Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-1

STATE AGENCIES SA2 State of Oregon SA2-1 We disagree that the EIS is an incomplet

following comments and comment IND3PM1-34. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-2

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-2 In fact, the EIS is based on data in the re

studies. Any FERC staff recommendatioadopted in the Commission Order would comment SA1-1. 

SA2-3 Because the FERC is the lead federal age

LNG terminals, under the NGA and EPAneeds of the FERC and cooperating agenit does not have to demonstrate how the fstandards. See response to comment PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-3

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-4 The need for the project is briefly outlined 

accordance with the CEQ regulations for im(40 CRF 1502.13). The Commission will dproject in its Order. See responses to commEIS describes the alternatives analyzed, incconservation of natural gas; other sources osolar, and wind energy; other proposed and terminal site, design, and pipeline route altEIS does not justify any pre-conceived decdocument. It makes recommendations to ththe Bradwood Project is discussed in sectio

SA2-5 Section 4.9.2.4 of the final EIS has been up

FAA review of the proposed LNG terminaCove filed a copy of its request to the FAA regarding the location of the LNG terminal the Southern Oregon Regional Airport in N2008, the FAA issued a limited aeronauticaterminal. The FAA found that the proposeimpacts on arrivals, departures, or enroute Flight Rules. No impacts on planned use oidentified, and no cumulative impacts on thHowever, the height of the proposed LNG height rules at the airport, therefore, the LNobstructions under Part 77 standards. Wheobstruction standards of Part 77, it does nohazard to air navigation, but is an indicatioconducted to determine any adverse effects airspace. We have recommended that JordSecretary documentation of continuing conthe results of any additional aeronautical stPart 77, together with copies of any officiamade by the FAA 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-4

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-6 See response to comment SA1-1, PM1-4SA2-7 The EIS discloses and evaluates potentia

quality and wildlife habitats in the referesections 4.11, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 of the EISdiscussed in section 4.13 of the EIS. JorConnector have developed mitigation placompensate for the loss of habitat categoODFW policies. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-5

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-8 On March 31, 2009, Jordan Cove filed w

of its Memorandum of Understanding (MNo. 09-100 by and Between Jordan Cove Of Oregon For Emergency PreparednessFinancial Assurance. This MOU defines the emergency preparedness and responsterminal. Section 4.12 of the final EIS hacknowledge the MOU. In addition, the provided its safety and security recommeEPAct 05, and this letter is addressed in 

SA2-9 See response to comment SA2-8. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-6

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-7

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-10 We disagree that the EIS is a deficient do

the CEQ regulations for complying with environmental impacts in adequate detailSA2-2, PM1-15, PM1-22, PM1-34, and P

SA2-11 Read section 1.3 of the final EIS. See re

PM2-7 and PM2-14. The EIS discussed Governor in section 1.3 of the final EIS. 11 and IND3-17. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-8

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-12 The EIS is not a decision document, but 

the Commissioners. In situations where within a region that could serve similar psame market, the FERC reviews each promerits. However, the FERC does not chover others, but lets the market decide wCommission’s policy prohibiting subsidiworks to ensure that an authorized projecwithout adequate support from the markepublic interest, in the case of LNG imporonly authorize projects that are safe and unmitigatible environmental impacts. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-9

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-13 Alternatives were discussed in section 3 

accordance with regulations issued by thNEPA, at 40 CFR Part 1502.14. The EIS discussion of potential alternative LNG tpipeline systems. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-10

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-14 Section 3.1 discusses the No Action AlteSA2-15 See response to comment FA2-12. The O

following in its LNG and Natural Gas Repower, and hydropower all rely on benefelectricity production. There is currently store electricity so there needs to be backwind is not blowing or the sun is not shinbecomes a larger part of the Oregon energeneration will likely be built to fill the gdemand for natural gas in Oregon.” 

SA2-16 We disagree that the alternative sites are 

we need to select additional terminal locain section 3.3.1 of the EIS site C was the Jordan Cove, and site A is over 1 mile frthe EIS, the applicant selected the locatioFERC analyzed the Project and reasonabof the EIS discusses criteria Jordan Cove site. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-11

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-17 The EIS describes the potential cumulati

relation to other past, present, and future the information available to us on currenrelation to the proposed project. The knofor the various environmental, economicthe EIS are not expected to result in signSection 4.13 of the final EIS has been revof past projects in the cumulative effects

cumulative impacts on waterbodies has bthe EIS, including multiple pipeline crosprojects within particular watersheds. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-12

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-18 See response to comments SA2-3 and SA

finalization of an ERP and Cost Sharing reviewed and approved by the FERC befbegin construction. If the needed resourcproperly funded, construction and operatbe approved by the FERC. See response 

SA2-19 Depending on the type of modification o

proposal, it would be subject to a separatauthorization by the FERC and/or the Co
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-13

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-20 As stated in the EIS, Jordan Cove should 

consultation with the Coast Guard and aland local agencies. The guidelines in the should be included in the ERP. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-14

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-15

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-16

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-17

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-18

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-21 Section 4.1.2.4 of the final EIS has been 

of the revised tsunami modeling that JordSecretary on December 1, 2008 (Zhang 2study the maximum calculated tsunami i21 feet above MSL, and flow would slow reaching the slip. As with other matters operations, any measures or protocols decarrier response to tsunamis would be imthe appropriate time. Jordan Cove would requirements set forth by the Coast Guar
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-19

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-22 In response to our recommendation in th

has modified its proposed route to includCoos Bay. The proposed pipeline would the Haynes Inlet area of Coos Bay (see swould not cross the Coos Bay navigation deep draft vessels would pass over the piHaynes Inlet and other major waterbody with at least 5 feet of cover, and would bcoating to counteract buoyancy. Therefofrom anchor strikes. 

SA2-23 See section 4.10 of the final EIS. SA2-24 Section 1.5.3 of the EIS acknowledges th

apply to the proposed Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-20

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-21

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-22

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-25 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS describes 

mitigation plan for habitat impacts. This to Category 1 habitats. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-23

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-26 Black oak trees are discussed in Section 4.4 

Oregon white oak forest. This forest type cowoodland/forest dominated by Oregon whitcanopy trees. The subcanopy often consists oak trees are identified in Appendix H on Tathreatened and endangered species. We ackwoodland vegetation, approximately 76.9 mproposed pipeline would have long-term imconstruction and restoration, Pacific Connecto minimize long-term impacts on vegetatiorevegetation of disturbed areas, including mrecommended revegetation plans, and lando1,800 acres would be replanted with conifer of the 30-foot maintenance right-of-way, anbe replanted within forested, shrub and rivertrees within forested areas would comply wi

guidelines. As stated in section 4.5.1.3, Pacto work with ODFW to finalize its habitat m

SA2-27 The ODWR Groundwater Rights database w

where water rights have been obtained for gthe database showed that there were five priproposed right-of-way and associated constrthe wells is used as a source of drinking watConnector has agreed to identify any unregiproposed pipeline through field investigationwithin and adjacent to the proposed pipeline the EIS states, Pacific Connector would appthe hydrostatic test water concurrently with the ODEQ General Stormwater Discharge P

separate letter of approval. State withdrawaODWR, ODEQ, and ODFW to ensure potewithdrawal do not occur. The review includof the withdrawal. The withdrawal permit ewithdrawal does not impact existing water rwaterbody. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-24

SA2-28 Section 4.8 of the EIS discusses the pote

from construction and operation of the prfrom the moving security zone around LNand shell fishing within Coos Bay. 

SA2-29 See our discussion of potential impacts o

salmon, among other aquatic resources, iEIS. Jordan Cove submitted a report on which showed that the proposed dredginunlikely to have significant adverse effecSpecifications and guidelines for dredgin

established by the COE for dredging in tsediments during dredging operations caturbidity; however, through proper operapotential use of physical barriers, this soubelieve that the EIS provides sufficient dto aquatic resources, and we believe that recommended are adequate to mitigate th

SA2-30 Section 2.1.4.4 of the EIS explains that m

proposed slip and access channel would maintenance of the Coos Bay navigation cumulative effects of the proposed projeccontemplated Coos Bay Channel Modificsection 4.13 of the EIS. 

SA2-31 Potential Project related impacts on gree

proposed dredging and pipeline installatievaluated in section 4.6.1 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-25

SA2 State of Oregon (continued) SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-32 In response to our recommendation in th

has incorporated a modified route variatiroute. As described in section 3.4.2.1 of reduce the length of open water crossing Coos Bay. 

SA2-33 Sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.5.2 of the final EI

additional discussion and revised estimatwater use by LNG carriers while at the Lpublication of the draft EIS, Jordan Cove water intake screening design, and no lonexternal screening system as described in sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.5.2 of the final EIS

SA2-34 The applicants have stated that they will 

to complete mitigation plans to meet the ODFW’s habitat mitigation policy. Wherecommended in the final EIS that the apappropriate agencies to complete mitigatonly authorize the project to proceed untcompletes formal consultations in complESA. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-26

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-35 Based on its proposed two-year construc

Connector now plans to cross all streams work windows. Section 4.5.2.3 of the finreflect this change. 

SA2-36 The Coos County Pipeline was not under 

Williams, one of the partners of Pacific Cdon HDD on other FERC jurisdictional pfrom a “frac-out” during an HDD, Pacifimeasures it would implement in a HDD filed as part of its application. We do noneed to be conducted pre-HDD for the CRiver crossings. However, such surveys stipulations of stream crossing permits isresponse to comment PM3-2. 

SA2-37 We have included an evaluation of a pote

for the Rogue River. See section 3.4.2.1

SA2-38 Sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.5.2 of the final EI

understanding that no ballast water woulBay. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-27

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-39 See response to comment PM1-45. SA2-40 Pacific Connector has not yet determined 

withdrawal from each individual stream. requested detail needs to be included in tinformation is available, compliance with determined. As part of its draft HydrostaConnector proposes that ramping rates wfor review prior to hydrostatic testing. 

SA2-41 Pacific Connector is proposing methods 

withdrawal and discharge that we believe practices, and that have been shown thropipeline projects to adequately minimize However, Pacific Connector submitted a Plan in its comment filed with the FERC response to a recommendation in the drato surface water resources would be minimeasures to prevent the transfer of aquatdisease. See section 4.3.2.5 of the final E

SA2-42 The potential impact on native migratory 

4.5 and 4.6 of the EIS. Because of the tework that would be required for the propany impact on fish passage would be shocompliance with the Oregon Fish Passagdetermined during the review of stream cODFW. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-28

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-43 Because of its length and starting and en

for the Pacific Connector to entirely avoiriparian areas. Therefore, there would noareas during pipeline construction, and cclearing riparian habitat on both federal asome riparian habitat would be avoided bridgelines, and impacts to riparian vegetaand Klamath Rivers would be avoided usmethod. Impact on riparian habitat woulextra work space (beyond the 95-foot-wiat least 50 back from waterbodies and weset back would not be feasible for construI). Following construction, as discussed where the pipeline crosses a waterbody, be limited to allow a strip at least 25 feet waterbody’s OHWM, to permanently revwith the exception of maintenance requirgreater than 6 feet tall within 15 feet of tha site-specific basis, and in consultation wriparian areas (of both perennial and inte

Pacific Connector’s permanent easement enhanced using plantings of native shrubof the streambanks, depending on existinconditions. On federal lands where Ripa100-foot riparian strip (or less if the pre-vegetation did not extend to 100 feet) woto the waterbody on both sides of the waBLM, in consultation with Pacific Connemitigation actions (appendix L) to addresNFS and BLM lands, including on ripariand 4.5 of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-29

SA2-44 As stated in section 4.5.1.3, Pacific Conn

and FWS to complete the ongoing evaluapursuant to ODFW and FWS policy and mitigation measures in order to develops Plan. In instances where an ODFW habibut has no ESA or other land managemerequirement, Pacific Connector would wapply ODFW and FWS mitigation policiPacific Connector during finalization of the mitigations suggested in this commencompensate for winter construction withiKlamath County. 

SA2-45 The FERC would require only one Envir

construction spread. However, Pacific Cadditional EIs. Pacific Connector would site, full-time, third-party compliance moduring all pipeline construction phases to complies with the environmental conditio

SA2-46 The final EIS has been revised to incorpo

the proposed route as a result of recommEIS. As a result, the number of stream cany inconsistencies corrected. 

SA2-47 The methodology for identifying ditches 

Delineation report filed with Pacific ConCommission on September 4, 2007. In sconsidered ditches if there were excavateexcavated roadside ditches, or excavated agricultural or upland areas. 

SA2-48 Section 4.13.5 describes the general blas

that a blasting permit would be required. permit from ODFW for blasting in fish aadded to table 1.5-1 of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-30

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-49 In a data request issued December 29, 2008

to identify any waterbodies that cannot be designated time window. In its January 21because it plans to construct over a two yeawaterbodies during the ODFW in–water wfinal EIS accordingly. 

SA2-50 The discussion in section 4.6.1.3 of listed f

Rogue River and potential impacts on thoscrossing of the Rogue, would also apply to 

SA2-51 The noise levels described from HDD oper

EIS are the predicted noise levels at the nea(residences) to each HDD operation. The nHDD site because they are a function of thequipment locations and the nearest residendifferent sites. Because of the depth of the there would be no noise impact on fisheriecrossed by HDD. Potential impacts on wilthe HDD operations and other construction sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the EIS. 

SA2-52 Pacific Connector’s proposed installation a

waterbody crossings would avoid stream scdevelopment of fish migration barriers oveConnector would inspect waterbody crossipipeline, and areas of concern regarding thwaterbody crossings that are observed durito the attention of the pipeline operator by repaired as necessary. Additional stipulatioincluded in stream crossing permits issued stipulations do not conflict with conditions 

SA2-53 This is consistent with measures proposed 

described in section 4.6.1.3 of the EIS. We recommendation that for applicable crossinwould not be used to backfill, Pacific Connwith the Commission, which should includsediment type at the crossing location and immediately downstream from the crossing 

SA2-54 This is consistent with measures proposed 

described in section 4.5.2.3 and 4.6.1.3 of t

SA2-55 This is consistent with measures proposed 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-31

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-56 We do not agree that it is necessary to pl

25 feet from waterbodies. Use of the eromeasures as proposed by Pacific Connecprotect trench spoils placed at least 10 feConnector’s proposed erosion and sedimdocumented in its ECRP. 

SA2-57 This information has been added to table SA2-58 The final EIS has been revised to incorpo

the proposed pipeline route as a result of draft EIS. As a result, the estimated acreimpacted have been revised, and any incMitigation for impacts on riparian habitaPacific Connectors Compensatory Mitigaof the EIS. 

SA2-59 Recommendations 1 and 2 in section 5.2 

Pacific Connector would be responsible that it has proposed, or that are recommeattached as conditions of a Certificate. Tdelegated authority to take whatever stepprotection of all environmental resources operation of the pipeline. These recommof-way vegetation maintenance activities pipeline. 

SA2-60 Pacific Connector proposes to replant all 

of-way in forested and shrub areas, with wide area centered over the pipeline. Ththe 30-foot-wide maintained right-of-waforested or shrub areas prior to constructleast one site potential tree height. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-32

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-61 We have recommended that Pacific Conn

landslide hazards through other means in aerial photograph coverage is not availabconsultation with the USGS or DOGAMof Consultants” recommendation in sectiwould also be charged with reviewing Pamitigation measures for geological hazar

SA2-62 Pacific Connector proposes to add LWD 

both private and public land. Pacific Conmitigate for impacts on waterbodies by inland owner-approved and appropriate areROW across certain waterbodies. We arConnector develop a stream habitat mitigspecific details for stream habitat improvof LWD, and include agency concurrencbelieve that this plan, in addition to the fprocess, affords the agencies the opportumitigate impacts to waterbodies. 

SA2-63 See response to comments FA2-10 and S
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-33

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-64 We believe the EIS contains sufficient de

with hydrostatic testing, invasive speciesnon-federal lands. The FERC staff has dwould appropriately and reasonably avoienvironmental impacts on federal and noconstruction and operation of the proposproject is constructed and operated in accmitigation measures, it would be an enviaction. FERC has recommended that theattached as conditions to any authorizatioThe federal, state, and local permitting pthe impacts of the project are adequately 

SA2-65 We do not agree that Pacific Connector s

advance notice to fishing groups and othevents such as the Rogue River HDD crowill continue to be, much public notice avarious agency review requirements. If tnotice would continue through the FERCnotification process for any parties intereknowledge of the Project schedule. Pacito continue its public outreach and notificommunities. 

SA2-66 Per the FERC staff’s Procedures, Pacific 

SPCC plan for its pipeline, and included to the FERC filed in September 2007. WConnector’s SPCCP and find it acceptab

provisions for agency notification in the including into a waterbody. Provisions fexceedances are typically include within 

With regard to addressing impact on terrthe event of leaks or possible pipeline rudiscussed in section 4.12.6 of the EIS, thevent. NEPA does not require the study 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-34

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-67 Pacific Connector would work with each 

necessary to install measures to control uusing the pipeline right-of-way. As statebarriers (large rocks, boulders, slash) wowhere available and acceptable to the lannatural barriers might prove ineffective, construct fences and/or gates, using agenmaterials. 

SA2-68 To avoid a cumulative impact to the intro

invasive species, the Pacific Connector wrecommendations outlined in Oregon AqPlan, the Oregon Noxious Weed Strategienvironmental impacts statement, NorthwControl Program, and its supplements, in measures described within section 4.4.2 would develop and implement a Noxious pipeline construction and operation activproposed measures would be adequate to species and noxious weeds. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-35

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-69 As described in section 4.5.1.4, at the requ

Connector has prepared an estimate of snagNFS lands from pipeline construction. To prior to clearing operations, Pacific Connecin forested areas on the edges of the constrto protect those snags from removal during These snags would be saved to benefit primnesting birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphcavities and snags within the construction rwould create snags in large trees strategicaconstruction right-of-way. Additional measnags on non-NFS lands could be developeregarding the ODFW habitat mitigation pla

SA2-70 Section 4.5 of the EIS acknowledges that s

result of pipeline construction activity, and impact on sensitive wildlife species, includrecommended mitigation to minimize impathat Pacific Connector submit a scientific tconsultation regarding the ODFW habitat mreviews for state permits. 

SA2-71 Potential impacts from construction and op

wildlife, including quantification of anticipconstruction activities on particular speciesin the EIS. See sections 4.5.1.2, 4.5.1.3, 4.

SA2-72 See response to comments SA2-44 and SASA2-73 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS has been re

impacts on amphibians, reptiles, and their htesting, and measures proposed by Pacific impacts. 

SA2-74 We believe that the measures suggested in 

implemented as a result of Pacific Connectdesign plans or mitigation plans, or our recHowever, additional species, habitat, or sitdeveloped during the consultation between that Pacific Connector has committed to comitigation plan. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-36

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-75 We have updated section 4.5 of the final 

of the latest operational water use plan focall on the LNG terminal. However, as sCove continues to evaluate measures thaaquatic resources from water intake. See 

IND3-1. 

SA2-76 See response to comment SA2-75. The E

regulations for complying with the NEPA impacts and mitigation measures in adeq

that a supplemental draft EIS is required
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-37

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-77 Since publication of the draft EIS, Jordan C

water intake screening design, and no longscreening system as described in the draft ESummary and sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.5.2 of 

SA2-78 The intent of the referenced text in section 

the different waterbody crossing methods pfor various conditions. It is not intended to be a trigger to determine presence of fish in crossings would be conducted in accordancregulations and permit requirements, includintakes for pumps used for a dam and pum

SA2-79 See response to comment SA2-71. SA2-80 These suggested measures for hydrostatic t

with requirement of the FERC staff’s ProceConnector has incorporated into its ECRP 

SA2-81 Section 10.9 of Pacific Connector’s ECRP 

which were determined through consultatiomanagement agencies. The seed mixes are use. After receipt of a FERC Certificate, P

a Request for Service to native seed vendornecessary quantity of native seed that wouland erosion control. Pacific Connector has local native seed vendors in Oregon during regarding availability of native seed and abnecessary quantity of seed for the pipeline contacted Heritage Seedlings, Inc. Oregon Pacific NW Natives, and Callahan Seed, amindicated that they could provide the varioufor the pipeline project over the 2-year collwould occur between issuance of the FERC addition, the Native Seed Network (http://w

provides a useful tool to search for availablPacific Connector also visited the J. Herberdirection of the USFS and BLM, because tfor these agencies’ projects and for fire resagreement the nursery could produce seed nursery also stores surplus native seed for tsurplus seed could also be available througbased on their need.
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-38

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-82 Pacific Connector’s proposed restoration for wetl

FERC staff’s Procedures, which do not require sewetlands. As stated in section 4.3.3.3, herbaceou

regenerate quickly following pipeline constructio

SA2-83 Native shrub and tree species that would be plant

listed in table 10.12-1 of Pacific Connector’s ECRsupplement its proposed seed mixes with ODFWlandowners were in agreement. 

SA2-84 As stated in section 4.3.3.3 of the final EIS, Pacif

monitoring for invasive and noxious weed specieinfestations, equipment cleaning stations, hydrostsimilar comments suggesting that weed monitorinroute, not just at targeted locations. We believe tinfestations or where there is the greatest potentianoxious weeds (e.g. cleaning stations) would be ainvasive and noxious weeds. However, Pacific Ccontrolling noxious weeds along its entire projectmonitored specifically for noxious weeds. We befollowing construction, or until revegetation is deadequate. 

SA2-85 As stated in section 4.3.3.3 of the EIS, the specifi

mitigation required for wetlands impacts would b

the section 404 permit process and by the ODSL process. 

SA2-86 As stated in the same section referenced in this co

would be evaluated and approved by the appropri

materials, designs, and placements of instream strODFW can be addressed during input to finalize 

mitigation plan. 

SA2-87 As a result of a recommendation in the draft EIS, 

route variation into its proposed route which incluEast Fork Cow Creek. See section 3.4.2.12 of the East Fork Cow Creek crossing in section 4.3.4 of accordingly. 

SA2-88 Under the discussion of short-term impacts in sec

vegetation types that have the potential for revege

However, the categories of short-term, medium-tdescribed in section 4.4.1.3 of the EIS are not abssome of the communities could take longer than tconstruction. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-39

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-89 See response to comment SA2-82 and SASA2-90 The restoration plans as proposed by Pac

describe and evaluate potential impacts oresponse to comment IND3-1. Pacific Cto consult with ODFW and other regulatoremaining permitting process. 

SA2-91 The FERC staff’s Procedures, which Pac

incorporated into its ECRP, require that Pright-of-way until revegetation is considemonitoring could extend beyond the secoconstruction if necessary. 

SA2-92 Table 10.11-1 of Pacific Connector’s EC

reforestation planting prescriptions and tThe prescriptions vary by land managemprivate lands allow for modifications app

conditions. 

SA2-93 As part of its standard right-of-way moni

Pacific Connector would monitor for unaof-way for the life of the project, and conmeasures as necessary. 

SA2-94 Pacific Connector’s proposed vegetation 

consistent with this recommendation from 

SA2-95 As stated in section 4.5.1.3, Pacific Conn

that it would implement to control the spwould develop a Noxious Weed Control Pacific Connector would incorporate recfrom the ODA, BLM, and USFS into the recommend additional measures be addefuture consultations on habitat mitigation
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-40

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-96 See response to comment SA2-95. SA2-97 ODFW can recommend use of its sugg

consultations on habitat mitigation. 

SA2-98 See response to comment SA2-69. SA2-99 As stated in section 4.5.2.3, Pacific Co

514 pieces of LWD over several fifth fpipeline route where the two ESA-listepresent. The number of LWD pieces is (1995) guidelines for number and sizes 

in streams to meet habitat needs for speof streams crossed. These numbers wopart of Pacific Connector’s Compensatalso recommended that Pacific Connecmitigation plan for placement of LWD details of when, where, and what structplaced in streams. Exact amount of timdetermined through development of thi

SA2-100 Pacific Connector may need to fell tree

summer months in some locations to avor timing restrictions imposed by land potential impacts on wildlife from righaddressed in section 4.5 and 4.6 of this 

SA2-101 A peregrine falcon nest site would fall 

Sensitive Bird Nesting Site as describereferenced segment of text in section 4

SA2-102 Section 4.4.2.2 explains the reason that 

to chip slash, and our acceptance of thain appendix I. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-41

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-103 The referenced text in section 4.5.1.2 a

either rookery becomes active, Jordan CODFW local biologists, would develop plan depending on the status of construeffects.” We believe this is acceptable

SA2-104 Section 4.5.1.1 of the final EIS has bee

discussion of the Migratory Bird Treaty 4.5.1.3 have been revised to describe mPacific Connector, respectively, would impacts on migratory birds. Section 4.modified as suggested by replacing “di

SA2-105 As described in the referenced text from 

would conduct additional surveys for aconstruction, and would mitigate for pohabitat mitigation proposal. 

SA2-106 BBS data was used to determine potent

along the proposed pipeline route. Seclimitations in the BBS data, but these lianalysis or conclusions in the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-42

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-107 Although the osprey is known to nest i

pipeline route (e.g. within the Coos Babeen identified in the immediate viciniLikewise, no peregrine falcon eyries haimmediate vicinity of the proposed pipagree that it is necessary to add protectthese species to the EIS. 

SA2-108 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS has bee

statement about ongoing monitoring of population of Columbian white-tailed d

SA2-109 See response to comment SA2-104. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-43

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-110 That correction has been made in the fiSA2-111 Pacific Connector’s proposed seed mix

Pacific Connector’s ECRP. Pacific Coproposed seed mixes with ODFW’s suglandowners were in agreement. 

SA2-112 See response to SA2-99. SA2-113 Section 4.5.2.1 of the final EIS is revis

Oregon coastal coho salmon (Coos Rivdiscussed in section 4.5 and appendix H change in the outmigration period of jufinal EIS. 

SA2-114 Black rockfish and lingcod are discusse

the subsection entitled Project Area SpCharacteristics. 

SA2-115 Jordan Cove has not proposed this meaSA2-116 Maintenance dredging for the proposed 

would be limited to the area of the slip Bay channel mile 7.5. This amount of limited area would not adversely affect of the Bay. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-44

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-117 Section 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS has beeSA2-118 When installing a pipeline in an estuari

the Haynes Inlet area, there is generally excavated trench material is returned to the pipeline. 

SA2-119 As state in section 2 of the EIS, pump i

prevent the entrainment of aquatic speccrossings would generally be in the strehave added Oregon’s Fish Passage Law EIS. 

SA2-120 See response to comment SA2-119. SA2-121 See response to comment SA2-99. SA2-122 We disagree. We believe this EIS, as w

addresses the potential impacts on nort

SA2-123 Potential impacts on the North Americ

DPS are discussed in section 4.6 of the this listed species. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-45

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-124 It also says, “...Pacific Connector cons

during construction as an appropriate hrectify potential project impacts and thconditions that are generally lacking,” 

be in addition to the project conservatiodesigned to minimize the potential proj

SA2-125 Section 4.6.1.3 of the final EIS has beeSA2-126 See response to comment SA2-107. SA2-127 We do not agree that it is necessary to 

from the edge of the construction right-comment SA2-69. 

SA2-128 We have added Oregon’s Fish Passage 

final EIS 

SA2-129 See response to comment SA2-71. SA2-130 Potential impacts on aquatic resources 

discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the avoided by conducting pile driving witbehind the earthen berm. To further mresources, Jordan Cove would observe the Coos Bay and would use vibratory allow. We believe that the measures prrecommend by the FERC staff are suffother impacts from pile driving. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-46

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-131 The Brazilian fee-tailed bat has been 

appendix H because of a status chang

SA2-132 Table H-6 in Appendix H has been coSA2-133 No change to table H-6 is necessary. SA2-134 Table H-6 in appendix H does includ

occurrences of the northwestern pond 

SA2-135 See response to comment SA2-44. SA2-136 Table E-2 lists the Coos River Highw

crossed by the proposed pipeline. Thdescription of the pipeline route are fthis is clear when taken in context. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-47

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-137 Section 2.1.5.1 of the final EIS has bee

the description of the pipeline route bet

SA2-138 Table 4.1.3.2-2 of the final EIS has beeSA2-139 The EIS and most of its associated repo

documents that are available for review 

website (http://www.ferc.gov). 

SA2-140 In response to our recommendation in t

Connector has incorporated a modificaWC-1A into its proposed route. We do variation WC-1. Table E-2 in the final suggested. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-48

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-141 Pacific Connector would apply for all n

and/or use roads as required by ODOTjurisdictions, and apply all mitigation mpermits and stipulations. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-49

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-50

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-142 See response to comment SA2-141. SA2-143 Section 4.9.2.2 of the final EIS include

analysis based on a revised study filed