The US Environmental Protection Agency is raising concerns about a proposed 36in pipeline and LNG terminal in Coos County, namely that one of the routes under consideration – through Coos Bay – could harm aquatic species. The environmental impact statement’s purpose is to ensure that the proposed 229mi pipeline and terminal – which includes a slip big enough to receive 80 ships carrying liquefied gas each year plus two storage tanks with a capacity of 160,000cm – does as little harm to the environment as possible, in part by considering all available alternatives to a developer’s chosen route. The EPA also wants the project’s developers to look for another place to dump 410,000cu/yds of sediment that will be required to be dredged every two years to make the channel deep enough for a terminal. The developer, Williams-Northwest Pipeline, has proposed other routes that don’t threaten the eelgrass and other aquatic resources in the bay. Those include two routes that travel over land: one that prompted objections from residents in the community of Glasgow, on the bay’s north side; and another that affects fewer landowners but still could lead to some eminent domain issues. At this point, the plan is to use the same offshore location that the Army Corps of Engineers uses for normal maintenance of the channel. That site is north of the north jetty, the entrance to Coos Bay.