Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-290

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-291

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-1 On November 4, 2008, Pacific Connec

concerning the acres of “old growth” f

that may be affected on federal lands, ncombined total pipeline route. Section revised to include this revised estimateIND1-1. Because the proposed pipelinareas on NFS and BLM lands (not old volume of timber that would be clearedoes not necessarily correlate to acreag
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-292

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-293

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-2 See Response to Comment IND45-9. 

located in Appendix L-3. If the Forest Northwest Forest Plan, the Forest Servpublic notice which would give the puprovide comment. 

CO20-3 See Response to Comment IND45-9. 

located in section Appendix L-3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-294

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-295

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-4 Section 4.6 of the EIS discloses potent

rare and endangered wildlife. ODFW discussed in sections 4.5.1.1, 4.5.1.2, aSection 4.6.1.2 of the EIS discusses poon NSO. This discussion includes the and the potential impacts on NSO from described in section 4.6.1.2, the use of edge effect was from recommendationGroup and Habitat Quality Subtask Grreported that the mean distance of edge 

response variable did not exceed 300 f
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-296

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-297

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-5 We disagree that the EIS fails to adequ

removing MAMU habitat. The evaluaMAMU in section 4.6.1.2 of the final Einclude new information to address coEIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-298

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-299

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-6 Section 4.6.2.2 has been updated to inc

eagle nesting site and a recommendatiosurvey the site to determine if the nest activities. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-300

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-7 See response to comments IND3-1 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-301

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-8 Section 4.6.2.1 has been updated to co

additional text has been included in the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-302

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-9 We did consider alternatives to the pro

of the EIS. Because effects by the promitigated on site, Pacific Connector hato compensate for unavoidable impactwould include impacts from operation 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-303

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-10 See response to comments PM2-23, PMCO20-11 The potential impacts of the proposed 

of coho salmon are addressed in sectio
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-304

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-12 The potential impacts of the proposed 

are sufficiently discussed in section 4.5

CO20-13 These two examples are located in diff

Therefore, seven waterbodies are likelin the Southern Oregon/Northern Califstreams may require blasting in the Or

CO20-14 See response to comment PM2-23. FE

the 50 foot setback when an applicant justification. In the case of UCSAs, no Therefore the potential of erosion into 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-305

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-15 See response to comment CO5-25. NE

study of actions that would take place Therefore, the release of ballast water the scope of this EIS. 

CO20-16 We disagree that analysis of major rive

The EIS acknowledges the potential immajor river crossings, including from sconstruction activities, and describes mimplemented to minimize those impac
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-306

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-307

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-17 See response to comments PM3-2 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-308

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-309

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-18 See response to comments PM1-81 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-310

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-19 See response to comments IND13-3 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-311

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-20 Discussion on Kincaid’s lupine has be

the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-312

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-21 Discussion of Cox’s mariposa lily has 

the final EIS. 

CO20-22 See revised discussion regarding Port O

root disease in section 4.4 of the final E
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-313

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-23 See discussion on soil compaction in s

Uncleared storage areas would be combe cleared. FERC’s Plan and Procedusegregation on only agricultural lands, where the landowner requests it. The Coos County Pipeline was a non-jPipelines constructed under FERC’s justricter environmental requirements. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-314

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-24 See response to comments PM2-29 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-315

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-25 Section 4.4.1.3 contains adequate discu

both vegetation maintained on the righareas. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-316

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-26 UCSAs are adequately described in se

Landowners can negotiate with Pacific for an easement for the pipeline right-oagreements include monetary compens
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-317

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-27 See response to comments PM1-82, C
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-318

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-28 The 25 foot buffer is a standard used in 

Procedures. Pacific Connector would measures for residences within 25 to 5

CO20-29 Easement negotiation is between lando

The FERC has no regulatory authority easement for the pipeline right-of-way

CO20-30 See response to comment PM1-4. CO20-31 We do not agree. The purpose of cons

landowners is to provide notification oinstream construction, not during the E

CO20-32 The 200 foot buffer is a standard used 

Procedures. 

CO20-33 See response to comment PM1-10. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-319

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-34 See response to comment PM1-10. CO20-35 The FERC requires that its Plans and P

absence of more stringent requirement
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-320

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-36 Pipeline safety issues are discussed in 

EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-321

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-37 See response to comments PM1-11, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-322

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-38 See response to SA2-243. CO20-39 See response to comments PM1-64, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-323

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-40 Section 4.7.1.2 of the final EIS contain

visual impacts that meets the criteria oregulations implementing the NEPA. 

CO20-41 See response to comment IND3-10. T

the obvious alternatives associated wit
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-324

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-42 Figure 2.3-1 is a cross section diagram 

of a typical right-of-way and not an indSection 5 has been revised to include fJordan Cove terminal. See response to IND45-10. Additional discussion of riis included in section 4.4.2 of the final Pacific Connector file detailed timber construction. 

CO20-43 The FERC has no jurisdiction over wh

contracts for sources of LNG. Environoutside the US are outside the purview 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-325

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-44 As described in section 4.4.2 of the fin

would prepare and submit to the ODF a written plan, describing how the propcompliance with the OFPA, prior to ha

CO20-45 See response to comment PM1-18. IF 

difficult, comments can be submitted tmail. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-326

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-327

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued) 

CO20-46 See response to comments PM2-8 and CO20-47 See response to comments PM1-13, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-328

CO20 Umpqua Watersheds (continued)