastic composed of polymers of ethylene.
Project Design Criteria (PDC) - Preventive measures applied to project activities to minimize potential detrimental
effects to proposed, listed or candidate species.
Protohistoric - A period prior to the beginning of written records in an area, but after that area has been initially
mentioned in reports written elsewhere.
Pullback - When the pipe is pulled into the reamed hole back to the drill rig.
Radiocarbon Dating - An absolute dating method based on the radioactive decay of Carbon- 14 contained in organic
materials.
Reamer - A downhole tool used to smooth the wall of a borehole, enlarge the borehole, stabilize the drill bit, and
straighten the borehole axis where kinks or doglegs are encountered.
Record of Decision (ROD) - A document separate from but associated with an environmental impact statement that
states the management decision, identifies all alternatives including both the environmentally preferable and selected
alternatives, states whether all practical means to avoid environmental hami from the selected alternative have been
adopted, and if not, why not.
Refugia - Locations and habitats that support populations of organisms that are limited to small fragments of their
previous geographic range.
Research Natural Areas - An area set aside by a public or private agency specifically to preserve a representative
sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and educational puiposes.
Residual Soil - Soil presumed to have developed in place as the product of decomposition and disintegration of bed-
rock.
Rill erosion - Rill erosion is the removal of soil by concentrated water running through litde streamlets, or headcuts.
Detachment in a rill occurs if the sediment in the flow is below the amount the load can transport and if the tlow
exceeds the soil's resistance to detachment.
Riparian reserves - Designated riparian areas found outside Late-Successional Reserves.
Ripping - The process of breaking up or loosening compacted soil and rock to facilitate excavation.
Riprap - Rough stone of various sizes placed compactly or irregularly in a channel to prevent scour by water or
debris.
Riverine wetland - The riverine system. ..includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel,
with two exceptions: ( 1 ) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and
(2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 ppt.
Saprolite - soft disintegrating igneous rock that remains where it was located when solid, fomied by heavy weather-
ing in a humid environment.
Scoping - An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an environmental impact
statement and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Scoping may involve public meet-
ings; field interviews with representatives of agencies and interest groups: discussions with resource specialists and
managers; and written comments in response to news releases, direct mailings, and articles about the proposed action
and scoping meetings.
Scour - Evidence of movement of material, erosion or deposition, in a downslope direction due to transport of water.
Second Growth - Relatively young forests that have developed following a disturbance.
Seeps - Places where water oozes from the ground to form a pool.
L-4
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
Special Status species - Those species that ( I ) have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification
and arc under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species or (2) are on an official state list or
(3) arc rccogni/cd b\ the BLM or other management agencies as needing special management or prevent their being
placed on Federal or state lists.
Solum - The upper layers of a soil profile where the formation of new soil takes place and where most plant roots and
soil animals are found.
Subductioii - To be carried under the edge of an adjoining continental or (Kcanic plate, causing tensions in the
Earth's crust that can produce earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Substrate - Any object or material upon which an organism grows or is attached.
Tackifier - A chemical used to help mulch stick to bare soil.
Tapping Tee - A device used to physically connect a customer's plastic service line from a plastic main to the cus-
tomer's facility.
Talus - A slope landform, typically covered by coarse rock debris forming a more or less continuous layer that may
or may not be covered by duff and litter.
Tectonic - Relating to the forces that produce movement and deformation of the earth's crust.
Trenching - Method in which access is gained by excavation from ground level to the required level underground for
the installation, maintenance or inspection of a pipe, conduit or cable. The excavation is then backfilled and the sur-
face reinstated.
Ttirbidity - Suspended matter in water that scatters or otherwise interferes with the passage of light through the
water.
Valve - Mechanism that controls the volume or direction of tlow. A valve can be closed, partially open, or fully
open.
Watershed - The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to a stream or
lake.
L- 5
Appendix L. Glossary of Terms
L-6
Appendix M. List of References.
Appendix M, List of References.
Beissinger, S.B. 1995. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from demographic analysis. Pages 385-
394 in Ralph ct. al. (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152.
Betlejewski, Frank. 1994. Port -Orford-cedar Management Guidelines. USDI, BLM. 32 pages.
Burnham. K.P., D.R. Anderson, and GC. White. 1994. Estimation of vital rates of the northern spotted owl.
Appendix J, 1-26 in USDA Forest Service, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, Oregon.
Vol.11.
BLM, Coos Bay District. 1997. Watershed Analysis - Middle Main Coquille, North Coquille Mouth, and Catching
Creek. 52 pp.
BLM Manual 3 100. 1999. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 43, Vol. 2, Part 3 100-Oil and gas leasing,
subpart 3101 -Issuance of leases, sec. 3101.1 -2-Surface use rights.
BLM, Roseburg District. 1998. Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed Analysis. 127 pp.
BLM, Roseburg District. 2000. Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analysis. 134 pp.
Coos County. May 17, 2000a. "Application for transportation and utility systems and facilities on Federal lands."
STD Form 299 (BLM Fomi).
Coos County. May 17, 2000b. "Supplement to Application for a Natural Gas Pipeline to Coos County, Oregon";
Supplement to STD Form 299 (BLM form). 17 pp.
Coos County. August 2000c. "Supplement to Application for a Natural Gas Pipeline to Coos County, Oregon
Supplement to STD Form BPA F 4300.03e". 8 pp.
Coos County. December 1 , 2000d. Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline Project - Information for Environmental
Assessment." http://www.co.coos.or.us/ngas/gasea.htm. 5 pp.
Coos/Curry/Douglas Regional Investment Board and CCD Business Development Corporation (Roseburg, OR).
2000. "Coos, Curry and Douglas Regional Investment Plan." http://www.co.coos.or.us/regplan.htm.
ECONorthwest. 1999; "The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Building and Operating a Natural Gas Pipeline in Coos
County"
ECONorthwest. 2000; "The Economic Impact of Building and Operating a Natural Gas Pipeline in Coos County,
Oregon"
Forsman, E., and R. Anthony. 1999. Analysis of demographic rates of northern spotted owls, executive summary, 19
March 1999. Unpublished preliminary report on file at Coos Bay District Office.
Gas Reasearch Institute Report 00/0077 2000. "The Safety Performance of Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering
Systems". Prepared for Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurace Co.
Helvoigt, Ted. 2000. "Oregon's Rural Unemployment Rate". Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS).
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00001071.
Holzman. S. 1995. Personal communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1998. "Biological Resources Technical Report - South Oregon Coast Reinforce-
ment Project". Bellevue, Washington. Chapters 1 - 3;40 pp.
Marshall, D.B. 1988. Status of the marbled murrelet in North America; with special emphasis on populations in Cal-
ifornia, Oregon, and Washington. Audubon Society of Portland. 42 pp.
Maser, Chris. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State Univer-
sity Press, Corvallis, OR. Pp. 306-314.
Maxwell, Duchemin, Hallis & Trotter LLC. 1999. "Coos County Annual Financial Report". CPA Report. Eugene,
Oregon, http://www.co.coos.or.us/auditrpt.doc. 89 pp.
NIOSH. 2000. "Online NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/nengapdx.html
M- 1
Appendix M. List of References.
O'Dell, T.E. 1999. Survey Protocols for Seven Protection Buffer Fungi Version 1.3 USDA and USDI, Portland,
Oregon.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Stream Work to Protect Fish
and Wildlife Resources.
Prior, Don. January 2000. Designing For Stream Simulation At Road Crossings.
Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, Technical Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the
marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, California. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 420 pp.
Ralph, C.J., and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of marbled murrelets in California. Pages 353-
360 in Ralph, et al. (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152.
Spiech, S.M., and T.R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled murrelet populations of Washington - marine habitat preferences and
variability of occunence. Pages 313-326 in Ralph et al. (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet.
Gen.Tech.Rep.PS W-GTR- 152.
Strong, C.S., B.K. Keitt, W.R. Mclver, C.J. Palmer, and I. Gaffney. 1995. Distribution and population estimates of
marbled murrelets at sea in Oregon during the summers of 1992 and 1993. Pages 339-352 in Ralph et al. (eds.).
Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Munelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GrR-152.
Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for
the northern spotted owl. A Report by the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the north-
ern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973. Protection of Fish Habitat During Forest Road Development.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological. Economic and Social Assess-
ment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Pg 11-73
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of Transportation. November 1990. Fish Pas-
sage Through Culverts. 67pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance In: Influences of Forest
and Rangeland Management On Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W.R. Meehan, editor, pp. 297-323.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 1994. Standards and Guidelines for Management of
Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted
Owl Record of Decision.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 1994a. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental impact
statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of
the northern spotted owl. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 1996. Draft Management Recommendations for Biix-
baumia viridis. Section 3 In Draft Management Recommendations for Bryophytes Installment 2. Portland Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 1997. Late-Successional Reserve Assessment Oregon
Coast Range Province - Southern Portion.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. South Coast - Northern Klamath Late-Suc-
cessional Reserve assessment. May 1998. 109 pp plus appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 2000. FSEIS: For Amendment to the Survey and
Manage Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. 2001 . Record of Decision and Standards and Guide-
lines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and
Guidelines. Portland Oreeon.
M-2
Appendix M. List of References.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1995. Research conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
http://w\vvv.pnl.gov/fta/5_nat.htni
U.S. Dcpartiiicnl of Interior, Bl.M. 1986. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Record of Decision.
Portland Oregon.
U.S. Department of Interior, BLM. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program
Record of Decision. Portland Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Final biological opinion for the proposed action of the supplemental environ-
mental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within
the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, ()regon.
U.S. Department of Interior, BLM. 1995a. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Roseburg Oregon.
U.S. Department of Interi()r, BLM. 1995b. Integrated Weed Control Plant Environmental Assessment. Roseburg
Oregon.
U.S. Department of Interior, BLM. 1996. Partners Against Weeds, An Action Plan For the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment Washington DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. 1996. "Revision of Timber Sale E-4 Special Provision for Protection of
Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suspension, Modification, and Termination of Timber Sale Contracts."
Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-78. Attachment 2.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. South Coast - Northern Klamath Late-Suc-
cessional Reserve assessment. May 1998. 109 pp plus appendices.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Pacific bald eagle recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 163 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. The northern spotted owl; a status review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Portland, Oregon. 47 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. The northern spotted owl; a status review supplement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990a. 1 990 Status Review; northern spotted owl; Stri.x occidentalis caurina.
Report to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 95 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened
status for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Pages 261 14-26194, Federal Register, June 26, 1990.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical hab-
itat for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Pages 1796-1838, Federal Register, January 15, 1992.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened
status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled muirelet; final rule. Pages 45238-
45337, Federal Register, October 1, 1992.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994a. Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan Environmental
Impact Statement, vol. II, appendix W. Bureau of Land Management. North Bend, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994b. Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement. Appendix EE. Bureau of Land Management. Roseburg, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994c. Final biological opinion for the proposed action of the supplemental envi-
ronmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species
within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995a. Coos Bay District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan.
Bureau of Land Management. North Bend, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995b. Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan.
Bureau of Land Management. Roseburg, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habi-
tat for the marbled murrelet; final rule. Pages 26255-26320, Federal Register, May 24, 1996.
M- 3
Appendix M. List of References.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Washington, Oregon, and California
Populations). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove
the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule. Fed.
Reg. vol. 64, number 128 (July 6): 36453-36464.
U.S. Government Printing Office. 2000. http://www.gpo.org. December.
Varoujean, D.H., and W.A. Williams. 1995. Abundance and distribution of marbled murrelets in Oregon and Wash-
ington based on aerial surveys. Pages 327 338 in Ralph et al. (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Mur-
relet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GrR-152.
Wall Street Journal. January 5, 2001. "Jobless Claims Continued to Rise Last Week". Article including a summary of
the U.S. Labor Department report for November, 2000.
M-4
Appendix N Consistency Determination
Appendix N Consistency Determination
Appendix N "Consistency Determination" has been added to this document.
Federal Agencies
The Proposed Action is beHeved to be consistent with the following plans of other federal agencies:
• The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Docu-
ments Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
• The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 and draft (proposed) Pacific Coastal Barriers Study for areas
under consideration for inclusion in the Coastal Barriers Resource System, as administered by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service.
• The Bonneville Power Administration's latest annual Transmission System Facilities Resource Program.
• The Endangered Species Act and the following Fish and Wildlife Service plans (see Effects on Threatened and
Endangered Species and Appendix F for the letter of concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See
also Appendix E-1 for the letter of Concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service).
• This pipeline will fall under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Pipeline
Safety, as a gas transmission pipeline. It will be built and operated to all current specifications in 49 CFR Part
192 (Natural Gas Pipelines) and other relevant sections. The Oregon Public Utilities Commission has authority
to administer DOT regulations over intrastate pipelines in Oregon.
• The COE will be responsible for issuing a fill and removal permit for waters under their jurisdiction.
State Government
The Proposed Action is believed to be consistent with the following plans, programs, and policies of State of Oregon
agencies:
Department of Environmental Quality
Smoke Management Plan (see affects on Air).
Water Quality (this will be addressed thru a 401 certification linked to federal permits).
Water Resources Department river basin programs for the Mid-Coast, Umpqua, South Coast, and Rogue
River basins.
Water Resources Commission rules and statutes.
Department of Human Resources, Health Division, standards for public water systems.
Department of Agriculture
Weed control plans.
State-listed endangered plant species (see Effects on Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species).
Division of State Lands.
Removal - Fill Law (Both the Division of State Lands and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be issuing
fill and removal permit for the proposed action).
Parks and Recreation Department.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
N- 1
Appendix N Consistency Determination
State Historic Preservation Program. (See Appendix B).
Department of Transportation, Highway Division.
Oregon Highway Plan.
Economic Development Department, Regional Economic Development Strategies.
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Oregon Statutory Wildlife Policy
State Plan/Statute - Oregon Threatened and Endangered Species Act
State Plan/Statute - Oregon's Sensitive Species Rule
State Plan/Statute - Nongame Wildlife Plan
State Plan/Statute - Big Game Population Management Objectives
State Plan/Statute - Wild Fish Policy
State Plan/Statute - Coho, Steelhead and Trout Plans
State Plan/Statute - Basin Fish Management Plans
The ODFW mitigation policy and in-water work guidelines.
Department of Forestry
State Plan/Statute - Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules
Consistency with the statewide planning goals and guidelines administered by the Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (LCDC) through the Department of Land Conservation and Development is variable among the
15 goals relevant to the proposed action. A complex body of land use policy and goal interpretations exists due to the
acknowledgment process, goal amendments, LCDC rule making, and Land Use Board of Appeals and appellate court
decisions. The matter of BLM consistency with the statewide goals involves a number of interrelated issues of pol-
icy, intergovernmental coordination, and state and federal legal requirements. Consistency with these goals is char-
acterized below. That discussion also addresses consistency of BLM's proposed action with the goals established for
the Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP).
The statewide planning goals are legally binding on all planning activity relating to land use undertaken by cities,
counties, special districts, and state agencies. The planning goals function similarly for affected federal agencies that
make consistency determinations under the OCMP in accordance with the (Federal) Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). All applicable local government plans have been acknowledged by LCDC to be in conformance with the
CZMA.
A section of the CZMA requires that "each federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the
coastal zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, con-
sistent with approved state management programs" [15 CFR Part 930, Subpart 930.32 (a)(1)]. The term "consistent
to the maximum extent practicable" means fully consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs
unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency.
The OCMP mandatory enforceable policies consist of the statewide planning goals, acknowledged city and county
comprehensive plans and land use regulations, and the statutory authorities and regulations of state agencies listed in
the OCMP Although federal lands are excluded from the boundaries of the coastal zone, the "affecting" provision
requires federal agencies to examine their activities for offsite effects. An effect may be either a primary, secondary,
or cumulative effect on the coastal zone.
Local Government
The Oregon statewide planning program attached substantial importance to the coordination of federal plans with
acknowledged local comprehensive plans. To the extent that BLM actions and programs are consistent with
acknowledged county and city comprehensive plans and land use regulations, they can also be considered consistent
with statewide planning goals.
The District has contributed data for development of county comprehensive plans, followed the development of those
plans through the years, and consulted on issues of mutual interest. Based on knowledge gained through this
N-2
Appendix N Consistency Determination
involvement, the district planning staff believes that the Proposed Action is consistent with the comprehensive plans,
and land use regulations cited above, and Coos County, as the project proponent, is seeking all required local govern-
ment approvals.
Tribal and Other Agency Plans
The ConfcdLMatcd Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, and the Coquillc Indian Tribes control lands within
the planning area, but the propt)sed action docs not cross or affect any of these lands. Consultation and communica-
tions with the Tribes have occurred regularly throughout the project development.
Consistency of the Proposed Action with Oregon Statewide LCDC Planning Goals
and Objectives
Statewide Goal Number 1: Citizen Involvement
Description - To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in
all phases of the planning process. Federal and other agencies shall coordinate their planning efforts with the
affected government bodies and make use of existing local citizen involvement programs established by cities and
counties.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - BLM's planning process provides for public input at various stages. Public
input was specifically requested in developing issues and planning criteria (during the Scoping process). The public
was also afforded the opportunity to comment on the Draft and Final EIS. Numerous informational public meetings
were held throughout the process, and Coos County and the Coos Bay District developed websites to provide infor-
mation on the project and answer questions. Coordination with affected government bodies, has been ongoing and
will continue. ELM has used county planning departments to provide linkage to local citizen involvement programs.
Statewide Goal Number 2: Land Use Planning
Description - To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The proposed action has been developed in accordance with the land use
planning process authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which provides a policy
framework for all decisions and actions. The process includes issue identification, inventories, and evaluation of
alternative choices of action. The proposed action has been reviewed by both the Coos and Douglas County planning
departments for consistency with applicable County Comprehensive Plans. Necessary Conditional Use Permits have
been issued by the respective County. The proposed action is also considered to be consistent with the Coos Bay
Estuary Management Plan. Intergovernmental coordination in the planning process is discussed in Chapter 5 of the
EIS.
Statewide Goal Number 3: Agricultural Land
Description - To preserve and maintain existing commercial agricultural lands for farm use, consistent with existing
and future needs for agricultural products, forest, and open space.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The proposed action is located within an existing designated ROW corridor
and would be constructed within existing roads or under existing electronic transmission lines. The proposed action
does not exclude grazing use or affect the use of other lands for agriculture use. The Planning Departments for both
Coos and Douglas Counties granted conditional use permits for construction of the pipeline within the Forest and
Exclusive Farm Use Zones.
N- 3
Appendix N Consistency Determination
Statewide Goal Number 4: Forest Lands
Description - To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy
by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of for-
est tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with the sound management of soil, air, water, and fish
and wildlife resources and provision for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - BLM-administered and private lands within the proposed action have been
previously converted to a designated ROW corridor for an electronic transmission line. Conversion areas such as
utility rights-of-way have been limited to the minimum width necessary for management and safety, and limited to
existing corridors where practical. The proposed action is located entirely within existing road and powerline ROW,
with approximately 0.2 acres of 20-year old trees under the powerline to be removed. The proposed action is consis-
tent with the state's forest land protection policies.
Statewide Goal Number 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Description - To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Programs shall be provided that will:
• Protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources for present and future genera-
tions.
• Promote a healthy environment and natural landscape that contributes to Oregon's livability.
The location, quality and quantity of the following resources shall be inventoried:
• Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish-habitat.
• Wetlands.
• Wildlife-habitat;
• Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers;
• State Scenic Waterways;
• Groundwater resources;
• Approved Oregon Recreation Trails;
• Natural Areas;
• Wilderness Areas;
• Mineral and Aggregate resources;
• Energy sources;
• Cultural areas.
Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to maintain current inventories of the following resources:
• Historic Resources.
• Open Space;
• Scenic Views and Sites.
Following procedures, standards, and definitions contained in commission rules, local governments shall determine
significant sites for inventoried resources and develop programs to achieve the goal.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The resources listed above were considered in the development of the pro-
posed action. Availability of mineral, aggregate and energy sources would continue. The proposed action would
have no impact on Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, Natural Areas, State Scenic Waterways, Approved Oregon Rec-
reation Trails, or Wilderness Areas.
N-4
Appendix N Consistency Determination
Adverse impacts to Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish-habitat, wetlands, wildlife-habitat,
groundwater resources or; Cultural areas would be slight. Potentially impacted resources would be protected to the
maximum extent practicahlc through the use of project design criteria and best management practices. See Chapter 4
for further discussions.
The DSL and COE permit process will address avoidance, minimization, and compensation for impacts to wetland
and stream resources.
The proposed action attempts to balance conflicting uses in light of their consequences. Conflicting resource uses are
most often resolved by protecting the Goal 5 resource sites or severely limiting conflicting uses to meet environmen-
tal goals.
Statewide Goal Number 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Description - To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The federal and state water quality standards would be met and water quality
would be maintained and/or improved. See Chapter 4, Effects on Water, for discussion. Burning of natural gas
rather than continuing the use of existing fuels would have a potential beneficial effect on air quality. The proposed
action would not affect the Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the state implementation plan. Any future develop-
ment that might be encouraged by the availability of natural gas would be regulated in accord with all applicable
County, State, and Federal permit requirements. See Chapter 4 for further discussion.
Statewide Goal Number 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Description - To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - Natural hazard areas, including wetlands, floodplains, earthquakes, and areas
witii highly erosive soils, have been identified and evaluated. The proposed action, including the use of project
design criteria and best management practices provides for appropriate management of natural hazard areas (see
Appendix A, Geotechnical Engineering Report for further discussions). Permits required for the construction, main-
tenance, and operation of the natural gas pipeline will also address requirements for public safety.
Statewide Goal Number 8: Recreational Needs
Description - To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to pro-
vide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The proposed action would not result in any long-term impact on the ability
to satisfy the recreational needs within the project area. Short-term impacts may result from delayed access to recre-
ational sites during the construction period. Opportunities would continue to be provided to meet recreation demand
(identified in Oregon's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan). There has been no specific interest in
development of destination resort sites on BLM-administered lands.
Statewide Goal Number 9: Economic Development
Description - To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the
health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The proposed action would provide opportunity for residential, commercial,
or industrial users within the immediate service area to utilize natural gas. Natural gas has traditionally been a clean,
economical, efficient fuel for use to heat dwellings and water at a lower cost than existing available fuels. Providing
this opportunity to the service area may also encourage future commercial and/or industrial development for this eco-
nomically depressed area. Any future development that might be encouraged by the availability of natural gas would
be regulated in accord with all applicable County, State, and Federal permit requirements, and would be subject to its
own consistency determination. See Chapter 4, Effects on Socioeconomic Conditions, for further discussion.
N- 5
Appendix N Consistency Determination
Statewide Goal Number 10: Housing
Not considered applicable.
Statewide Goal Number 11: Public Facilities and Services
Description - To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - BLM-administered lands within the designated ROW corridor have been
made available for development of the natural gas pipeline project by Coos county as permitted under the local gov-
ernment comprehensive plan and land use regulations and the relevant state siting requirements.
Statewide Goal Number 12: Transportation
Description - To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The proposed action provides for the construction, operation, and mainte-
nance of a natural gas pipeline within a designated right-of way comdor. Consideration of existing use of public
roads/user safety resulted in the selection of the location for the proposed action. Project design criteria and best
management practices as required by the various State and Federal permits further address the safety issue.
Statewide Goal Number 13: Energy Conservation
Not considered applicable.
Statewide Goal Number 14: Urbanization
Not considered applicable.
Statewide Goal Number 15: Willamette Greenway
Not considered applicable.
Statewide Goal Number 16: Estuarine Resources
Description - To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and
associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the
long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity, and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.
Consistency of the Proposed Action - The construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed natural gas
pipeline are considered to be consistent with the Coos Bay Estuary management Plan. No measurable impacts on
estuarine resources from BLM-authorized activities are anticipated. Any future development that might be encour-
aged by the availability of natural gas would be regulated in accord with all applicable County, State, and Federal
permit requirements.
Statewide Goal Number 17: Coastal Shorelands
Description - To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and ben-
efits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wild-
life habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources, recreation, and aesthetics. The management of these
shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters. To reduce the hazard to
N-6
Appendix N Consistency Determination
human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quahty and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the
use aiul cnioviiKMit olOroizon's coastal shorelands.
Consistency of the Proposed Action The proposed action would preserve and protect BI.M-administcred and
other ct)astal shorelands delineated in acknowledged city and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations,
and the Coos Bay Estuary management Plan. Any future development that might be encouraged by the availability
of natural gas would be regulated in accord with all applicable County, State, and Federal permit requirements.
Statewide Goal Number 18: Beaches and Dunes
Not considered applicable.
Statewide Goal Number 19: Ocean Resources
Not considered applicable.
N- 7
^ '- ;a
^L ^^
O
<x-- <*•<-■
^
O
s<<>^
(X>
C;
Q
V
(- OS
V
<s
Q H
c
0
U
CK
V
- ,
3
Q
<
u
UJ
3;
CN
O
O
CN
00
CO
(0
(0
3 <0
■P C
(0 -H
TN 879.5 .C548 2002
88056893
Coos County natural gas
pipeline : final
DLIVILIDriMnT
BLDG50,ST-150A
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 25047
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
09
c
■n
"O
fi>
o
•a
c
-i TJ
(D
3
o
r-
>3D
2o
F^
0)
m
a
z
3
Q.
fio
H
o
■
3
HI
-n
m
m
(0
-<
>
o>(a
"D
r-
n
>
3
o
3
^^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11