preferred EFU location (e.g., water tower versus reservoir on ahill). [Emphasis added.]

The "different component design" ofthe reservoir in City ofAlbany (a water tower versus areservoir on a hill) was a separate and distinct component of a multi-part utility that included afacility for drawing water from a river, a system ofpipe1lles to pipe the water to an elevatedreservoir, a treatment facility and a system ofpipelines to pipe the water to the city. Either awater tower or an elevated reservoir on ahill would have met the public service requirement of"an elevated reservoir to allow gravity distribution."

Unlike the multi-part facility at issue in City ofAlbany, the natural gas pipeline at issue inthis case is a continuous line and cannot so readily be broken into different components in thesame fashion as the facility at issue in City ofAlbany. Arguably, each ofthe block valves couldbe construed as a separate component; however, only one the Dora block valve is located onEFU land, and opponents did not raise this separate component argument against the Dora blockvalve.10

Further, the Highway42 alternative suggested by opponents does not meet the publicservice requirements ofthe proposed pipeline in the same way that awater tower would meet therequirement ofan elevated reservoir. The applicant has already obtained land use approval forthe 17-mile connector pipeline in Douglas County, and that approval has not been appealed. I1

Applicant's Evidence, Tab 1.

The pipeline must enter Coos County at some point. Although the Douglas Countyconnector pipeline has not yet been constructed, applicant has, already obtained a final land usepermit under ORS 215.275 to construct it. That permit has not been appealed or challenged.Under these circumstances, the public service requirement that the proposed pipeline must beginat the terminus of the 17-mile connector pipeline in Douglas County is within the applicant'sdiscretion in defining the essential features ofthe proposed facility.12 The Highway 42 route

10 In any event, even ifanalyzed separately, the Dora block valve meets the requirements of ORS215.275. An essential feature ofthe Dora block valve is that it must be located less than 20 miles west ofthe next block valve to the east at Tenmile. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 39. The Dora block valve couldbe located slightly further to the west, as far west asOA miles west of Steel Creek, which is 20 miles westof the Tenmile block valve. However, as the applicant's maps demonstrate, the land in this area is zonedEFU. The area around Dora, which is between micro alternatives A-3, A-4, and A-5 and includes SteelCreek, is all zoned EFU. Sitkum, which is about 5.5 miles closer to Tenmile than Dora, is anotherpotential site for a block valve, although access to Sitkum would take another 10-15 minutes in anemergency. However, Sitkum is not a non-EFU alternative because the Sitkum area, which is betweenmicro alternatives A-I and A-2, is zoned EFU. The land between Dora and Sitkum is not suitable orfeasible for a block valve because ofthe narrow canyon that runs between Dora and Sitkum. Applicanthas adequately demonstrated that the Dora block valve must be located on EFU land.

11 Applicant also testified in its Written Rebuttal to issues raised at the hearing that the Douglas Countyland use application included an analysis ofEFU lands in Douglas County under ORS 215.275.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 38.

12 Opponents also argue that the essential feature ofbeginning the pipeline at the ep.d ofthe DouglasCounty connector pipeline invites results oriented approach. However, the same could be said about the

6 - FINDlNGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1

3400

suggested by opponents is not a reasonable alternative and need not be analyzed under the sixfactors.

Furthermore, even if the applicant had exceeded its discretion in defIning the essentialfeatures ofthe proposed facility, the Highway 42 route suggested by opponents contains EFUland, and therefore, it is not a non-EFU alternative. In Sprint PCS, LUBA reaffIrmed the rule that"a utility provider is not required to consider as a reasonable alternative under ORS 215.275(2)other EFU-zoned sites, even sites already occupied by non-farm uses." Sprint PCS at note 10.

At the hearing, opponent Carol Doty quoted Albany v. Linn County for the propositionthat it is the EFU zoning ofthe property that implicates the provisions ofORS 215.283(1) and215.275, not the soil characteristics or the use ofthe property for agricultural purposes. DotyTestimony ofAugust 19, 2002, at pp 3_4.13 In Albany v. Linn County, LUBA held that:

public service requirement providing space on the tower that was found to be sufficient in Jordan. LUBAconsidered this "results oriented approach" argument in PCl Sprint (note 8), stating:

We recognize that giving deference to the utility provider's definedobjectives (e.g., providing its telecommunication service to a definedcorridor or area) invites a results-oriented approach to definingobjectives. However, a line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable"alternatives must be drawn somewhere, and a line that hinges on theapplicant's defined objectives at least has the virtue ofbeing a fairlybright line: In most cases, it will be clear whether or not a proposedalternative can meet the defmed objectives. Any other approach wouldrequire second-guessing complex business and technological decisions.For example, at one point the challenged decision faults petitioner forinsisting on using its particular type ofcellular technology. Record 13.At another point the challenged decision faults petitioner for failing todemonstrate that it cannot meet its needs "by providing a specific level ofservice or a long-term plan for service, instead of incremental toweradditions." Record 16. We see nothing in ORS 215.275 that wouldrequire a utility provider to reconsider its fundamental technology or itsbusine~s plan as a ''reasonable alternative."

In Jordan v. Douglas County, the applicant intended to build a cellular tower that would allow theapplicant to provide communication services and to provide space on the tower that may be leased toother providers oftelecommunication services. LUBA held that providing space on the tower that may beleased was a sufficient public service requirement ofthe facility to eliminate from consideration anyalternative that involved co-location with existing cellular towers. Jordan, 40 Or LUBA at 200. Thepublic service requirement that the pipelme begin at the end of the already approved Douglas Countypipeline seems more reasonable and legitimate and less results oriented than the co-location concern inJordan. Any other determination would require the type ofsecond guessing ofcomplex business andtechnological decisions warned against by LUBA in PCl Sprint.

13 Applicant's soils analysis at Tab 13 of applicant's evidence is offered to demonstrate satisfaction of theforest criteria of OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a) and to support the imposition of clear and objective conditionsunder ORS 215.275(5). Applicant's soils analysis is not offered or intended to be used in connection withthe alternative analysis required by ORS 215.275(2).

7 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/1035154.1

3401

"For the purposes of this review [i.e., the alternative analysisrequired under ORS 215.275(2)], it is legally irrelevant that thesubject property has not been used for agricultural purposes and itssoils are not 'agricultural soils' as that tenn is defined in Goal 3and OAR 660-033-0020(1). It is the zoning of the property thatimplicates the provisions of ORS 215.283(1) and 215.275, not thesoils characteristics or use ofthe property for agriculturalpurposes."

ld. at page 42 (note 5).

The land at issue in Albany v. Linn County was a reclaimed portion ofan operating gravelpit that contained predominantly Class VI and Class VII soils (which are not fann soils in LinnCounty). Nevertheless, LUBA held that for purposes of the "alternative" analysis ofORS 215.275(2), it was "legally irrelevant" that the site was a rock pit. The only thing thatmattered was that the site was zoned EFD. ld. at page 42 (note 5).

Similarly, some ofthe Wagon Road and most ofHighway 42 is zoned EFU. Asdemonstrated by the map at Tab 2 ofApplicant's Evidence, the Coos Bay Wagon Road includesseveral patches ofEFU land, and Highway 42 is predominantly EFU from the Douglas Countyborder to Coos Bay. Further, the Douglas County portion ofHighway 42 is predominantly EFU,especially the Camas Valley portion ofHighway 42. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 41. Itis legallyirrelevant whether those highways contain farm. soils, and it is legally irrelevant whether thosehighways are being used for farm purposes. As LUBA held in Albany v. Linn County,Highway 42 and the Wagon Road are EFU sites because they are zoned EFU.

Opponents asserted that land within a public right-of-way such as the Wagon Road andHighway 42 was not zoned EFD. However, the county zoning maps do not exclude roads andhighways from zoning. Further, section 4.1.400(1)ofthe CCZLDO states that whenever anuncertainty exists as to the boundary of a zone as shown on the official zoning map, boundariesindicated as approximately following the centerlines ofstreets, highways, or alleys shall beconstrued to follow such centerlines. Thus, in places where EFU zoning appears on the officialzoning maps on only one side ofa road or highway, the EFU zoning extends to the centerline ofthe road or highway. In places where the EFU zoning extends to both sides ofthe highway, theentire highway width is zoned EFU. Nothing on the official zonihg maps indicates otherwise.

Moreover, the EFU zoning ofportions ofthe Wagon Road and the majority ofHighway 42 is required by the state land use statutes. For instance, ORS 215.050(1) requires theCounty to adopt and from time to time revise a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance"applicable to all ofthe land in the county [emphasis added]." There is no zoning exception forroads and highways. On the contrary, ORS 215.130(4) states that "county ordinances designedto implement a county comprehensive plan shall apply to publicly owned property."

Additionally, ORS 215.283(1)(n) allows only "minor betterment" ofexisting public roadand highway related facilities such as maintenance yards, weigh stations and rest areas that arelocated ''within the right-of-way existing as of July 1, 1987." Ifpublic road right-of-ways wereunzoned, rather than zoned EFU, the legislature would not need to have provided for "minor

8 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/120382/SCMll035154.1

3402

bettennent" of these existing facilities within the "existing right-of-way." Nor would thelegislature need to have limited ORS 215.283(1)(n) to "minorbettennent." Although certainuses may be allowed within the public road right-of-ways pursuant to ORS 215.283, there is nozoning exception for public road right-of-ways.

Opponents argued that an underground utility that is constructed entirely within a publicroad right-of-way is a pennitted outright use under ORS 215.283(L). Opponents' argumentmisses the mark. The issue under ORS 215.275(2) is not whether there is some other type ofapproval process that might be employed to obtain approval for a pipeline on an alternative site.The only issue under ORS 215.275(2) is whether the alternative site is zoned EFU. Highway 42is zoned EFU, and is therefore not a non-EFU alternative.

In addition, the evidence in the record is that the pipeline could not be constructedentirely within the Highway 42 right-of-way,14and therefore, ORS 215.283(L) would not besufficientto allow the pipeline to be constructed without analysis under ORS 215.283(1)(d) andORS 215.275(2). ORS 215.283(L) does not render Highway 42 a non-EFU site. Since theHighway 42 right-of-way is zoned EFU, it is not a reasonable alternative.

The only other alternative site suggested by opponents is a route located entirely withinthe Coos Bay Wagon Road. 1s However, that alternative contains EFU land, and therefore is nota non-EFU alternative that must be considered. Opponents did not argue that the Highway38/Highway 101 route was a reasonable alternative that needed to be considered. TheHighway 38/Highway 101 route that was considered in the EIS process does not meet at leastthree public service requirements ofthe facility. 16 Thus, the Highway 38/Highway 101 route is

14 For example, see Applicant's Evidence, Tab 39; see also Applicant's Evidence, Tab 3.

15 Opponents also alleged that prior County studies came up with several alternatives that were notanalyzed. Applicant responded that all but one ofthe prior studies recommended earlier iterations of theproposed route. Applicant's Evidence, Tabs 38 (pages 9-11) and 39. These earlier iterations are not non­EFU alternatives and do not need to be considered because they do not avoid more EFU land than theproposed route. ld. The only study that recommended another route was the RMI study, whichrecommended Highway 42. The RMI study was preliminary and contained a significant arithmetic errorin the calculation of the length ofthe routes. ld. Applicant's have adequately explained why the RMIstudy's preliminary conclusions turned out to be wrong upon closer examination in the subsequent phase2 review analysis undertaken by the Project Advisors. ld.

16 Steven Shute testified about the public service requirements of the pipeline. The first public servicerequirement that the Highway 38/Highway 101 route fails is that it does not begin at the end ofthepipeline in Douglas County. A second public service requirement ofthe pipeline is that there must be asufficient level ofpressure in the pipeline. The Highway 38/Highway 101 route, most ofwhich is locatedoutside of Coos County, would not contain sufficientpressure because it would connect to the Williamspipeline to the north (upstream) of the Winchester compression station. In order to pressurize a pipelinebuilt in the Highway 38/Highway 101 route, a new compression station would need to be constructed.This would be a separate utility facility from the pipeline. Building a new compression station wouldcreate a whole new set of environmental concerns and would need. to meet numerous permittingrequirements of state and federal agencies and would raise new public health and safety issues. A thirdpublic service requirement ofthe pipeline is that it must be located to provide eventual future service tothe cities of Coquille, Myrtle Point, and Bandon. Although not part of this application, the applicant

9 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1

3403

not a reasonable alternative and maybe eliminated from consideration under the rule announcedin Jordan without review under the six factors.

2. Alternatives that were analyzed under the six factors.

These findings are based on an examination of several alternatives both at the macro andthe micro level. The macro level alternatives include three main routes: (1) the proposed routewhich follows the Wagon Road/power Hne corridor;17 (2) a route that follows Highway 42 andconnects to the point on the county line where the pipeline must begin through an overlandroute;18 al1d (3) a "straight-line"19 route that follows an overland path north ofthe Wagon Roadfrom the beginning point on to the Coos County line to the end point in Coos Bay.2o

None ofthe three main routes avoids EFU land. For this reason, a micro level analysiswas done for both the Wagon Road/power line corridor route21 and for the Highway 42 route,22The micro analysis looks at potential alternatives that wind around the EFU lands on each ofthese two routes. A micro analysis for alternative Cwas not necessary since alternative Cconsists of an indefinite number ofalternatives that follow numerous logging roads that all sharethe same set ofcharacteristics. Instead of attempting to conduct a micro analysis, the applicantanalyzed the common set of characteristics that all ofthe alternatives comprised in alternative Cshare, and the applicant assumed that at least some of the alternatives comprised in alternative Cwould avoid EFU lands.

intends to construct lateral pipelines to serve those cities. Thus, one ofthe public service re'luirements ofthe facility is proximity to the cities of Coquille, Myrtle Point, and Bandon. The Highway 38 route is nota reasonable alternative site because it fails to meet this public service re'luirement ofthe facility becauseit is too far from these cities.

Further, the proposed Highway 38/Highway 101 route crosses EFU land, both within Coos County andoutside ofCoos County. For all ofthe reasons discussed above, the Highway 38/Highway 101 route neednot be considered further in this proceeding

17 Referred to as alternative A.

18 The Highway 42 alternative is referred to as alternative B, and the overland portion is shown on themap as B-l.

19 The ternl "straight-line" route is something of a misnomer because it is anything but a straight line.This route would follow narrow logging roads and would switch back and forth many times as it woundaround the steep, rugged terrain ofthe coast range. It is shown on the map as a straight line because thereare numerous narrow logging roads in this area 'which all' share the same set of characteristics. Ratherthan referring to it as a straight-line route, these findings refer to it as "alternative C" or the "northernoverland route."

20 Shown on the map as alternative C.

21 Shown on the map as alternatives A-I through A-l2.

22 Shown on the map as alternatives B-I through B-3. A-12 and B-3 follow the same route.

10 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/1035154.1

3404

None ofthe opponents argued that alternative C (the northern overland route) or any ofthe alternatives comprised in alternative C were reasonable or feasible. Further, none of theopponents argued that alternative B-1 or any ofthe micro alternatives that crossed overland werereasonable or feasible. Opponents essentially agreed that these routes could not be used. One ofthe opponents, Ron Sadler called the alternatives applicant analyzed "straw men" and testifiedthat these overland alternatives crossed over "some of the roughest country in Oregon." SadlerTestimony at p 6. However, the opponents did not suggest any non-EFU alternatives, either at amacro or a micro leve1.23

Based upon the detailed analysis of the three main routes, including all of the alternativescomprised in alternative C, as well as the micro level analysis of the potential to avoid EFU landon the Wagon Road/power line corridor and on Highway 42, the applicant has shown thatreasonable alternatives that avoid EFU have been considered. The first requirement inORS 215.275(2), that applicant consider reasonable alternatives, is met. Further, sinceopponents conceded that the micro alternatives were unreasonable, there are no reasonable non­EFU alternatives, ORS 215.275(2) is met.

Applicant need not have done any further analysis under ORS 215.275(2). Applicant didso out of an abundance of caution, and these findings will address that analysis, even though it isnot required, because it provides an alternative basis upon which to approve this application.

3. Analysis under the six factors of ORS 215.175(2).

(a) Technical and engineering feasibility.

Bruce Paskett, ChiefEngineer for NW Natural, is an expert on pipeline construction andmaintenance. He testified that pipelines built on steep slopes are considerably more difficult toconstruct than pipelines built on slopes that are less steep. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 9. Mr.Paskett also testified that pipelines along steep slopes are more prone to washouts and slides,especially in areas that experience heavy rainfalls, such as the Oregon coast. ld.

All ofthe routes comprising alternatives C and B-1 would cross extremely steep andrugged terrain, which would make construction so difficult as to be unfeasible. Oil and gasexpert Steve Oxford testified that pipelines are generally built on slopes of less than 20%, andalthough there are numerous narrow winding logging roads to the north ofthe Wagon Road,there is no route over this rugged portion of the coastal mountain range that does not cross manyareas with slopes exceeding 20%. Mr. Oxford also testified that alternatives C and B-1 wereunfeasible from a technical and engineering standpoint due to steep slopes. OpponentRon Sadler testified that these overland alternatives crossed over "some of the roughest countryin Oregon." Sadler Testimony'atp 6. Based on this factor, alternatives C and B-1 are notreasonable alternatives due to the lack oftechnical and engineering and feasibility.

The following micro level alternatives to the Wagon Road/powerline corridor areunfeasible from a technical and engineering standpoint due to the steepness of the slopes in those

23 The only alternatives suggested by opponents were alternatives that were entirely within the right-of­way ofthe Wagon Road or Highway 42, which, as discussed above, are not non-EFU alternatives.

11 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMll035154.1

3405

areas: A-I through A-6 and A-9. Opponent Ron Sadler testified that these overland alternativescrossed over "some ofthe roughest country in Oregon." Sadler Testimony at p 6. Steve Oxfordtestified that those areas would require numerous crossings ofslopes in excess of20% and wouldbe unfeasible. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 12. Further, micro level alternatives A-I0 and A-IIcan be eliminated from consideration because oftechnically unfeasible slough crossings. ld.

Similarly, alternative B is not a reasonable alternative under this factor due to lack oftechnical and engineering feasibility. As discussed above, the problem with steep terrain existswith respect to alternative B-1, or any other connection between the beginning point ofthepipeline and Highway 42.24 Without a feasible way to connect with Highway 42, alternative Bcannot be used.

More importantly, the numerous utility facilities already existing in Highway 42 wouldmake construction and operation ofa 12" natural gas pipeline along the entire length ofHighway 42 in Coos County so difficult as to be technically unfeasible. Further, it would also betechnically unfeasible to re-route the traffic on this highway during construction of such a projectdue to the length ofconstruction and the traffic volumes on Highway 42, which are much greaterthan on the Wagon Road. Re-routing Highway 42 traffic would cause significant trafficproblems.

Bruce Paskett testified that:

Pipelines are more difficult to construct in an established publicright-of-way due to conflicts with other existing utilities. Futuremaintenance activities are also complicated by the necessity towork in close proximity to other utilities. Further, the maintenanceactivities ofother utilities in the rights-of-way adjacent to thepipeline increases the chances ofthird-party excavation damage.In the past six years, 83% ofreported damages to NWNatural'stransmission pipelines have occurred in public roads.

Applicant's Evidence, Tab 9. According to the Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT)"numerous underground utilities currently occupy the right-of-way adjacent to travel lanes andsome within the travel lanes" ofHighway 42.25 Applicant's Evidence, Tab 3. Currently, utilitiesin Highway 42 include Verizon, Coos Curry Electric, Douglas Electric, US West, Sprint, andMCI.ld.

Steve Oxford testified that from atechnical and engineering standpoint, the proposedroute on the Wagon Road/powerline corridor is the only feasible route through the coast rangebecause the Wagon Road is less steep than the alternatives C and B-1 and it contains fewerunderground utilities than Highway 42. The Wagon Road contains only one existing

24 Highway 42, itself, is not too steep, but the connection to the beginning point of the pipeline would betoo steep.

25 ODOr also testified that in '\numerous areas" along Highway 42, the geologic features and soils are"prone to becoming unstable when disturbed." ld.

12 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl0161501120382!SCMl1035154.1

3406

underground utility, a Williams Communication fiberoptic line. This fiberoptic line is locatedoff the edge ofthe travel lanes ofthe Wagon Road, and the proposed pipeline will be installed inone lane of the Wagon Road, at least 10 feet from the fiber optic line, and this will not create aconflict.26 Alternatives Band C are not feasible.

Further, even if alternative B were feasible, it is not technically feasible to bypass theEFU lands on Highway 42 because micro alternative route B-2 contains steep side slopes thatwould have to be traversed in the north and southportions ofthe route. Applicant's Evidence,Tab 12. Micro alternative A-12/B-3 is not feasible because that alternative would encroach onCoos Bay/North Bend Water Board property used for the Little Pony Reservoir watershed. !d.Thus, it is not technically feasible to bypass EFU lands on Highway 42.

In conclusion, factor (a) technical and engineering feasibility eliminates alternatives A-IthroughA-6, A-9 tbroughA-12/B-3, B-1, B-2, Band C from consideration.

(b) The proposed facility is locationally dependent. A utilityfacility is locationally dependent if it must cross land in one ormore are~s zoned for exclusive farm use fum. order to achieve areasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical needsthat cannot be satisfied on other lands.

The northern overland route (alternative C) is not a reasonably direct route for a numberof reasons. First, although the northern overland route is shown as a straight line on theNorthwest Economic Associates' map, any route built over this terrain would need to switchback and forth many times along narrow winding logging roads in order to have any possibilityofcrossing the coast range. Thus, the northern overland route would not be "reasonably direct"because it could not follow a reasonably straight course oftravel.

More importantly, the proposed public facility must be located to provide eventual futureservice to the cities ofCoquille, Myrtle Point and Bandon. Although not part ofthis application,the applicant intends to construct lateral pipelines to serve those cities. Thus, one of the publicservice requirements ofthe facility is proximity to the cities of Coquille, Myrtle Point andBandon. An alternative site that does not serve this public service requirement is not areasonable alternative site. Jordan v. Douglas; County, supra. The northern overland route doesnot satisfy the locationally dependent criteria because it is too far from Myrtle Point, Coquilleand Bandon, and there is no reasonably direct route between the northern overland route andthese cities.

26 Some ofthe opponents testified that there were telephone lines along a short stretch ofthe WagonRoad. One fiber optic line and a short stretch oftelephone lines do not amount to the numerous utilitiesthat already occupy Highway 42 right-of-way. Some ofthe opponents also testified that the fiber opticline in the Wagon Road on both sides ofthe Wagon Road because the fiber optic line occasionallyswitched from one side ofthe road to the other. However, there is only one fiber optic line in the WagonRoad, and it is only on one side of the road for any given stretch of the road.

13 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/120382/SCMll035154.1

3407

The Highway 42 route does not meet the locationally dependent factor very well becauseit is not a reasonably direct route. 27 The Highway 42 route swings south for many miles only toswing back north again. The Highway 42 route is not reasonably direct because ofthis extralength and out-of-direction travel. Highway 42 is not reasonably direct because it is at least 23miles longer than the proposed route, even ifboth are measured from a connection to theWilliams pipeline in or near Roseburg.

The Wagon Road/power line corridor route is reasonably direct because it hasproximity to the cities ofCoquille, Myrtle Point and Bandon,2s and this alternative does notcontain significant out-of-direction travel. In fact, there is no shorter route from the beginningpoint to the ending point that passes in proximity to the cities ofMyrtle Point and Coquille thanalternative A.

The locationallydependent factor eliminates alternatives B and C from consideration.Only alternative A fully meets this factor.

(e) Lack of available urban and lI1onresource lands.

The pipeline must cross through a rural portion of Coos County. Therefore, there is alack of available urban lands for all alternatives.

The applicant assumed, for the purpose ofthis analysis, that altern~tive C may avoid EFUlands, but this route crosses more forest resource land than the other two routes and would have amuch greater impact on forest land. Further, because of the narrow steep winding roads, roadwidening and additional road construction would be required, which in turn would require thatmore land be taken out offorest production for alternative C than any ofthe other alternatives.

Micro alternatives A-I through A-121B-3, B-1 and B-2 would cause additional impacts toforest land. In order to bypass EFU land on the Wagon Road/powerline corridor or on Highway42, the pipeline would need to cross additional forest land in areas outside ofthe existing road orpower line corridor. This would create additional impacts on forest land because ofthe trees that

27 The micro level alternatives (B-2 and B-3) along the Highway 42 route do not make the routeappreciably shorter, and therefore alternatives B-2 and B-3 along the Highway 42 route do not meet thisfactor either. .

2& Opponents argue that Highway 42 is more reasonably direct than the proposed route because it passesthrough the cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point. However, in order to supply gas to industrial users inCoos Bay, a 12-inch gas line is necessary. For every mile of 12-inch pipeline that is saved by theproposed route, the resources saved from that mile of 12-inch line could be used to construct four miles oflaterals of the kind needed to serve the cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point. The proposed route along theCoos Bay Wagon Road is 59 miles, with 28 miles oflaterals. This mainline is 23 miles shorter than alongHighway 42, with 11 more miles of laterals than would be required for the Highway 42 route. However,since every mile ofmainline is equivalent to about 4 miles oflaterals, the difference in mainline mileage(23 miles) would justify about 92 miles ofextra laterals. When the difference in the resources (such assteel, energy, and labor) that are required to construct a mainline, as opposed to a lateral, is considered, itbecomes apparent that the Wagon Road route is much more direct than Highway 42.

14 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1

3408

would have to be cleared and the land that would have to be removed from forest production toprotect the pipeline and to provide access to the pipeline for maintenance.

.Any Highway 42 route, because of its increased length,29 and alternative B because of thenecessity ofcrossing overland, would impact more forest land than the Wagon Road/power linecorridor route. The Wagon Road/power line corridor route impacts little forest land that itcrosses because the pipeline will be placed under the pavement of the Wagon Road or within thepower line corridor,30 where forest practices are already restricted due to the easementrestrictions ofthe power line corridor, itself. In all the miles between Coos Bay and theboundary line with Douglas County, the proposed route passes through only .23 miles of landzoned forest where the pipeline will not be in a powerline corridor or under the pavement of aroad. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 13.

There are no available urban or non-resource lands.

(d) Availability of existilllg Jrights-of-way.

Melanie Little testified that alternatives A-I through A-9, B-1 and C would require newright-of-way from BLM. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 4. Further, the overland routes would needto follow narrow winding logging roads. Applicant's Evidence, Tabs 4 and 12.

Highway 42 is a state highway under control of the Oregon State Department ofTransportation. As such, Highway 42 is a ''right-of-way'' within the meaning of ORS215.275(2)(d), but it is not "available" within the meaning ofthat section because of thenumerous public utilities existing underground in Highway 42 and because of the difficulty ofre­routing traffic during construction. Thus, Highway 42 is not an available right-of-way for a newnatural gas pipeline.

ODOT stated in its letter that it looked forward to working with the applicant, but thisappears to be nothing more than a courteous closing to its letter, not an indication that ODOTwould approve the installation ofa 12" natural gas pipeline the entire length ofHighway 42 inCoos County. Local NW Natural Manager Cal Grimmer testified at the August 19 hearingabout his discussions with ODOT. Jim Risley, ofODOT's Coquille office, was concerned abouttraffic safety during construction and utilities in Highway 42. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 34. Atthe Hearing, :Mr. Grimmer testified that, based upon his experience and his conversations withODOT, ODOT would be unlikely to allow the pipeline to be placed in Highway 42.

ODOT also testified that it had "discretion" not to allow the utility to locate in theHighway 42 right-of-way and that there were "many issues left to resolve." Applicant's

29 All routes cross through land zoned EFU and land zoned Forest. Even though an underground publicutility such as apipeline is permitted in aroad right-of-way without conditional use review pursuant toORS 215.283(1)(1), that does not change or eliminate the EFU and Forest zoning that applies to most ofthe Highway 42 right-of-way. Further, there is substantial evidence in the record that the pipeline couldnot be built entirely within the right-of-way.

30 There is no powerline corridor paralleling Highway 42.

15 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/1035154.1

3409

Evidence, Tab 3. ODOT further testified that the "Transportation System Plan for Highway 42has a 20-year planning horizon with a variety ofprojects, including preservation, realignment,and culvert replacements, along with routine and emergency repairs." ld. ODOT testified that"Any ofthese ODOT projects may cause temporary or permanent relocation of the gas pipeline."ld. Further, ODOT testified that the ''best approach" for apipeline along Highway 42 would befor the applicant to purchase new right-of-way along portions of abandoned roadways adjacent toHighway 42, and that in the event that ODOT did approve the use ofthe right-of-way, ODOTwould require a "re~location clause." ld.

A right-of-way that may only be used after obtaining discretionary approval of a stateagency, which approval may be obtained only after resolving many issues, including trafficsafety issues and issues concerning too many utilities already existing in the right-of-way, andwhich approval will be conditioned on an apparently unconditional right for the state agency torequire relocation ofpart or all ofthe pipeline at any time is not an "available" right-of-way.Highway 42 is not an "available" right-of-way.

The Wagon Road/power line corridor is the only alternative for which rights-of-way areavailable. The Wagon Road is an existing right-of-way. The Regional Solicitor for the BLMrendered an opinion that the Wagon Road is a public road that belongs to Coos County.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 30. Further, the power line corndor is also an existing utilityright-of-way. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 4. Although the pipeline will be placed in 40-foot wideeasements, those easements are less restrictive in terms ofwhat the property owner can do withthe property than the pre-existing easements for the power line right-of-way. See Applicant'sEvidence, Tabs 1, 12, and 39. The existing power line right-of-way has similar impacts to farmuses as any other right-of-way, and it is a "right-of-way" within the meaning ofORS 215.275(2)(d). The power line right-of-way is also "available" because BPA and PP&Lhave consented to the pipeline being placed in their right-of-way. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 8;and Tab 12, page 5.

Alternative C and all ofthemicro alternative routes (A-l through A-12, B-1, B-2 andB-3) would require the creation ofnew right-of-way, which would have a substantial impact onthese lands, many ofwhich are zoned for forest us~s. Further, for micro alternative A-12/B-3,new right-of-way could not be acquired since that alternative would encroach on CoosBay/North Bend Water Board property used for the Little Pony Reservoir watershed, and thewater board would not allow construction ofa pipeline in that area. Applicant's Evidence, Tab12.

Factor (d) eliminates all alternatives from consideration except alternative A.

(e) Public health and safety.

Highway 42 is not as safe ofa route because there are too many preexisting undergroundutilities in the Highway 42 right-of-way. As discussed above under factors (a) and (d), thenumerous existing underground utilities in Highway 42 create a safety risk once the pipeline isconstructed because ofthe potential for an excavator to damage the pipeline when working onone of these other underground utilities. Highway 42 is also less safe during construction due tothe dangers ofconstruction on such a busy road and the problems associated with blocking

16 -FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMll035154.1

3410

traffic on such a high volume highway. The findings under factors (a) and (d) with respect toutilities are incorporated herein by this reference.

Highway 42 also .passes through the central business districts and residentialneighborhoods of five urban areas (Green, Winston, Myrtle Point, Coquille, and the southernhalf of Coos Bay) and numerous crossroads developments with 30,000 residents. Applicant'sEvidence, Tab 1. Outside forces caused most accidents on natural gas pipelines, and populationdensity is the highest risk factor. 31 fd.

The combination ofthe population density on Highway 42 and the'numerousunderground utilities existing in the Highway 42 right-of-way makes Highway 42 a much lesssafe route. In contrast, the Wagon Road has only one underground utility (other than a shortstretch ofphone line), and the Wagon Road is sparsely populated, having only 350 occupiedhomes within a one-quarter mile strip centered on the pipeline. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 1.The Wagon Road is a much safer place to put a 12" natural gas pipeline.

Further, the concerns raised by opponents about evacuation in the event of an incidentwould apply on a much broader scale along Highway 42 than the Wagon Road due to the greaterdensity ofpopulation along Highway 42. Evacuating up to 30,000 people in the event of sometype ofunlikely disaster would be much more difficult than evacuating 350 people. The findingsunder OAR 660-006-0025(5)(b), set forth below, are incorporated herein by this reference.

Although the hearings officer does not fmd that Highway 42 would be an unsafe place tobuild a pipeline, the difference in the safety between the Wagon Road and Highway 42 issufficient to eliminate alternative B under this factor. Thus, the public health and safety factoreliminates alternative B, but not alternative A.

31 An issue was raised in the testimony about whether population density affects pipeline safety. Inresponse to this issue, Steveh Shute testified:

DOT does not release class location mileages, but I estimate that more than 95% ofalltransmission pipeline miles are in rural or semi-rural areas. The proposed route for theCoos Pipeline is presently classified as 97% in Class 1 or 2.

About 80% of all incidents occurred in Class 1, another 6% in Class 2. The accidentsoccurred there because the vast majority ofpipelines are located in rural areas.

Only about 5% of all pipelines are built in dense Class 3 (urban) and Class 4 (downtown)areas. But these areas suffer 14% of all DOT incidents. Restated, those pipelines inpopulated areas have been 3.3 times more likely to suffer an incident than pipelines inmore rural areas. The likelihood ofapipeline incident is roughly correlated to thepopulation density.

Applicant's Evidence, Tab 1. Siting the pipeline in an area with a lower population density, such as theWagon Road, decreases the rislcof an incident.

17 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/I035154.1

3411

(1) Other requirements of state or federal agencies.

The concerns raised by the Oregon Department ofTransportation are equally applicableunder this factor and the findings with respect to ODOT's concerns about Highway 42 underfactors (d) and (e) are incorporated herein by this reference. '

Other agencies that impose requirements that are relevant under factor (f) include theBureau ofLand Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Melanie Little, a biologist and lead documentpreparer for the pipeline EIS, provided written and oral testimony on the requirements oftheseagencies. Applicant's Exhibit 4. Melanie is a qualified expert on these issues, and she haspersonal knowledge ofthe project through her work on the EIS, as well as personallmowledgeofthe surrounding area, particularly the areas to the north and south ofthe Wagon Road, such asthe locations ofalternatives C and B-l.

Melanie Little testified that it was her professional opinion as a biologist and a consultantthat agency consultation would result in rejection ofalternatives A-I through A-II, B-1, and Cdue to the management objectives ofthe Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Applicant's Exhibit 4.She explained that construction ofright-of-way and necessary access roads on BLM lands(necessary for alternatives A-I through A-9, B-1, and C) would not be consistent with theNFPbecause ofthe policy in the NFP not to construct or authorize new facilities that may adverselyaffect late-successional reserves (LSR) and because ofthe BLM policy not to grant newrights-of-way when BLM has already designated an existing right-of-way corridor.32 la. TheBLM administered and private lands within the alternative A corridor have been previouslyconverted to a designated right-of-way corridor for an electrical transmission line. ld. BLM'spolicy is not to grant new right-of-way or approve a new route in a different location. ld.

Alternatives A-I through A-9, B-1 and' C would require tree removal within areasdesignated as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. ld. Both ofthese species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and critical habitat cannotbe adversely modified unless impacts can be completely mitigated. ld. Alternative A would notinclude removal of any critical habitat since no trees would be removed. ld.

Melanie Little also testified that BLM policies prevented construction ofnew roadswithin Key Watersheds. ld. Alternative C and alternatives A-6 through A-II would beconstrncted within the North Fork/Coquille River Watershed, which is a Key Watershed. ld.These alternatives would not be consistent with BLM requirements for Key Watersheds. ld.Melanie Little's testimony was corroborated at the hearing by expert Travis Hunt.

Alternative A is consistent with the requirements ofother state or federal agencies.Alternative B is not consistent with the requirements of the Oregon Department ofTransportation, and alternatives A-I through A-II, B-1 and C are not consistent with therequirements of several federal agencies, including BLM, USFWS, and NMFS. Factor (f)eliminates alternatives A-I through A-II, B-1, B and C from consideration.

32 LSR designates those forest seral stages that include mature and old-growth age classes. The highestpriority ofLSR is to protect and enhance habitat.

18 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150!120382!SCM/l035154.1

3412

4. Conclusion.

Ofthe three main routes that were examined, alternative A is consistent with all sixfactors, but alternative B is inconsistent with factors (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and alternative Cisinconsistent with factors (a), (b), (c), (d) and (t). Dfthe micro alternatives analyzed, alternativesA-I through A-6 are each inconsistent with factors (a), (c), (d), and (±). Alternatives A-7 andA-8 are inconsistent with factors (c), (d) and (±). Alternatives A-9 through A-II are inconsistentwith factors (a), (c), (d) and (±). Alternative A-12/B-3 is inconsistent with factors (c) and (d).Alternative B-1 is inconsistent with factors (a), (c), (d), and (±) and alternative H·2 is inconsistentwith factors (a), (c) and (d). Thus, each ofthe main alternatives to the proposed route areeliminated from consideration by five ofthe six factors, and most ofthe micro alternatives areeliminated from consideration by multiple factors.33

Each of the six factors provides a separate and independent basis to eliminate fromconsideration all alternatives that are inconsistent with such factor based on the findings set forthabove. Since alternative A is the only alternative that is consistent with all six factors and eachofthe other main alternatives and micro alternatives are eliminated from consideration by one ormore ofthe six factors of ORS 215.275(2), the applicant has demonstrated that all non-EFUalternatives are infeasible or cannot be used under one or more ofthe ORS 215.275(2) factorsand that the pipeline must be sited in an EFU zone. ORS 215.275(2) is met.

Co ORS 215.275(4).

ORS 215.275(4) requires the owner of a utility facility to be responsible for restoring, asnearly as possible, to its former condition any agricultural land and associated improvements thatare damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction ofthefacility. The evidence is that construction ofthe proposed pipeline will have little, ifany effecton farmland. The findings under OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a), set forth below, are incorporatedherein by this reference. The easements with the underlying property owners are included in therecord and will require restoration ofthe farmland. Further, conditions ofapproval shall beimposed upon this application to ensure that agricultural lands and improvements are restoredand that ORS 215.275(4) is met. Those conditions include conditions 1 through'S and 12. Withthe conditions ofapproval imposed on this appl~cation, the requirements ofORS 215.275(4) aremet.

D. ORS 215.275(5).

DRS 215.275(5) requires the county to impose clear and objective conditions on anapplication for a utility facility to mitigate and minimize the impacts ofthe proposed facility, ifany, on surrounding lands devoted to farm use in order to prevent a significant change in

33 Arguably, it is not necessary for the' applicant to establish that all ofthe micro level alternatives alongthe proposed route are eliminated from consideration because the applicant need only establish that thepipeline must be sited on EFU land. The applicant need only show that one of the micro level alternativesis eliminated from c~:msideration in order to establish that EFU land must be utilized for the pipeline.Nevertheless, the applicant has established that each ofthe micro level alternatives are inconsistent withone or more of the six factors.

19 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDX!01615()/120382/SCMl1035154.1 3413

accepted fann practices or a significant increase in the cost of fann practices on the surroundingfannlands. The evidence is that the proposed pipeline will have little, if any effect on fann usesor fann practices. The fmdings under OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a), set forth below, areincorporated herein by this reference. Further, conditions of approval shall be imposed upon thisapplication to ensure that agricultural lands and improvements are restored and thatORS 215.275(4) is met. Those conditions include conditions 1 through 5 and 12. Theseconditions are clear and objective and are sufficient to minimize and mitigate the impacts of theproposed pipeline, if any, on surrounding lands devoted to fann use in order to prevent asignificant change in accepted fann practices or a significant increase in the cost of fannpractices on the surrounding fannlands.

With the conditions of approval imposed on this application, the requirements ofORS 215.275(5) are met.

HI. Forest Criteria (State Law).

The pipeline is allowed on forest lands pursuant to both OAR 660-006-0025(1)(c) and(4)(q) because the pipeline is a locationally dependent use, as discussed above with respect toOAR 215.275(2)(b), and because the pipeline is a new natural gas distribution line that will havea pennanent right-of-way of40 feet, which is less than 50 feet in width. Therefore, pursuant toOAR 660-006-0025(4), the pipeline may be allowed on forest lands subject to compliance withOAR 660-006-0025(5), which is discussed below.34

A. OAR 660-006-0025(5).

1. A use authorized by Section (4) of this rule [OAR 660-006-0025(5)]may be allowed provided the following requirements or theirequivalent are met. These requirements are designed to make the usecompatible witb forest operations and agrJiclllllture and to conservevalues found on forest lands:

(a) The proposed use will not force a significant change in, orsignificantly increase the cost of, accepted farming or forestpractices on agriculture or forest lands.

This criterion contains both a fann and a forest component. Both are addressed by thetestimony in the record.

34 Carol Doty alleged that ORS 477.610-477.625 are approval criteria for this application. Those statutesare implemented by the State Forester and have no applicability to this land use application. The StateForester is authorized to issue certain types ofpermits under ORS Chapter 477, and the State Forester hasthe ability under those st~tutes to enforce the requirements of ORS Chapter 477. Those provisions haveno applicability to this land use application.

20 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1

3414

i. Farm Component of Forest Criteria:

Chris Hood conducted a detailed analysis of the existing farm. uses and fann soils on thefarmlands that will be affected by the proposed pipeline. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 13. Hisreport found that approximately 7.62 miles ofthe pipeline route within the Wagon Road right-of­way passes through EFU zoned land. However, in places where the pipeline lies within thecounty road right-of-way, it will be buried beneath the surface ofthe road, which will be paved.Applicant's Evidence, Tabs 1 and 39. Therefore, for the portions ofthe pipeline that are underthe pavement ofthe Wagon Road, the pipeline will not force a significant change in orsignificantly increase the cost of accepted fanning practices on agricultural lands because it willbe buried beneath the surface of an existing road.

In addition to the 7.62 miles ofpipeline on EFU land beneath the existing surface oftheWagon Road" approximately one mile ofthe pipeline route passes through EFU lands.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 13. Of that one mile, approximately .53 miles will be within aprivate easement outside the existing power transmission line corridor, and approximately .47miles will be within the existing power transmission corridor. ld. According to the soils for .these properties, as set forth in the soils survey of Coos County, Oregon, the main farm. uses forthese segments are pasture, hay production and grazing. ld. Those are the only fann uses thatpresently occur on these properties. ld.

The establishment ofhay fields and pasture lands includes weed control, field preparationand seeding the ground. ld. Once established, both pastures and hay fields may require weedcontrol with herbicides or by hand removal, application of fertilizer may be done in the fall orspring to increase forage production and occasional disking.or rototi1ling. ld. Such cultivationis shallow and does not exceed 12 inches in depth. ld. Hay fields are harvested by cutting theplants close to the ground and placing the plant material in windrows. ld. These windrows areallowed to dry. ld. After a rain or if surface moisture is high, the windrows are turned andfluffed with a hay rake. ld. The hay is picked up and baled with self-propelled machines whenthe crop is sufficiently dry. ld. Baling compresses the crop into tightly packed bales that arepicked up mechanically or by hand. ld. Bales are moved to a storage facility or are stacked inthe field for later transportation. ld. None of these activities will be impacted by the pipeline.The pipeline wiUbe buried at least 36 inches deep, which is far deeper than the 12-inch depththat a disldng or rototilling blade might reach, and in fact much deeper than a plow or any type offarm implement that would be used for other types of field crops.35 Applicant's Evidence, Tabs

35 Ms. Doty'relies on the testimony from Madison Farms to argue that a condition should be imposedrequiring a minimum soil cover of48 inches above the top ofthe pipe. However, the farmer requesting asoil cover of48 inches had a much larger pipe crossing his property. The mainline near Henniston is a48" diameter pipe. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 16. The evidence in the record is undisputed that a depthof 36 inches is sufficient for any type ofheavy equipment to safely drive over the proposed 12" pipe.Further, the evidence is undisputed that no farm implement that might be used in this part ofCoos Countywould penetrate deeper than 12 inches below the surface ofthe ground. Therefore, 36 inches is more thanadequate for this particular pipeline.

Ms. Doty also relies on the testimony from Madison Farms to argue that a condition should be imposedfor an annual fee to compensate for the easements that have been granted by the underlying property

21 - FlNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/120382/SCMll035154.1

3415

1 and 13. Further, based upon the testimony ofRon Stuntzner and Stuart Mitchell, it is safe todrive any type of fann or forest heavy equipment over the pipeline even in places where the 'pipeline is not under a road. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 19; Oral testimony ofRon Stuntzner atthe August 19,2002, hearing.

Applicant also provided testimony from several fanners.

Greg Juul is a fanner in Umatilla County who has approximately 3.5 miles of a 48-inchnatural gas transmission line running through 355 acres of fami ground. Applicant's EvidenceTab 16. Mr. Juul testifies that he grows a number ofcrops, including crops grown in the groundsuch as potatoes and onions, and that his deepest tillers only dig up to 24" deep. ld. There areno such crops on the proposed pipeline route, nor are the soils suitable for such crops.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 13. Mr. Juul testifies that the natural gas pipeline has caused nochange in any ofms farming practices and has not increased the cost ofoperating his fann.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 16.

David J. Messerle, President ofMe~ser1e & Sons, testifies orally and in writing that hiscompany owns 3,000 acres in Coos County, halfofwmch is timberland and half ofwhich is usedfor grazing. His company also leases an additional 1,500 acres for grazing in Coos and CurryCounties. Mr. Messerle testifies that the installation and maintenance of a natural gas pipelinewill not force a significant change in accepted fann or forest practices, nor force a significantincrease in the cost offann or forest practices. With respect to farm use, Mr. Messerle testifiesthat plowing, tilling or otherwise preparing the land for pasture, hay or crops is compatible withthe buried pipeline. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 14.

Han1e Westbrook has been the owner and manager ofthousands of acres of timberlands insouthwestern Oregon and northern California for more than 45 years. Applicant's Evidence, Tab20. He also owns fapTI property in northern California on which he grows lily bulbs and hasmany years' experience in managing and operating farm land. He testifies that for the portion ofthe pipeline buried in the power line easement right-of-way, loggers are already mindful of thenecessity to be careful in felling trees near power lines, and that the location ofa pipeline in thepower line easement would not change or result in a significantly increased cost of forestryoperations.

Mr. Westbrook is familiar with farming capabilities ofmuch of the land in Coos County,and he testifies that nothing associated with fanning in Coos County would require anyexcavation near the depth of a buried natural gas pipeline. He also testifies that even ifirrigationwere to be installed underground it would be at a depth that would not be interfered with by thelocation ofthe pipeline. Other irrigation methods including wheel pipelines (rainbirds) or floodirrigation would also not be impacted by this project as long as the location of the pipeline ismarked, according to the testimony ofMr. Westbrook. Mr. Westbrook testifies that there are nofarm crops that would be grown in this area that would be impacted by the placement of thepipeline through a farm.

owners. However, the landowners will be compensated for the easements by a one-time payment inexchange for the easement in lieu of an annual fee.

22 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO161501120382!SCMl1035154.1 3416

Hillary Baker testified that she would not be able to terrace her hillside to malce moreeffective use of it for the benefit ofthe value of the property, that her water supply could bedamaged, and that she will be restricted on how she could fence her property to graze livestock,all as a result ofthe proposed pipeline. However, Hillary Baker's prOperty is zoned Forest, notEFD.36 Further, the proposed pipeline on Hillary Baker's property will traverse the far edge ofher Forest parcel, within a cleared 7-acre strip where three BPA lines come together.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 39. The pipeline easement would be completely surrounded by BPAeasements, with a 160 ft buffer between the pipe and the nearest possible timber or buildingenvelope. ld..

Hillary Baker did not explain how the pipeline could cause any of the effects shecomplained of, and she did not offer any evidence that it would cause these effects. She didassert that a fence posthole would be three feet deep and that a cut for a terrace could be threefeet deep. However, Steve Shute testified that "fence posts holes may be properly located toallow new fences to be constructed in the vicinity of, and even crossing the pipeline, and terracescould be designed to coexist with the pipeline. There is no restriction on filling over the pipelineto create terraces." Applicant's Evidence, Tab 39, page 5. Neither the presence ofthe pipeline,nor the pipeline easements would significantly impact how Hillary Baker, or any other propertyowner fences or terraces their property.37

Based on the testimony ofMr. Westbrook, the pipeline will not interfere with anyexisting or future irrigation. Based on the testimony ofMr. Westbrook, Mr. MesserIe, Mr. Juul,Mr. Stuntzner and Mr. Hood, the pipeline will not interfere with or impact any farm crops thatwould be grown in this area, for all ofthe reasons discussed above. The pipeline, burled at least36 inches under the ground, will not force a significant change in or significantly increase thecost of accepted fanning practices on agriculturallands.38

36 Hillary Baker owns two other parcels zoned Residential, but the pipeline does not cross either ofthetwo residential parcels.

37 Hillary Baker and several other opponents testified that they were concerned about their domestic watersupply, but none testified that they had any water rights to wells that would allow them to use the waterfor irrigation or otherfarm purposes. Further, none offered any evidence other than speculation that theproposal would affect their water supply in any way. Opponents' fears in this regard appear to be basedupon some news articles attached to Hillary Baker's testimony that discussed a pipeline that was installedin (ironically) Coos County, New Hampshire. Nevertheless, applicant has agreed that it would repair anydomestic water supply that may be damaged by construction ofthe pipeline and that it would consent to acondition ofapproval to that effect.

It is also ironic that the November 17, 1999 article submitted by Baker notes at page 1 that the pipelinereduced property value, not because it impacted farm uses, but because it eliminated the ''potential forseven or eight building lots [and] now the property can only be used as a hay field." Thus, even theevidence introduced by the opponents supports the finding that the presence of a natural gas pipelinewould not have any impact on the use ofproperty "as a hay field."

38 At the August 19, 2002 hearing, both orally and in writing, Carol Doty also made vague reference tosome supposed statement by:Mr. Shute at the March Planning Commission hearing that 56 acres ofEFUland would no longer be available for use. The minutes of the planning commission hearing do not

23 - FlNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150f1203821SCMI1035154.1

3417

ii. Farm Impacts to Adjacent Lands:

Several opponents testified that applicant needed to examine farm uses on adjacent lands.Steven Shute has personally driven and flown the pipeline route several dozen times over 3growing seasons. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 39. He has never observed any farm crop or famuse except hay, pasture and grazing on the subject EFU lands, nor any lands within a mile ofthe

contain reference to any such statement. Ms. Doty did not provide any evidence of such a statement, nordid she cite to any place in the record where such a statement exists in either her hearing testimony or herfirst rebuttal testimony. In her final written rebuttal, which was submitted at the end of the time periodfor parties, including the applicant, to submit new evidence, Ms. Doty finally cited to page 78 ofthe draftBIS as the basis for her allegation. Doty/Stewart final rebuttal (dated September 9, 2002, but submittedon September 10) All page 78 ofthe draft BIS says is that soils may be imp~cted on 56 acres. This isfurther clarified on page 41 ofthe draft BIS, which states:

"In areas where ground-disturbing activities occur outside ofroadways,the proposed action may negatively impact soil productivity due tocompaction and backfilling with soils containing less organics than thematerial removed for pipe placement. The total acres ofpotentiallyreduced soil productivity under the proposed action is approximately 56acres (Table 9)."

It is apparent from Table 9 that about half ofthe "potentially" impacted property is in Douglas County.Further, applicant has recommended conditions of approval requiring segregation oftopsoils and limitingsoil compaction. Thus, soils on these 56 acres will not be impacted to any significant degree.

Further, the only EFU land that will be removed from use by the proposed route will be the 10-foot by 15­foot enclosure for the block valve at Dora, which will be. located adjacent to the road to minimize impactsonEFUland.

Ms. Doty recognizes that "Two 230 kv BPA lines and aIlS kv PP&L line have already impacted andremoved significant stretches offarm land and forest land from production." Doty/Stewart rebuttal, page2 (dated August 30, 2002). In her final rebuttal, Ms. Doty acknowledged that the pipeline easementswould be "inside the BPA and PP&L easements." Doty/Stewart final rebuttal, page 18 (dated September9, 2002, but submitted on September 10). However, on the next page ofthe same document, Ms. Dotystates that there "will be many fewer trees grown for commercial timber sales, a1j.d if:Mr. Shute is correct,cattle can continue to graze under power lines if there is any grass after the easement has been sprayedwith herbicides." Doty/Stewart final rebuttal, page 19 (dated September 9,2002, but submitted onSeptember 10). Doty offers no evidence or explanation for her hyperbolic statement, nor does Ms. Dotyexplain the inconsistency between her two statements. However, these inconsistent statements takeweight away from her overall testimony.

Further, even Doty acknowledges that the BPA powerline easement is an existing utility right-of-way.The fact that the powerline easement is kept clear oftrees, perhaps with the use ofherbicides, is anexisting condition caused by the presence ofthe powerlines and the pre-existing powerline easements.Applicant has chosen to locate the easement within the boundaries ofthe BPA easement to minimize andmitigate any impacts resulting from the pipeline. Doty has not explained how the impacts caused by thepre-existing powerlines can somehow be attributed to the proposed pipeline.

24 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/1203821SCM/I035154.1 3418

route.39 ld. Based upon the testimony ofSteven Shute, which is found to be credible, the fannuses on adjacent lands are exactly the same as the farm uses on the lands upon which the pipelinewill be located. These uses are limited to hay, pasture and grazing. Based upon the evidenceand findings discussed above, the presence ofthe pipeline will have no affect whatsoever onaccepted farm practices in conjunction with hay, pasture and grazing, on lands that the pipelinecrosses, the pipeline can have no possible or conceivable affect on accepted farm practices forhay, pasture and grazing on any adjoining property.

Out ofan abundance of caution, the applicant submitted an additional letter prepared byChris Hood analyzing accepted farm practices offruit and nut orchards, Christmas tree farms andhorse fanns and concluding that the presence of an underground pipeline on lands adjacent tothese fann uses would not impact these farm uses in any way. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 46.Even though it has already been found that these uses do not exist in proximity to the pipeline, asan additional, supplemental, and alternative finding, it is fourid based that the undergroundpipeline will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost ofacceptedfarming practices for these farm uses were they to exist on adjacent lands.

tii. Dora Block Valve:

The proposed block valve at Dora must be analyz~ independently since it containsabove ground structures.40 The site of the block valve is presently covered with small trees andis located very close to the base of a very steep slope, which makes it not useful for grazing.Applicant's Evidence, Tab 12. For construction ofthe block valve, the trees willbe removedfrom most ofa temporary 35-foot by 60-foot easement, as needed for construction. ld. Apermanent 25-foot by 40-foot easement will anow the applicant to keep the area clear oftrees foraccess to the block valve. ld. The actual fenced block valve area will be about 10 feet by 15feet and will be located adjacent to th? road right-of-way with a gate facing the road. ld.

Locating the block valve adjacent to the road will minimize any impacts on this piece offarmland. Further, clearing will enhance the grazing potential of all but the 10-foot by 15-footfenced area. Thus, the Dora block valve, located on EFU land, will not force a significantchange in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices on agriculturalfor forest lands.

39 Doty faults him for not noticing the few scattered orchards that she noticed; however, :Mr. Shute didnote in his testimony that he saw a few scattered fruit trees but no actively fanned orchards. Thephotographs submitted by Ms. Doty confirm :rY.rr. Shute's testimony. The so called orchard shown in thephotograph submitted by Doty appears to be nothing more than a few scattered fruit trees that have notbeen tended to in a long while.

40 The Fairview block valve and the Isthmus Slough block valve are both located on non-resource land.Only the block valve in Dora is located on resource land, and that resource land is zoned EFU, so only theDora block valve is subject to this criterion.

25 - FlNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150J1203821SCMJ1035154.1 3419

iv. Forest Component of Forest Criteria:

With respect to impacts on forest practices, in places where the pipeline lies beneath thepaved surface ofthe Wagon Road, there will be no impact on forest uses of forest land.

Based on the analysis done by Chris Hood, approximately six miles of the pipeline routepasses through forest land in areas not located within the Wagon Road. Ofthese six miles,approximately 5.77 miles will be within the existing power line transmission corridor, and only.23 miles will be outside the existing power transmission corridor. For the 5.77 miles ofpipelinepassing through forest land within the existing power line transmission corridor, there will not bea significant change in or significant increase in cost ofaccepted forest practices on forest landsbecause the restrictions on growing trees are already in place as a result ofthe power linecorridor easement.

Further, for all six miles ofpipeline passing through forest zoned land, the proposed usewill not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted forestpractices on forest lands because heavy equipment such as logging equipment may be drivenover the pipeline, evep. in areas where the pipeline is not beneath a road, based on the testimonyofRon Stuntzner and Stuart Mitchell. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 19; Oral testimony ofRonStuntzner at the August 19, 2002, hearing..

Ron Stuntzner is a well-qualified expert in forestry. His conclusions were based upon hisprofessional expertise and lmowledge offorestry practices in Coos County, as well as hisdetailed interviews with nine timber owners in Oregon and Washington that had ongoing forestmanagement, logging androad building operations over natural gas pipelines. Mr. Stuntznernoted that some forest operators thought that a pipeline was something of a nuisance41 becausethey needed to be careful around the pipeline, but that this extra degree ofcare required was notsignificant. Mr. Stuntzner concluded that the pipeline would not significantly impactcommercial forestry operations or costs. The only concern Mr. Stuntzner had was that thepipeline be lowered if a new road were built across the pipeline that required excavation belowthree feet. A condition of approval will be imposed to address this concern.

Timm Slater ofWeyerhaeuser and Dan Newton ofRoseburg Forest Products eachprovided testimony in support ofthe pipeline and stated that the pipeline will not significantlyincrease the cost offorest management activities. Applicant's Evidence, Tabs 22 and 23.

David Messerle, whose testimony regarding farm uses is discussed above, also testifiedabout forest practices. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 14. Mr. Messerle testified that forestoperations such as road construction, felling, bucking, yarding and log-hauling would becompatible with the pipeline. He also testifies that log skidding could be conducted so as toprevent any reasonable possibility ofcontacting a buried pipeline.

Mr. Messerle testified that one must exercise more awareness near a pipeline but that thiswould not force a significant change in the management or cost of farm or forestry operations.

41 It is clear from MI. Stuntzner's oral testimony that the tenn "nuisance" as used in his report meansnothing more than a minor annoyance and is not significant within the meaning ofthe OAR.

26 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/120382/SCM/1035154.1

3420

Mr. Messerle testifies that there are buried and overhead electric transmission lines and buriedfiber optic and telephone lines throughout the area and in lands zoned for farm and forest use.He also testifies that the existence ofthese other utilities did not significantly change or cause anincrease in cost to accepted farm or forest practices.

William A. Lansing, President and CEO ofMenasha Forest Products, a forestly companythat has been in this region for 98 years and has had 85,000 acres oftimberland under itsstewardship during that time. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 21. Mr. Lansing has three collegedegrees in forestry and over 33 years ofexperience managing timber lands. He is also certifiedas a forester by the Society ofAmerican Foresters. Four miles ofthe pipeline within the BPApowerline right-of-way crosses Menasha property. There is also one small parcel ofMenashaproperty outside the BPA right-of-way where the pipeline will cross.

Mr. Lansing testified orally and in writing that Menasha owns property upon which aburied water pipeline is located pursuant to an easement granted by the Coos Bay-North BendWater Board. Mr. Lansing states that this water line has not caused any undue interruption toMenasha's normal forestry and logging activities on that property. He also states that anyburiedline, such as power, water, sewer, or gas, is buried below "plough depth" and that this is at adepth that will not be disturbed by standard road construction and timber harvesting practices.

Based on the above testimony, and for all ofthe above reasons, the pipeline will not forcea significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practiceson agriculture or forest lands. OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a) is met.

(b) The proposed 1llSe will not significantly mcrease fire hazard orsignificantly increase fire suppression costs or significantlyincrease risks to fire suppression personnel.

Based upon the testimony ofsafety expert John Freeman, pipeline expert Steven Shute,NW Natural ChiefEngineer Bllice Paskett, Fire Marshall Josep Pedrola, pipeline expert BobOxford, Assistant Fire ChiefRobert Nicholls, Fire Chiefof Coos Bay Fire & Rescue StanGibson, Coos Forest Protective Association District Manager Michael E. Robinson and Chief ofPipeline Safety for the Public Utilities Commission Jack Dent, the proposed pipeline will notsignificantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs or significantlyincrease risks to fire suppression personnel.

With respect to fire hazard, the evidence is that the risk of an incident is exceedinglyremote and statistically insignificant (one incident every 280 years with one injury occurringevery 1,001 years).

With respect to fire suppression costs, the applicant will be responsible for training fireprotection personnel on what to do in the event of an incident and for coordinating with fireprotection personnel. Fire suppression costs will not be significantly increased because the costofthis training wiUbe borne by the applicant. Further, the applicant shall be responsible torespond to inquiries from the public regarding odor and other public concerns about whetherthere is a gas leak. Thus, this cost will not be borne by the fire departments or rural fire districts.

27 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlOI6150/120382!SCM/l035154.1

3421

In the highly unlikely event of an incident, the applicant will be responsible to make surethat the operator of the pipeline closes the appropriate block valves in a timely fashion. Oncethat occurs, the natural gas fire will extinguish itselfwithin about 10 minutes. The only cost tothe local fire departments and rural fire districts would be the cost ofputting out any collateralfires that may occur ifvegetation is ignited as a result of the natural gas fire. Given theexceedingly remote and statistically insignificant likelihood of a natural gas fire, the fact thatvegetation would only become ignited ifthe incident occurred during one ofthe dryer months ofthe year, and the numerous forest fires that occur in the county from other sources ofignitionover a year, the proposed pipeline would not significantly increase the cost offire suppression.

Finally, the proposed pipeline would not significantly increase risks to fire suppressionpersonnel. As stated above, fire suppression personnel would receive training by the operator ofthe pipeline. This training will ensure that fire suppression personnel unden;;tand what to do inthe event of an incident. If there is an incident, fire suppression personnel would not be engagedin suppression of the gas fire. Rather, the operator will engage the appropriate block valve,which will cause the gas fire to extinguish itself. Once that occurs, the fire suppressionpersonnel can put out any collateral fires that may have occurred using conventional methods tofight these conventional fires. Because fire suppression personnel are already well trained tofight conventional fires and forest fires and because ofthe exceedingly remote risk that any firewill result from the proposed pipeline, the proposed pipeline will not significantly increase risksto fire suppression personnel.

Applicant's testimony from fire chiefs with natural gas pipeline experience is particularlypersuasive.

Based on the testimony ofJosep Pedrola, Fire Marshal for Douglas County Fire DistrictNo.2, the presence ofa natural gas pipeline would not significantly increase the risk offire, thecost of fire suppression, or the risk to fire suppression personnel. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 25.No fires, gas leaks or other incidents occurred during the 11 years that a natural gas pipeline hasexisted in Mr. Pedrola's fire district Twice during maintenance ofthe pipeline, the pipelineoperator relieved excess pressure through a pressure reliefvalve and the fire district received afew calls from residents reporting a smell of gas. The presence ofthe pipeline has not imposed aneed upon the fire district to budget additional funds for fire suppression costs or the need topurchase~ny additional special equipment. Fire district personnel received annual training at nocost from the pipeline operator and the pipeline operator provides detailed location maps andemergency contacts which are regularly updated.

Assistant ChiefRobert Nichols ofthe Winston-Dillard Fire District also testified that thenatural gas pipeline in his fire district has not increased fire hazard, has not increased cost offiresuppression, and has not posed any increase in risk to fire suppression personnel. Applicant'sEvidence, Tab 26. Mr. Nichols testified that the fire district has never experienced fireassociated with the pipeline, has never budgeted any funds for fire suppression ofpotential firesas a result ofthe existing pipeline, has not purchased any special equipment for the pipeline, andhas not been required to expend additional funds for training as a result ofthe existing pipeline.Mr. Nichols has worked for the Winston-Dillard Fire Djstrict for 27 years, and in those 27 yearsthe Fire District has never responded to any problem of any type concerning the natural gaspipeline in that district.

28 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/1203821SCMl1035154.1 3422

Applicant also offered testimony rebutting the testimony of the fIre personnel who spokein opposition to the proposed pipeline. Those fIre personnel admitted, by their own testimony,that they did not have experience with natural gas pipelines. Some oftheir testimony alsoconfused natural gas pipelines with liquid petroleum pipelines. As explained by several ofapplicant's experts, including John Freeman, Steven Shute and Bruce Paskett, a liquid pipeline ismuch different than a gas pipeline. Bruce Paskett testifIed as follows:

"The natural gas in the pipeline is lighter than air, many oftheconcerns associated with liquid petroleum pipelines would notapply. For example, natural gas does not present a risk to theenvironment. In the unlikely event ofa natural gas leak, the gaswill generally dissipate harmlessly into the atmosphere, wlrile aliquid would accumulate on the ground. There would be noenvironmental clean-up necessary for a natural gas incident. In thehighly unlikely event that a natural gas incident results in a fIre, thefire would be extinguished when the necessary valves are closed.It is unnecessary and undesirable for fIre response personnel toattempt to extinguish a natural gas fire. The objective in a naturalgas incident is to control the surrounding area until the appropriatevalves are closed."

Similarly, John Freeman testifIed that:

"Any gas leak results in a leak to the atmosphere and since it islighter than air it generally rises and dissipates. There is noremaining liquid residue to contaminate the soil surface orgroundwater. This is in sharp contrast to apetroleum pipeline suchas the Olympic product line, which leaks a flammable liquid thatpollutes the soil and water and remains flammable for an extendedperiod oftime after the leak is stopped."

Mr. Freeman also testifIed that special equipment is not needed to fIght natural gas fIresand that water is used to cool surrounding structures or trees, but that a natural gas fIre shouldnot be extinguished except by shutting off the block valve, which will be done by the pipelineoperator in the unlikely event of an incident. :Mr. Freeman is an expert who has spent 25 yearsinvestigating gas explosions and fIres for gas companies and insurance companies. He has beeninvolved in over 300 propane incidents and about 100 natural gas incidents. Mr. Freeman is awell-qualilled expert in this regard.

Some ofthe opponents' testimony about the fire safety issues is misplaced. Carol Dotytestified about how long it might take one of the rural firefighters to close a block valve.Opponents point to a statement by Mr. Shute that it would be possible for someone else to betrained to close the block valve, but not to any statement that someone else would be responsiblefor closing the valve. However, the testimony applicant presented at the hearing was clear andunambiguous that the rural fIrefIghters would not be responsible to close a block valve. Iftheblock valves need to be closed, that would be done by the pipeline operator.

29 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150!120382!SCMIl035154.1 3423

Ron Carlton raised a concern about the pipeline operator and suggested that a conditionbe imposed requiring the operator to be NWNatural. Such a condition would be inappropriate,and as Mr. Carlton admitted, that type ofcondition might implicate antitrust or other similarconcerns. Further, such a condition is unnecessary. Jack Dent, the Chief ofPipeline Safety forthe Public Utilities Commission, testified at the hearing. He stated that he had seen preliminarydesigns for the pipeline and that he will approve the final pipeline designs. Mr. Dent testifiedthat he was responsible for pipeline safety in Oregon. He also testified that regardless ofwhobecame the pipeline operator ''we will do our job" and any pipeline operator will be required tocomply with all relevant DOT regulations.

Opponents also testified that some ofthe rural fire districts in the area did not haveadequate resources to put out a significant forest fire. However, applicants introduced evidencethat these individual rural fire districts would not be called upon to put out any significant fire bythemselves. On the contrary, the Coos Forest Protective Association, whose boundaries includeCoos County, is charged with marshalling resources "to suppress any fire within our district."Applicant's Evidence, Tab 45. The Coos Forest Protective Association has the ability to callupon resources from 30 rural fire protection districts within its boundaries, as well asneighboring districts when more structural fire protection resources are needed. ld. Further, theCoos Forest Protective Association has the "ability to call on resources from across the state"and "national resources can also be called upon ifnecessary." ld. There is no shortage ofresources to fight fires in Coos County.

Opponents also introduced evidence of a number ofso-called "incidents" involvingnatural gas pipelines in Oregon, but when examined, this evidence is nothing more than evidencethat people called with questions or concerns about a gas pipeline. The vast majority ofthese so­called "incidents" did not occur. As ChiefofPipeline Safety Jack Dent testified, there has neverbeen a death in Oregon as a result ofnatural gas, except for two suicides. Even if there is a leak,Mr. Dent testified that natural gas will rarely ignite. Nationally, nine people are killed annuallyby natural gas pipelines, and 12,000 people are electrocuted every year, according to Mr. Dent.

Stan Gibson, Fire Chief of Coos Bay Fire & Rescue, testified that page 533 of the"Essentials ofFirefighting," the basic fuefighting manual used by all fire districts, states that anatural gas fire should not be put out, but instead the local utility should be contacted and thelocal utility should provide an emergency response crew. NW Natural testified that they would 'do this if they were the operator and that any other operator would do the same. Mr. Gibsontestified that utility companies have always responded in his experience. Mr. Gibson alsotestified that iftrained to know what to do in the event of an incident (i. e., contact the localutility), there would be no increase in fire risk, cost, or risk to personnel.

Opponents also alleged that there would be no means of emergency 'evacuation in theevent of an incident. One of these opponents was Howard Leatherman; however,Mr. Leatherman's testimony was undercut by his own admission that there was another way outthat took only an hour or two longer than the Wagon Road. Other testimony in the recordestablishes that there are many less traveled roads in this part ofCoos County, which might beused as an evacuation route. Moreover, Steven Shute testified that pipeline incidents are nearlyalways a single break and that there has never been a natural gas pipeline incident in Oregon orWashington that caused the pipeline to fail at multiple points along the pipeline. Applicant's

30 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/1035154,l 3424

Evidence, Tab 39. Therefore, even ifthere were some catastrophic event that blocked theWagon Road at some point (an event that would be much more likely to be caused by some othersource than the pipeline), such an event would not block anyone's evacuation. The Wagon Roadleads west toward Coos Bay and east toward Roseburg. No matter what point the road isblocked and no matter where someone is along the road, they would be able to travel either westtoward Coos Bay or east toward Roseburg in the event of some emergency.

Applicant has demonstrated that the pipeline will not significantly increase fire hazard orsignificantly increase fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppressionpersonnel. OAR 660-006-0025(5)(b) is met.42

.

IV. Forest Criteria (County Regulations).

The proposed pipeline also satisfies the county code requirements in Section 4.8.300 and4.8.400. Section 4.8.300(F) authorizes new gas distribution lines with rights-of-way of 50 feet orless in width as a conditional use. Since this is a new natural gas distribution line with a right-of.:.way of 40 feet, which is 50 feet or less in width, it is allowed under Section 4.8.300(F) as aconditional use.

As a conditional use, the proposed pipeline must comply with the criteria ofSection 4.8.400. Section 4.8.400(A) and (B) are identical to OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a) and (b)and are met for the same reasons. The fmdings under OAR 660-006-0025(5)(a)(b) areincorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4.8.400(C) requires all uses to comply with Sections 4.8.600, 4.8.700 and4.8.750. Sections 4.8.600, 4.8.700, and 4.8.750 apply to dwellings and structures. The proposedpipeline is not a dwelling. The term "structure" is defined in Chapter II as "anything constructedor installed or portable, the use ofwhich requires a location on a parcel ofland." A pipelinewould not appear to fall within this definition because the use ofthe pipeline does not require alocation on a parcel ofland. Rather, the pipeline will be located under the land that it crosses,and the use ofthe pipeline does not require or affect any portion ofthe surface ofthe land.Further, the context provided by Sections 4.8.600,4.8.700 and 4.8.750 make it clear that apipeline is not a structure, as that tenn is used in these sections, because most, ifnot all, oftheprovisions ofthese sections make no sense ifapplied to a pipeline. For instance, the requirementin Section4.8.600(b) regarding evidence of a domestic water supply and the requirement inSection4.8.700(B) that structures must use non-combustible or fire-resistant roofing materials donot ma1ce sense when applied to a pipeline. Further, the lot size, setback, structure height, lotcoverage, parking and loading, etc., requirements of Section 4.8.750 do not make sense if appliedto a pipeline. The pipeline is not a structure, at least not as that term is used in Sections 4.8.600,4.8.700, and 4.8.750.43 Sections 4.8.600, 4.8.700, and 4.8.750 are inapplicable.

42 OAR 660-006-0025(5)(c) is inapplicable because the proposeduse is authorized by subsection (4)(q),not by subsections (4)(e), (m), (s), (t), or (w) of OAR 660-006-0025.

43 None ofthe block valves are located on land zoned Forest, and therefore, even ifthe block valvesconstitute "structures," Sections 4.8.600, 4.8.700, and 4.8.750 do not apply to the block valves.

31 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382!SCMJI035154.1

3425

However, even to the extent that these sections did apply to pipelines, the only provisionswhich arguably make sense when applied to a pipeline are Sections 4.8.600(A) and 4.8.750(H).Section 4.8.600 is limited to where the structure shall be sited "on the parcel." The provisions ofthis section are satisfied by the siting ofthe pipelin~ at least 36 inches'beneath the surface oftheground. Section 4.8.750(H) regarding riparian vegetation does not apply to public utilities.

To the extent that Sections 4.8.600,4.8.700 and 4.8.750 have any applicability to thispipeline, the requirements ofthose sections are met. Section 4.8.400(C) is met.

Section 4.8.400(D) does not apply to a use authorized under Section 4.8.300(F).Therefore, this criterion is inapplicable.

V. Estuary Issues.

Carol Doty makes a number ofallegations about the Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan(CBEJv.1P). The Coos County Comprehensive Plan and the CBEMP, which is part of theComprehensive Plan, are implemented by and fonn the legal basis ofthe CommunityDevelopment Regulations. Comprehensive Plan, Article 5.2 (Appendix 1 - P 5); see alsoCCZLDO 1.1.200 (The purpose ofthe CCZLDO is "to implement the Coos CountyComprehensive Plan").

CCZLDO 4.5.150 explains that CCZLDO Chapter 4.5 "contains specific language thatimplements the Coos Bay Estuary Plan. The main purpose is to clearly stipulate where, andunder what circumstances, development may occur." Section 4.5.150 further explains thatspecific requirements are found in the "pages in the Ordinance which contain specific zoningdistrict provisions which correspond to the map designations for the subject site." The proposedpipeline corridor passes through properties with Isthmus Slough map designations ISSDNC-DA,28A-DA, 30-CA, and 32-D and through properties with Catching Slou.gh map designations 21­RS, 21-CA, and 21A-NA. CCZLDO 4.5.150 further explains that information about whether aproposed use or activity is pennitted outright, pennitted as a conditional use, or prohibited isfound in the "district's Uses, Activities, and Special Conditions Table." The ordinance sectionscontaining the Uses, Activities, and Special Conditions Tables for the slough districts listedabove are, for the Isthmus Slough, sections 4.5.211, 4.5.616, 4.5.641, 4.5.661 and 4.5.676, andfor the Catching Slough, sections 4.5.596, 4.5.601 and 4.5.606.

Other than section 4.5.211,44 each ofthese sections lists low-intensity utilities as a "P-G."Under Section 4.5 .150(5)(b), the symbol "P" means "the use or activity is permitted outright

44 Section 4.5.211 lists low-intensity utilities as a, "ACU-S, G." The symbol "ACU" indicates that the useis permitted as an administrative conditional use, and the symbol "s" indicates that the use is subject toSpecial Conditions. Section 4.5.l50(5)(b). Under section 4.5.211, the only Special Condition is "Low­intensity utilities are only permitted ifdesigned so as not to interfere with navigation." Since the IsthmusSlough will be directionally drilled, passing at least 15 feet below the bed and banks of the slough, it isdesigned so as not to interfere withnavigation in satisfaction ofthe Special Condition. Since the pendingapplication process is a public hearing conditional use process, that includes an administrative conditionaluse under the Forest provisions of CCZLDO Chapter 4.8, the hearings officer can approve the applicationas a conditional use under section 4.5.211. Finally, the only General Conditions applicable under section4.5 .211 are Policy Nos. 17 and 18, which are discussed below.

32 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMIl035154.1

3426

subject only to the management objective.,,45 The symbol "G" indicates that the use or activitymaybe allowed subject to "General Conditions." CCZLDO 4.5.150(5)(b). The term "GeneralConditions" is defined as "a conveQient cross-reference to applicable Baywide Policies whichmay further limit or condition the uses and activities." ld.

Section 4.5.596 lists seven General Conditions and section 4.5.641 lists eight GeneralConditions. The General Conditions under sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 are identical, except thatCCZLDO 4.5.641 adds the eighth condition that no use or activity shall pre-empt the use ofthedesignated dredged material disposal site in this district as required by Policy No. 20. The sevenidentical General Conditions ofsections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 require review for compliance withPolicy Nos. 14, 17, 18,22,23,27,28,34,49,50, and 51. Section 4.5.676 lists five GeneralConditions, requiring review under Policy Nos. 14,17,18,23,27,49,50, and 51. The GeneralConditions for sections 4.5.616, 4.5.661, 4.5.601 and 4.5.606 only require review for compliancewith Policy Nos. 17 and 18. Each policy that must be reviewed under these General Conditionsis discussed below.46

Policy No. 14. General Condition 4, which is identical under both CCZLDO 4.5.596 and4.5.641, triggers review under PolicyNo. 14.47 However, Condition 4 contains an exception thatis applicable to the use at issue in this case. Condition 4 reads as follows: "Uses in this districtare only permitted as stated in Policy # 14 'General Policy on Uses within Rural CoastalShorelands.' Except as permitted outright, or where findings are made in this plan, uses are onlyallowed subject to the findings in this policy [emphasis added]." Low intensity uses, such as thepipeline at issue in this case, are "permitted outright," and therefore, Policy 14 does not apply.

Since sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 are somewhat confusing, a brieftextual analysis is inorder to further emphasize the point that Policy No. 14 does not apply to the proposed pipeline.Under both sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641, Condition 4 falls under the category entitled "thefollowing conditions apply to all permitted uses." At first blush, it would seem that a conditionthat applies to "all permitted uses" must apply to a use that is "permitted outright." However,upon deeper analysis it becomes clear that there is a distinction between a use that is '.'permittedoutright," and one that is merely "permitted."

45 The management objective is a general policy guideline for the district. CCZLDO 4.5.150(5)(a).

46 Carol Doty argued that Policy No. 19 was also applicable. Even though Policy No. 19 is not applicable,it will be addressed with the other policies, beginning with Policy No. 14.

47 General Condition 3 of section 4.5.676 also triggers review under Policy 14. However, the language ofGeneral Condition 3 of section 4.5.676 is identical to General Condition 4 ofsections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641and contains the same exception for uses that are permitted outright. Since low-intensity utility uses aredesignated in section 4.5.676 with the symbol "P-G" and are permitted outright, Policy 14 does not applyunder section 4.5.676. .

33 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCM/I035154.1

3427

CCZLDO Chapter 4.5, sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 all distinguish between uses whichare "pennitted outright" and uses "which may be permitted as conditions uses. ,,48 A low-intensityutility is designated with the symbol "P" and that symbol means that the use is "permittedoutright." CCZLDO 4.5.150(5)(b). Since Condition 4 contains an exception for uses that are"permitted outright," such uses are not subject to the findings in Policy No. 14. No otherinterpretation of Condition 4 makes sense or gives full meaning to all ofthe words used.49

This interpretation is further buffered by section 4.5.211. Low-intensity utilities are anadministrative conditional use, subject to a Special Condition under section 4.5.211.50 TheSpecial Condition states that this administrative conditional use is "only permitted ifdesigned soas not to interfere with navigation [emphasis added]." This reference to a specific administrativeconditional use as a "permitted" use demonstrates that the term "permitted" as used in CCZLDOChapter 4.5 is not limited to uses that are "permitted outright," but also includes conditional uses.

The interpretation that Policy No.14 does not apply to the proposed pipeline is alsosupported by several policies of the CBEMP, including Policy No.4 which notes that "allproposed actions (approved in this Plan) which would potentially alter the integrity oftheestuarian ecosystem have been based upon a full consideration ofthe proposed alteration.Except for the following uses and activities * ** ." Low-intensity utility uses are not listed inthe list ofactivities set forth in Policy 4. Policy 4 continues, stating:

"Where the impact assessment requirement (of Goal #16implementation requirements #1) has not been satisfied in this Planfor certain uses or activities (i.e., those identified above), then suchuses or activities shall not be permitted until findings demonstratethe public's need and gain which would warrant any modificationor loss to the estuarian ecosystem, based upon a clear presentationof the impacts ofthe proposed alteration *,,~ * ."

48 Both sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 also distinguish between "uses" and "activities" and divide theGeneral Conditions into two categories: those that apply "to all uses and activities;" and those that apply"to all pennitted uses." Thus, Condition 4 applies to "pennitted uses" but not to an "activity."

49 All ofthe "permitted outright" uses listed in the tables in both sections 4.5.596 and 4.5.641 are subjectto the General Conditions. Even ifthe tables listed a use that was ''pennitted outright" and not subject tothe General Conditions (i.e., a use designated solely with the symbol "P"), General Condition 4 could notapply to such a use because the General Conditions apply only when the symbol "G" is listed for theparticular use. CCZLDO 4.5.150(5)(b). Therefore, the words "except as pennitted outright" inCondition 4 must apply to uses designated with the symbols "P-G." No other interpretation of GeneralCondition 4 makes sense or gives effect to the words "except as pennitted outright." PGE v. Bureau ofLabor and Industries, 317 Ore 60'6,611,859 P2d 1143 (1993) ("where there are several provisions orparticulars such construction is, ifpossible, to be adopted as will give effect to all11 and words that havebeen inserted must not be omitted); ORS 174.010; see also CCZLDO 1.1.700(1) (interpretations oftheCCZLDO shall conform to the ORS and appropriate cases).

50 The General Conditions under section 4.5.211 do not list Policy No. 14 as an applicable policy underthat section.

34 - FJNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMll035154.1 3428

Low-intensity utility uses are not listed among the Policy 4 uses "identified above," butlow intensity utility uses are listed as "pennitted outright" uses in the Plan's implementingordinance. Thus, the need for and the impacts of low-intensity utility uses have already beenconsidered in the adoption ofthe Plan and its implementing ordinances. Consequently, thePolicy No. 14 findiilg of a need that cannot be accommodated at other upland or urban locationsand the Policy No. 14 finding that the use does not conflict with the resource preservation andprotection policies ofthe CBEMP have already been made for the low-intensity utility use atissue in this application. Since Policy No. 14 was addressed for low-intenSity utility uses whenthe Plan and its implementing ordinances were adopted, it need not be addressed again in thisapplication.

However, as an additional, supplemental and alternative finding, it is found that bothprovisions ofPolicy No. 14 were met in this case. The analysis applicant undertook to showcompliance with ORS 215.275(2) amply demonstrates that there is no other feasibly route for thepipeline that does not also impact EFU land. Under Policy No. 28, Coos County must manageall rurallands designated with the Coastal Shorelands Boundary as being suitable for EFUdesignation. Thus, applicant's analysis under ORS 215.275 is directly relevant to the question ofwhether the pipeline could be accommodated at other upland locations. Further, based upon themaps submitted by the applicant into the record, it is clear that the only feasible route to crossfrom east to west passes through an estuary. See Applicant's Evidence, Tabs 2, 6 and 7. Thereis a narrow gap near the town of Green Acres between the Isthmus Slough and the next sloughfurther south, but this area contains steep terrain, no existing rights-of-way suitable for apipeline, and would require more EFU land to be crossed. There is no other way to get from eastto west without crossing a slough. Thus, the hearings officer, as the Board of Commissionersdesignee, hereby detennines that the pipeline satisfies a public need51 for natural gas whichcannot be accommodated at other upland or urban locations.

Further, based upon the evidence in the record, together with the analysis set forth belowunder the other resource preservation and protection policies triggered by the GeneralConditions, it is found that that the proposed pipeline does :not conflict with the resourcepreservation and protection policies established elsewhere in the Plan.

As discussed above, Policy No. 14 does not apply. In fact, county staffmade a similardetennination only a few years ago when the Williams fiber optic line was drilled under theIsthmus Slough on the south side ofthe county right-of-way. This occurred some time in the late1990s, or early 2000, long after these policies were adopted and effective. However, to theextent that Policy·No. 14 were to apply, it is met.

Policy No. 17. Policy No. 17 protects major marshes, significant wildlife habitats,coastal headlands and exceptional aesthetic resources. Policy No. 17 states that it applies exceptwhere exceptions allow otherwise. The code contains such an exception in section 4.5.180(1)(e),which states that riparian vegetation may be removed in riparian corridors within the Coos Bay

51 The fact that the need is a public need is amply evidenced by the passage of the ballot measure toprovide funding for a natural gas pipeline and the Board of Commissioners decision to proceed with thedevelopment ofthe pipeline.

35 - FlNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl0161501120382/SCMl1035154.1

3429

Estuary Management Plan in order to site or properly maintain public utilities, provided that thevegetation to be removed is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose.

More importantly, there are no major marshes, significant wildlife habitats, coastalheadlands and exceptional aesthetic resources within the proposed pipeline corridor. Policy No.17 does not apply.

Policy No. 18. Policy No. 18 concerns protection ofhistorical, cultural andarchaeological sites. This policy requires review of development proposals by submitting a siteplan to the Coquille Indian Tribe and Coos, Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua Tribes. The Tribes thenhave 30 days to state in writing whether the project would protect cultural, historical andarchaeological values or, ifnot, whether the project could be modified by appropriate measuresto protect those values. Under Policy No. 18, the county may approve the development proposalifno adverse impacts have been identified or, if such impacts can be mitigated throughappropriate measures, either agreed upon by the applicant and the Tribes or, ifthere is a dispute,such measures deemed necessary by the governing body (or, in this case, its designee, the Boardappointed hearings officer) to protect the cultural, historical and archaeologi~al values ofthe site.

In this case, Brian Cox, ofBIS submitted awritten letter dated August 21,2002,explaining that notices, including site plans of the proposed route were submitted to the Coquille,Coos, and Umpqua Tribes, whose areas ofconcern include the proposed pipeline corridor. TheCoquille and Coos Tribes returned written statements (copies ofwhich are attached to the August21 letter from Cox), and all Tribes agreed that they would coordinate among themselves whichTribe would have a representative on site in each area during ground disturbing activities.

In addition to the written comments received from the Tribes, a cultural resourcesinventory for the proposed pipeline was prepared by Albert C. Oetting ofHeritage ResearchAssociates, Inc., a copy ofwhich is part ofthe record at Appendix B to the draft EIS. Thisinventory did not find any sites ofcultural, historical or archaeological significance on theIsthmus Slough crossing or the Catching Slough crossing properties. The cultural resourcesinventory also recommended a number ofmitigation measures, including site discovery probes ateight specific locations, examinations ofportions ofthe route not yet surveyed pending ownerpermission, and continued consultation with the Tribes during these additional probes andsurveys. The cultural resources inventory also recommended that a qualified archaeologistshould be present to monitor pipeline construction activities in the vicinity of defined sites andareas with a high probability for archaeological sites. The applicant will follow these .recommendations. Ifnew archaeological sites are found during the follow-up surveying or, ifany archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the applicant will need tofollow Policy No. 18, which contains adequate procedures governing the process that needs to befollowed in such instance.

Further, Policy No. 18 contains a set ofprocedures calling for a site plan review prior todevelopment, and Policy No. 18 contains a set ofprocedures explaining in detail how this siteplan review is to be accomplished. Nothing in Policy No. 18 states that the site plan review mustbe filed concurrently with a conditional use application. Further, since Policy No. 18 contains aself-contained set ofprocedures governing how the site plan review is accomplished (including aprovision for local appeals and review), deferring compliance with Policy No. 18 would not limit

36 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMll035154.1 3430

Policy No. 23. Policy No. 23 concerns riparian vegetation stream bank protection. Thispolicy states in pertinent part: "appropriate provisions for riparian vegetation are set forth in theCCZLDO Section 4.5.180." CCZLDO Section4.5.1801(e) states that riparian vegetation maybe removed within fIfty feet of a wetland, stream, lake or river in order to site or properlymaintain public utilities, provided that the vegetation to be removed is the minimum necessary toaccomplish the purpose. Therefore, PolicyNo. 23 does not apply to this proposed public utility,except to the extent that a condition of approval may be imposed to limit the removal ofriparianvegetation to the minimum necessary. Since the slough crossings will be bored, there should beno pennanent removal of riparian vegetation as a result ofthis application. To the extent thatany temporary impacts are created by the boring process, those can be mitigated throughrestoration ofany vegetation that is inadvertently damaged. With a condition that riparianvegetation only be removed to the minimum extent necessary and that any riparian vegetationthat is removed must be replaced, Policy No. 23 is met.

Policy No. 27. Policy No. 27 concerns flood plain protection. This policy merely statesthat the respective flood regulations oflocal governments shall be recognized as implementingordinances ofthe CBEMP. Coos County has a flood plain ordinance set forth atCCZLDO 4.6.200-4.6.290. To the extent that any ofthe property within the pipeline corridor isin a flood plain, the flood plain would not be impacted, since the pipeline will be located underground and will be bored under the sloughs. With a condition requiring the applicant to restoreoriginal grades within floodplains, the pipeline will not change the capacity of the flood plain tocarry floodwaters, and Policy No. 27 is met.

Policy No. 28. Policy No. 28 requires the county to manage all rural lands designatedwithin the Coastal Shorelands Boundary as being suitable for EFU designation consistent withthe requirements ofORS Chapter 215. Allowable uses are listed in an appendix54 to theCCZLDO. That appendix states that land within EFU zones shall be used exclusively for fannuse "except as otherwise provided in ORS 215.213." That statute applies to counties thatadopted marginal land designations, and since Coos County did not adopt such designations, theapplicable statute is actually ORS 215.283. In any event, both ofthose statutes contain anexception allowing public utilities such as the proposed pipeline. Therefore, the proposedpipeline is an allowed use under Policy No. 28. Policy No. 28 is met.

Policy No. 34. Policy No. 34 is essentially the:same as Policy No. 28, except that itconcerns forestlands, rather than EFU lands. The applicable appendix55 setting forth forest usesstates: "the following uses and activities are consistent with statewide goal 4 * * *utility facilityincluding ** * a facility not for the purpose of generating power for public sale." Thisapplication for a utility not including the generation ofpower is consistent with state lawregarding protection offorestlands as set forth in OAR 660-006-0025. Thus, PolicyNo. 34 ismet.

S4 Although Policy No. 28 refers to Appendix 1, this is a scrivener's error. The appendix., entitledAgricultural Land Use is set forth at Appendix 4.

SS Policy No. 34 refers to Appendix 3, which is again a scrivener's error. The applicable appendix is setforth at Appendix 5, entitled Forestlands Use.

38 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMIl035154.1

3431

Folicy Nos. 49, 50 and 51. Policy Nos. 49, 50 and 51 do not apply to this application.Those policies concern extending public services into rural areas for the purpose ofserving ruralcommunities and people living in the rural areas. The proposed pipeline is being extendedthrough a rural area to serve the urban areas of Coos Bay, and eventually cities of Coquille,Bandon and Myrtle Point. These rural policies do not apply.

VI. Procedural Issues.

Opponents also raise several procedural issues. Carol Doty alleged, without citation toany relevant authority, that the County was required to provide notice to all persons who ownedproperty along the "alternatives" applicant analyzed in its ORS 215.275(2) demonstration thatthe pipeline must be sited on EFU land. The relevant statutes, including ORS 197.763, requirenotice to be mailed to property owners within so many feet of the "subject property." The ORS215.275(2) "alternatives" are not the "subject property" ofthis application. No pipeline was everproposed to be located on any ofthe alternatives other than the proposed alternative. Thealternatives were merely examined in order to demonstrate that the pipeline must be sited onEFU land. Thus, no additional notiCe was required.

Carol Doty also testified, again without citation to any relevant authority, that theevidence supplied by applicants demonstrating that the pipeline must be sited on EFU landsomehow constituted an amendment to the application. The application has not been amended.Rather, new evidence has been introduced in support ofthe proposed application anddemonstrating compliance with the approval criteria.

Mr. Sadler complained that the evidence was introduced ,10 days prior to the hearing,rather than 20 days as set forth in CCLZDO §5.7.300(5)(a).56 In any event, opponents misreadCCLZDO §5.3.300(5)(a) and fail to aclmowledge the implication ofCCLZDO §5.7.300(5)(c),which states "notwithstanding" CCLZDO §5.7.300(5)(a) any party may submit new documentsand evidence prior to or at the hearing. FUlther, opponents have not shown any prejudicebecause the hearing officer held the record open for 10 days after the hearing, so the opponents \had their fu1120 days to review and respond to the evidence. The hearings officer furtherextended the record for an additional three days at the request ofopponents.

Carol Doty also alleged without explanation or citation to relevant authority that ofmuch:applicant's rebuttal testimony submitted on August 30, 2002, was not properly received asrebuttal. However, applicant adequately explained why this testimony was rebuttal to mattersraised at the hearing. Applicant's Evidence, Tab 38. Further, opponents had 10 days to reviewand respond to applicant's August 30,2002 rebuttal testimony, and this was extended to 13 daysfor responses to the RMI report, which was a public record ofwhich opponents were aware andcould have requested many months before the hearing. Opponents had an adequate opportunityto present their case.

56 Actually, J:vf:r. Sadler alleges that the evidence was not available until four days prior to the hearing, butMr. Sadler is somewhat inaccurate on this point. The evidence was submitted to the County on August 9,2002, which is 10 days prior to the August 19, 2002 hearing. August 9, 2002 was a Friday, and the briefwas submitted on the following Monday, but the brief contained only legal argument.

39 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150f120382/SCMfl035154.1

3432

Finally, at the hearing, opponents questioned whether-all property owners must sign theapplication. In their final rebuttal, opponents allege for the first time that CCZLDOSection 5.2.200 is a criterion for approval ofthis application. That section lists the elements of acomplete application. The first element of a complete application is:

"The name and address ofthe applicant, which may be one ofthefollowing:

a. The owner of the property;

*****d. The agent ofany ofthe foregoing who states on theapplication that he is the duly authorized agent and who submitsevidence ofbeing duly authorized in writing by his principal."

The second element of a complete application is:

"A statement ofthe applicant's legal interest in the property, adescription ofthat interest, and in case the applicant is not the legalowner; the necessary written consent."

It is important to note that Section 5.2.200 does not require written consent of all theowners ofthe property.57 The county is an owner, and the record contains written consents fromat least two other owners. Section 5.2.200 does not require consent ofall owners.

Further, under Section 5.2.200 ownership is merely an element of a completeapplication. In BCTPartnership v. City ofPortland, 27 Or LUBA 278, reversed on othergrounds, 130 Or App 271 (1994), LUBA held that a code requirement that an application bearthe signature ofthe owner was a procedural requirement for the purposes ofdetennining whetherthe application would be considered complete. ld. at 282. LUBA also noted that, the applicationwould be considered complete on the 31st day after its original submittal and would be processedbased on the information submitted.58

Petitioners in BCTPartnership asserted that the owner signature requirement was ajurisdictional requirement, but LUBA disagreed after a detailed analysis ofprior LUBA caselawon the distinctions between procedural requirements and jurisdictional requirements. LUBAheld that it was a mere procedural requirement ofcompleteness.

57 This contrasts with Section 5.2.250, which requires a transportation agency to mail notice to "anyowner of land upon which the transportation project would be constructed." Section 5.2.250 does notapply to this application because the Board ofCounty Commissioners is not a transportation agency andthe application is not a transportation project within the meaning of Section 5.2.250.

58 The same rule applies to this application under ORS 215.427(2).

40 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/12()382/SCMl1035154.1

3433

In the present case, the application was deemed complete and processed by the PlanningDepartment. Once that occurred, section 5.2.200 had no further applicability' to this application.Opponents have at best alleged a procedural error, which has been cured: Bridges v. City ofSalem, 19 Or LUBA 373, affirmed, 104 Or App 220 (1990). In Bridges, LUBA held that anapplicant's failure to timely submit written authorization ofthe property owner was "at most" aprocedural ~rror. To the extent that such a procedural error occurred in this case, it was cured bythe order of the Board ofCounty Commissioners for Coos County, exercising its authority underCCZLDO Section 1.3.980 to "pre-empt" the land use process and appoint the hearings officer.The Board's order pre-empting this matter cures any procedural or technical defect that mayhave existed in the original application.

Additionally, the county's power of eminent domain is sufficient to make the county an"owner" ofall ofthe property subject to the application for purposes of CCZLDOSection 5.2.200. SchrockFarms v. Linn County, 31 Or LUBA 57 (1996). The county haseminent domain authority under ORS 203.135(1) to acquire public easements. Further,ORS 281.010 authorizes a county with eminent domain authority the right to enter upon,examine, survey and select property prior to proceeding with condemnation as described inORS Chapter 35. The county's authority under these statutes is sufficient to make the county an"owner" within the meaning of CCZLDO Section 5.2.200. Schrock Farms; see also BeTPartnership, supra, where LUBA also found it was acceptable that the applicant was a "futureproperty owner."

The Schrock Farrns case involved an ordinance very similar to Section 5.2.200 thatallowed only property owners to file applications. In that case, ODOT had initiatedcondemnation proceedings, but the court dismissed the condemnation proceeding prior to theapplication being deemed complete, and the court entered ajudgment ofdismissal prior to adecision being made upon the application. Under these circumstances, LUBA held thatpetitioners had not demonstrated "that ODOT lacked authority to file the application" and"petitioners have,not explained how the circuit court dismissal affected ODOT's interest in theproperty." LUBA affirmed the county's decision approving ODOr's application.

ill this case, where the application is for a public utility and the applicant is Coos County,which has eminent domain powers, the applicant need not obtain signatures or consents fromevery property owner before obtaining land use permits.59 However, 'even though the County'scondemnation authority creates a sufficient ownership interest under Section 5.2.200, a conditionofapproval will be imposed to insure that there is no prejudice to petitioner's substantial rightsdue to the fact that the county has not yet condemned all ofthe necessary right-of-way.

59 Any" other rule would risk a substantial waste ofpublic funds if a local government were required tocondemn all property for apublic project before obtaining the required land use penuits. If a localgovernment were unable to obtain such permits, such a rule would leave the local government withuseless property and less public money.

41-FINDlNGS AND DECISIONPDXlOl61SO/120382/SCM/I035154.1 3434

VII. Conclusion.

Having met all, applicable criteria, the application is approved with the followingconditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. The applicant shall be responsible to restore, as nearly as possible, to its former conditionany agricultural land and associated improvements (including, without limitation anydrainage and irrigation systems, as well as any domestic water systems) that are damagedor otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of theproposed natural gas pipeline.

2. On fann lands, topsoil shall be segregated during excavation and protected from erosionand from mixing with excess rock and to avoid soil contamination by pathogens andinvasive weeds. After backfilling any rock and subsoil, the topsoil will be replaced lastand contoured to the original grade.

3. The applicant shall properly dispose of spoils from excavation and shall not pile up suchspoils on fann or forest land, unless the location is approved by both the property ownerand the Coos County Environmental Compliance Officer and is otherwise in compliancewith any applicable law.

4. The applicant shall'avoid unnecessary soil compaction on farm and forest lands duringconstruction.

5. On both farm and forest lands, the applicant shall revegetate the property with the sametype ofvegetation that existed prior to construction, or with other suitable vegetation thatis acceptable to the property owner. Application of a total of44 kg pure live seeds persurface hectacre of the following grass seed mixture (which is the seed mixture requiredby ODOT for the Coast Range) shall be deemed to be a suitable vegetation under thiscondition: 3 kg pure live seeds ofcolonial bentgrass (agrostis tenuis) per surface hectare;11 kg pure live seeds ofcreeping red fescue (festuca rubra) per surface hectare; 11 kgpure live seeds of chewings fescue (festuca rura commutata) per hectare; 17 kg pure liveseeds ofperennial ryegrass (lolium perenne) per surface hectare; 2 kg pure live seed ofNew Zealand white clover (Trifolium repens Grassland Huia) per surface hectare. Suchrevegetation shall be mulched to encourage establishment. Straw mulch may be used onslopes 1:1.5 or flatter. Where straw mu1ch is used, it should be spread straw mulch byhand or blower and placed approximately 50 rom deep, in loose condition, at a ratebetween 4.5 and 6.7 Mglha ofdry mulch. Straw mulch should be placed so that it isloose enough for sunlight to penetrate and air to circulate, but dense enough to shade theground, reduce water evaporation, and materially reduce soil erosion. Straw Mulchshould be anchored using hydraulically applied tackifier, crimping disc, or sheep's-footroller or other acceptable method. If straw mulch is applied by blower, the blowerequipment shall use air pressure with an adjustable spout that uniformly applies drymulch at constantly measured rates. The materials shall be applied using a sweeping,horizontal motion of the nozzle. Hydromulch may be used on any slope. Where

42 - FlNDINGS AND DECISIONPDXl016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1 3435

hydromulch is used, the waterborne cellulose fiber material shall be placed usinghydraulic equipment which continuously mixes and agitates the slurry and applies themixture uniformly through a pressure-spray system providing a continuous,nonfluctuation delivery, at a rate of 2.7 Mg/ha based on dry fiber weight for slopes of1:1.5 or flatter and at a rate of3.4 Mg/ha cellulose fiber material that includes a tackifieron slopes steeper than 1:1.5. Distribution and discharge lines shall be large enough toprevent stoppage and be equipped with a set ofhydraulic discharge spray nozzles thatwill provide a uniform distribution ofthe slurry. The materials shall be applied using asweeping, horizontal motion ofthe nozzle.

6. The pipeline operator shall maintain an emergency response plan in compliance with 49CFR parts 192.615.

7. The pipeline operator shall conduct public education in compliance with 49 CFR parts192.616 to enable customers, the public, appropriate governInent organizations, andpersons engaged in excavation related activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergencyfor the purpose ofreporting it to the gas pipeline operator. Such public education shallinclude a "call before you dig" component.

8. The pipeline operator shall comply with any and all other applicable regulationspertaining to natural gas pipeline safety, regardless ofwhether such regulations arespecifically listed in these conditions.

9. The pipeline operator shall provide annual training to emergency response personnel,including fire personnel, associated with local fire departments and districts that may beinvolved in an emergency response to an incident on the Coos County pipeline. At aminimum, such training shall acquaint the emergency response personnel with the typesof gas pipeline emergencies and how such emergency response personnel should respondto each type ofemergency or incident. Such training shall also include establishment andmaintenance ofa liaison with the emergency response personnel to: (1) learn theresponsibilities and resources ofthe operator and each government organization that mayrespond to a gas pipeline emergency; and (2) plan how the operator and officials canengage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or property. Such training mustbe as comprehensive as necessary to accomplish its purpose.

10. The pipeline operator shall respond to inquiries from the public regarding the location ofthe pipeline (i. e., so called "locate requests").

11. The pipeline operator shall respond to inquires from the public with respect to suspectednatural gas odors.

12. In the event that a new road crossing is required, the pipeline shall be lowered to a safedepth or additional fill shall be placed over the pipeline wherever necessary for the newroad crossing. For the purposes ofthis condition, a new road crossing shall be deemed tobe required ifthe road crossing is needed for a farm or forest use, and there is no otherreasonable location for the road that does not require a new crossing over the pipeline.

43 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDXlO16150/120382/SCMll035154.1 3436

13. Prior to construction, the applicant shall comply with any applicable provisions ofCBEMP Policy 18.

14. In riparian areas, only the minimum vegetation necessary to construct the pipeline shallbe removed, as required by Section 4.5.180(1)(e). Any riparian vegetation that isremoved during construction shall be restored or replaced. Any grades in a floodplainthat are altered during construction shall be restored to the original grade to maintain thecarrying capacity ofthe floodplain.

15. For any property for which the applicant has not required an easement for the proposedpipeline, the approval shall not become effective with respect to such property until theapplicant has acquired such easement.

44 - FINDINGS AND DECISIONPDx/016150/120382/SCMl1035154.1 3437

Lesa M. Hays

PHONE: (503) 727-2155

EMAIL: LHays@perkinscoie.com

PerkinsCoie

1120 NW. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

PHONE: 503-727.2000

FAX: 503.727.2222

www.perkinscoie.com

March 31, 2010

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Patty Evernden, DirectorCoos County Plalmmg Department225 N. Adams StreetCoquille, OR 97423

Re: Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline

Dear Patty:

-·.f

Enclosed is a CD containing the title reports associated with the Pacific Connector Land UseApplication. Please contact us if you have any questions.

LesaM. HaysParalegal

LMH:crlEnclosurecc: Mark D. Whitlow (w/o enc.)

Roger A. Alfred (w/o enc.)

59892-0002.0008/LEGAL18004520.1

ANCHORAGE· BEIJING· BELLEVUE· BOISE· CHICAGO· DENVER· LOS ANGELES· MADISON

MENLO PARK· PHOENIX· PORTLAND· SAN FRANCISCO· SEATTLE· SHANGHAI· WASHINGTON, D.C.

Perkins Coie lLP and Affiliates 3438

Coos COlI.llilllty Platlffiilllllll1lg I atJrtmemtCoos County Courthouse Annex, Coquille, Oregon 97423

Mailing Address: 250 N. Baxter, Coos County Courthouse, Coquille, Oregon 97423Physical Address: 225 N. Adams, Coquille, Oregon

(541) 396-3121 Ext.210FAX (541) 756-8630 / TDD (800) 735-2900

Patty Evemden, Planning Director

March 12, 2010

Mark D. WhitlowPerkins Coie LLP1120 NW Couch Street, 10th FloorPortland, Oregon 97209

I

RE: CONDITIONAL USE HBCU-10-01 PCGP

Planning staff has reviewed the above-referenced conditional use application received on February 12,2010. The application has been deemed incomplete.

The applicant has 180 days from the date of submittal to provide the Planning Department anyinformation requested to make the application complete. If the information is not provided, theapplication will be deemed withdrawn on the 181st day after the application was filed.

In the event an applicant refuses to submit the missing information, the application is deemed complete onthe 31 st day after the Planning Department first received the application.

In order to deem the application complete process the application the following items must be addressed:

1. The applicant's narrative does not address Section 4.8.400(b)2. Deeds of record for the subject properties

Once the applicant has submitted the identified information the application will be deemed complete andstaffwill process the application.

The Planning Department has 150 days to complete the review pursuant to ORS 215.427, unless a waiverto that timeline has been received from the applicant.

Ifyou have any questions please contact the Planning Staff at (541)396-3121 ext. 210 or come to thePlanning Counter located at 225 North Adams Street, Coquille, Oregon. If you would like to mailinformation or questions to us, the mailing address is Coos County Planning Department, Coos CountyCourthouse, 250 N. Baxter Coquille, OR 97423. Even though your application may be deemed complete,the Planning Department may ask for additional information. Approval is not guaranteed.

3439

Mark D. Whitlow

PHONE: (503) 727-2073

FAX: (503) 346-2073

EMAIL: MWhitlow@perkinscoie.com

February 11,2010

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Ms. Patty EverndenDirectorCoos County Planning Department225 N. Adams StreetCoquille, OR 97423

Re: Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LPApplication for Land Use Approvals for Natural Gas Pipeline

Dear Patty:

Perl<i~ns ICoie

1120 N.W. Couch Street,Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

PHONE: 503.727.2000

FAX: 503.727.2222

www.perkinscoie.com

=<. ill'--' , \___ I _~ ~ r· 1'" ":---=, I I

~\~...:.~ L'·~.~··! '.':. ; ..:(. .,~.

This letter is written on behalf of Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (Pacific Connector). Weare forwarding an original copy of the County's form of Conditional Use Application signed byPacific Connector, together with a check made payable to Coos County for the required filingand administrative fee. We plan to electronically forward the companion nanative to youtomorrow, your receipt of which will then be the starting point for the County's completenessreview. We look forward to working with you during that review period regarding additionalinformation needed to make the application complete.

We thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in reviewing the matter. Following yourreceipt of the enclosed, please call me with your questions or comments.

Very truly yours,

ItIM~Mark D. Whitlow

MDW:svEnclosurescc: Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP

59892-0002.0008/LEGALI7693951.1

ANCHORAGE· BEIJING· BELLEVUE· BOISE· CHICAGO· DENVER· LOS ANGELES· MADISON

MENLO PARK· PHOENIX· PORTLAND· SAN FRANCISCO· SEATTLE· SHANGHAI· WASHINGTON. D.C.

Perkins Coie LlP and Affiliates3440

Coos County Planning DepartmentConditional Use Application

Please place a check mark on the appropriate type of review that has been requested.

IK Administrative Conditional Use

r Site Plan Review

oc Hearings Body Conditional Use

r Variance

An incomplete application will not be processed. Applicant is responsible for completingthe form. ~ttach additional sheets to answer questions if needed.

A. Applicant:

N "f" "1" LP Attn:ame: PaC1 1C Connector Gas P1pe 1ne~

Address: 22909 NE Redmond-Fall City Rd.City: Redmond State: WA Zip Code: ----"...98=..:0=..=5:..::3'--__

B. Owner: SEE ATTACHED OWNER AND PROPERTY LIST •

Name: Telephone: _

Address:City: State: Zip Code: _

c.

rr

r

D.

As applicant, I am (check one):

The owner of the property;

The purchaser of the property under a duly executed written contract who has thewritten consent of the vendor to make such application (consent form attached).

A lessee in possession of the property who has written consent of the owner to makesuch application (consent form attached).

The agent of any of the foregoing who states on the application that he/she is theduly authorized agent and who submits evidence of being duly authorized in writingby his principal (consent form attached).

Description of Property: SEE ATTACHED OWNER AND PROPERTY LIST.

Township Range Section Tax Lot _

Tax Account Lot Size Zoning District _

Updated 11/09

3441

§llIIPP~emell1lta~ Ill1lformattioll1l SEE ATTAClElED O'WNER. .AIID PROPERTY LIST.

1. EXisting Use _2. Site Address Access Road _3. Is the Property on Farm/Forest Tax Deferral _4. Current Land Use (timber, farming, residential, etc.) _5. Major Topography Features (streams, ditches, slopes, etc.) _6. Letter from Oregon Department of Forestry (for Forest ~wemll1lg§emly)7. Letter from Natural Resource Conservation Service (for Forest/Farm ~wemll1gs

oll1~Y)·8. Is there a dwelling on the subject property or tract? _9. List all lots or parcels that the current owner owns or is purchasing which have a

common boundary with the subject property. _

Subsurface natural gas pipeline~ including essential operational componentsand accessory uses thereto.

Pursuant to the Zoning and Land Development Ordinance, this application may be approvedonly if it is found to comply with the "Review Standards and Special Considerations"applicable to the proposed use. Therefore, p~eaJse atttaclh a page or pages witlh YOllirfill1~ill1lgs (or reasoll1ls) regarding how your application and proposed use comply with thefollowing "Review Standards and Special Considerations" from Chapter IV of the Coos CountyZoning and Land DevelopmentOrdinance.

SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE.

IHI. lRetqjlllire~ §llIPlPlemell1ta~ Ill1formatioll1l to §llIiblmit wHclh AIPIP~icatioll1l

1. A copy of the current deed of record;2. Covenants or deed restrictions on the property, if unknown contact title company;3. A detailed parcel map of the property illustrating the size and location of existing and

proposed uses, structures and roads on a 8112" x 11" paper to scale. AplP~icaibl~e

~fistall1iCes mlllst ible ll1lote~ Olm itlhe pariCe~ map; (see attached)4. If applicant is not the owner, documentation of consent of the owner including:

a. A description of the property;b. Date of consent;c. Original consent of property owner;d. Party to whom consent is given.

Updated 11/09

3442

I hereby attest that I am authorized to make the application for a conditionaluse and the statements within this application are true and correct to the bestof my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this is a legally created tract, lot orparcel of land. I understand that I have the right to an attorney for verificationas to the creation of the subject property. I understand that any actionauthorized by Coos County may be revoked if it is determined that the actionwas issued based upon false statements or misrepresentation.

L AuthorizatiottAll areas must be initialed by all applicant(s) prior to the Planning Department acceptingany application,

~

DRS 215.416 Permit application; fees; consolidated procedures; hearings;notice; approval criteria; decision without hearing. (1) When required orauthorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner ofland may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates,for a perinit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governingbody shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount nomore than the actual or average cost of providing that service. The CoosCounty Board of Commissioners adopt a schedule of fees which reflect theaverage review cost of processing and set-forth that the Planning Departmentshall charge the actual cost of processing an application. Therefore, uponcompletion of review of your submitted application/permit a cost evaluationwill be done and any balance owed will be billed to the applicant(s) and is dueat that time. By signing this form you acknowledge that you are response topay any debt caused by the processing of this application. Furthermore, theCoos County Planning Department reserves the right to determine theappropriate amount of time required to thoroughly complete any type ofrequest and, by signing this page as the applicant and/or owner of the subjectproperty, you agree to pay the amount owed as a result of this review. If theamount is not paid within 30 days of the invoice, or other arrangements havenot been made, the Planning Department may chose to revoke this permit orsend this debt to a collection agency at your expense.

I understand it is the function of the planning office to impartially review myapplication and to address all issues affecting it regardless of whether theissues promote or hinder the approval of my application. In the event a publichearing is required to consider my application, I agree I bare the burden ofproof. I understand that approval is not guaranteed and the applicant(s) bearthe burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the applicable reviewcriteria.

Applicant(s) Original Signature

As applicant(s) I/we aclmowledge that is in my/our desire to submit thisapplication and staff has not encouraged or discouraged the submittal of thisapplidaHon.

A~s;gn2et

Updated 11/09

-'--------------- _ - _ - .. _-_.•.•.........•- --"-'" ........_....•-_..•_._._--3443

LlSl ,JF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLICATlvNS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use25S 13W 0 200

Weyerhaeuser Company 6WD Industrial3102.00

25S 13W 4101 0Weyerhaeuser Company 6WD Industrial

3097.0325S 13W 4 300 Roseburg Forest Products

6WD Industrial, transitional areas3101.00: 3101.9025S 13W 04 400 Weyerhaeuser Company

6WD Industrial, transitional areas3098.01

Evergreen forest land,25S 13W 41000 Weyerhaeuser Company

6WD,IND,7D transportation/communications, mixed3097.02 : 3097.00

barren land

25S 13W 3 200 0So. Pacific Trans Co.

Haynes Inlet, mixed barren landWeyerhaeuser Company 70, 8WD, 8CA3096.00: 3096.90

25S 13W 4 500 Oregon Int'I Port of Coos Bay8CA, 13A-NA, 1,1 NA, 11 RS Haynes Inlet, commercial oysters

3098.00 Coos Bay and Haynes Inlet

24S 13W 36B 700 Donald J Thompson11RS, RR2, F

Regenerating forests, evergreen forestJ899.90 :1899.00 Caroll L Thompson land

24S 13W 36B 1101 HalO BlomquistRR2, F Evergreen forest land

1897.20 Donna J Blomquist

24S 13W 36B 1100 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayF Evergreen forest land

1897.00

Blomquist, Hal D. & Donna J. FEvergreen forest land,

24S13W36B100transportation/communications

24S 13W 36100 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayF

Evergreen forest land,,I

1896.00 transportation/communicationsEvergreen forest land,

24S13W36200 Coos County Ftransportation/communications

25S 13W 1 1000 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayF Evergreen forest land

3034.00

25S 13W 10 200 0 John W PowersF Evergreen forest land

3034.91 : 3034.01 Shawnee Powers

,25S 13W 10 1000EFU,F

Cropland/pastureland,3046.90 : 3046.00

Gary E Smith, Trusteetransportation/communications

25S 12W 6C 1000 Gertrude E Wickett Trust ETALEFU,F Golf course, evergreen forest land

2587.00 : 2587.90 Joanne E Culp Trustee

_25S 12W 06C 601Lone Rock Timber Co

FEvergreen forest land,

0transportation/communications

2587.1125S 12W 7 500 0 Lone Rock Timber Co

F Evergreen forest land, clearcut forest2605.00

Clearcut forests, regenerating forests,25S 12W 7 4000 Lone Rock Timber CoF

2687.09 everqreen forest land.

25S 12W 713000 Lone Rock Timber CoF

Regenerating forest,2604.00 transportation/communications

FRegenerating forest,

25S12W071301L Lone Rock Timber Cotransportation/communications

25S 12W 7 2400 0 Steven H SweetF Clearcut forests

2609.01

25S 12W 18 300 Steven H SweetF

Clearcut forests and evergreen forest2748.01 lands

Page 1 of7 3444

LiSl -.IF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPUCATlvNS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use

258 12W 18 200 0 8teven H SweetF, EFU

Clearcut forests and evergreen forest2746.93 : 2746.03 lands

258 12W 17 300 0 Steven H SweetEFU Cropland/pastureland

2734.04

258 12W 174000Monte R Rutherford EFU

Transportation/communication,2734.02 : 2734.92 cropland/pastureland

258 12W 176000 Jackie L ShawEFU

Evergreen forest land,2734.00 : 2734.90 Belinda A Shaw cropland/pastureland

258 12W 17 700 0 William R EdwardsEFU Evergreen forest land

2734.01 : 2734.91

258 12W 17 900 0 Scott Paper CoF, EFU

Evergreen forest land,2736.00 Lone Rock Timber Co transportation/communications

258 12W 1710000 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayF

Transportation/communications,2737.00 c1earcut forest, mixed forest land

258 12W 201000 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayEvergreen forest land,

F transportation/communications,2767.00

c1earcut forest

258 12W 29 1100 0 Donald FisherF,EFU

Regenerating forests, evergreen forest2887.00: 2887.90 Laura Fisher land

258 12W 30 501 Marjorie A Brunschmid ETALMixed forest land, herbaceous

EFU, 18RS rangeland,2915.06 James-Yoshiko Brunschmid

transportation/commuinications258 12W 30 600

Gregory M Demers 18R8Transportation/communications,

2918.00 : 2918.90 cropland/pastureland

258 12W 3001501 AGRI Pacific Resources18RS Cropland/pastureland

2918.71

258 12W 300 508Kay A. Kronsteiner, et al 18RS Cropland/pastureland

258 12W 30 700 0 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos BayCropland/pastureland

190 transportation/communications, mixed2923.00: (sec 30)

rangeland

258 12W 31 1000 Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos Bay19D

Mixed rangeland,2931.00 transportation/communications

258 12W 32B 300Weyerhaeuser Co - Coos Bay Mixed rangeland, herbaceous

0 190, 19B-DA, 20CA2984.00

rangeland, evergreen forest land,

258 12W 32B 600Fred Messerle &Sons Inc Cropland/pastureland

0 20RS2982.00

residential

258 12W 321000 Fred Messerle &Sons Inc20R8,EFU Cropland/pastureland,

2981.02 : 2981.90

258 12W 32 400 0 Fred Messerle &Sons IncEFU,F

Regeneratin"g forest,2989.03 transportation/communications

268 12W 05 200 0 Fred Messerle &Sons IncF

Regenerating forest, evergreen forest4637.90 lands

Page 2 of? 3445

LIST vf PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLICATlvNS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use258 12W 32 300 Richard C &Annabell McCarthy Trust

F Regenerating forest2987.00: 2987.90 Richard C McCarthv268 12W 5 300 Solomon Joint Living Trust

F Evergreen forest land4638.01 : 4638.91 Stanley &Karen Solomon

26S 12W 881000 Michael J PrughF, RR2

Regenerating forest, evergreen forest4684.01 : 4684.91 Debra A Prugh lands

268 12W 8 900 0 Jeffrey L HillRR5 Cropland/pastureland, residential

4682.00 Gidgette N Hill268 12W 81000 Jeffrey L Hill

RR5 Cropland/pastureland4683.02 Gidgette N Hill

268 12W 8 1100 0Alvin Rode &Lou Ann Rode LIE

Residential, cropland/pastureland,Jeffrey L Hill RR5, EFU, F

evergreen forest land4683.01 : 4683.91Gidgette N Hill

268 12W 8 500 0 Mark SheldonRR5 Cropland/pastureland

4679.90 Melody Sheldon

268 12W 881400 Larry WheekerF Evergreen forest land

4688.00: 4688.95 Shirley Wheeker

26S 12W 81102 0 Jeffrey L HillF Evergreen forest land

4683.04: 4683.94 Gidgette N Hill

26S 12W 881500Michael L McGinnis Regenerating forest,

0 Ftransportation/communications

4688.01 : 4688.91

268 12W 81601 0 Gary A GunnellF Transportation/communications

4689.02 8arbara E Gunnell

Transportation/communications,268 12W 817000 Paul J Woytus

F,21RS evergreen forest land, clearcut forest,4667.90 : 4667.00 Yvonne A Woytus

cropland/pastureland, residential

26S 12W 7 700 Fred Messerle & Sons Inc21CA, 21RS, F

Cropland/pastureland, regenerating4673.00 : 4673.90 forest, transportation/communications

268 12W 18A 100W J Wright Trustee Wright Loving Trust Evergreen forest land, regenerating

0 Fforest, transportation/communications

4760.01 : 4760.91Doreen Wright Trustee

268 12W 18A 200Paul M Washburn

Mixed forest land, residential0 RR54762.91 : 4762.01

Eura M Washburn

Mixed forest land,26s 12W 18A 2010 David L McGriff

RR5 transportationfcommuinications,4762.13 Emily J McGriff

residential268 12W 188 1900

Richard A IrvineMixed forest land, residential0 RR5

4766.00Mary A Irvine

268 12W 188 170o Nova D LovellMixed forest land0 F

4766.92: 4766.02Ellen M Lovell

268 12W 18C 103A John Muenchrath Mixed forest land, regenerating forest,

0 Fresidential

4767.04Mary M Muenchrath

268 12W 18C 300 Dr Edgar MaeyensRR5 Mixed forest lands

4769.21

268 12W 18C 200Roseburg Resources Co - Reedsport Mixed forest lands,

0 Ftransporation/communications

4768.00

Page 3 of 7 3446

L1S1 vF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLlCAT1\Jl\!S

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use

268 12W 192000 Roseburg Resources Co - ReedsportF

Transportation/communications,4771.01 c1earcut forest, evergreen forest land

-268 12W 19 300 0 River Bend Resources CoF

Regenerating forest,4772.00 transportation/communications

268 12W 301000 Robert H McCauleyF Regenerating forest

4951.00: 4951.90 Linda 8 McCauley

268 12W 30 600 0 Robert G 8covilleRR5

Transportation/communications,4951.22 residential

268 12W 3010000 Jimmie R KetchumF

Evergreen forest land, residential,4953.00 : 4953.90 Carolyn E Ketchum regenerating forest

268 12W 30A 500Lone Rock Timber Co

0 F Regenerating forest4950.01

268 12W 3012000 Menasha Forest Produds CorpF Regenerating forest

4956.00

268 12W 301400 Fred Messerle & 80ns IncF Regenerating forest

4957.00268 12W 31A 100

Clyde G Hill F Mixed forest land4958.00

268 12W 32 400 Fred Messerle & 80ns IncF Mixed forest land

4967.00 :268 12W 32 500 Dee Willis - Trustee

EFU, FMixed forest land,

4968.00: 4698.90 Terrv Willis -Trustee cropland/pastureland

268 12W 31 7000 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF

Mixed forest land, regenerating forest,4963.00 transportation/communications

268 12W 31 9000 Warren ManleyF

Rengenerating forest,4964.00 transportation/communications

278 12W 61000 Lone Rock Timberlands Co.F

Evergreen forest land,6526.01 transportation/communications

278 12W 6 200 0 8teven StalcupF

Evergreen forest land, c1earcut forest,6526.90 : 6526.00 Carole 8talcup regenerating forest, residential

278 12W 6 300 0 Menasha Forest Products CorpF Regenerating forest

6527.00278 12W 51000 BLM-U8A

F Regenerating forest6521.00

278 12W 017000 Roseburg Resources CoF

Regenerating forest, evergreen forest6534.00 : (sec 8) lands

278 12W 01600 PacificorpRegenerating forest, evergreen forest

F lands, transportation/communications,6536.01 (sec 8)

clearcut forest

278 12W 015000 Menasha Forest Products CorpRegenerating forest, evergreen forest

F lands, transportation/communications,6533.00: (sec 8)

clearcut forest

278 12W 00 2500 BLM-U8AF Mixed forest land

6588.00

278 12W 0 2400 0 Coos County 8heep CompanyF,EFU Mixed forest land, regenerating forest

6584.00: (sec 16)

Page 4 of73447

LIST vF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLiCATh"",NS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use

278 12W 0 2300 0 BLM-U8AF

Regenerating forest,6580.00: (sec 15) transportation/communications

278 12W 221000 Coos County 8heep CompanyF

Regenerating forest, evergreen forest6616.00 land, transportation/communications

278 12W 23 200 0 BLM-U8AF

Regenerating forest,6625.00 transportation/communications

278 12W 231000 Coos County 8heep CompanyEFU, F

Regenerating forest,6624.00 transportation/communications

278 12W 233000 Helben Tree Farm IncRegenerating forest, evergreen forest,

6627.00: 6627.90 F transportation/communications,clearcut forest

278 12W 24C 1500John D Breuer Clear cut forest, cropland/pastureland,

0 F6656.94 : 6656.04

Kara L Breuer residential

278 12W 24C 1600Virgil D Williams

0 RR5 Cropland/pastureland6661.00

Carol F Williams

278 12W 24C 1200James L Metcalf Cropland/pastureland

0 RR56659.00

Mary C Metcalf . residential

278 12W 24C 1700Virgil D Williams

0 EFU Cropland/pastureland6659.04 : 6659.94

Carol F Williams

278 12W 25 200 0 Charles YatesEFU Cropland/pastureland

6667.90 : 6667.00 Johanna Yates

278 12W 24C 1800Rodney A Dalton

0 EFU Cropland/pastureland6662.05

Virgil D&Carol F Williams

278 12W 24C 2100Ted L Fife, Trustee

0 EFU Cropland/pastureland6662.04 : 6662.94

Ted Fife Family Trust

278 12W 25 2010 Don L FisherF

Evergreen forest land,6667.01 : 6667.91 Shirley J Fisher transportation/communication

278 12W 25 203 0 Walter E HazenF Evergreen forest land

6667.03 Wendy A Hazen

278 12W 251000 BLM-U8AF

Evergreen forest land,6666.00 transportation/communication

278 11W 015000 Menasha Forest Products CorpEvergreen forest land,

F transportation/communication,6416.00: (sec 30)

clearcut forest278 11W 001400 BLM-U8A

FEvergreen forest land,

6356.00 transportation/communication278 11W 01700 BLM-USA

FEvergreen forest land, regenerating

6412.00 : (sec 29) forest

27811W 3210000 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF

Regenerating forest land;6428.00 transportation/communications

278 11W 32 800 0 Menasha Forest Products CorpF Clearcut forest

6426.00

Page 5 of7 3448

LIST \.IF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLICATluNS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use

27S 11W3213000 Menasha Forest Products CorpF

Clearcut forest, regenerating forest.6431.00 transportation/communications

28S 11W 51000 BLM-USAF

Evergreen forest land, clearcut forest,8151.00 transportation/communications

28S 11W 5 200 0Russell K Windlinx

8152.00Diana Windlinx, Trustees F Cropland/pasturelandWindlinx Family Trust

28S 11W 51000 BLM-USA·F

Evergreen forest land, regenerating8151.00 forest

28S 11W46000 Moore Mill & Lumber Co'Clearcut forest.

8138.00: 8138.90F transportation/communications,

evergreen forest land28S 11W 48000 Menasha Forest Products Corp

F Evergreen forest land. c1earcut forest8148.00

28S 11W 0400 0 BLM-USA i

8179.90 : (sec 9)F Regenerating forest

28S 11W 10 10000 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF

Regenerating forest, evergreen forest8185.00 land, transportation/communications

28S 11W 10 900 0 LoneRock Timber Co-Umpqua Growth LPRegenerating forest, evergreen forest

F land. transportation/communications,8186.00

mixed forest land

288 11W 10 901 Dora Cemetery AssociationF Transportation/communications

8186.01 c/o Steve Laird

28S 11W 10 13000 Cynthia A GarrettF,EFU

Cropland/pastureland, mixed forest8189.00: 8189.90 land

28S 11W 10 14000 Laird Timberlands LLCEFU

Mixed forest land.8191.00: 8191.90 c/o Steve Laird cropland/pastureland

28S 11W 1500100 Laird Timberlands LLCEFU,F Clearcut forest, regenerating forest

8224.01 c/o Steve Laird

28811W05000 Moore Mill & Lumber CoEFU.F

Clearcut forest, evergreen forest land,8219.00: (sec 14) Davis W Miller transportation/communications

28S 11W07000 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF Evergreen forest lands. c1earcut forest

8217.00: (sec 14)

28S 11W 13 900 BLM-USARegenerating forest,

8213.00F transportation/communications,

evergreen forest land

28S 11W 24100 0 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF

Regenerating forest,8278.00 transportation/communications

288 11W 0 1900 0 Roseburg Resources CoF

Regenerating forest,8284.00: (sec 25) transportation/communications

288 10W 0 3500 0 Roseburg Resources CoF

Regenerating forest,8028.00: (sec 19) transportation/communications

288 10W 0 3400 0 BLM-USAF

Evergreen forest land,8025.00 : (sec 19) transportation/communications

288 10W 0 3600 0 Lone Rock Timberlands CoClearcut forest,

8030.00: (sec 19)F transportation/communications,

regenerating forest

Page 6 of? 3449

LIST vF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO APPLICATluNS

APNACCT Landowner Zoning Land Use

288 10W 0 3300 Plum Creek Timberlands LPClearcut forest,

8031.00 : (8ec 30)F transportation/communications,

regenerating forest

288 10W 0 3800 Plum Creek Timberlands LPClearcut forest,

8084.00: (8ec 19)F transportation/communications,

regenerating forest

288 10W 0 4100 0 BLM-U8AF

Evergreen forest lands, regenerating8080.00 : (sec 29) forest, transportation/communications

288 10W 0 4200 0 BLM-O&C Revested Grant FRegenerating forest, evergreen forest,

8072.00: (sec 28) transportation/communications

288 10W 0 4600 BLM-U8AF

Evergreen forest land,8066.00: (sec 27) transportation/communications288 10W 0 4500 Lone Rock Ti.mberlands Co F Evergreen forest land

8068.00288 10W 0 5000 Tri-W Group Limited Partnership

FEvergreen forest land,

8063.00 : (sec 26) transportation/communications

288 10W 0 4900 0 Plum Creek Timberlands LPEvergreen forest land,

8064.00 : (sec 26)F transportation/communications,

c1earcut forest

288 10W 0 4800 0 Tri-W Group Umited PartnershipF

Transportation/communications,8065.00: (sec 26) c1earcut forest

288 10W 0 5600 0 BLM-U8A F Regenerating forest8113.00 : (sec 35)

288 10W 0 5500 0 Tri-W Group Limited PartnershipF

Clearcut forest, regenerating forest,8119.00 : (sec 36) transportation/communications

288 10W 052000 Tri-W Group Limited Partnership FClearcut forest, regenerating forest,

8118.00 : (sec 36) transportation/communications

288 09W 0 3500 0 BLM-U8AEvergreen forest land,

7869.00: (sec 31)F transportation/communications,

regenerating forest

298 09W 0 300 0 Plum Creek Timberlands LPF

Regenerating forest, clearcut forest,10558.00: (sec 6) transportation/communications

298 09W 0200 0 BLM-U8A F Regenerating forest,10554.00: (sec 5) transportation/communications

298 09W 0 500 0 Lone Rock Timber Co FRegenerating forest, clearcut forest,

10567.00: (sec 8) transportation/communications

298 09W 0 600 0 Plum Creek Timberlands LP FEvergreen forest land, regenerating

10566.00: (sec 8) forest, transportation/communications

298 09w 0 700 0 BLM-U8A FRegenerating .forest land,

10570.00 : (sec 9) transportation/communications

Page 7 of7 3450

3451

PadficConnector

I1I

1I

1I

'-----1I

1I

IIII

II

.1I

II

1I

II

1Ki.p->f:f"'" •~~;)"(

Coos

Figure 1

Coos County Alignment Overview

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project· Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP

2.5 10 15

I!!M!5ii1!!!5i1!!!!!Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilMiles

N

t

PACIFIC CONNECTOR GAS PIPELINE COMPANY

S1IllbmittedFe1b>Jr1lllary 12,2010

3452

TaMe of Contenm

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1

1. Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone.................................................................... 4

2. Forest (F) Zone................................................................................................. 5

3. Rural Residential (RR) Zones......................................................................... 5

4. Industrial (IND) Zone...................................................................................... 5

5. Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan (CBEl\1PL......................................... 6

II. ZONING................................................................................................................. 8

A. Exclusive Farm Use zone................................................................................ 8

B. Forest Zone....................................................................................................... 9

C. Residential Zone 11

D. Industrial Zone................................................................................................. 14

E. Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan............................................................. 15

F. Floodplain Overlay Zone................................................................................. 38

III. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 40

i.59892·0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3453

Applicant:

NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF LAND USE APPLICATIONFOR THE PACIFIC GAS CONNECTOR PIPELINE

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP22909 N.E. Redmond-Fall City RoadRedmond, WA 98053(425) 868-1010 x2052Contact: Rodney Gregory

Applicant'sRepresentatives:

Request:

Edge Environmental, Inc.405 Urban Street, Suite 310Lakewood, CO 80228(303) 988-8844Contact: Carolyn Last

Perkins Coie LLP1120 NW Couch Street, 10th FloorPortland, OR 97209(503) 727-2000Contact: Mark D. Whitlow

Land use approvals for a natural gas pipeline within the Exclusive FannUse, Forest, Rural Residential-2, Rural Residential-5, and Industrial zonesand Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan management units.

I. INTRODUCTION

This application is made by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Company, LP (Pacific Connector)with respect to the Coos County segment of its proposed interstate natural gas pipeline known asthe Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (pCGP). This application is the fifth in a series ofinterrelated applications seeking land use approvals needed to develop the Oregon InternationalPort of Coos Bay's (Port) multi-berth Oregon Gateway Marine Tenninal, a deep-draft mooragefacility on the North Spit of Coos Bay, and Jordan Cove Energy Project's (JCEP) associatedUpland LNG TerminaL Both were previously approved by Coos County and have now receivedFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (pERC) approvaL

Specifically, the County previously approved JCEP's LNG Tenninal (Case File No. HBCU-07­03), the Port's Marine Tenninal and Access Waterway (Case File No. HBCU-07-04) and therelated Port applications for Sand Storage and Sorting Yard (Case File Nos. ACU-08-10 and CL­08-01) and Kentuck Mitigation Site (Case File Nos. AM-09-03/RZ-09-02/HBCU-09-01). Thisapplication seeks land use approval from Coos County for the 49.72-mile segment of the PCGPlocated within Coos County. The Coos County alignment runs from JCEP's LNG Terminal

3454

upland from the Port's Marine Terminal to the alignment segment in adjacent Douglas County(mileposts [MPs] 0.00 to 45.70).1 See Figure 1.

Pacific Connector has received authorization from FERC under Section 7c of the Natural GasAct (NGA) to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain an interstate natural gas pipeline, thePCGP, that will transport gasified natural gas from the Jordan Cove LNG tenninal in Coos Bayto existing interstate natural gas transmission pipelines near Malin, Oregon and points inbetween. The 36-inch diameter pipeline will be a total of234 miles and will provide natural gasto markets throughout the region.2

Project Purpose

As stated above, this application for PCGP approval is the last application in a series needed todevelop the previously approved Marine Tenninal and related LNG Tenninal.

Federal Regulatory Requirements

As noted above, this application is being made in conjunction with Pacific Connector'sapplication to FERC for authorization to site,construct, and operate the PCGP under Section 7cof the NGA. FERC is required under NEPA to coordinate with federal and state agencies andwith state and local governments and special districts. The FERC process thoroughly evaluatesall aspects of the PCGP. On December 17, 2009, FERC issued a Certificate ofPublicConvenience and Necessity that includes both the Jordan Cove LNG Tenninal and the PCGP.

Project Description and Facilities

Within the applicable 49.72-mile segment of the PCGP that will be located within Coos County,the PCGP will cross through five Coos County zoning designations: Forest (F), Exclusive FarmUse (EFU), Rural Residential 2 (RR-2), Rural Residential 5 (RR-5), and Industrial (IND).Additionally, the PCGP will cross 14 Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan (CBEMP) zorihigdistricts: Wate~ Dependent Development Shorelands (6-WD), Development Shorelands (7-D,19-D), Water Dependent Development Shorelands (8-WD), Conservation Aquatic (8CA, 20CA,21CA), Natural Aquatic (13A-NA, 11-NA), Rural Shorelands (11-RS, 18-RS, 20-RS, 21-RS),and Development Aquatic (19B-DA) (s.ee Table 1).

1 By submitting this application, the applicant is seeking to demonstrate that the proposal is consistentwith applicable land use regulations and the consistency requirements of the Coastal Zone ManagementAct. However, submittal of this application is not a waiver of any federal jurisdictionover the CoosCounty segment of the PCGP.2 The route mileposts no longer reflect the actual length ofthe pcap because based onFERC's NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which resulted in a Final Environmental Impact Statement,Pacific Connector incorporated an alternative within Coos County into the original route. Theenvironmental analysis was tied to the original mileposts, and the mileposts remain unchanged from theroute filed withFERC in September 2007. Therefore, MP 11.36 R(revised) merges with the 2007-filedroute at MP 7.67.

-2-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3455

Landi Use Review

The PCGP is allowed as a hearings body conditional use within the EFU, RR-2, and RR-5 zones,an administrative conditional use within the F zone, and a use permitted outright in the INnzone. The PCGP is also allowed in the 14 zones that it crosses within the CBEMP as a permitteduse, subject only to consistency with various general conditions.

anal< ernen ms rosse yt e

Start MP End Mil'Zonang Designation!

Management Unit0.00 0.97 R 6WD

0.97 R 1.15 R 7D1.15 R 1.22 R IND1.22 R 1.65 R 7D1.65 R 1.70 R 8WD1.70 R 1.78 R 8CA1.78 R 2.70 R 13A-NA2.70 R 4.i2 R llNA4.12 R 4.17 R llRS4.17 R 4.22 R RR24.22 R 6.25 R F6.25 R 6.44 R EFU6.44 R 8.28 R F8.28R 8.54 R EFU8.54 R 10.42 R F

J.0.42 R 10.74 R EFU10.74 R 11.10 R 18RS

11.10 R 1 8.10 1 19D8.10 8.12 19B-DA8.12 8.22 20CA8.22 8.39 20-RS8.39 8.95 EFU

. 8.95 9.06 F9.06 9.10 EFU9.10 10.12 F10.12 10.15 RR-210.15 10.25 RR-510.25 10.52 EFU10.52 10.97 F10.97 11.11 21RS11.11 11.14 21CA11.14 11.32 21RS11.32 11.94 F11.94 12.04 RR-512.04 12.47 F12.47 12.49 RR-512.49 14.22 F14.22 14.28 RR-514.28 15.69 F

Table 1Coos County Zoning Designations and

M t U 't C db h PCGP

-3-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3456

Start MP 1E1ild MPZoning Designation!

Manaaement Unit15.69 15.73 EFU15.73 15.89 F15.89 15.95 EFU15.95 19.24 F19.24 20.05 EFU20.05 21.81 F21.81 21.87 EFU21.87 22.59 F22.59 22.71 RR-522.71 23.06 EFU23.06 29.52 F29.52 30.15 EFU30.15 45.70 F

1 Through the FERC DEIS/FEIS process, Alternative WC-1A-2Awas incorporated into the alignment. Mileposts for the PCGPremain unchanged from the route filed with FERC inSeptember 2007. Therefore, MP 11.36R of WC-1A-2A mergeswith the 2007-filed route at MP 7.67. To distinguish betweenthe duplicate mileposts, an \\R" has been added to themileposts at the beginning of the PCGP route.

Specifically, this application involves a 49.72-mile segment ofthe PCGP in Coos County. ThePCGP will cross through 52 individual zoning districts, which involve 19 different zoningdesignations, as depicted on Table 1. The remainder ofthis section summarizes the applicablecriteria for obtaining approval in each ofthe 19 different zoning designations.

1. Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone.

About 3.7 miles of the PCGP cross through the county EFU zone, in 12 separate locations.Utility facilities necessary for public service are allowed as a "hearings body conditional use" inthe EFU zone under CCZLDO Section 4.9.450, which requires application of CCZLDO Sections4.9.600 and 4.9.700 (siting standards and development standards). A facility is "necessary" ifitmust be situated in an agricultural zone in order for the service to be provided.

ORS 215.275(2) states that in order to frod that a utility is "necessary," a number of factors mustbe met. However, ORS 215.275(6) says that lithe provisions of (2) to (5) do not apply tointerstate natural gas pipelines ... authorized by and subject to regulation by FERC. fl As statedabove, FERC has regulatory jurisdiction over the PCGP. Thus, the factors ofORS 215.275(2)­(5) do not apply.

<iI CCZLDO Section 4.9.600 creates siting standards for "dwellings and structures in theEFU zone," primarily requiring minimization of impacts on nearby forest or farminguses.

<iI CCZLDO Section 4.9.700 creates development standards such as minimum lot size,setbacks, height, etc., which do not apply to this application.

-4-S9892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3457

2. Forest (F) Zone.

About39 miles of the PCGP cross through the County Forest zone, in 16 separate locations.New gas distribution lines with less than 50 feet of right-of-way are allowed as an administrativeconditional use in the Forest zone.

Administrative conditional uses are governed by CCZLDO Section 4.8.400, which includes thefollowing three criteria:

A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increasethe cost of, accepted farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest lands;

B. The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantlyincrease fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppressionpersonnel; and

C. All uses must comply with CCZLDO Sections 4.8.600, 4.8.700 and 4.8.750.Because the proposed subsurface pipeline and accessory uses are not "structures",these code sections do not apply.

3. Rural Residential (RR) Zones.

About 0.47 miles ofthe PCGP cross through two Rural Residential zones, RR-5 and RR-2, inseven separate locations. The criteria for both zones are identical. Table 4.2.c lists "utilityfacility - not including power for public sale" as a hearings body conditional use in both zones,which requires application of conditional use standards at CCZLDO Section 4.2.900.7.

<!l CCZLDO Section 4.2.900.7 provides that the proposed use "must be found compatiblewith surrounding uses or may be made compatible through the imposition of conditions. II

@ CCZLDO Section 4.4.400 provides general development standards for RR zones, whichgenerally include standards such as minimum lot size, density, setbacks, etc., whichshould not apply to this application.

4. Industrial (IND) Zone.

A very short portion of the PCGP (0.07 mile) crosses through one Industrial zone. A lIutilityfacility" involving "generation ofpower not for public sale" is pennitted outright in the Industrialzone.

<!l CCZLDO Section 4.4.600 provides that 1idustrial uses are subject to generaldevelopment standards in Table 4.4.c, which include lot size, setback and heightstandards that are not applicable.

$ CCZLDO Section 4.4.610 provides that site plan review under Article 5.6 is required forall uses in the Industrial zoning district.

-5-59892-0002.0008/LEGALI7660788.2

3458

5. Coos Bay Esmary Management Plan.

The PCGP will cross through 15 Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan (CBEMP) zoning districts.As outlined below, each of those districts require the application ofcertain CBEMP policies.

<II Water Dependent Development Shorelands (6-WD)3

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 6-WD zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with the following CBEMP policies: Policy #14, #17,#18, #23, #27, #30, #49, #50, and #51.

e Development ShoreIands (7-D)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 7-D zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #14, #17, #18, #23, #27, #30, #49,#50 and #51.

(1) Water Dependent Development SlllOrelimds (8-WD)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 8-WD zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #14, #17, #18, #23, #27, #49, #50and #51.

e Conservation Aquatic (8-CA)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 8-CA zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

(1) Natural Aquatic (13A-NA)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 13A-NA zone subject to general conditions.The general conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

@ Natural Aquatic (Jl.1-NA)J

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 11-NA zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

<II Rural Shorelands (U-JRS)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 11-RS zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17, #18, #23, #49, #50 and #51.

3 The PCGP and its associated facilities in 6-WD werepreviously approved in the JCEP LNG Terminaldecision in Case File No. HBCU-07-04.

-6-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3459

@ Rural Shorelands (18-RS)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 18-RS zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #14, #17, #18, #23, #27, #28, #34,#49, #50 and #51.

@ Development Shorelands (19-D)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 19-D zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #14, #17, #18, #27, #49, #50 and#51.

Cl Development Aquatic (19B-DA)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 19B-DA zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require:compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

a Conservation Aquatic (20..CA)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 20-CA zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

CD JRural Shorelamlls (20-RS)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 20-RS zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #14, #17, #18, #27, #28, #34, #49,#50 and #51.

€I Rural Shorelandls (21-RS)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 21-R8. zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions requireco.mpliance with CBEMP Polici~s#14,#17,#18, #23, #27, #28, #49,#50 and #51.

() Conservation Aquatic (21-CA)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 21-CA zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #17 and #18.

III Urban Water-Dependent (36-UW)

Low intensity utilities are a permitted use in the 36-UW zone subject to general conditions. Thegeneral conditions require compliance with CBEMP Policies #16, #17, #18, #23, #27, #49, #50and #51.

-7-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3460

The PCOP will cross federal, state, and private lands.4

This application addresses construction and operation of the subsurface PCOP itself. The above­ground facilities are either necessary components ofthe subsurface PCOP, or accessory usesnecessary for the operation of the subsurface PCOP.5

II. ZONING

A. Exclusive Farm Use Zon.e

The PCOP will cross approximately 3.72 miles ofproperties zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU),all ofwhich are privately owned. As provided in Table 1 above, the 3.72 miles ofparcels zonedEFU, which are crossed by the PCOP, are interspersed throughout the length ofthe PCOP withinCoos County.

As demonstrated below, the PCOP is consistent with the requirements of ORS Chapter 215,OAR 660, Division 33, and the applicable approvalcriteriaoftheCCZLDO... . '.- '. .

CCZLDO Sectio1ll4.9.450 Hearings Body COlllditiolllal Uses

The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed as hearings body conditional uses inthe "Exclusive Farm Use" zone and the "Mixed Use" overlay subject to the correspondingreview standard and development requirements in Section 4.9.600 and 4.9.700.

C. Utility facilities necessaryfor public service, except for the purpose ofgenerating powerfor public use by sale and transmission towers over 200 feet in height. Afacility is necessary ifitmust be situated in an agricultural zone in order for the service to be provided.

The PCOP is an interstate natural gas pipeline that has been authorized by and is subject toregulation by FERC under Section 7c ofthe NOA under which aCertificate ofPublicConvenience and Necessity has been issued to Pacific Connector to construct, install, own,operate, and maintain the PCOP. The PCOP is a utility facility under CCZLDO Section4.9.450.C.

Due to its linear nature and the points of connection it must make from the JCEP LNO Terminalsite on the North Spit over the 49.72 miles to the interstate pipeline connection near Malin,Oregon, it is necessary for some segments of the PCOP to be situated in agricultural land insatisfaction of this review criterion and the companion criterion ofORS 215.275(1).ORS 215.275(6) exempts interstate natural gas pipelines from the provisions ofORS 215.275(2)­(5) and OAR 660-33-0130 has a similar exemption.

4 Local governments in Oregon do not have direct land use permitting authority over projects located onlands owned and controlled by the federal government. Furthennore, federal lands are excluded from theCZMA boundary by deftnition under both federal and state law.5Such accessory uses are deemed to be "associated facilities" authorized by and subject to regulation byFERC under the provisions ofORS 215.275(6). As such, the assoCiated facilities are subject to the samelevel ofreview as the subsurface PCGP.

-8-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3461

CCZLDO Section 4.9.600 Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures in the EFUZone '

The siting criteria ofthis section apply to dwellings and structures within the EFU zone. Underthe County's prior interpretation, a subsurface interstate gas pipeline is not a "structure," so theprovisions ofthis code section are not applicable to the PCGP or its necessary components.

B. F'ore§t Zone

The PCGP will cross approximately 39.47 miles afForest-zoned lands within Coos County (seeTable 1). Of the 39.47 miles, 10.76 miles are on BLM-managed lands, while the remainingsegments are located on privately owned lands.

CCZLDO Section 4.8.300 Administrative Conditional Uses

The following uses mid their accessory uses may be allowed as administrative conditional usesin the "Porest" zone subject to applicable requirements in Section 4.8.400 and applicable sitingcriteria set forth in this Article and elsewhere in this Ordinance.

F. New electrical transmission lines with right-ofway widths ofup to 100 feet as specifiedin ORS 772.210. New distribution lines (e.g. gas, oil, geothermal) with right-ofway 50 feet orless in width.

The PCGP is a new gas line with a permanent right-of-way width of 50 feet. Therefore, thePCGP and is associated facilities are an administrative conditional use within the Forest zone.

As detailed below, the PCGP satisfies all of the applicable review criteria for an administrativeconditional use in the F zone.

CCZLDO Section 4.8.400 Review Criteria for Conditional Usesm Section 4.8.300 andSection 4.8.350

A use authorized by Section 4.8.300 and Section 4.8.350 may be allowedprovided thefollowing requirements are met. These requirements are designed to make the usecompatible with forest operations and agriculture and to conserve values found on forestlands.

A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increasethe cost of, acceptedfarming or forest practices on agriculture or forest lands;and

The subsurface interstate gas pipeline and its associated facilities will not force a significantchange in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farming or forestpractices onagricultural or forest lands. Both during and following construction, forestry activities will beable to continue on the forest lands nearby or adjoining the PCGP. Further, the associated access

-9-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3462

routes will be limited to the designated access roads, and will have little to no impact on nearbyor adjacent forestry activities.

CCZLDO Section 4.8.600 Mandatory Siting Standards Required for Dwellings andStructures in the Forest Zone

The following siting criteria shall apply to all dwellings, including replacementdwellings, and structures in the Forest and Forest Mixed Use zones.

As detailed in the EFU section above, the PCGP is not a "structure" as that tenn is defined inCCZLDO Section 2.1.200 because the PCGP will be located under, rather than on, the landwhich it crosses. Consequently, the siting standards at CCZLDO Section 4.8.600 are notapplicable to the subsurface PCGP or its necessary components or associated facilities.

CCZLDO Section 4.8.700 Fire Siting Safety Standards

All new dwellings and permanent structures and replacement dwellings and structuresshall, at a minimum, meet the following standards.

As discussed above, the PCGP is neither a structure nor a dwelling. Consequently, the fire sitingand safety standards of this Section are not applicable to this application..

CCZLlDO Section 4.8.750 Development Standards

All development and structures approved pursuant to Article 4.8 shall. be sited inaccordance with this Section.

A. Minimum Lot Size:

The PCGP will not require or create any land divisions. Consequently, the minimum lot sizestandard is not applicable.

B. Setbacks: All buildings or structures with the exception offences shall be set back aminimum ofthirty-five (35) feet from any road right-ofway centerline orfive (5) feetfrom any right-ofway line, whichever is greater.

The PCGP is a linear, undergroUnd utility facility that crosses several property lines rather than abuilding or structure. Consequently, the setback standard is not applicable to the PCGP.

C. Structure Height:

D. Lot Coverage:

There are no requirements for either of these standards in the F zone.

-10-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3463

E. Fences, Hedges and Walls: No requirement, except for vision clearance provisions inSection 3.3.400 and Fire Siting and Safety Standards in Section 4.7.700.

The PCGP does not qualify as a hedge, fence or wall, and therefore this standard does not applyto the PCGP or its necessary components.

F. Off-Street Parking and Loading: See Chapter X

The off-street parking and loading standards are not applicable to the PCGP use.

G. Minimum Road Frontage/Lot Width: 20 feet.

The PCGP will not impact the existing configuration ofthe parcels it crosses. Therefore, thisstandard is not applicable.

H. Minimizing Impacts:

This standard only applies to dwellings within the F zone. Therefore, this standard is notapplicable to the PCGP application.

1 Riparian Vegetation Protection.

1. Riparian vegetation within 50 feet ofa wetland, stream, lake or river, as identified onthe Coastal Shoreland and Fish and Wildlife habitat inventory maps shall be maintainedexcept that:

e. Riparian vegetation may be removed in order to site or properly maintain publicutilities and road rights-of-way; or

The PCGP is a public utility project within the state ofOregon. Therefore, the PCGP is notsubject to the 50-foot riparian protection vegetation zone, and riparian vegetation may beremoved in order to site the PCGP pursuant to the exemption cited above. Nonethdess, thePCGP will comply with all FERC requirements for wetland and waterbody protection andmitigation both during and after construction.

For the reasons set forth above, the PCGP is allowed as an administrative conditional use withinthe F zone,

C. Rural Residential Zones

The PCGP crosses approximately 0.37 mile ofprivate property zoned Rural Residential- 5 (RR­5), and approximately 0.10 mile ofprivate property zoned Residential Rural- 2 (RR-2).

The use categories and approval criteria for RR-2 and RR-5 are identical. Therefore, thesegments ofthe PCGP in both the RR-2 and RR-5 zones are addressed together below.

-11-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3464

CCZLDO Section 4.2.400 Rural Residential Zoning Districts

Table 4.2.c includes the list ofutility facilities that are pennitted and conditional uses within theRR-5 and RR-2 zones. The table includes "utility facilities - not including power for publicsale" as a hearings body conditional use in both zones. A "utility facility - not including powerfor public sale" is defined at CCZLDO Section 2.1.200 as "a facility for the generation anddistribution of a public or private service including, but not limited to electricity, telephone,natural gas, water, sewage service, and other services providing for energy or communicationneeds;" this use does not include the generation or distribution ofpower for public sale. ThePCGP is a natural gas facility that does not directly generate or distribute power for public sale.Therefore the PCGP is a conditional use within the RR-2 and RR-5 zones subject to the relevantprovision ofCCZLDO Section 4.2.900.

CCZLDO Section 4.2.900 Review Standards and Special Development Conditions

Table 4.2.c lists utility facilities as a C-7 use in the RR-2 and RR-5 zones. Consequently, thePCGP must satisfy the approval criterion at CCZLDO Section 4.2.900.7 provided below.

CCZWO Section 4.2.900.7 The proposed use must befound compatible withsurrounding uses or may be made compatible through theimposition ofconditions.

The uses surrounding the PCGP alignment within the RR-2 and RR-5 zones include residentialuses, pasture land, and forest operations. Construction of the PCGP will be a temporarydisturbance in both RR-5 and RR-2 zones. Pacific Connector will obtain a 50-foot pennanentright-of-way on private lands. Landowners will have continued use of the land except thatpennanently engineered structures will not be allowed within the right-of-way itself. Asexplained in the EFU and Forest sections above, the PCGP will not significantly impact forest oragricultural activities on surrounding lands either during or following construction. Followingconstruction, agricultural activities may resume as they had pre-construction. Forest operationsmay also resume excluding the 30-foot wide operational corridor that Facific Connector willmaintain centered over the pipe to allow for corrosion and leak surveys and other requiredmaintenance and monitoring activities.

The applicant will engage in appropriate measures to protect residences and structures fromconstruction impacts.

For the reasons set forth above, the PCGP is compatible with the uses on land surrounding thepeGP alignment or may be made compatible through the imposition ofreasonable conditions.

CCZLDO Section 4.4.400 General Standards for Rural Residential Zoning Districts

The following general standards apply to the zoning districts and uses addressed in Table 4.2.c,which includes the utility facilities allowed in the RR-2 and RR-5 zones. In this case, most ofthe standards are not applicable to the peGP and its necessary components or associatedfacilities because it is a linear, underground utility facility that crosses several parcels within the

-12-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl76607882

3465

RR-2 and RR-5 zones. However, evidence ofhow the PCGP complies with the applicablestandards is provided below.

A. Minimum lot sizes

The PCGP will not alter the size ofany lots within the RR-2 or RR-5 zones, and, therefore, thisstandard is not applicable.

B. Dwelling Unit Density

No dwellings are proposed with this application. Consequently, this standard is inapplicable.

C. Lot Coverage

There are no lot coverage requirements in the RR-2 and RR-5 zones.

D. Setbacks

The setback requirements of this subsection apply to buildings or structures and to dwellings. Asdiscussed above, the PCGP, an underground pipeline, is not a "structure" as that term is definedby the CCZLDO. Furthermore, it is neither a building nor a dwelling. Consequently, the setbackrequirements of this subsection are not applicable to the PCGP or its necessary components orassociated facilities.

E. Structure HeightF. Fences, Hedges and Walls

Neither of these standards is applicable to the underground PCGP.

G. 0J.T-Sifeet Parmng and Loading

The PCGP will not create any permanent parking or loading requirements within the RR-2 orRR-5 zone, and therefore, this standard is not applicable.

H. Minimum Road Frontage/Lot Width

The PCGP will not alter the existing configuration ofany of the lots it crosses. Consequently,this standard is not applicable to this application.

1 Compatibility with Forest and Agricultural Management Practices

This standard only directly applies to dwellings and septic permits, and therefore is inapplicableto the PCGP. Nonetheless, as discussed in the EFU and Forest zone sections above, theunderground PCGP is entirely compatible with nonna! forest and agricultural managementpractices near the RR-2 and RR-5 zoned lands that the PCGP will cross.

-13-59892-Q002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3466

J. Riparian Vegetation Protection

i. Riparian vegetation within 50 feet ofa wetland, stream, lake, or river, asidentified on the Coastal Shoreland and Fish and Wildlife habitat inventory mapsshall be maintained except that:

e. Riparian vegetation may be removed in order to site orproperly maintainpublic utilities and road right-of-ways, provided that the vegetation to beremoved is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose

The PCGP is a public utility project within the State of Oregon. Therefore, the PCGP is notsubject to the 50-foot riparian protection vegetation zone, and riparian vegetation may beremoved in order to site the PCGP pursuant to the exemption cited above. Nonetheless, thePCGP will comply with all FERG requirements for wetland and wa.terbody protection andmitigation both during and after construction. .

K Access to new dwellings

. This dwelling standard is not applicable to the PCGP application.

D. Industrial Zone

The PCGP crosses approximately 0.07 mile ofproperty within an Industrial zone designation.Within the 0.07-mile segment, the PCGP will affect 27.60 acres, all ofwhich are privatelyowned. Within the Industrial zone, the PCGP right-of-way will cross a vacant yard that was usedby the Weyerhaeuser Company for past industrial purposes.

Pacific Connector would utilize the Coquille Sawmill Yard during PCGP construction, which ispartially zoned IND and partially zoned Forest. This area is an old industrial, abandonedsawmill, which has been previously used as a contractor yard.

CCZLDO Secnon4.2.600 Commerci21l-fudustrial Zoning Districts

Table 4.2.e includes the list ofuses that are permitted and conditional uses within thecommercial and industrial zones. "Utility facilities - not for the generation ofpower for publicsalen is listed as a use permitted outright in the Industrial zone. As discussed in the RR zonenarrative above, the PCGP satisfies the defmition of a "utility facility- not for the generation ofpower for public sale". Consequently, the PCGP is allowed in the Industrial zone withoutconditional use or other land use approval. The applicant requests a consistency determinationof the permitted nature of the use in the zone. As demonstrated below, the PCGP also satisfiesall applicable development standards for the Industrial zone. .

CCZLDO Section 4.4.600 General Standards for Commercial-Industrial Zomng Districts

Pursuant to CCZLDO Section 4.4.600, the general standards set forth in Table 4.4.c apply to usespermitted in the Industrial zone. Table 4.4.c includes the following standards for the Industrial

-14-59892-0002.0008JLEGAL17660788.2

3467

zone: minimum lot size, minimum street frontage, minimum lot widths and depth, the front, side ",and road setbacks, maximum building height, and off-street parking. However, as discussed ingreater detail above, hone of the standards are applicable to the PCGP, an underground utilityfacility. .

E. Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan

As discussed above, the PCGP crosses through several CBEMP Management Districts. Thestated purpose of the CBEMP article in the CCZLDO is to provide requirements for individualzoning districts that are consistent with the CBEMP. The consistency of the PCGP with allapplicable management unit purpose statements and applicable conditions is discussed separately

. under each applicable zoning district below.

Table 4.5 Development Standards

The CBEMP purpose statement further explains that the land development standards ofTable 4.5govern all development within the Coos Bay Estuary Shoreland Districts. As discussed in detailin the other zones above, the PCGP will not alter the lot configurations and does not constitute astructure subject to height restrictions or building setbacks. Consequently, the standardsincluded in Table 4.5 are not applicable to the PCGP itselfnor its necessary components orassociated facilities.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.175 Site-Specific Zoning Districts

The Coos County Development Ordinance divides the lands affected by the CBEMP intospecific zoning districts. Each zoning district contains a "use and activities" table and"management objectives". Pursuant to CCZLDO Section4.5. 175, the use and activity tables foreach district are subordinate to the management objectives, and, therefore, the uses and activitiesmust be consistent with the applicable management objective. As demonstrated below, thePCGP is consistent with the management objective, the use and activities, and the generalconditions ofeach management district it will cross.

7- Development Shorelands (7-D)

The PCGP crosses the 7-D zoning district. This section is privately owned by WeyerhaeuserCompany.

Pacific Connector would utilize the Roseburg Dock and the Weyerhaeuser Cove pipe storage andcontractor yards during construction, which are partially zoned 7-D. As described above,Roseburg Dock is a former industrial log yard, and the Weyerhaeuser Cove area is an oldindustrial site, halfofwhich is paved.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.285 Management Objective: This shoreland district, whichborders a natural aquatic area, shall be managedfor industrial use. Continuation ofandexpansion ofexisting nonwater-dependent/non-water-related industrial uses shall beallowedprovided that this use does not adversely impact Natural Aquatic District #7. In

-15-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3468

addition, development shall not conflict with state andfederal requirements for thewetlands located in the northwest portion ofthis district.

The PCGP will connect the JCEP LNG Tenninal, an industrial and port facility use, to theinterstate gas pipeline near Malin, Oregon. The management objective is satisfied. PacificConnector has applied for the necessary state and fe<ieral wetland pennits and will comply withall state and federal requirements (see response to Policy #17 below for consistency withsignificant wildlife habitat requirements).

CCZLDO Section 4.5.286 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 7-D district.As detailed below, the PCGP is consistent with the following CBEMP policies listed as GeneralConditions within this zoning district: #14, #17, #18, #23, #27, #30, #49; #50, and #51.

8 - Water-Dependent Development Shorelands (8-WD)

The PCGP crosses the 8-WD zoning district. This section is privately owned by WeyerhaeuserCompi3.IlY·

Pacific Connector would utilize the Weyerhaeuser Cove pipe storage and contractor yard duringconstruction, which is partially zoned 8-WD. As described above, the Weyerhaeuser Cove areais an old industrial site, half of which is paved.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.370 Management Objective: This shoreland district shall bemanaged to allow the continuation ofand expansion ofaquaculture, along with thedevelopment ofa boat ramp and limited tie-up facilities, to permit public access to theEstuary.

Upon completion ofconstruction, the Weyerhaeuser Cove yard will be reclaimed to pre­construction conditions, allowing pre-construction activities to continue unhindered. As definedby CCZLDO Section 2.1.200, aquaculture is, "[r]aising, feeding, planting, and harvesting fishand shellfish, and associated facilities necessary for such use." The continuation and expansionof aquaculture should not be impacted during construction (i.e., utilization of the WeyerhaeuserCove yard) and will not be impacted once the PCGP is installed. Aquaculture can continue post­construction as it did pre-construction.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.3 71 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 8-WDdistrict. As detailed below, the PCGP is consistent with the following CBEMP policies listed asGeneral Conditions within this zoning district: #14, #17, #18, #23, #27, #49, #50, and #51 .

.8 - Conservation Aquatic (8-CA)

The PCGP crosses the 8-CA zoning district.

-16-59892-0002.0008ILEGAL17660788.2

3469

Pacific Connector would utilize the Weyerhaeuser Cove pipe storage and contractor yard duringconstruction, which is partially zoned 8-CA. As described above, the Weyerhaeuser Cove area isan old industrial site, half ofwhich is paved.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.375 Management Objective: This district, because ofits shelteredcondition and location near productive aquatic resource areas, shall be managedfordevelopment oflow intensity recreationalfacilities. The uses shall be limited by thesmall size ofthe area and the natural depths ofthe channel. The low-intensityrecreational facilities must be located in such a manner that conflicts will not arise withthe existing aquaculture use, which is also a permitted use.

Upon completion of construction, the Weyerhaeuser Cove yard will be reclaimed to pre­construction conditions, allowing pre-construction ~ctivities to continue unhindered. Followinginstallation, the subsurface pcap will not affect any boating or other low intensity recreationalfacilities or aquaculture uses. Impacts during construction will be temporary. Aquaculture cancontinue post-construction as it did pre-construction.

CCZLDO Sec;tion 4.5.376 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is permitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 8-CAdistrict. The 8-CA General Condition states that inventoried resources,requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each of those policies.

13A - Natural Aquatic (NA)

The PCGP crosses the 13A-NA zoning district. The PCGP crosses the Haynes Inlet in this zone.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.425 Management Objective: This district shall be managed toallow the continuance ofshallow-draft navigation while protecting the productivity andnatural character ofthe aquatic area. The openings in the two road dikes are designatedmitigation sites [M-5(a) and (b), IIlow"priority]. Maintenance, and repair ofbridgecrossing support structures shall be allowed. However, future replacement oftherailroad bridge will require Exception findings.

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.The PCGP will be installed below the bottom of the Inlet and will not affect shallow-draftnavigation or the natural character of the aquatic area The project does not impact mitigationsites M-5(a) or (b) and will not affect the bridges.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.426 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is permitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 13A-NAdistrict. The 13A-NA General Condition states that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each ofthose policies.

-17-S9892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3470

i1 - Natural Aquatic (ll-NA)

The PCGP crosses the 11-NA zoning district.

CCZLDOSection 4.5.405 Management Objective: This extensive intertidal/marshdistrict, which provides habitatfor a wide variety offish and wildlife species shall bemanaged to protect its resource productivity. The opening in the Highway 101 Causewayis a designated mitigation site ("low" priority).

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.The subsurface PCGP will not impact the intertidal/marsh district.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.406 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 11-NAdistrict. The 11-NA General Condition states that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each of those policies.

ii-Rural Shorelands (ll-RS)

The PCGP crosses the 11-RS zoning district from MPs 4.12 R to 4.17 R. In this segment, thePCGP exits Haynes Inlet and crosses a rural area that is dominated by trees.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.400 Management Objective: This district shall be managed so asto continue its rural low-intensity character and uses that have limited (ifany)association with the aquatic district. This·district includes three designated mitigationsites (M-12, M-13 and M-22). However, only Site M-22 shall be protectedfrom pre­emptive uses. Other sites are "low" priority, and need not be protected (See Policy #22).

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.Following installation, the purled PCGP will not affect the rural low-intensity character ofthedistrict nor the uses that have limited (if any) association with the aquatic district. The PCGPdoes not impact mitigation sites M-12, M-13, or M-22.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.401 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 11-RSdistrict. The 11-RS General Conditions state that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18, and further that all pennitted usesmust be consistent with Policy #23. As addressed under the CBEMP Policy section below, thepeGP is consistent with each of those policies.

-18-59892·0002.0008ILEGAL17660788.2

3471

18 - Rural Shorelands (]8-RS)

The PCGP crosses the 18-RS zoning district. In this segment, the PCGP alignment is locatedwithin a vacant pasture area and crosses East Bay Drive.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.480 Management Objective: This district shall be managed toallow continued use as pasture-grazing but shall also be managed to allow dredgedmaterial disposal or mitigation. This qistrict contains two designated mitigation sites, U­12 and U-16(a) ("high" priority). It also contains designated dredged material disposalsite 30(b). The development ofthe disposal site wouldpreclude mitigation use, and viceversa. Use ofthis site for dredged material disposal is the higher priority because ofthescarcity ofsuitable sites (see Policies #20 and #22).

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.Furthennore, the PCGP would not preclude use of the site for dredged material disposal; norwould the PCGP preclude mitigation development ofthe site (see responses to Policies 20 and22 below for more detail).

CCZLDO Section 4.5.481 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is permitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 18-RSdistrict. The 18-RS General Conditions state that no permitted use or activity shall preempt theuse of the designated dredge material disposal site in this district as required by Policy #20; thatpermitted uses and activities shall be consistent with Policy #23; and that inventoried resourcesrequiring mandatory protection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18.

Additionally, permitted uses occurring within "agricultural lands" or "forest lands" as identifiedin the "Special Considerations Map" are limited to those permitted in Policies #28 and #34. ThePCGP crosses agricultural lands within 18-RS. As addressed under Policy #28 below, theagricultural use requirements ofORS Chapter 215 and their applicability to the PCGP aredescribed above in Section II under "Exclusive Farm Use." The PCGP does not cross any landsidentified as Forest Lands shown on the Special Considerations Map within 18-RS. The GeneralConditions further require that uses in the district are permitted as stated in Policy #14 and areconsistent with Policy #27. On designated mitigationfrestoration sites, uses may be pennittedsubject to Policy #22. Finally, in rural areas, utilities, public facilities, and services will only beprovided subject to Policies #49, #50, and #51.

As addressed under the CBEMP Policy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each of theabove referenced policies.

19 - Development Shorelands (J9-D)

The PCGP crosses the 19-D zoning district.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.535 Management Objective: This district is a large parcel (152acres) offilled, undevelopedproperty in a single ownership bordering on a maintainedshallow-draft channel. While the site is presently suitable for pastureland, the Plan

-19-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl766078S.2

3472

anticipates that these characteristics will make it an important water-dependent/water- ...related industrial site in the future. To protect the site for fUture industrial developmentthe Plan designates it "D" (Development). The parcel's large size and the limitation onwater access from only the Coos River shoreland makes it unlikely that the entire site canbe utilizedfor only water-dependent/water-related uses.

TherefOre, to assure that non-water-dependent/non-water-relate uses that wish to locateon the site do not limit or preclude water-dependent uses ofthe shoreland, development.must be consistent with a site plan that accomplishes this goal and is approved by theCoos County Board ofCommissioners or their designee.

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.Following construction, the buried PCGP will be compatible with future industrial and/or water­dependent development.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.536 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is permitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 19-Ddistrict. As detailed below, the PCGP is consistent with the following CBEMP policies listed asGeneral Conditions within this zoning district: #14, #17, #18, #27, #49, #50, and #51.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.537 Land Development Standards. The requirements setforth inTable 4.5 shall govern development in the 19-D district.

The PCGP and all of its necessary components and associated facilities will meet the applicable. development standards.

19B - Development Aquatic Cl9B-DA;6

The PCGP crosses the 19B-DA zoning district. This area is on the north bank ofthe Coos River.

Other than the PCGP and construction easement itself, there are no other associated facilitieswithin zoning district 19B-DA.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.540 Management Objective: This development aquatic districtshall be managed primarily to maintain use ofthe channel for access to future uplanddevelopment adjacent to Christianson Ranch.

The PCGP will be installed beneath the bottom of Coos River and will allow use ofthe channelfor access to future upland development ofany adjacent properties.

6 Although the official CBEMP Zoning Map (25-12) for this area designates a 19B-CA zoning district, theComprehensive Plan Map identifies this area as 19B-DA and the Plan Map controls over the Zoning Map.

-20-59892·0002.0008ILEGALl7660788.2

3473

CCZLDO Section 4.5.541 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 19B-DAdistrict. The 19B-DA General Condition states that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each ofthose policies.

20 - Conservation Aquatic (20-CAJ

The PCGP crosses the 20-CA zoning district. The 20-CA district is aligned with the Coos River.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.550 Management Objective: This aquatic district shall bemanaged to allow log transport while protectingfish habitat. Log storage shall beallowed in areas ofthis district which are near shoreland log sorting areas at Allegany,Shoreland District 20C, and Dellwood, Shoreland District 20D, as well as in areas forwhich valid log storage and handling leases existfrom the Division ofState Lands.

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.Development of the PCGP will not preclude log transport or interfere with fish habitat.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.551 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 20-CAdistrict. The 20-CA General Condition states that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each ofthose policies.

20 - Rural Shorelands (20-RSJ

The peGP crosses the 20-RS zoning district. This segment of the peGP is located on the southbank of the Coos River.

Construction will use measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.545 Management Objective: This district shall be managedforrural uses along with recreational access. Enhancement ofriparian vegetation for waterquality, bankline stabilization, and wildlife habitat shall be encouraged, particularly forpurposes ofsalmonid protection. This district contains two desig-ilated mitigation sites,U-17(a) and (b), "medium" priority, which shall be protected as required by Policy #22.

The PCGP will not impact mitigation sites U-17(a) and (b). Once installed, the PCGP will notprohibit rural uses or recreational access.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.546 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 20-RSdistrict. The 20-RS General Co~ditions state that permitted uses and activities shall be consistent

-21-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3474

with Policy #23 and that inventoried resources requiring mandatory protection in the district aresubject to Policies #17 and #18. Additionally, permitted uses occurring within "agriculturallands" or "forest lands" as identified in the "Special Considerations Map" are limited to thosepermitted in Policies #28 and #34. The PCGP crosses agricultural lands within 20-RS. Theagricultural uses under ORS Chapter 215 and their applicability to the PCGP are described abovein Section II under "Exclusive Fann Use." The PCGP does not cross any lands identified asForest Lands shown on the Special Considerations Map. Uses are permitted as stated in Policy#14 and must be consistent with Policy #27. On designated mitigation/restoration sites,uses/activities may be permitted subject to Policy #22. However, the PCGP will not impact anyofthe designated mitigation/restoration sites within the 20-RS district. Finally, in rural areas,utilities, public facilities, and services will only be provided subject to Policies #49, #50, and#51. As addressed under the CBEMP Policy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each ofthe identified policies.

21 - Rural Shorelands (21-RS)

The PCGP crosses the 21-RS zoning district. The segments ofthe PCGP within the 21-RSdistrict are located on the east and west banks ofCatching Slough.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.595 Management Objective: This shoreland district ofgenerallydikedfarm land shall be managed to maintain the present low-intensity, rural characterand uses in a manner compatible with protection ofthe aquatic resources. An existingheron rookery located in the district shall be preserved by protecting those trees in therookery which are used by the birds. This district contains a number ofdesignatedmitigation sites. The following are "high" or "medium" priority, and must be protected,as required by Policy #22: U-28, U-29(b), U-30(b), U- 32(a) and (b), U-33, U-34(c) and(d). The following are "low" priority sites, and received no special protections: U-21 (b),U-22, U-23, U-24, U-26, U-27, U-29(a), U-32(c) and U-34(a) and (b).

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.Upon completion ofinstallation, the PCGP will not affect the present low-intensity, ruralcharacter and uses in the area because the pre-construction uses will be allowed to continuefollowing construction. Furthermore, as discussed below, this segment of the PCGP satisfies therequirements ofPolicy #22. The PCGP will not interfere with the rookery or mitigation sites.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.596 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The peGP is'permitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 21-RSdistrict. The 21-RS General Conditions state that permitted uses and activities shall be consistentwith Policy #23 and that inventoried resources requiring mandatory protection in the district aresubject to Policies #17 and #18. Additionally, permitted uses occurring within "agriculturallands" or "forest lands" as identified in the "Special Considerations Map" are limited to thosepermitted in Policies #28 and #34. Uses are permitted as stated in Policy #14 and must beconsistent with Policy #27. On designated "mediuni." or "high" mitigation! restoration sites,uses/activities may be permitted subject to Policy #22. However, the peGP will not impact anyof the designated "medium" or "high" mitigation/restoration sites within the 21-RS district. In

-22-59892-0002.0008lI..EGALI76607882

3475

rural areas, utilities, public facilities, and services will only be provided subject to Policies #49,#50, and #51. As addressed under the CBEMP Policy section below, the PCGP is consistentwith each of those policies.

21 - Conservation Aquatic f21-CA)

The PCGP crosses the 21-CA zoning district. This segment of the PCGP will cross CatchingSlough.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.600 Management Objective: This aquatic district shall bemanaged to allow rural upland uses while protecting aquatic resources. Dredgingforroutine repair/maintenance ofdikes shall only be permitted ifno alternative uplandsource ofsuitable fill material is reasonably available and/or land access is notpossible.

Construction will use appropriate measures to minimize impacts. All impacts will be mitigated.As discussed in detail throughout this narrative, the upland areas will be returned to theirprevious condition following construction. Therefore, the rural upland uses on the surroundingpasture lands will be able to continue once construction is complete.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.601 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pennitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 21-CAdistrict. The 21-CA General Condition states that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. As addressed under the CBEMPPolicy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each of those policies.

36 - Urban Water-Dependent (36-UW)

Pacific Connector would utilize the Georgia Pacific-Coos Bay site as an accessory pipe storageand contractor yard temporarily during construction. The location is an active sawmill andlumber yard and it is located within zoning district 36-UW.

CCZLDO Section 4.5.690 Management Objective: This shoreland district, whichincludes a mix ofwater-dependent and non-water-dependent industrial uses and an areabordering the 35-foot channel which is "suitablejOr water-dependent uses", shall allowonly water-dependent uses along the deep-draft channel, except as allowed by Policy#16. In the remainder ofthe district, existing uses shall be permitted to continue andexpand.

The temporary storage ofpipe and equipment and temporary addition ofmobile office trailersduring construction will be similar to the existing operations associated with the active sawmilland lumber yard, and as stated in the objective, "existing uses shall be permitted to continue andexpand."

-23-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3476

CCZLDO Section 4.5.691 Uses Activities and Special Conditions

The PCGP is pemlitted, subject to general conditions, as a low intensity utility in the 36-UWdistrict. The temporary pipe storage would be a temporary accessory use for the PCGP that issimilar to, but less impactful than, a log storage/sorting yard, also a permitted use in the zone.The 36-UW General Conditions state that permitted uses and activities shall be consistent withPolicy #23 and Policy #27; that uses shall be consistent with Policy #16 (protection of areas"suitable for water-dependent uses"); and that inventoried resources requiring mandatoryprotection in the district are subject to Policies #17 and #18. In rural areas, utilities, publicfacilities, and services will only be provided subject to Policies #49, #50, and #51. As addressedunder the CBEMP Policy section below, the PCGP is consistent with each of those policies.

Appendix 3 - CBEMP Policies

As detailed above, the PCGP crosses through several CBEMP zoning districts, and each districthas a unique set ofCBEMP Policies that apply as General Conditions. As discussed below, thePCGP generally complies with each of the applicable CBEMP Policies.

Policy #]4 General Policy on Uses within Rural Coastal Shorelands1 Coos County shall manage its rural areas within the "Coos Bay Coastai

Shorelands Boundary" by cdlowing only thefOllowing uses in rural shoreland areas, asprescribed in the management units ofthis Plan, except fOr areas where mandatory protection isprescribed by LCDC Goal #17 and CBEMP Policies #17 and #18:

e. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses, water-related uses, andother uses only upon a finding by the Board ofCommissioners or its designee that such usessatisfy a need which cannot be accommodated on uplands or shorelands in urban andurbanizable areas or in rural areas built upon or irrevocably committed to nonresource use.

g. Any other uses, including non-farm uses and non-forest uses, providedthat the Board ofCommissioners or its designee determines that such uses satisfy a need whichcannot be accommodated at other upland locations or in urban or urbanizable areas. Inaddition, the above uses shall only be permitted upon afinding that such uses do not otherwiseconflict with the resource preservation andprotection policies established elsewhere in thisPlan.

This strategy recognizes (J) that Coos County's rural shorelands are a valuableresource and accordingly merit special consideration, and (2) that LCDC Goal #17 places strictlimitations on land divisions within coastal shorelands. This strategy fUrther recognizes thatrural uses "a through "g" above, are allowed because ofneed and consistency findingsdocumented in the "factual base" that supports this Plan.

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #14 are6-WD7,7-D, 8-WD, 18-RS, 19-D, 20-RS, and 21-RS. The applicable condition in each ofthese

7 A5 explained above, the PCGP and its associated facilities were approved under JeEP's prior LNGTenmnal application.

-24-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl76607882

3477

zoning districts states: "Uses in this district are only permitted as stated in Policy #14, 'General-,Policy on Uses within Rural Coastal Shorelands.' Except as pelTIlitted outright, or wherefindings are made in this Plan, uses are only allowed subject to the findings in this policy."(emphasis added). Low intensity utilities, such as the PCGP, are "pennitted outright" pursuantto CCZLDO Section 4.5.l50(5)(b) because the use has a "P" designation in each of the relevantzoning districts. Therefore, Policy #14 does not apply to the PCGP.

Policy #16 Protection o(Sites Suitable for Water-Dependent Uses and Special Allowance fornew Non-Water-Dependent Uses in "Urban Water-Dependent (UW) Units"

Local government shall protect shorelands in the following areas that are suitable forwater-dependent uses, for water-dependent commercial, recreational and industrial uses.

a. Urban or urbanizable areas;b. Rural areas built upon or irrevocably committed to non-resource use; andc. Any unincorporated community subject to OAR Chapter 660, Division 022

(Unincorporated Communities).

This strategy is implemented through the Estuary Plan, which provides for water­dependent uses within areas that are designated as Urban Water-Dependent (UW) managementunits.

1 Minimum acreage. The minimum amount ofshorelands to be protected shall beequivalent to the following combination offactors:

a. Acreage ofestuarine shorelands that are currently being usedfor water-dependent uses; and

b. Acreage ofestuarine shorelands that at any time were used for water-dependent uses and still possess structures or facilities that provide or providedwaterdependent uses with access to the adjacent coastal water body. Examples ofsuchstructures or facilities include wharves, piers, docks, mooring piling, boat ramps, waterintake or discharge structures and navigational aids.

Pacific Connector would temporarily utilize the Georgia Pacific-Coos Bay industrial site as anaccessory pipe storage and contractor yard during construction. The location is an activesawmill and lumber yard and it is located within zoning district 36-UW. Due to PacificConnector's temporary use ofonly a portion of this active site, the PCGP will have no impact onthe amount of shoreline designated for protection or the acreage available for water-dependentuses:

II. Suitability. The shoreland area within the estuary designated to provide the minimumamount ofprotected shorelands shall be suitable for water-dependent uses. At a minimum suchwater-dependent shoreland areas shall possess, or be capable ofpossessing, structures orfacilities that provide wat~r-dependentuses with physical access to the adjacent coastal waterbody. The designation ofsuch areas shall comply with applicable Statewide Planning Goals.

-25-59892·0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3478

As noted'above, Pacific Connector would temporarily utilize a portion of the commercial area asa pipe storage yard. The temporary use will have no impact on future water-dependent uses atthe site or the designation ofwater-dependent shoreland areas or the suitability of the shorelandareas to accommodate water-dependent uses.

III. Permissible Non-Water-Dependent Uses. Unless othervvise allowed through anException. new non-water-dependent uses which may be permitted in "Urban Water-dependent(UW)" management units are a temporary use which involves minimal capital investment and nopermanent structures, or a use in conjunction with and incidental and subordinate to a water­dependent use. Such new non-water-dependent uses may be allowed only ifthe fo llowingfindings are made, prior to permitting such uses: '

1. Temporary use involving minimal capital investment and no permanent structures:

a. The proposed use or activity is temporary in nature (such as storage, etc.);and

b. The proposed use would not pre-empt the ultimate use ofthe property forwater-dependent uses; and

c. The site is committed to long-term water-dependent use or development bythe landowner.

Pacific Connector would temporarily utilize the Georgia Pacific-Coos Bay site as a pipe storageand contractor yard during construction. The location is an active sawmill and lumber yard,owned by Georgia Pacific, and it is located within zoning district 36-UW. Use of a portion ofthe industrial site as a pipe storage and contractor yard will be temporary in nature (i.e., onlyduring construction) and will not require the development ofpermanent structures. Further, thetemporary use ofthe existing lumber yard will not pre-empt the ultimate use of the property forwater-dependent uses because Pacific Connector will not use the site following construction.

Policy #17 Protection of'lMajor Marshes" and "Significant Wildlife Habitat" in CoastalShorelands

Local governments shall protectfrom development, major marshes and significant wildlifehabitat, coastal headlands, and exceptional aesthetic resources located within the Coos BayCoastal Shorelands Boundary, except where exceptions allow otherwise.

I. Local government shall protect:

a. "Major marshes" to include areas identified in the Goal #17, "LinkageMatrix", and the Shoreland Values Inventory map; and

b. "Significant wildlife habitats" to include those areas identified on the"Shoreland Values Inventory" map; and

c. "Coastal headlands"; and

d. "Exceptional aesthetic resources" where the quality is primarily derivedfrom or related to the association with coastal water areas.

-26-59892-0002.0008ILEGALl7660788.2

3479

':~, As discussed in detail below, the PCGP crosses near two wetlands identified as significantwildlife habitats. Based on Coos County's maps, the PCGP does not cross identified majormarshes, coastal headlands, or exceptional aesthetic resources.

n. This strategy shall be implemented through:a. Plan designations, and use and activity matrices set forth elsewhere in this

Plan that limit uses in these special areas to those that are consistent with protection ofnaturalvalues; and

b. Through use ofthe Special Considerations Map, which identified suchspecial areas and restricts uses and activities therein to uses that are consistent with theprotection ofnatural values. Such uses may include propagation and selective harvesting offorest products consistent with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, grazing, harvesting wild crops,and low-intensity water-dependent recreation.

c. Contacting Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife for review andcomment on the proposed development within the area ofthe 5b or 5c bird sites.

This strategy recognizes that special protective consideration must be given to key resources incoastal shorelands over and above the protection afforded such-resources elsewhere in this Plan.

Policy #17 applies to inventoried resources requiring mandatory protection within each oftheCBEMP zoning districts. As noted above, the PCGP alignment is near two wetlands identifiedas significant wildlife habitats On the CBEMP Shoreland Values Map. The first wetland islocated at MP 1. According to Pacific Connector's wetland delineation, there is not currently awetland located within the mapped area The current wetland location is east and north ofthemapped location. However, in order to avoid the wetland area included on the Shoreland ValuesMap, Pacific Connector would use a conventional bore method to cross the area where themapped wetland is shown. The use of the bore in this area will avoid any disturbance ofthemapped wetland area and will ensure that the use is consistent with the protection ofwetlandvalues in the area.

The second wetland is located at approximately MP 4.1. The PCGP will cross to the south of themapped wetland with no impact to the wetland area.

Policy #18 Protection ofHistorical. Cultural and Archaeological Sites.

Local government shall provide protection to historical, cultural and archaeological sites andshall continue to refrainfrom widespread dissemination ofsite-specific information aboutidentified archaeological sites.

I This strategy shall be implemented by requiring review ofall developmentproposals involving a cultural, archaeological or historical site, to determine whether theproject as proposed would protect the cultural, archaeological and historical values ofthe site.

II The 'development proposal, when submitted shall include a Site Plan Application,showing, at a minimum, all areas proposedfor excavation, clearing and construction. Withinthree (3) working days ofreceipt ofthe development proposal, the local government shall notify

-27-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL1766078&.2

3480

the Coquille Indian Tribe and Coos, Siuslaw, LowerUmpqua Tribe(s) in writing, together with acopy ofthe Site Plan Application. The Tribe(s) shall have the right to submit a written statementto the local government within thirty (30) days ofreceipt ofsuch notification, stating whether theproject as proposed would protect the cultural, historical and archaeological values ofthe site,or ifnot, whether the project could be modified by appropriate measures to protect those values.

III. Upon receipt ofthe statement by the Tribe(s), or upon expiration ofthe Tribe(s)thirty day response period, the local government shall conduct an administrative review oftheSite Plan Application and shall:

a. .Approve the development proposal ifno. adverse impacts have beenidentified, as long as consistent with otherportions ofthis plan, or

b. Approve the development proposal subject to appropriate measuresagreed upon by he landowner and the Tribe(s), as well as any additional measures deemednecessary by the local government to protect the cultural, historical and archaeological valuesofthe site. Jfthe property owner and the Tribe(s) can not agree on the appropriate measures,then the governing body shall hold a quasijudicial hearing to resolve the dispute. The hearingshall be apublic hearing at which the governing body shall determine by preponderance of :evidence whether the development project may be allowed to proceed, subject to anymodifications deemed necessary by the governing body to protect the cultural, historical andarchaeological"values ofthe site.

Pacific Connector has, in consultation with FERC, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office,and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, conducted an extensive cultural resources survey forthe PCGP as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That process ison-going. The information is considered privileged and confidential based on its sensitivenature.

Based upon recent land use decisions on the JCEP project, Coos County has clearly indicatedthat the "Site Plan Application" requirement contemplated by Policy #18 is intended to beimplemented through the submittal of a "plot plan" under CCZLDO Section 3.2.700 at the timethe applicant requests a zoning compliance (verification) letter under CCZLDO Section 3.1.200.CCZLDO Section 3.2.700 makes it clear that the time for compliance with applicablerequirements regarding protection of archeological resources is at any time before a "zoningcompliance letter,,8 is requested, not at the time of conditional use permit approval. Pursuant to:CCZLDO Section 3.2.700, this is accomplished through the submittal of a "plot plan showingexact location ofexcavation, clearing, and development." Therefore, the time for application forPolicy #18. and CCZLDO Section 3.2.700 is prior to obtaining a zoning compliance (verification)letter under CCZLDO Section 3.1.200.

Given the timing for compliance with Policy #18, Pacific Connector recommends the followingcondition ofapproval to ensure that the Policy #18 coordination and hearing requirements will becomplied with prior to obtaining a zoning compliance (verification) letter:

8 Coos County has previously held that a "zoning compliance letter" under CCZLDO Section 3.2.700 is equivalentto a "zoning verification letter" under CCZLDO Section 3.1.200.

-28-59892..Q002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3481

At least 90 days prior to issuance ofa zoning compliance (verification) letterunder CCZLDO Section 3.1.200, the County Planning Department shall makeinitial contact with the affected Tribe(s) regarding the detenninationofwhetherany archeological sites exist within the CBEMP areas proposed for development,consistent with the provisions ofCCZLDO Section 3.2.700. Once the Tribe(s)have commented or failed to timely comment under the provisions of CCZLDOSection 3.2.700, the County shall take one ofthe following actions: (1) ifnoadverse impacts to cultural, historical or archeological resources have beenidentified, the County may approve and issue the requested zoning compliance(verification) letter and related development proposal; (2) ifthe Tribe(s) and theapplicant reach agreement regarding the measures needed to protect the identifiedresources, the development can be approved with any additional measures theCounty believes are necessary to protect those resources; or (3) if the Countyfmds that there will be adverse impacts to identified CBEMP Policy #18 resourcesand the applicant and the Tribe(s) have not reached agreement regardingprotection of such resources, then the County Board ofCommissioners shall holda quasi-judicial hearing to resolve the dispute. The hearing shall be a publichearing at which the governing body shall determine by preponderance ofevidence whether the development project may be allowed to proceed, subject toany modification deemed necessary by the governing body to protect the cultural,historical and archeological values ofthe site. For purposes of this condition, thepublic hearing shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.8.200 of the >

CCZLDO with the Board of Commissioners serving as the Hearings Body.

Implementation ofthis proposed condition would ensure compliance with Policy #18.

Policy #20 Dredged Material Disposal Sites

Local government shall support the ~tockpiling and disposal ofdredged materials on sitesspecifically designated in Plan Provisions, Volume IL Part 1, Section 6, Table 6.1, and alsoshown on the "Special Considerations Map". Ocean disposal is currently the primary disposalmethod chosen by those who need disposal sites. The dredge material disposal designated siteson the list provided on Table 6.1, has decreased 'because the ocean has become the primarydisposal method, the in-land DMD sites have diminished and those which have remained on theDMD list are sites which may be utilized in the future and not be cost-prohibitive. Consistentwith the flUse/Activity" matrices, designated disposal sites shall be managed so as to preventnew uses and activities which could prevent the sites' ultimate use for dredge material disposal.A designated site may otherwise only be released for some other use upon a finding that asuitable substitute upland site or ocean dumping is available to provide for that need. Sites mayonly be released through a Plan Amendment. Upland dredged material disposal shall bepermitted elsewhere (consistent with the "Use/Activity" matrices) as neededfor new dredging(when permitted), maintenance dredging ofexistingfimctionalfacilities, minor navigationalimprovements or drainage improvements. provided riparian vegetation andfi-esh-water wetlandsare not afficted. For any in-water (including intertidal or subtidal estuarine areas) disposalpermit requests, this strategy shall be implemented by the preparation offindings by localgovernment consistent with Policy #5 (Estuarine Fill and Removal) and Policy #20c (Intertidal

-29-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3482

Dredged Material Disposal). Where a site is not designated for dredged material disposal, but· ~.,~

is usedfOr the disposal ofdredged material, the amount ofmaterial disposed shall be consideredas a capacity credit toward the total identified dredged material disposal capacity requirement.

L This policy shall be implemented by:

a. Designating "Selected Dredge Material Disposal Sites" on the "SpecialConsiderations Map"; and

Within CBEMP zoning district 18-RS, the PCGP will cross DMD 30(b).

b. Implementing an administrative review process (to preclude preemptoryuses) that allows uses otherwise permitted by this Plan butproposed within an areadesignated as a "SelectedDMD" site only upon satisfying all ofthe fo llowing criteria:

1. The proposed use will not entail substantial structural or capitalimprovements (such as roads, permanent buildings and nontemporary water andsewer connections); and

The PCGP will be buried under the 30(b) dredge disposal site and will not entail substantialstructural or capital improvements such as roads, permanent buildings and nontemporary waterand sewer connections. As discussed above, the PCGP is not a "structure" as that term is definedin CCZLDO Section 2.1.200, and there are no above-ground components within the 30(d) dredgedisposal site. Nor is the PCGP a capital improvement to the property which would precludefuture use of the site for dredge disposal. The only impacts on future development will be theprohibition of structural improvements within the right-of-way, which is entirely consistent withthe stated purpose of Policy #20, preclusion ofpreemptory uses.

2. The proposed use must not require any major alteration ofthe sitethat would affect drainage or reduce the usable volume Ojthe site (such asextensive site grading/excavation or elevationfromfill); and

Following installation of the PCGP, the site will be restored as closely as possible to its pre­construction cpntours, reestablishing existing drainage patterns.! Following construction, dredgematerial could still be stored over the PCGP in consultation with Pacific Connector, therebypreserving the usable volume ofthe site.

3. The proposed use must not require site changes that would preventthe expeditious conversion ofthe site to estuarine habitat.

The PCGP would not require site changes that would prevent the expeditious conversion of thesite to estuarine habitat.

c. Local government's review ofand comment on applicable state andfederal waterway permit applications for dike/tidegate and drainage ditch actions.

-30-59892-0002.0008fLEGALI7660788.2

3483

The peGP will not include dike/tidegate or drainage ditch actions. Therefore, this provision isnot applicable.

II. This strategy recognizes that sites designated in the Comprehensive Plan reflect thefollowing key environmental considerations required by LCDC Goal #16:

a. Disposal ofdredged material in upland or ocean waters was givengeneral preference in the overall site selection process,'

b. Disposal ofdredged material in estuary waters is permitted in this Planonly when such disposal is consistent with state andfederal law,'

c. Selected DMD sites must be protectedfrom preemptory uses.

As discussed above, the PCGPdo.es not involve disposal ofdredged material but will allow fordredged material disposal on site 30(b) and will, therefore, not be a preemptory use.

Policv#22

I.

Mitigation Sites: Protection Against Preemptory Uses Consistent with permitteduses and activities:This policy shall be implemented by:

a. Designating "high" and "medium II priority mitigation sites on the SpecialConsiderations Map,' and

According to Coos County's maps, the peGP would cross the following mitigation sites:

Designated MitigationSite Priority Approximate MP CBEMP Zoning District

M-8(b) 1 Low 2.70R 11-NAU-12 ~ High 10.90 R 18-RS

U-16(a) .<. HiQh 11.10 R 18-RSU-22 Low 10.10 21-RSU-24 Low 10.97 21-RS

This mitigation site is associated with the Hwy 101 Causeway.2 PCGP will also cross CBEMP dredged Material Disposal Site 30(b), which is in the same location as mitigation

site U-12 and just to the north of mitigation site U-16(a). The PCGP installation will be a temporary disturbanceto this dredged material disposal site. According to the Management Objectives of 18-RS, the dredge disposalis considered a higher priority than mitigation for this area. CCZLDO Section 4.5.480 Management Objectiveprovides, "The development of the disposal site would preclude mitigation use, and vice versa. Use of this sitefor dredged material disposal is the higher priority because of the scarcity of suitable sites (see Policies #20and #22}."

b. Implementing an administrative review process that allows uses otherwisepermitted by this Plan butproposed within an area designated as a "high" or r'medium" prioritymitigation site only upon satisfying the following criteria:

Ofthe 5 designated mitigation areas crossed by the PCGP, 2 are high priority (D-12 and D­16(a)). However, the designated dredge disposal site (30(b)) is the higher priority in this area(see responses to Policy #20 above).

1. The proposed use must not entail substantial structural or capitalimprovements (such as roads, permanent buildings or nontemporary water and sewerconnections); and

-31-59892-0002.0008ILEGALl7660788.2

3484

'0" The PCGP will be buried within the 30(b) dredge disposal site and will not entail substantialstructural or capital improvements such as roads, permanent buildings and nontemporary waterand sewer connections. As discussed above, the PCGP is not a "structure" as that term is definedin CCZLDO Section 2.1.200. The PCGP will simply cross the property beneath the surface.The only impacts on future development will be the prohibition ofstructural improvementswithin the right-of-way, which is entirely consistent with the stated purpose ofPolicy #20,preclusion ofpreemptory uses.

2. The proposed use must not require any major alteration ofthe sitethat would affect drainage or reduce the usable volume ofthe site (such as extensive sitegrading/excavation or elevation from fill); and

Following installation of the PCGP, the site will be restored as closely as possible to its pre­construction contours, reE""stablishing existing drainage patterns. Following construction,mitigation could still occur over the PCGP in consultation with Pacific Connector, therebypreserving the usable volume ofthe site for mitigation purposes.

3. The proposed use must not require site changes that would preventthe expeditious conversion ofthe site to estuarine habitat; or

The PCGP would not require site changes that would prevent the expeditious conversion of thesite to estuarine habitat.

Policy #23 Riparian Vegetation and Streambank Protection1. Local government shall strive to maintain riparian vegetation within the

shorelands ofthe estuary, and when appropriate, restore or enhance it, as consistent with water­dependent uses. Local government shall also encourage use oftax incentives to encouragemaintenance ofriparian vegetation, pursuant to ORS 308.792 - 308.803.

Appropriate provisions for riparian vegetation are setforth in the CCZLDO Section4.5.180 (OR 92-05-009PL).

The zoning districts through. which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #23 are6-WD9

, 7-D, 8-WD, 11-RS, 18-RS, 20-RS, 21-RS", and 36-UW (Georgia Pacific Yard).

As indicated under subsection I, this policy is implemented through the requirements ofCCZLDO Section 4.5.180, Riparian Protection Standards in the Coos Bay Estuary ManagementPlan. Section 4.5.180 generally requires that riparian vegetation within 50 feet of a wetland,stream, lake or river, as identified on the Coastal Shoreland Fish and Wildlife habitat inventorymaps, shall be maintained. However, the standard provides the following exception, "[r]iparianvegetation may be removed in order to site or properly maintain public utilities and road right-of­ways, provided that the vegetation to be removed is the minimum necessary to accomplish thepurpose." The PCGP qualifies as a public utility, and is therefore exempt from the 50-footriparian vegetation maintenance requirements of CCZLDO Section 4.5.180 provided the

9 As explained above, the PCGP and its associated facilities were approved under JCEP's prior LNGTerminal application.

-32-59892-0002.0008ILEGAL17660788.2

3485

vegetation removal is the minimum necessary for the PCGP installation. However, PacificConnector has designed the project to minimize impacts to riparian vegetation as much aspossible.

II Local government shall encourage streambank stabilization for the purpose ofcontrolling streambank erosion along the estuary, subject to other policies concerning structuraland non-structural stabilization measures.

This strategy shall be implemented by Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT)and local government where erosion threatens roads. Otherwise, individual landowners incooperation with the Oregon International Port ofCoos Bay, and Coos Soil and WaterConservation District, Watershed Councils, Division ofState Lands and Oregon Department ofFish & Wildlife shall be responsible for bankprotection.

This strategy recognizes that the banks ofthe estuary, particularly the Coos andMillicoma Rivers are susceptible to erosion and have threatened valuable farm land, roads andother structures.

While Pacific Connector will restore areas disturbed during construction to their pre-constructioncondition, the PCGP does not include independent streambank stabilization projects. Therefore,the provisions of subsection II are not applicable.

Policy #27 Floodplain Protection within Coastal Shorelands.

The respective flood regulations oflocal government set forth requirements for uses andactivities in identifiedflood areas; these shall be recognized as implementing ordinances ofthisPlan. -

This strategy recognizes the potential for property damage that could result from flooding oftheestuary.

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #27 are6-WO, 7-0, 8-WD, 18-RS, 19-0, 20-RS, 21-RS, and 36-UW (Georgia Pacific Yard).

Policy #27 is satisfied through compliance with the implementing floodplain ordinance in theCCZLDO Article 4.6, the Floodplain Overlay zone. The Floodplain Overlay section providedbelow, describes how the PCGP satisfies the applicable floodplain standards in both within andoutside the CBEMP districts.

Policy #28 Recognition o(LCDC Goal #3 (Agricultural Lands) Requirements fOr Rural Landswithin the Coastal Shorelands Boundary

Unless otherwise allowed through an Exception, Coos County shall manage all rural landsdesignated within the Coastal Shorelands Boundary as being suitable for IIExclusive Farm Use"(EFU) designation consistent with the "Agricultural Use Requirements" ofORS 215. Alloweduses are listed in Appendix 1, ofthe Zoning and Land Development Ordinance.

-33-59892-Q002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3486

This policy shall be implemented by using the Special Considerations Map (Policy #3) to identify 't':'

EFUsuitable areas, and to abide by the prescriptive use and activity requirements ofDRS 215 inlieu ofother management alternatives otherwise allowedfor properties within the "EFU-overlay" setforth on the Special Considerations Map, and except where otherwise allowed byexceptions for needed housing and industrial sites.

The "EFUtl zoned land within the Coastal Shorelands Boundary shall be designated as "OtherAggregate Sites lf inventories by this Plan pursuant to ORS 215.298(2). These sites shall beinventoried as "JB" resources in accordance with OAR 660-16-000(5)(b). Coos County will re­evaluate these inventoried sites pursuant to the requirements ofsaid rule at, or before, County'speriodic review ofthe Comprehensive Plan (OR 92-08-013PL 10/28/92).

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #28 are18-RS,20-RS and 21-RS.

As stated above, this policy is implemented by using the Special Considerations Map to identifyEFU suitable areas. Certain property along the PCGP alignment is designated as "AgriculturalLands". As described in detail in the EFU section ofthe narrative above, the PCGP is allowed asa utility facility necessary for public service under the agricultural provisions of ORS 215.283(d)and ORS 215.275(6). Therefore, the PCGP is consistent with the Policy #28 requirements formapped Agricultural Lands.

In addition to referencing ORS Chapter 215, the Policy states that allowed uses are listed inAppendix 1 ofthe CCZLDO. However, Appendix 1 is entitled CCCP and does not apply withinthe CBEMP boundaries and does not provide a list ofuses pennitted within agricultural zones.Therefore, it appears that the reference is intended to be to Appendix 4, Agricultural Land Use,which does describe uses allowed within exclusive fann use zones. Subsection 1 ofAppendix 4states, "Land within such zones shall be used exclusively for fann use except as otherwiseprovided in ORS 215.213." ORS 215.213 describes uses pennitted in exclusive farm use zones.ORS 215.213(1)(c) permits the following use allowed outright in any area zoned for exclusivefann use: "utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatmentsystems but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power forpublic use by sale or transmission towers over 200 feet in height. A utility facility necessary forpublic service maybe established as provided in ORS 215.275."10 As discussed in the EFU zonesection ofthis narrative, the PCGP is a utility facility necessary for public service pursuant toORS 215.275. Therefore, the PCGP is also an allowed use in those areas identified asAgricultural Lands on the CBEMP Special Considerations Map.

10 The County is not a marginal lands county, so the provisions of ORS 215.213 do not apply. Theparallel provisions of Oregon law applicable to marginal lands counties (set forth in ORS 215.283) doapply. ORS 215.283(1)(c) is identical to ORS 215.213(l)(c).

-34-59892-0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3487

Policy #30 Restricting Actions in Beach and Dune Areas with "Limited Development .~ ,.,Suitability" and Special Consideration fOr Sensitive Beach and Dune Resources(moved from Policy #31)

L Coos County shallpermit development within areas designated as "Beach andDune Areas with Limited Development Suitabilityfl on the Coos Bay Estuary SpecialConsiderations Map only upon the establishment offindings that shall include at least:

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #30 are6-WD and 7-D. The portions ofthese zoning districts affected by the PCGP are designated as"Beach and Dune Areas with Limited Development Suitability".

a. The type ofuse proposed and the adverse effects it might have on the siteand adjacent areas,'

b. Temporary and permanent stabilization programs and the plannedmaintenance ofnew and existing vegetation,'

c. Methods for protecting the surrounding area from any adverse effects ofthe development; and

d. Hazards to life, public and private property, and the natural environmentwhich may be caused by the proposed use; and

e. Whether drawdown ofgroundwater would lead to loss ofstabilizingvegetation, loss ofwater quality, or intrusion ofsaltwater into water supplies. Implementationshall occur through an administrative conditional use process which shall include submission ofa site investigation report by the developer that addresses the five considerations above.

Implementation shall occur through an administrative conditional use process which shallinclude submission ofa site investigation report by.the developer that addresses the fiveconsiderations above.

The applicant will submit its site investigation report prior to the time that a zoning verificationletter is issued by Coos County and this application can be approved subject to a condition to thateffect.

IV. Local government shall cooperate with state andfederal agencies in regulatingthe following actions in beach and dune areas by sending notification ofAdministrativeConditional Use decision:

As part of the FERC pre-filing and filing agency coordination process, Pacific Connector hasbeen in contact with and has kept infonned federal and state agencies regarding the process andprogress of the PCGP. Agencies include U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department 6fState Lands, and Oregon Department ofLand Conservation and Development. Coos County can rely on that coordination to satisfy its.

-35-59892-Q002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3488

, requirement or can coordinate directly with the relevant agencies. The following describes theexisting coordination with state and federal agencies for each of the relevant actions:

a. Destruction ofdesirable vegetation (including inadvertent destruction bymoisture loss or root damage),

Between MPs 0.00 and 1.65, the majority of the PCGP has been routed within previouslydisturbed industrial areas (graded and graveled) and existing roads. At MP 0.00, the JordanCove Meter Station will be located within the footprint ofthe County-approved Jordan CoveLNG Tenninal, which will be graded and graveled. Pacific Connector will replant areas that arevegetated prior to construction. '

b. The exposure ofstable and conditionally stable areas to erosion,

The applicant will obtain a DEQ 1200-c permit prior to construction. The application can beapproved with a condition to that effect.

c. Construction ofshore structures which modify current or wave patternsleading to beach erosion, and

No shore structures are proposed, and, therefore, this provision is not applicable.

d. Any other development actions with potential adverse impacts.

No other development actions with potential adverse impacts are proposed in beach and duneareas. This provision is not applicable.

Policy #34 - Recognition o(LCDC Goal #4 (Forest Lands) Requirements for Forest Landswithin the Coastal Shorelands Boundary Unless otherwise allowed through an Excevtion, CoosCounty shall manage all rural lands designated on the Special Considerations Map as "ForestLands" within the Coastal Shorelands Boundary consistent with the "Forest Uses" requirementso(LCDC Goal #4. Allowed uses are listed in Appendix 3 oUhe Zoning and Land DevelopmentOrdinance. .

Where the County's Comprehensive Plan identified major marshes, significant wildlife habitatand riparian vegetation on coastal shorelands subject to forest operations governed by theForest Practices Act, the Forest Practice program and rules ofthe Department ofForestry shallbe carried out in such a manner as to protect and maintain the special shoreland values ofthemajor marshes, significant wildlife habitat areas, andforest uses especially for naturalshorelands and riparian vegetation.

This policy shall be implemented by using the Special Considerations Map (Policy #3) to identify"Forest Lands", and to abide by the prescriptive use and activity requirements ofLCDC Goal #4in lieu ofother management alternatives otherwise allowedfor propertieswithin the "ForestLands-Overlay" set forth on the Special Considerations Map, and except where otherwiseallowed by Exception for needed housing and industrial sites.

-36-59892·0002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3489

This policy recognizes that the requirements ofLCDC Goal #4 are equal and not subordinate toother management requirements ofthis Plan for "Forest Lands /I located within the CoastalShorelands Boundary.

The PCGP does not cross any lands identified as Forest Lands shown on the SpecialConsiderations Map.

Policv #49 Rural Residential Public Services.

Coos County shall provide opportunities to its citizens for a rural residential living experience,where the minimum rural public services necessary to support such development are defined aspolice (sheriff) protection, public education (but not necessarily a rural facility), andfireprotection (either through membership in a rural fire protection district or through appropriateon-site fire precaution measures for each dwelling). Implementation shall be based on theprocedures outlined in the County's Rural Housing State Goal Exception.

1. This strategy is based on the recognition:

a. that physical andfinancial problems associated with public services inCoos Bay and North Bend present severe constraints to the systems' ability to provide urbanlevel services, and b. that rural housing is an appropriate and needed means for meeting housingneeds ofCoos County's citizens.

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #49 are6-WD,1I 7-D, 8-WD, ll-RS, 18-RS, 19-D, 20-RS, 21-RS, and 36-UW (Georgia Pacific Yard).The PCGP is notin need ofrural residential public services nor will it preclude these services.

Policv #50 Rural Public Services

Coos County shall consider on-site wells and springs as the appropriate level ofwater servicefor farm andforest parcels in unincorporated areas and on-site DEQ-approved sewage disposalfacilities as the appropriate sanitation methodfor such parcels, except as specifically providedotherwise by Public Facilities and Services Plan Policies #49, and #51. Further, Coos Countyshall consider the following facilities and services appropriate for all rural parcels: fire districts,school districts, road districts, telephone lines, electrical and gas lines, and similar, low­intensity facilities and services traditionally enjoyed by rural property owners. This strategyrecognizes that LCDC Goal #11 requires the County to limit rural facilities and services.

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #50 are6-WD, 7-D, 8-WD, 18-RS, 19-D, 20-RS, 21-RS, and 36-UW (Georgia Pacific Yard). The PCGPis not in need ofrural public services nor will it preclude these services.

11 As explained above, the PCGP and its associated facilities were approved under JCEpts prior LNGTenninal application. .

-37-59892-Q002.0008/LEGAL17660788.2

3490

Policy #51 Public Services Extension

1 Coos County shall permit the extension ofexisting public sewer and watersystems to areas outside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and unincorporated communityboundaries (UCB's) or the establishment ofnew water systems outside UGB's and UCB's wheresuch service is solely for:

The zoning districts through which the PCGP crosses requiring compliance with Policy #51 are6-WD, 7-D, 8-WD, 18-RS, 19-D, 20-RS, 21-RS, and 36-UW (Georgia Pacific Yard). The PCGPis not requesting a public services extension.

F. Floodplain Overlay Zone

The PCGP will cross through 10 areas within the Coos County Floodplain Overlay zone. Asdescribed below, the PCGP satisfies each ofthe applicable floodplain approval criteria.

CCZLDO SECTION 4.6.205. Designation ofFlood Areas.

a. The area ofCoos County that is within a special flood hazard area" identified by the FederalInsurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood InsuranceStudy for Coos County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas", dated September 25,2009, withaccompanying Flood Insurance Map (FIRM) is hereby adopted by reference and declared to bepart ofthis ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study and the FIRM are onfile at the Coos CountyPlanning Department.

The County has indicated that the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is consistent with theFederal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood hazard map for Coos County. Asaddressed below, the PCGP is consistent with the applicable floodplain approval criteria for allareas identified on the FEMA flood hazard map/FIRM as a designated flood area. The FEMAmaps identify the lOO-year floodplain, which is typically a larger area than the floodplain12 andfloodway13 areas defined in the Floodplain Overlay standards. In order to be as conservative aspossible, the applicant has designed the PCGP so that any portion of the PCGP that crosses anarea identified on the FEMA 100-year floodplain map satisfies the more stringent floodwaystandards.

CCZLDO SECTION 4.6.210. Permitted Uses.

In a district in which the IFP zone is combined, those uses permitted by the underlying districtare permitted outright in the IFP FLOATING ZONE, subject to the provisions ofthis article.

12 "Floodplain" is defined by the Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance (CCZLDO) as "the areaadjoining a stream, tidal estuary or coast that.is subject to periodic inundation from flooding."13 "Floodway" is defined by the CCZWO as "the normal stream channel and that adjoining area of the naturalfloodplain needed to convey the waters ofa regional flood while causing less than one foot increase in upstreamflood elevations." Pursuant to CCZWO Sections 4.6.205 and 4.6.270 "floodways" are identified as special floodhazard areas in a Federal Insurance Adininistration report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for Coos County, Oregonand Incorporated Areas" and accompanying maps.

-38-59892-0002.0008/LEGALl7660788.2

3491

CCZLDO SECTION 4.6.215. Conditional Uses.

In a district with which the IF? is combined, those uses subject to the provisions ofArticle 5.2(Conditional Uses) may be permitted in the IFP FLOATING ZONE, subject to the provisions ofthisarticle.

As detailed above, the PCGP is pennitted either outright or conditionally in each of the basezones that it crosses. As described in this section of the narrative, it also satisfies each oftheapplicable Floodplain Overlay standards. Therefore, it is also a pennitted use in the FloodplainOverlay zone.

CCZLDO SECTION 4.6.230. Procedural Requirements for Development within Special FloodHazard Areas.

The following procedure and application requirements shall pertain to the following types ofdevelopment:

4. Other Development. "Other development" includes mining, dredging,filling, grading, paving,excavation or drilling operations located within the area ofa specialflood hazard, but does notinclude such uses as normal agricultural operations, fill less than 12 cubic yards, fences, road anddriveway maintenance, landscaping, gardening and similar uses which are excludedfrom definitionbecause it is the County's determination that such uses are riot ofthe type and magnitude to affectpotential water surface elevations or increase the level ofinsurable damages.

Review and authorization ofa floodplain application must be obtainedfrom the Coos CountyPlanning Department before "other development" may occur. Such authorization by the PlanningDepartment shall not be issued unless it is established, based on a licensed engineer's certificationthat the "other development" shall not:

A natural gas PCGP is not included in the specified list of "other development." However,because the PCGP construction process will involve the removal and replacement ofsoil andrecontouring activities that are similar to the listed development activities, the followingdemonstrates that the PCGP is consistent with the "other development" standards.

a. result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence ofthe baseflood discharge ifthedevelopment will occur within a designatedfloodway; or,

b. result in a cumulative increase ofmore than onefoot during the occurrence ofthe baseflooddischarge ifthe development will occur within a designatedflood plain outside ofa designatedfloodway.

The peGP will be installed below existing grades and no pennanent structures will be placedabove existing grades within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. In addition, at the completion ofthe peGP installation, all construction areas will be restored to their pre-construction grade andcondition. Flood plain compliance will be verified prior to construction and the issuance of azoning compliance letter.

-39-59892.Q002.0008ILEGAL17660788.2

3492

CCZLDO SECTION 4.6.235. Sites within Special Flood Hazard Areas.

1. Ifa proposed building site is in a special flood hazard area, all new construction and substantialimprovements (including placement o/prefabricated buildings and mobile homes), otherwisepermitted by this Ordinance, shall:

All new construction associated with the PCGP satisfies the following special flood hazard areacriteria.

a. be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateralmovement and shall be installed using methods andpractices that minimize flood damage.Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use ofover-the-top orframe ties to groundanchors (Reference FEMA "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas" guidebookforadditional techniques);

Installation methods and mitigation measures will avoid and/or minimize flotation, collapse, orlateral movement hazards and flood damage.

b. be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage,'

The entire PCGP will be constructed with corrosion-protected steel pipe. Where deemednecessary, the PCGP will be installed with a reinforced concrete coating to protect againstabrasion and flood damage.

c. be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and

The PCGP will. be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.

d. electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other servicefacilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent waterfrom enteringor accumulating within the componel!-ts during conditions offlooding.

The subsurface PCGP does not include electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, or airconditioning components. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the PCGP satisfies all of the applicable approval criteria withinthe zones and districts along the FERC approved alignment. Consequently, the applicantrequests that the County grant land use approval for the elements of the PCGP addressed in thisapplication.

-40-59892-Q002.0008/LEGAL1766078g.2

3493

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing RECORD OF TRANSMITTAL on the below­listed parties by mailing to the party one (1) copy thereof on October 19,2010. I further certifythat I have compared this copy with the original record on file in my office and custody, and thatit is a true and correct copy of that original. I further certify that said copy was placed in asealed envelope addressed to said party at the below-listed address and deposited in the PostOffice pick-up station at the Coos County Courthouse, Coquille, Oregon, on the 19th day ofOctober 2010, with first class postage affixed thereto.

I further certify that I caused the original of the same to be filed with the Land Use Boardof Appeals, 550 Capitol Street NE Suite 235, Salem, OR 97301-2552 on the same day bymailing first class with the U. S. Postal Service to the Board at the above address.

Corinne C. ShertonJonson & Sherton, P.C.247 Commercial Street NE, Suite 205Salem OR 97301

Roger A. AlfredPerkins Coie LLP1120 NW Couch Street 10th FloorPortland OR 97209-4128

Dated: October 19, 2010

i Rolfe, Administr tive PlannerCoos County Planni g Department

Coos County is an Affinnalive ActionJEqual Opportunity Employer and complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973